4

ade

If we were interested in merely standing up for the rights of non-smokers,
jt would have been a simple enough matter to tally the number of non-smokers
versus smokers and conclude that the building should be non-smoking.

We were not interested in a head count though. We decided to pose the
question in the way that we did in order to advance the debate on the

issue and to move toward a resolution. The question was deliberately
conciliatory in an attempt to find some level of consensus. I have

used "consensus" rather than "compromise" because I do not support the
notion of compromise on questions of health. Smokers have the right

to choose to risk their own health, but not that of others.

 

Even though smokers make the choice to risk their health, they suffer
heightened health risks under conditions of poor ventilation because
they must breathe more second-hand smoke. Therefore, smokers as wel]

as non-smokers are affected by the lack of provision for separately
ventilated smoking areas. The proposal as it was worded in the poll
question sought to improve working conditions for both smokers and non-
smokers, but it required a concession by smokers. They retained the
privilege of smoking at work, but not freely in all locations. We chose
to protect this privilege because it seemed to provide a solution that
both sides could live with.

The argument was put forward that students should have been consulted
because they constitute the majority, and because they are the College's
raison d'etre. The main reason that we decided not to conduct the poll
among students is that we view air quality as not only a health issue,
but a working conditions issue. Students are affected by air quality,
but they are not employed by the College, and thus not protected by
health and safety legislation. Moreover, in most cases, students are
not compelled to spend as much time in the building as employees. The
provision of separately ventilated smoking areas was felt to be equally go
non-discriminatory toward smoking employees and smoking students. If
the Student Society considered air quality or smoking an issue among
students, it could conduct its own poll, and we would certainly be
willing to discuss the results.

I am unable to comment objectively on the building's ventilation system

since technical data has not been made available to me although I have
requested it. My impression, based on studies I have read and on conversations
with others, is that the system in place is not capable of filtering

out the dangerous chemical substances contained in tobacco smoke. Separately
ventilated (i.e., to the outside) smoking areas were proposed because

these are the only means of which I am aware of isolating smoke and

ensuring that the building's occupants are not forced to breathe it

at some later time.

As for the cost of installing separate ventilating devices, this is
dependent on a number of factors, e.g., proximity of outside walls,

and accessibility of in-place ducts. One area of the library has had
outside ventilation installed at a cost of less than $5,000. I feel

uneasy with the notion that our present and future health must be bargained
for in dollars, but I suppose that this is inevitable. The College,

if it were interested, could certainly place a dollar figure on converting
particular areas to outside ventilation. I hope that it will do so,

since facts are so much easier to deal with than speculation.

 

....-continued....

14

NO pe