You are on page 1of 11

Act Two: An Exodus and its Effects The constantly changing cultural climate, coupled with constant updates

to zoning laws and legality, leaves the modern smoker in a mortifying scenario. On one hand, the smoker remains an addict, perpetually placating the itch to light up. On the other hand, the negative physiological and social consequences inherent to modern day smoking round out the situation and ensnare the smoker. In Act One, we examined one individuals experiences with smoking bans, and it became clear the social effects of the recent bans on smoking generate a grueling scenario for modern smokers. While nearly all researchers believe that social interactions play a part in smoking habits, the extent to which the social climate affects smokers and whether this is a beneficial effect is still largely up for debate. Prerequisite to true understanding of the effects of social climate on smokers is an understanding of the climate itself. Counteracting a long history of smoking in cultures around the world, most US cities began enacting smoking bans in the late 80s. Whether in restaurants, corporate workplaces, apartment complexes, or even stadiums, cities suddenly secluded smokers from their populations (Kagan 69). Colleagues Robert Kagan and Jerome Skolnick investigated this sudden genesis in the year 1993, during the tail end of the enactment of many of these bans. They summarized their research with the words of one of their peers, Allen M. Brandt, who claims that in a relatively short time, public space has been subdivided: cigarette smoking has become the most rigorously defined of all public behaviors (Kagan 70). In short, within only a five to ten year span, smoking transitioned from a socially acceptable habit to a scourge of society best hidden away from visitors.

Smith 2

The abrupt arrivals of these statues seem to indicate that at first, a high level of deviance would be found among smokers now burdened with this extra inconvenience. However, Kagan and Skolnick found the opposite to be true. Oakland, California was one of the first cities to enact anti-smoking measures; within a few months compliance rates in the workplace were between 75-85%, and were nearly 100% in restaurants (Kagan 71). As a society, there was an extremely high level of compliance to new laws, which Kagan and Skolnick narrowed down to three specific reasons. First, smokers found that non-smoking regulations impose a relatively minor cost of compliance (Kagan 77). Because they merely had to venture outside to smoke and cigarettes were still widely available, the effort needed increased but not by enough to encourage disobedience. Second, smokers were typically not surrounded by a supportive deviant subculture (Kagan 77). While populating the fringes of legality, cigarette smoking remains entirely legal within certain areas. This fabricates less of a need to find a subpopulation that supports smoking habits, since most of society either has smoked or is exposed to smokers on a regular basis. Because of this, many smokers are not exclusively surrounded by other smokers, creating a hive mind mentality. Finally, smokers found that violations are hard to conceal from nonsmokers (Kagan 77). The very act of smoking, as compared to the usage of other substances, is difficult to conceal. The sickly sweet smell saturates everything within the vicinity of smokers, creating such an inconvenience in concealing the act that it often outweighs the benefits of smoking a cigarette in the first place. For all these reasons, breaking smoking bans simply was not worth it to most smokers. Dr. Steven Schroeder, head of the Smoking Cessation Leadership Center, shed some light on the plight of smokers, and allowed further insight into why they would have little incentive not to comply with the regulations. Schroeder elaborates on

Smith 3

how [smoking] is a daily reminder that youre different, and that you have a habit that most people dont respect (Springen 1). The ever-present stinging thorn in a smokers side creates strong negative reinforcements against smoking, perpetuating a smoker to act in one of three ways. First, the smoker could cease smoking to avoid the scorn of nonsmoking peers. Second, the smoker could continue smoking but rearrange his/her peer group to a more accepting subculture. Third, the smoker will act oblivious to the criticism and do nothing. By issuing such an ultimatum, the smoking bans essentially guaranteed a vitriolic response within the smoking community. The enactment of smoking bans clearly had a fairly large impact on smokers both in public and private, and caused both positive and negative reactions. Many of the goals the smoking bans were originally created to address actually saw significant improvement. For instance, while Nicholas Christakis and James Fowlers study found smoking still to be the highest cause of preventable death in the United States, causing 440,000 deaths annually, they also found that only 21% of the population are currently regular smokers (Christakis 1). As defined by the Center for Disease Control in their National Health Interview Survey, a current, regular smoker is defined as an adult who currently smokes cigarettes and has had more than 100 in their lifetime (Adult Tobacco Use Information). Compared to only thirty years ago, directly preceding the dawn of the bans, when 48% of the population where regular smokers, the stringent smoking regulations were largely a success in changing public opinion of smoking cigarettes. (Christakis 1). Dr. Steven Schroeder, in his interview with Newsweek, commented on Christakis and Fowlers findings, and compartmentalized the shift into four stages:

Smith 4

Stage one, where the smoking rates are low. Stage two, in the Eastern European countries and men in Asia, is when the rates really go up, as it was in the United States in the '30s, '40s and '50s. Stage three is where we are now, where it's coming down. And stage four is maybe like Singapore or like doctors in the United States, where we're on our way to having very, very low rates. (Springen 2)

According to Schroeders analysis, the smoking bans acted as a forceful catalyst in moving the American culture and attitude towards smoking from the second stage to the third stage. Other researchers have noticed this trend as well, and studied the effects it has on different subcultures. Patrick Romana, Joan Bloom, and S. Leonard Syme studied the effect of this transition on the urban African-American population. They found that many factors could influence the success and sustainability of ceasing smoking in this population, but perhaps the most important was a persons social circle. In fact, quitters with partners have a higher level of success; the higher the level of perceived support for his/her decision, the higher the level of success in their attempt (Romana 1416). These findings, coupled with the statistics mentioned earlier about the rates of smoking in the general population, suggest that the lower rates of smoking resulting from of the stringent bans make it more likely that smokers will be in contact in with nonsmokers. This forced interaction can be beneficial for smokers, especially those trying to quit. Steven Schroeder discusses another aspect of this same phenomenon, but relates it to the business arena; he explains how [his] sense is that if its a small firm you know everybody. But at a big firm you probably dont. The smokers probably hang with smokers (Springen 1). Because the rates of

Smith 5

smoking are lowered everyday, the impact of a personal connection with a nonsmoker is more and more likely to happen to a smoker. This could force them to act in the first way mentioned above, and hopefully change their habits. Like all wide sweeping legislative and social measures, the smoking bans created both positive and negative results in the population. As Schroeder alluded to in his analysis above, this schism between smokers and nonsmokers can actually have a polarizing effect in larger populations, which could be considered a negative effect. Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler found in their study on the social impacts that decisions to quit smoking are not made solely by isolated persons, but rather they reflect choices made by groups of people connected to each other both directly and indirectly at up to three degrees of separation (Christakis 3). While the social powers of the smoking ban were stated as a positive impact earlier, they also can be negative when smokers choose to surround themselves with other smokers who are supportive of their habits, rather than integrating with nonsmokers. By establishing zones where smoking is acceptable, which is the most typical way of allowing smoking under current regulations, smokers are forced to interact with other smokers nearly every time they want to smoke. This constant, forced interaction with a deviant subculture is actually crafting a continually wider schism in the opinion of smoking between smokers and nonsmokers in certain populations. One of these populations is college students. In 1998, David Hines, Amelia Fretz, and Nichole Nollen conducted a study of the opinions of college students at Ball State University on smoking. They found that occasional smokers were likely to associate smoking with positive selfcharacteristics, such as being more daring and more adventurous. The regular smokers reported that smoking made relatively few, primarily negative changes in their self-attributions. The

Smith 6

nonsmokers reported a number of attributes they associated with smokers, most of which seem negative (Hines 1305). As evident by the opinions of nonsmokers concerning smokers, smoking is not an attractive habit to many people. These people will naturally, often without thought, isolate themselves from smokers due to their negative opinions of smokers. This isolation can and does perpetuate the rates of smoking, and is evident in more than just the college population. Similar results are found in many places where the entirety of smoking regulation consists of corralling smokers off in a secluded location; these places include schools, government buildings, and even mental hospitals, as researched by Nady el-Guebaly, Janice Cathcart, Shawn Currie, Diane Brown, and Susan Gloster. They found that smokers in mental care units nearly always resume smoking as soon as they leave residential treatment (el-Guebaly 1621). Their research also indicated that smoking cessation strategies result in outcomes among psychiatric patients that are not very different from those in the general population and that both groups receive little benefit from merely being isolated from the nonsmoking population (el-Guebaly 1621). Instead, el-Guebaly et al. suggest that supportive counseling and even pharmacotherapy could be more effective. However, few places actually follow through with these measures, which supports the theory that smoking bans may not have the strong surface level beneficial effects as first glance would suggest. With all these conflicting views about the supposed positive and negative impacts of the smoking bans, one wonders where Belmonts draconian smoke free campus policy, which was enacted in August 2011, stands. According to an FAQ found on the Belmont Tobacco Free Campus website, their belief is that research shows that making it less convenient to smoke leads to a reduction in consumption rates, working toward quitting completely. When smokers

Smith 7

are trying to quit, making it easier for them to light up and/or be exposed to smoke is truly a disservice (Belmont Tobacco Free FAQ). On one hand, this may be true, as isolating students trying to quit from their triggers can help with their rate of quitting. On the other hand, forcing students who are still currently smoking to go off campus isolates them from their nonsmoking peers, and greatly improves the chances that a smokers social network will be composed mostly of fellow smokers. Additionally, the hordes of students who leave Belmonts campus to smoke off campus move the litter and secondhand smoke problems associated with smoking to the surrounding neighborhoods rather than eliminating them completely. It is unethical for Belmont to simply pawn its smoking population and the social problems that come with that off to the surrounding area, rather than deal with it themselves. Belmont is not the only school trying to eliminate smoking on campus. Perhaps the most visible school enacting a strict nonsmoking policy on their campus is the University of Kentucky, but other high profile schools such as the University of Florida, University of Mississippi, and Auburn University have enacted nonsmoking measures as well. Much like Belmont, the policies at the universities have been largely successful in the eyes of the management. Students and staff worked together initially to discourage smoking and eventually it simply became a part of the culture of the school. A 2011 article published by CNN exposed this rapidly growing trend; the article mentioned how the most successful policies have been grass-roots efforts driven by students and campus employees (Steinburg 1). These policies garner considerable results. The University of Kentucky has run a smoking cessation program for a number of years; in 2008 they had 33 participants. The following year, after the enactment of a smoking ban, the number grew to 146 participants (Steinburg 3). Clearly, the program had a measurable effect on the smoking

Smith 8

rates in the student body. This is consistent with Belmonts claim that creating hardships for the smoker and removing him/her from a smoking environment would help cessation rates. Much like Belmonts smoke free campus policy, not all of the effects were necessarily positive. In fact, one of the most formidable negative aspects associated with the smoking ban is the undue burdens on the neighboring areas around campus. Laura Talbott-Forbes, the chairwoman of the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drugs Coalition, inadvertently phrased the problem as such: weve gone from pushing smoking out of the building...to now trying to push smoking totally off campus (Steinburg 3). Pushing smoking off campus creates new problems for the areas where the smokers are pushed. Simply restricting smoking in populations, while having an extremely visible positive effect on the smoking rates in the student body, carries with it a parasitic ethical dilemma for students who continue to smoke. There appears to be no clear solution for balancing a universitys commitment to student health with its commitment to the community. Overall, one cannot say for sure whether the smoking ban had positive or negative effects on society, as this varies heavily depending on specific populations and their responses to these measures. Whether in businesses, general public spaces, mental hospitals, or universities, policies restricting the use of tobacco seem to cause as many problems as they create. One thing that is certain is that smoking bans vastly changed the sociocultural aspects of smoking in American culture, and in the culture here at Belmont. Tune in to the next act for a more individualistic approach on smoking, when we will be seeing what specific individuals in and around the Belmont community think of their smoke free campus, and the effects that come with it. This was Jack Smith with This Belmont Life, stay with us.

Smith 9

Smith 10

Works Cited "Adult Tobacco Use Information." National Health Interview Survey. 2009. Web. 13 Feb. 2013

Brown, Joel, Marianne D'Emidio-Caston, and John Pollard. "Students and Substances: Social Power in Drug Education." American Educational Research Association. (1997): n. page. Web. 13 Feb. 2013.

Christakis, Nicholas, and James Fowler. "The Collective Dynamics of Smoking in a Large Social Network ." New England Journal of Medicine. (2008): n. page. Web. 11 Feb. 2013.

el-Guebaly, Nady, Janice Cathcart, Shawn Currie, Diane Brown, and Susan Gloster. "Smoking Cessation Approaches for Persons With Mental Illness or Addictive Disorders." Psychiatric Services. 53.9 (2002): n. page. Web. 13 Mar. 2013.

Hines, David, Amelia Fretz, and Nicole Nollen. "Regular and Occasional Smoking by College Students: Personality Attributions of Smokers and Nonsmokers." Amscipub. Ball State University, n.d. Web. 6 Feb 2013.

Smith 11

Kagin, Robert, and Jerome Skolnick. Smoking Policy: Laws, Politics, and Culture. Oxford University Press, 1993. 60-92. Web.

Romano, Patrick, Joan Bloom, and S. Leonard Syme. "Smoking, Social Support, and Hassles in the Urban African-American Community." American Journal of Public Health. (1991): n. page. Web. 13 Feb. 2013.

Springen, Karen. "Modern Outcasts." Newsweek, The Daily Beast. (2008): n. page. Web. 11 Feb. 2013.

Steinburg, Stephanie. "Colleges tell smokers, "You're not welcome here"." CNN. (2011): n. page. Web. 13 Mar. 2013.

You might also like