I agree with the bulk of what you said, psood0nym, but there are certain things I strongly disagree with.
I will argue against them, but I do not mean it as an attack.
In fact, I appreciate your thoughtful, clear, and articulate post.
Still, the argument that smoke spreads outside of designated smoking areas does not mean that the exposure level at such a distance is a realistic second-hand smoke risk to non-smokers, and smokers who smoke there should not be held accountable for the health of others). How can we seriously compare the second-hand smoke risk of a moment of enduring a vague smoky smell -- as in the case of a chance downwind encounter with smoke highly deluded wafting from a designated smoking area -- with living day in and day out inside a small apartment with a two pack a day smoker? Both could qualify as second-hand smoke, yet the former almost certainly does not inform the statistics. If someone is so sensitive to cigarette smoke that they can't handle it even at a highly deluded concentration then they are likely to be of a similar minority as those who cannot near a roadside because of exhaust fumes, and are likely also sensitive to many other common environmental pollutants. Their problem is unfortunate and unfair, but cannot be solved by banning smokers from campus property alone.
I wasn't arguing that the physical damage from breathing smoke drifting far down the beach was severe, or comparable to living with a heavy smoker.
Just trying to bridge the gap between the two sides by helping smokers understand some of what we non-smokers go through, especially those of us more sensitive to tobacco smoke.
Public smoking affects many people's lives, and the majority of smokers cannot easily imagine the great extent of the effect.
I wasn't even saying that I support a ban on entire campuses, if you were referring to me there.
I support having designated smoking areas on campuses, and elsewhere.
I am not the only one that is sensitive to tobacco smoke. To paint me as one-in-a-million, like someone who cannot be near a roadside, is greatly unfair.
(and it is "diluted", not "deluded", unless I am the later
)
In fact, the number is almost certainly orders of magnitude greater than you are assuming.
For instance, I have many friends, from different contexts/cities/countries, that refuse to go to indoor public places where smoking is permitted.
Most are not as sensitive as I am, it is true, but many would develop scratchy throats, burning or teary eyes, or feel uncomfortably tight in the chest the following day. Did they develop cancer from that one exposure? Probably not. Did they take several weeks off of their lives? Unlikely. Do they deserve the freedom to go to that restaurant, or that concert, without suffering physically? Unquestionably.
There are only two people in my side of the family that wouldn't walk faster or slow down to avoid walking behind someone smoking on the street (one a smoker, the other an ex-smoker). The other dozen or so would certainly agree with me here. Several others would have not minded, but unfortunately they have already died of lung cancer cause by smoking, so I can't count them.
At my wife's family reunions, smoking is permitted, but the older generation or males (for whom smoking is quite normal) go outside.
Why? Because there are people (generally everyone up through middle age) who would be affected. They would probably not develop cancer based on that one incident. But they would get scratchy throats, burning eyes, or maybe they would just consider the air to stink, or maybe they would just not be able to taste their food well any longer. Should the older men ignore this, since there is not evidence that limited exposure to second-hand smoke at that level causes cancer? Should they say that their right to smoke in that location takes precedence over the younger people's right to taste their food?
Your standard of evidence is a level of toxicity that is statistically provable using current scientific methods.
That is ridiculous.
It is extremely difficult to assign causation in such cases as second-hand smoke, and yet dozens of large-scale studies have found that there is a 95% chance, or better, that a causative relationship explains their results most successfully.
You ignore the physical damage to innocent passerby, if it is not measurable on that scale.
By arguing that people should be allowed to smoke around building entrances, you ignore the freedom of people to pursue happiness without suffering the ill-effects of others' public self-destructive behavior.
I would have no problem with *carefully located* public smoking areas, designed to minimize public exposure, but to maximize smokers' convenience.
(Not that I mind having smokers walk a bit, to start to make up for the damage they inflict on themselves - which eventually gets paid for by the public, in large part, in some way or another - but the issues you describe with exams, etc. are all real, and I am not closed-hearted enough to want to embarrass or punish smokers.)
I believe that all drugs should be legal, but there should be designated areas for drug use in public, allowing non-users to avoid that scene if they choose.
This is especially true in my mind for drugs like tobacco and smoked cannabis, which can affect those around quite strongly, as well as injected drugs for the needle issues mentioned above in this thread.
Here is Japan, there are rooms in trains and airports that do not share (much) air with the rest of the structure, used for smoking.
I think that they are a wonderful solution.
Smokers should be allowed to have a place to smoke, just as non-smokers should have the right to live without smoke.
Peace.
