We’re excited to share the news that our smoke-free petition made the front page of the January 8, 2009 Stanford Daily. Also included in the issue was an op-ed by Jamie Tam. Full-text of both articles and links to the Stanford Daily follow below. For more information on our petition or to sign the petition, please see the post below.
SCAC leads campaign for smoke-free campus
Stanford Colleges Against Cancer (SCAC) recently circulated a petition to make Stanford a smoke-free campus. Since its Internet release last week, the petition has been met with both vigorous support and opposition.
Presently featuring more than 350 signatures, the petition asserts that “the freedom of non-smokers to move around campus without exposure to second-hand smoke is a fundamental right.”
SCAC defines a smoke-free campus as one that “designates the entire campus as smoke-free” with the exception of a few remote locations, prohibits tobacco sales and advertising on campus and offers tobacco cessation programs to those members of the community wishing to quit.
“We are interested in learning what support exists at Stanford for going smoke-free,” said Jamie Tam ‘10, SCAC president and primary author of the petition. “If Stanford goes smoke-free, the message of health it would send to our peer institutions . . . would be ground-breaking.”
Stanford’s current smoking policy bans smoking indoors and within 20 feet of all buildings, consistent with California state law.
Cigarettes are available for purchase at Tresidder Express and at the Valero gas station on Campus Drive.
Since Sept. 1 of last year, the Stanford Benefits program and Health Improvement Program (HIP) have been providing free education, counseling and nicotine patches and gum to Stanford faculty and staff trying to quit smoking.
Tam also noted that the petition was partially inspired by the School of Medicine’s adoption of a smoke-free policy in September 2007.
Dr. Robert Jackler, professor of otorhinolaryngology, supported the new policy at the medical school and has worked with SCAC on their initiative to make all of Stanford smoke-free.
“I was very pleased and proud that students have come up with an initiative and were thoughtful about it,” Jackler said. “I would emphasize this is not about depriving smokers of anything; this is about allowing people to breathe clean air.”
Jackler also added that a switch to a smoke-free campus would benefit smokers, citing studies reporting that “if you make it inconvenient for people to smoke, it helps them to quit.”
According to Jackler, though both Stanford Hospital and the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital currently have one outdoor smoking area each, the hospitals are considering becoming smoke-free as well.
Many signatories of the petition cited health concerns as their main reason for supporting the initiative.
“Everyone knows that smoking is a harmful behavior,” said signatory Kyle Evaldez ‘09. “If it discourages people from smoking, I’m personally for it, and if it steps on people’s toes who do smoke, it’s probably worth it.”
Still, many students, smokers and non-smokers, disagree.
“I’m disturbed at the mere fact that such a petition exists,” said Jeff Gilliland ‘09, “as it seems to me to be a clear violation of the rights of an adult person.”
“I don’t think it should be up to a small minority of students signing a petition to decide the availability of smoking products for everyone on campus,” added Stephen Hibbs ‘11. “I also don’t think that throwing how-to-quit pamphlets at smokers is going to convince many, if any, students who smoke.”
SCAC Vice President Daniel Scott-Smith ‘11 responded to these criticisms by emphasizing that a smoke-free campus does not mean a smoking ban.
“[The petition] doesn’t say we want to ban smoking on campus,” he said. “We felt it was our responsibility to fight for some kind of policy that would curb Stanford’s support of the tobacco industry, and that somehow we could campaign for the health of our students.”
“The writers of the petition agree with people’s rights to choose to smoke,” Scott-Smith added.
Jackler echoed this sentiment.
“It’s not about depriving anyone of that privilege,” he said. “We’re trying to put [the designated smoking areas] where people who choose not to smoke are not going to be influenced by the choices [of smokers].”
Kimberlee Vagadori, as college project coordinator at the California Youth Advocacy Network, a non-profit funded by the state of California, has supported SCAC’s petition and efforts across the state to prevent smoking on college campuses.
“Stanford has all this great research about the danger of tobacco use and second-hand smoke exposure,” she said, “and yet the policy is pretty weak compared to other college campuses.”
Vagadori noted that private universities in California are only required to ban smoking indoors and have lagged behind policy changes at public universities.
Only four public universities in California still sell tobacco products on campus.
“On campuses who adopt these policies, a couple years after, the social norm changes and there’s less smoking,” Vagadori added. “Overall, it takes a while for that to happen.”
Here at Stanford, students seem to disagree about the amount of smoking on campus.
“Every day at Stanford, I encounter people smoking around my dorm, the Quad and Tresidder,” said Alicia Kriewall ‘11.
On the other hand, Jane Heyes ‘11 finds the amount of smoking on campus non-intrusive.
“I have yet to be bothered by someone smoking on campus,” Heyes said. “Right now, the population is too small for me to worry about.”
According to Jeff Wachtel, senior assistant to President John Hennessy, the final decision on making Stanford smoke-free lies with the president.
“We’d want to make sure it was discussed pretty broadly within the Stanford community, with the Committee on Health and Safety and the Faculty Senate, for example,” Wachtel said.
The ultimate decision on the petition and a smoke-free campus may affect another recent controversy as well.
According to Dr. Stephen Fortmann, professor in disease prevention at the medical school, the Faculty Senate voted down a proposal that would ban research funded by the tobacco industry at Stanford in the spring of 2007.
Hennessy and Provost John Etchemendy also rejected the proposal.
“There was no evidence that the Faculty Senate would have supported a smoke-free campus at that time,” Fortmann said. “Wide support, particularly from students, might persuade the administration to see if they could come up with a viable plan.”
Though he is happy with the response to the petition, Scott-Smith said he recognizes that a verdict on these efforts will take time.
“It’s hard to forecast when or if this will pass,” he said, “but this current reaction, people talking, is a good sign.”
It is beyond a doubt that smoking tobacco is a dangerous and addictive habit, and that second-hand smoke can cause harm even to non-smokers. The editorial board supports reasonable efforts to reduce the exposure of the Stanford community to second-hand smoke and to provide assistance to smokers who want to quit. At the same time, however, the editorial board feels that the petition to make Stanford a “smoke-free” campus is an unnecessarily strong measure that unfairly ostracizes cigarette smokers.
Compared to the rest of the country, Stanford is already a relatively smoke-free environment. According to the American Heart Association, 23.9 percent of American men and 18.1 percent of American women ages 18 and older are smokers. Anecdotal evidence suggests that number is far lower among Stanford students.
In fact, the 2007 Stanford Health and Lifestyle Assessment revealed that only four percent of 1,088 employees surveyed over a two-year period smoke. The petition’s claim that an entirely “smoke-free” campus is necessary to protect “the freedom of non-smokers to move around campus without exposure to second-hand smoke” is a disproportionate response to the problem of smoking on campus.
Apart from these concerns about the real necessity of a “smoke-free” campus, the petition brings to mind serious questions of hypocrisy and enforceability. For those 18 and older, smoking is still a perfectly legal activity – as opposed to, for instance, underage drinking and marijuana use.
It borders on humorous to imagine students leading a campus-wide campaign to banish legal cigarette smokers while turning a blind eye to illicit alcohol and drug use, which also pose serious public health risks. Furthermore, the editorial board would venture a guess that those smoking marijuana are somewhat more likely to violate policies about smoking indoors than tobacco smokers. Finally, if illegal underage drinking occurs on such a widespread basis, how will the proposed cigarette ban be enforced, particularly in a time of serious budget cuts?
The editorial board believes that the best solution to the problem of smoking on campus is to place greater emphasis on the programs and restrictions that are already in place. Consistent with California law, smoking is not allowed inside or within 20 feet of a building. Better compliance with this policy by those on campus who do choose to smoke and better enforcement of it by residential staff and campus security would prevent the harmful effects of second-hand smoke around dorms and classrooms.
Most importantly, the Stanford community needs greater awareness about the programs available to help smokers who want to quit. The Stanford Benefits program and Health Improvement Program provide education, counseling and nicotine-replacement products to faculty and staff. Similarly, Wellness and Health Promotion Services also provides individual consultation and workshops regarding alcohol, tobacco and other drug abuse prevention.
The editorial board applauds these programs and hopes that all Stanford community members who wish to quit smoking can find the tools to succeed. A “smoke-free” campus, however, is not the appropriate method for achieving that goal.
