New Smoking Ban Goes Too Far

University of Minnesota - Duluth Chancellor Kathryn Martin is inviting violators of the new campus-wide smoking ban to sit down and have a conversation with her – literally. In summer interviews with the Duluth News Tribune and the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Martin extended the invitation in response to questions about the enforceability of the new smoking ban, which prohibits smoking anywhere on campus – including outside.

Lacking any apparent statutory power to enforce an outdoor ban – or ticket its violators – it seems fitting to suggest that Chancellor Martin’s “invitation” is indicative of the problems that plague this ban from its enforcement to its very foundation.

While Martin describes her decision to extend UMD’s smoking ban to include the outdoors as a “no-brainer,” perhaps a deeper analysis of the intent behind the ban, the feasibility of enforcing it, and the various other ways in which the same cause can be advanced are in order.

The most vocal supporters of the ban expansion have been those concerned about the health of non-smokers. Groups and individuals worried about the health effects of second-hand smoke have a legitimate concern, but we must also remain concerned about protecting civil liberties.

The primary intent of any smoking ban needs to be protecting the health of non-smokers. Everyone knows that smoking and second-hand smoke can be deadly. However, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of non-smokers to be free of second-hand smoke, smoking must continue to be allowed as a personal choice as long as it is legal.

Prior to expanding the ban, the policy prohibited smoking within 25 feet of any door, window, or ventilation vent. Since it seems improbable to assume that a properly enforced 25-foot rule can still be cause for serious health concern, there is simply not a legitimate reason for extending the ban to include all outdoor areas.

While other reasons for expanding the ban may be well-intended – such as a concern for the health of the smoker – they must be recognized as what they are, the allowance of a paternalistic community and the infringement of personal rights and liberties.

Chancellor Martin must think about repealing the ban. This is an adult and academic institution where, rather than patronizing conversation “invitations,” we need well-thought policy and proper enforcement of current ones.