Five months ago I wrote a column on the contradiction between UK’s proclamation as a tobacco free campus and the reality of frequent encounters with smoke clouds. Debate in the comments section on the justification for the ban ensued, and it got me thinking — what are the reasons for the tobacco free initiative?

Between the official UK Regulation for Tobacco Policy and the university’s Tobacco Free website, three reasons for the ban can be deduced. The first is to eliminate the harmful effects of secondhand smoke.  The second is to improve the health of students and employees by persuading tobacco users to quit.  Lastly, the ban is intended to reduce the risk of fires caused by tobacco use.

Together, these three reasons stand as justification for the tobacco free initiative, but is the university fair and just to act on these premises? I think any logical person can see that the university is oppressing its students by confusing persuasion with prohibition leading to the restriction of smokeless tobacco, which does no harm to others.

Keeping the air clean is very sensible, for there is no question about whether secondhand smoke is harmful, simply how harmful seems to be the debate. Although studies have failed to show a remarkable increase in cancer rates from environmental secondhand smoke exposure, marginal increase is still enough to justify this reason for the ban.

The push to get tobacco users to quit smoking seems like a noble goal. However, the ban seems to be more than persuasion. Persuasion, by definition, attempts to relate ideas and reasons in order to affect one’s actions; it does not involve outright prohibition.

As a result of this unjustified reasoning, smokeless tobacco is unfairly restricted. Smokeless tobacco, like chewing tobacco or snuff, does not have any secondhand effects, nor will it ever increase the risk of fires. Often the user knows the risks and harmful effects but chooses to use chewing tobacco anyway.

I cannot think of any possible justified reason for disallowing the use of smokeless tobacco, although some might argue the waste from chewing tobacco is unsightly. However, enacting this regulation is violating the individual’s freedom of choice over his or her own body.

Research into the risks of secondhand vapor for e-cigarettes may need to be done, but a ban on smoke-producing tobacco seems perfectly reasonable. As it is now, though, the university’s blanket ban of any tobacco products stands as unjust and oppressive.

[email protected]