Act Three: Glancing Through the Keyhole Previously on This Belmont Life, the effects of a college smokers social

networks and a personal account of a smoker facing adversity were examined. In order to delve into greater detail on both of these subjects, I chose to interview students representing a broad range of smoking habits. My interview subjects, Calvin Knowles, Wade Luplow, Aaron Rochotte, and Paige Kaprelian, greatly aided in my ability to examine the trials and tribulations of both Belmont smokers and nonsmokers alike. What I found was often surprising, sometimes amusing, and occasionally even touching. These four came together to help me to formulate a better representation of one of the most misunderstood students on campus: the simple smoker. All of the interviews began in the same way, with a survey on the smoking habits and opinions of smokers. This survey was not created specifically for the purpose of these interviews, rather it was taken from a survey created by researchers David Hines, Amelia Fretz, and Nicole Nollen of Ball State University. Regular listeners of the show might recognize these names as well as this specific survey from its appearance in Act Two: An Exodus and Its Effect. The survey I conducted was more or less identical to the Ball State survey; students were asked a few open ended questions about their smoking habits, and then asked to rate personality attributes such as sophistication, depression, or maturity in smokers. It is important to note for comprehension of this section that a score of 1 means the student strongly agreed with the statement, while a score of 5 indicates strong disagreement. This is the inverse of many similar surveys. While the Ball State survey was conducted using hundreds of students representing all smoking habits, I only had four at my disposal: two regular smokers, one occasional smoker, and one nonsmoker. Despite the dissimilarity in sample size, the results yielded in the two studies

Smith 2

were remarkably similar, with the averages often only being a few decimals points off. Interestingly, only three of the statistics I found had any noticeable difference between those found in the original Ball State study. These attributes were adventurous, daring, and mature. In the Ball State study, students rated these as 2.8, 2.6, and 3.0 respectively; my personal study yielded results of 3.5, 3.25, and 3.75. These results indicate that Belmont students tend to find smoking as less mature and less adventurous than Ball State students. While these variations could very likely be the results of my significantly smaller sample size or simply random error, they also could be indicative of a larger force. One theory would be the typical demographic represented at either school. As a much larger state school with a lower tuition, Ball State presents less barriers for attendance for students belonging to a lower socioeconomic class. In contrast to Belmont, where many of the students received high quality private educations, the students at Ball State may be less likely to be exposed to effective antismoking campaigns. Furthermore, lower socioeconomic classes tend to have higher rates of smoking among their populations. Students who were raised in this sort of environment may be less likely to develop an opposition to smoking. However, far more interesting than the quantitative results found through the questionnaire were the explanations given by the students about their smoking habits. Just like the original survey, most of the interviews began by asking students about their background with smoking cigarettes. Even before asking, however, I knew that two of the subjects, Wade and Calvin, would identify as smokers, and that Aaron would be an occasional smoker and Paige a nonsmoker. I specifically chose the four of them, in fact, to represent a variety of smoking habits. Next, we got into the specifics of how they began smoking. Interestingly, all the students, with

Smith 3

the exception of Paige of course, mentioned that boredom and older kids got them into smoking. Wade agreed with these sympathies, mentioning in his explanation of his smoking career that he felt he recognized this pattern as similar to most smokers. Both Calvin and Aaron also mentioned that it was a good way to distract myself, so I kept smoking and it was...kind of something to do on the weekends, if there was nothing else to do. Unintentionally, Aaron and Calvin represented two opposite sides of the spectrum of reasons that people begin smoking; one began because he was bored and the other began because he was stressed. According to Mental Health America, nearly 26% of Americans smoke or drink because they are stressed, and this is likely an indicator of a deeper smoking issue (Mental Health America). I found it interesting that Calvin, who is a fairly heavy smoker, attributed his reasoning to stress relief, while the relatively light smoker Aaron attributed his habit more to boredom. While this interview was not in depth enough to make a definitive call, one might postulate that Calvin used smoking cigarettes as an emotional crutch to a greater degree than Aaron, and thus became more dependent on them. Interestingly, when asked what two factors influence their decision to smoke most, all three of the smokers answered with some form of stress relief. Despite not smoking, Paige perhaps gave the most touching answer when asked about her history (or lack thereof) with smoking. After a long sigh and a heavy thought, Paige revealed to me that both her grandparents had died of lung cancer due to their smoking habits. She also confided to me that a large reason for why she chooses not to smoke is fear of developing cancer herself. In her own words: after my grandparents died of lung cancer, I was afraid to smoke because I thought I would get cancer. I know Im already at higher risk. My own grandfather is an avid smoker, who has had brushes with cancer and other ailments due to his heavy smoking

Smith 4

habits. When Paige told me this, I immediately knew this was a delicate topic, but one we could form a strong connection on. While learning the pasts of the people I spoke with certainly interested me and built a trust between the two of us, my intent with the interview process was to discover more about the social aspects of smoking here at Belmont, so with that in mind I continued the procedure. The next significant question I asked all of the subjects is whether or not they thought their answers on the survey were reflective of those given by the average Belmont student. I gave none of the subjects any direction on what the average Belmont student was like, in order to get an answer that is truly reflective of their own experiences with the smoking population here at Belmont. While both Wade and Aaron mentioned that their answers were about average for a Belmont smoker, all of the interview subjects expressed their difficulty with defining the average Belmont student. Each of the smokers declared their opinions to be about average for a Belmont smoker, if different than a Belmont nonsmoker. Paige, the singular nonsmoker, confessed that honestly [she doesnt] know. [She] just knows so many people that smoke and they are all such a wide range of people that its hard to classify. This illusive concept of the average Belmont student actually raised a lot of thought provoking insights into the plight of the smoker at Belmont. For instance, despite all three smokers claiming their responses being similar to the average Belmont student, all three differed widely on their ratings of the personality attributes of smokers. This discrepancy could allude to the fact that the new smoking policy has disrupted the position of a smoker within the social network of Belmont, and that not enough time has passed for him/her to settle down into his/her new role.

Smith 5

From a nonsmokers perspective, preventing students from smoking in the first place is a more fruitful endeavor than studying why students began smoking. Following this thread, I asked my interview subjects about their experiences with antismoking campaigns. Having heard a lot of criticism of the D.A.R.E. program and other zero-tolerance drug programs, I expected the students, in particular the smoking students, to tell of an ineffective experience. This turned out not to be the case, however. Only Wade said the program was mostly ineffective, citing [it is] mainly because they just were telling us the same things weve been told since elementary school, grinding the same things in. Paige also shared her discontent with the repetitive monotony of the programs, but in a more positive light. She says that they are effective to a point. I feel like its good to let little kids know the effects of smoking and what itll do, but once they reach a certain age they know the information and dont need to hear it anymore. Paige straddles the gap with her opinion, and seeks to find a compromise between the amount of repetition necessary for learning to occur and the amount leading to frustration. Calvin also conceded that learning occurred, although the repetitive nature sometimes wore down on him. He recalls I would say theyre effective. I mean I wouldnt always pay attention to them or choose to heed their warnings, but I would definitely say they are effective because they definitely get the point across. I thought this consistent response was intriguing, and asked Calvin and Paige what made their experiences worthwhile, and what they would have as the cornerstone of an antismoking campaign if they designed it. Both of them expressed their distaste for authoritative figures, stating that it would be effective to have an approach of what you do is your decision but know that there are major health risks if you become a smoker, and that as long as its not a cop or teacher preaching to you then the point will sink in more. Those

Smith 6

quotes were from Calvin and Paige respectively. It appears that the unique, personalized stories of various members of the community not only have a bigger impact on the smoking habits of students, but are also what the students would prefer to hear. Despite the early and repeated exposures to these antismoking programs, a relatively high percentage of college students still develop smoking habits. According to the Ball State study mentioned previously, approximately 20% of students report themselves as regular smokers, and 18% as occasional smokers. Evidently, these programs do not work, and schools are beginning to notice. One method of growing popularity that many schools, including Belmont, are beginning to undertake is an entirely smoke-free campus. While this may sound like a panacea for smoke related problems such as student health and littering, the reality is that such a program is hard to successfully implement and maintain. I thought it would be interesting to focus a large portion of my interviews on the students experiences with the nonsmoking policies. Perhaps not surprisingly, none of the students had strong levels of support for the policy, often citing a belief that the policy does nothing. Aaron declared that I think its kind of dumb. People are going to smoke whether theres a law or not...serious smokers are going to do it anyways. This sentiment was shared by Paige, who told me that I get why they did it, for people that cant be around it, but it doesnt bother me. Its not going to stop people from smoking though. Under the current Belmont smoking regulations, smokers are not allowed to use any form of tobacco on campus. As such, many students and faculty members are forced to cross the street and smoke near the neighboring businesses and residential areas. The students I interviewed noticed this undue burden; Calvin reported that it forces people to loiter over at Circle K [a gas station across the street from campus] or other businesses, and they probably arent paying to hang out there. So

Smith 7

that causes problems. While Calvin rationally explained his observations of the mass of students simply crossing the street to smoke, not all of the interview subjects were so objective about it. Wade had a much stronger opinion on the matter, recalling his sighting of hordes of smokers [that] have collected in front of residents houses surrounding Belmonts campus. Theyre leaving cigarette butts everywhere, and I mean its peoples houses and they always have to be like oh theres a bunch of people in my yard.. get out of here! They all put no smoking signs in their yards, but Belmont is forcing us to make the trek off campus. Wades scathing response to the exodus of smokers from Belmonts campus comes from personal experience; he revealed to me that he spent a good deal of time across the street smoking cigarettes last year. While this resentment of the current nonsmoking policies and belief that the policy is largely ineffective was a universal belief among my subjects, one of the students, Aaron, focused on a fresh aspect of the policy. In his analysis, the policy damages Belmonts image within the community, rather than just the relationship with Belmonts neighbors. When he sees serious smokers go off campus, he feels its hypocritical to be like oh were Belmont, we dont smoke. When really we do. This belief that Belmonts nonsmoking policy is actually uprooting its own positive image within the community was not something Aaron randomly stumbled upon, as later in the interview he expanded on this idea. I prompted this analysis of Belmonts image by inquiring about Aarons opinion on the biggest criticism of the nonsmoking policy, the loitering. Aaron said that Ive seen [loitering] happen, I havent personally done it. I can see why those people would get frustrated. I think it kind of defeats the purpose, since Belmont is trying to uphold this image of being clean and healthy, but these kids go stand in their yards because they are Belmont students and they are smoking and they cant do this on campus. This

Smith 8

can sometimes be more harmful than helpful. Aarons excellent analysis of the problem actually sheds light on a previously unexposed aspect of the smoking culture at Belmont: the schools obligation to the smoker. Regardless of their smoking habits, students attending Belmont pay a great deal of money to receive an unbiased, high quality education. By implementing a policy that has such a strong effect on a substantial segment of the student population, Belmont also creates for itself an obligation to care for these students in a different way. Shoving the students off campus creates a form of segregation; if the students are going to be separate, they must be equal. While there are many ways this equality could be founded, perhaps the most popular way among students is reverting to the pre-2011 smoking policies, which featured designated on campus smoking zones. All four of my interview subjects mentioned their preference for this style of on campus smoking regulation. Wade argues that [he] thinks they should have a single area, and if people dont put the butts in the cigarette ash tray thing then threaten to take it away, and elaborates on his theory by locating the smoking zone in the gazebo in front of Maddox, like the cage one. I could see why you wouldnt put it in the center of campus, like under the nicer gazebo, just cause you dont want a horde of smokers out there, it looks bad. Calvin shared Wades concern with moving smoking on campus, but not to a centralized location, stating that the designated smoking zones should definitely not be around central walkways and high traffic areas. I would try to find a nice scenic place around campus for people to relax while theyre smoking. Maybe the space between Hale hall and Pembroke hall would be good, because not a lot of people pass through that area; they just walk around it, and its a nice open area for people to hang out and be comfortable with each other. This idea of creating a secluded space

Smith 9

for smokers is not a foreign concept to Belmont or its students, many of whom did not even attend the university during the periods when such areas were available. This outcry for students should not be taken lightly by the university. Creation of regulated smoking zones is not the only way that Belmont could contribute to its obligation to its smoking students; in fact in at least one method Belmont has already taken strides. This method is through helping smoking students to quit their habits. When I asked the students if Belmont had an obligation to help students quit, three of the four stated they did. Wade declared that Yeah they should. They should offer like nicotine gum or something. In addition, Aaron claimed that they should because I think that a lot of smokers come to a point where they realize that this isnt good for my health, and its not attractive to a lot of people. Paige too agreed that programs should exist, and that they would be more effective [than the smoking ban]. What these students did not know is that Belmont does offer programs to help students quit smoking. For instance, Belmont fosters a relationship with the Nicotine Anonymous group that meets at Blakemore United Methodist Church. In addition to promotion of this group, Belmonts Health Services department willingly sits down with students to help create personalized four month cessation plans, and offers discounts on smoking cessation aids through the on campus pharmacy. Certainly, Belmont has not just excommunicated smokings students from its population. Despite the good intentions of Belmonts smoking cessation solutions, it seems that they have been largely ineffective and underused by the student population. This comes down to one thing: advertising. As stated earlier, none of the students were aware of the existence of this program, and all of them reacted with genuine surprise when I told them the

Smith 10

programs existed. Paige exclaimed Really?! See I didnt know that at all. They arent really advertised. I feel like advertising that a little more might be really effective. Aaron also agreed that the programs might be more effective if they had heavy advertising, asserting that I think it can only help. Regular smokers probably would dismiss, but some people who really need the help and arent afraid to admit it should have help available. It is telling that students, even nonsmoking, feel that heavier advertisement of the preexisting smoking cessation programs at Belmont would be just as, if not more, effective than the nonsmoking policy currently being adopted. In short, students seem not to feel a particular resentment towards the nonsmoking policy at Belmont, but feel that other methods could lead to greater results. This exposition of the smoking culture at Belmont University yielded interesting and surprising results. I am grateful to the students who allowed me to examine their opinions. Whether listeners support the smoking ban or not, hopefully some of the content they just heard shines a brighter light on the plight of the Belmont University smoker. This has been Jack Smith, thank you for listening to This Belmont Life, see you next semester.

Works Cited "Americans Reveal Top Stressors, How They Cope." Mental Health America. (2013): n. page. Web. 22 Apr. 2013.