The intended consequences of the ban, according to the University Executive Council, the University Health Council, and several other notable individuals including Professor Wilmore Webley and Tobias Baskin are to protect the rights and air of non-smokers. While this is a fundamental battle ongoing in the United States today, such as questioning where our rights end and other’s right begin, there are far more issues that prevent such a policy from being effective in the first place. Namely, how the hell do we enforce such a ban?

The jurisdiction outside of dormitories is subject to two enforcing bodies: The University of Massachusetts Police Department, whether you like them or not, do a great job ensuring that the peace is kept for the most part and that everything proceeds smoothly. The Resident Assistants, another group both loved and hated by the general student body, usually handle situations inside the buildings, but, what may be to your surprise, do have jurisdiction across the entirety of campus.
Here’s the catch though, no matter where you live the authority is the Assistant Resident Director or Resident Director that is in charge of the RA who wrote you up for smoking no matter where you were written up on campus. That means if I was caught smoking on campus by an RA from Washington I would have to trek down to the freshmen dorm in Southwest despite living in an upper-classmen dorm in Central. The question here is why does that RD or ARD care about something so harmless? Are they really going to ruin a student’s academic career over a quick puff when they don’t even live in their cluster?

So who is going to enforce the smoking ban? Are we going to have RA’s roaming campus with clipboards on their way to class, ensuring that students aren’t sneaking a quick smoke behind the dumpsters and in the alleyways of our University?
Are the police going to suit up in gas masks and riot gear to walk around and bust those lighting up? In either case both solutions seem to be a waste of resources that could be used elsewhere to address more serious problems, because apparently smoking takes precedence over people tearing apart bathrooms when drunk, fist fights or legitimate medical emergencies.
While I’m sure the police who are bored working the Monday morning shifts will be glad to have an alternative to the standard traffic patrol on Massachusetts Ave., walking around and telling smokers to douse their cigarettes will probably get old quickly, and the Amherst town police who I have seen on a number of occasions won’t care because it’s not a town bylaw. It’s literally not their problem, so why bother? The last time I checked, not one front lawn has been torn apart because of tobacco, nor has anyone woken up next to someone they don’t know because they bummed a cigarette on a Friday night.

Another question the University and the ban-supporters have failed to address is something else that everyone is discussing as their wallets get thinner, which is how much will this ban cost to enforce? If smoking is effectively “outlawed” on campus people will continue to smoke.

If you think that people will voluntarily comply with such a ban simply ask the experts how hard it is to quit. I’ve spoken to plenty of smokers that said it’s one of the most addicting choices they’ve ever made. Still, we all passed eighth grade health and we know the risks. Smoking will continue to happen, and to be honest I think such a ban will only save smokers from leaving their dorm room in the first place. Even if your roommate doesn’t like it most students will find a friend within the dorm and smoke in a social setting.
If I recall my time in Professor Webley’s class, socialized smoking is one of the top ways to become initially or further addicted. Even if 95 percent of the population abides by the new rule, those who run the risk of being caught by smoking are most likely the ones that currently light up several times a day. Let’s assume that .5 percent of campus ignores this ban and smokes lightly with three cigarettes a day. This means on an average day there would be approximately 300 violations of the policy, and that’s only smoking. The weekends would undoubtedly have violations in the thousands, and once again this is only for smoking.

The only option for this new policy to actually be effective is for the University to increase the number of RA’s on duty, or rely on students abiding voluntarily which is nothing short of a dream.

So the choice here is pretty clear, rely on those who oppose the law, essentially trust the “criminals” who are exercising their right or turn the campus into a police state where any authority figure is looking to write up students to ensure that smoking stops, rather then address the real problems here on campus.

Before any ban goes into effect, and not just for smoking, the University needs to reflect on the impractical reality of enforcing anything not on the law books. Forcing the problem underground isn’t truly addressing the problem. Asking the police to help enforce such a poorly thought out decision is a gross, risky misallocation of resources that could possibly serve the student body better in addressing more serious issues.

Despite what you may think of the ban, whether it’s a step in the wrong direction or a move towards cleaner skies and less second-hand smoke, is the benefit worth the faced opposition? With much more serious issues to address I don’t think the student body, nor the University, should be fooled into such a half-baked plan.

Dave Robertson is the Secretary of Public Policy and External Affairs of the SGA.