A few weeks ago, Dateline ran an article on a small committee
formed spontaneously to discuss issues of smoking on the Davis
campus. I initiated the discussion because, like all UC campuses,
UC Davis has a “Free” policy (See PPM Section 290-10),
but despite this, cigarette smoke regularly enters Smoke through
the air vents into my office and the classrooms where I teach.
This smoke is toxic and its presence inside a building violates
Federal and California laws guaranteeing a smoke free workplace.
Even in comparatively smoke free California, environmental
tobacco smoke contributes to all forms of cancer and other
cardiopulmonary disease, exacerbates osteoporosis and other
diseases of aging, increases risk of pneumococal infection,
increases the suffering of asthmatics, and generally wreaks
undeserved havoc on the health of those exposed to it.
So far the comments sent by readers of the article run 5 positive
to 1 negative—not an overwhelming response, but interesting.
My favorite is the negative, in which the author wrote: “You
have no idea of how much discrimination and relentless
humiliation smokers have to go through in California. I often
feel welcome as a Jew in Nazi Germany. You don’t like the
smell of cigarettes, and for that reason only you want to ban us
even from open air spaces….And don’t tell me that you
care for my health. You couldn’t care less. You just don’t
like the smoke.” My correspondent is right. I don’t
like the smoke. Where thereWhere there is the smell of cigarette
smoke, the carcinogens are present. ’s smoke, there is ill
health. Nicotine is a Class A carcinogen, and nicotine is only
one of many carcinogens and other toxins dispersed when tobacco
is burned. Some people with allergies suffer very negative
consequences from breathing smoke.
But my plaintive correspondent was wrong about my concern for the
smoker’s health: I am, and we all should be, concerned for
smokers’ health because smokers contribute so
disproportionately to health care costs in California. The
Centers for Disease Control recently estimated that medical costs
related to smoking amount to more than $5 billion per year in
California. Medicaid expenditures attributable to smoking in
California for fiscal year 1993 amounted to nearly $1.75 billion.
Medical benefits are used disproportionately by smokers, and as
far as I know, smokers at UC Davis pay no more for health
benefits than non-smokers. Calculations of the charges for health
benefits necessarily take into account the cost of smoking
related illness. In other words, we all pay for the smokers’
risks, whether we smoke or not, whether we can isolate ourselves
from the smoke or not, whether we want to or not.
And, darn it, we get none of the pleasures of smoking! I must
confess to being a former smoker. The memories linger of that
wonderful, relaxing rush that comes with inhaling fresh smoke: as
we inhale, the peripheral circulation shuts down, the pulse
surges, and blood pressure skyrockets. Somehow this feeling
always seemed to enhance a crisp autumn morning in the mountains
or a sparkling northwest breeze across the water at the end of a
day of sailing—or a dark coffee house encounter of the
romantic kind! Happily for me and others who stopped smoking
reasonably early in life, quitting by age 40 avoids more than 90%
of risks of smoking according to an extensive epidemiological
study of smokers in Britain since 1950, published last year by
Sir Richard Peto and his co-authors in the British Medical
Journal (321: 323-329).
Sadly, our colleagues who continue to smoke throughout life can
anticipate many more visits to the doctor, more years of
disability, and an acceleration of the diseases of aging as they
near death’s door simply because of the smoke. Those who are
fortunate may die suddenly of heart attacks or strokes—as we
all may-- but smokers are likely to do so sooner than
non-smokers. Those less fortunate may simply lie in bed hooked to
lines of oxygen, or may live a little longer without surgically
removed cancerous parts. Strangely, it is likely that the first
thing a cancer patient with one less lung, or no larynx and a new
tracheotomy, will want after surgery is another cigarette.
A macabre upside for the rest of us to the dire predictions of
early death for smokers is that an average of 13.2 years of life
are lost for each death due to smoking in California (CDC
statistics for1990-1994). This is an “upside” because
the early deaths leave that much less tobacco smoke in the air
for those of us who live a bit longer.
The last comment is callous to make a point. Smokers, no matter
how intelligent, usually are unmoved by the scary truths known
about their habit, but those of us who care about any or all of
them would rather not share their misery in the future, let alone
their smoke today.
Clearly we all would be better off without cigarettes and other
tobacco products in our environment. Failing a truly smoke free
policy that stops smoking at the campus borders, we can all
contribute to a healthier environment by “enforcing”
the existing smoke free policy at UC Davis. Those who smoke may
comply by conscientiously reading and following the policy, and
those who do not smoke may comply by civily reminding smokers of
the policy, when appropriate.
Home | Current Activities | Newsletters | Join
| Contact | Links
All contents copyright 2001 The Davis Faculty
Association.