Over the summer, the SUNY Chancellor’s Task Force for a Tobacco-Free SUNY endorsed a system-wide smoking ban, which would affect all 64 SUNY schools, including Binghamton University. Whether or not this decision is well-intentioned and despite its wide acceptance in public health policy, this is the wrong solution to the right problem.
We should call tobacco-free what it really is: a tobacco mandate.
The task force is certainly correct in taking responsibility for the short and long-term health of students and employees, leading the state and country by limiting preventable disease and raising tobacco awareness.
No one should be exposed to second-hand smoke against their wishes, but we must also find a careful, non-intrusive balance that preserves the liberty of adults while encouraging and shaping better lifestyle choices. “Freedom from Smoking” is valid, but not when it comes at the expense of one’s freedom to smoke where it does not infringe on the community at large.
Let’s not forget that smokers are people too. People generally dislike being told what to do, especially when it comes to their bodies. The prohibitionist model — no matter its size or scope — is a historic failure for many reasons, one being the difficulty of enforcing policies that are resented by the very people who are meant to be helped.
Needless to say, no one enjoys the “pain, suffering and economic loss” associated with continued tobacco use, but quitting isn’t as simple as forcing someone to quit. There is a fundamental miscalculation inherent to tobacco-free policies: behavior is dictated, not modified, by punitive sanctions and controls. Positive reinforcement and other gradual approaches would be much more sympathetic.
If people want to smoke they will find other ways, hidden from view or not. What will change other than added resentment and disrespect among smokers towards the administration?
Studies may prove that tobacco-free reduces the aggregate presence of smoking, but the proposal is misleading as a measure of effectiveness.
If the University wants to make such a drastic overhaul, it should present the argument against comparable prevention models and offer students the chance to speak in forums or through student government representation.
Thankfully, the task force has made its priorities clear as educators first and enforcers second, meaning such information might become accessible with time and demonstrated interest.
Contrary to the SUNY Tobacco-Free Resolution, the “significant risk of fires in buildings, dormitories and other campus structures” is fairly limited by the existing policy forbidding smoking indoors and requiring smokers to stay a distance away from buildings. But even if this was not already sufficient, why couldn’t there be a compromise allowing designated smoking areas?
Make no mistake, what the task force calls an obligation to social responsibility is merely an opportunity to take the opposing extreme. These policies do little more than marginalize and inconvenience those who have formed advanced habits. Smokers have rights like any other faction, yet they are literally being banished to the outskirts of society.
Binghamton’s Media and Public Relations Department may not agree with its recent notoriety from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) as one of the nation’s worst schools for free speech issues, but the task force should be wary of such rankings. The last thing Binghamton needs is another accusation (perhaps on the grounds of discrimination) and bad sentiment amidst the student body.
If actions speak louder than words, the task force, campus health services and aligned student groups have certainly made their point clear. The spring 2014 semester may not be here just yet, but it’s sooner than you think.