Smoking is almost synonymous with the perception of New York City culture. Yet the City University of New York recently approved plans to implement a smoking ban on all 23 of its campuses, making it a part of a trend that has been gaining momentum across U.S. colleges and universities in the past few months.

And then there’s Los Angeles, where reusable totes, organic products, fitness and Priuses are all the rage, and the city’s reputation for being trendy has created what may be considered to be a progressive atmosphere. So is it culturally inevitable that the UCLA campus will follow suit and consider a smoking ban in the near future?

There are at least 466 campuses that have enacted 100 percent smoke-free policies, according to the American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation. The University of Michigan has implemented a Smoke-free Initiative that will go into effect in July, and Yale University is also currently considering enacting a campus-wide ban.

It’s not news that increasingly negative attitudes toward smoking are becoming the norm in sunny Los Angeles, a self-proclaimed progressive city.

More awareness about the well-known effects on public health and the environment have resulted in regulations limiting smoking areas on campus and in restaurants throughout the city.

With such regulations already in place, it is only logical for some that the next move for UCLA would be to consider enacting a smoking ban in the same way as other campuses across the nation.

Despite the trajectory that UCLA might be on in promoting a tobacco-free environment, a smoking ban is not the answer for any campus.

College should be an environment that fosters the ability to make personal decisions and resembles the real world where, like it or not, people do smoke.

Although the intention of a university-wide ban in helping smokers to potentially quit is admirable, forcing smokers to take their habit elsewhere is a less effective way of advocating a healthy lifestyle than an attempt to actually inform them about the effects of smoking and the benefits of cessation.

A ban would most likely just result in students taking tobacco use underground or disregarding the ban altogether. Not to mention that there are already restrictions on smoking indoors, in residential buildings, and within certain distances of eateries and campus buildings to rightly protect nonsmokers.

But, the presence of smokers directly outside of Powell Library on a daily basis is a testament that even current regulations are not capable of being enforced effectively. A ban would be virtually impossible to enforce and would be a waste of money and resources.

While I personally do not smoke and sympathize with those who would enjoy a smoke-free campus, I don’t believe that a university has the right to restrict a smoker from partaking in an act that is legal in a public place.

The promotion of a smoke-free community is progressive, but an outright ban is regressive. There are more productive ways of trying to establish a smoke-free campus that would not damage the importance of personal choice and individual freedom.

As an educational institution, it would make more sense for a university to increase the presence of cessation assistance programs on campus. Or why not establish a university goal for a smoke-free campus, instead of forcing students to comply with an overbearing rule against smoking?

Quitting smoking is difficult enough. A ban simply bypasses the complexity of the issue altogether.

Is a smoke-free campus the way of the future? E-mail Cody at ccody@media.ucla.edu._
Send general comments to opinion@media.ucla.edu._