About That Smoking Ban

From slavery to speed, our government can be credited with the elimination of great threats to the social integrity of this society. Being that it retains a solid sense of order and safety throughout, most of us find this type of legislative action to be appropriate. In relation to this idea, the first two centuries of United States history were marked by the granting of basic rights to all of the stereotypically disadvantaged social groups. From that point, one must wonder: “Will we someday have no more basic rights to protect, leaving only questionably unacceptable practices to be put forth on the agenda of Congress?

Growing concerns and paranoia among the people, amplified by developments in science, have bred a wave of new concerns that Congress is taking head-on with a barrage of legislation. The human aspect of global warming and the carcinogenic nature of second-hand smoke are perfect examples of this. Global warming as a result of human development has been fueled both by people worried about its potential consequences on the environment and by the scientific community, which continually spawns and tests new theories, resulting in the discovery of a shocking link or pattern that, if ignored, could lead to many ruined careers. Smoking and its effects on non-smokers follow a similar pattern. People are overly-concerned for their health, and the scientific community promotes this almost hypochondriachal behavior. Science does have good intentions, and it can discover valid reasons for concern over one’s health, as well as the remedy to those concerns-but at some point, the line between irrational thinking and solid science is crossed. It is not obvious whether something is paranoia or solid science; rather, it is just something to consider when thinking about issues of this sort. Data and research regarding health consequences of second-hand smoke seem fairly confident that it does do harm to people (ie. for every eight smokers who die from smoking, one non-smoker dies also). The question then is how much, and from what types of exposure is the harm done.

Earlier this year, The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act went into effect, passing in Congress and being signed into law under the Obama administration. In short, it gives the FDA power over regulating tobacco products. On the local level, a total smoking ban has been proposed here at Purdue. The rationale behind this is that second hand smoke is dangerous and the current “30 feet from university buildings” policy is too hard to enforce. One must ask where they’re getting the facts that say that second hand smoke is dangerous, and then why there can’t be designated smoking areas in lieu of current smoking rules. Moreover, if people can’t find a place to smoke within a reasonable distance of a building (as would be the case in a university-wide ban), they will be indirectly forced into a possible nicotine withdrawal. This condition, as defined by the Mayo Clinic, is characterized by, “physical and mood-related symptoms, such as strong cravings, anxiety, irritability, restlessness, difficulty concentrating, depressed mood, frustration or anger, increased hunger, insomnia, and constipation or diarrhea.” Surely the onset of some of these symptoms wouldn’t do students’ academic performance any justice, nor would it be beneficial for their overall sense of well-being. Of course, there would be an intermission between the passing of the proposal and it going into effect that could be used to begin tapering off of cigarettes, but the exact time needed to be a non-smoker varies from person to person. Thus, this period might not be sufficient in length. If the ban were to go into effect, one would hope that Purdue would at least offer nicotine withdrawal counseling services to mitigate withdrawal cases.

Let us assume the ban goes into effect, and people naturally break it. How would they be punished, and can they be fully blamed for their behavior? It is simply a weighing of the risk of punishment with the distress of nicotine withdrawal; if the withdrawal outweighs the risk of punishment, then people will be smoking nonetheless. If smokers take to the outskirts of campus to satisfy their cravings, then people that reside in those areas will be unfairly exposed to high levels of smokers. And if second-hand smoking is truly dangerous, then Purdue is essentially handing a death sentence to its West Lafayette neighbors. A perfect solution to this and to withdrawal symptoms in students would be the establishment of designated smoking areas (not lounges) on campus. Smokers are still allowed to smoke, and non-smokers are still given the option of a smoke-free environment.

A look at this issue from the view of values our country has embraced gives light to why it is important that we keep smoking bans out of the realm of possibility. When slavery was banned, some likely argued that not being permitted to enslave others was infringing upon their rights, and the slaves could just as easily counter-argue that. In such a case, it’s obvious whose rights are really being infringed upon. No one can rationally argue that someone has the right to enslave others; it is accepted by all good natured people that no one deserves enslavement. The clarity of this analysis as applied to a smoking ban blurs and becomes clouded with suggestions from science and the actions of Congress. Whose right is being infringed upon: the non-smokers’ rights to clearer air, or the smoker’s right to smoke? The answer, as opposed to that with slavery, is not so clear. Is a ban on smoking a gateway to other bans? Could we eventually see a ban on bright clothes because they hurt people’s eyes?

Smoking as a right is something that should be embraced by all, whether a smoker or non-smoker. It is a safeguard to the penetration of the government into increasingly subtle and questionably negative aspects of people’s lives. Once it has been banned, the floodgates of authority have been widened just a little bit more, and similar to weight, it is much easier to gain it than it is to lose it.