However, a wide variety of bans exist at other schools, ranging from all-campus tobacco bans to the prohibition of smoking inside campus buildings.

There are very few campus-wide tobacco bans. According to Amy Heard, co-chair of the Undergraduate Tobacco Ban Task Force Committee, most schools with campus-wide smoking bans are public schools in states where there are already smoking bans on public property.

All universities in Illinois, New Jersey and Wisconsin have policies that prohibit smoking in all residence halls, dormitories and main campuses to protect students and staff from secondhand smoke. These bans are prompted by state laws, not school regulations.

The majority of smoking bans, however, occur on a much smaller scale.

Colleges across the country have had difficulties in enforcing the bans, and still, many schools continue to allow students to smoke on campus. For example, California’s Pierce College will not implement its smoking ban because of its budget.

Washington University in St. Louis
The University implemented a campus-wide tobacco ban on July 1, 2010. Prior to this policy, smoking was only prohibited inside buildings. The University is providing services to help students and staff quit smoking if they would like. Because of the ban, many students and staff have begun smoking along the borders of campus, and many students feel that the ban is not enforced.

Shortly after the April 2009 decision to enact the ban was announced, the Undergraduate Tobacco Task Force Committee was formed to decide how to implement the ban.
While the committee was aware that Washington University was one of the few schools with such a ban, they were not bothered by this fact.
“I think that it is a great public health measure,” Heard said.

The task force committee also presented a survey to students. It showed that more students were against the ban than the number of students who identified as smokers.
According to Heard, these students on campus who objected to the smoking ban were not against the campus-wide tobacco ban because many other schools do not have such a ban, but for their own personal reasons.

“I don’t think that the prevalence of the tobacco ban [on other campuses] really affected what [students who were against the ban] thought about it,” Heard said. “I never got the impression that it had anything to do with what other schools were doing.”

Heard is pleased with the results of the ban but acknowledges that there are still smokers.

“I think it’s kind of an eyesore to see the people lined up on Forsyth smoking,” she said.

University of Missouri-Columbia
In 2009, the University of Missouri banned smoking inside any university building or within 20 feet of its entrances. The university hopes to implement a policy that restricts smoking to designated outdoor smoking areas by July 2011 and prohibits smoking campus wide by 2014. The university is providing programs for students and staff to help them quit smoking.

University of Missouri-St. Louis
The University of Missouri-St. Louis has the same ban as the University of Missouri. However, starting in July 2011, the UMSL smoking ban will become more complete with a campus-wide ban. If students or staff are caught smoking, they will be referred to Student Affairs or Human Resources, respectively.

Carnegie Mellon University
Carnegie Mellon University has a policy that prohibits smoking within 20 feet of building entrances. In 2009, the school started to strengthen its policy. The university decided to ban smoking on campus except for certain designated smoking areas.

Columbia University
Columbia’s proposed smoking ban was not heavily supported—fewer than half of polled students supported the campus-wide ban. In the spring of 2010, it was voted that Columbia should not have any tobacco or smoking ban. Other options are still being discussed, including a smoking ban within 20 feet of buildings.

New York University
New York University’s current policy, which started this fall, does not allow anyone to smoke within 15 feet of any building entrances, exits or air vents. The university passed this ban in the beginning of 2010 after 84 percent of polled students said they favored the implementation. But some students and residents are upset and feel that the university does not have the right to decide whether people smoke on public sidewalks. Employees of the medical center can be fired for smoking repeatedly in prohibited areas.

Rice University
In August, Rice enacted a policy that stopped smokers from smoking inside any university-owned or leased building or in any open-air athletic or recreational area. People are still allowed to smoke when they are at least 25 feet away from any building entrance or exit or in a designated outdoor smoking area. The university posted no-smoking signs on campus so students and faculty are aware of the new rules. If students are not following the ban, they are referred to the college master or judicial committee. If a staff members are caught smoking, their supervisors will be called on to resolve the issue informally.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Students at UNC-Chapel Hill are prohibited from smoking inside university buildings and, since January 2008, in outside areas within 100 feet of a building. Violators have to pay a fine of $25 and court costs of $121. To make it easier for smokers, the university is considering providing shelters outdoors so that students can smoke even when it is raining. The university also provides programs to help students quit smoking.

Sophomore Kelsey Brod, a Student Union senator for the Sam Fox School of Design & Visual Arts, has been trying to collaborate with Student Health Services (SHS) to find a way to discourage students from congregating on Forsyth but has thus far not been able to make headway.

“I have taken this on as one of my personal projects this year under the University Initiatives Committee,” Brod said. “I e-mailed my constituency [to ask] if it was a concern, and I received the largest response I have ever seen.”

Brod has taken on the issue partly as a result of Assistant to the Chancellor Rob Wild’s suggestion at the first Senate meeting that SU could work with the administration to try to help fix the problem. According to Brod, Wild suggested that students’ voices could possibly persuade the University to do something about the secondhand smoke on Forsyth.

“Wild mentioned that this is something that Student Union could work on with the administration,” Brod said. “He said that Chancellor Wrighton was not pleased about it but did not say that there would be any University action.”

Brod e-mailed SHS director Alan Glass on Sept. 10, explaining her constituents’ concerns and asking if SHS could do anything to prevent smokers from congregating on Forsyth, forwarding an e-mail from one of her constituents as well. Brod received a three-sentence response, in which Glass and Ann Prenatt, the vice chancellor for human resources, thanked Brod for expressing her concerns, but said that SHS could not do anything about Forsyth, since it is not campus property. While Brod was displeased by the short e-mail and lack of suggestions, she acknowledged the difficulty of dealing with the matter.

“I do not know if SHS will be the best outlet to try and work with,” Brod said. “They are completely valid on the point that Forsyth is public property.”

“It is a very difficult situation to deal with. We just have to see what we can do, but hopefully we can work towards a solution,” said sophomore Mamatha Challa, the speaker of the Senate.

In an e-mail to Student Life, Glass and Prenatt wrote that they are open to student input but that all suggestions must be consistent with the ban. There have not been many complaints to SHS yet.

“We have received very little feedback from Washington University community members,” Glass and Prenatt wrote. “The majority of this feedback has been supportive of the tobacco-free policy.”

While the e-mail that Brod’s constituent sent suggested adding designated areas on campus, Brod understands that that will not happen, now that the ban has been implemented.

“Before the tobacco ban was implemented, students wanted designated areas on campus, but the University decided that they did not want to do that,” Brod said. “Right now that’s out of the question, but we did consider that before the ban was implemented.”

One alternative that Brod suggested was the removal of the outdoor ashtrays from Forsyth, which she believes encourages students to gather on Forsyth, or to move them to lower-trafficked areas of the campus perimeter to encourage smokers to move to other parts of the campus perimeter. Glass and Prenatt, however, do not think that moving the ashtrays would make a difference.

“Those who smoke are likely to gravitate to the most convenient public spot whether an ashtray is available or not,” Glass and Prenatt wrote. “We are grateful that these ashtrays are being used rather than trash being left on the sidewalks.”

Now that the ban has been fully implemented for nearly three months, Challa hopes that the negative effects on students can be minimized.

“This is a problem regardless of whether or not you agree with the tobacco ban,” Challa said. “Now that the ban has been implemented, we need to make sure that it doesn’t negatively affect students.”

The health issues at the crux of the smoking ban cannot be denied. Research proves that second hand smoke can be responsible for cancer and cardiovascular disease. This year, a campus-wide smoking ban has been established, forcing smokers outside of campus whenever they need their nicotine fix. The ban has even been extended to our own cars!

However, as an exchange student from Europe, it seems peculiar to me that such a wide-open campus feels the need to send its smokers outside of campus boundaries. An indoor smoking ban is understandable, but with the winds blowing away most of the risks of second hand smoke, a campus-wide ban is an unnecessary and a

heavy-handed measure.

You cannot justify a campus-wide smoking ban by saying that you want to defend the innocent, upstanding non-smokers, because a reasonable compromise would be to have designated smoking areas that would enable smokers and non-smokers to coexist in harmony. It seems the real reason behind the ban is to pressure and stigmatize smokers, to push them away from the Wash. U. community. The pressure on freshmen to stop smoking will be overwhelming.

Those who defend the smoking ban reject any positive effect that tobacco may have. While it is seen as a drug in that it is addictive, it is not seen as having an effect on the nervous system. In other words, the cigarette has become a “death stick”, and its diverse properties have been reduced solely to the harm it causes to our health.

While this aspect of smoking is irrefutable, it completely leaves out the question of choice. This is further emphasized by the fact that the decision to smoke is seen only as the result of peer pressure and a will to look “cool.”

But tobacco is a nervous relaxant, a psychotropic drug. It was originally used by Indian shamans to reach a trance state. As such, it is odd that smoking is attracting such widespread disapproval at a time when the campaign for marijuana legislation is gaining weight. It’s almost as if people think it’s stupid to smoke a light drug and so had better go all out.

Many will no doubt argue that stopping smokers from harming their own health is a positive thing, a progressive crusade to find the new Holy Grail that is the totally sanitized world. Most people raised an incredulous eyebrow when they heard that the Canadian town of Halifax banned perfume on public buses, but the smoking ban is another step on the slippery slope towards total conformity. We live in a world where everything is dangerous and in which our lives must conform to the pre-approved path of our moral leaders. Don’t smoke, don’t have sex, drink only if you’re over 21—I like a world with asperities, and I want a world where people can have at least a semblance of freedom, where smokers don’t have to walk 15 minutes to their place of exile, rejected, unloved, unwanted.

So while enjoying your smoke-free campus, remember the cigarette wielder that you have ostracized.

The smoking ban will impove the quality of life for anyone on campus who has ever held their breath while walking through a cloud of smoke, had a coughing fit or an allergic reaction to tobacco. With the enforcement of the smoking ban, these people now will be able to enjoy campus without fear of health issues.

The ban was realized at a very logical time. With the recent implementation of health care reform backed by the Obama administration, Americans have become responsible for paying for the health care for all citizens. Therefore, all Americans are indirectly financially responsible when one is sick. This poses an issue for all citizens when someone becomes involved in destructive behavior,

such as smoking.

Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco found in a 2002 study that 3.8 percent of smokers quit smoking when their offices instituted smoke free policies at work. Employees who continued smoking smoked an average of 3.1 fewer cigarettes per day, creating a combined 29 percent relative reduction in tobacco use among all employees.

The scope of the University’s policy extends beyond the workplace and into dorms, creating an opportunity to replicate these positive results on a bigger scale. Every year in the United States alone, there are an estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in non-smokers who live with smokers. Eliminating smoking on campus can help keep non-smokers healthy. If Washington University can have that effect on such a large scale, they can drastically prevent long-term health problems for their students that all Americans would have to pay for.

So even though I can’t smoke on campus, Washington University is still a place brimming with opportunity and healthy lungs.

A voter casts her ballot at Wydown Middle School Tuesday afternoon as other booths sit empty. Turnout in St. Louis County was under 20 percent as voters overwhelmingly passed a smoking ban. (Matt Mitgang | Student Life)

St. Louis County voters approved the smoking ban measure Proposition N by an overwhelming margin in Tuesday’s election, which saw low turnout throughout the county.

The proposition, which passed 65.3 percent to 34.7 percent, will ban smoking in public indoor places in St. Louis County in January 2011, with exemptions for casino floors, private clubs, smoking lounges at St. Louis airport, and some bars. The proposition’s passage also triggers a smoking ban in St. Louis that was passed by the city’s aldermen on Oct. 23.

“We have made a major step forward on cleaner air and obviously a healthy environment for our citizens in the county and city, and hopefully for the whole state in the future,” said County Councilwoman Barbara Fraser, D-University City, who introduced the St. Louis County Council bill that put the smoking ban on the ballot.

Proposition N opponent Bill Hannegan, though disappointed, downplayed the result, saying that “it was always going to be tough in the county” due to its low smoking rate.

Hannegan, who heads the group Keep St. Louis Free, added that “the fight’s not over” and that the opposition could challenge the constitutionality of the casino exemption, bring up a conflict between the two smoking bans and state law, or push to amend the city’s smoking ban.

Campaign leaders reported low traffic at polls throughout the county on Tuesday. Overall turnout was just under 20 percent, which was in line with county election officials’ predictions.

Students turned out in especially large numbers for the November 2008 election, but things were different this time around. Nearly all students when interviewed said they did not turn out to vote, despite most of them saying they supported the measure.

Senior James Mosbacher said it took him “three minutes, max” to cast his vote for Proposition N at his polling place, which he said was virtually empty.

“There was nobody there,” he said. “Absolutely nobody.”

The low turnout underscored the absence of a statewide or federal race on the ballot, an obstacle that campaign leaders attempted to overcome with last-minute mobilization efforts. Leaders from both sides said they called supporters on Tuesday in a final get-out-the-vote push.

Proposition N supporters gathered with posters and signs during the Monday rush hour at five street-side locations, including the intersection of Forest Park Parkway and Skinker Boulevard.

More than 200 Saint Louis University medical students and faculty gathered on their campus on Thursday to rally for the ban.

The Washington University community’s highest-profile supporter of the proposition is Martha Bhattacharya, postdoctoral fellow in developmental biology, who served as treasurer of pro-proposition County Citizens for Cleaner Air. Bhattacharya said last week she encouraged students to vote for the measure.

St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay even made an appeal on his blog on Monday for county voters to vote for the proposition, writing that the ban “will make St. Louis County restaurants safer for their employees and more pleasant for everyone else.” He also noted that the proposition’s passage would trigger the city’s own ban.

Hannegan said members of the opposition had distributed flyers to bars and restaurants in the days leading up to the election. Bowling alley proprietors also rallied against the proposition in Hazelwood on Saturday.

Most restaurant and bar owners opposed the proposition out of concerns that a smoking ban would violate their property rights and drive their smoking customers to nearby counties that lack smoking bans.

Ban supporters pointed to peer-reviewed studies showing that smoking bans have no negative impacts on business.

Proposition N passed even without the support of some health groups that stayed neutral due to the measure’s exemptions.

In a statement issued shortly after the votes were counted, the St. Louis chapter of the American Cancer Society did not back the smoking ban but said the measure’s passage “confirms that smoke-free laws are uniformly popular with the vast majority of the public and brings critical momentum toward achieving meaningful health protection from secondhand smoke for all people who live and work in St. Louis County.”

“The focus now will be on delivering health protection from secondhand smoke for those workers who still do not have it—those in bars and casinos,” the statement said.

Supporters had long argued that the ban, despite the exemptions, was a good start and was the only ban that would have passed the County Council.

“I would prefer if there were not exemptions, but the bottom line is you need to get something passed,” Stuart Slavin, associate dean for curriculum at SLU School of Medicine, said Monday at the Forest Park-Skinker rally.

Fraser’s bill passed as a result of compromise. The initial bill had no exemptions, but the council voted it down. A later version of the bill with the exemptions passed the council by a 4-3 vote on Aug. 25, following weeks of heated meetings.

The Aug. 4 meeting saw Robert Blaine, medical public policy specialist at the University, urge the council to put on the ballot “as broad and as comprehensive a ban as possible.” The University supported sending the final ban to voters but did not endorse the measure itself.

OTHER KEY RACES

Proposition E-911: YES, 67.7 percent-32.3 percent
A 0.1 percent sales tax increase, revenues from which would go toward upgrading emergency communications equipment in St. Louis County.

Special election, Missouri House 74th District: STACEY NEWMAN (D) 61.3 percent, DANIEL O’SULLIVAN (R) 38.7 percent
Special election in the 74th Missouri House District to fill the seat formerly occupied by Democrat Steve Brown, who resigned the seat on Aug. 25 after pleading guilty to federal corruption charges.

Special election, Missouri Senate 4th District: JOE KEAVENY (D), unopposed
Special election in the 4th Missouri Senate District to fill the seat formerly occupied by Democrat Jeff Smith, who also resigned on Aug. 25 after pleading guilty to federal corruption charges.

Countywide turnout: 19.55 percent
Source: http://www.co.st-louis.mo.us/elections/

Known as Proposition N, the measure would ban smoking in most public indoor places in the county, effective January 2011. Bars that earn less than 25 percent of their sales from food, casino floors, smoking lounges at the St. Louis airport, and private clubs would be exempt.

The ban’s passage would also trigger a smoking ban in St. Louis that city aldermen passed on Oct. 23.

While the local community has been strongly divided, Washington University community members appear to favor the ban for public health reasons.

Senior James Mosbacher, a St. Louis-area resident, said he supports banning smoking in restaurants and will vote for the measure because it exempts bars.

“Part of the population that I think has made cities like Chicago so successful is young people,” Mosbacher said. “For businesses that conduct their sales not entirely on alcohol, I think that smoking is a drawback for those people to patronize these places.”

Martha Bhattacharya, postdoctoral fellow in developmental biology, has become perhaps the University community’s strongest advocate of the smoking ban, serving as treasurer of the pro-proposition campaign, County Citizens for Cleaner Air. Bhattacharya said she has encouraged some students she knows to vote.

In a recent op-ed submission to Student Life, Bhattacharya pushed students to turn out for the election, writing, “Last year, many of you registered to vote in St. Louis County in order to make a difference in the choice of our president. Please don’t let your civic responsibility stop there.”

When interviewed, some students who live in St. Louis County said they are not sure if they will vote, or they plan not to vote at all.
Sophomore Amy Plovnick said she supports the ban but has not decided if she will vote.

“This is really the only big issue people would be voting about,” Plovnick said. “I think it’s an important issue, but I don’t know if it’s that important to get me to go, but I’m going to try to vote.”

Turnout is expected to be very low throughout the county, largely because it is an off-year election with no high-level races on the ballot.

“We don’t have a Clinton or a Bush or even an Obama, much less a Senate race or House of Representatives race,” said Dave Robertson, a political scientist at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. “The people who will turn out are people who feel unusually strongly about the issue, for the most part.”

It’s not clear whether low turnout would sway the vote. Representatives of both sides have said they are working to mobilize voters.

The referendum originated over the summer in the St. Louis County Council as a bill, which was sponsored by Councilwoman Barbara Fraser, D-University City. Fraser has said the ban would not be perfect due to the exemptions but would still improve air quality without harming businesses.

Business and bar owners opposed to the ballot measure have argued that the ban would infringe upon their property rights.

Bill Hannegan of the anti-ban group Keep St. Louis Free has touted air filtration as an alternative to a smoking ban and said many bar owners are “worried sick” about the ban because it would drive customers to nearby counties.

Cicero’s Restaurant, which recently went smoke-free only in its dining area, will have to go completely smoke-free if the proposition passes. Bobby Francis, front-of-house manager of the popular destination for students on the Delmar Loop, said a ban would be “problematic” for bar customers who smoke, but did not know how it would affect business.

Ban supporters have said peer-reviewed studies show that air filtration is ineffective and that smoking bans do not negatively affect business.

Supporters have also said the ban on the ballot, though not comprehensive, would be a step in the right direction.

“There are a lot of bans that have started as local ordinances, and most of the local ordinances are not 100 percent comprehensive,” Bhattacharya said in an interview. “We have to start with something maybe a little less than perfect, but something that will substantially help the health of the county.”

Due to the trigger provision in the city’s smoking ban, county voters effectively will be determining the fates of both jurisdictions’ proposals.

In a debate on Monday in Clayton, Fraser said the trigger effect invalidates opponents’ argument that the proposition’s passage would create an uneven playing field between county and city businesses. She added that nearby counties “are looking seriously at this legislation, and that the domino effect will take place.”

Hannegan responded that the ban would cause non-exempt businesses to lose money to those that would be exempt.

“That’s not a level playing field,” Hannegan said.

Some public health groups, including the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association, have taken no stance on the proposition because they say it has too many exemptions.

Tuesday’s election will end a heated countywide battle that started in August, when the County Council debated multiple bill versions. The initial bill, which had no exemptions, was rejected, but a later bill version with the exemptions passed the council by a 4-3 vote on Aug. 25 and was later signed by County Executive Charlie Dooley.

At the Aug. 4 council meeting, Medical Public Policy Specialist Robert Blaine delivered a statement on behalf of the University urging the council to put a ban on the November ballot that was “as broad and as comprehensive as possible.” The statement came five months after the University announced a tobacco ban on its campuses, effective July 2010.

Despite the final bill’s exemptions, Blaine later said the University still supported putting the ban on the ballot, but he did not endorse the measure itself.

In a recent forum concerning the coming change in tobacco policy hosted by Controversy ’N’ Coffee on Thursday, Sept. 24, I had the pleasure of hearing your perspective alongside those of two other University professors. In presenting your position, you made the claim that the University served as the “parent” of attending students. You went on to state that in order to fulfill this parental role, the University should take a stronger role in regulating the individual health decisions of each student. I was most disheartened by this comment, and I regret to inform you that the assertion is inaccurate, misguided and evil.  You went on to refer to smokers as “diseased,” but the real disease here is not my pastime, but rather your ideology, which lowers every student in this University to the state of a peon incapable of making his own decisions correctly. Unfortunately, not even an army of Purell dispensers can erase this diseased worldview from existence. I advise that you take a lesson in the basic economic concept of a voluntary exchange prior to making such claims about our status.

Washington University is an institution that provides a service: education. Because it would be inefficient for me to teach myself, I am willing to compensate the University in exchange for this service. In doing so, the University and I both acknowledged that we have rights and that we must provide an equal value to one another when entering this contract. As a free adult, it would be irrational for me to consent to such an arrangement that would transform me into the University’s minion.

To support your claim that the University should take an active role in our personal health decisions, you cited the doctrine of in loco parentis. Because universities primarily consist of adults over the age of 18, this doctrine is irrelevant and rarely applied as law. The necessity of in loco parentis for a middle school teacher simply is not present for a university dealing with a mature student population, especially in the case of Washington University students, who were selected from among the brightest in the nation.

It must be recognized that we, the students of Washington University, already have parents. In most cases, they raised us, cared for us, loved us, comforted us, protected us and supported us in our endeavors. For these reasons, they are given a special claim on our lives and a voice in the decisions we make for ourselves. The University, on the other hand, provided none of these aforementioned aids in our childhood. To state that the University is on the same level as these individuals who dedicated their lives to improving ours is insulting to parents everywhere and demeans the critical service which they provide to the development of our society.

I remind you, Professor Benson, that we children are your customers. Many of us work very hard to provide you with a platform on which you can advocate our regulation. You are most fortunate that you are employed by a university, for in any other firm, blatantly insulting the competency of your customers often leads to summary dismissal.

We come to Washington University as adults. We make our own decisions. We determine our own values. We work to achieve our own goals as we see fit. We are not the children of the University that we voluntarily pay for a service. We are not pawns in your vision for a perfect society.

You should be ashamed of reducing every student in this community to the status of a helpless child. You should be ashamed of bastardizing the solemn relation of each person to his true parents. And I believe that you should apologize for this insulting comment if you wish to remain, in the eyes of your students, a professor of good standing and high moral character.

In liberty,
Philip Christofanelli

Philip is a sophomore in Arts & Sciences. He can be reached via e-mail at pchristofanelli@hotmail.com.

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.

If the St. Louis County clean-air legislation were to pass, it would not interfere with the legal rights or the ability of students to smoke. Over 64 percent of the U.S. population lives in a place with smoke-free restaurants, and over 300 colleges and universities have smoke-free campuses. Smokers are not the victims. To smoke or not is still a choice afforded to all students. The staff writer misses the point when it comes to clean-air legislation. It is not about the infringement of smokers’ rights, but the protection of the rights of workers and nonsmokers to healthfully inhabit the same space.

Washington University’s administration clearly recognizes that smoking is an addiction, not a fad. They therefore want to create an environment, both on campus and off, that is as innoxious as possible. There is significant evidence that smoke-free ordinances result in decreased smoking in adults, including among college-aged students.

As an out-of-state undergraduate student, I was often happily unaware of the goings-on in the St. Louis and Missouri political scene, as I suspect many students still are. Whether or not students choose to take notice, Wash. U. occupies a weighty role in the St. Louis region. As an employer of 15,000 people, an educator of 13,000 and  partner to the largest health care provider in the area, Wash. U.’s support of the clean-air ordinance is both commendable and crucial. Political inertia in St. Louis runs deep. Leadership from the University is important to help St. Louis catch up with the rest of the country. We are all better served when the University works to advance progressive policies that promote the health and well-being of everyone in the University and St. Louis communities.

When voting this November, consider your peers and those in your community who don’t have a choice when it comes to secondhand smoke exposure. Everyone deserves the right to breathe clean air.

“If you had asked me two months ago if I thought the voters in St. Louis County would have this opportunity in November, I would have said no,” said Robert Blaine, a medical public policy specialist at the University. “So I think it’s a significant step forward.”

The signature virtually assures the ban will go on the county ballot, meaning students registered to vote in Missouri who live west of the Brookings parking lot can vote on it. The bill’s sponsor, County Councilwoman Barbara Fraser, D-University City, has said the final step of getting a court order is a formality.

The final bill, its third version, will ask voters if they want to ban smoking in most indoor public places in the county. The ban would exempt bars—places where 75 percent of sales come from alcohol—casino floors and smoking lounges at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport. Areas west of the Brookings lot, including a major chunk of the Delmar Loop, would fall under the ban.

On Aug. 4, the University pushed the County Council to put as comprehensive a ban on the ballot as possible. That day, the council was considering the first two bill versions: one with and one without exemptions for bars and casinos only.

Despite the final bill’s exemptions, Blaine said the University supports the ban going on the ballot and letting voters decide the issue.

“I think the University would encourage any individual to educate themselves about this issue and make a decision on their own,” Blaine said.

Many in the school community are in favor of the ban going on the ballot. Some have also praised the University for supporting a ballot measure and planning to go tobacco free in July 2010.

Still, some on campus remain unhappy with the University’s tobacco ban, saying officials failed to weigh student input before announcing it.

The University’s support of the referendum has sparked some debate over how much student input school officials should seek when taking a stance on local issues.

“The issue of student input on these sorts of decisions is an interesting thing we should look into more,” said senior Chase Sackett, speaker of the Student Union Senate, which passed a resolution last April decrying the lack of student input that went into the school’s tobacco ban.

The ballot measure will likely face an uphill battle because there are opponents on both sides of the debate. Smoking ban opponents, including a coalition of business owners led by Bill Hannegan of Keep St. Louis Free, worry a ban would drive business from St. Louis County.

Some supporters of a comprehensive smoking ban, including the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Society, oppose the ballot measure because they say it’s too weak. They also say the county will have trouble working its way up to a strong ban if it enacts a weak ban first.

“Tobacco Free Missouri is disappointed that it’s not a comprehensive law,” Nancy Mueller, chair of Tobacco Free Missouri statewide coalition, said Tuesday night. “I think that the county is not setting the precedent and the model that the rest of the state should be following.”

Mueller also said she’s glad to see the University go tobacco free and hopes the county will consider passing a stricter ban.

Fraser initially favored the first bill version, which had no exemptions, but the council voted it down on Aug. 4. After she amended the bill that same day to include the exemptions for bars and casinos, the council voted 4-3 to move it to a final vote.

But then Fraser opted to reintroduce the bill on Aug. 11 due to worries that a procedural problem at the Aug. 4 meeting would open the bill to legal challenge. The reintroduction, which added the airport exemption, caused the council to miss its deadline last Tuesday for putting items on the November ballot without a court order.

Public-health groups opposing the ballot measure preferred the bill version without exemptions. Their opposition could be a major blow to the ban’s chances of passing. The low turnout characteristic of off-year elections could also harm the ban’s chances.

It’s unclear, though, how the vote will be affected by the special election that day to replace former state Rep. Steve Brown, D-Clayton, who resigned last Tuesday due to a federal corruption scandal.

The county ban would take effect in January 2011.