Student group lights up discussion on tobacco ban
Posted September 28, 2009 at 12:00 am
Updated September 28, 2009 at 3:56 am
Debate over Washington University’s upcoming tobacco ban heated up last week during the first Controversy N’ Coffee of the school year
The discussion, which drew enough students to fill the conference room in the Danforth University Center, featured Peter Benson, assistant professor of anthropology; Stephen LeFrak, pulmonologist and professor in the School of Medicine; and Doug Luke, professor in the Brown School of Social Work. The discussion was titled “Jumping on the ‘Ban’ Wagon: A Panel Discussion on Smoking Bans.”
Carson Smith, a University alumnus who works for the Center of Tobacco Policy Research with the Brown School, moderated the first part of the discussion. Following this portion of the discussion, the panel addressed specific student questions.
According to LeFrak, diseases associated with secondhand smoke are most often seen among those who work in the hospitality industry, such as waitresses and bartenders.
LeFrak said he believes the implementation of the tobacco ban probably will not prevent any chronic illnesses among University students.
“In terms of thinking about cardiovascular disease and cancer—particularly lung cancer—[contracting a disease from secondhand smoke] requires long exposures at high doses for long periods of time,” LeFrak said.
Benson shared his view that the University has other health concerns in mind, too, in enacting the ban.
“Secondhand smoke harms others, but the federal government has classified nicotine dependence as a disorder in its own right,” Benson said. “Wash. U. may therefore be justified in trying to create conditions to limit smoking.”
Studies consistently show that smoking bans lead to a 30 percent reduction in smoking rates in a community, according to Benson.
“Smoke-free legislation is one of the best ways to bring about that kind of dramatic result in people who stop smoking,” he said.
Benson argued that even though the University is an institution with diverse students who make different choices, the ability to smoke on campus is not a necessary component of a college atmosphere.
“While the rule may seem to betray the image of the college campus as a place where social norms can be challenged, it is not evident that tobacco use needs to be a part of an open-minded intellectual and social environment,” he said.
Students attending Controversy N’ Coffee praised the event for what it had to offer.
“The smoking ban is a great topic to discuss. All the professors were really wonderful speakers and had really great opinions,” sophomore Greg Schwartz said. “I thought it was a great experience.”
While the tobacco ban discussion was the first Controversy N’ Coffee event this year, the student group behind the event has been around for almost a year and a half.
Controversy N’ Coffee coordinator Allison Pearson, a junior, said the discussions really took off at the beginning of last year.
“We went to the activities fair last fall and just said, ‘Hey, we’ll give it a shot [and] see if anyone’s interested in joining us,’” Pearson said. “We were a brand new group. No one had ever heard of us.”
The group seeks to generate discussions between students, faculty and staff on various topics of interest. In the past, Controversy N’ Coffee has hosted talks about educational inequality, the national drinking age and the state of the economy.
For last spring’s discussion on gay marriage, around 130 students showed up.
Although the group is still relatively new to campus, it is attracting a larger crowd with each discussion.
“Our group is growing, our events are growing, and we’re getting better at what we do,” Pearson said.
4 Comments
Related Posts
No related posts.
Print This Post
Loading ...
On September 28, 2009 at 6:07 pm
repealthebans said
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
British Medical Journal & WHO conclude secondhand smoke “health hazard” claims are greatly exaggerated
The BMJ published report at:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
concludes that “The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer are considerably weaker than generally believed.”
What makes this study so significant is that it took place over a 39 year period, and studied the results of non-smokers who lived with smokers….. meaning these non-smokers were exposed to secondhand smoke up to 24 hours per day; 365 days per year for 39 years. And there was still no relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality.
In light of the damage to business, jobs, and the economy from smoking bans the BMJ report should be revisited by lawmakers as a reference tool and justification to repeal the now unnecessary and very damaging smoking ban laws.
Also significant is the World Health Organization (WHO) study:
Passive smoking doesn’t cause cancer-official
By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent
” The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: ‘There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood.’ ”
And if lawmakers need additional real world data to further highlight the need to eliminate these onerous and arbitrary laws, air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University proves that secondhand smoke is up to 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations.
The Chemistry of Secondary Smoke
About 94% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a slight excess of carbon dioxide. Another 3 % is carbon monoxide. The last 3 % contains the rest of the 4,000 or so chemicals supposedly to be found in smoke… but found, obviously, in very small quantities if at all.This is because most of the assumed chemicals have never actually been found in secondhand smoke. (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).
Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms. Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured. To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a saltshaker and shake out a few grains of salt. A single grain of that salt will weigh in the ballpark of 100 million picograms! (Allen Blackman. Chemistry Magazine 10/08/01).
- (Excerpted from “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains” with permission of the author.)
The Myth of the Smoking Ban ‘Miracle’
Restrictions on smoking around the world are claimed to have had a dramatic effect on heart attack rates. It’s not true. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7451/
As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that:
“Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.”
-Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997
On September 28, 2009 at 8:26 pm snowbird said
Smoke from tobacco in a decently ventilated venue is a statistically insignificant health risk.
On September 29, 2009 at 2:56 pm Michael J. McFadden said
I’m glad to see students and professors actually taking the debate seriously and looking beyond the soundbites from the antismoking advocates. Let me recommend a couple of online readings to start: Read the COMMENTS at:
http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/2210.html
to see how the Antismokers lie with statistics and WHY they lie. {Hint: millions in grant money}
See:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/09/iceland-smoking-banheart-attack-study.html
for an example of the heart attack studies used to build up that “Big New Study” you’ve been hearing about in the news. And see “Independently Confirmed?” at:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/bmj.38055.715683.55v1#125618
to see how contradictory data actually got erased from the internet and had to be retrieved by an archival engine.
If any professor is thinking of devoting part of a course on social movements, the psychology of groups, propaganda analysis, medical ethics, or other such studies as relate to the question of smoking bans and the antismoking movement, I invite them to email me at Cantiloper over on the AOL system and I’ll be happy to recommend further readings (and no, not just my book.)
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
On September 30, 2009 at 3:00 pm Francis said
The health hazards are irrelevant. The point is that smokers discharge stinking wastes from their bodies. In private let them do what they like, but in public where others are impacted by the sight and smell, cigarette smoking is disgusting.
.
Bodily wastes from the body’s north end are no more desired by others than bodily wastes from the south end. The real argument against cigarette addiction is just that it is dirty and rude.
.
Those who want to argue about how “harmless” waste smoke from their face is may as well also argue how harmless waste gas from their rectum is – after all, nobody has died from the stink. But whether or not it is toxic, people have the right to tell f@rters and smokers to go away and do whatever they must do, in private. The rest of us just don’t want them around us.