University Senate prepares to vote on reduced smoking ban

The University Senate updated its smoking ban policy resolution on Thursday, decreasing the proposed ban to 20 feet of all campus buildings from 50 feet.

By Amber Tunnell

Published December 3, 2010

After a two-year evaluation process, the smoking ban policy facing a final vote at today’s University Senate meeting includes several last-minute revisions.

An updated policy resolution was released on Thursday, making the proposed ban within 20 feet of all campus buildings, not 50 feet—one of a few changes to the policy that was first brought to the senate on Nov. 12.

That change would be in line with New York State law, which prohibits smoking within 20 feet of all college residence halls. At the last meeting, Michael McNeil, chair of the Tobacco Work Group, said they had decided on a policy of 50 feet to be consistent with the 50-feet policies that some Columbia buildings, such as Avery Fine Arts and Architecture Library, already have in place.

After some senators raised concerns about the policy’s enforcement, the revised resolution calls for a designated authority to enforce the ban, and increased education and resources for smoking cessation.

Michael Adler, a professor at the Columbia Business School and a self-proclaimed smoker, proposed an amendment at last month’s meeting to install small huts around campus to provide safe spaces for smokers during inclement weather.

While that amendment was voted down in November, the senate did agree to consider the idea going forward. The revised proposal states that when the policy undergoes its two-year review, the External Relations Committee should pay particular attention to the idea of building sheltered smoking areas.

The original resolution was based on a two-year evaluation process conducted by the Tobacco Work Group, a group of students and staff established in 2008 by Vice President of Campus Services Scott Wright.

At the end of the Nov. 12 meeting, a straw poll on the original 50-feet resolution found that 22 were in favor of the policy and 16 opposed, with nine abstentions.


COMMENTS

Comments will be moderated in accordance with our comment policy