Smoking on Campus: Healthy? I Think Not

Each day around 2pm, my friend Emily and I escape Sturm Hall at ease because we have survived one more day of Spanish class. The sun shines; it is another delightfully warm February day (you have to love global warming). As we skip down the second set of stairs, a harsh, ashy scent permeates the air. We continue down the path while a student 10 feet ahead interrupts our conversation with another wave of smoke. This is not smoke you can avoid, but smoke obscuring your vision like a morning fog on the way to work. The only difference: this fog lasts all day long.

When I first came to University of Denver, I was amazed by the amount of smokers on campus. My high school was a smoke-free campus so the smoky haze outside of every building was a bit new to me. Now, I have grown uncomfortably accustomed to the smog. Still, I wonder, how is this secondhand smoke affecting non-smokers on campus?

Unless you never read the newspaper or watch TV or connect with any media output, you must be aware of the numerous health issues associated with smoking tobacco products. Most campus residents saw and read 2009’s first TP Times edition, so we recognize that smoking kills. If not, track down the political cartoon depicting multiple clouds of smoke in the shape of guns pointing at an innocent man sitting on a park bench. Or, better yet, look for one of the posters with a dog stating, “I eat poop, but my habit doesn’t cause cancer.”

Scientists have proven that cigarette ingredients cause cancer. Have you ever researched what a cigarette is made of? Let me give you a hint: cancer. Cigarettes contain over 4,000 chemicals; 43 of which are known to be carcinogens. Some of these cancer causing chemicals include nicotine, tar, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, and arsenic. So when you walk through a cloud of smoke remember you are inhaling tar (like the roads you drive on while on your way to Breckenridge). Then, is formaldehyde not the gross smelling chemical used to preserve dead bodies? You are correct! As you smoke or inhale secondhand smoke, are you preserving your living body? I think not.

According to the American Cancer Society, 440,000 people die in the US due to tobacco use. The American Cancer Society states, “Cigarettes kill more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide and illegal drugs combined.” Do we really want the University of Denver to be a campus which promotes death? While not all students will get cancer, there is still a higher chance of students getting smoking-related illnesses when we allow smoking on campus. Nonsmoker lungs do not request smoke-polluted air to breath, yet they are left without a choice. The Health and Counseling Center currently promotes a campaign to respect our bodies. Why do we not respect our bodies daily by eliminating the threat of cancer causing smoke?

Even if you ignore the threat of cancer, there are many possible short-term effects due to secondhand smoke. Brief exposure to cigarette smoke can exacerbate asthma, allergies and bronchitis while also possibly causing eye irritation, headaches and nausea. Imagine a tour walking across the sunny, green campus of DU when a student walks by exhaling smoke. Suddenly, one prospective student starts wheezing and gasping for air as he begins to have an asthma attack. While this may be extreme, do we really want campus visitors to associate DU with smoke? It is not too much to ask smokers to step off campus. In a CNN article, one smoker from Gainesville State College, a smoke-free college campus, stated, “Even as a smoker, I don't like to walk past a cloud of smoke.” Now, without any complaints, he walks to a parking lot off campus in order to smoke.

If other universities have passed legislation for a smoke-free campus, then the University of Denver should join this progressive initiative. DU’s Health and Counseling Center cited a statistic from the Department of Health and Human Services stating, “50,000 non-smokers die each year due to involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke in the U.S. alone.” The University of Denver does not want any current or future students included in those statistics one day. So why not support a campaign which just wants to help prevent health concerns of University of Denver students? Sign in support of a tobacco-free campus and promote a university initiative for health.

 

Feasibility of the DU Tobacco Ban

Wouldn’t it be wonderful for non-smokers to walk across a campus without that dreaded daily haze of smoke? Oh freedom of choice, you are such a blessing. The proponents of the new tobacco ban for the University of Denver would have you believe the best way to manage this problem is to honor the non-smoker’s choice over the smoker’s choices. Ignoring the moral qualms I might have with taking away the right to choose under any circumstances, how is the smoking ban the ultimate solution? There are neglected nuances to the feasibility of the ban, such as enforcement and the extended implications.

You probably think since I am arguing against, I am a smoker. However, I am surprisingly not driven to fight the ban due to a crazed nicotine addiction. A cigarette has never touched my lips and if you need to know, I am very against smoking. Yet, such convictions will not influence me to support this ban blindly. I would love it if I never unavoidably inhaled any more secondhand smoke, but this desire does not override my opinion that the tobacco ban is not the answer.

The DU Health and Counseling Center says, “high compliance is the key to a successful tobacco-free policy”. Let us assume nicotine addicts will not be eager to “comply” with the ban, what is next? The Resident Assistants might be expected to shoulder some of the burden of enforcing the smoking ban. People smoke cigarettes (and even other substances) in their rooms already, a practice which is expressly forbidden. For the most part people will try to find ways around rules. RAs work hard and will have to work harder with the proposed ban since more residents will try to smoke in their rooms.

Most smoking occurs outside so it is there where most of the infractions would occur. RAs cannot operate outside the buildings, so campus security must be called for these infractions. Wouldn’t requiring security to come running whenever someone lights up take him or her away from more important work? In my mind, it follows the reasoning of why one should not call 911 if it is not an emergency; you take up a time and a line that could be needed to report a trueemergency. Yes, second-hand smoking contributes to cancer, but will it happen instantaneously as one walks past? That probably is not the case, so there is no a pressing need for action. The course of action the Health and Counseling Center describes does not seem like a worthwhile approach for anyone involved. Campus security must abandon more important matters, and then merely pushes the violation into the bureaucratic shuffle of reports.

If the ban is instated, what will be the outcome? The most obvious answer is a supreme decrease, if not eradication, of smoking within campus borders, but how will this be accomplished? Smokers will have to find a place off campus to inhale their beloved fumes. While requiring smokers to find a new location to execute the cigarette habit is not completely unreasonable, have ban supporters thought of where the smokers will have to go in order to have a cigarette? It would most likely be the surrounding residential areas. Is it fair to thrust our smoking problems upon innocent bystanders? These neighborhoods would deal with an increase in second hand smoke flowing through windows and littered cigarette butts surrounding homes. It is unfair to foist issues on them simply because we do not want to deal with them ourselves.

If this outsourcing of smoking locations is not viable, then the local smokers will be forced to quit overnight. Kicking a nicotine habit is not easy; some people never manage it in their lifetimes. Not only is it tricky, it can be miserable. Is it fair to compulsorily inflict a painful process on students? This result of the ban would force them through an unpleasant process, to say the least. Would you like to battle an addiction while studying for class or dealing with finals? One in support of the ban will surely argue it is for the good of the smoker, better for their health; but it is their choice whether or not they wish to honor what is healthy, just as the supporters of the ban choose to abstain. It would be better to find a way to honor everyone’s choice. No one wants to have to inhale cigarette smoke, but no one wants to be forced to quit the habit either.

Taking everything into consideration, the tobacco ban cannot pass this time around. While I would greatly enjoy the privilege of avoiding a cloud of cigarette smoke on my way to class, this specific ban is just not the way to accomplish this. It is not feasible in terms of enforcement and results. The best course of action is to search for a more suitable alternative.

Ban Smoking, Ban Freedom

All over the country there are laws prohibiting people from not picking up after their dogs on streets and other high traffic areas. Now imagine that there is a group of people who have made sure that the dog must be in certain areas to do its business and that the owner is fined for not picking up after the dog. Now this group has decided that is not good enough. They propose to ban dogs from pooping altogether because they see the doggie doo on occasion. They could create legislation that would enforce the laws already in place or they could change the rules. However, they are going to the extreme, trying to ban the entire thing. A huge controversy, paralleling this hypothetical, has arrived on the DU campus this year.

AUSA senate has decided that everyone on campus would benefit from a smoking ban. I am here to represent the large group of people that says “nay” to this proposal. Since I am a member of this campus, and know the different opinions, I can say with authority that creating a smoking ban would not solve any problems; in fact, it would give rise to other issues. The most pressing of course, is that the ban would significantly reduce freedom of choice here on campus. As legal adults, we have the right to choose what we do with our bodies. We can eat fifty hot dogs, get a tattoo, or run 26 miles in a day. Smoking outside is no different. As Americans, we are born with this identity of freedom of choice- it defines us, makes us who we are. This does not change when we walk inside the boarders of the DU campus. If you want something different go to North Korea. Do not lose sight of your community because you disagree with the decisions of others.

The strongest argument for the smoking ban is the “public health issue.” Non-smokers do not want smoking to occur in a place where the second hand smoke can harm others. Restrictions have been imposed which limit where people are allowed to smoke. These precautions keep people who do not wish to die of lung cancer safe because the smokers must remain outside, where that deadly carcinogen simply floats away. Doing anything further is freedom infringement.

Who are we to say that those people are not allowed to smoke? This country is based on an individual’s freedom of choice, regardless if the decisions are illogical. This little phrase might sound a bit familiar to you, if you do not reside under a rock, that is: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The people of this country, based on our longstanding principles and values, such as this excerpt from our Declaration of Independence, do not have the right to tell others what to do as long as the actions are not harmful. This is why smokers are forced outside. I would rather not breathe in a giant cloud of cancer when I go into a restaurant, but, outside in the open air, twenty-five long feet away from the buildings, they only harm themselves.

Even though it is the popularized reasoning, it is my deep regret to announce that the major motivations for this ban have nothing to do with safety or “public health.” On the contrary, many groups on campus are annoyed by smokers because they cannot stand the smell or because it affects DU image, or any number of asinine issues. Using the false pretense that it is for the “public health” is ludicrous. In this country we do not ban things because they do not appeal to us. That is why we had that whole revolution in the late eighteenth century in the first place- we were sick of King George keeping us from our right to liberty.

Do not let this issue ruin the lives of fellow students and staff members. Already they deal with massive amounts of restrictions and rules in order to protect the health of non-smokers. Make a wise decision that will benefit the entire campus and save personal freedom. We can find changes for the rules, or set aside specific areas that smokers can congregate at. We do not need to go to the extreme and force people to quit smoking cold turkey in order to appease a small group of picky, whiny people who do not care about the core identity of this country: personal freedom.