Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Digg
Tell us what you think!Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.
Pet peeves are a universal thing. One pet peeve seems to be gaining more attention on campus as of late — smoking. With the Tobacco Free Campus Initiative looming on the horizon, there have been some polarizing views presented. But only one view is actually based on any sort of reasonable logic.
I’ll admit to having my own personal bias against smoking, especially cigarettes. I can’t stand the whiff I get as it floats in my window or emanates from clothing. Simply put, to many nonsmokers such as myself, tobacco smoke is an annoyance.
The fact that smoking can be an annoyance is not enough, however, to justify banning the act. Should we ban chewing gum as well because students like to stick it to the bottom of desks or spit it out on sidewalks where it will eventually end up smashed to the bottom of a shoe and tracked through a school building? I didn’t think so.
For me, the bigger pet peeve in play here is that one group of self-appointed health experts decided to try and take on the task of babysitting its colleagues and customers — us. It is not the job of the administration to regulate the behavior of other adults so long as no real harm is being caused.
Going beyond the fact that the University of Maine has no business coddling its students and workers as though they are 5 years old, there is also the fact that the policy just doesn’t make any sense.
In fact, when you take into account that tobacco sales make up 30 percent of a convenience store’s profit, it makes much more sense for the university to start selling tobacco at the bookstore in an effort to close the budget deficit. Sure it sounds a bit absurd, but it makes far more sense than the university’s current position.
Think about the students and faculty smokers in the system currently. What does UMaine plan on doing with them? The university has quite the job ahead of them if they think they’ll be able to enforce such a policy. Do they really expect professors and maintenance workers to drive off campus every time they want to light up? Either the rules will be broken or faculty and students will leave.
What about incoming smokers? We all know that despite the fact that the law states minors are not allowed to smoke, there are plenty of college-bound high schoolers who pick up the habit. I’m sure the fact that they won’t be able to smoke on campus will affect their decision when choosing between colleges. Many of you will point out some incoming students may view a tobacco-free campus favorably, but how many of you with anti-tobacco sentiments took this into account when you picked UMaine?
Maybe we should explore the less obvious implications of such a policy. Would you believe me if I told you banning smoking would reduce the amount of money the university received from state and federal governments? Probably not, but consider this: The average cost of a pack of cigarettes is $6. Of this $6, half of it goes to the state and federal governments in the form of sin taxes.
Where are our tax dollars spent? You guessed it. In our public schools, a category UMaine belongs to.
It’s actually conceivable to conclude many of you students receiving financial aid are, in part, having your grants and work-study funded by the smokers some of you and the administration so despise. So, ask yourself, does it really make sense to ban tobacco from the UMaine campus when it probably contributes to the funding of grants and school programs in a time where money is in such short supply?
Needless to say, I see a lot more negative consequences to such a ban than positive ones. So please, UMaine, reconsider this policy. We students and faculty don’t need or want your babysitting.
Zach Arnold is a third-year biology and secondary education student.
Bangor Daily News