AS A NON-SMOKER, it’d be logical for me to wish to see cigarette smoke as far removed from the public arena as possible, but the restrictions on smokers’ rights are getting to be absurd. Already, smokers can’t light up in bars, restaurants, public buildings and, in some states, even outside on the street. Now, the state of Pennsylvania has taken it one step further by banning smoking on all public university campuses. The ordinance bans smoking inside and outside all university-owned buildings, including classrooms, residence halls, university-owned apartment complexes, and even campus sidewalks.
The new rule has sparked a lot of controversy. Some students applaud the new regulations, signing petitions in support of the ban and lauding the benefits of reducing smoking amongst young people. Others have staged “smoke-ins,” protesting the smoking restrictions that they feel are a violation of their personal rights.
No one with a television set is unaware of the dangers of smoking. It’s impossible to watch even Dora the Explorer with your little sister without seeing one of the dozens of painfully “hip” anti-smoking advertisements. Even if you somehow managed to miss these commercials, upon purchasing any pack of cigarettes, you’d be confronted with a Surgeon General’s warning that states in bold, black lettering: “Smoking leads to heart disease,” or the decidedly less subtle, “Smoking kills.” Despite these warnings, an estimated 25.9 million men (23.9 percent) and 20.7 million women (18.1 percent) in the United States choose to smoke, according to the 2005 National Health Interview Survey. And, as adults and law-abiding citizens of the United States of America, choosing to smoke is their prerogative.
Many who oppose smoking do so on the grounds that second-hand smoke harms others in the vacinity of the smoker and not just the smoker himself. Those who applaud the ban support it because it reduces these dangerous environmental emissions, which can lead to lung cancer and emphysema even amongst non-smokers. Second-hand smoke is a legitimate concern in libraries and classrooms, where students often spend hours at a time and would be forced to endure extended periods of breathing in cigarette fumes, but smoking has already been illegal in these indoor areas for quite some time. Passing a smoker outside on the way to class is, at worst, going to result in a vague whiff of the scent of cigarette smoke, nowhere close to the exposure necessary to result in long-term health consequences. According to the Surgeon General, even living with a smoker and breathing second-hand smoke on a near-constant basis only inceases the risk of contracting lung cancer by 20 percent. (Being a smoker yourself increases the risk of lung cancer by 10 to 20 times — 1000 percent to 2000 percent — according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.) The reality is that the outdoor aspect of the ban may in fact do more harm than good.
If smoking is banned in public spaces like sidewalks, beaches or parks, smokers at least have the refuge of their own homes. However, for the collegiate set, campus is home. These smokers are addicted; Simply making their addiction illegal will not magically allow them to suddenly quit cold turkey. According to TIME magazine, about one in five college students are smokers. While I, as a non-smoker, don’t fully understand what motivates this 20 percent to pick up a potentially deadly habit, I, as an American, believe very strongly in their right to make that choice. Banning smoking on college campuses is not only an infringement on personal rights, it’s impractical and impossible to enforce. College students are adults who decide their own housing, their own class schedules, their own work schedules and their own careers. They also have a right to make their own choices concerning their health.
While the ordinance doesn’t prohibit students from being smokers, outlawing smoking anywhere on campus essentially leaves addicted students no choice but to either break the rules or travel several blocks to potentially dangerous non-student areas to indulge their habit. How many of us know of a friend who chain-smoked her way through a three-test week, standing outside Clemons in the cold with a cigarette ember glowing between her fingers? Imagine this same girl having to walk east of 14th street just to satisfy her addiction — it’d be dangerous, unnecessary and far more frightening than a transient tendril of cigarette smoke. Of course, the ban also leaves students the option of quitting, but that would be underhanded and manipulative. Wouldn’t Pennsylvania like us to believe that their ban has nobler intentions than forcing smokers into giving up the habit?
There are plenty of good reasons to quit smoking. Your own health and the health of others are among the chief concerns, along with financial reasons ($5 a pack!). But the bottom line is that the decision to quit must be a personal one, motivated by personal choices. Continuing to restrict smoking in public areas may help lower the number of Americans who choose to smoke, but it does so in a decidedly un-American way.
Michelle Lamont is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint Writer.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | YesterdayTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 6 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | January 13, 2025After all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
