‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ There are no 15-foot rules, no 20 percent compromises, no designated areas. For… ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ There are no 15-foot rules, no 20 percent compromises, no designated areas. For about 110,000 students and 12,000 employees at all of Pennsylvania’s 14 state-owned universities, smoking is banned completely on school property. ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ The ban was enacted by the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, which owns and operates the 14 state-owned schools across Pennsylvania, as an interpretation of the statewide smoking ban that went into effect on Thursday. The state ban extends to educational facilities, and according to PASSHE, campuses are considered educational facilities ‘inside and out,’ meaning students and staff can’t smoke anywhere on school property, inside or outside. ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ The move doesn’t affect Pitt, or the other state-related schools such as Penn State or Temple. However, an argument could be made that, given that Pitt accepted nearly 190 million dollars from the state last year alone, there are grounds for applying it on our campus as well. And while Pitt’s stance on the issue isn’t known at this time, there are several additional factors to consider. ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ First and foremost, Pitt’s campus is not so much a campus as a loose collection of buildings and lawns owned by the University and scattered among public and private property. Public streets cut across the ‘campus’ at almost every turn, and storefronts and private buildings share the sidewalk with University building entrances. ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ Because of this, it would be nearly impossible to adequately ban smoking on Pitt’s campus because the campus is cut into so many pieces that cross over public property, where it would still be OK to smoke. There are so many nearby alternatives to smoking outside a Pitt building that it would be effectively useless, as being on campus at Pitt is so difficult to differentiate from being off campus. ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ Second, Pitt isn’t populated solely by students and staff. Tens of thousands of people walk, bus or drive around and across Pitt’s grounds every day. Not only would it be nearly impossible to get all of these people to stop smoking on school property, but it would also be grossly unfair to people who need to traverse Oakland to get to their jobs or homes. ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ In many ways, the question of whether Pitt should enact the ban is a question of where to draw the line between a state-owned school, a state-related school and a private school. Pitt, which falls into the second category, is really just a blend of the other two ‘mdash; we accept state money and fall under some limited state jurisdiction, but for the most part we operate as a private institution. ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ Other state laws, such as the Right-to-Know law, don’t apply to Pitt precisely because of this odd relationship. Judging solely by this precedent, it would be hard for Pitt to implement the ban based on legal standing with the state, because the school could just as easily claim the same exemption that makes it immune to other state laws. ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ Pitt, of course, could implement the ban on its own accord. And while the new law could, with some legal wrangling, be applied to Pitt and other state-related schools, the nature of Pitt’s campus and its relationship with the surrounding community and the rest of the state should unequivocally dictate that the ban not be applied here.