Digest #1: This Week in Smoke-free News

Earth Day

My buddy Alex at Energetics found this article about quitting smoking in celebration of Earth Day (which was this past Thursday, for those of you who are following my blog from other planets). Although the article is more about smoking cessation than smoking policy, and despite some of the obvious implications that smoking has on the environment, there are a few quotes I’d like to share:

“…many of us don't know that quitting smoking is another way to help combat climate change…cigarette production and consumption contribute to global warming.”

So, if you’re an environmentally conscious smoker, you better quit! Quitting will also reduce the number of littered cigarette butts…

“Smokers may be tossing their butts without even realizing their impact on the environment.”

This is an understatement if I’ve ever heard one! The way that I see people toss cigarette butts out of cars tells me that they simply don’t care, regardless of their knowledge of the environmental impact.

“The sure-fire way to combat this growing problem is for more Americans to quit smoking, and for those of us who don't smoke to support them.”

With that said, let’s help them quit by enacting and enforcing more smoke-free policies…and, perhaps creating some persuasive public art.

Hookah Bars

I ran across a brief article about a North Carolina hookah bar that is combating the state’s indoor smoking ban, and realized the common problem for these establishments: Because hookah bars are basically small restaurants where hookah is served to most customers, and state smoking bans require all restaurants to comply with the law, hookah bars cannot serve hookah—unless they qualify themselves as designated smoking venues by not serving food and/or alcohol.

So, should hookah bars be exempt from state smoking bans? Of course not! I can’t prove this with statistics, but it seems that hookah bars are largely populated by college-aged customers—the people who I predict are most susceptible to being turned into cigarette smokers (more on this topic later). Hey, even I smoked hookah a few times in my college days; I know how good it tastes and feels. Although I didn’t come close to smoking cigarettes, I have friends who started on hookah and are now full-blown smokers. Assuming that our society has an interest in limiting the number of kids who start smoking, we need to make sure that hookahs can’t be used as a justification to overlook statewide bans.

In a few days, the state of Michigan will be going smoke-free, and I hope that hookah bars are forced to comply with the law. For more information on their situation, see this article.

Miami Student Smokers

I applaud the University of Miami for modifying their student health insurance policy to include a $50 per semester fee for student smokers. As the article says, this is a big step toward becoming a smoke-free campus.

However, one student smoker who was interviewed said that the change is discriminatory. I personally don’t believe that the notion of discrimination, as we commonly recognize it, can be applied to a choice (more on this topic later); people can discriminate against race, religion, sexual orientation, but not against a changeable personal habit.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the university is discriminating against smokers. So what? Nobody said that discrimination is always a bad thing. In this case, “discrimination” is merely a practical means to compensate for tobacco awareness programs and increases in healthcare costs that student smokers impose on the university.

My only concern with the $50 fee is that many student smokers will probably get away with not paying it. Either way, this is a big win for the smoke-free cause because the university is setting some groundwork for future policy change.

San Luis Obispo Sidewalks

The San Luis Obispo City Council recently approved a more expansive public smoking ban, which prohibits smoking in bars, restaurants, stores, stadiums, parking garages, transit centers, playgrounds, and best of all, SIDEWALKS! Nothing is more unnecessarily dangerous to me than having to choose between walking through a trail of secondhand smoke and jumping into the adjacent street to avoid it.

Quote of the Week

“I realize that most restaurants have a “no smoking” section, but smoke rarely adheres to assigned boundaries. It’s tantamount to having a urination zone in a swimming pool—everyone still gets contaminated.” --Lee Lupo

Coming Soon to Vancouver: Smoke-free Parks, Beaches

I know, Vancouver isn’t in the U.S., but seeing that it’s a major Canadian city, it’s close enough to showcase an example of a proactive smoke-free initiative. Plus, it’s absolutely gorgeous in the summertime; I highly recommend that you visit there, preferably after September 1—when all of Vancouver’s parks and beaches will officially be smoke-free.

It’s hard for me to imagine that such a beautiful city tolerates the same public nuisances that we all do. However, the Vancouver Park Board has made a bold decision to mitigate secondhand smoke by instituting a public smoking ban within its more than 200 parks and along 11 miles of beaches. From my perspective, this is a much bigger deal than most smoking bans for one reason: smoking will be prohibited outdoors.

Many people, smokers and non-smokers, are outraged by this measure because the toxins in secondhand smoke dissipate much faster outdoors than indoors, leaving the health hazard negligible for surrounding people. Though it may indeed be negligible, the U.S. Surgeon General has concluded, “there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.” So why do we subject people to even the smallest health risk?

Because, to some extent, every activity is risky. Those who oppose Vancouver’s new smoking ban may argue that people who drive cars next to the parks and along the beaches pose a secondhand health risk to visitors. In this regard, carbon monoxide (CO) emissions are not distinct from environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Personally, I don’t see how the two are equivalent. CO emissions, as dangerous as they are, are necessary in today’s world. Yes, more eco-friendly transportation alternatives are available, but not everyone has access to them or is able to integrate them into their lifestyles. ETS, on the other hand, is a product of a preventable habit. Hypothetically, if CO emissions were prohibited, we would be hard-pressed to get to the places where we need to be. But if ETS were prohibited, smokers would have to resort to other forms of nicotine to satisfy their addictions…not as big of a deal. Clearly, ETS is comparatively unnecessary.

Nevertheless, the Vancouver Park Board justifies the smoking ban on different grounds. By eliminating what the Vancouver Coastal Health Agency recognizes as the “leading cause of death” in British Columbia, the ban is intended to be educational. The board commissioner insists that, “it’s our duty to promote and maintain a healthy lifestyle for the visitors to our parks.” Furthermore, a survey showed that 49% of people would use the city’s parks more often if smoking were banned.

Given the combination of public opinion and perception of the health risk, to claim that people who support the smoking ban are “demonizing” smokers is unfair. After all, alcoholic beverages—not alcoholics—are prohibited on many beaches and in state parks, and alcohol doesn’t even impose secondhand health effects. In short, the Vancouver Park Board is condemning the habit of smoking, not the smokers themselves.

Ohio State's Slippery Slope

It looks like Ohio State University, one of the largest schools in the nation, may be going smoke-free in the near future. Of course, this has given rise to debate, the latest of which popped up in my Google Alerts. Just when I thought I was reading one of the better-reasoned pro-smoking letters to the editor of a college newspaper, I saw this and the author lost all credibility:

“…why stop with cigarettes? Fast food, pop, speedy bikers, flip-flops and iPods can also be dangerous. Why don’t we ban those things?”

This is a classic “slippery slope” argument, in which a ban of one activity will set precedent for the bans of other, more trivial activities. It’s a good argument, but why don’t we ban those things?

Fast food is certainly not the safest food to eat, but one’s choice to consume it hardly affects other people. I guess the argument can be made that frequent fast food consumption leads to obesity, obesity leads to others’ disgust, and disgust can lead to stress. Sounds a little convoluted to me. Still, it can be very uncomfortable to share an airplane row with people who don’t fit into their own seats. Though this is inconvenient, it doesn’t have lasting health effects. Furthermore, neither of these situations has a direct impact on my health, let alone an impact on par with secondhand smoke. The same can be said for soda.

Speedy bikers, on the other hand, are a legitimate concern. As far as I know, most college campuses, including UC Berkeley, have “dismount zones,” in which riders must walk their bikes through densely populated areas of campus to prevent them from running into people. This is a warranted policy because people can literally have their bones broken by careless riders. So, if Ohio State doesn’t have dismount zones, they should; ban speedy bikers from campus. Either way, bikes serve a practical purpose—they get people places faster. The only place that cigarettes get people faster is the hospital.

I suppose flip-flops can be dangerous, but not to other people. Exposing your feet to all of the bacteria on the ground can potentially lead to infections, but unless you play “footsy” with strangers, you aren’t hurting anyone but yourself and your friends who consent to touching your gross feet. Likewise, when non-smokers hang around their smoking friends, they are consenting to inhale secondhand smoke. Flip-flops also cause people to trip and fall. I’ve tripped plenty of types in mine, sometimes bumping into a friend in the process. But I’ve never knocked anyone over, and I trip in my running shoes just as often. Now there’s a slippery slope for you—before you know it, we may all have to walk barefoot to eliminate all instances of tripping! I simply can’t imagine a flip-flop ban following in the footsteps of a smoking ban.

iPods are an interesting comparison to cigarettes. Normally, I wouldn’t consider listening to music on the way to class dangerous, but having been reminded of speedy bikers, I can think of a scenario: A biker is heading downhill toward a crowd of people, all of whom are wearing headphones, and realizes his brakes don’t work. He yells at them to move, but of course, they can’t hear him, and the biker knocks them all down like dominoes. In this case, however, the people with the iPods demonstrated contributory negligence, in that by wearing headphones, they contributed to the outcome of the accident. Some may even say that “they asked for it” to happen. Those who find themselves in close proximity to smokers certainly don’t ask to inhale their secondhand smoke.

All of this is to say that there is no good slippery slope argument for the opposition of a smoking ban. I challenge you to think of examples that are more analogous to secondhand smoke.

Berkeley Butts

I'll start by discussing the situation at UC Berkeley. The campus has a "smoke-free" policy that prohibits smoking within 25 feet of building entrances and operable windows, yet the policy is scarcely enforced. Not only are campus police hardly aware of the rule, but much of the signage is out of date (though TobaccNO is currently fixing this), leaving misinformed smokers to light up in high-traffic areas. That said, I must give credit where necessary: When I personally notified people who were clearly violating the rule, they complied and occasionally thanked me for saving them from a hefty fine.

Here's what I don't understand: What good is a policy that is not enforced, let alone not acknowledged? Yes, I realize that campus police officers have better things than smoking violations to worry about, and that this is just one of many policies on the books that people vastly ignore. Perhaps, part of the problem is that the policy is difficult to enforce. After all, should we expect campus cops to whip out a yard stick and estimate 25 feet every time they catch someone smoking too close to a building? (No.) Plus, wind can take smoke anywhere, even inside buildings. So, assuming again that smoking and secondhand smoke are unfavorable realities (see my first entry), a more black-and-white policy is necessary, so that all parties understand it. This leaves three possible options:

1. Smoking should be allowed anywhere outside.
2. Smoking should be allowed in designated smoking areas.
3. Smoking should be allowed nowhere outside (i.e., completely banned from campus).
   

I briefly make my case for a transition from designated smoking areas to a smoking ban in a recent column published in The Daily Californian, the student newspaper at UC Berkeley.

A couple of things I'd like to expound upon from the article:

"...I just want smoking off campus and away from the people who are the most impressionable and most likely to start-18 to 24 year-olds-so that one day, it will get rid of itself."

According to the California Department of Public Health, the 18-24 year-old age group has the highest rate of smokers. This means two things: 1) This age group is, as I said, very impressionable, so smoking is likely to proliferate among them, and 2) The University, as a respected authority, is in a unique position to influence these people to resist cigarettes. I predict that the reduced visibility of cigarette smoking would alter the perception of smoking as a fairly "normal" activity for college students. The university already prohibits the sale and advertising of tobacco products on campus--which is likely to reduce visibility--so a limitation on the actual practice is the next logical step. Yes, smoking would undoubtedly still occur off campus (e.g., at parties), but at least the university would be eliminating secondhand smoke on campus.

"From my perspective, smoking is not a political issue, but a public health issue that must be addressed."

In retrospect, I think what I wrote here is ambiguous and needs clarification. Who was I kidding? Smoking is a political issue--otherwise I wouldn't be blogging about it. What I meant to say: Smoking shouldn't be a political issue. The issue crosses party lines, as the tension really boils down to arguments between people who know about the harms of secondhand smoke and care dearly about their health (like myself) and people who could care less about their health, despite what they may or may not know. I think the latter's indifference largely arises from a lack of awareness, hence the need for better tobacco/smoking education. However, many smokers perpetuate their addiction or seem to transcend indifference by making the "simple economic decision" that I explain in the ninth paragraph of my column. Either way, widespread awareness of the facts, in my mind, qualifies smoking and secondhand smoke as pure public health issues--issues in which the choices of few affect the health of all.

More on the Berkeley campus later...

Disclaimer/Introduction

Several things that I should mention before I start blogging about the controversial issue of smoking:

1. This blog is not intended to be impartial. As a non-smoker, it would be virtually impossible to remove any bias I have.
   
2. I'm not a doctor or a scientist, so I can't prove anything. Any facts that I cite should be weighted in proportion to the validity of their original sources.
3. There is overwhelming evidence that smoking and secondhand smoke have predominantly negative consequences, so I will be writing under the assumption that smoking and secondhand smoke are unfavorable realities that society is coping with.
4. I do not intend to alienate or target smokers. The problem, as I see it, is smoking--a habit that anyone can feasibly pick up. In a sense, we are all to blame for its prevalence.
5. I welcome any and all arguments and will respect (and hopefully respond to) those opinions.

Now, some background on me: I'm Nick. I graduated from UC Berkeley this past December with a major in Legal Studies. During my last two semesters, I became increasingly involved with TobaccNO, a student organization focused on educating the campus community about tobacco and advocating for smoke-free campus policy, the latter of which was my calling. Thanks to my short-lived involvement with TobaccNO, I helped make some positive changes on campus, leaving Berkeley slightly better than I found it. I am determined to continue this type of work elsewhere, and am optimistic that this blog will somehow lead me to those opportunities.

Although there are arguments to be made for and against tobacco use as a personal choice and/or cultural custom, I am primarily concerned with the justice behind secondhand smoke in public spaces. Personally, secondhand smoke is bothersome--not only because it smells awful and is far from healthy, but because it is preventable and, more often than not, involuntary. I don't think I am alone in this regard; I suspect that there are many people out there, like me, who can't stand having smoke inadvertently blown in their direction. However, it seems that most of us, for whatever reason, are reluctant to confront this issue.

My purpose for this blog is to feature and commend those who are confronting the issue and are making progress toward establishing smoke-free environments. Along the way, I will offer my own commentary and analysis to spark productive dialogue. Thanks for reading, and enjoy!