Among the many arguments that Cara Newlon '14.5 makes in her plea for Brown to "ban smoking altogether," she seems to focus on two in particular.
First, she writes that such a ban would "protect" the "rights of non-smokers (namely) their rights to clean air and good health." But, does a right to free speech mean a right to speak anywhere and everywhere? Does a right to clean air mean that every swath of air must be unsullied? And, due to the fact that standing or walking two feet away from a smoker gives one access to clean normal air, and that the average Brown student must only pass by smokers, at most, for a few seconds a day, it does not logically follow to contend that non-smokers' right to good health is being violated at this university.
In addition, she holds that a campus-wide smoking ban would "prevent future smokers from becoming addicted." I understand this goal, but using a prohibition against smoking to achieve it would necessitate a level of intrusiveness currently unseen at Brown. If the ban were to hold any real power, Department of Public Safety officers would have to prowl the entranceways and quads of the campus, scrutinizing each group of students for wafts of cigarette smoke.
Is this the kind of campus we want to live on? Through everything from the University's open curriculum to the administration's laissez-faire attitude toward other unhealthy student behaviors, Brown is dedicated to the importance and the power of individual free will. The rewards are great and the consequences are tough, but we Brown students can do what we wish. To some, many of whom don't even apply here, this focus on freedom seems dangerous and undesirable. To others, it is beautiful and empowering. But, regardless of how anyone feels about it, this focus is what makes Brown unique. If we choose to enact a campus-wide smoking ban, a ban that endeavors to dictate the lives of individual students, we're going to have to forget that focus. And, is that really worth a little bit of cigarette smoke?
