Georgetown University’s Newspaper of Record since 1920

The Hoya

Georgetown University’s Newspaper of Record since 1920

The Hoya

Georgetown University’s Newspaper of Record since 1920

The Hoya

EDITORIAL: Establish Designated Smoking Areas

EDITORIAL%3A+Establish+Designated+Smoking+Areas

On Aug. 15, 2020, Georgetown University’s tobacco-free campus policy will take effect, banning all students, staff members and visitors from using tobacco products on university grounds. 

The sweeping ban will be ineffective, as students who smoke are likely to defy the rules because of the inconvenience of leaving campus. To improve the effectiveness of the policy, the university should establish smoking areas in discreet locations on campus. 

Student efforts to establish a tobacco-free campus first began with the Smoke Free Georgetown campaign, which launched in fall 2016. The Georgetown University Student Association held a referendum in December 2016 in which 49.64% students voted in favor of a tobacco-free campus and 46.37% voted in opposition. The referendum yielded 41% participation among all students

In April 2019, more than two years later, the university announced a tobacco-free policy would be implemented in August 2020. The policy prohibits the use of any tobacco products, including any form of e-cigarettes, within university grounds, according to the announcement. 

Though the tobacco-free policy is a good measure to improve student health, designated smoking areas would accomplish the same goal without relying on the unrealistic expectation that everyone will stop smoking. 

The university’s current smoking policy prohibits smoking inside buildings and within 25 feet of any building. With the vague and often unenforced policy, people regularly smoke outside of buildings, such as Lauinger Library and the Intercultural Center. As a result, students are often subject to the harms of secondhand smoke when they pass by these areas. 

To fully implement the tobacco-free campus, Georgetown must first improve its enforcement mechanism and sanction people who violate the policy. At the same time, creating designated smoking areas away from highly trafficked roads would similarly protect students from exposure to secondhand smoke. 

With these areas, students, faculty, staff members and visitors who wish to smoke can do so without having to choose between defying university policy and leaving campus altogether. With a viable alternative to smoke in certain areas on campus, smokers would be potentially less inclined to risk the consequences of violating university policy.

The establishment of smoking areas is not uncommon in tobacco-free campuses. After implementing a tobacco-free campus in 2016, the Georgetown University Law Center determined two specific smoking areas away from building entrances and key pathways. American University has also established designated a smoking area on the perimeter of campus. Georgetown’s main campus should do the same.

While Georgetown’s commitment to students’ health certainly extends to all students, including those students who smoke, the university cannot presume everyone on campus would stop smoking simply because of its tobacco ban. Instead, the university should focus more on augmenting its resources that help people quit smoking.

Additionally, some may see designated smoking areas as a violation of the student body’s popular vote in the 2016 referendum. Though the referendum outlines the worthy goal of eliminating tobacco on campus, the university’s specific policy should make practical adjustments to increase effectiveness while still accomplishing the goal of protecting students from secondhand smoke.

The university’s tobacco-ban set for August 2020 is impractical. To better accomplish its goal of a healthier, tobacco-free campus, the university should designate specific smoking areas. 

The Hoya’s editorial board is composed of six students and chaired by the opinion editor. Editorials reflect only the beliefs of a majority of the board and are not representative of The Hoya or any individual member of the board. 

View Comments (4)
Donate to The Hoya

Your donation will support the student journalists of Georgetown University. Your contribution will allow us to purchase equipment and cover our annual website hosting costs.

More to Discover
Donate to The Hoya

Comments (4)

All The Hoya Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • W

    What On-EarthOct 20, 2019 at 3:30 pm

    I agree with the above commenter. This is a garbage take by the editorial board. Georgetown finally does something to act on a student referendum and now a tiny group of high and mighty “journalists” think that the students’ vote should be altered or interpreted differently than intended. Shame on The Hoya for this trash being published.

    Reply
  • M

    Marilyn McMorrowOct 19, 2019 at 2:53 pm

    I strongly disagree with this editorial.
    To begin, I hope any members of the Editorial Board who may smoke have recused themselves publicly.
    Nearly 2500 university campuses in the United States have banned smoking completely. So was the Editorial Board cherry-picking, when pointing to partial bans at American and GULC?

    And what an odd reason the Editorial Board highlights for opposing the ban: some student smokers might violate the ban. Wow! By that logic, no ban–or law–would ever by put in place, no matter how valid the reasons and no matter how much the ban would contribute to the long-term common good of all persons connected to Georgetown, including smokers.

    The editorial takes a cheap shot when it urges the university instead to “augment” the resources made available to students to help them quit. Yet there is no mention of all the resources the University has already put in place to assist smokers in quitting.

    Finally, on a campus desperate for more readily available common space, the editorial suggest some of that rare commodity be set aside for smokers. So much for the common good.

    Smoking sickens and kills because cigarettes contain nearly thirty poisons and carcinogens. Nor is the illness and mortality limited to smokers alone, as we know these can result also from second-hand smoke. And the cigarette delivers addiction causing nicotine. Moreover, for whatever reasons, smokers feel free to toss their cigarette butts wherever, adding poisons and carcinogens into the ground and water–or leaving them for others to clean up.

    Finally, how can an educational institution, with a medical school and research hospital to boot, ever justify keeping any portion of this campus open to smoking?

    Reply
    • G

      GTOWN smokerOct 31, 2019 at 1:44 pm

      I hope you are joking. While a smoker, I completely understand the universities efforts to protect non smoker from second hand smoking, but banning it completely is just stupid and inefficient. You are ridiculous: who do you think you are in choosing what other students should do? Smoking areas would protect you from my cigarettes and still allow me my right of doing what I want with my body. Furthermore, I never voted for any smoking ban, nor did the high number of freshman students who have arrived this year. Your indignation to the idea of smoking areas just shows the deeply fascist nature of the environment you were born in, believing that because you don’t smoke, nobody else should. You all call yourselves liberal but are just a bunch of entitled a*****holes. If I want to smoke, and there is a way for me to do so without harming anyone else, why would you think it appropriate to decide over what I do to my body?

      Reply
      • A

        AimeeSep 7, 2021 at 7:08 pm

        Using tobacco products outdoors does not eliminate the concern for secondhand smoke. Tobacco particles have been detected up to 82 feet away from an ashtray outside, measuring up to 8 African Elephants in length (Yamato, Hiroshi, et al. “Designated smoking areas in streets where outdoor smoking is banned.” Kobe J Med Sci 59.3 (2013): E93.). This shows us that designated smoking areas 20-feet away does not help with trying to eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke or aerosol.

        “54.4 percent of California adults… reported being exposed to secondhand smoke recently” and “25.5 percent reported being exposed to secondhand aerosol” in 2018 (California Department of Public Health, California Tobacco Control Program. California Tobacco Facts and Figures 2018. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Health; 2018).

        Each year, “1.2 million [tobacco-related deaths] are the result of non-smokers being exposed to secondhand smoke” (“Tobacco.” World Health Organization. 27 May 2020). This means that nonsmokers make up 15% (3/20) of smoking-related deaths each year.

        Reply