Let me begin this little escapade in the defense of smoking by saying I don’t smoke. I don’t like cigarettes and think they’re disgusting. But I am the only one in my immediate family, who doesn’t smoke. I think that it’s a poor decision for individuals to make in general. Smoking itself has proven to have negative effects, and second-hand smoke can be harmful.

That being said, I will at this time vehemently oppose any attempt to make Gustavus a “smoke-free campus.”

First of all, rumor on the street has it that the opinions of Gusties that this group collects are only those in favor of banning smoking. Other opinions are not collected. Further, the “committee” being assembled, according to numerous people I’ve talked to, is solely composed of those in favor of the ban. Yet it’s being presented as “representative” of the full student body and that a smoke-free campus is something that “the student population” wants to see happen. This is just blatantly misleading to begin with. That bothers me.

Some perspective: consider that for quite a few years, and when most of these studies on smoking happened, smoking was allowed indoors. Everywhere. The culture was such that everyone smoked as a social time. Smoke breaks were as much a part of getting to know the people around you as grabbing a drink after work was. But in the last couple decades, things changed.  A huge culture shift occurred with smoking, and it is now viewed quite negatively. Smoking is banned indoors. People don’t really smoke anymore, or that often.

The people who do smoke no longer choose to smoke out of peer pressure or simple ignorance. These smokers make a conscious decision to smoke DESPITE society, culture and laws saying they should not. It is excessively inconvenient to smoke at all: smokers are often criticized socially, and studies show that smokers make less money on average. These people choose to continue smoking because they like to.

Few, I think, would really be compelled by the argument that smoking at Gustavus is much of a threat. School rules say that smokers must smoke more than 30 feet away from entrances to buildings. Smokers are forced to go out of their way to continue smoking, and what “second hand smoke” opportunities are left are so few and so easy to avoid, it’s a pretty weak argument overall. In talking with some people, I heard a new spin on this old favorite: third-hand smoking.

Third-hand smoking, for those who don’t know, is when smoke gets on your clothes because you were near someone was smoking. Then, because you’re near someone, they get a little bit of it. Here’s the key though: it’s so little smoke to begin with that, the people I spoke with at least, admitted that this would only affect the most severe sufferers of asthma, if it does at all.

I’d be curious to know if or when anyone has actually ever suffered any real effects of third-hand smoking. Because in my quick research for this article, I find it to be the least compelling argument I’ve ever had presented to me: it has little to no actual impact. Just some theoretical applications that could, if the asthma was bad enough, occur.  But banning smoking because of “third-hand smoke” is similarly pathetic. As a corollary, people who grumble a lot are bad for your health. I’m sure they cause great stress which can then lead to heart disease, high blood pressure, etc. I’m not going to try and get Gustavus to pass a law making GAC “a Grumble-Free Campus.”

To sumarize: the impact of smoking on all of us every day is pathetically minimal. This movement is just beating a long-dead horse. We punish these people enough in other ways: if someone wants to smoke, just as if someone wants to drink or work too much, I won’t stand in their way.