11 Comments

1. Dave Roberson

   I think the college made it clear that they will not permit smoking in any area on campus. I don’t think they would allow an official smoking oasis.>

   What they should do and what Rockville should encourage them to do is develop a gatekeeper system at Princeton Place. Rockville staff recommended a gate that automatically locks during the day monday to friday. I think this is great and for instance, students that do in fact need to cross during this time could swipe their badges and be allowed entrance once every hour or so (to prevent students from leaving, catching a smoke, and coming right back in). The gate needs to be rigged so it can’t be left open, a security camera with closed circuit tv to the security office and/or Rockville city police would also help.

   This added to Rockville police presence, mo college security guard patrols, and maybe new security cameras should solve the problem.

   I realize that this technology costs some money, but if this problem is fixed Montgomery college would gain much in public relations points. It also pales in comparison to the cost of the new science center and maybe they could just attach the bill to that. The problem seems extremely solvable and I think its funny how these academics can’t come up with anything.

2. Dave Roberson

   Oh and banning smoking on someone’s private residence seems crazy. Princeton place residents should be allowed to smoke all they want.

3. Carl

   Yes, the Board of Trustees has been clear that they would rather inconvenience Rockville residents than make a common sense adjustment to their policy. The point of this essay is to get Rockville residents to attempt to change the Board’s mind. That’s why their e-mail address is at the end of the essay.>

   I agree that banning folks from smoking in their own yards isn’t good policy. As I envision it, the ban would apply to the public areas, and trespass laws would cover other people smoking in your yard.

   I think there is still reason to hope that the MC Board will compromise. One reason is that they built their fence on Rockville land. The fence is about 30 feet onto Rockville land according to the GIS system at the point where it would make sense to put in a smoking policy non-enforcement area.

   The gate won’t work for several reasons. It would block entrance to the college at that site being the most important. I can also envision people jamming the mechanism or propping it open. An ID recognition system for all students could be very pricy and does nothing to help community members who use that access point. A gate with a one hour blocking feature is very likely to be propped open or otherwise vandalized.

4. Dave Roberson

   Thank you Carl. I always enjoy hearing your opinions at the council meetings and elsewhere. Very interesting problem that I think can be solved in a way that all the stakeholders benefit.

5. Anonymous

   I agree with Carl that the most obvious thing to do here is to get the MC board to seriously rethink their smoking ban. If the purpose is to get all students, faculty and employees to quit smoking immediately, if not sooner, clearly they have not achieved that goal. Rather, they seem to have exacerbated the problem. If we look to our neighbors such as NIH, where part of the National Cancer Institute’s stated mission is the reduction of cancer risk, we’ll find that their policy – basically that NIH facilities are non-smoking, they haven’t exactly banned it on the entire campus. At Westat, one of the largest employers in the Rockville area, buildings and surrounding areas are smoke free – but outdoor gazebos are available for smokers’ use. As a life long NON-smoker, I have no interest in promoting smoking. But a complete ban seems heavy handed, especially when dealing with adults in a college setting. A quick google search uncovered the following conclusion regarding smoking policies on college campuses, “Rather than focusing on policies restricting cigarette sales and use, college administrators should consider implementing or expanding tobacco prevention and education programs to further reduce student smoking rates.” After all, colleges are supposed to be in the business of education not coercion. What’s going on here? Remember the saying “You’ll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.”

6. Good Neighbor

   Carl has the solution. In fact, does it even need MC approval if the site is in fact City, not College, property? Even if the site is not City property, the City could simply open the fence to allow smoking on City property rather than at the Princeton Place, and thereby let those of us who need the Princeton Place gate continue using it. >

   The City could solve this matter tomorrow if the College doesn’t.

7. Bill Burchett

   The last few points make very good sense. Carls idea is good too if the board wont rescind their decision. Security cameras and security gates to police a smoking issue is scary. Smoking is still legal and the college is in the business of educating adults. >

   The board needs to get off their moral high horse. They have infringed on the freedoms and lifestyles of their neighbors. There are much better ways of educating students on the dangers of smoking.

   If simple dialogue and rational discussion doesn’t work, and it hasn’t to this point, the courts may be the only answer. How about the City policing and cleaning up the mess at the site and billing the college for the cost? How about cutting off any City funding to the college until they become a good neighbor? These ideas may pressure the college to address the problem but they also might result in the fencing off the perimeter which is not the desired result. Closing the campus off is certainly not the answer but it would be consistent with the boards campus smoking ban.

   Maybe the school could use this issue as a teaching tool and create a new course, say Civics 102? They could discuss Gestapo tactics, freedom as it relates to freedom from vs freedom to, actions and their unintended consequences and the history of bans on legal and illegal behavior. There are lots of good lessons to teach and learn here.

8. Dave Roberson

   I think Carl may have the solution with the property lines and the fencing being 30ft into Rockville property. Rockville could in fact then post signs that say “please smoke here”. This is definitely the most cost effective solution and MC does not have to reverse their smoking ban.>

   I think we all agree that a permanent fence at Princeton place is the worst solution. What is so wrong with a gate that could be locked by a security guard between the hours of 10am and 4pm Monday to Friday? Students and commuters can use it before and after during the week and all day long on the weekends. I think the point where the smoking traffic is highest is during the times 10am to 4pm and the times that the community needs to use the gate is all other times. If the problem goes away (the students get some sense) the gate can be left open permanently.

   But yeah, Carl has the best and cheapest solution so far.

9. Gerry Cashin

   Gerry Cashin – Plymouth Woods Board Secretary>

   We at Plymouth Woods heartily agree with Carl’s position and thank him for his posting here as well as speaking before the Montgomery College Board of Trustees last night.

   We are circulating a petition calling on the Montgomery College Board of Trustees to:

   “ESTABLISH A DESIGNATED SMOKING AREA ON THE ROCKVILLE CAMPUS, and

   “ENSURE THE ACCESS AT PRINCETON PLACE REMAINS OPEN 24 HOURS, SEVEN DAYS EACH WEEK.”

   If you wish to sign or even circulate the petition, please email me at: monkeyface2@comcast.net

   We need your help!

   Gerry Cashin, Secretary
   Plymouth Woods Board of Directors

   Plymouth Woods is the community of townhomes and condo buildings immediately adjacent to Montgomery College on Princeton Place.

10. Bill Burchett

    Dave,>

    First, I hope I’m not too far off the main topic. I don’t smoke and I have never smoked except for some occasional cigarettes 25 years ago during my college years (pretty ironic huh).

    To your question on my objection for a gate: Your original post above argued for an automatic gate that locks during the day and only allows students to enter once an hour or so with a swipe of their badge (Student ID). You suggested the gate be rigged so that it can’t be left open and that a security camera with closed circuit TV linked to the security office and/or Rockville Police would help. You added that a Rockville Police presence, more MC security guard patrols and maybe new security cameras could solve this problem.

    I will try and stay brief in my answer to your question. Besides the many reasons that a student, teacher or anyone else might leave and enter school grounds several times within a short period of time; besides the cost to build and maintain such a system; besides the cost of extra police or MC patrols; besides the fact that the police and even the MC security guards should have more to do than watching smokers between classes, is the fact that we are talking about smoking cigarettes.

    Cigarettes are legal and MC’s moral high ground doesn’t change that. MC created a problem where one didn’t exist and failed to be a good neighbor when confronted with the ramifications of their action. I might be persuaded to go to the length you describe for a persistent open air crack market or a chronic prostitution problem but not for students and others who want a quick cigarette while attending a class or function at MC.

11. JJ

    I don’t have a dog in this fight, but my fear is if something isn’t done to resolve the issue soon, it will easily escalate, especially as the weather gets nicer and more people are outside. I can see this getting ugly in too many ways

• Tags
• Recent Comments
• Most Active (6 month)