by Joe Buffaloe
Daily Lobo Columnist
UNM is not yet a smoke-free campus.
But the process of banning cigarettes is on its way, having already passed through the Staff Council with a vote of 464 to 303. It will likely be brought up at the next ASUNM meeting in August.
I have to admit, I never thought it would get this far. When I first heard of the proposed ban, I laughed it away. Surely nothing so repressive would be embraced by the intelligent, freedom-loving community of UNM. Besides, the anti-smoking Gestapo already owns California. Their loyal followers can just move there.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
But anti-smoking sentiment has apparently traversed the Great Basin with more ease than I predicted. It now seeks to make New Mexico another one of its clear-lunged minions, starting with our fair campus.
Anti-smoking advocates have a lot of good points. Smoking is a massive waste of money, and it kills people. Tobacco companies are the epitome of evil corporate giants, exploiting farmers and customers alike. The cost of smoking to our health care system is astronomical. And I concede that secondhand smoke is unpleasant.
Arguments for a campuswide smoking ban have included health risks, air pollution, unpleasant odors and setting a good example for children. These are all valid, but arguments against this ban have been underrepresented.
First, the health risks are minimal. Secondhand smoke only accumulates indoors, and there is no indoor smoking on campus. Second, an aversion to a particular odor is no basis for a law. If we can ban everything unpleasant to the senses, we should start with unregulated boom-box activity, then move on to placing weight limits on those wearing tube tops and low-rise jeans.
There are plenty of worse things on campus than cigarettes. Fast food causes obesity, heart attacks, diabetes, high blood pressure and hypertension. Many chains cook with peanut oil, which certain people are allergic to. So if we're going to ban cigarettes, let's ban fast food, too. We also allow certain automobiles to drive on campus, which emit toxic fumes with far more carcinogens than cigarettes. Let's ban them, too. I don't like bikes or skateboards, either. It's annoying looking out for these reckless contraptions every time I walk across campus. Get rid of them, I say.
More importantly, smokers like to smoke, and do so for a plethora of reasons many anti-smoking advocates fail to take into account. Everyone has a different way of dealing with stress, killing time between classes or trying to look cool. It's the choice of smokers, typically grown-ups who are capable of making decisions all by themselves, whether they want to partake in this unhealthy, addictive activity.
Banning things only makes the problem worse, anyway. Smokers tend to be more bitter and disgruntled than the average citizen. I doubt if making them even more bitter and disgruntled will help them quit. The same principle can be applied to the soaring rate of drug addiction in the United States, but that's a subject for another day.
Let's not forget the enforcement problem, either. With the number of smokers on campus, UNM does not have the capacity to stop them. I strongly doubt if the majority of smokers will heed this ban. Besides, it provides a great opportunity for that famous college pastime: protests. Our generation is burning for an injustice we can truly fight back against, and with protests against the World Trade Organization and the war in Iraq coming to nothing in recent years, I'm sure people will jump on this opportunity to take part in this soothing, tobacco-flavored version of civil disobedience.
As citizens of a society in which the majority rules, we must not forget minority rights. There has been a trend toward extremism in America in recent years: red state or blue state, patriot or terrorist, hawk or dove.
The smoker-nonsmoker battle at UNM reflects this growing extremism. Instead of a proposal in which both groups' rights are considered, the nonsmoking majority seeks to ram an absolutist decree down everyone's throats. Why has a compromise not been considered?
There could be designated smoking and nonsmoking areas outside. That way, nonsmokers could avoid certain areas if they need a clean-air fix. Both sides could live with this, and it would put a stop to the division created by the proposed ban.
