(One of the university’s “limited number of signs placed at strategic locations”; source: www.westport-news.com)
So, how exactly does one enforce the smoking ban? To answer that, the issue of what the University is currently doing needs to be addressed. Right now, there are various signs or stickers around the campus with “smoke-free campus” written across the bottom. In addition to these signs, buildings typically will have a 2-inch square sticker on the windows of their entrance doors. From a personal viewpoint though, I hardly notice these when I walk by; I am not interested in spending time squinting my eyes to read a small sign on the side of a door, I am interested in getting to where I want to go as quickly as possible. The University had also taken efforts to spray paint similar images on the campus grounds’ sidewalks. For me, I used to pass by one of these painted images every single day on my walk from the Hill to Central campus, and while it was something I rarely actually noticed or paid much mind to before, I pay even less mind to it now. Why exactly do I pay less mind to it now? The picture has since washed away and has yet to be replaced (and the same can be said for the other sidewalk images around campus). The signs, stickers, and now less-than-visible sidewalk paintings - while a step in the right direction - really should not be the sole enforcer for the ban; rather, they should be there to remind people of the ban in addition to a real, concrete enforcement system.
“People Still Smoke”
“University of Michigan goes smoke free July first!” Yes, it’s true! The University of Michigan, as of July 1st, 2011, has officially banned smoking on its campus grounds. This is great news for anyone who does not enjoy the smell of smoke wafting through the air, intruding on what would otherwise have been the pleasant smell of nature. And even those who feel indifferent towards the smell of smoke still gain the benefit of not having to suffer from the harmful side effects of inhaling second-hand smoke. Yes, the ban is certainly a good thing indeed. It helps the environment; prevents the risk of secondhand smoke; and perhaps best of all, campus-goers will no longer have to worry about feeling uncomfortable when getting stuck walking behind a smoker. The ban certainly seems to be beneficial for everyone, and with all these benefits, what negative things could there possibly be to say about it? As it turns out, a few more than one might expect.
Don’t get me wrong, the ban itself is a good thing - there is no arguing that. It’s the way the university has chosen to “enforce” it that is the real problem. It is one thing to be effective in principle; it is another to be effective in practice. And with the University’s current policy, the latter loses to the former. As stated on the university’s site regarding the ban’s enforcement: “We are an institution of higher education and education will be key to implementing this policy. We will make people aware of the smoke-free environment through posters, signage, notices in event programs and advertising and we will seek voluntary compliance” (www.hr.umich.edu/smokefree/background.html). Additionally, the University states: “… it was decided that we would rely on voluntary compliance, along with peer and supervisory support, rather than fines or other means of enforcement” (http://michigantoday.umich.edu). The problem with this approach is that it relies entirely on both student compliance AND peer-to-peer addressing of non-compliances. Unfortunately, the reality behind this reliance is that many students do not feel comfortable acting as an authoritative force over other students. For this reason, violators of the smoking ban generally are not approached and their smoking just continues as if there was no ban in the first place.
Of course, these claims would simply be my personal bias imposing on my view of the ban; however, when asked to complete a survey (in a class of thirty) regarding opinions of the smoking ban, the results tended to match the above claims. The students were asked how likely they were to approach violators and inform them of the ban. Nearly 90% (26 of the 30 students) said they would either “not at all” approach a violator or were “unlikely” to do so. Additionally, the students were asked to rate the effectiveness of the smoking ban on a scale from 1-10 (with 10 being “extremely effective” and 1 being “ineffective.”) More than half of the students rated the effectiveness at or below a 5. Even of the twelve that rated it above a 5, ten of them fell into the “not at all” or “unlikely” category of likelihood to approach a violator. While these results are obviously just from a small classroom at a very large university, the results – when coupled with what are fairly general observations after a stroll around campus – appear to be representative of the larger student body’s consensus as well.
In addition to statistical data collected, the survey also asked that students describe the ban in three words, as well as describe if their opinion of the ban had changed from before its implantation to now, and why. Many used words like “unenforced,” “poorly regulated,” or “ineffective” to describe the ban, while three separate students chose to use the words “people still smoke” as their only response. Even those who felt the ban is effective and showed support for it still wrote down responses such as, “I’ve always supported the ban! I just don’t think I’d confront someone and ask them [sic] to stop.” Not only that, but more than a quarter of the students wrote down that their opinion of the ban had changed after its implementation. Of those students, one had the following to say:
I’m actually a little disappointed with the ban. I have a very low tolerance for tobacco smoke and was very excited to have it eliminated from campus. People are still smoking on campus though and nobody is enforcing the new regulation. Not a day goes by when I don’t see at least one person smoking on campus. The ban seems like more of a suggestion than an actual ban or law. Whether or not students supported the ban, had changed their minds, or felt it was actually effective, criticisms were present in almost every response.
Now, despite the ability to be as critical as one might possibly be towards the ban’s effectiveness, the University still did have the best of intentions with its implementation. According to the goals listed on the University website: “In our ongoing effort to create an environment that is healthy for all members of our community, the University of Michigan will become a smoke-free university. This will help ensure a healthier environment for faculty, staff, students and visitors” (www.hr.umich.edu/smokefree/background.html). The University’s aim is clear: it wants to create a healthy environment for all of its passersby. For this reason, it would certainly not only be in the students’ best interests to adjust the enforcement policy, but also the University’s, as it would ultimately help achieve its goal more effectively.
Perhaps an even bigger issue is the lack of knowledge as to where exactly the smoking ban even has jurisdiction over. The University’s site does include maps of each campus with smoke-free locations identified (see: Figure 03 for an example) but the problem is that this website is the only place where such a map can be found. Any passersby on campus will have no idea if they are in a smoke-free zone or not. If the University is already going to post signs advertising it as a smoke-free campus, why not add similar signs that actually make campus-goers aware of where exactly the smoking ban has an effect? Simply posting signs with additional information will certainly be conducive to a more-informed campus body; however, that is not the panacea the school needs, merely a step towards it. To be fully effective, actual enforcement methods will need to be put into action.
But of course, there is always going to be the issue of “how?” and “what?” and with those questions also comes yet another question of “will this actually change anything?” And while no one can be 100% sure how effective a policy change would be, one can always turn to previous examples of University-banned smoking policies to compare effectiveness. Enter Duke University Medical School. According to a study conducted in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine in regards to a smoking ban at the University of Duke Medical Campus: “…at the time of the announcement of the policy and 6 months before implementation, 23.6% of employees at the Medical Center were smokers, compared with 20.3% on the University Campus. Three months after implementation of the Medical Center smoking prohibition, smoking cessation rates were 12.6% at the Medical Center and 6.9% on the University Campus dating back 9 months to the time of policy announcement” (Jackson, George & Stave, Gregg). In addition to this, the Duke Chronicle (before the implementation of the ban) reported that a “task force” would be hired in order to make sure the ban remain abided by (McGowan, Jasten). So what exactly does all this mean in regards to the University of Michigan?
If Duke’s example has any correlation to the University, it means that any sort of enforcement team results in a positive outcome for those in favor of an effective ban. The University is already full of various clubs and organization. Would it not be easy to assign someone to be in charge of a Smoking Ban Enforcement Club or even a Ban-Supporters Organization? Or better yet, there are already active police officers on campus monitoring activity during times of protests or acts of free speech – (just visit the Diag during a time when someone is preaching “turn or burn”; there are police officers out there to prevent any sort of tussle). Could these police officers not also act as enforcers of the University’s ban? It is their job to be authoritative; they do not hold the same fears a student does when it comes to approaching someone in violation of a policy. Following Duke’s model, something as simple as a small, organized task force with actual authority could greatly help to improve the ban’s effectiveness.
Duke, however, is not the only university to have banned smoking on campus. In fact, in the University of Michigan’s Q&A regarding its ban, it even referenced the fact that other Big Ten schools had effectively placed a no-smoking ban on campus. One of these schools listed was the University of Iowa, which – while the enforcement policy is very similar to the University of Michigan’s – had an added bit of enforcement to help make sure the ban was properly adhered by. “Individuals smoking on University grounds—including faculty, staff, students, and visitors—are subject to a $50 fine in accordance with Iowa law. Citations may be issued by UI Police if a person does not extinguish smoking material upon request or continues in non-compliance of the law after being warned” (http://www.uiowa.edu). The University of Michigan’s “equal” punishment to this is to direct students to the Office of Student Conflict Resolution. In other words, there are no fines, no citations, and no run-ins with the law at the University of Michigan, despite the fact that one of the schools specifically mentioned in its Q&A on the ban has all three. Were the University of Michigan to even add something simple like any one of these punishments, the ban would find itself much more strongly abided by.
Simply put: the smoking ban is only as effective as it is well-enforced; and right now, the ban is hardly enforced at all. The University certainly had the best of intentions in mind with the implementation of the ban, and even those with criticisms still described the ban as “healthy,” “progressive,” “smart and clean,” or “a good thing” (Survey). And again, the ban on smoking is indeed a good thing; the University has made what would almost unanimously be described as a good decision in choosing to enact the ban. Unfortunately, enactment is not enough. There need to be further steps taken in terms of enforcement before the ban becomes as effective and beneficial as it was originally intended to be.