A ban on a legal habit, as unhealthy as it may be, is wrong.
The University of California system president, Mark Yudof, sent a letter on Jan. 9 to all UC chancellors calling them to make their campuses smoke-free by 2014. No smoking, chewing tobacco or "the use of unregulated nicotine products" will be allowed anywhere.
While this kumbaya plan of "let's just say no to smoking because it's unhealthy" thing is ideally a positive move, it's a blanketed solution with too many uncertainties. Even if the majority of people agreed with the ban, it would be unsuccessful because of its ambiguity.
The individual chancellors would make up their own campus policies, and that's about as many guidelines as Yudof gives. So the short of it is: there shouldn't be any smoking anywhere, the chancellors have to agree with that, they have to ban it on their campus, and somehow figure out a way to regulate it. Sound simple enough? There are many reasons this request is wrong (and won't work).
This decision forces a way of thinking onto students -- it's saying that smoking is wrong and they aren't going to be allowed to smoke. Aside from that, Yudof is making all chancellors agree with this opinion (and that's basically what it is).
Let's pretend this call to action has been followed by all campuses. If serious efforts were made to combat smokers, who would be in charge of -- or more realistically, who would pay for -- the resources needed to win the fight against those puffers?
It's very likely the campus police would not be used for this. More people would be needed as enforcers -- and more people means more people on the university's payroll.
That's an unnecessary expense. UC Merced, and every other UC campus, is already on a tight budget. Our campus doesn't need any fraction of its dollars to go anywhere else but to the bare necessities of, oh say, academic buildings, housing facilities, new faculty, and parking locations. The costs would highly outweigh the benefits of the nonsmoking system -- a system that's not right to impose in the first place.
Which brings us to the truth of the matter: we're all adults and there are already consequences of smoking that are widely known. No one "gets away" with the damage caused by smoking. It's a decision we're capable of making on our own.
Forcing people to either quit smoking or not come onto campus infringes on our rights as students and as citizens to have freedom of choice. While it may not be the healthiest choice, it's legal and ours to make.
Yudof said the ban was announced because of concerns about the environment, the health of each smoker and the health of those around the smoker exposed to secondhand smoke.
These aren't persuasive reasons because smoking is just one of many human practices around campuses that put themselves and the environment at risk.
Should we ban the sale and consumption of energy drinks because of the hazardous health effects? Will we have to ban joggers from our field area because they're creating track marks on the green? Should the campus bookstore stop selling the packaged food that contains lots of sodium because it's unhealthy? And what of the people smoking electronic cigarettes? They aren't creating any of the health hazards of actual tobacco, but is just looking the part of a smoking hoodlum enough to be an offense?
Though we are on their property, the University of California is overstepping its boundaries by deciding what's good for us and what isn't. This policy is making a moral decision in a public space. It may give license to ban other activities in the future based on what's "right" and what's "wrong."
Quitting smoking has to be a personal decision. This ban puts it in the hands of some conglomerate far far away.
It's not proper to deprive someone's right to choose to smoke if he wants. What's more, it puts us on a slippery slope. Do we want a nanny society?
The author is a senior in political science at the University of California at Merced.
E-Mail
Print
