San Diego State University’s Independent Student Newspaper Since 1913

The Daily Aztec

SDSU should ban the on-campus smoking ban

by Mike Heral

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.

Email This Story

San Diego State’s campus-wide smoking ban appears grounded in common sense. After all, the dangers of smoking are well known. [quote]Nonetheless, I’m repulsed by the concept of a ban, and what it portends. That is, in the U.S., bans tend to beget more bans.[/quote]

After almost two years on campus, I can’t recall spying anyone smoking a cigarette until—ironically enough—three weeks into the smoking ban. That isn’t to say smoking wasn’t happening on campus—I see discarded cigarette butts daily—but non-smokers aren’t continuously coughing on cancer clouds as implied by the ban. After all, if you can’t find someone smoking, you don’t have a valid reason to be concerned about secondhand smoke.

My observation is buttressed by two separate studies revealing a reduction in the number of smokers in the U.S. The first, a 2008 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey found that only 29 percent of young men and 21 percent of young women smoke. In the second, the American Journal of Public Health wrote in a 2007 study that the previous two decades witnessed  “unprecedented declines” in the number of U.S. smokers.

University officials, though, may quarrel that approximately one out of every three college-aged men is still too many, but the reduction in play suggests anti-smoking efforts are working without the need for a ban. Additionally, a ban based on a desire to eliminate a health risk—namely, cancer—makes it too easy to begin banning anything else similarly perceived.

By way of example, consider soda, of which Americans consume an average of 44 gallons per year. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg targeted soft drink consumption because soda’s high sugar content contributed to his city’s burgeoning obesity epidemic, and obesity is a factor for diabetes. In addition, soda contains a suspected carcinogen. Linking soda to both diabetes and cancer renders it a prime candidate for store-shelf elimination. However, logic dictates that all other food and beverages linked to obesity, diabetes and cancer must also be banned. This includes a beverage long considered a better alternative to soda, fruit juice. As Boston-based pediatrician Dr. David Ludwig told CBS News, “All of these beverages are the same. They are all 100 percent sugar.”

If we ban cigarettes, and we ban soda, fruit juice and anything else containing sugar, then that leaves us with water. But the problem with water is that we mostly consume it in plastic bottles. And plastic bottles don’t biodegrade. Approximately 38 million plastic water bottles choke U.S. landfills each year. That’s clearly a problem, and cities such as Encinitas have already taken action by selectively banning plastic items. Again, this seems to be a good candidate for a ban, right?

Not so fast. Banning plastic water bottles becomes problematic when one considers the amount of plastic still left in play. Toys, computers, pen casings and seemingly everything else these days are made out of plastic. Ban those and revert back to a time when products were made out of wood (sorry, trees), metal (sorry, tetanus), and glass (ever pick shards of glass out of your feet?). A better alternative already exists—recycling. If municipalities increase recycling penalties, more residents will comply, such as when states implemented seat belt enforcement during the 1980s.

Outside of smoking—which is an expensive habit due to ever-increasing taxation—people choose unhealthy products because it’s cheaper than buying health food. A bag of chips and a corn dog at the Aztec Market retails for less than a chef’s salad and cup of fruit. A family on food assistance can buy more at a supercenter catering to high-profit, low-cost junk food than they can at a health food grocer. College students are renowned for being on a budget; thus, it follows that junk food is their dietary staple. Banning unhealthy items without lowering the cost of health food won’t make college students and the working poor become healthy. It’ll only starve them.

[quote]A starving nation can’t be preferred to a cancer-ridden nation.[/quote] Either way, it’s a sick nation. The solutions are simple: increase the viability of health food alternatives by competitively pricing it against junk food, and increase both cancer prevention and nutritional education programs targeted at communities most likely to be over-consuming sugar-laden foods and nicotine-laced cigarettes. Accomplish those items, and the U.S. becomes a model for health instead of a nation with universities promoting suppression.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

1 Comment

One Response to “SDSU should ban the on-campus smoking ban”

  1. michaeljmcfadden on February 28th, 2014 10:22 am

    Mike Heral, excellent article! You left out a premier quote from Dr. Lustig that would add nicely to it though: the one where he said that sugary drinks/snacks represent “The Greatest Public Health Crisis In The History Of The World.” (Caps are mine obviously… but see the first 15 seconds of the video itself and you’ll see they’re deserved… and also see the agreement-nodding heads of the rest of the panelists. Evidently none of them ever heard of the Black Plague.)


    For many years I and other Free Choice advocates argued that the “tobacco control model” was going to spread to behavioural control social engineering in other aspects of life while the antismoking community steadfastly assured the media that it would never happen, that “tobacco is unique” and that authors like myself were just “scaremongering.”

    Of course that’s exactly what they said over in the UK just a few years before their universal smoking ban in pubs was mandated, as Clive Bates, director of anti-smoking group ASH, said: “This is a scaremongering story by a tobacco industry front group. ”No-one is seriously talking about a complete ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants.” ( )

    Once you let the “controller types” get away with anything that goes beyond the bounds of reason (total outdoor smoking bans and the refusal to allow ANY comfortable, safe, and heated/ventilated indoor environments for smokers) they’ll just come back for more. The “hippies” of the 1960s and ’70s fought very hard to gain freedom for student communities — but holding on to that freedom is just as important, and can be just as difficult, as gaining it in the first place.

    Don’t sacrifice your freedoms without a fight.

    Michael J. McFadden
    Author of “TobakkoNacht — The Antismoking Endgame”
    P.S. A few weeks ago, Deborah Arnott, Bates’ successor at ASH, sought to alleviate current “scaremongering” by saying, ”A ban in homes is not feasible or right” — Does that assurance relieve you for the future now?


Commenting on our site is a privilege. We want our readers to add their point of view to every story but ask that they keep their comments relevant to the topic at hand. We will remove comments and possibly ban users who do the following: (1) Use vulgar or racist language, (2) Threaten harm of any sort to staff, commenters or the subject of an article, and (3) Leave spam in their comment. If you have questions about these rules, please contact our Editor in Chief at:

If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a gravatar.