Tobacco free has a cost?
The Johnston County Board of Education ponders serious issues regarding education at every meeting it holds. And a few issues cause board members to be at odds with each other on occasion.
One issue in particular looms on the horizon holds explosive potential. It is a proposal to revise the county school’s tobacco policy to reduce the tolerance of tobacco on school grounds. This policy would create a tobacco-free campus, for both students and adults.
The policy is strict. It would include students, teachers, administrators and staff, and even visitors to campus for any reason. And it would prohibit smoking and smokeless tobacco products at any time.
Board member Donna White tried to have a reading of the policy removed from the agenda at the January meeting, a move that was supported by board member Larry Strickland. But board chairman Fred Bartholomew, citing procedure, refused to do it. When the policy was read, Ms. White explained that she believes the ban on tobacco on campus could have far-reaching repercussions. The policy could even anger the public at a time when public support will be needed for another school bond referendum.
She said the policy, as written, would prohibit construction crews from smoking while building a school, since the site was considered school property.
Mr. Strickland said the policy discriminated against dedicated school volunteers who devote time and energy to various school projects because they would not be able to step away and smoke. Parents and supporters who go to basketball games — and are already delegated to go outside into the cold to smoke — would not even be allowed to do that. Teachers who have to stay on campus for several hours a day would have no place to smoke on their breaks.
Mr. Strickland also spoke of receiving a letter of concern which indicated how the policy would put the school at odds with hard-working tobacco farmers who have brought millions upon millions of dollars to Johnston County, paid their taxes and made donations to community causes, such as schools.
The other side of the argument was presented by Kay Carroll, who simply stated that tobacco was a dangerous, unhealthy addiction and to ban it from school property was a positive response that would further provide positive evidence to students that tobacco is not something with which they should get involved. Mr. Carroll cited numerous health reasons for the ban, and said it was a simple matter of keeping the campuses healthy for the students.
Board member Jack O’Hale provided perhaps the best commentary on the issue. He said it boiled down to individual rights versus protecting public health.
“Tobacco is a legal product if you are over 18,” he said. “Drinking alcohol is legal if you are over 21. Owning a gun is legal if you are over a certain age. But we don’t allow drinking on school property and we don’t allow guns on school property.”
I am big on individual rights. I agree with Mr. O’Hale that as long as a person is of legal age, they should be allowed to do what they please.
But Ben Franklin once said that another person’s rights end at the tip of my nose. When your cigarette smoke comes into my nostrils, I am being denied the right to breathe air that is not clogged with carcinogens. Most responsible smokers are mindful of this and try not to offend anyone who does not want to enjoy the smoke with them.
I grew up with cigarettes in my life. My mom and dad both smoked, for decades, and I guess my brothers and sisters and I were fortunate that second-hand smoke did not affect our health. They both gave up smoking later in life. Nowadays my mom has several grandchildren and great-grandchildren — and at least one daughter-in-law — that come over, some of which are sensitive to smoke. So she has banned the smokers of the family to the front porch – not to be punitive, but to be protective.
Usually, cigarette smoke does not bother me. But as a non-smoker, I have the right to go into any business that I wish to patronize. And I do not go into stores or restaurants that allow smokers to light up, because I do not want to smell the emanations. It would be wrong of me to go in there and insist that everyone in there put out the cigarettes. So I choose to not go in there, or leave when I realize I am in that situation.
Some tobacco users may feel singled out and discriminated against by this policy, and in one regard, they are. But the policy is a good step to providing the most healthful learning environment possible, and no one can argue that as being anything but good. The current policy as enforced is a double standard — while students are prohibited from using tobacco, teachers are frequently outside on their breaks smoking. On several occasions I have seen coaches going through their duties with smokeless tobacco or dips in their mouths.
On a personal note, there is nothing nastier to me than a cup or can that has been used as a spittoon. Give me a choice, and I will take an overflowing ashtray any day.
To eliminate tobacco from the campuses is a drastic step, but a positive one. If enacting the policy makes one current smoker even consider kicking the habit, then it will be worthwhile.
Smokers have rights. But they have no more rights than non-smokers.