By Drew Casey

Smoking at Fordham’s Rose Hill campus is very prevalent, and it is disgusting. It needs to go, and the sooner it leaves the confines of Fordham University, the better.

“When I was in high school, it [smoking] wasn’t a thing,” said Noelle Lindemann, FCRH ’17. “And I was actually really surprised coming here to see how many cigarette smokers there were. It’s definitely strange, as well, now that they’ve actually installed ash trays outside.”

Why is Fordham encouraging a practice that has been linked to numerous deadly diseases? Why are students allowed to smoke on campus? These questions might seem extreme, but they deserve careful consideration.

According to no-smoke.org, there are now over 1,500 colleges in the United States that are completely smoke-free, including a ban on electronic cigarettes. Such a ban is no stranger to the New York area, either, as both New York University and the City University of New York currently prohibit smoking on campus.

This makes the decision even easier. The university’s local counterparts in higher education have set a precedent. Fordham should follow suit and ban smoking.
“It would definitely help the health,” biology professor John Wehr said of such a ban. “And I think maybe some students, who may do it recreationally, that is just occasionally, they probably would cease that.”

Wehr also acknowledged that more frequent smokers would probably not be affected by a ban. They would simply find a place off campus to smoke.
“Clearly, Fordham has no influence over what they may do outside of campus,” Wehr said. “But if it [a ban] is legally permitted, I think it would make for a much more pleasant environment here.”

I could not agree more with Wehr, who has his own lab at the Calder Center. However, many students, both smokers and non-smokers, tend to disagree with both of us. When asked if Fordham should become a smoke-free campus, Mia Ciravolo, FCRH ’17, who smokes, disagreed.

“I really don’t think it should,” Ciravolo said. “We go here, and this is our time to be free young adults and everything, so I feel like we should be able to make our own choices, and if that choice is to smoke, then we should be allowed to do so.”

Lindemann, who does not smoke, echoed Ciravolo’s comments, but did offer an interesting alternative to limit people’s ability to smoke.

“I think there should be actual zoned-in areas where you’re allowed to smoke,” Lindemann said.

Such a solution would identify certain areas where smoking was permitted. The practice would be prohibited in other areas. This tactic could perhaps act as a bridge from the current situation to an eventual ban, for which I am hopeful.

Despite these viewpoints, it comes down to health and well-being. Smoking is a terrible habit and is detrimental to personal health.

It is also very harmful to others who do not smoke. According to the Center for Disease Control, over 2.5 million people have died from health problems caused by exposure to second-hand smoke in the past 50 years. That is approximately one person every 10 minutes.

I do not know about you, but I do not want to become part of that statistic. Furthermore, I would rather not find out later in life that breathing in excessive second-hand smoke during my late teenage and early adult years has led to a health problem, even if it is not a life-threatening one.

We all know this, but it is time to take action. Perhaps the next time you walk out of a building on a cold night, you will not have to take in a cloud of smoke.