Guest Column:

City smoking ban trumps campus on smoke-free list of priorities

By Domingo Pacheco, Former Vice President, Peers Against Secondhand Smoke

Published Nov. 13, 2007

I do think a smoke-free campus is another noble cause, but going back in time concerns me much more. People cannot afford to spread too thin, and I worry that tackling two things might be a mistake.

Many concerns are still unanswered, questions still present. People still ask about people in the dorms and where they would go. Someone from North residence hall, for example, wondered where he or she would have to go — hoping it wouldn't be across Providence Road, as crossing it rather perilous. Chiefly concerned with safety, people speak of something that might not have been adequately addressed.

One year ago, I stood before this campus advocating for a smoke-free Columbia, but after one year, let's take a look at where we are. At the time, unsafe environments were the status quo of restaurants and bars, with the opposite now true. Students needing a reasonable-paying job functioned as a paradox; damn them financially if they don't work, damn them medically if they do.

While the ordinance has fixed that, for how long we cannot know.

A small and vocal opposition has brought forth a petition requesting the rules be repealed on the grounds that they are economically painful.

I am certain that is untrue and misleading at best. If an establishment has closed, I make my wagers that the establishment was in difficulty before. An unnamed bar has had a sign out front requesting signatures for protest, arguing they might be forced to close, yet that same establishment has had problems before. Its location is horrible, bordering residences and businesses, with a small gravel lot and four tin walls. Its lighting is dim with yellow tones. I never saw cars there before, and I still don't today. But it's the ordinance's fault, or so they say, which is far from true.

Nevertheless, the opposition does worry me, and I think that is where our focus should be. The ordinance was a big step, so rightfully I'd hate our efforts to go to waste. But I am also confident that when everyone is actually aware what is going on, our ordinance will remain. Then, three out of four people favored the change, the same being true now. People argued then of inconvenience, yet now no one complains. People questioned its enforcement, and the people enforce it now. It was a well-tolerated change, and the regression will be blocked by a health-conscious crowd.

To lose all of that would trouble me a lot. Although the cause is noble, and certainly worth pursuing, I think the prospect of a smoke-free campus exists as the lesser of our concerns. Kudos if it happens, but don't forget about the past.

We have a law on the books, one in which people poured their heart and soul, one that has benefited more than most doctors, one which we can not afford to let go.

Let's focus and not forget about that.

dlplzpf@mizzou.edu