I AM WRITING this editorial in response to Laura Sahramaa's March 27 column, "Snuffing out anti-smoking sentiment." I respect and appreciate all of Ms. Sahramaa's comments and am confident that a number of people share her sentiments. I hope to clear up a few misperceptions and subsequently narrow the viewpoint gap that exists between some smokers and health professionals.
To begin with, smoke-free housing is not primarily designed to, as Ms. Sahramaa's column states, "make the lives of smokers more difficult in the hopes they will not smoke as frequently." On the contrary, its chief aim is to protect non-smokers from the harm caused by second-hand smoke. Further, Ms. Sahramaa is mistaken when she says that smokers should be able to smoke in their rooms because they don't expose non-smokers to the smell of smoke or harmful second-hand effects of smoking. In fact, just the opposite is true.
The air in each residence hall room circulates through the same ventilation system. Consequently, whatever a person does to affect the air quality in one room eventually makes its way through the entire residence hall. In addition to increasing your risk for lung cancer, heart disease and stroke, second-hand smoke also can worsen asthma symptoms and irritate the pharyngeal area (eyes, nose and throat). In fact, many University students visit Student Health throughout the year with asthmatic and pharyngeal problems that have been further aggravated by their living arrangements.
A second goal of a smoke-free housing policy is to prevent non-smoking college students from taking up smoking. As referenced in the March 22 article in The Cavalier Daily, "Campaign calls for smoke-free dorms," a Harvard study demonstrated that smoke-free dorms can help achieve this goal. Finally, smoke-free housing also aims to reduce the amount of tobacco products currently consumed. However, since seven out of 10 people do not smoke (U.Va. 2000 Health Behavior Survey), one can see the policy is primarily targeted at non-smokers.
Later in her article, Ms. Sahramaa proposes that smokers are "singled out for criticism." She points to overweight people, claiming they "do just as much to destroy their health as smokers, and yet [smokers] are the only ones branded as being needlessly and willfully self-destructive." To the contrary, health organizations spend a tremendous amount of money every year educating overweight people and trying to change their behavior. In fact, the Surgeon General just released a comprehensive national obesity plan. The reason Ms. Sahramaa or others like her may not hear the health messages or be affected by obesity initiatives is because the messages are well targeted and therefore do not reach her.
In her editorial, Ms. Sahramaa questioned why health professionals continue to "nag" smokers or give them "guilt trips" in the hopes that they will quit. This is a natural response from someone not interested in quitting. However, national data shows that, of the roughly 30 percent of people who currently smoke, 70 percent report they want to quit. When people are thinking about quitting, they seek new information to "tip the scales" and eventually take action and quit. Because of this statistic, the Office of Health Promotion and the Center for Substance Abuse continue to supply University students with information they can use to cultivate their moderate desires to quit into intense and highly personal ambitions.
By now, everyone knows that smoking is bad for your health. Yet segments of the population still either take up smoking or continue to smoke. As health professionals, we therefore need to transmit a wide variety of new smoking information. From this information, people will choose pieces that apply to their lives. As they recognize more and more benefits to quitting, they will eventually take the plunge and quit.
For example, health professionals want people to know about recent research that shows depression is no longer thought to make a person more inclined to smoke. Rather, studies have proven the reverse, that smoking actually increases one's risk of developing depression (National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health).
Health professionals also want women who plan to quit to make sure their quit date falls within the first half of their menstrual cycle to avoid experiencing premenstrual symptoms and nicotine withdrawal symptoms at the same time. Further, we (health professionals) want people to be aware of non-nicotine medication (Bupropion/Xyban) they can take that is highly effective in easing withdrawal symptoms. Finally, to encourage smokers to try to quit again, we inform them that it takes smokers an average of seven times to quit for good.
So I apologize to the minority percentage of smokers who feel that health professionals and non-smokers "nag" smokers or give them "guilt trips." I guess we could just sit back and do nothing. The Surgeon General just released a report that lung cancer is now the leading cause of cancer death among women. With heart disease, the leading killer of men and women, tobacco accounts for one in every five deaths. We could just sit back and do nothing. In light of this data, I don't think anyone would want us to.
(Abbie Shore is a Health Educator at the Office of Health Promotion, Department of Student Health.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 17 hours agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | YesterdayAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
