Matt Mantica | Don't be a butt

Inflam-Matt-ory | It is time to ignite a debate about implementing a smoking ban on Penn’s campus

By Matt Mantica 05/29/13 10:12pm

I don’t like smoking. In fact, it disgusts me. But that’s not the reason why I support the recent campus-wide smoking ban proposed by the University Council Committee.

Not only will such a ban make Penn’s campus a healthier place, allowing students to avoid unwanted second-hand smoke, but it will allow Penn to — once again — lead by example. Although more than 1,000 other universities have already banned smoking on their campuses, no Ivy League university has made such a move.

Penn is in a position to influence more than the approximately 6,000 smokers on campus. Banning smoking would not only serve as an incentive for these individuals to lead a healthier lifestyle but may also have an effect on our peer institutions that are in need of change just as much as we are.

Before implementing such a policy, however, the University must ensure that enforcement of the ban is not only possible, but widespread.

While I would love to believe that students and staff could enforce such a sweeping ban through peer-pressure alone — as is the hope of Penn officials — evidence seems to prove taking that route could be inefficient.

The struggles of community pressure to police smoking bans are evident on other campuses. Two years into the University of Michigan’s campus-wide smoking ban, implemented in 2011 and reliant on self or peer policing, officials still acknowledge the presence of issues pertaining to smoking.

Therefore, enforcement on Penn’s campus would have to be much more intense — perhaps turning immediately to campus police and allowing them to cite offenders — in order to institute a smoke-free policy as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Harsh policing could alienate some individuals, particularly those punished for smoking. However, Penn ultimately has a responsibility to ensure the highest levels of health for its students and staff and should work to get campus in such a position as quickly as possible.

***

Some of you reading this are probably upset right now. I can’t blame you. If I were a smoker, for instance, and read this column about how I should be swiftly — almost brutally — punished for taking a smoke break outside my place of work or class, I would be incensed. I would probably storm off and complain to my friends about “this guy I read in The Daily Pennsylvanian.”

I’m going to ask you not to do that.

I do stand behind what I have written above and I do believe that it is worth voicing my opinion, but I feel it is even more important for you — the reader — to respond.

If you noticed the punny and relatively cheesy name for my column — “Inflammatory” — then hopefully you have some idea of what I’m trying to do. More than anything, I want to incite a response in my readership.

The term “inflammatory” is not entirely appropriate for the type of response I’m hoping for though. The word typically means inciting angry or hateful feelings. So while I’m happy to do that, my hope is not to hear or read dozens of responses that reflect such negative emotions.

Rather, my hope is that once inflamed — once I have brought out some kind of emotion — you can respond to this and any of my future columns in a productive way. Rather than reading about my feelings on the proposed smoking ban and calling me all sorts of names and getting overly angry, I would propose that my opinions open up reasoned discussion.

How should we approach the proposed ban? If put into place, how should we approach enforcement? Heavy handedly — as I call for — or more weakly?

My desire is that by being inflammatory for the rest of the summer, I can provoke emotions that can then be turned into passionate but well reasoned and well discussed debate on issues that tend to be overcome by emotional responses. These issues all too often miss out on being discussed productively — they fail to be resolved in the best manner possible because discussion surrounding them lacks anything similar to logical deliberation — and I’m aiming to change that.

Argue with me on the topics I bring up in these columns. Argue with your friends, with family, with random people on the internet. But please argue. When we argue reasonably, respecting each others’ opinions and — perhaps most importantly — remaining open to changes in our views, we come closer to reaching progress on these topics of debate.

Matt Mantica is a rising College sophomore from Okemos, Mich. His email address is mantica@sas.upenn.edu. “Inflam-Matt-ory” runs biweekly during the summer.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.