

The banning of smoking inside colleges is a very interesting topic to write about. It is one of the topics that I have some background in before and after deciding to make it the topic for my project. Everybody knows that smoking is undesirable by the majority of people. In addition, researching about this topic means that we need values and morals that are related to our respected societies. Most of the societies around the globe do not accept anything that could disrupt our life as well as our health. In this case, I consider smokers as a bad people since they do not care about their lives. Health is a very important factor to make your society creative and live with happiness. I have a very big background about this topic especially when we relate this topic to our personal morals. I have always not liked smokers to smoke around me. Indeed, I consider them the source of evil in most times. Also, in order to know the morals of the person, one way to do is to check if he/she is smoking or not. Indeed, smoking is banned in some religions and cultures. For this reason, some cultures consider smokers as bad people. This idea of considering smokers as bad people is very important in our lives and that again makes me qualified to research about this topic. 


The writer of this topic makes it very clear to the administration of USC that the new policy of banning smoking in campus is not followed by many of the students. Also, he/she says that rather than asking smokers to stop smoking they have to help them quit by providing better programs. 

The writer was able to convey his/her message to the people who are in charge of the issue. He/she feels unsatisfied about the new policy and would like to strengthen the enforcement of the policy. The writer may be interested in changing the policy and to not charge students if they break the policy. He/she tends to be one of the supporters of the new policy. He/she is interested in changing the life of campus to be heathier.

The writer seems to be giving readers a claim that the new policy is not working because he/she does need to break the policy. Also, in most of the times the writer's credibility about the topic could be true. That is because no changes have happened once the new policy has been implemented.  His/Her bias is to change the idea of the implementation of the policy because he/she does not see any changes of the policy inside the campus. 


Natalie Pita discusses new policy evaluation one year after the implementation. She says that the new policy is effective on students' success as well as effective on their health. USC health is responsible for providing some programs to help smokers quit. Also, it asks some other campuses to implement the new policy.

The article is focusing more on the benefits that have been testified after the implementation of the new policy. The article supports the healthy campus that needs to be found for students. It also stands beside the majority of students who are nonsmokers because of their love to be healthy. 

Pita's credibility was based off her survey and the bias of her article is that could get smokers to quit . Pita was able to convey the administrations' letter to the public. She talks a lot about how we can help students to get healthier and by focusing on that, her credibility presents to the reader and was very obvious. 


Megan Reed discusses how the changes of being a free-smoking campus have been implemented in the USA. She states that according to a report from ANRF most of the campuses in the country have changed or at least trying to change to the new policy of smoking. She provides some examples of Georgia State University's attempts to implement the new policy. 

The major value of this article is to see how the implementation of the new policy is very important to students' lives inside the campus. Also, it depicts awareness of most of the campuses where the healthy life of students exists while inside the campus and is one of the factors that determines their creativity. 

The writer's credibility exists in this article. Reed shows that when she gives some examples about the topic. Reed's credibility exists because she is an editor in chief at the Campus Carrier but her bias does not let smokers smoke inside campus because that smoke disrupts non-smokers. 

The research question asks if implementing the new policy about  smoking affects the students' health or not? It gives the reader more meaning that we have to change our campus's position to a healthy campus. If I would revise this research question, I would change the words rather than the meaning. That is because the question seems to cover most of what I could research in the future. This question is suitable for a research project because most of people do agree with what I am searching for. However, all of these perspectives does not affect my stable idea that smoking is harmful as well as killer. That is just one side of agreements but the other side which disagrees with the new policy forms a big number of people. This means that the feasibility of the question has a possibility. 

