Kate Oberg | Student Life

Quitting a year later was one of the most painful things I’ve ever done. I had my fun, enjoyed my five minute buzzes—the dirty little secret about cigarettes that somehow never gets told—and had grown tired of the pain in my throat, the financial drain, the cravings, wearing a coat that reeked of old smoke, and three fingers of my right hand that always smelled like tobacco no matter how hard I washed them.

So I quit. On May 17, I smoked what I swore was my last cigarette for three months and embarked on a few weeks of withdrawal. It kept me up at night. It had me staring at drug stores, wishing that I could walk in and buy a pack of Marlboro Reds. But I stuck with it, and I eventually got over my addiction. My friends were pleased, and the smokers who had tried and failed to quit were particularly impressed.

It’s been over six months since I inhaled my last cancerous cloud of smoke, but I’m still not entirely over it. I think about smoking every day. I can’t walk past Forsyth without feeling a twinge of sadness over having given up that vice, and I don’t know how long it will be until I’m unfazed. Perhaps I’m weaker than most, but it would be easy to slip into my old habits.

Non-smokers don’t fully understand how terrible the tobacco industry is. The archaic image of rich businessmen profiting off a 50 percent mortality rate has been so drilled into our minds that it is difficult to raise emotions on the issue. Non-smokers, if they care about the plight of their smoking brethren, are more likely to view them with derision than with pity. My friends were always unconcerned by my smoking and have similar feelings toward a friend who has taken up dipping. Though this is a highly effective means of burning holes in one’s lip and contracting mouth cancer, I feel like the only one who has made any serious effort to convince him to stop.

Tobacco is a terrible product. It is addictive, stigmatized, has undesirable short-term effects, and decades down the road, has the unfortunate tendency to cause death. The morality of marketing it to the American public aside, it should be banned outright. I take to the hard Right on nearly every economic issue from health care to tax cuts, but if it were my decision, tobacco would be illegal tomorrow.

Most smokers begin when they’re young, and every addict I’ve talked to who recognizes their addiction regrets the decision. None of us considered the consequences of even a year of smoking. I still remember standing in front of Beaumont, jokingly explaining to someone that by the time cancer became a reality in my life—as I claimed I knew it would, despite never really believing this—there would be a magic pill to deal with the inconvenience.

It may well be the smoker’s choice to go to the grave at an early age, but I have yet to meet the person who intelligently weighed the pros and cons of tobacco before proceeding to addict himself. Most smokers at the outset impulsively shove the long-term consequences to the backs of their minds, but if tobacco enjoyed the same legal status and availability as other controlled substances, it would not be nearly as prolific. I, at least, would never have become as involved with it as I did.

Tobacco is unique among addictive drugs in that not only does it make the user chemically dependent but also causes premature death. Smokers do not make informed decisions when they adopt the drug, carelessly ignoring every factor other than immediate gratification. Its illegality would be to the advantage of millions; the benefits of a short buzz dwindle in comparison to the health hazards. Had tobacco been illegal when I started smoking, I never would have begun. The version of me that spent much of the summer all but locking himself in his room to avoid temptation would have appreciated the decision.

Smoking ban exemptions

• “Drinking establishments” that derive 25 percent or less of their revenue for food. In St. Louis City, “drinking establishments” must be 2,000 square feet or less (minus kitchen, storage and restroom areas) and have applied for exemption (exemption expires in Jan 2015)
• Casinos
• Retail tobacco stores (60 percent or more of revenue from sale of tobacco; 50 percent or more if in St. Louis City)
• Cigar bars
• Outdoor dining areas
• Private clubs (not exempt when open to the public)
• Private residences not serving as a place of employment
• 20 percent of hotel or motel rooms (if designated)

Note: The drinking establishment and cigar bar exemption states smoke must not infiltrate into areas otherwise prohibited by the ordinance.

Confusion surrounded the Jan. 2 implementation of smoking bans passed by both the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County, but overall reaction to the bans has been largely positive.

The bans, put into effect by a vote in the fall of 2009 after heavy lobbying from local public health advocates, prohibit tobacco use in all of the nearly 1750 bars in the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County.

There are exemptions to the ban, however.

City bars smaller than 2000 square feet can qualify for an exemption if less than 25 percent of their sales come from food. All County bars that rely on alcohol sales for over 75 percent of their revenue are exempt.

The City of St. Louis’ staff of 16 health inspectors is currently working to inspect the approximately 250 local establishments that have applied for exemptions. Many bar owners, confused about the regulations surrounding exemptions, have continued to allow patrons to smoke while their applications are pending.

“There has definitely been a lot of confusion,” said senior Kenny Hofmeister, a smoker. “[At the beginning], people didn’t know which places were and weren’t exempt; a lot of times the bans weren’t being enforced too severely. Some bar owners didn’t really know if they were or weren’t exempt.”

Joe Edwards, the owner of Blueberry Hill, The Pin-Up Bowl and Eclipse Restaurant at Moonrise Hotel, all on the Delmar Loop, also called the exemption rules “confusing.” But Edwards said the ban has had a positive effect on the Loop so far.

“People are really excited that they don’t have smoke in their hair and their clothes,” Edwards said. “There are a few people who are wistful for [smoking], but they realized that this was coming—we were one of the last metropolitan areas to ban smoking in restaurants and bars.”

Edwards said that The Pin-Up Bowl has already seen an increase in reservations for children’s parties from families who no longer need to be concerned about the health risks associated with exposing their children to secondhand smoke.

Hofmeister said that the ban has not had overly negative effects on his social life.

“Even if you’re a smoker, it’s still kind of gross to come home reeking of smoke,” he said. “I haven’t heard a ton of complaints.”

Hofmeister added that many establishments that are popular among students, such as Off Broadway, Morgan Street and Edwards’ Moonrise, offer outdoor terraces where patrons may smoke. And Edwards is working to accommodate smokers with a new heated smoking porch at Blueberry Hill that will be completed this week.

“The idea behind Blueberry Hill is to try to make everyone feel comfortable,” Edwards said. “I’m happy to work to try to make everyone happy.”

This study, conducted by the Center for Tobacco Policy Research (CTPR) at the George Warren Brown School of Social Work and the Siteman Cancer Center, analyzed nicotine levels and employee hair samples at 10 bars and 10 restaurants in St. Louis and St. Louis County. Sixteen of these establishments allow smoking and four do not.

The study concludes that venues that employ ventilation systems actually have a higher airborne nicotine concentration than venues that do not, suggesting that ventilation systems may be counterproductive in reducing the exposure of secondhand smoke to non-smoking patrons.

The study focused on airborne nicotine because the scientific community holds that airborne nicotine is an accurate indicator of the presence of secondhand smoke. According to researchers, nicotine is found in the air only where cigarettes are smoked.

Stacy Reliford, the government relations director of the local American Cancer Society, is pleased with the study’s findings.

“Obviously we’re excited about the study because I think it’s always great to have local data on the subject [of public tobacco use], and we haven’t seen a lot here in St. Louis,” Reliford said.

Reliford says that finding nicotine in the hair of employees is evidence that they are inhaling and metabolizing secondhand smoke while on the job.

Joaquin Barnoya, research assistant professor in the Department of Surgery at the Washington University School of Medicine, and Sarah Moreland-Russell, research manager for the CTPR, were the primary conductors of the study.

Barnoya, the lead author of the study, highlights the significance of the findings by pointing out that even short-term exposure to secondhand smoke has adverse cardiovascular health effects.

“Some of the effects of secondhand smoke on the cardiovascular system in non-smokers are comparable to the effects of active smoking,” Barnoya said in a statement. “These effects occur within a half hour of exposure.”

Seventy-eight employees from the 20 establishments participated in the study by providing hair samples and completing a questionnaire. Nicotine was present in the hair of all employees, though higher levels were found in smokers.

The employee survey found that 63 percent of workers preferred to work in a non-smoking environment to a smoking one. More than half of smoking employees said that a smoke-free work atmosphere would help them quit, and 70 percent of employees who had smoked in the past responded that a smoke-free workplace would help them abstain from cigarette smoking.

The study was funded by the Barnes-Jewish Hospital Foundation. The Institute for Global Tobacco Control at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health was also involved with Washington University on the study.

With additional reporting by Alan Liu.

As summer turns to fall, Washington University is continuing to adjust to its smoke-free environment.

The tobacco ban, in effect since July 1, mandates that students, faculty and staff may not use tobacco products on campus. While many smokers have adjusted to the ban by smoking on Forsyth Boulevard, Big Bend Boulevard and other areas off campus, the results of a recent Student Life survey show that some have been violating the ban.

Fourteen percent of the survey’s 276 respondents reported having seen people smoking outside classroom buildings after the ban’s implementation, compared with 45 percent before the ban. Fourteen percent of respondents also reported having seen smokers outside of dormitory buildings after the ban, compared with 57 percent before the ban.

According to Jill Carnaghi, assistant vice chancellor for students and director of campus life, implementation of the ban should be a campus-wide effort, especially as the University begins to adjust to the policy. Last fall, Carnaghi co-chaired an undergraduate task force for a smoke-free campus with senior Amy Heard.

“Some smokers are going to choose not to contribute to making it a more healthy community,” Carnaghi said. “In order for this to go forward, it is everybody’s responsibility to say that they want a more healthy community and tell smokers not to smoke on campus,” Carnaghi said.

Self-implementation was an issue that had come up during the task force meetings, according to Heard. However, she has not personally seen a need to enforce the ban yet.

“I have not seen a lot of people smoking, so students have not felt the need to put a stop to it,” Heard said. “I do not think it is my place to walk up to a student and tell them to stop smoking, [and] I think a lot of students would not feel that it is their place to do so either.”

Although many non-smokers enjoy being able to walk through a smoke-free campus, some smokers are unhappy about the adjustments they had to make.

“I feel pushed aside by the Wash. U. community,” junior Mustafain Munir said. “It makes me feel guilty for what I do.”

Munir says he has not started smoking less because of the ban. While he had previously smoked between classes and on campus, he now usually smokes on Forsyth during his free time.

“I feel that it is almost more dangerous because freshmen coming from the [South] 40 have to pass us when they are going to class, and we are congregating to smoke,” Munir said.

Senior Aaron Kay understands the University’s intentions to reduce smoking and raise awareness of health concerns, but he opposes the ban.

“The University can post photos of tarred-up lungs on campus and remind students about the health risks, but I think they’re overstepping their bounds by banning it completely,” Kay said.

Both Munir and Kay support a designated on-campus area for smokers, which they think would keep smokers from being inconvenienced by the ban. However, Heard does not expect an on-campus smoking zone to be implemented soon.

“When Chancellor [Mark] Wrighton passed the decision to pass the ban, it was in his mind that it would be a complete and total ban, so it wasn’t something that we got to discuss,” Heard said. “When it was brought up, we were told as a task force that it was not going to happen.”

Despite his opposition to the ban, Kay said that he understands the purpose of a smoke-free campus as the policy’s implementations continue to unfold.

“The idea that I could walk around without having to worry about secondhand smoke would be nice to prospective students and parents,” Kay said.

This might have been a smart strategy—if the ban had the backing of the Wash. U. community in the first place. But the policy was put in place unilaterally by the administration with almost no student input. Community enforcement makes little sense when the community itself had not reached a consensus on a ban. Thus, we feel that the obligation rests on the University to effectively enforce its own ban.

Those who do not blatantly smoke cigarettes on campus have taken to smoking en masse on Forsyth Boulevard. This situation is arguably less favorable than before: Smokers have now condensed into an area that invariably gets a large amount of pedestrian traffic from students on the South 40. And every single campus tour makes the turn from the Forsyth sidewalk toward the Danforth University Center, leading potential students and families right through a veritable army of smokers. Clearly, this isn’t good marketing—especially when “Tobacco Free” stickers now adorn every door on campus. Without tighter control and clearer stipulations on where and when people can consume tobacco products, the campus ban could do more image-wise harm than help.

Ultimately, Wash. U. can’t rely on students and community members to enforce the tobacco ban. Policies and penalties regarding smoking on campus need to be outlined explicitly—and they need to be consistently enforced by Wash. U. Otherwise, as more and more smokers pass under the radar, the ban will be ineffective at best, and counterproductive at worst.

We urge the Wash. U. administration to seriously consider the logistics of the tobacco plan, and make adjustments to its own policies accordingly. Until then, we should not be forced to police ourselves over a policy implemented without our consent.

The gist of the bill deals with various requirements for tobacco companies regarding regulation of cigarettes, notification of the public about their ingredients and various other restrictions and requirements for them. However, about a quarter of the way through the bill, a “Special Rule” is thrown in, stating “a cigarette or any of its constituent parts…shall not contain…an artificial or natural flavor (other than tobacco or menthol) or an herb or spice.” Note two things: first, the elimination of flavorings; second, the special exception of menthol cigarettes. The rest of the bill is largely commendable, but this special rule is a cause for concern.

The ban on flavorings is ostensibly designed to discourage teens and younger adults from smoking. The widely-held belief is that cloves (also called kreteks), which are one of the most prevalent forms of flavored cigarettes, are most popular among young smokers. In addition, these cigarettes are supposedly unhealthier than normal ones. This is wrong on both counts. In 2002, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that kretek usage among teens had been declining since 1997, as are all other forms of tobacco except smokeless. And despite allegations that kreteks are more unhealthy than the average cigarette, a 1990 study in the journal “Archives of Toxicology” comparing American brand regular cigarettes and kreteks found that rats suffered no more ill effects from kreteks than from cigarettes. Presumably Congress knew about this before they wrote the bill—after all, if a freshman in college with a search engine and a large amount of free time on his hands could find numerous references to this, Congress definitely can. Therefore, one must question the motivations behind the special rule if it is not for the safety of young smokers.

Questioning the motivations behind this legislation brings me to my second point: the menthol cigarettes exception. The exception of menthol cigarettes is contingent to the banning of all other natural and artificial flavors and additives. Menthol cigarettes—the most popular of all flavored tobacco, with 25 percent of the overall cigarette market share—are predominantly produced by Phillip Morris USA, which supported the bill in its final form. By supporting a bill that both eliminates its competitors in the flavored cigarettes market and appears to look like an excellent piece of legislation, Phillip Morris comes across as a responsible, regulation-accepting member of the tobacco industry. In reality, Philip Morris has used Congress to establish a monopoly in the flavored cigarettes market, so much so that the bill is sometimes referred to as the “Marlboro Monopoly Act of 2009” alluding to the corporation’s “Marlboro” brand.

The speculative nature of the bill aside, not banning menthol cigarettes has serious health complications. They are widely believed to be by far the most addictive of all cigarettes, as consumers take in more nicotine—the active addictive ingredient in tobacco—when they smoke them.

Overall, H.R. 1256 has good intentions in endowing the FDA with the power to regulate cigarettes but falls short of this goal. Banning flavorings while excepting menthol has prevented this legislation from becoming complete and demonstrates the sway that industry giants like Philip Morris continue to hold over tobacco regulation. Because it does not prohibit menthol cigarettes, the law is weakened, and the most dangerous cigarettes will continue to lack much-needed policing.

In light of your open letter to Professor Peter Benson (Oct. 2), we feel that it is necessary to state the position of Controversy n’ Coffee, as a student group dedicated to fostering dialogue in the Wash. U. community.

The purpose of Controversy n’ Coffee is to bring students, faculty and community leaders together to discuss pressing social and political issues. We select panelists with diverse backgrounds and viewpoints in order to expose students to multiple perspectives and opinions on these critical issues. Our panelists graciously make time to participate in our events and interact with students at a level that is often not possible in the classroom, and each contributes valid opinions and a vast amount of knowledge from his or her area of expertise.

Students are, of course, invited and encouraged to express their own opinions; the controversial component of our events effectively facilitates meaningful discussion. The issue at hand is not the voicing of a contradictory opinion, but rather the manner in which it was done. We strive to create a respectful environment conducive to intellectual conversation rather than offensive retaliation against conflicting viewpoints. The latter seems to show a lack of concern for the respectful protocol we expect when dissenting opinions are voiced.

Our event last Thursday, which focused on the smoking ban at Wash. U., raised various important points regarding the ethics of an institution dictating an individual’s right to smoke on campus. This, being one of the event’s main points of controversy, generated a spirited discussion that persisted beyond the event itself and continued for another hour with students and panelists expressing their views in a more informal setting. We are always pleased to see our audience leave our events stimulated to debate these issues and develop their own opinions.

One of the main topics discussed after the event was precisely the problem with the conception of Washington University as a parent to its students. Indeed, Washington University provides, first and foremost, the service of education; and as adults, students should in no way expect the University to “raise us, care for us, love us, comfort us, protect us and support us in endeavors.” It would be a true challenge to find an administrator or faculty member who believes in the University’s duty to serve the role of a parent. In the discussion that followed the event, it was expressed that—just like any law-enforcing institution—a university can and should be able to enforce policies, particularly when they are consistent with the broader policy changes that are occurring not only on a national but also international level. The principal view that was expressed in opposition to this claim did not focus on the simple question of whether the University is supposed to act like a parent. Rather, it was focused on the rights of mature adults to make individual decisions and to have input on important policies that will affect campus life.

We hope that our response has been thorough and that it is understood that the point of our events is to stimulate thoughtful conversation. As anyone who has attended our events and stayed for the discussions that follow will attest, the way that conversation turns into anything fruitful or productive is through dialogue rather than aggressive retaliation.

“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.

Student Union Senate Speaker Chase Sackett speaks at Wednesday’s Senate meeting in the DUC. (Matt Mitgang | Student Life)

Student Union Senate passed a resolution on Wednesday night to address the administration’s recent initiative to ban smoking on all Washington University campuses, effective July 2010.

The resolution requests that the University administration reevaluate the tobacco ban with the consideration of the students in mind.

So far, more than 100 students have given their input on the Student Union (SU) smoking ban forum online. Most of those comments express disagreement with the initiative, citing violations of freedoms and not seeking out the student body’s input.

There appeared to be a consensus on SU’s taking a position on the tobacco ban. Concerns were raised as to whether the smoking ban would cause people to quit smoking.

Some senators were worried the smoking ban would effectively outcast members of the community and drive smokers away from central hubs.

Many senators thought that the University’s actions infringe upon student liberties.

“I would not say that Senate definitely supported the ban. We’re careful not to come to a specific conclusion, because it’s been really difficult for us to figure out how the student body feels about it,” said junior Chase Sackett, speaker of the Senate.

The opinions in the room were divided, according to Sackett.

“Some people feel very strongly in favor of the ban, ignoring how it was implemented, ignoring the input issue, and then other students feel very strongly against it,” he said. “I think the really important thing to take from this is not that this is a final statement on the ban.”

Sackett said that in the past the University had been cooperative and collaborative with students on many other issues, such as the bottled water ban, the plan for construction on the South 40 and dining hours.

“While we want to recognize that the administration has had an excellent relationship with us and has done a really great job in the past, this is an anomaly,” Sackett said.

SU President Jeff Nelson believes that a majority of the student body is in favor of the plan, but he echoed the sentiment that the students in the minority against the plan have the right to have their voices heard by the administration.

Sackett said the goal of SU has been to express the interests of the students, rather than individual viewpoints of senators.

“We feel student liberties are important and take our input into account, but we are really concerned with making sure we bring student feeling across,” he said.

SU officials will be presenting the resolution to members of the administration, at which time they will explain the meaning of the SU response.

Nelson, a junior, has indicated that he will sign the resolution.

“The resolution is a step. I would have liked it to be a little stronger. I think the resolution needed to be more clear in articulating why the way in which the decision was made was inappropriate and as a result of that, the decision is flawed,” Nelson said. “We need to be clearer how we want them to rectify the situation.”

Nelson emphasized the importance of the administration including the student body in the process of making decisions which affect students.

“What I’d like to see the administration do is to sign a document that they will include students in every major decision that affects their day-to-day experience,” he said. “The majority of students support a smoking ban. The administration should bring students back to the table. There are a lot of questions that are still on the table; the University should make a commitment to including students in that.”

With additional reporting by Ben Sales

I came across an ad in your recent issue for a tobacconist with a store on the Loop. It made me think, why would Student Life accept such an ad? I continued my query by searching smoking in your online edition and was surprised to see no recent articles or editorials concerned with the large amount of cigarette smoking that occurs on your campus. Your campus bookstore even sells cigarettes. I doubt you are unaware of the health effects of smoking and secondhand smoke.

I would strongly encourage you to put an end to accepting ads from tobacconists. Furthermore, why don’t you do an article on why your university’s administration allows the sale of cigarettes on campus and has such a lax policy toward smoking on campus? Washington University needs to join the rapidly growing number of other universities and colleges that have smoking bans on campus. Student Life needs to lead the way. It is the right thing to do.

Michael Seigle, M.D.
Class of 1980