On Sept. 1, 2012, the University of Oregon became smoke- and tobacco-free, with high hopes and aspirations for a cleaner and healthier campus. Statistics were cited stating that the university was having to clean up approximately 18,000 cigarette butts in a year. Now that most of those 18,000 cigarette butts per year are not on campus anymore, they must not exist anymore, right? Once smokers realized they are not allowed to smoke anywhere on campus, they surely stopped smoking, right?
This is not the case, and these cigarette butts have to go somewhere. Instead of being dispensed into official ashtrays in a standard smoking area on campus, these cigarette butts are disposed of on the streets and sidewalks of the homes and public areas surrounding campus. Furthermore, the UO has not fixed many smoking, tobacco or litter issues with this policy. All the university has done is shift the burden from themselves, a large well-funded public institution, to the backs of small businesses, other public entities and homeowners that surround the campus.
If the UO truly wanted to become a positive contributor to the campus community, they would take responsibility for the cigarette butts that members of their university community create. If the university was committed to making a smoking-related difference in the community, they would clean the mess, too. A positive step forward would be to reinstate designated smoking areas, though not glamorous, as the surest way to contain cigarette butt litter and to prevent secondhand smoke. If the university cared about secondhand smoke, they would limit the amount of smoke that reaches the Eugene community. Having a designated smoking area, where individuals have the choice to enter into this area, keeps bystanders out of harm’s way.
One’s life choice is stigmatized beyond a health context, often to a personal level, which is what is most concerning about this policy. Smokers are cast off and treated as undesirable people who should not feel welcomed on campus. Not enough personal accommodations are made for smokers; only resources, such as the University Health Center, help stop the smoking habit.
If we are progressive enough to accommodate for community members who are LGBTQA+ by having gender neutral bathrooms, why can we not accommodate smokers?
Although smoking has negative effects on one’s health, having a smoking area on campus will keep the people who smoke on campus closer to resources — which can help them get over their addiction. The UO smoking policies should not be alienating students and should continue to expand resources for smokers who want to quit.
I recently spoke with a UO freshman who said that he feels ostracized from the campus community when he has to walk off campus to smoke a cigarette. Freshmen students who are starting a new chapter of their life can feel separated from the campus community every time they smoke. Our smoke- and tobacco-free campus must be changed to accommodate smokers so that we can be inclusive for people of different walks of life, including those who smoke. If there was an area on campus for smokers to congregate, it could provide the opportunity for freshmen to meet and find common interests.
It may be hard to reverse the campus-wide policy, but the university could create a smoking area at Autzen Stadium, which currently must follow the university’s tobacco and smoke policy. Autzen Stadium draws thousands of fans from across the state and country to its gates every fall. Imposing such an extreme policy on fans, who may not be indoctrinated in UO’s nonsmoking values, may come off as unwelcoming. For many fans, a Duck football game is a time to relax and have fun, and for fans who smoke, this rule may ruin their experience if they are forced into a campus doctrine they do not agree with.  
It is hard to think that the UO would try to push a group of people away from the campus community, but the sad truth of the university’s smoke- and tobacco-free campus policy is that it ostracizes a large group of community members.