by Alyssa Wejebe
And that is true, to an extent: it is their choice—unfortunately, it is not just their health, if only due to the simple fact of second hand smoke.
The American Cancer Society specifies their dangers: it’s a “known human carcinogen”—a cancer causing agent, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (a branch of the World Health Organization) all agree. In the U.S. alone, it causes other breathing problems in non-smokers, such as reduced lung function, chest discomfort, mucus, coughing. According to the National Cancer Institute, there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
Now, nonsmokers could just leave—but that is simply the reverse of the same problem those who smoke claim to have, infringement on their free will and choice when they are confined to only certain areas. Smokers don’t want to be driven out by nonsmokers, but they feel the same—they don’t want to be forced to leave because of those who do, due to concern or annoyance about second hand smoke. The issue with free will with this policy is a lot more complicated than at first glance, not exclusive to one side—both practically want the same thing: the freedom to go wherever on campus and do what they want, whether it is to smoke or be free from it.
And for all the talk of ‘it’s my health, my choice to smoke,’ there’s another unavoidable scientific fact: the addictive qualities of cigarettes’ main ingredient, nicotine. How true is it to say it’s your choice to willingly take any addictive substance? At best, it’s a questionable claim, with the lingering question over how much body chemistry really betrays you.
Free will has been discussed in the aftermath of the new smoking policy, but it seems only one side has been vocal with that: those who smoke, arguing that it’s their health, their choice.