I was a freshman in 1973 and a militant non-smoker even then.
Although I don’t think the current discussion about banning smoking across the whole campus is such a big deal, I much appreciated your comments about the early days of the shift in public attitudes toward smoking, especially in public. (Province can put Ontario universities on right side of history with smoking, Nov. 20). I go so far as to say that the shift against smoking has been the most significant improvement in the quality of life of the past half century – at least in the spheres where I move.
You wrote “the public smoking debate wasn’t about me, the smoker; it was about the nonsmoker and their right to live and work free of harassment.”
I would like to amplify this idea, if I may. I’m a ‘big picture’ kind of guy and I earned my MA in Philosophy largely because I wanted to understand the scholarly basis for ethics, particularly interactions among us humans in general. My conclusion is that, in any conflict between our activities, it is the passive person who has fundamental priority. By not smoking, I am the passive participant, and that’s why the smoker must defer to my interest.
Thanks for putting this in print in the way you did.
It always bothered me when I heard smokers say that they could smoke wherever they wanted to, “because it’s a free country.”
Nevertheless, I’m glad you didn’t dwell on the public peril of smoking.
Although the peril to the public is not in doubt (at least not since the Surgeon General’s report in 1964), and even though public health concerns may guide policy in many areas, that’s not the reason why non-smokers have priority over smokers.
Imagine, if you will, a magic cigarette that puts out vapours demonstrably beneficial to human health: in principle, that would not change the conclusion.
Peter Jedicke
B.Sc. 1976, MA 1997