I’m young, in college and hang out at a trendy bar on Wednesday nights to see local live music — three qualifications that would seem to make my smoking habit an expected one. But I, like many other smokers, still face the social stigma of enjoying a cigarette after a stressful day or a heavy meal.
I understand the health hazards. I’ve seen the surgeon general’s warning on the side of my Camel Lights box. I fully accept my habit may someday kill me.
My quit date is graduation this year, but the slew of regulations that have been in the news lately make me want to revert back to my 16-year-old self that says, “Spite the authorities. Keep smoking on the principle of personal freedom.”
My mom’s anti-smoking lessons are being replaced by the man.
In the past few years, the University of Maine has made plans to convert our school into a tobacco-free campus. I understand the health and social implications, but I try my hardest to be a responsible smoker. I don’t stand near people when I smoke; I stay away from building entrances, and I try at all costs to properly dispose of my cigarette butts.
I’m not trying to convert the masses. I’m trying to smoke my cigarette.
But the campus is not working with me here. Perhaps instead of telling us we should quit smoking, the university should meet tobacco users halfway in their efforts. Instead of eliminating tobacco use on campus, we could get some more receptacles for cigarette butts, smoking areas and the freedom to choose if we pollute our own lungs or not.
Education is the key concept here, not enforcement. The university should be going no further than offering quitting help and education, not forcing us to stop taking breaks from studying in Fogler to have a breath of fresh nicotine. What’s next, no coffee in the Oakes Room? Caffeine doesn’t have very many health benefits either.
UMaine tells me I should quit smoking, but in reality I will have graduated by the time the policy is enforced. By then, I’ll have left college — one of the most liberal parts of our society — and entered another world of stigma: the rest of society.
I’ve seen taxes on tobacco raised over and over again. This winter, they increased by almost 70 cents. Smoking in public places is sharply on the decline and has been banned in all restaurants and bars in Maine.
Even Obama faces a myriad of criticism for smoking. The man isn’t declaring war or cheating on his wife. Being president is probably pretty stressful. Give him a Marlboro.
Now the FDA is in control of our cigarettes. Under a new law, The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the FDA can pretty much all but ban tobacco products all together. They now have the power to set standards that could reduce nicotine content and regulate the chemicals in cigarettes. It will also be illegal to advertise cigarettes outside within 1,000 feet of a school or playground. Not such bad ideas, but it goes on.
The law also bans all flavoring in tobacco products. Color must be removed from all advertisements (only black and white text in the near future) and the terms “light” and “low tar” must disappear by next year. How will the attendant at Big Apple know what kind of Camels I prefer now?
I understand the precautions legislators are trying to take — reducing health problems, preventing children from smoking, etc. But with proper education, I firmly believe the final decision to smoke or not is a personal issue.
The prohibition of alcohol didn’t work in this country; education on responsible use and practices did. So let’s let the people decide their own fate. Don’t force the choice. Give people the tools to make it for themselves.
Rhiannon Sawtelle is features editor for The Maine Campus.
Related Posts:- Op-Ed: The new cigarette tax and you (April 6, 2009)
- Idealistic ideas for smoke-free campus should go up in smoke (October 25, 2007)
- Cigarette redemption a dirty idea (February 23, 2001)
- $1 hike in cigarette tax angers few students (September 29, 2005)
- Blowing smoke up Bangor’s ordinance (February 1, 2007)













Just because a law was put in place by an oppressive regime, does not necessarily make it an oppressive law.
You’re right, I’ll concede, banning smoking in hospitals and trying to protect the health of female conductors . . . this man was truly a monster . . .
The Nazi party also discouraged drinking alcohol and encouraged better dietary choices. By your logic, we should all wash down our 15 donuts for breakfast with some Jack, because hey, if the Nazis said it then it simply must be pure evil and oppressive.
Grow up.
[Reply]
oppression knows no limits or bounds……the term nazi sticks not only by historical comparison but politically and morally to those who endorse such draconian laws….they have made themselves the OPRESSORS against the people.
[Reply]
drm Reply:
October 2nd, 2009 at 7:22 am
I’m finished talking to you Harley.
You have no logic in your statements.
A hospital smoking ban is draconian? Are you serious?
[Reply]
Very serious……..They have no right to tell people they cant…….as far as the surgery room no smoking its a environment with flammable substances n2o 02 and others……..no smoking around flammable areas.thats commonsense…..something long ago lost.
Then we had common courtesy,but smoking bans did away with courtesy…..the day criminal law came into being against a smoker was the day government lost the the backing of the people. Opression causes lack of respect for the law.
[Reply]