What are they smoking?

While the Tufts administration's proposed ban on smoking in all dormitories sounds moral and high-minded, it strikes this student at an attempt by the University to restrict the rights of students within their place of residence and legislate their private behavior. The bottom line is that the current Tufts smoking policy is perfectly reasonable. It requires that any student wishing to smoke cigarettes in his or her dorm close the door, get approval from all roommates, and open the window. No freshmen are forced to live with a smoker unless they choose to do so. So there are only two possible motives for a University ban on dorm room smoking. The first is that they hope to help students quit smoking. Unfortunately, the Daily itself shot this idea down as "unlikely," despite its support for the policy. The second would be the idea that second hand or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) creates a serious health risk. Unfortunately there is little data to back this up. All dorms are equipped with smoke detectors and fire risk is minimal. The idea that exposure to ETS increases risk for lung cancer is a wide-held belief, one that has led to restaurant and bar smoking bans. What has been overlooked by Tufts is that these bans were implemented to protect employees (waiters and bartenders) from potentially deadly ETS, not patrons. These employees faced eight hour shifts in a confined, smoke filled environment five or six days a week, a drastically different experience than that faced by any non-smoking Tufts students. There is no scientific consensus that occasional and limited exposure to ETS causes any statistically significant increase in relative risk for lung cancer, heart disease, or other smoking-related illness.

It also appears that, in general, there has been a rush to judgment about the actual risks associated with ETS. The Environmental Protection Agency's landmark 1993 report concluded that ETS was responsible for 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year. This report served as a motivation for many municipalities in enacting their smoking bans. Unfortunately a considerable portion of this report has been vacated by a federal judge due to "cherry picked" data and "gross manipulation of scientific procedure and scientific norms." What subsequent studies have determined is that ETS poses a significant risk only through prolonged exposure (such as that of a spouse or child of a smoker). Certainly walking through the halls and getting an occasional whiff of stale cigarette smoke does not qualify as a significant health risk. The only health risk is that posed to the smoker and his or her roommates. I urge ResLife and the TCU to reconsider this policy and focus on more creative ways to accommodate both smokers and the smoke-free students on this campus.



Daniel Kahn (LA '05)