For a university that prides itself as incredibly student-conscious, Thursday evening's smoking forum is worthy of as much admiration as it is scorn.
To start, the SG's attempt to gauge students' feelings on smoking is commendable. Discussions like these, regardless of their outcome, are what we elected the executives to do. But the fact we needed a smoking forum is rather pitiful. Non-smokers want a better smelling, less-polluted campus, and understandably so. But there are a series of laws - D.C. public smoking bans and university policies that prevent smoking indoors - that save our lungs from complete destruction. So does President Kerwin have a legitimate reason to take those regulations a step further?
Of the three options Kerwin and crew presented, the only acceptable solution seems to be the courtesy policy. Predominately a publicity campaign, the courtesy option requires the university add more ashtrays throughout campus and post signs urging smokers to be mindful of other students. While we aren't sure whether this plan solves the problem, it is a more reasonable solution than a smoking ban or designated smoking zones, both of which were proposed at the forum.
Presumably, if Kerwin is proposing the first change to university smoking policies since 1998, he must be unhappy with something smokers are doing. But there's a limit to smoking bans, even in the minds of the adamant non-smokers. At the point at which students' rights are unreasonably violated - and a full-out smoking ban does just that - smoking regulations are unnecessary and unfair. AU students, smokers or otherwise, should watch this smoldering debate closely.
