Pro\nDespite appearances to the contrary, the fledgling campus-wide ban on smoking, thanks to a Chancellor Sharon Brehm-fronted committee of students and staff to investigate its possibilities, is not a fluke. The ban's significance, which would keep smokers away from doorways, windows and ventilation systems, lies in the fact that law mirrors social policy. By banning smoking on campus, IU is not saying it will hunt down every smoker in our midst, but rather that as a University, we disapprove of smoking on campus and are willing to make our position legally binding.\nShould the University take such a stance, it would not be an anomaly. Smoking is forbidden in government buildings and on federal property such as military bases. IU sits on state property, which is also government property. Thus, it is reasonable to ban smoking on its premises. Furthermore, places like Los Angeles have already banned smoking in restaurants and other public places. Smoking has been banned on airlines and -- even closer to home -- Bloomington bars. Banning it on campus is simply a natural extension of progress being made across the country.\nIt is indicative of a new trend of health consciousness, as well as a heightened awareness of individual rights. Smoking in places where non-smokers may inhale the fumes infringes on their right to not have to deal with it. And as a number of people have experienced, asking a smoker to move away or stop smoking in your general vicinity is both uncomfortable and usually does not draw a positive reaction. It is simply easier for all concerned if a smoker is required to hold his or her jonesing for a brief walk.\nWe have already banned alcohol -- a legal substance -- on campus. It would not seem outlandish to ban cigarettes as well. The worst that will result will be a brief walk for the smoker and a cropping up of new T-shirts protesting the policy.\n-- Lize Kolar for Lizz Giordano, Joe Grace and Josh Sanburn for the Editorial Board.
Con\nThe idea of a ban on smoking outside of buildings seems trendy, at best. Following suit of a slew of indoor smoking bans in Monroe County, it seems that sending smokers away from doorways is more motivated by a desire to fit-in with new "progressive" legislators rather than an actual demand by students for the legislation.\nThe argument that second-hand smoke harms others is certainly taken to heart, as smokers already obey the laws that prevent them from lighting up inside public areas. However, prohibiting smokers from smoking outside seems to be a case of "give them a finger and they'll take your whole hand."\nOnce one sends smokers away from doorways, where ashtrays and can be conveniently positioned, smokers will simply begin to congregate at the point where their smoking rights begin again. This may result in walkways being cluttered with lounging smokers or grassy knolls with cigarette butts (lest one desires to place a limestone ash stump next to one of our gorgeous maple trees). \nFurthermore, there seems to be a psychic aspect of the problem being overlooked. One would assume that a ban on smoking would only further stress our tireless scholars who rely on a cigarette to take the edge off after a grueling lecture or test. The emotional backlash that could result might only be bested by a ban on one's morning coffee.\nJust as one might suggest a smoker take a moment to move away from the door, so too can be suggested for a non-smoker. Thus, such an argument becomes circular and un-helpful. So long as America upholds the legality of a substance that supposedly infringes on non-user rights, there will always be this gray area of disagreement where the rights of both parties are being asked to take a walk. \n-- JP Benitez for Vincent Carr, Alec Toombs, Mike Ley and Reid Silverman of the Editorial Board. \n-- Doug Auer abstained.
