Impacts on Admission

Banning the act of Smoking will harm the admissions process.

General Points: A) The Culture of the school will change for the worse, B) This act is not in the best financial interest of OWU (which, like it or not, is also tied to the best interest of the students).

1) OWU accepts more smokers than it does people with asthma and other lung problems.

While people with such problems should not be overlooked, admissions should be more concerned with the number of students affected. 70% of OWU funding is from Tuition, which is how reliant the life of the school is on admissions. For this reason we ultimately care more about large groups of students than smaller ones, because favoring larger groups over smaller groups is simply smarter regarding OWU finances. I think the stats I saw online - although I can't verify them - is that 15% of students accepted smoke, while a much smaller number (as in less than 5%) have a serious lung problem. Also note that maintaining the status quo would not change current policy and allow us to keep current funding as the persons with poor longs continue to apply knowing smoking is allowed on campus.

2) Admissions Image

Banning smoking gives us a more conservative image. As colleges outside the realm of Evangelical schools are usually assumed to be liberal, giving us this conservative image puts us in a place between Religious and not-Religious, especially considering our current affiliation with a Church body. It is definitely illogical to assume that taking this step back will lead to other steps back; however, people are stupid and often illogical, and might possibly make the assumption that this might lead to other reforms (like mandatory chapel service or banning alcohol?), thereby decreasing the number of applicants and altering the overall culture of the school.

3) Muslim and Baha'i students

Students of certain religious affiliations can only partake in smoking and do not have the possibility, according to their worldview, of consuming other drugs. Think about the many International Muslim students we accept. Many of them smoke before coming to campus; banning smoking would harm our image among the countries they come from, as well as decrease the overall religious diversity of the school.

4) "Seemingly" Decreased Admission standards

Assuming less applications are received, as my above points suggest, we'd have to accept more applicants to make up. There's this thing in admissions where Colleges accept a large number of applicants (for OWU its 55% of first-time, an addition 9 to 10% of transfers) knowing that only a much lower number (for OWU its about 20%) will enroll. Because we'd have less applicants our numbers would increase for the initial acceptance; large acceptance numbers are typically characteristic of larger state schools and institutions of a poorer quality, which might lead to smarter students overlooking OWU (especially since we're still trying to rebuild our image from the terrible presidency of Wenzlau).

The obvious counterargument is that applications would increase from non-smokers and those who hate smoking; however, I think most would agree that these would come from more conservative or typically American students. Ultimately this leads to less diversity in the school, and it's rather unrealistic to assume that non-smokers would make up for all the smokers that quit applying.

Choice: Smoker's Rights

Smoking is a lifestyle choice. It's a lifestyle choice that certain people find distasteful, but it's also completely legal choice for adults. However you look at it, banning cigarette smoking on OWU's campus takes away a right from its students that is allowed for the rest of the U.S. population.

So why would something that's legal in the rest of the country be banned on OWU's campus?

College is supposed to be a place where students learn how to be adults. And really, isn't the essence of being an adult the ability to make decisions for yourself? For a lot of people, college is where they decide on the habits and beliefs that will make them who they are. Drinker or non-drinker? Conservative or liberal? Studious or social? Smoker or non-smoker? Maybe some of these choices are healthier or more popular than others, but the point is that they're choices the student learns to make for themselves--without OWU hovering over their shoulder telling them what they should or shouldn't do.

Whether or not the school (or even the majority of the students) believe that smoking is a good choice is besides the point--it's an individual choice. Teach students how to make good decisions about their health, by all means, but don't take away their right to a legal habit just because you disapprove of it.

Stigmatization/ transition costs to smokers

The underlying message that this resolution sets out to deliver is that smoking is something abhorrent and if these smokers absolutely have to smoke, they should take their butts out, literally. However this will only serve to alienate and marginalize the people who smoke. Rejection of smokers on campus basically lands us in an “us vs them” mentality where these stigmatized individuals would feel that they are not part of the community. This might lead to deterioration of their academic performance, a huge negative impact on their social life, increased expenses and ultimately the negative effects on the psyche of the person.

For some, cigarettes are a means of relaxation which allows them to regain their thoughts and concentrate better while studying. This is why there are always some people smoking outside the library. For these individuals, cigarettes provide them with the necessary caffeine or nicotine kick which other individuals acquire through ingesting coffee or energy drinks. Taking away this “fix” will have a quantifiable harm for these individuals. Their ability to concentrate, which is directly related to academic performance is going to go down and therefore their academic performance is going to suffer as a result.

For Smokers, the time to smoke is a social event. They stand around with their friends, enjoying each other’s company and revel in the joy of smoking. It gives them time out of their busy lives to talk to each other for 5 minutes. To just be themselves and not feel rushed. These “chilling” sessions are an important daily ritual in a smokers life and without them they will definitely feel socially reprobated.

As already pointed out, smoking gives these individuals a caffeine kick which helps them stay alert and concentrate better. For non smokers, this caffeine kick can be acquired through energy drinks or coffee. However, it is much cheaper for smokers to consume a pack of cigarette than to buy coffee or energy drinks since a pack of cigarettes can last them for a much longer time and hence help them concentrate for even longer periods.

Smokers get irritated, anxious and depressed when they are not allowed to smoke. By enacting this law, we are simply ignoring the emotional stability of the smoker. We are essentially saying that if you have a problem, deal with it yourself because I am not considerate enough to help you out here. This will definitely result in these individuals feeling marginalized and have a very real negative effect on their behavior.

Choice: Nonsmokers' Rights

As will be described in the choice framework post, a government's ultimate responsibility is to provide the maximum number of choices to society as a whole. This means that you have the ability to make any decision you chose with regards to yourself. However, in order to allow for this, there is one key limitation - it must not limit the choices of others. Within the context of this debate we have the choice to smoke without geographic limitations and the choice to remain unaffected from the harmful effects of smoking.

Smoking on campus inherently infringes on the second choice. Particularly in places like the Jaywalk where 
everyone is concentrated into one area, there is no feasible way to escape the effects of smoking. This means that the first choice, the choice to smoke, inherently constrains the second choice, the choice to avoid the effects of smoking. In such cases, the right that is being infringed always takes precedence. We have to, as a society, act to protect those who cannot preserve their freedoms on their own.

Secondly, in terms of maximizing choice, we must remember that absolute freedom undermines itself. Though this does limit the choice of smokers to smoke without geographical limitations, in the end it expands their long term choices by protecting their well being and encouraging them to live a life without the detrimental effects of smoking.

Welcome to OWDA Smoking Forum

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

We are delighted that you have chosen to join us and hopefully contribute to our discussion on the proposed smoke-free Ohio Wesleyan campus. Nine members of the Ohio Wesleyan Debate Association have volunteered to each present one line of argument (please note that these were randomly assigned and are not the personal views of the team members). These arguments will be as follows:

A description of the philosophic Choice Framework, and

Arguments For: 

1)      Choice: Nonsmokers' Rights

2)      Health: Nonsmokers and Smokers 

3)      Litter Reduction and Environment 

4)      Health Care Costs in Tuition 

Arguments Against:

1)      Choice: Smokers’ Rights 

2)      Ostracization: Stigmatization and Transition Costs to Smokers 

3)      Impacts on Admission 

4)      Practicality: Enforcability and Possibility of Alternatives 

We ask you to comment on these with your opinions, viewpoints, and arguments, which will be taken and included in a policy briefing memo for the members of WCSA. We do retain the right to edit and delete any offensive, inappropriate, or generally un-classy posts. We hope you stay tuned in and keep the dialogue going! 

Even Better Website :)

http://debate.owu.edu

Fantastic Website

You guys should check this out - debates on everything imaginable. Some of them aren't that great because people just bring personal opinions, but most of them are actually really well structured and bring good LOAs.

http://www.debate.org