At Wednesday’s final Associated Students, Inc. (ASI) senate meeting of the semester, a branch of the American Lung Association, which visited two weeks ago, once again pushed for a smoke-free campus to similar results.
A motion to give Project Individuals, Mentors and Peers Advocating to Control Tobacco (IMPACT), a no-smoking advocacy group whose aim is to raise awareness about the dangers of smoking tobacco, ASI’s support in moving forward on creating a school-specific policy for a smoke-free campus did not pass.
Some senators said that they are on board with the idea, but they also wanted a policy proposal that was more concrete. The senate passed a resolution giving approval for further discussion with Project IMPACT on a move towards a smoke-free campus.
Project IMPACT featured short news segments from “NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams” on MSNBC in their presentation, which explained the severe dangers of smoking.
In addition, the report said cigarette butts are the most littered object nationwide. These butts are filled with toxins that can contaminate drinking and water supplies.
The nicotine residue that lingers on clothing and furniture can react with other chemicals in the air to form harmful carcinogens.
Sen. Clifton Wahlberg objected to Project IMPACT’s emphasis on health concerns.
“Every time you step outside in Fresno you are subjected to air that is 20-times worse than that of second- and third-hand smoke,” Wahlberg said.
Fresno has consistently ranked toward the bottom of cities with the worst air pollution.
Sen. Brie Witt suggested that the current policy — smoking is prohibited on campus except for 26 designated areas — should be kept, and the focus should be on better enforcement.
Derrick Schaffer of Project IMPACT said it is extremely difficult to enforce the current smoking policies.
Schaffer cited California State University, San Francisco as an example of a campus that uses regular parking officers to enforce its no-smoking policy across campus.
Ultimately, the consensus among the senators was that such a policy needs to be considered with a more thorough, concrete proposal.