Smoking Policy Problem at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University - Research Proposal Example

Heading: Smoking policy problem at ERAU Your name: Course name: Professors’ name: Date Abstract This report focuses on the smoking policy problem at ERAU. It does this through a study on smoking behavior among students and other members of the university. It bases its facts on the results achieved from the study, which used various data collection techniques including interviews, observation, surveys, and secondary sources. Moreover, the report demonstrates that the university has some measures including the 25ft distance and smoking policy to check smoking behavior among its students and staff members. It also explores some of the negative effects on human beings as stated in the university smoking policy. It is also clear that tobacco smoking is not only harmful to the active smokers, but also to the passive smokers. Furthermore, it evaluates the university smoking policy and offers suggestions on how to solve the problem. According to the report’s conclusion, the smoking policy is ineffective in the university because many student smokers do not take it seriously; hence, exposing many other students to passive smoking. Additionally, the report indicates that the policy is lenient, and is not strict enough to control careless smoking in the university. As a result, the report offers some suggestions on how to tackle the university smoking policy problem. Some of the recommendations in the report include extensive sensitization and education on the policy, strict penalties for violators of the policy regulations, and designation of smoking zones within university premises. Table of contents List of tables and figures Introduction Smoking is commonplace in various institutions in the world today. Despite their awareness of the dangers regarding cigarette smoking, many people still take the issue of smoking lightly. There are many immediate health impacts of smoking on human brain, cardiovascular, respiratory, metabolic, gastrointestinal, and immune system. Whereas these instant cigarette effects have unidentifiable symptoms, majority of them start damaging the body with the initial cigarette, at times irreversibly. As a result, they quickly lead to adverse health conditions and consequences (Guilfoyle 2012; Edlin 2010). This report aims at examining the ineffectiveness of the smoking policy at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University—Daytona Beach. This is a problem because it exposes many non-smoking students to the detrimental effects of second hand smoke. Studies indicate that most of the university community members suffer from second hand smoke because most of the smokers do not take the policy seriously. Moreover, some members also feel that the policy is not strict enough to control disorderly smoking within the university, and thus, they want it more stringent that it is now. The main audiences of the report include the head of university safety, students, and members of staff. The report is important in highlighting some of the facts regarding the smoking policy as well as appropriate recommendations to the campus head of safety. The report also explores on some facts about smoking policy in the university and the negative effects of smoking among the university. Here it investigates on the smoking behavior of the university students and staff as well as the effectiveness of the university smoking policy. It guides the stakeholders on the essential steps to take in order to ensure high safety level in the university, especially in relation to smoking. Therefore, the audience should keep reading the report as it contains vital information regarding the importance of the smoking policy in the university. Background According to Guilfoyle (2012), many studies demonstrate that cigarette smoking is not only harmful to people that smoke, but also to those near cigarettes and breathe their smoke. Some of those affected by smoking include small children and unborn babies. This is because they breathe in second hand smoke, which is the smoke coming out of the lit cigarette, and that which smokers exhale. Second hand smoke is another name for passive smoking, Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS), and involuntary smoke. In fact, almost 53, 000 people reportedly die from passive smoking annually. When people breathe passive smoke, they breathe 4,000 chemicals that a real smoker does. Out of these chemicals, 51 of them are causes of cancer among human beings. Methodology The report obtained its facts from the field by use of various methods that include primary and secondary sources of data. To start with, some of the primary methods of collecting data in this report include surveys, interviews, and observation. The use of interview method in this case is appropriate because it helps in the investigation of issues in a detailed way. Interview methods also help in discovering the respondents’ feelings and thoughts regarding the topic under investigation. Additionally, this technique was significant in allowing more detailed research questions. It also facilitates the achievement of high rate of response in the study (Grundy, Pollon, & McGinn 2003). Interview method was crucial, as it would allow the recording to the respondents’ own responses. It also clarifies ambiguities and incomplete responses. Here, I asked the head of campus safety various questions regarding smoking policy in the university. For instance, there was a question regarding the distance 25ft; strict punishment on smoking in illegal places of the university; and the way campus can minimize smoking among students and staff. Another method used in the collection of report facts was survey. The survey had various questions about the topic of study, which required the respondents to answer appropriately. The survey had six research questions, some with multiple choices and others without them. This method was beneficial to the report in a number of ways. The use of the surveys helped in answering various research questions. First, through the survey, I managed to verify the existence of the smoking policy in the university. It also confirmed the prevalence of smoking in the university through the respondents’ answers. Moreover, the survey enabled the evaluation of the smoking policy and other measures the university has in curbing smoking. More so, the report also employed observation technique in the collection of its facts that it seeks to communicate. Here, I observed students and staff members within the university premises. Some of these observation areas include Starbucks for one hour at 1pm; library for one hour at 6pm; and the aviation building for 30 minutes at 9:45am. This technique was advantageous in many ways including collection of highly reliable information, enables the observer to see whatever is happening, and that it is inexpensive. Observation method is beneficial in that it enables the observer to conduct an evaluation of what is happening. For instance, I managed to observe the students’ smoking in the university. This observation was possible because of my strategic position in the building. This implies that I situated myself around the aforementioned buildings to get a clear picture of the students’ smoking behavior. Nonetheless, it is has disadvantages, such as, people’s uneasiness when they are under observation, and they may perform distinctly under observation. Some activities may not happen as they normally do when they are under observation. Other participants tend to behave normally or correctly, when they are under study; hence, inaccurate observation results (Connaway 2010). The report also acquired information from a secondary resource, Tobacco Policy “Student Handbook.” In this report, the resource is crucial as it outlines various regulations regarding smoking in the university, all in the interest of the students, staff, and the faculty. In the article, there are many issues regarding smoking at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. The article shows that tobacco negatively affects students’ lives and health. The article helped in answering study questions regarding the effects of smoking on human beings, and whether there is a smoking policy at the university. Facts In relation to the methodology described above, there are certain facts concerning the smoking policy problem at Embry Riddle University. According to the results, the university has a smoking policy in place that dictates how, when, and where smoking should take place in the institution. At Starbucks, observation took place for one hour at 1pm. Here, 21 there was a record of 21 smokers and 7 non-smokers in the area. Secondly, another observation happened at the library at 6pm for one hour. At this place, there were 19 non-smokers and 13 smokers. Thirdly, at the aviation building, a half an hour observation took place at 9.45am, where there were six smokers and nine non-smokers. Location Smokers Non-Smokers Starbucks 1pm – 1 hr observation 21 7 Library 6pm- 1 hr observation 13 19 Aviation Building 9:45 am-30 min observation 6 9 Figure 1.0: Observation results at ERAU Observation results at ERAU Figure 2.0: Graphical presentation of observation results at ERAU The report also used a survey to collect data about the topic of study. According to the survey results: 28, or 58% of respondents said that they were not smokers, while 20 or 41.7% affirmed that they were smokers Smoking policy awareness at the university, there were 50% or 24 Yes responses, and 50% or 24 No responses As regards the respondents’ thoughts on the appropriateness of 25ft away from each building, 33.3%, or 16 of them said it was inappropriate, while 66.7% or 32 of them said that it was appropriate When asked whether they would make the policy more lenient or stricter, 56.3% or 27 responded to the affirmative, whereas 43.8% or 21 of them replied to the negative. Students’ compliance with the policy, 70%, or 36 respondents replied that they did not follow, where 25% or 12 of them responded that they did follow it. There a difference in the rates of smoking in relation to various age brackets: between 18-20 years, there are 23.4% or 11 smokers between 21 and 24 years, there are 57.4% or 27 smokers between 25 and 29 years, there are 12.8% or 6 smokers from 30 and older years, there are 6.4% or 3 smokers in the institution Analysis 2 Following the facts of the report, smoking is widely existent in ERAU, especially among students. The report employed various techniques to get the facts, which include observation, survey, interview, and university Student Handbook on Tobacco Policy. These resources provided reliable information concerning the issue of smoking in the university as well as the attempts that the university takes in order to protect non-smokers from second-hand smoke. According to the students handbook, the university strictly takes the responsibility of the students’ safety by discourage smokers from smoking carelessly in smoke free zones in the institution. It does this by ensuring that smokers act as per the guidelines to avoid any violations. According to the observation results, there are more smokers compared to non-smokers at the university’s Starbucks area. At the library side, there are more non-smokers in comparison to the smokers. Likewise, at the Aviation Building, the non-smokers are more than smokers are. These facts imply that many students in the university still smoke in public areas like the library, Starbucks, and the Aviation Building. This means that the policy is not yet in full action in the university. This can also mean that students take the policy regulations lightly in the university; hence, their violation of the smoking policy guidelines. In addition, the survey shows that there are more non-smokers in ERAU, as compared to the smokers. Moreover, there is a wide awareness of the existence of the smoking policy in the institution. This is evident in the equal representation of the respondents that knew about the policy’s existence and those who do not know about it. This implies that the university has done a considerable sensitization of the policy existence to its community. Nevertheless, it is explicit that there is insufficient policy sensitization; hence, a need for more action. Further, the idea of 25 feet distance off the building is another issue in the university smoking policy. This is because it is clear that most of the students approve of the idea, with a few of them finding it inappropriate. This further shows that there is a conflict and division in the university community regarding the distance. This implies that there is inadequate campaign and education on the importance of the policy to the students’ lives and health conditions. Besides, the survey results indicate that many respondents would prefer to tighten the policy, as compared to those who want it more lenient. This means that many university community members still feel that the policy is not strict enough to regulate careless smoking in the institution. This shows that the institution needs to make the policy more stringent than it is now in order to safeguard the community from passive smoke, which might jeopardize their health conditions. Imperatively, the survey indicates that the students at ERAU do not comply with the smoking policy. This is evident in the wide gap between the participants’ responses concerning the issue. Additionally, this means that the university needs to put more effort to ensure that students act as per the policy. In terms of age, it is explicit that smoking in the university varies with demographic factors, especially age. The results indicate that smoking is prevalent among students between the ages of 21 and 24 years, and less prevalent among students aged 30 and above years old. This means that smokers are mostly those within the age bracket of 21 and 24 years. Notably, the report used charts and tables to analyze the facts. This is evident in the appendices section at the end of the paper. The interview method used in the collection of the report facts indicated that there was no strict punishment for smoking in the university. The head responded that the initiative is more educational than a punishment. Moreover, the head of university safety asserted that the 25ft between each building was not the university initiative. He also added that the distance is appropriate, since it will prevent disturbance of people that come in and leave the buildings. Further, the university head of safety maintained that the university does not make rules regarding designation of smoking zones, or implementation of mechanism to minimize smoking in the university. He asserted that the university’s role in enhancing security is by executing the already made rules, and that the institution is aware that people would prefer to have a smoke free environment or campus. According to the head’s recommendation, it is imperative to designate specific smoking zones in the university, such as, gazebos. He also suggested that smoking is a legal, as long as smokers are respectful, and smoke in appropriate areas in the campus. According to the secondary source regarding the smoking policy at the university, it is explicit that the university is aware that smoking has negative effects on students’ lives and health. As a result, the university takes the responsibility to protect its students, staff, and faculty from passive smoke. This implies that the university allows smoking to happen outside the university premises including residence halls. Moreover, the university ensures that smoking ought to happen in designated locations that have cigarette butt receptacles labels. Moreover, the institution also consists of ‘smoke free zones’ due to their closeness to ventilation systems or windows. As the university Tobacco Policy states, smoking is the burning of any product of tobacco in form of cigars, cigarettes, or pipes. In addition, the policy prohibits smoking in University trucks, vans, automobiles, buses, and aircraft. Besides, it holds that the university provides receptacles all over campus to avoid littering by smokers. The policy also advices students to observe the rules and that it require the violators to know that smoking is legal in specific areas. It also maintains that those violators are liable to the student behavior action. Smoking policy housing guidebook offers smoke-free living and work areas from non-smokers to the greatest degree possible. All campus community members and guests should avoid smoking in areas labeled ‘No Smoking’, in any entrance, as well as in any other location where smoking is hazardous, or an irritant to other people. Moreover, smoking is illegal as per certain regulations within and around the university halls. Smoking is illegal in all residential halls; during smoking, and all smokers should be at least 25 feet away from the residential halls. The policy also recommends that students who want to smoke should do so only in the areas designed for that reason. It also expects to throw their smoking materials dutifully and use University-offered ash urns in specific areas. Conclusion Without doubt, smoking is common in current institutions in the world, especially in ERAU, Australia. Despite the establishment of a smoking policy in the university, many smokers still ignore the regulations. These individuals carelessly smoke in improper places instead of the designated smoking zones within the university facilities. As a result, this irresponsible behavior endangers many students’ lives due to their exposure to passive smoke. Various literature also demonstrate smoking has adverse effects on smokers and non-smokers health, which including human brain, cardiovascular, respiratory, metabolic, gastrointestinal, and immune system. Therefore, as per the facts, it is explicit that the university needs to implement the policy strictly in order to ensure that students appropriately. Recommendations In order to ensure safety in the university, there are necessary measures to do: The university should conduct more education and sensitization on the dangers of smoking to the students and other members of the community. The university should make the smoking policy more stringent than it is now to curb irresponsible smoking behavior. It is imperative that the university ensures that there are adequate and clear designated areas for smoking within its premises. The policy should also contain tough penalties to any violators of its regulations to serve as a discouragement to all smokers in the university. References ANR, 2009, Health Effects of second hand smoking on children, American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation. Retrieved on June 5, 2012, from http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=212 Connaway, L 2010, Basic research methods for librarians, Libraries Unlimited, Santa Barbara, Calif. Pp. 146-150. Edlin, G 2010, Health & wellness, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, Mass. Pp. 394-405. Guilfoyle, J 2012, Smoking’s Immediate Effects on the Body, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Pp. 1-9. http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0264.pdf Grundy, AL, Pollon, DE & McGinn, MK 2003, ‘The Participant as Transcriptionist: Methodological Advantages of a Collaborative and Inclusive Research Practice’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, vol. 2, no.2, pp. 1-19. Housing Guidebook 2009, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Pp. 1-28. http://prescott.erau.edu/student-life/housing/HRL%20Guidebook%20FINAL%20.pdf Appendices Appendix 1 Figure 1.0: Observation results at ERAU Location Smokers Non-Smokers Starbucks 1pm – 1 hr observation 21 7 Library 6pm- 1 hr observation 13 19 Aviation Building 9:45 am-30 min observation 6 9 Figure 2.0: Graphical presentation of observation results at ERAU Appendix 2 Figure 3.0: Survey results Question Frequency Percentage (%) Smokers 20 41.7 Non-smokers 28 58.3 Aware of the policy 24 50.0 Unaware of the policy 24 50.0 25ft appropriate 32 66.7 25ft inappropriate 16 33.3 Make policy stricter 27 56.3 Make policy more lenient 21 43.8 Policy followers 12 25.0 Policy non-followers 36 75.0 18-20 years 11 23.4 21-24 years 27 57.4 25-29 years 6 12.8 30 and older 3 6.4 Figure 4.0: Graphical presentation of survey results Read More