Editorial: CUNY ban not appropriate for Pitt

Universities generally care about their students. Sure, often college newspaper editorial boards… Universities generally care about their students. Sure, often college newspaper editorial boards (like us) whine about individual executive decisions, touting our opinion as more reflective of student interest than the authority’s. But no one should think that those who choose to undergo the stress it takes to become a university administrator would go through with it without some concern for the student condition.

Students, among faculty and affiliates, were clearly on the mind of the City University of New York’s board of trustees Tuesday as it banned tobacco smoking on all university property – including outdoor grounds. Like many institutions of higher learning, CUNY previously would not allow people to smoke in university-owned buildings and vehicles. CUNY’s move followed a nationwide trend among colleges. According to The New York Times, the American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation reported this month that at least 466 campuses have either banned smoking or promised a future ban.

Make no mistake; if smokers choose to throw away their cigarettes tomorrow, the U.S. life expectancy would jump tremendously. Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death that is keeping Americans from living as long as their industrialized counterparts in Canada, Sweden, Great Britain and Australia, according to the National Research Council. If only for the fact that stubbornly stagnant smoking rates have contributed to exploding per capita health care costs that dwarf those of other wealthy countries, Americans should unchain themselves from the cigarette.

So, too, should college students.

But on campuses, certain questions must be answered before more smoking policies are revised. Who should have the authority to dictate when and where to puff or not puff? And once that authority is established through policies and programs, how will they be enforced pragmatically, without wasting tuition dollars or neglecting any individual’s rights?

At Pitt, no rule like CUNY’s is on the books. Decades ago, Pitt banned indoor smoking in its buildings and vehicles, and in 2007 it prohibited smokers from lighting up less than 15 feet from any University entrances. According to Vice President of the University Senate Patricia Weiss, no one is considering a complete ban at Pitt. “It’s not happening right now,” she said. But considering the wave of collegiate bans, it might soon end up on the radar.

Before it does, The Pitt News would like to offer a few words of caution.

For such a comprehensive ban to generate any benefit, enforcement would be critical. Given the urban nature of Pitt’s main campus, a CUNY-like policy would quickly lose its legs. In Oakland, University buildings are sandwiched between sprawling public streets and commercial retailers. As Weiss said, “Enforcing any policy like that would be virtually impossible.”

Enforcing outdoor smoking restrictions in the first place doesn’t hit us as Pitt’s strong suit. Weiss said when the 15-foot proposal came up in 2007, the administration made it clear that funds and enforcement capability would be limited, with no provision made to apprehend or punish offenders. Think about it: When have you walked by smokers outside the Cathedral of Learning and witnessed University officials whipping out yardsticks?

Although the CUNY ban might fail the pragmatism test at Pitt, it still has merits, especially when campuses are contained. When these conditions are just right, a comprehensive ban can potentially help people quit or not start in the first place. In a cigarette-barren campus, “People aren’t exposed to seeing someone smoke. So it’s not part of daily life,” said Stephanie Land, a tobacco researcher at the Graduate School of Public Health. “It makes it easy enough to quit.”

But the cause of reducing smoking among Pitt students is far from lost. The Pitt Student Health Service offers a free-to-students smoking cessation program, called Q.U.I.T., which normally lasts about six weeks and involves one-on-one counseling. As Land stressed how influential counseling can be in improving the chances of quitting, Q.U.I.T. makes Pitt stand out among many other schools, especially since the program doesn’t threaten cash-stripped students with yet another expense. For these reasons, it makes more sense to further publicize this existing program ­— why not sponsor awareness events akin to the Talk to Me campaign? — than to fatten Pitt’s handbook with more unenforceable rules.

Smoking should be stopped, and on college campuses, fighting it by reaching out to those trying to quit might be more effective than attacking the problem with invisible yardsticks.