Smoke-free campus must become reality
Here’s a question: What do the entrance of Leavey, the area near Trojan Grounds and the courtyard of VKC have in common?
If you answered “a frequent haze of cigarette smoke,” give yourself a congratulatory pat on the back.
Or rather — don’t. We should be ashamed USC still permits smoking on campus.
Cindy Lee | Daily Trojann
Even with Global Health Week last week and Pre-health Week this week, it seems a very important aspect of student health at USC has been sorely neglected.
According to no-smoke.org, more than 500 other universities across the nation have already gone completely smoke-free, and it’s about time USC did the same, for the sake of students, faculty, staff and visitors.
Members of the USC faculty are pushing for a smoke-free campus to become a reality, and soon.
Given the smoky haze that blankets much of campus, it seems this is a necessary step.
At the moment, smoking is prohibited in enclosed buildings, facilities and university vehicles on both of USC’s campuses
USC’s Health Sciences Campus has already gone completely smoke-free to protect patients, staff and visitors in the hospitals and research centers.
Why cigarette butts pepper USC’s main campus, however, remains a mystery.
Is it because USC is uninterested in the health of its students and faculty? Is it out of fear of a backlash from those who argue smoking should not be regulated by the university because it is a personal choice?
As a non-smoker, I should be able to walk across campus without having to breathe tobacco smoke. Second-hand smoke can cause negative health effects such as a dramatically increased risk of lung cancer, heart attacks and possible neurological damage. Studies have also shown the toxic chemicals from cigarette smoke leave harmful residue on clothing, walls, benches and other objects that come into contact with the smoke.
Some argue banning smoking entirely would leave no safe places for smokers.
To correct for this, perhaps there could be a few designated smoking areas faraway from areas of heavy student traffic or smoking rooms or like the “booths” commonly used in airports. Currently, the Ronald Tutor Campus Center and the Pertusati Bookstore are designated smoking areas. There are ways to accommodate smokers without placing the entire USC population at risk.
Additionally, USC should implement programs to help people quit smoking to ease the transition to a smoke-free campus. Education on the harmful health effects of tobacco smoke should be continued, as well.
In April 2010, the Academic Senate passed an initiative to put USC on the path of a smoke-free campus. Shortly after, members of the USC Staff Assembly, who are elected by the staff of the university to serve two-year terms, have also passed an initiative to make USC completely smoke-free.
Now, it is up to the Undergraduate Student Government and Graduate and Professional Student Senate to take action.
If USC really does make its students and faculty’s well being a top priority, then we should soon be able to walk from one end of campus to the other without shortening our life expectancies because of repeated exposure to tobacco smoke.
Rebecca Gao is a freshman majoring in global health and biological sciences. Her column, “Trojan Grounds,” runs Mondays.
I hate cigarette smoke and I hate tobacco companies. That said, we have turned into a nation of unbelievable whiners and sanctimonious blowhards who have nothing better to do then moan and groan about make believe problems. Rebecca, can you tell me someone you know who has died of second hand smoke from OUTDOOR exposure? How about this deadly scourge known as third hand smoke? You probably have more exposure to toxic microorganisms when you touch public keyboards at the computer center or use public toilets. You and others who want to go to such extremes as a 100% smoking ban indoors and outdoors, sound like people who can not go anywhere without their Purell and oxygen tank. This is why cities like Santa Monica are a joke. They are tough on making fluff laws to make sure taxpayers can not smoke indoors or outdoors but are very liberal and lax if you are a homeless person who wants to urinate and defecate in the public parks. Banning smoking in enclosed places like buildings or the tram makes sense and is reasonable. If you are someone who is so overly concerned about residual traces of cigarettes on an outdoor bench, you need to take a good long look at yourself and ask what exactly are your priorities.
Actually I think Ms. Gao’s article is pretty well done: the main failing is in being too trusting of her sources. I was the same way as a freshman!
I had missed noticing something else while reading it though. Rebecca notes that “toxic chemicals from cigarette smoke leave harmful residue” on such things as benches. Since we’re talking about outdoor smoking bans, I think it’s safe to presume she meant outdoor benches.
If you Google the two words “attocuries” and “kabat” and click on the “Global Health Law” link in the Results, you’ll see an extended commentary about the most heavily headlined study on this “Thirdhand Smoke” phenomenon indoors in people’s homes. The NY Times and Scientific American highlighted one particularly “toxic chemical” of concern, radioactive Polonium 210, and to help readers understand the danger they were in they pointed to the poisoning several years back of a Russian spy using a microscopic amount of this substance.
I decided to see just how much danger someone might be in if they not only “contacted” such surfaces, but actually spent a few hours a day conscientiously licking ten square feet of flooring in smokers’ homes absolutely clean. As you’ll see from the link above, it would take roughly 3 trillion years to get the dose that brought the Commie to the ground.
Now an outdoor bench with breezes blowing all around it is obviously going to “absorb” an extraordinarily small amount of “poison” compared to a floor in a smoker’s home. Perhaps 1/1,000th of the amount would be a reasonable guess. Let’s further guess that the average outdoor campus bench in a smokers’ area had ten square feet of surface on its seating.
It would then take the average student licking an entire smokers’ bench sparkly clean every single day close to 3 QUADRILLION years (i.e. over 2,000x as long as our universe has existed) to get poisoned like the poor KGB chap. And of course, as I pointed out in that article, the poor grad student would not only have to suspend the laws of physics regarding half-life, but they’d also have to refrain from going to the bathroom for the whole time.
If they held off on their doctoral thesis until the end, they would be certain to win the prize for a thesis more full of a certain aromatic substance than any produced in all of academic history.
– MJM
I guess we can’t be existentialists then. After all existentialism is a style of life centered on whiskey, cigarettes, and long discussion of politics and philosophy that last until the early hours.
No offense, but these columns get somewhat tiring to read because they ALWAYS seem to portray a stereotypical/obvious opinion. The suggestions that are suggested are obvious, cliche ones. It would have been more interesting if a column of someone defending smoking was printed–it is a different viewpoint from most people and would have made a more interesting read.
America was founded with the staple cash crop tobacco as its main source of economy in the 1600s. Without that initial economy, the American colonies could not have slowly but surely evolved into the superpower it is. Being against the freedom of smoking in the open is un-American.
This article is woeful. Nauseatingly sanctimonious. Leave smokers alone and realize that there is pollution everywhere, smokers are few in number on campus and barely noticeable most of the time, and you have no right to go inconvenienced. More people are annoyed at your articles.
I would like to add my voice to the chorus of derision being heaped on this article. It is woeful, badly research, unnuanced and preachy. And isn’t this exactly the same column that was run in the DT previously? When I walk past VKC, I see two people smoking- tops- every now and then. By an ashtray. And only a busybody would notice.
Why don’t we ban driving while we’re at it. The fumes from cars’ exhausts are way more harmful to us than cigarette smoke. I get so tired of these people who have been brainwashed into believing a few outdoor smokers’ smoke is going to harm them. You’re living in Los Angeles, the smog capital of North America, your health is in a lot more danger from other forms of pollution. The haze over USC’s campus is not cigarette smoke, it’s pollution. If I see or hear one more person whining about cigarette smoke I’m going to scream!
Actually I think Ms. Gao’s article is pretty well done: the main failing is in being too trusting of her sources. I was the same way as a freshman!
I had missed noticing something else while reading it though. Rebecca notes that “toxic chemicals from cigarette smoke leave harmful residue” on such things as benches. Since we’re talking about outdoor smoking bans, I think it’s safe to presume she meant outdoor benches.
If you visit the Global Health Law site at:
http://globalhealthlaw.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/third-hand-smoke/#comment-52
you’ll see an extended commentary about the most heavily headlined study on this “Thirdhand Smoke” phenomenon indoors in people’s homes. The NY Times and Scientific American highlighted one particularly “toxic chemical” of concern, radioactive Polonium 210, and to help readers understand the danger they were in they pointed to the poisoning several years back of a Russian spy using a microscopic amount of this substance.
I decided to see just how much danger someone might be in if they not only “contacted” such surfaces, but actually spent a few hours a day conscientiously licking ten square feet of flooring in smokers’ homes absolutely clean. As you’ll see from the link above, it would take roughly 3 trillion years to get the dose that brought the Commie to the ground.
Now an outdoor bench with breezes blowing all around it is obviously going to “absorb” an extraordinarily small amount of “poison” compared to a floor in a smoker’s home. Perhaps 1/1,000th of the amount would be a reasonable guess. Let’s further guess that the average outdoor campus bench in a smokers’ area had ten square feet of surface on its seating.
It would then take the average student licking an entire smokers’ bench sparkly clean every single day close to 3 QUADRILLION years (i.e. over 2,000x as long as our universe has existed) to get poisoned like the poor KGB chap. And of course, as I pointed out in that article, the poor grad student would not only have to suspend the laws of physics regarding half-life, but they’d also have to refrain from going to the bathroom for the whole time.
If they held off on their doctoral thesis until the end, they would be certain to win the prize for a thesis more full of a certain aromatic substance than any produced in all of academic history.
– MJM
Slight correction: I believe I mislaid a couple of decimals there. If our universe is about 15 billion years old it would take about 200,000 universe life cycles for the student to properly prepare that Ph.D. thesis to glowing perfection.
– MJM
P.S. And if I’m still off a bit it’s because my brain melts when it computes quadrillions.
Miss Gao’s columns are about the most poorly researched fluff opinion pieces I have ever read! Why do people continue to make comments on them? Oh wait–I’m making a comment on one. I’m confused now.
Rebecca Gao, you wrote, “Second-hand smoke can cause negative health effects such as a dramatically increased risk of lung cancer,”
Rebecca, you’ve read too much propaganda without putting enough thought into checking the original sources and then analyzing what you read. The above sentence is a good example, particularly in terms of open-air campus bans.
The EPA estimate for environmental tobacco smoke caused lung cancer is an increase in the base rate of about 4 in a thousand by 19% after 40 solid years of continuous daily exposure indoors for 8 hours a day. That’s one extra cancer for every 40,000 worker-years.
Now your exposure walking around the campus, particularly if it’s something you have any concern about, is likely to be on the order of about 1 minute per day instead of 8 hours. And that 1 minute of exposure is likely to be about 90% more dilute than you would be getting if you worked indoors with smokers. So those 40,000 years would have to be multiplied by (8×60 = 480) and then again by a factor of ten.
So the normal campus exposure if you fully accept without question the antismoking advocates own figures would be one extra lung cancer for every 40k x 4.8k years of school. If we factor in three to four months of vacations/breaks, that then becomes 40k x about 8k years. That’s one extra lung cancer for every 320 MILLION student-years.
THAT is your “dramatically increased risk of lung cancer.”
I’ve heard of perpetual grad students, but I think that’s stretching it a bit.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Michael: What about smoking dope?
I’m sorry, Rebecca, but can you possibly defend the notion that outdoor second hand smoke has shortened your lifespan? Really? Really??
Did anyone ask the neighbors who agree to allow the school to exist at its present location tax free?
You forgot the rest of your question. (first sentence)
Whoah,
hold up there. Passing more laws is not the answer. USC doesn’t, like, need to turn into Mordor. Students and staff can make their own decisions about smoking, they don’t need some nanny student government to tell them how to live.
FYI, you can’t actually smoke in the campus center.
I am completely against cigarettes. However I have a medical condition that can only be treated with marijuana. I think USC should provide a safe place for us with legitimate medical needs where we can smoke and relax without being worried that DPS is going to arrest or bother us.
“As a non-smoker, I should be able to walk across campus without having to breathe tobacco smoke. Second-hand smoke can cause negative health effects such as a dramatically increased risk of lung cancer, heart attacks and possible neurological damage. Studies have also shown the toxic chemicals from cigarette smoke leave harmful residue on clothing, walls, benches and other objects that come into contact with the smoke.”
Next thing you know, you will suddenly have the right not to be exposed to drinkers or overweight people. Good grief! Get a life as soon as possible. I don’t think you are going to be attacked by clothing, walls, benches or other objects.
That’s not even a reasonable comparison. The author (and anyone else interested in their health) isn’t complaining about exposure to smoke just because they don’t like it. Last I heard, being around “drinkers or overweight people” wasn’t linked to health risks.
Sure, you can smoke if you want to, but forcing this on other students and faculty is just not acceptable. Second-hand smoke is more dangerous than smoking directly–who put MY health in YOUR hands?
I thought USC and UCLA were rivals. You know all the CA no smoking rules were started up by a prof at UCLA, don’t you?
Hmm, I wonder if the no smoke proposal includes pot.
I doubt it.