Comments (3)

It appears to me that the more comprehensive ban on smoking would be the only just way to reconcile the rights of all students. I do not think restricting smoking to designated areas would be overly restrictive of the right of people to smoke, and it would virtually eliminate the problem of secondhand smoke. Smoke can still drift to rooms and dorm entrances from distances further than 25 feet, not to mention the potential for affecting people who are just out on the quad. To call UNC’s policy “draconian” is a gross exaggeration. Yes, their rule mostly limits smoking to the flag pole on UNC’s main quad, but so what? If you really need to smoke, the middle of the quad is the best location to do so when taking the rights of all students into account. You admit that the habit of smoking “has negative consequences for public health in general,” and this will certainly still be true with a 25 feet rule. I think the university should use the example of most amusement parks that have several designated areas throughout the park. Both a university and an amusement park are outdoor public places where the act of smoking can negatively affect a large number of people. A right should only be extended so far as it does not infringe on the rights of others, and I know for a fact that secondhand smoke can be inhaled from more than 25 feet away if there is a breeze.

I also disagree with your claim that a strict ban is logistically unenforceable. There are plenty of security guards and campus police officers patrolling the campus that can effectively enforce a ban, and it would actually be easier to enforce a more sweeping ban because smoking outside of designated areas is much more obvious; with the 25 feet rule, there is a gray area that could hinder adequate enforcement. I think banning smoking in residential areas is the only way to balance the rights of all students, especially since the smoking population at Duke is a minority of students.

Erik Chamberlin