The Observer, February 2, 2007
Volume XXXIX, Issue 15
Free Speech Zone: Smoking resolution won't prevent harm
As you know well by now, USG Resolution A (aka the Campus-wide Smoking Ban) was voted for by a slim majority of the student body. While it is important to keep in mind that the administration can still do whatever it damn well pleases, the sheer number of students who participated in the vote should give an indication that students care enough about this issue to vote in greater numbers than they did for the USG officer elections.
This is likely due to the fact that this issue offers a very local and concrete example of the often conflictive relationship between individual freedoms and perceived public good. I use the word "perceived" here very deliberately, because I feel that the logical assumptions behind the resolution which 50.68 percent of us voted for can be justifiably criticized.
To begin with, all three resolutions which were voted upon were undeniably influenced by a recent publication by the Surgeon General, entitled The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke, which quite explicitly condemns even marginal consumption of second-hand smoke.
However, the Surgeon General also notes that both the number of individuals who smoke and the exposure of non-smokers to second-hand smoke have declined precipitously in recent decades. This is undoubtedly due in part to the effectiveness of policies which prohibit smoking indoors at work or in other public settings; restrictions which are now law in Ohio. Therefore, the absolute necessity of such a restrictive resolution is questionable (the only other Ohio campus with a complete ban is the Circleville Bible College).
The Surgeon General, USG, and at least half of you believed the perfectly valid attribution of second-hand smoke contributing to a "harmful environment." But my question is, why are we singling out second-hand smoke? Junk food, alcohol consumption, and a scholarly (sedentary) lifestyle are "bad for you" too, but you'll find no campus prohibitions (in practical, not ideal terms) here. In fact, the elements of such a "harmful environment" seem to be the very defining features of collegiate life for most of us.
College is a time to think freely, act freely, and associate with people who ascribe to a different lifestyle than you do. Leave smokers alone; after college, you won't have to "deal" with them ever again.
The Surgeon General clearly states that "there is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure." Well, the same holds true of just about anything. Is there a completely risk-free level of travel? How about eating? Even walking? There is no absolutely risk-free lifestyle! It's impossible! Stop falling prey to your neurotic impulses; if cancer doesn't get you, then a heart attack, a freak accident, or just plain old age will. And just as the consumption of second-hand smoke "isn't your fault," neither are high healthcare costs, pesticides, industrial waste, global warming, incompetent national leadership, or hypertension caused from years of underpaid overtime.
There's a sense that somehow smokers "deserve" to be forced to walk half a mile or more several times a day just to have a cigarette. "Maybe it will give them incentive to quit," you say. Well the problem I have with this argument, which is the basis of the narrow passage of Resolution A, is that if one extrapolates and elaborates upon its underlying logic, he or she would have to completely disassociate from any kind of social situation involving cigarette smoke, even avoiding someone on the street who is trying to get in a cigarette before their fingers go gangrenous from the cold.
You can close yourself up in a sterile, smoke-free bubble, but there's no guarantee you won't get cancer, folks. Sad to say, there's much more harmful stuff floating around in the air than the occasional dispersed puff from a distant cigarette. Besides, there are worse things in this world than second-hand smoke – genocide, mass starvation, and self-righteousness among them.
Pieragastini is a senior History and International Studies major involved with Catalyst: Students for Social Justice, Case-ACLU, and the Philosophy Society.
