| Carnegie Mellon Today | Columns | > Campus Smoking Ban

No one would deny that one of the United States' greatest attributes is freedom for individuals. So, it's no surprise that whenever limitations are placed on those freedoms, no matter how well meaning, cries of Orwellian oppression are heard.

For those who smoke cigarettes, their freedom to do so has been under siege for several years. Public and private smoking bans are multiplying across the country. As for colleges and universities, 41 ban smoking, according to the Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights lobbyists (though none is are Carnegie Mellon peer institution).

Certainly, there are legitimate reasons for the bans. It's well documented that smoking cigarettes is unhealthy, and it's now clear that secondhand smoke is a concern, too. Just last year, a Surgeon General report noted, "The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke."

Carnegie Mellon has taken notice. Recently, a task force on campus health made headlines by proposing a campus-wide, indoor-outdoor smoking ban by 2010. Smoking already is prohibited in campus buildings and within 20 feet of building entrances and air-intake systems. Before the administration acts on the recommendation by the 25-member committee created by President Jared L. Cohon, it will seek input from the faculty senate and student government.

Would such a ban be fair? It depends on whom you ask. Smoking opponents believe that no one has the right to be a walking smokestack. Smokers counter that their habit is not illegal and that although secondhand smoke isn't healthy, neither are diesel truck emissions, but there isn't talk of banning trucks from campus.

On a broader level, does limiting smokers' rights establish a troubling precedent? Are bans on trans fats next? Perhaps a new prohibition on alcohol? What about censoring violent television programming? Where do the bans end? Although we are in the 21st century, is 1984 the future, or does saving lives supersede those concerns—with Carnegie Mellon leading the way?

Please express your thoughts on smoking, George Orwell, the right to breathe clean air, and where Carnegie Mellon should fit in. Contact cm-today@andrew.cmu.edu.

TalkBack
Leave a comment about the story


Comments are moderated and will be published at the moderator's discretion.

Comments

“Regarding the smoking ban (April issue): Prohibition did not work; the 'war on drugs' is not working; USSR's ban on religion did not work; and a total ban on smoking will not work either. That does not mean that regulation is not in order. So the ban on smoking in or near buildings is certainly appropriate for the protection of others, but a total ban is inappropriate, unenforceable (what are you going to do? Expel students seen smoking while on vacation 300 miles away or even in Point Park?). In fact, a total ban would be counterproductive since the public social pressure on those still smoking is far more effective a deterrent than an unenforceable total ban. The principal result of a total ban will be the illicit activities that have always been the inevitably result. ”
– Thomas P. Vogl ('69)

“my school, IUP has now enacted a smoking ban. prior to this, the smoking ban affected public restaurants and bars who sold over 40 percent of their profits in food. i had no problem with that aspect. i have a problem with the fact that the college deemed it neccessary to ban smoking on our campus. as of right now, im not sure what kind of world we are living in”
– JP Geletka