News this week that the College Board has moved to create expansive smoking-free areas, extending over the frequently crowded areas around Fellows Square and the Berkeley Library, invites renewed analysis of the purpose of such measures that restrict the freedom of staff and students to smoke.
This decision, which is to come into force in July, comes after recent and widespread debate as to the government’s approach to the practice of smoking. Such debate has centred on the criticisms by the recently appointed Minister of State Finian McGrath of the high levels of taxation attached to cigarettes and the prohibition on smoking in public buildings, suggesting that oftentimes “smokers can be soft targets.”
This rhetoric which casts those whose freedom to smoke will inevitably be limited by the recent decisions of the College Board as victims of repressive and largely symbolic acts by either state or college authority misses the very real purpose behind such measures. Their aim is not to punish those who choose to smoke nor to dissuade them from doing so, but rather to protect the overwhelming majority of the college’s population of students and staff who do not.
Second-hand smoke, a concern which Dr David McGrath, the Director of the College Health Service, noted as being frequently voiced, goes beyond an inconvenience to pose a threat to the health of vast numbers of people who cannot entirely avoid the clouds of smoke curling around the Arts Block entrances. We must remember that the original proposal was to ban smoking outright on campus. That minimising the threat of secondhand smoke is now the main purpose of the smoking-free zones is underlined by the plans for a sheltered smoking area on campus, respecting the choice of individuals to smoke, but only in so far as it does not prejudice the health of others.
Ultimately, there is no denying that smoking has a wide range of detrimental impacts on an individual’s health. For instance, did you know that smoking is one of the leading causes for bleeding gums and tooth decay? Consequently, by adding more smoke-free areas on campus, it is hoped that current smokers might feel inspired to kick their habit for good. The move has been welcomed by local dentists, with most practices lauding these efforts as a much-needed boost to oral hygiene and dental health among the local population.
There are still some concerns, however. For instance, the effectiveness of these proposed changes has come under fire, particularly given the largely ignored policy of banning smoking within four meters of all entrances and windows. The decision to hire a number of student ambassadors to enforce the restriction is perhaps a step towards overcoming the diffuse responsibility that has characterized such rules in the past, with no individual having a strong enough interest in challenging those who ignore them. However, whether or not students will express interest in the role, or listen to those that fill it, remains to be seen.
