Monday, October 23 2006
by Rob Perkins
"Over the past several years, many cities and even some countries have instituted smoking bans in certain buildings and public areas. Why shouldn't Georgetown act in the best interest of its community and follow suit?" ("Bring Fresher Air to Hilltop,"
THE HOYA, Oct. 13, 2006, A2)
I read the words with trepidation and consternation. The fact is, we live in an unhealthy environment for smokers.
A small but concerted number of individuals and interest groups are fighting diligently to ensure that smokers are unable to enjoy that little (sometimes great) bit of pleasure that comes from puffing on tobacco. Similar to the Women's Christian Temperance Union of the early 20th century, these people cloak their statements in the language of health and safety. They feel that they know what is best for others, and they will fight to push that pseudo-knowledge on anyone foolish or rustic enough to disagree.
They have already won the first round. Smoking is commonly illegal inside of buildings, restaurants and even bars. Yes, bars those safe havens for debauchery and release that many enjoy at the end of a hard week of class or work. Tobacconists are among the last bastions for indoor smoking, and I assure you that they are in the crosshairs. The Hoya Editorial Board's proposal to eliminate smoking outside of building entrances, whence smokers may draw some vestige of warmth in the coming months, is but another offensive in the campaign to save us from ourselves.
The truth is, the anti-smoking movement is profoundly un-American. This country was founded on the principle that government ought not to interfere in people's lives more than absolutely necessary. That's what makes it better than most, or perhaps all other places in the world.
If you really have a problem with someone's smoking, then ask him politely not to do it around you. Getting the government (or university administration) to do your dirty work undermines the principles of the republic. It makes people more dependent on the state, rather than on themselves. And it's a slippery slope. Dictators don't come to power in a day; they bide their time and chip away at liberties. By the time people notice, the erosion is inevitably complete. Let's not make that mistake yet again.
Incumbent upon smokers is to realize that greater freedoms are at stake here than simply to enjoy the pleasing taste and aroma of burning tobacco. The two sides need to engage each other on a personal level, because people's stances on smoking are as varied as each individual. This is an issue for individuals, rather than big brother to settle.
When I was bowling one night over the summer, a woman asked me if I would mind putting out my cigar, because the dense smoke was bothering her children. Impressed by her frankness in asking herself, rather than finding an employee to ask me (which has happened on several occasions), I was happy to oblige. It really is that easy. Dialogue at the individual level is the key.
The question of smoking is merely part of a larger issue of personal responsibility. I accept that smoking cigars is bad for my physical health. For me, the benefits to my mental health and general well-being, as well as the chance to converse with others and have a good time, far outweigh the risks. Don't try to absolve people of personal responsibility by regulating away these kinds of choices. There has to be some give and take on this issue. If you're going to exile us from the building, then at least don't begrudge us the doorway. µ
Rob Perkins is a junior in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.
This article originally appeared on October 20, 2006 in The Hoya online.
Reprinted by permission.
