Editorial: clearing the air for effect

Raul Martinez/ The Sundial

The implementation of the new tobacco ban on campus is a policy that is long overdue. To start, the Sundial editorial staff supports this new rule, but there is doubt for as to whether students will go along with it.

Now as a school policy, students would presumably follow this ban. The level of promotion for it is strong, with stickers and posters visibly placed all across campus.

The policy for enforcement will place emphasis on cessation programs that will curb people’s wish to smoke, as well as “assist in policy interpretation.” If violators continue to break this rule, they will be directed to the Offices of either Human Services or Student Affairs.

In addition, the policy will be re-evaulated annually and will possibly be amended. As this policy progresses and is amended, fines will eventually come into play and ban violators will be charged.

Ultimately, students must be made aware of the consequences in breaking this rule. Lack of awareness should not be the student’s fault if they have not been able to see the actual consequences.

The promotional problem with this ban is synonymous with the Agent of Change online program that all students were suppose to complete by April 17. The clarity behind having a registration hold if the course was not completed was not always clear enough.

There is a chance that students will see the stickers and associate them with temporary events, such as Big Show or Summer Movie Nights. Directing students to a new policy’s enforcement should be a great priority, and has a chance to garner attention.

The dark side to this issue is if students ignore the legal notifications that the school wishes to provide. They will likely view an email from their professor or emergency services. Students receive a plethora of emails regarding Valley Performing Arts Center events, seminars, Tapingo, student housing and more.

It is easy for students to ignore the emails after a while and click the delete button without regarding the message at all.

For now, CSUN’s tobacco ban might be a policy people have the option to shrug at, without being aware of punishment. Knowing about education programs and eventual fines are the types of prevention students need.

When asking for good news or bad news, there is a tendency to want to know the bad news first. Having knowledge on the “negative” consequences should lead to prevention and maybe cessation. There is a chance that these consequences will have a negative reaction, but less smoking will have a positive impact.

Laws are not optional. Good health is optional, so any university has the ability to push its students in a healthy direction.

  • Vaping is as cool as eating your boogers… gross right! Don’t get so mad and angry it can lead to real health problems! http://www.webmd.com/balance/stress-management/features/how-anger-hurts-your-heart (the more you know)

  • GrkStav

    The problem is that this new policy bans a whole lot more than smoking cigarettes and cigars on campus. It classifies vaping devices (so-called electronic or e-cigarettes) as “tobacco-products” by administrative fiat, and bans the private, unobtrusive use of snus (which is not in the least like the use of chewing tobacco).

    This policy can be characterized, without hyperbole, as administrative overreach. Caffeine, like nicotine, is also an addictive substance, but its use, and the sale, consumption, distribution, etc of caffeine-containing products is not banned on campus.