Free to Choose
It was recently suggested on the pages of this newspaper that our College would be better off if our community’s members gave up the deleterious habit of smoking. Though I share this dream and agree that a campus free of any sign of smoke would be a happy one, I tend to disagree with the proposed policy change, namely – an absolute ban on smoking. Before I tackle the issue at hand, let me thank the author of the article that I am referring to for raising this issue and sparking a much-needed debate. Whatever its outcome, it is bound to improve the quality of the resulting policy.
The article that has invited my response argues in favor of a campus-wide ban on tobacco products, both smoking and smokeless, including e-cigarettes. The reasoning seems simple enough – “smoking is obviously a health hazard both to those engaging in it and to those who fall subject to its effects by way of secondhand smoke.” Yet I believe that it is important to carefully distinguish between these two effects because each of them warrants a different response and only one of them – secondhand smoke – a prohibitive policy. Getting rid of the dangers of secondhand smoke is completely justified because no one who chooses not to smoke should be forced to do so due to secondhand smoke. Furthermore, as a nonsmoker hoping for a world without cigarettes, the author of this piece tends to believe that the lives of those who do not smoke should not be limited by those who do in any way. That means that even minor everyday decisions such as which doorway to use to enter a building should not be determined by the effects of smoke. Sure, one can enter through a different door which is less likely to be surrounded by smoke but that very complication is, to my mind, a reason that justifies banning smoking in the vicinity of campus buildings. In fact, the current College policy on smoking does just that – smoking is prohibited inside all College buildings as well as within 20 feet of all college building exterior doorways.
A careful analysis thus arrives at the conclusion that the proposed policy change of a complete ban on smoking does a lot more than protect nonsmokers. It, in fact, has the ambition of eradicating the habit of smoking from the College community altogether. How else to understand the fact that if the suggested policy were to be implemented, an individual indulging a cigarette at 4 AM in the middle of the Arboretum (I admit that the environmental effects of this experiment are omitted for a minute) would be violating the College’s policy?
We are told that “becoming a tobacco-free campus would not require that all smokers stop smoking, rather that they do so in a manner that does not affect their fellow Camels.” Yet it seems that the current policy is designed to do just that – to ensure that smokers do not smoke in areas where they can disturb others. In fact, making our campus tobacco-free would quite necessarily compel current smokers to a clear decision – either quit smoking for good or leave campus. This issue, even though it may not be apparent at first sight, is also one of personal liberty. As I have explained above, I do not smoke, would not advise anyone to do so, and even share the dream of living on a campus where each member of our community chooses to give up the habit. However, the last words of the previous sentence are crucial – I believe that people have the right, if they make that decision, to do things that are indisputably bad for them.
The author of the article I am responding to finds it “hypocritical that we place so much emphasis on our school’s environment, yet there are not even designated smoking areas.” I could not agree more, designated smoking areas sound like a solution but they are incompatible with a complete ban. It must lastly be added that, despite the great amount of work that Student Health, Campus Safety, and other members of our community have done, excessive use of other substances remains a challenge. According to Campus Safety’s annual report, 320 liquor law violations (referrals) were reported on campus during 2014, up from 138 in 2013 and 168 in 2012. Alcohol-related incidents clearly occur in staggering numbers and it is hard to deny that too many a member of our community limit their weekend plans to expanding the abovementioned statistics. To prioritize the “image problem” that smoking creates in the face of these numbers would be mind-boggling at best.
– Vladimir Chlouba
