Recently, Evanston aldermen voted to increase the legal age for purchase of tobacco products from 18 to 21. City Council stopped short of outlawing the possession of cigarettes, which one alderman called “excessive” and another foresaw as unfairly punishing young individuals already addicted to tobacco products.

The reasoning for the new ordinance was based primarily on health concerns for teenagers under 18 who have access to tobacco products. According to health studies, youth under 18 receive 90 percent of their tobacco products from young adults aged 18 to 21. Because about 90 percent of current adult smokers started smoking before turning 18, the supply flow between these two age groups is a crucial link in the attempt to reduce tobacco addictions in the population.

Looking solely at the apparent benefits the ordinance promises, most significantly for high schoolers and younger students, one might question why more districts have yet to follow suit. Indeed, some cities across the country have already started entertaining the notion of joining the growing campaign. However, Evanston aldermen spent a surprisingly short amount of time discussing the other demographic directly affected by the ordinance: 18- to 21-year-old adults.

A smoking ban may not seem to bear significant consequences for the age group largely represented by the Northwestern student body. However, the ordinance carries much greater significance than implied by aldermen who commented that the targeted demographic accounts for only 2 percent of tobacco sales. If truly insignificant, certainly the legislation should have passed sooner and in a more widespread fashion on a national level. A smoking ban for under 21-year-olds definitely contains significant benefits, but to achieve this benefit, another age group must give up a right. What bothers me is that the manner in which the Evanston City Council treated the issue makes the change seem a lot more like a loss of a right, rather than an educated and voluntary relinquishment.

Aldermen in Evanston represent NU students and pass ordinances that directly affect our daily lives. Yet many of the decisions made by the council seem to take place with an unreasonable disregard for the thoughts of the NU community. Had I been polled about my willingness to give up my right to buy cigarettes to help limit the access of addiction-prone minors to tobacco products, I would likely have supported the ordinance wholeheartedly.

Council decisions and the manner with which they are reached carry important symbolic significance. Disregard of the impact of an ordinance on the NU population reveals a problematic communication and cooperation gap between the residents of Evanston and University students. Not only do students need to be aware of their right and responsibility to vote for representatives, but those representatives need to show a vested interest in the opinions and wellbeing of NU students. Although interests of students and other Evanston residents may historically have clashed, both groups are affected by the actions of the council.

NU is a world-class institution, educating thousands of individuals from all over the world to interact in global politics, medical research, technological development and social development. Shouldn’t our voice also carry weight and importance to the members of City Council?

Hopefully, the new ordinance will positively impact the long-term health of many individuals. But I also hope for an active attempt on behalf of both the greater Evanston community as well as the NU student body to breach the existing demographic and ideological differences to create a town that demonstrates its concern for the opinion and wellbeing of every aspect of its residentship.

Coretta Lemaitre is a McCormick sophomore. She can be contacted at [email protected]. If you would like to respond publicly to this column, send a Letter to the Editor to [email protected].