This is a response from Campuses Organized and United for Good Health (COUGH) Northridge to the opinion piece that was written by Joelle Katz in the Daily Sundial on January 30, 2012 titled “Non-smoker says: Don’t ban smoking!” With the recently passed mandate requiring that all University of California facilities be smoke free by 2014, it is evident that there is a national trend for colleges and universities to adopt tobacco-free policies. As part of the CSU system, we have the opportunity to lead and be the first campus in the system to move forward along with many other institutions nationwide.

The benefits are many – having CSUN transition to a smoke-free campus policy will help and be supportive of students, faculty and staff that want to quit smoking and for those who have already quit and want to stay smoke-free. It will reduce the chances of tobacco use initiation among students, faculty and staff, reducing future nicotine addiction.

The damaging effects of cigarette smoking are widely known. According to the California Department of Public Health, smoking kills more Americans each year than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide and illegal drugs combined. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has reported that 443,000 people die from tobacco-related illnesses every year, making it the leading cause of preventable illness in the United States.

The need to address the current smoking policy at CSUN is crucial. The California Department of Public Health states that California young adults have the highest prevalence of tobacco use among any age group population at 18 percent. The college years have been identified as a time of transition in smoking behaviors, with a high risk for smoking initiation and transition into regular tobacco use.

Another potentially dangerous effect of smoking behaviors on campus is second-hand smoke exposure to non-smokers. The CDC reports that exposure to secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States, killing over 50,000 non-smokers each year. The Surgeon General of the United States has concluded that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke and that establishing smoke-free environments is the only confirmed way to prevent exposure.

Tobacco not only affects people but also the environment. Cigarette butts are the most littered items in the United States. Cigarette waste is not only ugly but it is extremely toxic to our environment. The small filter, when wet, releases the thousands of toxic chemicals contained on the cigarette into the environment. Cigarette butts and other tobacco-related trash not only affect our campus’ image but also can be washed into waterways by storm water runoff. By eliminating tobacco litter our campus can reduce the risk of fire, decrease the cost of cleaning tobacco litter and improve the campus’ appearance.

Smoke-free campus policies are proven to decrease current smoking prevalence on students and decrease the amount of cigarettes used by those who continue to smoke. They can also positively influence students’ perceptions of peer smoking, change social norms around tobacco use, and increase favorable attitudes towards regulation of tobacco. As of last year in the United States, 257 campuses were reportedly completely tobacco-free and 586 campuses smoke-free, according to the California Youth Advocacy Network.

Not taking any actions regarding our current smoking policy would be like promoting a damaging health behavior around campus and encouraging smokers to continue this habit, prolonging and increasing their tobacco addiction. CSUN is an educational institution that has an obligation to model positive behaviors as well as being a positive example for the community. Having a smoke-free policy at CSUN is a step in the right direction towards a healthier campus for students, faculty, staff and the general public.

The mission of COUGH Northridge is to promote a safe and healthy environment for students, faculty, staff and the general public on the CSUN campus by reducing the health risks associated with tobacco smoke. COUGH Northridge promotes good health and improved quality of life by advocating social norms that support a smoke-free campus. The COUGH group is not against smokers or tobacco users, but advocates for health on the CSUN campus.

The Indiana Senate is making a lot of changes to the statewide smoking ban bill sent to them by the House. Members of the Senate debated 29 different amendments Tuesday. Amendments critics said render the bill virtually useless. The House version bans smoking in public places except for gaming facilities, tobacco shops, private clubs whose members approve of smoking, and cigar and hookah bars. But that list was growing longer by the minute in the Senate Tuesday. Less than two hours into the debate over amendments to HB 1149, Senators had passed exemptions for bars, group homes, gaming facilities, healthcare facilities, mental health facilities, private clubs with members under 18 and in-home work places.

Those in-home work places could include a variety of businesses which are run out of someone’s home.

One amendment that didn’t pass would have exempted outdoor areas on privately owned property. Senator David Long argued against that one, saying it could amount to restaurants allowing smoking on outdoor patios.

Several other amendments would have drastically changed state law. One would ban the use of cigarettes completely. Another would allow cigarettes to be sold only between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. on weekdays and 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. on weekends. Proposals like that raised frustration among those trying to get the ban passed.

“It’s a matter of poking fun at the whole concept of having smoke-free air,” said Representative Charlie Brown, D-Gary, who has been pushing for the ban for more than five years.

Brown remained hopeful the ban will pass, but was not encouraged when he saw the list of 29 amendments.

“Some of them are humorous, some are ridiculous, and most of them are not sincere,” Brown said.

As the amendments kept coming and the debate kept going, Fort Wayne Republican Senator Tom Wyss said he would vote for whatever the final version was. He remained doubtful that it would ultimately become law, though.

“Even if it gets out of here, it’ll go over (to the House) and they’ll try to do something in conference committee,” Wyss said. “I just don’t see anything coming out this year at all.”

The Indiana Senate passed a statewide smoking ban Wednesday with so many exemptions that House leaders immediately said they would oppose it. A final, likely stronger, version is expected to surface in a joint House-Senate committee that will begin negotiations Monday. Senate President Pro Tempore David Long, though, drew a line in the sand for those talks. Whatever compromise emerges must include an exemption for bars, he said, before he will vote for it. “I feel strongly that people ought to be able to work in a smoke-free environment and they ought to be able to eat in one,” Long told the Senate on Wednesday. “And beyond that, I feel that we can make choices as adults.”

House authors Eric Turner, R-Cicero, and Charlie Brown, D-Gary, oppose the changes.

Turner wants the ban to include bars, but he’s choosing words carefully. This is his sixth attempt to pass a smoking ban in the Indiana General Assembly, and it’s never progressed this far.

“I hope we can find that sweet spot we can all agree on,” he said. “Maybe senators will sleep on things over the weekend and have a revelation.”

Can a smoking ban pass the General Assembly if it includes bars?

“It’s too early to say,” Turner said. “There are several exemptions they put in, and we need to look at them.”

In an interview, Long said he was speaking on the Senate floor only for himself. But key Senate leaders say the message is clear: There aren’t enough votes in the Senate to pass a ban that includes bars.

Sens. Ron Alting, R-Lafayette, and Beverly Gard, R-Greenfield, who sponsored the bill in the Senate, think bars must be exempted to pass the upper chamber.

“I prefer that there be no exemption for bars,” Gard said, “but I’m a realist.”

Those two — and Long — think there’s room for negotiation on other exemptions the Senate tacked onto the legislation, including bingo halls, mental-health facilities and nursing homes.

But Amanda Estridge of The American Cancer Society said bars are perhaps the worst exemption. Taverns, she said, have the highest concentration of smoke.

“Cancer does not have restrictions,” Estridge said. “It does not have limits. . . . Employees of bars, casinos and private clubs are at the highest risk for second-hand smoking-related illnesses.”

Twenty-nine states have comprehensive smoking bans, 22 of which include bars.

As on Tuesday, debate in the Senate on Wednesday focused on the rights of business owners versus the interest of public health.

Several Republican senators said a smoking ban would be too intrusive and strip away personal freedom.

“I think government is way too involved in our lives, telling us what to do and when to do it,” said Sen. Phil Boots, R-Crawfordsville.

But advocates said people have the right to breathe clean air.

Sen. Vi Simpson, D-Ellettsville, said secondhand smoke is deadly.

“When I’m around somebody that smokes,” she said, “I have to breathe that air. I don’t get to choose some other air. It’s shared air.”

The Senate passed the bill 29-21.

The House bill would have covered most public spaces and workplaces, including bars. Exemptions include certain gaming facilities, cigar/hookah bars, retail tobacco stores, nonprofit private clubs and fraternal organizations.

Long previously opposed a statewide smoking ban, preferring to leave that to local control. But now, he said, the dangers of second-hand smoke are well known, and he’s ready to vote for the right bill.

“All of us have to work, all of us have to eat,” Long said. “But none of us has to walk into a casino, and none of us has to walk into a tavern. We choose to do that. If the tavern has smoking and the casino has smoking, I don’t choose to go into those places.”

The statewide ban still allows local governments to enact stronger bans — another must for Long.

In Indianapolis, the City-County Council — still regrouping after Mayor Greg Ballard’s veto of the latest smoking ban proposal last month — is expected to attempt another try in coming weeks at expanding the city’s existing ban to cover most bars

Council members John Barth and Angela Mansfield, both Democrats who support a smoking ban, say they don’t plan to propose a new measure at Monday’s meeting. Democrats have formed a work group aimed at bridging disagreement with Ballard’s stance in favor of allowing children on the premises of exempted private clubs and veterans halls.

Local bar owners are sounding off on the upcoming Indiana Senate vote on an indoor smoking ban.
The legislation would ban smoking in all indoor public spaces with, exemptions for casinos, tobacco stores, hookah bars and private clubs. Bars and taverns would get 18 months to go smoke–free under the proposal. Scott Bridges, who co-owns Bridges’ Scoreboard Restaurant and Bar in Griffith with his brother Jeff Bridges, said he would prefer to see the ban approved with no exemptions. “If smokers have other options, they’ll use them” he said. “I think it’s a little unfair. It could affect some bars.”

Scott Bridges said he and his brother are nonsmokers, so health–wise he thinks the ban would mean a better dining experience for everyone. But as a businessman, he’s a little worried it may affect them financially.
“The reason I haven’t made that decision before (to go nonsmoking) is I know we’d lose some bar trade,” he said. “I think the customers will understand if the state makes it a law. They know they have no choice and will still come here. But if I make the decision, they’re mad at me and that’s what held us back from doing this earlier.
“The state’s been talking about doing this for years, and we wanted it to be across the board so everyone is on the same playing field,” he said.
Bridges doesn’t think it makes sense for legislators to say they’re doing this for public heath yet still allow smoking in exempted places that also serve food.
“Sometimes the government takes too big a hand in telling you how to run your business,” he said.
Bridges said if the legislation becomes law, his establishment would not wait the entire 18 months to snuff out smoking.
“We’d probably give it a short period of time to let the customers adjust,” he said.
Jeff St. Aubin, owner of Duffy’s Place in Valparaiso, also is frustrated by the possible exemptions, feeling they discriminate against bars such as his.
“If it was for everyone, we’d be on the same playing field,” he said. “I’ve already had 12 or 15 regulars tell me if it goes through they’re going to repay their dues at the Elks or VFW.
“That’s the part that’s scaring all of us,” St. Aubin said. “Is the VFW going to triple membership while we take a 20 percent loss?”
St. Aubin said one of the reason casinos would be exempt is because of gaming revenue and taxes.
“It’s not a health issue if there’s money involved,” he said. “But it’s a health issue for the little guys. It’s frustrating that they’re picking and choosing. They’re giving other places unfair business advantages over us. For no other reason than they want to.”
St. Aubin said he would allow smoking in Duffy’s for the entire 18 months if the ban is approved.
He also questioned whether a smoking ban would lead to more regulations.
“If you allow this, does it open the door for the government to come in and tell you exactly what you can and can’t do?” he asked.

Officials with Evansville’s off-track racehorse betting facility hope its not too late to obtain an exemption from the city’s just-passed indoor smoking ban. Indiana Downs General Manager Jon Schuster said he knows his company, which operates the East Side off-track betting facility, should have approached the City Council before it passed an indoor smoking ban Feb. 13, but he hopes council members will understand the impact the ban would have on the off-track parlor.

“You know what, there is some shame on us for not doing it, but in almost all discussions we’ve been treated in a similar light because we’re not a bar or restaurant,” Schuster said of the City Council. “It’s generally been understood.”

The ban, which will go into effect April 1, exempts the Casino Aztar riverboat gaming floor, but applies to all bars, private clubs and satellite facilities. The ban passed with a 7-to-2 vote, with most council members citing the city’s dependence on revenue from riverboat taxes for improvement projects and emergency vehicles. The Council failed to pass a similar ban about two years ago because of a deadlock in votes over whether to exempt the casino.

On Thursday, the city clerk’s office provided a draft of the agenda for Monday night’s City Council meeting. The last item under miscellaneous business is Indiana Downs Evansville Manager Jim Bretz and the topic is electronic gaming. Bretz referred all questions to Schuster, who resides at the actual track in Shelbyville, Ind.

Schuster said the City Council should realize his Evansville facility, which is located near the intersection of the Lloyd Expressway and Green River Road, is less than eight miles from Ellis Park, in Kentucky. A dip in attendance at the Evansville facility would impact the state horse racing and boarding industry and tax revenue.

“If we lose our ability to smoke, someone could get the same products and services just down the road,” he said. “And there are a handful of tumblers that fall into place once all that happens.”

Schuster said last year the Evansville facility generated $400,000 in state tax revenue. The facility also provides a small amount to Evansville, which he could only describe as being “tens of thousands of dollars.”

The facility also employs up to 60 workers, most of whom are part-time.

“They would definitely be affected,” he said.

Schuster said the current version of a statewide smoking ban being considered by the Indiana General Assembly, also does not include off-track facilities.

“There’s no way around it — we dropped the ball on the exemption,” Schuster said, adding the city code defines a satellite facility such as the off-track facility, but does not include it. “We thought it was going to be like most of the discussions we heard and that we would not be included in the ban.”

Schuster said Indiana Downs also has a satellite facility in Clarksville, Ind., but a statewide ban was not as concerning.

“In that case, if a handful of people drive two hours away so they can smoke, I can live with that,” he said. “But when you’ve got competition right around the corner, that will hurt us.”

A study released Tuesday quantifies improvements in indoor air quality following a ban on smoking in Savannah restaurants and bars. “The bottom line is that secondhand smoke is dangerous and people who frequent public places — including bars and restaurants — in Savannah are now breathing better air,” said Dr. Diane Weems, chief medical officer for the Coastal Health District. Indoor air quality monitoring was performed at 14 unnamed bars and restaurants throughout Savannah before and after a smoking ban took effect Jan. 1, 2011. Eleven of the establishments allowed smoking before the ban and three were non-smoking.

The study shows a 94 percent decline in very unhealthy particle pollution levels at those businesses that previously allowed smoking. Air quality went from an average level the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency deems “very unhealthy” — the second worst of its six Air Quality Index rankings — to “good,” the best.

The study, performed by the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, measured airborne quantities of particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size. (For comparison, a human hair is about 70 microns in diameter.)

These pollutants are released in significant amounts from burning cigarettes, are easily inhaled deep into the lungs and are associated with pulmonary and cardiovascular disease and death.

The study demonstrates that indoor smoking was exposing Savannah bar and restaurant patrons and employees to harmful levels of indoor air pollution, said Amy Hughes, chairman of Breathe Easy, a subcommittee of Healthy Savannah. Her organization pushed for the city ordinance and is now trying to get county commissioners to adopt their own. The commission is expected to vote on the issue Friday.

The study also demonstrates a marked air quality improvement for “the waiters and waitresses, bartenders and musicians, as well as the patrons,” Hughes said.

“That’s our goal, and that’s what we’re trying to do in Chatham County on Friday,” Hughes said.

The New South Wales Government is to stub out smoking in most of the state’s public places, from parks to bus stops. Health Minister Jillian Skinner says legislation will be introduced to the Parliament in coming months to prohibit smoking in sports grounds, swimming pools, entrances to buildings and public transport stops. “A series of places where children and families congregate more frequently,” Ms Skinner said. Smoking will also be banned in commercial outdoor dining areas but not until 2015.

Ms Skinner has defended the delay on that aspect of the ban, saying it honours a Coalition election commitment to the clubs industry.

“Nobody is calling the tune on this except the public, who asked for this legislation and it will be happening,” she said.

“We had 16 years of Labor. That wasn’t done then. It’s now not even a year within the O’Farrell Government and, here we are, we’ve moved already.

“We want to honour the commitment we made to clubs through our memorandum of understanding. This is a Government that keeps its promises.”

The Government says smoking-related illnesses account for more than 5,000 deaths in NSW each year, while 44,000 are admitted to hospital.

The NSW Cancer Council has applauded the announcement.

Council chief executive Andrew Penman says the legislation will give people more choice in whether they are exposed to smoke.

“The important principle is that the measures are aimed at protecting people from being exposed in places where they are involuntarily present,” Dr Penman said.

“They have to be at a taxi rank, they have to be at a rail station. They really haven’t got the option to move away.”

He is pragmatic about the outside dining areas delay.

“The important thing is to move forwards. What we do have is a firm cut off in 2015,” he said.

In Jan. 2011, State Rep. Anthony DeLuca, D-Chicago Heights, introduced legislation that would amend the Smoke-Free Illinois Act. The legislation would allow municipalities the choice to offer smoking licenses to eligible establishments. According to the Smoke-Free Illinois Act, which went into effect Jan. 1, 2008, smoking in virtually all public places and workplaces is prohibited, including educational institutions, restaurants and bars. Even if this legislation was to pass, DeKalb Mayor Kris Povlsen said he would not be in favor of offering licenses.

“It’s probably the most irresponsible piece of legislation introduced by a legislator,” Povlsen said.
Instead, state legislators should focus on more important issues, like the state’s financial crisis, Povlsen said.
State’s Attorney Clay Campbell remembers what it was like when he was 21.
Going into bars and not being able to see due to the tobacco smoke was not a fond memory from that time, Campbell said.
“Just as a private citizen, I think a smoke-free environment has become a way of life now,” Campbell said. “The science is overwhelming that second-hand smoke causes damage.”
According to a 2011 report by the U.S. Surgeon General, exposure to tobacco smoke quickly damages blood vessels throughout the body, damages a person’s DNA – which can lead to cancer- and weakens the body’s ability to fight cancer.
State Rep. Robert Pritchard, R-Hinckley, said he voted in favor of the Smoke-Free Illinois Act and against several pieces of exemption legislation that have come up since.
“I regret having to pass a bill that takes away individuals’ rights, but you have to consider the rights of the nonsmokers and the rights of the smokers,” Pritchard said.
Povlsen agrees and said “anytime there is a life safety issue, the state certainly has the right to step in.”
Rosemary Zingarelli, junior early childhood education major and smoker, said she wrote a paper in high school about the smoking ban’s effect on businesses.
Zingarelli said she understands why people don’t like smoking in public places. However, after working in the restaurant industry, Zingarelli said she saw first-hand the loss in revenue when the ban went into effect.
Zingarelli said she is a “huge advocate” for offering exemptions to businesses who apply for a license or offering separate smoking areas in restaurants or bars.
“It’s just not really that fair to us smokers,” Zingarelli said.
Although people may be used to going outside to smoke, said Chris Bahramis, shift supervisor at Daisy’s Sports Bar & Grill, 901 Lucinda Ave., he thinks installing exhaust fans would accommodate everyone.
When the ban went into effect in 2008, Rob Deshazer, manager at O’Leary’s Irish Pub and Grill, 260 E. Lincoln Highway, said they did see a decline in business – particularly their “regulars.” After about 45 days, most came back, Deshazer said.
“As a non-smoker, I believe people should have the opportunity to smoke as long as it’s in designated areas and not offending anyone,” Deshazer said.
However, having a smoking environment in a closed facility is unhealthy, Pritchard said, and his constituents have continually opposed weakening the smoking ban.

City Council rejected a smoking ban on public beaches Tuesday but did agree to set up a committee to look into the idea for the 2013 season. A 2-2 council vote in November killed an earlier proposal to ban smoking on beaches, public parks and the oceanfront Promenade. Deputy Mayor Jack Wichterman on Tuesday proposed just banning smoking on the beaches. This had been his original proposal last year, but other members of council expanded the ban before it came to a vote.

That proposal came under strong attack from the business community amid concerns it would hurt the tourism industry. President John Cooke of the Chamber of Commerce of Greater Cape May said it could hurt the Canadian tourist trade.
“My main concern is litter on the beach and smoke on the beach. John Cooke was afraid it may offend the Canadians. I’ve since found out 17 percent of the Canadians smoke compared with 21 percent in the U.S.,” Wichterman said.
A committee is often a place proposals go to die, but in this case there are indications a compromise is possible. Cooke asked to be on the committee and suggested a ban along the water while allowing smoking on the beach within 100 yards of the Promenade.
“We opposed the previous ban because it was all encompassing. The chamber wants to work with you as much as possible,” Cooke said.
There was opposition even to a geared back smoking ban. Daniel Kurkowski, a lawyer who lives on Corgie Street, who said he is a nonsmoker, argued such bans are not constitutional.
“We have constitutional rights. When you ban something that is permitted, you will have lawsuits. You’re going to affect too many people’s right to smoke, which is their right,” Kurkowski said.
He suggested strongly enforcing littering laws to keep cigarette butts off the beaches.
George Costich, a Victorian Towers resident who described himself as a former smoker, said the habit is more deadly indoors where it causes structure fires and deaths. He suggested a ban at hotels, motels and bed & breakfasts.
“If you’re going to have a law, have one that stops smoking indoors. I’ve never heard of a person being killed by a cigarette butt on the beach,” Costich said.
Wichterman argued that other shore towns, including Seaside Park and Seaside Heights, have banned beach smoking and suffered no loss in tourism or enforcement issues.
“It’s pretty much self-enforced. You don’t have to enforce no smoking in restaurants and bars because they understand,” Wichterman said.
He did not get much support from his colleagues for anything other than a committee. Councilwoman Terri Swain said her feedback was entirely against a ban. Councilman William Murray, who voted for the larger ban in November, said most of his feedback was against a ban.
“I can’t say whether I’m for it until I see something more definitive,” Murray said.
“I can’t be more definitive,” Wichterman replied. “Every beach is what I suggest. You enlarged it (last year) to the Promenade and the mayor enlarged it to public parks.”
Councilwoman Deanna Fiocca missed the November vote but said her feedback is about even for and against a ban. She said her concern is moving smokers to a concentrated area people have to pass through. Fiocca suggested putting the issue on the November ballot for voters to decide.
“They didn’t elect me to put it on the ballot. I don’t believe in referendums,” Wichterman said.
Mayor Ed Mahaney suggested Wichterman work with the police, beach badgers, city manager and others in studying the issue this year to see what can be done in 2013 without causing the city negative publicity or creating an enforcement problem. Wichterman agreed to chair the committee.