In December, the faculty overwhelmingly supported a proposal put forward by Professor Irena Swanson ’87 to expand the current restrictions on tobacco smoking on campus. [Editors' Note: The Faculty voted only to make a behest to the CAC to draft a policy "like this one," i.e. Swanson's policy. Their vote did not necessarily indicate support for the details of Swanson's policy.] This created the expected flurry of commentary, both in support of this proposal and against it. The heavy support of the proposal by a major Reed Community constituency, plus the ample evidence of the failure of the current regime combining the 1990 codification of smoking, the Oregon statutes regarding smoking in outdoor public spaces, and the Honor Principle (HP) means that some form of revised codification is necessary, and the faculty proposal is a starting point for negotiations.
It is highly likely that in the near-to-mid-term, tobacco smoking will be banned on the Reed campus; when this happens and whether it is internally determined or imposed from without is less certain. The proposal at hand falls short of that ultimate step, which is perhaps why it has generated so much passionate opposition from both sides. On the one hand, many Community members consider the restrictions on smokers to be overly burdensome for the benefits provided, while on the other hand, many other Community members view moving to a tobacco-free campus as clearly necessary. Thus here, as often happens, both ends team up against the middle. Let me advocate for the middle.
Community-imposed restrictions on smoking can be justified on the level of individual smokers, even granting their individual autonomy. Tobacco is legal, but it is also addictive and has well-established and pervasive health harms. It is in our collective interest to discourage people from starting smoking, and to provide an environment where the possibility of quitting is facilitated. Put more simply, yes, you have a right to smoke, but that does not mean that the college should cater to—much less enable—your smoking. However, the larger justifications for restrictions are the social consequences—one person’s smoking can be hazardous to the health of other people and can produce a noxious environment. Thus, we have seen, over time, increasing restrictions on smoking on campus, covering first some indoor spaces, then all indoor spaces, and now more and more outdoor spaces.
I see the issue as not whether further restrictions are coming, but rather what they will be. While it is clear that any revised codification will have winners and losers, I believe that if we are not establishing a campus-wide ban, we should make an effort to ensure that the losers’ perceived losses are minimized. It is in this light that I look at the faculty proposal.
That proposal has four components: (1) the statutory boundary of 10 feet is extended to 30 feet, and the envelope for calculating the boundary is itself expanded; (2) e-smoking is restricted along with other forms of tobacco consumption; (3) smokers must dispose of their detritus in provided receptacles; and (4) the college may designate areas where smoking is permitted—outside of the envelope specified by (1). I look at each of these separately.
1. The extension from 10 to 30 feet can be subject to good-faith negotiation, both in terms of the magic number and how the envelope is calculated. There might, perhaps, be a lesser expansion of restricted areas coupled with a commitment to gather information on the effects of the new envelope and revisit the code if necessary, to see whether the HP plus the new codification will deal with the discomfiture experienced by non-smokers.
2. The inclusion of e-smoking is problematic because secondhand effects of this mode of consumption are not established. It seems prudent, in spite of the serious individual health issues posed by e-smoking, not to include this for the moment.
3. Disposal of butts, etc. should be a no-brainer, but, alas, it is not. Hence, some specification is needed. Perhaps in lieu of codification, a more general statement regarding avoiding mindless littering that included tobacco detritus along such items as candy wrappers, chewing gum, PBR empties, and the like would suffice; if not, then perhaps codification that includes having to police the campus grounds as a sanction for littering might be in order.
4. Designated smoking areas seem like a good idea if there is not to be a campus-wide ban on smoking. Placing protective shelters in less-trafficked corners of the current parking lots and attached to trash disposal areas might work; the long-term cost would be removal of a couple of parking spaces, which seems a small price to pay, and if the shelters are not used, they can be torn down in short order. As parking lots are already ugly, there isn’t much of an aesthetic argument to be made against this.