Let’s all attempt to be amiable. As a former smoker, I find
cigarettes viscerally disgusting, but I also know that smokers need to smoke.
And I don’t believe that our administration has the right to coerce students
into behavior that it feels are in their best interests.
Traditionally, in this country, we have only allowed
intrusions on our freedom for the excellent reason of preventing other more
serious incursions. This is how the campus-wide smoking ban is being sold— as a
way to protect innocent, nonsmoking students from those who choose to poison
themselves.
The problem is that the benchmark secondhand smoke studies
we all know and love, such as a 1992 study by the Environmental Protection
Agency, were done indoors.
Despite our professed love of freedom and
self-determination, Americans have always accepted reasonable limits. For
example, I can scream FIRE outside on the quad, if the whim strikes me, but if
I did the same thing in a crowded lecture hall I might face legal
repercussions.
We know that secondhand smoke is bad, because we’ve had it
drilled into our heads or because we’re old enough to remember what a
restaurant or bar filled with smoldering cigarettes smells like. And studies
have shown that secondhand smoke is dangerous indoors.
The problem is that all studies on the danger of secondhand
smoke outdoors have been attempts to prove that you can draw a meaningful
parallel between outdoor cigarette smoke and the indoor cigarette smoke we know
is a hazard.
This is the premise of a study claiming to be the first to
directly measure human exposure to tobacco smoke outdoors. As the author of the
study emphasized, directly measuring human exposure to outdoor tobacco smoke is
crucial to understanding its health effects.
One researcher concluded that, “this thing, [outdoor
secondhand smoke], that critics have been dismissing as trivial, is not,” in a
press release.
Yet in the study he claimed was the first publication of
peer-reviewed data of outdoor secondhand smoke concentrations, researchers
hoping to cement the deadly reputation of outdoor smoke instead demonstrated
its fundamental harmlessness.
The study, “Real Time Measurement of Outdoor Smoke
Particles,” published by Stanford in 2007, found that within about eight to 18
inches of a cigarette, there are dangerous levels of smoke. From three to six
feet away, those levels drop by half, or more, and at six feet, “levels near
single cigarettes were generally close to background.”
So, from six feet away, the level of toxic, cancer-causing
smoke from a cigarette is the same as it is anywhere else you might be
standing, said the study.
There’s more. Unlike secondhand smoke indoors, when outdoors
your exposure drops to zero soon after the offending cigarette is put out.
Confirming that our intuitive understanding of the dangers of secondhand smoke
is often valid, you have a greater risk of exposure if you’re standing downwind
of the cigarette.
The study does show that patios and other semi-enclosed
areas can create more harmful effects. This finding validates the 20-foot
smoking ban we already have in front of entrances and exists and in patio type
areas, but it does not justify expanding that ban to the entire campus.
Staying six feet away from a smoker also sounds reasonable;
but only if you turn it around on the smoker. Smoking while walking down a
crowded street, or quad, is rude. We already know that it is rude to blow smoke
in a strangers face, and if that’s the problem, we need to think of a better
way to solve it than an outright smoking ban.
Since the public safety argument is nonsense, advocates for
outdoor smoking bans try to reinforce that invalid argument with others
featuring esthetics and concern for the health of the smoker. All these
arguments show is that the only morally or legally sound argument for banning
smoking outside, which is public health, is woefully inadequate.
If you are concerned for the health of your smoking peers,
consider that I am concerned for your health as well, and would dearly love to
ban all sugar from our campus for that reason.
For a look at the real motivations behind the ban, consider
Stan Hebert, who chairs CSU East Bay’s Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs
Committee. In an interview with The Pioneer, he cited smoking
cessation resources as an appropriate way for smokers on campus to deal with
the upcoming smoking ban.
This suggests that he sees quitting smoking as the expected
response to a campus wide smoking ban. And an attempt to force students, staff,
and faculty to quit smoking is very different from protecting the health of
nonsmokers.
I am simply calling for civility on both sides. Hopefully if
the administration concedes smokers the right to exist, they will make a
greater effort to smoke away from nonsmokers and dispose of their butts
properly. If they do not, I would certainly support policy requiring them to do
so.
This post was published in The Pioneer on Thursday, May 9th,
2013.