Personally, I stand to gain a lot from President Marx's indoor smoking ban. Well, in principle, at least. In reality, I'm not so sure. The intent of the ban is pretty clear, and it's a step in the direction of minimizing smoking on campus in general. I'm not opposed to students choosing to fill their own lungs with carcinogens and nicotine as a recreational activity. There's nothing wrong with that in my eyes, and I don't think the administration is making as bold a statement as forbidding students from smoking.

What is wrong about smoking is exposing people to second-hand smoke. There is good evidence that the smoke that comes from cigarettes is a significant health risk, no matter how many times it gets filtered through people's lungs. If smokers are going to be negligent in their habits and expose me or other non-smokers to those damaging chemicals, it seems that nothing short of legal action would be appropriate.

The question, then, is whether or not smokers on campus exhibit this lack of concern for others. In theory, it is reasonable to assume that some smokers must be negligent. If this was seen as a problem on campus by anyone, I could understand how Marx supporting the non-smoker's complaints would be founded. I, however, have no idea how much of a problem this is on campus or that such a complaint exists at all. In fact, I'd say almost no one knows! There seemed to be no effort on the part of the administration to gather student input on this matter. I think I would feel better supporting this ban if I had actually been asked how smoking affects me. Honestly, I can't say that I'm too bothered by it currently. In general, the smokers I've met at the College tend to be sensitive to my needs.

It feels as if Marx is taking action on behalf of those students he believes are too meek to speak up for themselves. After all, if he thought non-smokers had a viable complaint, he stood to lose nothing by asking students for their opinions. Again, I'm comfortable having Marx represent others' viewpoints, as long as his representation is accurate. But who knows? Maybe he's right this time, but it's clear that for the smokers, the stance could be interpreted as unnecessarily intrusive, and for non-smokers, perhaps insultingly pedantic.

As long as there is a real complaint by non-smokers against smokers on this campus, and as long as the ban was created with this idea in mind as a better solution than having individual students resolve the issues, I can't really see anything wrong with it. If the choice is between "recreational activity and student health," there's a clear winner. Furthermore, I have to admit that it's kind of cool to have a president who is willing to lay down the law on what he thinks is right. I just hope that he doesn't decide to take up any causes against me.