Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

New tobacco restrictions infringe on students’ rights: Let the boys chew

Published: Friday, September 7, 2012

Updated: Friday, September 7, 2012 15:09

 

The release of Rice University’s new tobacco policy last week caused much excitement around campus. To some, it serves as further relief from the evils of secondhand smoke. To others, it complements efforts to help people quit smoking. Will this policy have a positive impact on the health of the Rice community? Possibly, but I find the tobacco policy deeply troubling. 

As Rice students, we owe it to our community to resist any policies that infringe on the freedoms of an outspoken minority, irrespective of our personal views. What is true for you may not be true for me; wisdom that is so commonly recognized in the classroom seems lost in the real world and currently at Rice. 

Rice provides endless opportunity for one to express oneself. Rice’s activities fair reveals just a glimpse of the various clubs on campus that peacefully coexist. None may appear more bridled with conflict than the Rice Conservative Forum and the Young Democrats: Just watch them debate. But even they respect the other’s existence; neither wishes to regulate the other to death. 

One can swing dance in the McMurtry College Commons or salsa at Willy’s Pub, but most just get down in the overcrowded mess that is any public party. I do not know anyone who wants his or her mother to see the perversion that is Night of Decadence, but that does not stop us from enjoying it. And those that disagree with such blatant sexual drunkenness do not seek to destroy its existence. Instead, they play dodgeball at the Barbara and David Gibbs Recreation and Wellness Center or watch movies at Sid Richardson College. They choose for themselves what acts they wish to engage in and respect others’ right to decide otherwise. If you do not journey down to Wiess College in your underwear, I understand. If you make a walk of shame the morning after, I will not judge. I want everyone to make the most of their time here – whatever that involves. 

Which brings me back to the heart of my troubles: the apparent ignorance to the disservice this policy does to our fellow students. Because this enthusiasm to inconvenience tobacco users until they have no recourse but to quit is unjust and, worse, intolerant of a targeted minority. The “societal pressures” conveyed by these new regulations stir only fear in my mind – fear of the “greater good” trouncing the liberty every tobacco smoker and chewer is entitled to. 

I do not defend chewing tobacco or smoking. It is unhealthy, expensive and arguably stupid. I will never smoke a cigarette, but that is my decision to make, not yours. Just as those half-naked wizards grind on at Harry NODder or the 21+ kick back in the beer garden, if a fellow Rice student wishes to smoke a cigarette, I will dutifully yield that decision to him. My friends are not going to surrender their right to drink silently and neither should smokers quietly submit to any further rules that constrain their ability to smoke. I know I will not. 

I draw a sharp distinction between encouraging a friend to quit and institutionalizing unjust regulations. Between offering my personal support and exiling one to a tent to engage in an act he is entitled to, we as a community should strive for the former, not the latter. 

If non-smokers want students to quit smoking, they should reach out to smokers themselves. Do not strangle their freedom with oppressive new rules. Remember, we all participate in activities others oppose. I applaud the initial restraint of the administration in its policy, one which other universities would have been better served to display, but it is still a step down a not-so-slippery slope I would rather not travel. Be mindful next time such restrictive policies are adopted before you praise their wisdom. 

James Dargan is a Wiess College junior.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

8 comments

Anonymous
Mon Sep 10 2012 20:11
I feel like that is the major point - its adverse affect on the health of those of others. That's why I didn't mention chewing tobacco in my first post. I think chewing tobacco is gross, but I wouldn't really see a point in banning it on campus. Someone can chew tobacco next to me without harming me. Similarly, someone can drink a beer next to me without doing me any harm. Smoking around other people is akin to drinking and driving. You are putting the health of others at risk. That's why drinking and driving is illegal, and that's why smoking in public places should be illegal.
Anonymous
Mon Sep 10 2012 18:40
@Anonymous, Sat., Sep 8 -- I'm much more interested in discussing your comment: "A person who chooses to smoke in a public place, like the Rice University campus, is not making an individual decision that will only affect him or her. The smoker is making a conscious decision to adversely affect MY health and that of those around me," rather than anything else you wrote. It is the only argument you make with a philosophical base. Kudos.
Anonymous
Mon Sep 10 2012 01:07
First response = the best.
Anonymous
Mon Sep 10 2012 01:05
^^^^ That.
Anonymous
Sun Sep 9 2012 22:00
I wonder why we're being given a pass on the total ban, then?
Anonymous
Sun Sep 9 2012 14:49
University of Texas adopted stricter regulations and the entire campus is completely tobacco free. The requirement had to do with continuing to receive federal money for research, not an imposition of someone's views on a minority.
Anonymous
Sat Sep 8 2012 11:47
Smoking bans work! A recent paper by a group from the University of Toronto concludes that: "Implementation of a full smoking ban was associated with the largest decreases in secondhand smoke exposure while partial bans and changes in existing bans had inconsistent effects. In addition to decreasing exposure in public places as would be expected from legislation, bans may have additional benefits by decreasing rates of current smokers and decreasing exposures to secondhand smoke in private settings. [BMC Public Health, 2011]" The conclusion? Rice needs to go all the way and ban smoking entirely on its campus in order to protect its community members from disease-inducing secondhand smoke.
Anonymous
Sat Sep 8 2012 11:41
James Dargan writes an utterly silly, trite, and poorly thought out editorial that rehashes a tired argument: that smoking bans somehow infringe on personal liberty. He tosses away concerns about second hand smoke in a mere sentence. Yet these concerns are very real. The fact of the matter is, involuntary exposure of nonsmokers to tobacco smoke from the smoking of others is harmful. For example, Oberg, M., et al. showed in their 2011 Lancet paper that "exposure to secondhand smoke was responsible for more than 600,000 premature deaths worldwide in 2004". Why, you ask? Smoking increases the risk of dozens of types of cancers, of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, of asthma, of heart attack, and of stroke, not to mention its adverse effects on unborn babies and children. A person who chooses to smoke in a public place, like the Rice University campus, is not making an individual decision that will only affect him or her. The smoker is making a conscious decision to adversely affect MY health and that of those around me. That's the most incredible infringement of personal liberty that I can think of. Rice University is a private campus that accepts millions of dollars in federal money each year for biomedical research, including cancer research. The university is well within its legal and moral rights to restrict on-campus smoking. Studies of smoking bans across the globe have confirmed that they work. They discourage smoking and lead to a lower population-level prevalence of tobacco usage. They protect children and adults from second- and third-hand smoke exposure and lead to a cleaner environment. That's something we all can be thankful for.




log out