Reading the smoke signals

Where do you draw the line between individual freedom and the protection of the larger community? When does the majority rule, and when is minority dissention tolerated? At what point does the intervention of authorities go from necessary to meddling?\nNo, we're not talking about politics in the age of the war on terror. This is something a lot closer to home: politics in the age of the war on smoking.\nAs noted in Monday's Indiana Daily Student, our sister-schools IUPUI and IU-East have enacted strict smoking bans on their campuses. For IUPUI, this means a ban on "the use or sale of any tobacco product -- including cigarettes, chewing tobacco, snuff and cigars -- on any IUPUI owned, operated or leased property or vehicle." For IU-East, "smoking will be prohibited everywhere on campus, including University vehicles and privately owned vehicles on campus." All this, of course, gives rise to the question: will we see a comparable, extended ban on tobacco at IU-Bloomington? \nCurrently, "smoking is prohibited within 30 feet of campus buildings ... (and) vehicles owned or leased by the University are ... smoke-free." Meanwhile, in the town of Bloomington, "smokers are not allowed to ignite, puff or palm tobacco inhalers of any kind in any bar, business, place of employment, private club, enclosed public place or restaurant" (IDS, January 7, 2005). \nTo those of us here manning the Jordan River lighthouse, the combined Bloomington town-and-gown rules seem reasonable. They protect students, faculty, staff, patrons, employees and others from being exposed to dangerous second-hand smoke in the course of going about their regular business. If a person wants to undertake the risk of smoking, they can. And non-smokers can make the same choice regarding venturing onto a smoker's private residental property.\nThe IUPUI and IU-East regulations, on the other hand, have gone beyond the remit of protecting the larger public -- into the realm of violating individual freedom and personal responsibility. For example, how exactly do non-smoked tobacco products threaten lives besides that of the user? Sure, no one wants people spitting chewing tobacco all over the place -- but isn't that already a crime called "littering" (which could be better pursued, but still...)? And how does the sale of tobacco infringe on the rights of non-tobacco users? And how does someone smoking in his or her car put the rest of us at risk?\nOfficials at IUPUI and IU-East say that the expansive nature of the ban is a symbol. They are not merely protecting non-smokers, they are trying to make an anti-smoking statement to the wider world. And somehow this statement will succeed where decades of well-known scientific results and public relations campaigns have failed? We think they're making another kind of statement: we're in authority, and we know how to live your life better than you do.