I am a non-smoker. I believe smoking is detrimental to one’s health, yet I believe President Lee Todd’s plan for a campus-wide smoking ban is asinine and discriminatory. I see no good reason for the ban, and I believe the initiative is not a movement to protect or advance the campus population but a subtle enforcement of morality.

Let us consider the possible purpose for such an initiative. I propose four different arguments that could be posed for a campus-wide smoking ban.

First, there is the myth that the ban will create a cleaner campus, ridding the premises of cigarette butts. For this argument to hold true one must assume that as a result of the ban, smokers will entirely discontinue their use of tobacco on UK grounds.

This is obviously a pipe-dream. In fact, a ban will only rid the campus of cigarette butt urns, so as to not create a mixed message, yielding a higher quantity of butts produced by people who are not willing nor have the time to walk off of campus for a cigarette.

Second, there is the idea that the ban will preserve the health of non-smokers. This argument might hold water if it were targeted toward the indoor areas of campus. However, non-smokers can easily stay away from smokers outdoors, and the carcinogens in the open air due to automobiles far outweigh those created by second hand smoke.

Third, there is the idea that the ban will promote cessation of smoking thereby improving the health of smokers. If you understand anything about addiction, you realize that an addict cannot be forced to quit. An addict must first make the choice to quit on his own accord for any progress to be made in kicking the habit.

Fourth, the reason for this ban is to impose moral judgment upon smokers and limit their choice to smoke. More and more, smokers have become social pariahs, viewed as participating in an ugly and dirty act by the majority of people in the United States. Though smoking may be terrible for one’s health, smokers are being treated as second-class citizens only for the sake of a one-sided doctrine and a near-sighted perceived beauty. If this initiative is allowed to pass, we will be taking choices away from people for no apparent reason. We could just as easily impose a dress code or a ban on chewing gum stating that these things are unsightly and undesirable. Alas, these choices are not considered as ugly by our society as smoking and are therefore non-issues.

Finally, if you believe this ban to be beneficial, please ask yourself: “why?” Is there a good reason for the ban, or is it an act of discrimination? Todd was quoted by the Kernel as saying: “This could enhance campus life and student life.” My question to Todd is, “What the hell does that mean?”

Nate Lannan

electrical and computer engineering junior