ON A particularly hot day in late August of last year, I was sitting in my room on my computer getting acquainted with the high speeds of the U.Va. network. Since it was so hot, and living in Balz dormitory meant no air conditioning, my roommate and I had our window open and our window fan on at full blast. All of a sudden, out of nowhere, a disgusting smell wafted into our room, and we both started coughing.
It didn't take long to recognize the smell. It was cigarette smoke. My roommate and I thought we were living in a smoke-free room and suite -- we had now learned the hard way that "smoke-free suite" did not mean "smoke-free environment."
This event from our first week at the University was, unfortunately, a recurring occurrence throughout the school year. Not only did we constantly face second-hand smoke wafting into our dorm room from our dorm's smokers who would smoke practically right outside our window, this smoke would be everywhere around classrooms. It was outside every academic building, at every bus stop and near every dining hall. The fact is, smoking was horribly prevalent around Grounds, and some of us started feeling like we were practically becoming smokers against our will.
According to the University Health Promotion Survey, 24 percent of University students smoke (as compared to a 19 percent nationwide rate within our demographic). Having so many students smoking creates an environment with a large amount of second-hand smoke. This prevalence of second-hand smoke around Grounds became very disconcerting to me. When the Environmental Protection Agency reports that each year, second-hand smoke kills 3,000 non-smoking adults, and the American Heart Association reports that 35,000 nonsmokers die each year from the effects of second-hand smoke on the heart, this should be very disconcerting to the University as well.
The fact of the matter is, smoking is a personal choice. People obviously have the right to make their own choices, even if the health consequences to themselves can be disastrous. The line needs to be drawn, however, when their choices endanger the health of the people around them. People have a right to smoke, on their own time, in their own dorm rooms, away from all non-smokers, but they do not have a right to forcibly subject non-smokers to their own dirty habit.
Unfortunately, current University policy regarding smoking on Grounds does little, if anything at all, to help protect nonsmokers from the effects of second-hand smoke. Currently, smokers can smoke practically anywhere outside, with the lone exception being within 50 feet of entrances to University Health System buildings. This allows smokers to light up right outside academic buildings, dining halls and even dorm rooms, regardless of whether or not the room is a smoke-free one. This system has to change.
Because of personal rights, and the unenforceability of such a policy, a total ban of smoking on Grounds would not be a reasonable solution. Instead, however, the University should immediately adopt a total public smoking ban on Grounds. Such a ban should limit all smoking on Grounds toinside the dorm rooms of two smokers (or consenting nonsmokers), and these rooms should only be located in halls and suites consisting entirely of smoking rooms. The ban would eliminate all outdoor smoking on University property, no matter what the location. If the University wished to go even further, it could even restrict the smoking rooms, suites and halls to being inside all-smoking dorms, and have all other dorms be completely smoke-free. This solution, while ideal, might unfortunately be logistically difficult. An additional option would be to allow new students to opt into totally substance-free housing, which would give a good combination of the two options.
The evidence that a public smoking ban helps curb the dangers of smoking can readily be seen in areas that have already adopted such programs. The high-profile public smoking bans in New York, Ireland and Australia (as well as many lower-profile bans throughout the world) have shown not only a major decrease in the effects of second-hand smoke, but also a significant decrease in the number of people smoking at all, something that should also be a goal of the University. Doctors from the city of Helena, Mont., for example, have reported a drop of over 50 percent in the city's heat attack rate since it adopted a public smoking ban of its own.
Obviously, countries and major cities are a little too large to serve as a perfect indicator of the effects their policies would have within the University. However, any nonsmoker who has had unwelcome cigarette smoke waft into their rooms, or has had to deal with the disgusting smell of cigarette smoke at bus stops, can testify that the University environment would be cleaner, more pleasant and, of course, healthier if the University were to adopt a public smoking ban. Maybe then our new first years, sitting in their smoke-free room in their first week of college, will be able to open their window on a hot day and not face the unpleasant surprise of cigarette smoke tainting their air.
Sam Leven is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
