Does a ban on smoking on USC’s campus really make sense?


The Smoke-Free Campus Coalition, an on-campus, student-run organization that has advocated for the ban of tobacco use on campus, has recently been pushing the campuswide ban of both cigarettes and smokeless tobacco use on campus. Late last month, the Undergraduate Student Government Senate unanimously passed a resolution calling for a smoke-free campus, and the Graduate Student Government Senate will vote on it during their last senate meeting next Monday. The resolution has good intentions — it hopes to reduce the use of tobacco by making campus a smoke-free environment and to create an overall healthier lifestyle for the Trojan community. However, many of these things won’t result from a ban. Ultimately, a ban would be bad for USC.

Such a resolution ignores personal freedom. Students, faculty, staff and guests should be free to smoke if they choose to do so. Supporters of the ban contend that secondhand smoke from tobacco products can harm others, but the University Park Campus already has designated smoking areas. There certainly needs to be better enforcement of these designated areas. People seem to smoke all over campus without any issue, and many people may not even know that there are designated areas. There should be a push to make it well known that there are designated areas and have them enforced by students or staff by simply letting smokers know. Having designated smoking areas is fair. People that don’t want to be exposed to secondhand smoke can make sure they avoid these spots, and people who choose to smoke will still be able to.

One part of this resolution that doesn’t have any ground to stand on is the ban on smokeless tobacco products, products like chewing tobacco. Chewing tobacco doesn’t cause harm to anyone other than the person choosing to use it. It’s completely a personal choice.

This ban also doesn’t consider international students and how their lifestyles might be affected by it. Tobacco use is a cultural norm in different countries. Many international students come from countries where tobacco use is normal and widely practiced, and banning it wouldn’t be fair to these students. It’s also a raw deal for the USC staff that use these products. The employees that serve the Trojan community work hard, and many of them use these products on their breaks to relax during a hard day of work. It’s not right to take that away.

To be clear, tobacco use is bad, and it should absolutely be discouraged. Tobacco has ended lives and brought devastation to many individuals. However, this doesn’t mean student government or the USC administration should ban it. Instead, they can invest more in anti-tobacco campaigns and education programs that may help reduce use.

Ultimately, the decision to use tobacco is a personal choice. Trojans should have the freedom to use tobacco products on campus. Now it’s up to the GSG Senate to send a message to the administration by voting it down.

4 replies
  1. jj
    jj says:

    USC shouldn’t become a Big Brother campus. Personal freedoms on campus is a priority. If someone wants to smoke, they already know the consequences. They don’t need some busybody to tell them what to do or not to dol

  2. RuBa
    RuBa says:

    Are you serious? “employees that serve the Trojan community work hard, and many of them use these products on their breaks to relax during a hard day of work. It’s not right to take that away” Well, a lot of people work hard and then use drugs to “relax”, is it not right to take that away either? On no grounds you can justify allowing smoking in public places. The recent Srpingfest event that happened on campus was a nightmare for non-smokers! This article is preposterous! A smoke free campus would be ideal or at least designated smoking areas if nothing!

  3. Don Harmon
    Don Harmon says:

    Sociology assignment: Write a 3-pp. essay, describing your positions on 1) a ban on campus smoking; and 2) the imposition of “safe space” forbidding real or imagined “microaggressions” and “triggers.”

Comments are closed.