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 Not only are campus police hardly aware of the rule, but much of the signage is out of date (though TobaccNO is currently fixing this), leaving misinformed smokers to light up in high-traffic areas.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...