---

In print | March 30, 2006

To the Editor:

As a Swarthmore parent who is most enthusiastic about Swarthmore, especially the school’s emphasis on social responsibility, and as a physician whose research and practice focuses on occupational and environmental lung diseases, I was shocked and horrified to read the March 16 article in The Phoenix regarding smoking in Swarthmore dorms, which I had assumed were smoke free. I got lost in the seemingly endless discussion regarding which part of which dorm was smoking and why this could have an impact on “matching.” The only problem noted was setting off fire alarms, which seemed under control. The reporter, students interviewed and Dean of Residential Life all failed to mention a single health issue regarding smoking, and importantly, from the perspective of public health and teaching social responsibility, the adverse health effects of second-hand smoke.

There are very compelling medical and public health reasons why not just most U.S. workplaces (and most of Swarthmore’s peer institutions —including all dorm rooms) but even bars in New York City and California are now smoke free. Second-hand smoke kills and harms a substantial number of people, frequently unsuspecting bystanders. The risks of second-hand smoke are well established in the scientific literature. In addition to causing cancer (comparable to well known carcinogens such as asbestos and benzene (the EPA and IARC), exposure to second-hand smoke substantially increases the risk of cardiac disease and stroke, asthma and bronchitis, as well as other chronic diseases. Acute effects include eye irritation, headaches, nausea, and reduced work productivity.

Importantly, evidence has shown that ventilation, doors or separate hallways or floors do NOT protect against exposure to tobacco smoke, nor is the ability to smell tobacco smoke a reliable indicator of exposure. Thus students living in non-smoking areas of smoking dorms (in addition to those in smoking areas), as well as staff who maintain such dorms, are likely unknowingly being exposed to the over 4,000 chemicals and over 60 carcinogens found in cigarette smoke.

Dean Westphal’s rationale that a “liberal” smoking policy accommodates a diverse student body is unacceptable, the antithesis of “liberal” social and public health policy, and violates the recommendations of numerous prominent governmental, medical, public health and scientific organizations throughout the world. There is a much greater responsibility of the school not to harm its students and staff and to set an example of socially responsible behavior. As a recent campaign for smoke free workplaces in Europe stated, “freedom of choice includes the responsibility not to harm others.”

What if Swarthmore improperly removed asbestos from one of the older buildings and a few asbestos particles were detected in air sampling? All would likely be up in arms. Yet the school has endorsed a policy that exposes students and staff to a much more potent carcinogen, let alone cardiovascular, pulmonary and developmental toxins — even if they are on a different floor or hall and do not notice the tobacco smoke.

There are other reasons to make all dorms smoke-free, such as reducing the risk of fatal dorm fires, or reducing the likelihood that current Swarthmore smokers or non-smokers who start smoking in college will develop lifelong nicotine dependence and fatal smoking-related illnesses, or potential litigation or even the extra costs related to smokers. Cigarette smoking has recently increased substantially among college students, the youngest legal targets for tobacco industry marketing, and smoke-free laws have consistently reduced smoking.

Hopefully Swarthmore will follow the example of numerous other colleges, universities, U.S. states and entire countries (recently Ireland and Norway) that have gone smoke-free. Not to do so is socially irresponsible and exposes non-smoking students and staff to substantial, scientifically proven and entirely preventable harm. Arguments that a smoke-free policy will adversely affect admissions, the diversity of the student body, the “Swarthmore experience,” or dorm “matching” are similar to the fears of bar and restaurant owners that a smoking ban would have a negative economic impact; rather, the reverse has happened. Nor does such a policy stop smokers from smoking. Unfortunate nicotine-addicted Swarthmore students can continue to support the tobacco industry while smoking outside, but at least not harm others.

I would be happy to provide Swarthmore’s administration, students and staff with literature regarding the health effects of second-hand smoke or to discuss this issue further with any interested parties.

Carrie A. Redlich, M.D., M.P.H.
Professor of Medicine
Yale University School of Medicine

---

« RETURN TO OPINIONS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »