OUDaily.com | COLUMN: Voters neglected right of smokers to choose

Welcome Guest Register or Login

COLUMN: Voters neglected right of smokers to choose

by Joshua Wadlin | April 21, 2009 | 9 comments

In this month’s UOSA elections, students voted to ban smoking campus-wide. In a referendum vote, 1,221 students voted for the ban, while 710 voted for a partial ban, and 555 wanted no further restrictions.

I feel that the health risks associated with secondhand smoke, especially when only encountered in passing, fail to warrant a ban. The ban, if enforced, would be unjust policing of personal prejudices, predicated on a flimsy moral hubris.

Like other nonsmokers I’m a little perturbed when the person walking in front of me on the South Oval is holding a cigarette at their waist, allowing smoke to waft into my face. Though I find the smell quite unpleasant, my solution to this predicament isn’t to vote away the right of the smoker. I simply step about six feet to the side, eliminating any unpleasantness instantly.

The recent referendum belies a larger political mindset that I find troubling. This mindset says that “anything with which I do not agree should not be allowed.” It’s the same philosophy that begets moral legislation that exists solely to limit behavior—not to protect rights.

Okay, so maybe this instance is different. Our health is at risk here. Cigarettes release nasty carcinogens and toxic chemicals like formaldehyde, arsenic and cyanide. Numerous studies attest to the potentially harmful effects of secondhand smoke, with such fear-inducing warnings as “there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.” It may seem logical to push smoking into the nether regions where no one will have to suffer its ill effects. Based on all of this evidence, shouldn’t we avoid inhalation of these toxic fumes for even a moment?

If I may, I would like to humbly claim, without citing any of the Surgeon General’s reports, that the one second’s worth of cigarette smoke that you and I inhaled as we walked by a smoker will have negligible effect on our health.

We are exposed to harmful agents every moment of our lives. Our bodies are constantly bombarded by carcinogenic particles in the air we breathe (whether smokers are around or not), in the water we drink and in the food we eat, just to name a few examples. Even the sun is, at this very moment, beaming carcinogens into our bodies. Cigarette smoke—something I can avoid easily—is so miniscule in the context of all of these threats that it becomes irrelevant.

Not only do I think the fear of secondhand smoke is grossly exaggerated, I think it is the impetus for legitimizing the discrimination against smokers.

To me, smoking is gross, smelly and sometimes inconsiderate, but it is a personal decision outside anyone’s jurisdiction but the decision maker’s. And unlike so many of the students who voted, I believe protecting smokers’ right to enjoy their cigarettes is a valuable thing, despite my own prejudices.

Dealing with secondhand smoke in a confined space can be a real challenge, but fortunately we’re not dealing with that issue. The campus is an open environment, allowing nonsmokers to easily avoid exposure. Smokers and nonsmokers can coexist peacefully, granted they respect each others’ space.

That’s the key here: nonsmokers must respect others’ choice to engage in leisure activities that they may find unsavory. While nonsmokers see no value in the act, often perceiving it as an affront to their personal well being, smokers use cigarettes to unwind and socialize—a choice that has just as much legitimacy as any other decision, granted they’re not blowing smoke in someone’s face.

Luckily the referendum doesn’t have any legal power. It’s merely a way to judge the student body’s opinion on the ballot issues. The regents have the real power to make policy changes, and hopefully they will decide to respect the smokers’ ability to choose, even though the plurality of voters did not.

More like this story

Comments

The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register

mfhayes 3 years, 1 month ago

I completely agree. We shouldn't start banning things just because we don't like them or because they COULD potentially be harmful.

sjohnson 3 years, 1 month ago

I agree that a campus wide ban is probably a bit of an overreaction, but had smokers obeyed the 25ft rule near buildings maybe it wouldn't even be an issue. Although I'm sure some did follow the rule, many didn't and if they can't obey a simple rule like that then maybe there should be a campus ban.

mburris 3 years, 1 month ago

Day late and a dollar short.

The Daily wins again!

OUSooners 3 years, 1 month ago

I always tell people that America is a land where we tolerate people who have differences that we don't necessarily approve of or enjoy. It's slowly turning into, "Let's ban it because I don't like it." It's a dangerous road. Good article.

jfreezy 3 years, 1 month ago

It's too bad this happened. Although I quit smoking and don't go on campus much anymore, I'm still disappointed. There was a historian who wrote about America's puritan tendencies, the mindset of "Not only am I right, but you must be wrong." Our idea that not only is our idea the best, or most worthy, but that any viewpoint other than our own must be evil or wrong. Nodody just says "F- it" anymore. If someones smoking it's not "Whatever, jerk" it's "They're smoking! We have to ban it!" Also, when it comes to matters of individual liberties, a referendum is a poor guarantor thereof. Individual liberties should rest with the court and constitutions, not the ever changing will of the masses. The people should not be allowed to arbitrarily vote to add or remove rights to or from a certain group of people. That being said, as a former student congressman, I'm sure the process went something like this 1. dweeby congressperson wants to strengthen his/her resume or add to their prestige to prepare for a future political run or grad school entrance. 2. congressperson introduces the bill in the congress and cannot get it passed. After intense debate over the issue, the congressperson knows it will not pass, but uses his/her serpentine network to get it passed another way. 3. He/she knows it will pass if they can only get a referendum, and so they do end of story.

I doubt the parties responsible ever thought if they were doing the right thing, but I'm sure opportunity rearing its head brought someone to think "Hey, I could be the person to lead the smoking ban. I'm going to do it, who cares if it's a good idea or not."

DrFuego 3 years, 1 month ago

Fortunately, the smokers' rights aren't actually being removed. See, the referendum is not saying "smokers should never be allowed to smoke." A more accurate interpretation would be to say that "smokers should leave the Norman campus to smoke." This is not exactly oppressive.

If the referendum translates into a campus-wide policy, smokers will only need to cross Lindsey Street or stroll over to Campus Corner to light up. Smokers living on campus won't even experience a change, since the referendum's author never intended to ban it south of Lindsey Street.

PS--although I like the analogy, the sun is not "beaming carcinogens into our bodies." A carcinogen is a chemical substance; sunlight is radiation. The cells in our bodies have natural (albeit limited) mechanisms to fight sun damage, so it's really not a fair comparison to secondhand smoke.