Blowing smoke

I quit smoking over the summer, and I’m fairly proud of myself. Sometimes I slip, though, and feel like I need to smoke at 6:30 in the morning after I’ve been up studying for a midterm all night. Sometimes I get so frustrated and nervous that I just need a cigarette. It’s not healthy, it’s not pretty, but there are times when it’s the only thing that can help. It’s because I’m an addict, and once addicted to a substance, the cravings don’t go away. Quitting simply means that certain priorities, like preventing cancer or saving money, become more compelling than the addiction.\nIf you’re a member of the student body, you received that pedantic little e-mail last week from Provost Karen Hanson, reminding us that, “Indiana University has made a determination that it will be tobacco-free on all its campuses by January 2008.” She very politely tells us that if we’re addicted smokers, too bad, it’s time to quit or suffer undisclosed disciplinary action.\nIt was my choice to start smoking, and it was my choice to quit. It is an unjustified act of paternalism to force those who live and work on campus to tackle their addiction on threat of disciplinary action. Addiction is considered a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, discrimination against which is illegal. It warrants mention that there is contention in the legal community as to whether nicotine addiction qualifies under the act, but I argue that a nicotine addiction is still an addiction, impairing a person’s ability to function normally without nicotine. Although the act was originally formulated to ensure fair hiring practices and equal protection in policy matters, the implementation of addiction discrimination on a public university campus poses a unique framework under which to view the act. \nFirst, the University employs hundreds of non-students in facility positions and faculty positions who may be addicted to nicotine. If my interpretation is correct, to prevent the addicted from having a practical location to smoke qualifies as discrimination. Also, to implement a policy lacking such a provision might dissuade individuals from applying to work here, thus leading to indirect employment discrimination.\nThe second realm of possible discrimination involves the residence policy. Freshmen are required to live in the residence halls, barring extenuating circumstances. Forcing addicts to break their addiction merely to live poses a new challenge to the act. Can public universities legally discriminate against the addicted in such a way? Only time and future cases will tell, since there exists virtually no precedent.\nThe University is walking a fine line. It’s trying to protect us from ourselves and make the campuses cleaner, but it’s quite possible that if it goes on to implement the smoking ban, the administration could be at serious risk of legal action for their discriminatory policy. If University officials do not give freshmen the choice not to live on campus or their employees a practical location to smoke during breaks, they are discriminating against individuals with a possibly certifiable disability. Case closed.