News
Garber Announces Advisory Committee for Harvard Law School Dean Search
News
First Harvard Prize Book in Kosovo Established by Harvard Alumni
News
Ryan Murdock ’25 Remembered as Dedicated Advocate and Caring Friend
News
Harvard Faculty Appeal Temporary Suspensions From Widener Library
News
Man Who Managed Clients for High-End Cambridge Brothel Network Pleads Guilty
Last year, Currier House designated one of its four towers as the only tower where smoking was allowed. This action came in response to large-scale complaints about Currier's ventilation system, which allows second-hand smoke to travel to the rooms of non-smokers. But Currier House's new smoking policy does not do enough to resolve the conflict it was designed to dispel.
Two problems remain. The first is caused by smokers in the three non-smoking towers who continue to light up. The second lies with non-smoking residents of Gilbert who drew poor lottery numbers and had little choice but to live with smokers.
The staff recognizes that individuals have a right to smoke and does not wish to persecute fellow students for making a personal choice. However, the widespread discomfort and possible health risks that accompany second-hand smoke as it drifts through the ventilation system lead us to call for stronger anti-smoking measures in Currier House.
The most benign solution would be to somehow prevent smoke from entering the ventilation system. Two ideas come to mind. First of all, the house could hire experts to ascertain if there are certain rooms in Gilbert (or perhaps in all four towers) where smoke will not enter the ventilation system. These rooms could be designated for smoking.
If there are no such rooms, a relatively inexpensive option might be to purchase filters which could be placed over the ventilation grills in smoking rooms. Several other houses, especially those of modern construction, could also benefit from such filters--after all, good fences make good neighbors.
However, if a technological solution is not possible, a political one becomes necessary. First of all, the house should impose mandatory penalties on individuals caught smoking in non-smoking towers. These penalties should include fines and/or relocation and should be stiff enough to discourage surreptitious smoking.
Second of all, barring any other solution, the house must seriously consider adopting an overall ban on smoking. This ban could be taken into consideration when first-year blocking groups are placed into houses by the administration. This policy would be in accordance with the Massachusetts Clean Indoor Air Law of 1987, which indicates that smoking areas can only be designated as such if the remaining non-smoking areas in the building are not affected.
When non-smoking Currier residents are guaranteed a smoke-free environment, the whole house will be able to breathe easier.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.