Northeastern has convened a committee comprised of students, faculty and staff to explore the possibility of implementing a smoke-free campus policy.
“Northeastern is committed to the health and well-being of society,” said Terry Fulmer, dean of the Bouvé College of Health Sciences and co-chair of the smoke-free campus initiative committee. “Anything that can be done that will discourage people from smoking is a good idea.”
Tobacco use, she explained, is the single most preventable cause of disease, disability and death in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, some 443,000 people die each year from smoking or exposure to second-hand smoke.
Northeastern President Joseph E. Aoun and the university’s Senior Leadership Team appointed Fulmer to chair the committee. In an email to the university community on Tuesday afternoon, she said, “While all buildings on Northeastern’s campus are currently smoke and tobacco free, we believe it is a good time to explore the potential for a campus-wide policy.”
At least 825 colleges and universities throughout the nation have already enacted smoke-free campus policies, according to the American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation, an educational nonprofit organization based in Berkeley, Calif.
In September, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services launched the Tobacco-Free College Campus Initiative at the University of Michigan, during which the department’s assistant secretary for health proclaimed, “Campus policies…can protect health and support tobacco-free living for some 20 million students who are enrolled in institutes of higher learning.”
John Auerbach, the director of the Institute on Urban Health Research in Bouvé and co-chair of the smoke-free campus initiative committee, plans to meet with the director of Michigan’s smoke-free campus program in an effort to shape Northeastern’s potential smoke-free policy.
“We want to identify at least half a dozen colleges and universities that share the characteristics of Northeastern and discuss their experience with a smoke-free campus,” said Auerbach, who also holds an appointment as a Distinguished Professor of Practice in Bouvé’s Department of Health Sciences.
Over the next several months, the committee will seek input from members of the university community through a series of surveys, meetings and forums designed to inform its ultimate recommendations.
Fulmer noted that feedback from students, faculty and staff would be critical to the initiative’s success. “When you have an idea about something that impacts the community, you want to hear the voices of that community,” she said. “We’re very interested in what stakeholders think about this issue.”
Other members of the committee comprise faculty member Richard Daynard, University Distinguished Professor of Law and chair of the Senate Agenda Committee; students Nicole Bourque and Katie Zheng, president of Student National Pharmaceutical Association; and staff members Madeline Estabrook, director of Student Health Services, Nancy May, vice president of facilities, and Elmer Freeman, director of urban health programs in Bouvé and executive director of the Center for Community Health Education Research and Service, a community-based organization created to promote the development of academic community health centers.
“Anything that can be done that will discourage people from smoking is a good idea.” This tells me that the co-chair of this committee is coming in with an agenda. This committee isn’t “exploring the possibility” of a smoke-free campus, it’s looking for any excuse to ban tobacco, will of the people be damned.
I don’t smoke, so the final outcome would have very little effect on me. The part that disturbs me is when I hear lines like the following:
“Anything that can be done that will discourage people from smoking is a good idea.” That type of blind thinking can lead to changes that have no logic or reason behind them. Banning smoking from buildings makes sense so I can go to school in a smoke-free facility, but that quote seems very close minded to me. Why not stop students from smoking in their cars? Who cares if it doesn’t affect me — it’s for their own good. Why not expel any student who smokes? Where do you stop?
I realize that smoking is a politically incorrect health risk, and that smokers are treated like second class individuals. Being fat & sedentary is an even bigger health risk, but it’s not politically correct to tell fat people they need to lose weight. I’m pretty sure more of my healthcare costs go into America’s obesity problem (causing heart disease & diabetes) than America’s smoking problem.
Let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water.
I think this is a great idea. I’m not against smoking — it’s your choice, do as you please — but I do support banning it on campus because as a non-smoker, I really do not enjoy walking through clouds of smoke whenever I’m going to class. I choose not to smoke and I don’t think it’s that big of a deal for students to respect that other students do not want to inhale their second hand smoke. They can easily walk a little bit to get off campus and smoke if they need to, although it would be inconvenient.
People have suggested creating “smoking areas,” but I do not think this would work seeing as people are already supposed to smoke at least 25 feet away from the building but every time you walk near the library people are smoking directly outside the entrance.
YESSS!!!!!
Jim — you forget the risks to health caused by passive smoking. Whether students smoke on campus very much affects my health, and those around them. As a former smoker, I understand that people feel that this infringes on their rights, and that is a whole other debate. But the issue of whether smoking adversely affects other people’s health is pretty well answered. Saying things like “it isn’t anyone else’s business” isn’t an adequate defense for smokers anymore — not when the evidence so strongly points to their actions being detrimental to the health of others.
I recently quit smoking. It was really difficult.
That said, banning smoking on campus is an awful idea. Smoking bans are nigh impossible to enforce. Our campus is essentially one with the city, making it doubly impossible to enforce.
Better marking and enforcing of no-smoking spaces (out front of library for one — people smoke right in front of the no smoking sign — why move to a full ban if a partial ban isn’t even having any effect?) would be a good way to solve this problem, as would more ash trays (marked, noticeable ash trays!) to solve the litter issue.
I was so happy when I saw this initiative! I don’t smoke, and I’m not saying that people have to quit. But I really do not enjoy walking to class and through campus all the time behind people smoking. I feel like there is no place I can walk without getting smoke in my face, and it’s disgusting. I can’t even walk into the library without walking by smokers. They don’t have to quit, it’s just not right to be smoking all over campus where people like me, non-smokers who can’t stand the smoke, are trying to walk through campus. I fully support this initiative!
This is a fantastic idea, banning smoking is one of the best things NU could do, those saying otherwise are risking others’ health and well-being. Bravo NU, and please hurry up.
About time!
Creating supposed non-smoking areas immediately outside of doorways has proven ineffective, as anyone who ever goes by Ryder, Snell, Shillman, or the West Village arch knows very well.
First of all, non-smokers greatly outnumber smokers on campus: according to the CDC as of 2008, approximately 21.4% of Americans aged 18–24 were smokers, without accounting for advanced education, which tends to lower the probability of smoking). Do not take this as me saying smokers don’t have rights to do as they choose– but as a non-smoker I believe I have an equal right to be free from the consequences of other individuals’ health and lifestyle choices. Very few people find it pleasant (even according to my smoking friends) to walk through a cloud of someone else’s brand, and no one should be obligated to do so simply for leaving the library on a day with no wind, nor should we have to sit or lie on Centennial Commons only to get up and discover you’ve been resting on a used butt for an hour.
A full campus ban will also be likely to reduce the number of “social smokers” who only participate when with a group of friends. If smokers want to smoke, go ahead, just walk an extra block or two to do it; if they can’t handle that, there’s the sign that it’s not worth it and it’s time to quit.
BONUS: Please don’t complain about how expensive it is to live in the city or how menial your wages are if you blow any money on an unnecessary luxury like cigarettes. Do the math.
I’m tired of walking through clouds of smoke on campus and, frankly, I imagine smokers are tired of me glaring at them as I try to power-walk upwind of them.
We’ve known the consequences of tobacco use for generations now. It’s time.
Sounds like a good idea, but it isn’t, and won’t work. Like Jim said, if you ban smoking all over campus with the wrong mentality, where does the power stop? Better enforcing non-smoking areas would be a much better idea. Plus, the campus is too intertwined in the city to ban smoking on “campus.” What do you do when someone who isnt a student walks through campus? Or up Huntington street. This initiative is a waste of time. Just make what is already in place better.
I think this is a great initiative, however, if you ban smoking on campus just like the government banned alcohol during prohibition — through force — then there will only be more smoking around campus. This also touches upon basic rights. It is the smoker’s right to smoke and their right to consume. Frankly, the buildings themselves have already banned smoking, so if nonsmokers really have a problem with smoking, then go indoors or take another route if you’re that self-conscious. Frankly, there is no way for smokers to quit in a snap of a finger. Takes months or even years through therapy to quit. So if you want to decrease smoking effects on campus, a ban cannot be the best possible decision. Smoking areas should be implemented so that bystanders won’t be affected.
And oh yeah, secondhand smoking is complete bull. A smoker would have to smoke a whole cigarette 3 inches from your face and you have to inhale every exhale they make in order to receive one “hit”. Go figure.
And on another note, smoking is like drinking. Both addictive, both harmful to the body. So if we were going to ban smoking, we should ban drinking.
I think the University would improve the health of students more by getting rid of Popeyes and Dunkin Donuts than putting in place a smoking ban.
As a nonsmoker, I do enjoy the idea of a smoke-free campus and do agree with a lot of the other posters here. However, by outlawing tobacco on campus outright, smokers may be facing harassment, and the school should hear from both parties before making a decision. Some people use nicotine as a stimulant, and it might help them to focus while studying. It seems unfair to force these people to leave campus if it will take away from valuable study time. Some smokers at the library (but not all) smoke too close to the building entrance, and still throw their butts on the ground even when trash receptacles are provided. So why not enforce a smoking zone by the bike racks on the side of the library instead? That area has much less traffic, and doesn’t alienate the entire smoking population of northeastern. Fine students who smoke in front of the library or litter $20 (money which should go to charity– not northeastern by the way). Listen to both sides of the argument before making a final decision. It could get worse– I don’t want to see smokers resorting to chewing tobacco instead, and spitting all over the library steps.
What most people don’t seem to recognize or consider is that there have been tests done that show that second-hand smoke in outdoor environments is so diffuse as to be negligible. Unless people are literally blowing smoking into the mouths of others, smoking outdoors cannot harm anyone but the smokers. Smoke-free campuses, furthermore, are never truly smoke free. As a smoker, and this is not something I particularly take pride in, I have smoked on supposedly smoke-free campuses with no repercussions. This is not a solution. Rather, to “protect” students who do not want to be around smokers, there need to be more heavily enforced zones where smoking is allowed.
Most smokers are probably well aware of the consequences behind smoking and by continuing, they are accepting them. Those who smoke, who are addicted and who want to stop can take the necessary measures to stop. It is up to the individual and sometimes the families to decide what needs to be done. I think if you did want to prevent smoke from reaching people like me through second hand smoking, then you can designate smoking areas rather than smoke free areas. Plus, if you discuss it with the students (a.k.a send out an anonymous survey to student’s/faculty emails) about the best places for smoking places to be, then it might have a little more affect and might leave the student body and faculty satisfied. Even then, I would prefer that nothing be enacted over a smoke free campus.
Honestly, I don’t think this will gain the results that the school wants. First of all I’m not a smoker. Even if students are banned from smoking around campus they won’t stop smoking. Student’s who really want to smoke will end up having to walk off campus just to smoke. Most smokers are probably already well aware of the consequences of smoking, and if they continue to do so even with this knowledge then that’s their choice. This issue won’t effect the health of the students on campus because all of the students on campus who don’t smoke aren’t around it enough to contract health issues. If this happens students will always find ways to smoke around campus, if they don’t want to walk all the way off of campus just to have a smoke. It’s one thing if it’s a hospital but another whole thing if it’s a college campus.
Preface: I don’t smoke. However, this is extreme and unfair to smokers. Requiring people to leave campus each time they need to smoke? This will be an incredible inconvenience for those who smoke (which is a decent amount considering our many international students). And all so non-smokers don’t have to pass by someone smoking outside “cuz eww it’s gross and I’m gonna get lung cancer!” If NU is all about respecting different cultures and minorities, it would be cruel to ban smoking from campus. The pro’s for the majority (non-smokers) just don’t outweigh the con’s for the minority (smokers).
As a non-smoker, an athlete and an individual with asthma, I would love to see a non-smoking campus.
I understand that it will not completely eliminate smoking from campus as we are an urban school and can not control all outside forces. However, discouraging it on campus as much as possible would be greatly appreciated.
Every day walking through clouds of smoke is hazardous to your health. If I am not making the choice to smoke, why should I have to tolerate other people are blowing clouds of their smoke in my face. It is the choice of others to smoke, don’t force me to live with the repercussions of other people’s choices.
I have to say, I am disappointed.
This will not have the intended effect of banning smoking. This will only increase the amount of illicit smoking and rule violations. A more balanced approach is to designate “Smoking Areas” — a covered area with a “butt-can”. This will contain both the mess of cigarette butts and confine smoking to certain locations.
The other issue that needs to be addressed is the inter-campus walking smokers, who are smoking from class to class. Being able to designate smoking stations along the way, or even a dedicated “smoking trail” path that allows these students to be segregates should be encouraged.
While I was attached to FORSCOM at Ft. McPherson in Atlanta, GA, I went to a school that had a campus ban on smoking. From what I have seen, there was zero reduction in actual campus smoking, zero reduction in “social smokers”, but a high amount of rule breaking, as much as the students thought they could get away with.
I, too, dislike walking between the Tech Transfer Center and the library behind a cloud of foul smelling, sense assaulting tobacco smoke. However, my personal dislike cannot infringe upon the personal rights of others. What I am asking for is a realistic appraisal to minimize the impact and actions of other, since an outright ban will likely be ineffective. We, as a community, should be encouraging freedom of choice, with indications as to what the college’s preferred choice is. A top-down edict like this will have little implication if the bottom-up campus cannot support the initiative, or if the students, staff, faculty, and campus security all perceive this as a small issue which can be ignored. Since the campus cannot and should not be turned into a police state, the best alternative is to keep it allowed, but control it in designated areas.
I am please that the university is pursuing this matter. I dislike having to be subjected to second hand smoke, which has been proven to cause health complication.
My only problem is how will the ban be enforced? Will NUPD have to enforce a campus wide ban. If so what will be the consequences if a a person is caught smoking on campus.
I don’t smoke, but the talk about second hand smoke risks are not entirely legitimate. Second hand smoke is a mostly indoor phenomenon. A couple people smoking cigarettes outdoors as you walk past is not a significant health risk unless you are deliberately breathing in front on them.
But hey, if Northeastern really goes through with this, I would love to take a look at the before and after statistics on cigarette smoking. Bans have such a great track record for eliminating undesired behavior…
Though I believe most people are aware of the negative consequences that the decision to smoke cigarettes can have on one’s own health, it seems to be an over-reach to impose an outdoor ban on a still-legal behavior in which adults are choosing to engage. There are far worse behaviors — drinking, illicit drug use and poor nutrition/ over-eating — that should come before this. Is the next policy choice to ban sugary drinks and fatty foods from campus, too? How about promiscuous sexual activity? Think about it… It could happen.
Muji Ali, well said. This isn’t about rights, just health and science.
Awful idea. I’m not a smoker but it’s a person’s right to choose to smoke or not. Yes, some can be addicted but in the end it’s a choice. You insisting on a smoke-free campus isn’t giving someone a choice, you’re enforcing your viewpoints upon them. In college, you’re an adult; you’re 18 years old, and you should be treated like one.
“There are far worse behaviors — drinking, illicit drug use and poor nutrition/ over-eating — that should come before this. Is the next policy choice to ban sugary drinks and fatty foods from campus, too? How about promiscuous sexual activity?”
Exactly. Why not take the most logical next step and attempt to create a ‘partial-ban’ with designated spots? Doesn’t that make the most sense rather than take such a drastic step? See how the responses are to a partial ban and I think there might actually be a chance this will pass. A ban on smoking will ot change people’s habits, they will just find other ways to get around it. How do you plan on enforcing this? What about the fact that the public walks through our campus from Ruggles? Does it just affect the students rights or everyone? Theres also a monetary cost that goes into this, paying for every ‘No smoking’ sign every 20 feet. Instead of focusing on a non-issue, spend your time and resources on improving our academic adivsors or something benefitial to everyone. The library seems to be the only real place of concern, so ban smoking around the library.
Congratulations to Northeastern on taking on this issue. The tobacco industry targets marketing to the college age group and college environments. A smoke-free environment could help to reduce tobacco use among Northeastern students and certainly reduce exposure to second hand tobacco smoke. While smoke-free policies don’t force people to quit, some people do quit as a result of these policies — which is great. Has the University looked at it’s smoking cessation benefit for employees or what is offered through student health?
Interestingly enough, I hear pro-ban people talking about proven health risks, and anti-ban people saying that second hand smoke outside really isn’t as big of a deal as people would have you believe.
It would be nice to see some actual facts by an independent third party to see if we are overstating the problem “tired of everyone blowing smoke in my face” or if there is a legitimate health risk when walking by someone while outside.
Also, I’d like to see if this would actually be feasible and enforceable. If I walk between buildings am I “on campus”? Does that mean someone who is not a student and leaving the Ruggles T station and walking to Huntington has to walk on the road? Does it only apply to students? Do you post signs around the entire perimeter of the school for non-students? Should NUPD focus all of their manpower on looking for people smoking rather than focus on trivial things like violent crime?
Almost as many people die from the flu/pneumonia as lung cancer, so why don’t we make it mandatory that all students get a flu shot? For every person that dies from lung cancer, ten times that number die from heart disease, with that number increasing as Americans get bigger and bigger. I’ve seen the effects of cancer on a loved one and wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy.
I feel that a campus wide ban is akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. It would be difficult to enforce and it wouldn’t produce the desired effect. If it was just about health and science, we’d expel and student or teacher with a BMI over 22. Let’s think before we act!
I AM SO ALL FOR A SMOKING BAN. I can’t believe that this already isn’t in place. It’s actually appalling to me. I went to school down south where there are even less regulations on smoking, and even their campuses are smoke-free. When I transferred back up to my home town of Boston (
) I was really disappointed that our school allowed it. I do not smoke, and coming from a family of past smokers that have all suffered from cancer, it’s a personal thing to me. I don’t care what people choose to do, that’s their own prerogative, however, the entire school’s population is affected– whether smokers like to admit to that or not. I should not have to breathe in someone else’s second-hand smoke when I walk into a 9am. class. Second hand smoke is just as harmful in some cases, and I should not be exposed to unwanted chemicals on my school campus. That’s not what I pay tuition for. It’s astonishing that a school that prides itself on being so advanced allows for this. It does not create a healthy environment, period. It’s not a very complicated issue, either. It’s black and white. People can walk a few blocks off campus if they need to smoke. It’s not too much to ask. Most schools are that way. The school is not singling people out by asking this, either. It’s simply finding a way to ensure that all students on campus are working in a healthy environment. Smoking on campus bothers me EVERY DAY and I am so happy that this school is finally “advancing.”
About 60% of the foreign population of students smoke, doubt they’re going to be so keen on this idea considering for some it’s just in their culture.
Smoking is a choice, but on the other hand enforcing a ban is also a choice. The university has the right to ban smoking, just like smokers have the right to attend a different university that would better accomodate an extreme dependency on cigarettes.
Unfortunately, I have little faith in a smoking policy. While it would be a great reward to take in a deep breath of fresh air on a study break from Snell, I can’t imagine that being a possibility even with a smoking ban. I’m disappointed by the selfish lack of respect certain smokers have for those who would rather not inhale their fumes, health reasons aside.
Why doesn’t the university focus on enforcing the smoking policies that are already in place before attempting a campus-wide ban? Most complaints from non-smokers would disappear if all smokers abide by the current policy to stand a designated distance away from university buildings. Not all smokers on campus are so inconsiderate as to subject others to the toxins we choose to inhale. With such a diverse student body, it seems foolish to expect that hundreds to thousands of students should quit smoking. A more realistic solution would be to insert a few “smoking areas” on campus, similar to what various amusement parks and public parks have done nationwide. In front of Snell is already the unofficial smoking area; why not create an official smoking area in a less high-traffic place, so non-smokers can go to the library in peace?
I would really appreciate this measure, or at least stricter enforcement of rules about smoking within 25 feet of doorways, which is a problem outside my residence hall (and others) and outside Snell. Secondhand smoke is a real health issue, and a non-smoking initiative should at least be looked into — I’m surprised it has taken so long.
Smoker here. I could “choose” to not smoke, but it’s one hell of a choice to make, to be made permanent (it’s not something we do on-and-off). Quitting is something that all smokers think about, and no one else but themselves can just simply make them quit. I think a slower change is good, like I already try to stay as far away from entrances and people as possible, but to stop completely? That would be like banning coffee on campus (not that it harms anyone, but just a metaphor to changing your lifestyle).