Ban on smoking at UNM doesn't have factual basis

Editor,

With all the debate regarding smoking on campus, it seems smokers have become a kind of ineffable liability and a predominant indictment of carcinogens on otherwise virgin lungs. However, it is farcical that smokers have been backed into this position based on what is largely an emotional, knee-jerk response that has no basis in the facts or any kind of personal responsibility.

According to the American Lung Cancer Association, about 27 percent of 18-to-24 year-olds are smokers. Therefore, we are talking about, at best, a sizable minority of students who are smokers. It is, however, unreasonable to assume that all of this group is smoking all the time while they are on campus. If we are to assume that half of this group is smoking at any given time, we are then talking about one in eight students. This, it is important to note, is a generously liberal estimate, and the real number is almost certainly lower at any given time.

It is also safe to assume that UNM has an unabatedly abundant space to walk from one place to another and that the benches and tables outside are ample and allow a person to discriminate in their choice of seating. I think everyone also agrees that smokers do not go out of their way to blow smoke on passersby as if they were Puff the Magic Dragon. So, a pedestrian only has to worry about second-hand smoke from, at most, one in eight people, which, if they are responsible, they can easily avoid due to the open walkways and sidewalks the campus provides.

The point of this is that indoor-smoking bans are based on the fact that the smoke gestates in a closed environment where smoke is unavoidable and unable to circulate. However, in an outdoor setting, someone who is genuinely concerned for their health can rather obviously take measures to eliminate their exposure to second-hand smoke. While some may argue that this fraction of people cannot be avoided, there are numerous other health concerns they evade on a daily basis that are not preached against.

Smoke-free advocates would likely agree that being hit by a bicycle is a health concern. Bicycles and skateboards traverse the same sidewalks as pedestrians and are moving at higher speeds that make them more difficult to avoid. However, pedestrians are able to avoid these objects, at least enough not to crusade for their removal from campus.

While an argument may be made against smoking in the immediate vicinity of doorways and the like, there is absolutely no logical argument for a tobacco-free campus that can be legitimately made. When you consider that smokeless tobacco use would also be banned, it becomes obvious that second-hand smoke only serves as a literal smokescreen for an agenda to prevent people from participating in what is becoming an increasingly socially unacceptable habit.

Richard Griner

UNM student