Campus smoking ban would launch petty crusade against bad habits
Published: Sunday, April 18, 2010
Updated: Sunday, April 18, 2010 21:04
 "Photo: N/A")
The possibility of a campus smoking ban has received recent attention. Ohio State President E. Gordon Gee expressed support for it during his quarterly visit with The Lantern two weeks ago. It was also an issue that separated the campaigns running in the USG election.
Gee said he would support and welcome a smoking ban to campus, though he admitted it is not his top priority. So it is unclear how close OSU is to becoming a tobacco-free campus. But regardless of the imminence, this initiative should be opposed and rejected.
Banning smoking on campus would be a radical solution to a manageable problem. Perhaps I have weak senses or just like the smell, but I do not find the problem to be that bad in the first place. I can understand how someone puffing on a cigarette just outside an open classroom window might be unpleasant. But to complain about someone smoking on a sidewalk and the agony suffered by surrounding non-smokers is an exaggeration.
It is reasonable to expect give-and-take from both sides, preferably in which the individual parties can referee themselves. Smokers should exhibit the courtesy of not smoking just outside doors and windows. Likewise, non-smokers must concede that people have the right to smoke.
Too often, individuals favor restrictions that burden "the other guy" until, some day, they find themselves in the regulatory crosshairs. Then they oppose the regulations, but it is often too late because there are no more "other guys" backing them up.
Imagine if the university banned chewing gum on campus because it wreaks havoc on the sidewalks. Gum-chewers would be outraged, but naturally they could argue that smoking is a much bigger problem and that the university should ban smoking before banning gum.
This would force the university to evaluate its priorities and, in all likelihood, gum would be saved. But if smoking on campus had already been banned, the gum-chewers would not have that argument at their disposal. Basically, students, to avoid further infringement, should try to keep the argument on the campus vs. smoking level.
Gee said "smoking is an irresponsible habit, and I would hope that anyone who does it would stop." No one is arguing that, but if our objective is eliminating bad habits, then why stop with cigarettes? Fast food, pop, speedy bikers, flip-flops and iPods can also be dangerous. Why don't we ban those things?
Proponents of the ban might argue that smoking is the most harmful habit among students. But if smoking was banned, what then becomes the most dangerous habit and, thus, the next target?
Smoking is often targeted because it is the easiest thing to pick on. Defending the act of smoking seems heinous and inhumane and it is difficult to oppose smoking bans completely without sounding like an advocate.
I am not a smoker and, therefore, am neither defending nor promoting the activity. I am simply supporting an individual's right to smoke, which is not something that should be taken away from students or faculty.
It is difficult to know how serious the possibility of this ban is, but it should be opposed every step of the way until it is defeated.
36 comments
Ahh Gene, you know I love it when my omniscience is recognized.... :>
Clearly I chose selections to illustrated my point that the SG Report isn't quite what it's generally portrayed as: a strongly universal and unequivocal condemnation of secondary smoke exposure as being the cause of almost everything except hangnails.
Of the points you posted however, let me take one of them aside for a bit of thought:
1) Evidence from peer-reviewed studies shows that smoke-free policies and regulations do not have an adverse economic impact on the hospitality industry.
Gene, how about we invite the readers to check out just what those "peer-reviewed" studies look like, and how and why they come up with the conclusions that they do? Rather than post the entire argument at length here, I'd like to suggest folks simply visit Jacob Grier's column at:
http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/2210.html
and read my several "AfterComments" there. You'll see how the figures were juggled to deliberately hide the devastation of the bar industry, and you'll see WHY they were juggled when you look at the promises made in the half-million-dollar grant proposal. You'll note how the "proper" research results were promised before the research was even done! Take a look at that, read the study itself too if you like, and then think about how much faith you want to put into advocacy studies even when they're "peer-reviewed." A lot of the studies out there that support smoking bans are not so easily reviewed for accuracy or for possible funding bias. But most of the flagship studies that they use to promote these bans to student councils and state legislatures that ARE open to more careful review seem to have severe problems: as examined clearly in the "high heels" booklet that Gene loves to deride.
Neal Hicks, you'll note the above writing speaks to your point as well.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
1. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke and female fertility or fecundability.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and spontaneous abortion.3. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and neonatal mortality.
4. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and preterm delivery.5. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and congenital malformations.6. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and cognitive functioning among children.7. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and behavioral problems among children.8. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and children’s height/growth.9. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between prenatal and postnatal exposure to secondhand smoke and childhood cancer.10. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and childhood cancer.11. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke during infancy and childhood cancer.12. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between prenatal and postnatal exposure to secondhand smoke and childhood leukemias.13. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between prenatal and postnatal exposure to secondhand smoke and childhood lymphomas.There are a good number more along those lines just in the Introduction, Summary, Conclusions section of the Report, but you won't be seeing them in the headlines or highlighted at Tobacco.org: they're just not the "right" kind of news I guess.- MJM
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
is a member of the 
