Last Wednesday, Currier House adopted a new policy that out laws smoking in two of its four residential towers. The new measure is a good start and shows respect for the comfort and health rights of non-smokers. However, in a house with a smoking population of only three or four percent (by a recent poll), this measure does not go far enough.

Smoking in dormitories is bothersome and injurious for nearby non-smokers. Second-hand smoke has been proven to be just as dangerous as first-hand smoke in many aspects, including the incidence of lung cancer. The College currently mandates that non-smokers prevail in cases of conflict, and that hallways stay free of second-hand smoke.

Unfortunately, the College's standing smoking rule is hard to enforce. Even after a visit by an administrator, further smoking is difficult to prevent on a student-to-student basis. Furthermore, the source of smoke can be hard to locate in modern buildings with extensive ventilation systems. Non-smoking buildings guarantee clean air in rooms, corridors and elevators as long no smokers surreptitiously inhabit them.

Slightly more than half of the respondents to the Currier survey indicated that they could not tolerate cigarette smoke. Presumably, those Currier residents--and perhaps even some who can tolerate smoke--will want to live in the non-smoking building. The buildings, however, can only house half of Currier's students. The others will still be subjected to the farce of case-by-case smoking prohibition. Clearly, this solution will not settle all of Currier's smoking problems.

We look forward to seeing more designated non-smoking areas in the other Houses as well. Since smokers make up only a small minority at Harvard, they might be forced to live in close proximity in selected areas. It is unlikely, however, that many smokers will accept this segregation easily.

Of course, the College must decide whether smokers' housing options can be justly curtailed. We believe that students who choose to smoke must face the demands of a College that largely shuns smoking. The decision to smoke should have the implicit consequence of separation, to protect--at the very least--the health of other students.

In houses where smoking is not such an issue of contention, administrators might be slow to construct definite housing guidelines. However, as demonstrated in Currier, smoking can result in major policy adjustments. In such cases, smokers will have to submit to the conditions of their non-smoking neighbors.