Kevin Carty '15 believes that a desire to avoid clouds of cigarette smoke is self-indulgent. And yeah, in a way, it is. But there is also something inherently selfish in refusing to move 20 feet to protect others from a dangerous habit.
We have a plethora of on-campus rules designed to protect students from the actions of a few. Is it self-centered to request that partiers be quiet on the street at 3 a.m.? No, of course not - the consensus is that night is a time for sleep, and we have a noise curfew. The protection of our lungs and health is no less important.
Carty can argue that secondhand smoke isn't that dangerous, but there's a reason that 60 major cities in the United States have strict smoking bans in the workplace, restaurants and bars. The world is responding to a mounting pile of scientific evidence that no level of secondhand smoke is risk-free.
Note that smoking within 25 feet of entrances is not the same as smoking in an open park. Smoke often drifts indoors due to poor ventilation, and occupants must walk through the smoke in order to exit the building. In college, students cannot "selfishly" avoid this smoke - we often have to walk through it to get out of our dorm rooms.
Carty dismisses the argument that many non-smokers find smoke unpleasant. I do find it unpleasant, in the same way that I would find my neighbor playing loud music at 3 a.m. unpleasant.
Many non-smokers find the smell of smoke nauseating, and it tends to linger on our clothes and in our hair. Is it "selfish" to request that smokers move so we are not forced to smell it?
My fellow opinions columnist also doubts that an on-campus smoking ban could prevent nicotine addictions. Maybe so. But by permitting on-campus smoking, the University is condoning a dangerous habit at the expense of its non-smoking students.
Smokers may feel ostracized by my request for such a ban. I apologize. But when it comes to my health, I will always be selfish.
