I ended Part 1 with some good smoke-free news at two Pacific-10 Conference schools, which is nothing unusual for this blog; I'm always highlighting good news. So, for Part 2, I want to begin by sharing and commenting on some not-so-good smoke-free news, which happens to be occurring a bit closer to the Atlantic.
While its sister school, Barnard, is on the brink of becoming a smoke-free campus, Columbia University is moving in the other direction. The University Senate is considering a reduction of the current policy, which prohibits smoking within 50 feet of campus buildings, by changing the policy to 20 feet. Now, I have seldom heard of campus smoke-free policies extending past 30 feet before, so, I am surprised that, of all places, one this strict would be found in the dense confines of New York City. Think about it: If two buildings are 100 feet apart (which I would imagine plenty are at Columbia) smoking is not allowed in between the buildings. How is someone who is about to light up going to be able to gauge this distance, or the 50-foot boundary around any given building? There's no line, and even if there were, is it realistic to expect people to not cross it--let alone, prevent their secondhand smoke from crossing it? It seems that a lack of policy compliance and enforcement instigated the resolution. Although the Senate appears to be genuinely interested in providing smoking cessation resources and being more realistic about policy enforcement, I think that Columbia would be forfeiting what is virtually a smoke-free campus with the 50-foot rule. Furthermore, I don't think that 20 feet is much easier to measure! The good news is that a straw poll in early November showed 22 senators in favor of the original 50-foot policy, and 16 opposed to it.
While I'm on the topic of enforcement, the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill has a 100-foot policy, which was adopted in 2008. People regularly violate the policy, yet no citations have ever been issued for smoking within 100 feet of a campus building. How can this be? According to the Daily Tar Heel Editorial Board, "UNC cares about smoking enough to have a restrictive policy, but not enough to enforce it." I couldn't agree more. There's really no getting around this--the campus is effectively smoke-free, yet the policy hasn't been enforced once. I only have two words for this: WHY NOT?
Well, here's my answer to the question, as applied to my limited experience with the 25-foot policy at UC Berkeley: Campus cops are not equipped to enforce the policy. I once approached two UCPD officers about their take on the campus smoking policy. I wasn't surprised when they told me that they rarely issue citations because they have more pressing issues to deal with, but I was livid when they told me that the policy extends to 20 feet from buildings and were unaware of the change to 25 feet, despite having nearly a whole year pass by since the change. This told me that, like the situation at UNC, the policy amounts to little more than words on a page. Legend has it that, at Berkeley, citations cost the smokers around $200--quite the stiff penalty, which leads me to believe that the problem is a matter of social pressure; nobody wants to be that guy who tells a smoker to move away from the smoke-free boundary, or worse, cite them for a violation. This is further demonstrated at the University of Iowa, an entirely smoke-free campus where stories of smoking "tickets" are myths. In short, smoking citations are underutilized as effective enforcement measures and great sources of revenue.
Some final highlights (and my brief reactions) for the month:
- All restaurants and bars in Spain will be smoke-free, beginning next week. Smoke-free law isn't just an American phenomenon!
- A Florida jury found R.J. Reynolds to be 90% at fault for the death of James Horner, a two-pack a day smoker, and awarded Horner's daughter $80 million. I realize that this is slightly off-topic, but it's a big deal because the past eight wrongful death cases against the tobacco industry in Florida have resulted in defense verdicts. Streak broken!
- "Smoking ban leads to major decrease in maternal smoking, pre-term births." Enough said.
- A new study shows a correlation between the presence of smoking bans and decreased symptoms of asthma in children. We all know that correlation doesn't equate to causation, but hey, this isn't exactly surprising news. Even if secondhand smoke isn't hurting young asthmatics, I can assure you that secondhand smoke isn't helping them.
- I should have added this to the segment of Part 1 of this month's digest where I talked about the CDC helping Southern Nevada colleges go smoke-free, but Las Vegas McCarran International Airport, which currently allows smoking in one airport bar, may soon be entirely smoke-free indoors. The last thing Vegas-goers need before/after a few days in the smoke-filled casinos on the Strip is to be exposed to secondhand smoke in the airport.
- Following in the footsteps of New York City, Los Angeles has a chance at a ban on smoking in "all public areas and common areas where people congregate." Is it just me, or is that city in dire need of a pollution reduction--no matter how insignificant it may be? Anyway, hopefully there will be more good news to come.
- Santa Clara County has passed one of the Bay Area's "most sweeping smoking bans." Within 14 months, smoking will be banned inside apartments, condominiums and townhouses, as well as in outdoor eating areas of restaurants. I applaud this change and can only hope that this ban will be at least a fraction as influential as Silicon Valley has been on the rest of the world.
- King County, better known as northwestern Washington and the city of Seattle, has passed controversial legislation on e-cigarettes, which will be banned in all places where cigarette use is already banned. In May, I called the e-cigarette a "worthy and selfless investment" for nicotine addicts because it doesn't emit secondhand smoke, and instead emits what amounts to water vapor. However progressive and effective this ban may be, I think that this particular one is a bit premature. The rationale behind the ban is that, by allowing the use of e-cigarettes in places where cigarette smoking is prohibited, the new devices effectively uphold the social norms of smoking in public, which the state's smoking ban passed in 2006 was successfully combating. In other words, King County wanted to make sure that people aren't being tricked by the rise in e-cigarette use, which may cause the widespread perception that public smoking is acceptable again. This kind of policy is perfectly fine for the university setting, where there are high concentrations of impressionable people (i.e., risk-loving college students), but, unfortunately, I honestly don't think that the public is ready for this tight of a ban on smoking--or, in this case, what merely looks like smoking. Even if we were to give cigarette smokers adequate time to switch over to e-cigarettes (which we really haven't), I think that this law is too far-reaching into the private choices of individuals. Nevertheless, I'm glad to see that some civic leaders are willing to take risks for the sake of public health improvements.
