Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
BY Editorial Board
PUBLISHED: 10/13/2008
Boynton wrapped up data collection on key tobacco attitudes in a Friday survey “central to the development of programs or policies on tobacco use” — namely the proposed outdoor smoking ban on campus. It is essential for the Provost’s Work Group on Twin Cities Campus Tobacco Use to consider faculty, staff and student opinions on outdoor secondhand smoke before implementing a campus-wide ban, but this survey provides no legitimate measure of these opinions. Any policy recommendation based on this survey’s results is invalid.
The first survey item prompts a response to the statement, “exposure to second-hand smoke is a health issue.” But what amount of secondhand smoke poses a health problem? The survey ignores quantitative aspects of secondhand smoke and overlooks the key distinction between secondhand smoke and outdoor secondhand smoke, when the policy in question would criminalize smoking outdoors.
Boynton Public Health and Marketing Director Dave Golden admitted that “it would be a good distinction to make.” Despite being an avid anti-smoker instrumental in banning smoking in the Washington Avenue bridge walkway, Dr. David Weiss of the University’s psychometrics department said that with respect to the survey’s function: “It would have been better if they had used the phrase ‘outdoor secondhand smoke’ where appropriate in the survey.” For an institution striving to be among the top three public research universities in the world, failure to provide an opinion survey that properly corresponds to the policy question at hand — the outdoor smoking ban — constitutes a bitingly ironic and utterly irresponsible oversight.
2 Comments
To flag an inappropriate comment please login.
smoking survey misleading
The Daily editorial is picking nits with the second-hand smoke argument. Smoke damages lungs and the dose-response is linear. In any case, the main reason for a university to be smoke-free is that it shows it's community understands that smoking is damaging to health, and therefore they reject it.
The editorial's conclusion is so bombastic as to be unintentionally funny (appears to be lifted from a stoner movie?). However, it's truly sad seeing people smoke anywhere near University Hospital, especially anyone with health / biology training, apparently oblivious that a smoker is twice as likely as a non-smoker to end up a hospital patient. And please let go the pseudo-sophistication of "Smoking is a choice". Choosing a harmful addiction, and defending it as if it were a virtue only shows these people to be fools.
Outdoor data inconclusive
If you actually look for research on outdoor smoking you can find only one peer-reviewed article by Switzer and Klepeis of Stanford. Which shows that smokers will pollute the air up to 6 feet downwind. However the actual pollution which is being measured is PM2.5 which means that they are measuring the particles that are most likely ash. The harmful materials, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC's) would not even register on this measurement. These VOC's are more likely to disperse than PM2.5.
However it is clear that the smoking ban on campus is not due to health related issues but rather another instance of removing discomfort and unsightliness. If it was truly due to health concerns - a misleading survey would not be the tool which proves people support a smoking ban.
If we want to start going down the road of forcing people to make healthy choices, lets get rid of the Washington Avenue Bridge Circulator, the deep fryers in Coffman (which also significantly reduce the quality of air on campus), the roads through campus, and of course the parking lots. We can not forget about the bars on campus, the campus club which serves alcohol, the vending machines with high fructose corn syrup, ect. I am fine with going down this road - but Boyton should do a survey to ask people if they think those things are unhealthy.
Post new comment