Oh yeah...smoke this!
Hi guys,
Lloyd came up with the idea for us to contemplate the Evergreen virtual community in context of an online discussion about smoking policy on campus. He's right to point out that the issue, the forum and content of the conversation fits perfectly with our readings this week about virtual community. Are there separate real and virtual communities? Is there only the real? Only the virtual? Or a third thing, a hybrid of the two?
Here it is with the first message from Anne X, outgoing VP of something around here.
Keep in mind, all the personal names but Anne X have been removed.
1: To the campus community:
I'd like to welcome all of our students, faculty and staff to the new academic year. Among the changes awaiting us this year is a new campus smoking policy. Over the years, we have heard from many members of the Evergreen community about concerns of exposure to second hand smoke when entering and exiting our buildings.
In the spirit of improving the air quality on campus, we amended the campus smoking policy and designated smoking areas on the core part of campus. Many other college campus have already moved in this direction, including Shoreline Community College , Eastern Illinois University, and Everett Community College.
We ask that you please smoke in the designated areas only. For the designated locations not under cover, we plan to build shelters in the near future.
I've attached the revised smoking policy and a map showing the designated smoking areas.
Thank you for your cooperation. Here's to a healthy and productive new year."
2: Hopefully, people will understand that this means while walking around the campus as well, not simply when sitting or standing still.
3: A policy concerning smoking on campus has long been overdue so that everyone operates to a common code of courtesy. Smokers need a place to smoke and non-smokers need to be able to work in a smoke free environment. However, the designated areas around the lab building are completely inappropriate for smoking as laid out in the new policy.
1st the one near Lab 1 is right beside the air intakes for the building. So everyone in that building (offices and labs) will now have to breathe smoke contaminated air throughout the day.
2nd the walkway between Lab 1 and 2 is a major right of way that is traversed repeatedly by staff, students and faculty (Today I have personally walked that route 6 times already). Allowing smoking here would mean every non-smoker would have to walk through a concentrated smoking area many times daily.
There has been much discussion concerning the need to keep smoking away from Sem II for basically the same reasons, but this new policy completely disregards these problems for people in Lab 1 and 2.
Can we please make a rapid amendment to the plan below?
4: As some one who has occasionally smoked on this campus, I'd like to sturdily second XXX's suggestion for revision of this policy.
It's important that we realize very real health concerns are at risk here. My own mother cannot come onto this campus via Red Square because of the smokers near all the building entrances.
5: People are smoking in the areas immediately outside the SEM II lecture halls, on the exterior walkways, on the exterior stairways...Today I spoke to a group of students who were leaning against the "no smoking" sign just below my office and puffing away.
I appreciate the college's intent to limit smoking to designated areas. My question is, how is the policy publicized, how is it implemented, how do we actually create a consensus about where and when to smoke?
6: From Anne X again: The new policy designating smoking areas and asking smokers to smoke ONLY in those areas will be successful if the campus community makes it work. We will get signs up promptly, and we will work to educate people, but the ultimate responsibility belongs to each of us. Thanks for your comments. I have also seen smokers near building entrances and have politely asked them to move to a designated area. For the most part, they have complied.
7: This reminds me of the practice of putting in sidewalks where nobody wants to walk, and then endlessly fighting people's inclination to cut across the grass.
If we expect to designate smoking areas in places nobody would want to stand, much less light one up and chat with a friend, we're going to spend all our time deciding just how much we want to ruffle other people's feathers--including otherwise respected colleagues--by becoming smoking cops and railing against those acting momentarily selfishly.
I don't smoke, don't care for it, don't want to smell it at work at all. But accepting a Sisyphean role here will just make us all crabby in the end. And this is a well-worn rock we've been pushing.
If it takes it, I'll chip in to provide smokers a reasonably comfortable place to enjoy their pleasures, so that I can enjoy mine. And we may wish to choose places better than under smoke-trapping ceilings (Lab I to Lab II covered walk), and near building air intakes (Lab I near Bus circle).
8: I also find clusters of students smoking around Sem 2. Asking them to move has become a daily chore for me.
I suggest that all faculty who teach in Sem 2 (days or evenings) announce the no-smoking policy to their students.
We did so in HHD, first day. We remind our students before class breaks, as needed.
I'm thinking about putting it in my future program covenants.
9: not trying to start a firestorm here..
I don’t understand this:
“...but the ultimate responsibility belongs to each of us.”
How is it my responsibility to get people to smoke where in only designated areas? Why is it my responsibility, as a person who chooses not to smoke, to struggle to protect my lungs? 85%+ of the time I have politely asked for folks to move to approved areas, I have been met with verbal abuse. What recourse to I have if they don’t comply?
From the campus smoking policy:
“The college President may temporarily prohibit smoking on campus in periods of extreme fire hazard and drought.”
From my point of view, this says that the President may suspend smoking to protect physical assets, but not my health.
If people choose to smoke, fine. Whatever. I just cannot understand why I should have to work so hard to protect my health from those who choose to damage theirs.
10: Anne suggests that the new policy will only work if the campus community makes it work. I propose we ourselves to the test as a community to "make it work" by having a period of time in which smokers are asked (as they already are) to specifically avoid some areas (SEM II, all building entrances, air intakes etc) and stick to designated areas. Volunteers (I'll be the first) can periodically make rounds during this probationary period looking for violators or signs of violations (i.e. cigarette butts by the entrances). If the campus community can pull together as Anne suggests we must, then everything is fine. If the campus community cannot manage to pull together to take responsibility for keeping Evergreen a safe place to breathe then we just ban smoking on campus altogether. Either way the problem is solved, everybody can breathe freely, and if smokers show they can be responsible about keeping their smoke away from those who don't want to breathe it then they are also welcome to smoke on campus. Its a win/win proposal. As Anne points out, ultimate responsibility belongs to each of us and this plan can determine whether we have that responsibility or not.
11: "show lack of respect for the people who are supposed to follow them."
Ann, here at the end of her career at Evergreen, is in the unenviable position of having to uphold a set of rules in a situation that renders them structurally unenforceable. I'm sorry, Ann, that you are placed in this position.
We do need to uphold the campus' clean air policy. For many such as myself, cigarette smoke is an annoyance; for some, it is a serious danger to health. The question, then, is not whether but how to uphold this policy.
The reason that the smoking rules are structurally unenforceable concerns the structure of Sem II itself (and other buildings too). Sem II presently can't accommodate both smokers and non-smokers alike without ruffling a lot of feathers. Either the smokers have to walk a mile for their Camel (okay, somewhat less than that, but still), or the smoke drifts into the building for all occupants to breathe.
The solution can't simply be to put up signs, and then to scowl at or upbraid smokers who smoke out of place. Given the alternatives available for smokers on their brief breaks during class, I find this strategy to be disrespectful of smokers.
The problem here is the building, which is supposed to be made for the people who use it. We ought to think of a solution that reshapes the built environment to fit the people rather than one that reshapes the people to fit the built environment.
Fortunately, at least some preliminary work in this direction has been done. I understand that some students in last year's "Ecological Design" program designed some smoking out-buildings that could be placed near Sem II. I haven't seen the designs so I can't endorse them, but I do endorse the general strategy.
So, let's not rush to choose up sides on battles over rules. Let's instead see whether we can restructure our workplace so that compliance with the clean air policy won't feel like such a chore.
But this is essentially what .... already said, only more briefly and eloquently. Bears repeating, though.
12: As an asthmatic, who is currently in the midst of an asthmatic "event" (these often last several weeks, despite all sorts medications which have dreadful side effects), I am increasingly frustrated by the lack of respect shown to those of us who suffer very real and immediate negative health reactions to cigarette smoke. As I approached my XX02 office (the office numbers closest to the walkways) in Sem II on Sunday afternoon, there were several people standing just outside my office window smoking. Given my current state of health, I nearly broke into tears--not only was I going to have to politely ask them to smoke elsewhere, I would have to walk through the smoke, and then enter an office full of smoke. Fortunately, they were polite when I asked them to extinguish their cigarettes (which is often not the case), but I never should have had to make the request! Many don't realize (or perhaps care to acknowledge) that that smoke, and the smell of the smoke, lingers and accumulates.
While we all are aware of the long term negatives affects of smoking. For some of us, the negative effects of cigarette smoke are immediate and range from gagging to minor coughing (that may or may not be relieved by the use of "inhalers") to severe prolonged coughing that can actually bruise and break ribs (yes, I have broken and bruised ribs from coughing too hard, coughing can also cause small blood vessels to break in the esophagus and even trigger stomach spasms that cause vomitting) to anaphylactic shock (which can be a life threatening emergency). I have even had breathing problems in class after a break when all the smokers enter the classroom at the same time--none of them have a lit cigarette with them, but they carry the smell of the smoke on them and the room fills with the smell of cigarette smoke.
I agree that respecting the rights of everyone is important, but I also want to be able work in a healthy workplace. Perhaps an additional option (to that proposed by XXXX) is to offer smoking cessation programs/workshops/advice/pamphlets for those who really do want to quit smoking, but need that extra help.
13: I’m wondering if perhaps you could all move this discussion to Tesc Talk.
14: Why isn't all of this on TESC Crier? Stop filling up my e-mail with this debate. Thank you.
15: Thanks for your comments. While I am not an asthmatic, at times I have to deal with severe allergic reactions, and cigarette smoke is one of those triggers— which for me, can induce anaphylactic shock. After smelling cigarette smoke seep into the SEMII lecture hall, I went outside and asked students not to smoke outside of the spaces in front of the SEMII building, only to find myself sick and dizzy for the remainder of the class time, fearing the onset of a reaction that could take me to the hospital if it intensified. Fortunately, it didn’t this time.
Like .... I found students polite, but find myself asking why do I have to be in this position? I too would like to work in a healthy environment, without the fear of becoming dangerously ill. Perhaps some do not realize the severity of the situation among those of us with allergic sensitivities, or asthmatic conditions.
I appreciate the gesture of paper signs, but the maps need to be a bit more specific as to building boundaries, (or perhaps of more permanent material) and to prominently feature an extremely large no smoking symbol-- as it is now, I’ve seen people light up right in front of them!
16: It's not on TESC Crier because that list is for announcements of events, and not for discussions.
It's not on TESC Talk, even though it's a discussion, because it's a response to a new campus policy (original posting by Ann X on 10/7/04) that affects everyone. Since not everyone subscribes to TESC Talk, and considering the impact of this issue on smokers and nonsmokers alike, it seems to me that the original posting on the general email list was appropriate.
17: If you are a faculty or staff member who has been in the position of asking students to smoke in designated areas and has been met with polite compliance, count yourselves lucky. As a fellow student and peer to most of those I might ask to move, I would not recieve that treatment.
The assumption that it is everyone's responsibility to police the actions of a few on campus who are engaging in a voluntary activity is very frustrating, especially as acting on this so-called responsibility will garner verbal abuse from more than some.
As far as I'm concerned, it is the responsibility of those to whom a rule concerns to follow it. If there are rules that speak to me or my actions and not my neighbor's, it is my responsibility and not theirs that I follow them. I think everyone, especially Ann X would appreciate hearing from smokers about what would work for them and what wouldn't, but until a workable compromise can be found, take responsibility for your own actions, be aware of campus policy, and only smoke in designated areas.
I don't offer a magical solution, but the current situation of having to ask (plead with) smokers to move or suffer the consequences of their actions is no solution at all.
18: Thanks for the repeat. I understand better the second, third, and fourth time I read something. And thank you all for continuing this rant on the "all staff and faculty" group.
19: So far I have not seen any complinance with any of the smoking policys. I have pollitely "informed" many of them of the rules; some respond pollitely by saying things such as "Oh, I didn't know", but not changing their behavior at all (continue to smoke right where they are); others have simply ingored me, and some have outright blown smoke in my face. In fact, these are often the ones standing right in front of a main building door smoking.
I see from all the recent e-mails on the subject that many smokers are not adhering to the policy and are not responding to community policing efforts. To me, this makes it clear that if this policy is to suceed, it needs to have some enforcable consequences for violating it.
I lilked what someone said a couple days ago about putting the word out that if smokers do not adhere to the policy then smoking will be banned on campus outright, but if this threat is to be sucessfull, banning smoking on campus needs to be enforced. By enforced, I think it would take campus police or other official enforcers writing tickets with financial consequences. As smokers have made it clear, they don't care what policy is written down, and until they are forced into compliance, they will not comply.
Why is it worth the trouble? I personally know one person who was
forced to drop out of evergreen due to the smoke everywhere....the smoke triggered such an alergic reaction, and there was NO escape. I know many others with alergies to smoke, who come to class unable to stop sneezing or coughing because of the smoke they waled through to get there. There are many, MANY real medical needs for the enforcement of the smoking policy. Also, if I recall correctly, the courts have already decided the non-smokers right to a smoke-free environment prevails over a smoker's right to smoke.
Lets stop wasting time simply continuing to ask others not to smoke and actually take some meaningful action on the matter.
20: I would like to take a moment and remind people that not "all" smokers are impolite. However, there is one thing that I am confused about. I can understand only smoking in designated areas, but in many places, those designated areas are right next to entrances to buildings (4th floor library for example). How are we supposed to comply with rules that seem completely ridiculous? I would love not to smoke anywhere near the Sem 2 building, but there are no covered areas anywhere remotely close to that complex for people to politely smoke, and so that leaves them out in the rain. I can guarantee you that almost noone will stand out in the rain for more than six months out of the year just to be polite to others. By asking them to do that, we are being impolite to them as well.
The fact that this discussion is ongoing proves that there needs to be a workable solution for both sides of this issue. I congratulate everyone who is working toward that. If you are one of those people who are angry about this discussion going on in "your" email inbox, simply delete it (by the subject heading) from your inbox as you are only perpetuating your own problem by adding to this subject in a negative way.
21: I think that before we start writing people tickets for smoking, we need to educate people. We need to have smoking areas in practical places that are clearly marked. We can't just announce the change via e mail and make it so. There needs to be planning, probably some money, and a very clear/loud/visible education effort.
As a smoker, I don't know where the designated smoking areas are, and I hear that the designated smoking areas are mostly next to air intakes, heavily trafficed areas etc. I mostly hide behind the woodshop, where foottraffic is light, and I look around guilty everytime someone walks by. I feel bad for those of you with very real health problems, I would like to comply.
I think that we need to stand in front of the campus entraces and building entrances, hand out flyers, put up really big signs (initially), publish something in the CPJ (repeatedly), have faculty make announcements to all programs and part time classes. I think that e mail is a really inefective way to have this discussion. (how many students really read their school email accounts?)
Before we do this, we really need to PLAN and MARK where these designated smoking areas are. Put the ashtrays in the smoking areas, not in non smoking areas. If people have to stand in the rain smoking a soggy cigarette, no one is going to comply. They are addicted before they are polite(sad but true). If there were little gazebos tucked away in the woods away from buildings, or just something covered with a bench or two (hopefully plentiful little somethings that are easy and quick to access on class breaks).
For now, very few people know what is going on. The smokers are feeling harrassed (no fair). Those with health issues finally thought they had won a healthy workplace victory (yay), but get yelled at and harrassed when they try to enforce their victory (no fair). All around this situation is no fun. I have to say the whole switch over was poorly planned.
1. plan, shelter, mark smoking areas
2. educate smokers and non smokers alike
3. enforcement
In the mean time we need to educated people and rush to get signs up for practical smoking areas.
XXXX
former student
temporary staff
p.s. If someone is really blowing smoke in your face, why not file a complaint with a grievance officer?
22: Take a smoke break this afternoon to attend our workshop on basic image scanning and editing. This is open to everyone.