Submission: UCLA tobacco ban undermines personal liberty
The last few months have seen important victories for personal liberty in America. Marijuana is now semi-legal in Colorado and Washington, a ban on large soft drinks was struck down in New York, and support for gay marriage is rising across the country.
That’s why it’s sad to see UCLA reversing the trend of increasing freedom by banning tobacco products from campus.
The ban, which goes into effect on the 22nd of this month, is not chiefly about reducing secondhand smoke. That is hardly a problem on a 419-acre campus where smoking is prohibited within 25 feet of most doors and windows.
Neither would concern about secondhand smoke justify banning oral tobacco, e-cigarettes or hookahs. What this ban really represents is an exercise in paternalism. It is about the UC administration forcing us to behave in a way that it deems better for us, a privilege that used to be reserved for parents and nannies.
The administration makes no apology for this restriction of personal liberty. Linda Sarna, chair of the Tobacco-Free Steering Committee, argued in a submission to the Daily Bruin that “this is not about ‘individual choice,’ as some have suggested. Millions of people become addicted because of campaign efforts by the tobacco industry, not through individual decisions.”
I’m not sure how advertising campaigns nullify individual choice. If they did, my apartment would be knee-deep in Snuggies, ShamWows and Shake Weights. On the other hand, it is true that the addictive properties of nicotine can make it difficult for many smokers to quit. But in that case, the obvious solution is to provide support for those interested in quitting – not to take away everyone’s freedom to smoke.
It is in fact quite ironic to accuse tobacco companies of undermining individual choice and then to impose a ban that removes all choice whatsoever. Unfortunately, the irony is lost on the administration. When he first announced the ban, Chancellor Gene Block said that it “was a particularly easy choice for you because I didn’t give you a choice, I made the choice, because I decided that was something we absolutely had to do.”
There’s no credible justification for Block, Sarna or anyone else in the UC system to make such paternalistic decisions for us.
Tobacco is legal in the United States and UCLA is a public institution, so why should it be prohibited here? The ban implies that Bruins are less capable than the average person of making informed choices about how to lead their lives. Frankly, that’s insulting.
The ban on tobacco will open the door for more restrictions on our personal lives.
In a letter to the campus community, Block wrote that “becoming tobacco-free is integral to our ultimate goal of becoming the healthiest college campus in the country.” The administration obviously does not regard our liberty as an obstacle to that goal.
At a time when much of the country is moving forward in the direction of personal liberty, banning tobacco at UCLA is a disappointing step backward.
Rohlfs is a third-year political science student and member of Young Americans for Liberty at UCLA.
