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.