Back to the main argument presented, it was even stated in the original article:
"I'm not trying to get smoking banned on our campus. I want our school to be a more healthy campus, and just not for me."
To interpret the second sentence as "not selling cigarettes will make people smoke less" is hopeful, but not necessarily true. An addict will go down to the advertised two-minute-away drug store, and alas, people will continue to smoke these elsewhere-purchased cigs at Drew.
To interpret it as "Drew moving to promote healthier habits" is probably more like what was meant. Which is a desirable and reasonable thing. However, doing so through this course of action makes less sense than simply doing what was already suggested and providing anti-smoking products (which is actually a really good idea and something I would support). This action satisfies the statement without taking away or restricting the legal choice of the adult individual.
And yes, that second hand smoke. It's gross, it's detrimental to others. It's also virtually non-existent outdoors. Because smoking is a more deviant behavior than a common one on this campus (as the survey shows), its occurrence is limited to that small percent. Most importantly, it's all outside, as smoking indoors is illegal in New Jersey. It's worth mentioning that cigarette smoke is lighter than air and dissipates quickly. So unless one is actively hanging around someone who is smoking, they will probably not come into contact with second hand smoke at Drew.
Don't flame me too hard, just wanted to put my two cents in :[. Or dollar, rather. Sorry for the length.