Since 2008, MU has emphasized its desire to become a smoke-free campus. In July 2011, it implemented the second phase of its plan: Smoking was to be allowed only in designated areas. Students, staff members and visitors were asked to quit the habit by January 2014.
In March, the community rallied to move this date forward and to increase enforcement in order to achieve the goal in time. The Missouri Students Association Senate supported the legislation. The recommended date to begin Stage Three, meaning the campus will be completely smoke-free, was moved from 2014 to 2013.
With only a year left, concerned smokers are afraid they will not have time to kick the habit. And I am concerned, though the change is positive, that it might be coming too soon.
It takes time to break an addiction, and the university cannot expect this sort of change to happen overnight. And though I am in full support of a smoke-free campus in the hopes it makes lives healthier and preserves the school’s beauty, it is slightly concerning that MU has the power to demand so much from its community.
If a smoker violated the policies – by either smoking in a smoke-free zone or, in the future, smoking in any location on campus – there would be consequences, according to Smoke-Free Mizzou’s website. In no way do I think lenient rules will lower the number of smokers on campus, but I also do not think people should be punished immediately after smoke-free policies begin. It is such a dramatic lifestyle change. At the same time, the policies would not be effective without these punishments.
Part of the problem with the enforcement of our smoke-free policies is that nowhere does it state the actual consequences for breaking the rules or who will be enforcing them. The [Smoke-Free Mizzou website](http://smokefree.missouri.edu/) states “appropriate university authorities” will handle the matter, but that sounds a whole lot like the campus isn’t sure who should be the instigator. Sure, it is suggested that passersby let smokers know of the campus policies if they are in a smoke-free zone, but the probability of the bystander effect occurring is far too likely — most non-smokers would cover their mouths in disgust and walk away.
Do I think MU’s goal is impossible? No, only that it will take some hard work.
Zach Toombs, MSA director of communications and author of the resolution, said [in a previous Maneater article](https://www.themaneater.com/stories/2012/3/9/msa-senate-supports-full-smoking-ban-2013/) people are confused about where to smoke because the areas are declared but often unmarked. The resolution was also supported by MSA President Xavier Billingsley, who thought a completely smoke-free campus would be easier to enforce than the designated areas.
The MU Health Care Center began its own tobacco-free policies in 2006, in which patients and non-patients were prohibited from using tobacco products on MU Health Care property. Like MU, the health care center acknowledged how difficult it might be to quit. The center promotes use of nicotine replacement therapy and treatment programs. However, its website does not state whether users receive consequences for disobeying the policies.
MU is no pioneer in its transition to a smoke-free campus, which is supported by Chancellor Brady Deaton and was first brought to attention by the student body. There are more than 500 universities with smoke-free and/or tobacco-free policies.
But I wonder how successful these universities have been at reducing the number of smokers on campus and enforcing their policies. Putting a deadline on breaking an addiction is a misuse of the university’s power, and the decision goes without much representation of smokers on campus.