This past year, New York State joined eight other states in enacting a “bell-to-bell” ban on student cell phone use in schools, set to take effect in the 2025–26 school year. The legislation was met with immediate and, at times, heated opposition. Parents voiced fears about losing communication with their children, educators raised concerns about differing socio-economic realities across districts, and social media platforms—particularly Facebook—became hotbeds of sometimes visceral debate.

Change is hard. But history shows us that resistance to change does not necessarily mean it is wrong. In fact, some of the most effective public health policies began amid deep skepticism and outrage.

If you grew up in the latter half of the 20th century, you may remember how pervasive smoking once was in everyday life. People smoked in bars, restaurants, cars, schools—and even on airplanes. It was normal, accepted, and expected.

That began to change in the 1990s, as research increasingly demonstrated the serious health risks of smoking and secondhand smoke. With greater understanding came a growing recognition that public policy had a responsibility to protect public health. Courageous lawmakers at both the local and national levels began challenging the status quo, proposing smoking bans that were met with fierce opposition. Many bar and restaurant owners predicted economic ruin if smoking were prohibited.

Locally in Suffolk County, those tensions came to a head in 1992, when the Suffolk County Legislature passed one of the broadest smoking bans in the country, reinforcing its reputation for landmark legislation protecting public health and the environment. Led by Legislators Paul Tonna (R–Huntington) and Nora Bredes (D–Stony Brook), the law prohibited smoking in public places, including schools. This move in the name of public health was not without opposition.  Both legislators reported being harassed by opponents of the legislation—harassment they believed extended beyond local residents and business owners and may have included efforts by large tobacco companies leveraging their financial power to intimidate lawmakers. 

With the benefit of hindsight, however, smoking ban legislation is now widely regarded as one of the most important public health actions of its time. Decades later, we can clearly see its positive effects. In 2009, the American College of Cardiology noted, “Public smoking bans seem to be tremendously effective in reducing heart attacks and, theoretically, might also help to prevent lung cancer and emphysema.”  The limits on smoking are now widely accepted and applauded.

The current debate over cell phone bans in schools shares striking similarities with the smoking bans of the past. At its core, the cell phone ban is a public health initiative—one focused specifically on protecting children. Governor Kathy Hochul proposed the policy to create distraction-free learning environments and to address growing concerns about youth mental health linked to smartphone use.

It is worth noting that New York City, home to the largest school district in the country, previously abandoned discussions of a cell phone ban due to parent pushback. Unlike our past local legislators, Tonna and Bredes, that were willing to take a stand for public health, NYC bowed to the pressures of their opponents.  NYC’s failure to act created the imminent need for the State to act.   The statewide effort to curtail cell phone use reflects a broader recognition that unchecked smartphone use may pose long-term risks to students’ academic performance, emotional well-being, and social development.  The State’s “bell-to-bell” rolled out for the current school year and, while opposition is still evident, the benefits are being appreciated.

History reminds us that meaningful public health progress is rarely comfortable at the outset. The smoking bans that once seemed radical and intrusive are now widely accepted—and widely credited with saving lives. As we navigate today’s cell phone debate, the lesson may be the same: resistance is not evidence of failure, but often a sign that real change is underway.

 

References 

American College of Cardiology. (2009, September 21). Banning smoking in public places and workplaces is good for the heart.

Gray, Katti. Target: Smoking. (1994, March 22) Newsday.

Rather, John. (1994, August 28). Smoking ban legislators targeted. The New York Times.

Eyewitness News. (2025, April 29). Gov. Hochul announces $254 billion New York State budget deal; includes cell phone ban.