The proposals released by the Tobacco and Smoke-Free University Project Team will cause more harm than good for the AU community.
The bans on tobacco and smoking were originally sold to students on the premise of protecting the rights of nonsmokers, but now the language makes it very clear that these bans have little to do with students’ rights.
Instead, the focus is to prevent adults from choosing to do what they wish with their bodies.
I am not a smoker, but I believe the University community has a duty to thoroughly evaluate all proposed policies from pragmatic angles.
College is stressful, and even as a nonsmoker, I understand why students choose to smoke. It is well known that it would be better for people’s health if they didn’t smoke. But that is the choice of the individual, and it is their right to ingest whatever substances they want into their body.
The current proposals go so far as to ban all tobacco use. The memorandum sent out to students on March 27 states that the policies prohibit tobacco use “in cars on university property, including parking lots and garages.” If one smokes in their car with the windows up, they are not in any way infringing on the rights of nonsmokers.
These policies have little to do with ensuring that nonsmokers are not forced to breathe cigarette smoke on their way to class, a just and valid matter. The tobacco ban has everything to do with micromanaging the choices of others by do-gooders, those who seek to use their bureaucratic power to impose their superior moral wisdom on those they view as less competent than themselves.
If the committee members are truly concerned with protecting student health, they might look at other University-funded programs. The University promotes high-risk sex, for example, by allowing a S&M seminar this past month. Seeing this, the committee might well choose to invest its time into banning all sex on campus, the only way to ensure students don’t contract potentially deadly sexually transmitted diseases.
However, this policy would infringe on the rights of students to manage their private affairs as they see fit, in the same way the current smoking proposals do.
It would seem that so called do-gooders spend their time micromanaging the choices others make that face social stigma in their liberal elite circles, such as smoking.
Why is it that do-gooders in general do not seek a ban on downhill skiing when the risk of injury is great? Is it because skiing is popular with the well to do?
These proposals will be more difficult to enforce than the current ban. Why is it a priority to dedicate Public Safety staff or other resources to uphold a campus-wide ban on smoking when there are more pressing issues to tackle? Wouldn’t Public Safety and other limited campus resources be better used to prevent sexual assault, theft and vandalism?
With an alternate plan featuring designated smoking areas near dorms and academic buildings, those who wish to smoke could do so without forcing others to inhale smoke. The proposals currently feature types of designated areas but will phase them out after the fall 2013 semester. The aim seems to be to force those who currently smoke cigarettes to move off campus or quit smoking altogether.
Do-gooders in the 1920s regarded prohibition as a victory for public health. History shows that the consequences from prohibition on alcohol far outweighed any supposed benefits.
If these proposals are enacted, negative consequences will be inflicted on surrounding neighborhoods.
Rather than quitting smoking, many students will choose to venture across the street to the Metropolitan United Methodist Church or onto the sidewalks of family neighborhoods, public parks and businesses. The church and the surrounding communities will almost certainly suffer from an increase in litter of cigarette butts and loitering.
Tobacco-Free AU’s proposals for a campus wide ban on smoking infringe on personal liberties. Allocating resources to ensure the bans are enforced and funding smoking cessation programs wastes student tuition dollars. This policy will have consequences extending beyond the AU community.
Keeping designated smoking areas would ensure better relations with the surrounding community and the satisfaction of AU students.
Reed Dame is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences and Kogod School of Business.
edpage@theeagleonline.com
