Smoking Poll Results

The Faculty Association recently conducted a poll among College employees
on the following question:

It is proposed that the Douglas College buildings at ee Avenue be
designated as primarily no-smoking, with the provision for separately
ventilated smoking areas. Are you in favour of this proposal?

Yes ( ) No ( )

Total ballots distributed were 423. Return was 307 or 72.6%. In brief,
the results were 252 in favour and 50 against. 1 ballot was returned
blank. 3 ballots indicated a preference for designating the entire
building no-smoking. Another ballot expressed concern for ventilation
throughout the building.

I would like to comment on the results, partly because, contrary to

the beliefs of some, this exercise is not (and was not intended to be)
conclusive. Rather, it should be viewed as a preliminary step in what
is likely to be a long-term campaign in the College to achieve the right
to breath clean air. I would also like to respond to some concerns

that were brought to my attention by individuals on both sides of the
issue. I will list these and then address each separately.

First of all, criticisms were made of the wording of the poll question.

Some felt that the binding together of two questions in one resulted

in the proposal's being too restrictive; i.e., it did not allow for

different options. For instance, it was suggested that the question

could have been divided into two parts, the first inquiring about support

for a non-smoking building, and the second posing the option of separately

ventilated smoking areas. Related to this was a concern about the liberal/
compromise nature of the proposal. Additional concerns were expressed

about {(non)consultation of students on the issue, the inadequacies of |
the building's ventilation system in general, the cost of installing |
separate ventilation, and the priority of health and safety issues in |
times of restraint.

Regarding the wording of the poll question: it was quite deliberate

in combining the proposal for an essentially no-smoking building with

that for separately ventilated smoking areas. In the documentation

and rationale circulated beforehand, Rod Midgley and I were at pains

to minimize the acrimony that can occur with the polarization of positions.
We attempted to balance what we felt were the mvp of non-smokers

and smokers.

Non-smokers and smokers equally have the right to work in a safe and
healthy environment. Health and safety legislation confers that right.

It was clear to us that smoking could not really be considered a "right".
Any action which potentially harms others must be restricted, and the
evidence is overwhelming in concluding harmful effects of second-hand
smoke. If medical evidence and common sense are not convincing, litigation
in both the U.S. and Canada has established that the right of non-smokers
to breathe clean air at the workplace takes precedence over another's
freedom to smoke.

..-continued....