When my former colleague Andy Granias wrote a column last year in defense of a statewide smoking ban, the comment boards lit up — figuratively and, perhaps, literally — in protest.
One particular comment caught my eye: A commenter took the statewide ban to mean “no smoking anywhere in the state.” I naturally scoffed at this, as the idea seemed so far-fetched and asinine that no one would dare attempt it. While I’ll spare you the obvious comparisons that would have me “Godwin” this column, it should be understood how absolutely insane it is to attempt to eradicate secondhand smoke from an entire campus, city or state.
It seems my definition of sanity was far too optimistic.
On Tuesday, the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education officially banned smoking on campus at its 14 state schools — completely. No buildings, no alcoves, no public squares, nothing.
When asked by a Herald reporter what the rationale was behind this move, a spokesman for the system, Ken Marshall, said the decision was made in order to comply with Pennsylvania state law, which bans smoking in public places and educational institutions. Since the campuses constitute both areas, they thought they would just be complying with state law. The problem is that the Clean Indoor Air Act — as if that wasn’t enough of a give-away — stipulates in the opening lines that this act aims toward “prohibiting smoking in enclosed and substantially enclosed areas.” However, the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education seems to think that by holding meetings and classes outdoors, this now constitutes a “substantially enclosed” public area.
Why, because of all the building on campus?
When I asked for an opinion on the ban from Maureen Busalacchi, executive director of SmokeFree Wisconsin, she said she hadn’t heard of the move but pointed me to a study by Stanford University on the effects of secondhand smoke outdoors.
Its conclusion? Smoke levels are highly concentrated around smokers, but almost zero off completely after smoking stops. “Based on our results, it is possible for [outdoor tobacco smoke] to present a nuisance or hazard based on wind and smoker proximity.”
So, if you stand downwind from a smoker in a strong wind, you might inhale some serious smoke. Of course, if you’re not a smoker and actually spend that long in the path of their puffs, can the government really save you from yourself?
Of course, there’s only so much that one study can show. If you want another opinion, look to a study conducted at the University of Maryland at Baltimore, which found similar results but noted that the affected area of air can increase if there are a group of smokers.
Now look at the Pennsylvania State System campuses. When smokers were told rather abruptly via e-mail that their license to smoke on campus had been revoked, many went into outdoor, public areas and protested the only way they could — by lighting up. In one specific protest at Clarion, around 60 people gathered and smoked in open defiance of the ban. If we are to believe the studies, this actually posed a greater nuisance and hazard then the usual secretive acts of vigilante pollution!
Except that it’s hardly reached the level of legitimate issue of public health. Although there are an increasing number of studies proving that outdoor tobacco smoke can be a nuisance, I doubt we’ll see anything in the near future claiming that outdoor tobacco smoke has claimed the lives of thousands. Yes, I’m willing to admit that indoor secondhand smoke is a public health hazard and sometimes I vacillate on whether a ban is appropriate. But if you’re going to step on an individual’s freedom to smoke in the open air, you better prove it could do some serious harm. And while you’re at it, show me that it’s more dangerous than emissions from surrounding coal plants, industry and automobiles.
Because if those who wish to protect the public don’t back up these claims, then it makes the enforcement these campuses have chosen seem all the more ridiculous.
That’s because a police officer will never stop a student and cite him for smoking or even squelch his butt of resistance. Instead, those innocent bystanders who are assailed by devilish wisps of smoke are told to contact the health department to report the individual. Aside from the fact that this move is completely unenforceable — Marshall admitted, “I don’t think there will be any citations issued,” — it may force students to actually rationalize their objection.
Obviously, they’re going to have to approach the individual to jot down their name and report them — unless the health department has a rapid response crew on hand. But if they try to simply ask the smoker to put out their cigarette, they’re going to have to explain to that smoker why his decision to pollute his lungs is overridden by the miniscule possible effect it might have if someone walks within seven feet of that smoker.
And maybe once that conversation starts, all the anti-smoking advocates will see where the line between public health concerns and common sense lies.
Jason Smathers ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in history and journalism.
