The smoking ban debate on campus is like a cancer; you always think it’s gone, but then years later it sprouts back up. I get the reasons for why some students support the proposed smoking ban, but let’s actually look at the real scenario and see just how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Studies confirm the damage that second hand smoke can cause, especially to children in enclosed spaces, and I understand the gravity of the concern. There is a reason that smoking has been banned in airplanes, restaurants, bars and even smoke shops across America. But the notion that all smoking should be banned on campus is ludicrous.

Let’s begin with the obvious. Gustavus has already instituted policies for smokers to stand 25 feet away from buildings. Now, of course, many are thinking that the policy is a sham. It is hardly ever enforced, but it is the policy in place (although I have been asked to move 25 feet away in the pouring rain). Before we go 1984 and ban all smoking on campus, we could try enforcing the regulations that are already in place, or, if you are so inclined, to first ask the offending smokers politely to move somewhere else.

Additionally, since every building on campus has more than one entrance, it would seem plausible to follow the example of Confer/Vickner and have a courtesy entrance and smoker’s entrance for every building. In this scenario, separate but equal could actually be a logical alternative (but let’s face it, smokers would get the colder exit). Furthermore, if Gustavus didn’t want people smoking anywhere near the doors, then it would make sense not to put the cigarette receptacles right next to them. If they were to be moved 25 feet from entrances, there would be no reason to stand by the building.

Besides these simple ways that Gustavus could more cut down on second hand smoke without a campus-wide ban, there are more ideological reasons for my disapproval. First of all, this policy would unfairly affect a minority of Gustavus students and faculty.

This ban would penalize all smokers for either violations or overreactions of the very few. Asking students and faculty to walk off-campus for a cigarette is simply not feasible, especially in the coldest months of the year. Not that these people can’t walk that far from the hacking, but because it is extremely inconvenient (and impossible between classes or on ten minute breaks) to walk off campus to have a smoke. Because of this, Gustavus would essentially be saying that smokers are not wanted on campus, and to quit or leave, as they would not be part of the community that Gustavus prides itself on.

But let’s be honest for a moment, and ask if the ban would even solve the problem. While underage consumption of alcohol is a violation of Gustavus policy as well, one would come to the conclusion that no underage students drink, or at the very least, the ones that do are just trouble makers. However, since this is obviously not the case, what is to say the ban would be enough to actually stop smoking occurring on campus?

Gustavus is about community and diversity, so why don’t we try communicating and compromising to allow all students and faculty to feel comfortable with their life choices. We all have our vices, and a minority of Gusties should not be penalized for theirs.