The Effectiveness of Smoking Ban - Research Paper Example

 The Effectiveness of Smoking Ban Acknowledgement Completing this dissertation would have been impossible without the support of several people. I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude to all of them. Firstly, I would like to thank my parents for their consistent, unconditional support. I would also like to thank my professors at the university, without whose support and guidance, I would have never been able to work on this topic. Lastly, I would like to thank Almighty God for empowering me with the wisdom, health and strength to work on this paper. Abstract This research paper deals with the smoking ban in the American University of Sharjah (AUS). Smoking ban refers to measures which are likely to protect people who do not smoke from the dangers of tobacco smoke (passive smoking). Tobacco smoke is harmful, not only to persons who actively smoke tobacco, but also for all who breathe the smoke of others. The threats of passive smoking are well known and need to be addressed. This is why this ban had been established. This paper focuses on the implementation of this ban, and the extent of its success. The research aims to assess the perspectives of the students of AUS about this ban and wants to investigate their responses. Introduction: Smoking ban refers to measures which are likely to protect people who do not smoke, from the dangers of tobacco smoke (passive smoking) (Guerriero, 2010). Tobacco smoke is harmful, not only to persons who actively smoke tobacco, but also for all who breathe the smoke of others (Kincaid, 2010). Even the smoke of a single cigarette causes damage to the health of all in the same room. Therefore, the harm of passive smoking is a broad consensus of the professional associations of physicians on the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations and the Cancer Research Centers of different countries. There are 161 States which acceded to the Framework Convention of the World Health Organization's Tobacco Control, including Austria and Germany (Kolodner & Barbarino, 2011). The tobacco industry has been trying for decades to negate the effects of passive smoking on health through specially funded research. In the "Social Report 2006/07 - Responsibility in Dialogue" by British American Tobacco Institute, it is shown that it is in support of catering to the establishment of Smoking and Non Smoking areas as well as to improve the indoor air quality to take an ethically and morally sound action through the mode of corporate social responsibility (Johnson, 2011). Smoking bans have been implemented in various scenarios in order to protect non smokers from second hand smoke (Malcolm, 2010). Background Information: This research paper deals with the smoking ban in the American University of Sharjah (AUS). The management of the American University of Sharjah implemented a campus wide ban on smoking in 2011. The president of the institution declared the ban on 27th of January 2011, and stated that the ban would be effective from the following term (WAM, 2012). The aim of this ban is to provide protection to the numerous people who study and work within the campus of the university. The move can be a trendsetter and can set an example for other educational institutions (McVicar, 2010). The threats of passive smoking are well known and need to be addressed. This is why this ban had been established. Dr Sheikh Sultan Bin Mohammad Al Qassimi, who is the president of AUS, also happens to be the Ruler of Sharjah. He was responsible for this ban (WAM, 2012). This step was one of the many initiatives taken by the university to make the campus environment friendly (WAM, 2012). Other strategies include conserving water and electricity. Dr Peter Heath, who is the chancellor of the university, stated that the main goal of this ban was to safeguard the health of people who did not smoke (Dajani, 2011). The ban also intended to maintain a clean campus. Second hand smoke is really dangerous and can affect non smokers in a detrimental way. It can lead to fatal diseases like lung cancer as well. By recognizing the threats, the university opted to make the university free of second hand smoke and pollution. This paper focuses on the implementation of this ban, and the extent of its success (WAM, 2012). Statement of the Problem: The AUS authorities have understood the fact that this ban can be restricting and difficult to accept for smokers. But, according to the AUS community, this ban was necessary and in the best interest of the people who study and work within the campus, including the smokers (Dajani, 2011). Though the students have accepted the fact that this ban is great for non smokers, the problem is that most of the students of the university are into smoking. The same can be said for the professionals working within the campus. Due to the large majority of smokers, implementing the ban and making it successful has been difficult. In order to deal with this, the AUS community has allowed people to smoke in the parking areas. However, the smokers feel that the parking zone is far away from the classrooms and it is very difficult for them to go that far within the short break periods (Dajani, 2011). The common complaint of smokers is that they find it very difficult to refrain from smoking during their breaks between classes. The research aims to assess the perspectives of the students of AUS about this ban and wants to investigate their responses. The research problem is assessing the extent to which this ban has been successful. Aim and Objectives of the Study The aim of this research paper is to assess the smoking ban in the AUS and to investigate the extent of its success. The major objectives of the paper are: To assess the different rules and guidelines associated with the smoking ban in AUS. To evaluate the extent to which the ban has been successful in reducing second hand smoke and making the campus cleaner and environment friendly. To investigate the perspectives and responses of the students with respect to the ban. To recommend strategies that can make the ban more effective. Research Questions This research paper aims to answer the following questions: What are the different rules related to the smoking ban in AUS? What is the extent to which the ban has been successful in reducing second hand smoke and making the campus cleaner and environment friendly? What do the students of AUS feel about the ban? How can the ban be made more effective? Literature Review: Reasons behind Banning Smoking: If a smoker is drawn to a cigarette, smoke builds up at a temperature of about 950 degrees Celsius. The so-called mainstream smoke is a mixture of more than 12,000 substances, some of which may have been classified as carcinogenic by the World Health Organization (Samet, 2011). The sidestream smoke, which is what escapes a burning cigarette between two inhalations (and what is inhaled in tobacco smoke), is even more toxic due to the lower combustion temperature. This is due to the much higher proportion of formaldehyde, ammonia and pyridine (Samet, 2011). As per the World Health Organization, this can have up to a 20 percent higher risk of lung cancer and, the likelihood of heart disease is increased with passive smoking by 35 percent (Michael, 2011). According to estimates of the Cancer Research Centre in USA, every year, 3,300 people die from the effects of passive smoking, the majority through heart attacks (Lee & Shah, 2010). According to a study by WHO in 2009, 600,000 people annually are affected by lung diseases due to smoking. Due to this reason, the bans on smoking are implemented. In many countries, regulations have been enacted to protect people who do not smoke, but according to WHO, worldwide more than 94 percent of humanity is still not protected by laws against tobacco smoke (Surgeon General of the United States, 2011). Thus, it is important to assess the effectiveness of the smoking bans as a strategy to protect non smokers. Assessment of the Effectiveness of Smoking Bans: According to embodiments of the WHO, different countries have demonstrated improved indoor air quality and thus have experienced a significant reduction in the burden of breath after non smoking protection laws were introduced. It was effective in Norway, and the average nicotine content in the ambient air fell from 28.3 g / m³ to 0.6 micrograms / m³ as a result of the introduction of the non smoking protection in restaurants (McVicar, 2010). In Ireland, in the course of enforcement of smoke-free restaurants, a reduction in the benzene content by 18.8 g / 3.7 g was detected in the indoor air within a year. Another Irish study suggests a decrease of nicotine in the air by 83% (Michael, 2011). In Spain, even a reduction of the nicotine content in the air by 97% was seen. Also studies conducted by the WHO from the years 2005, 2007 and 2009 on the situation in Germany showed a significant reduction in particle concentrations in the ambient air in the catering business (WHO, 2005). Overall, the particle concentration decreased over the years in discotheques by 82%, by 76% in bars, in restaurants and cafes by 79%. Thus, it can be observed that the smoking ban is actually an effective strategy for reducing second hand smoke and protecting the health of non smokers. However, the scenario in the universities needs to be focused upon. In 2013, the University Council Committee of the University of Pennsylvania declared that smoking will be banned in all campus areas. People were allowed to smoke only at a distance of 20 feet away from the gates of the campus. No smoking rooms have been established on campus. The University of Minnesota is also following this example and will establish a ban soon. In a study done by Walid El Ansari and Christiane Stock (2012), the authors stated that students have a higher tendency of smoking in their campus premises and around 45% of the total number of smokers in the universities smoke in undesignated areas. The authors also stated that smokers often try to quit smoking but they cannot do that due to their addiction. In another study conducted by Tyler Rudick in University of Houston, the author stated that students are having a high tendency to smoke in University campuses and they smoke even after the regulations done on banning smoking inside the campuses (Patuwo, 2011). The author also stated that around 30% of the total smokers smoke inside the campus and they often smoke in the undesignated areas for smoking. Thus, it can be observed that though the ban is a good option to minimize second hand smoke, it needs to be implemented efficiently and strictly in order to see the desired results. Otherwise, inspite of there being a ban, a significant portion of the students will continue to smoke within the campuses and the second hand smoke will not reduce. Thus, it can be concluded that the smoking ban at universities is effective and successful only to a certain extent. Methodology Data Collection Method: The method for primary data collection chosen for this study is survey. The reason behind choosing this option is that it is to the point. Also, in case of surveys, it is easier to access participants. The method is convenient for participants as well as researchers and the data collected is specific. The data can be easily represented graphically or statistically, making the analysis easier (Guerriero, 2010). The sample size was 56 participants. They all volunteered to fill out the survey. They are students at AUS who have been chosen randomly. Participants: The respondents of this survey are the students of AUS. The reason for choosing the students as participants is that these people are the ones most likely to spend the maximum amount of time on campus. Also, these people are young. If the smoking ban is successful in changing their smoking habits and improving their health, the long term impacts will be better and a positive example will be set. Most people get into a habit of regular smoking while studying in colleges and universities (WAM, 2012). Thus, if the ban is found to be effective in making students give up smoking or smoke less, the model will be followed by other universities. AUS has a variety of education streams. The students chosen for this survey have different majors and belong to both genders. They represent different ages as the ages of participants were between 16 and 24. Most of the participants were from the age 19 to 21. Thus, the students of this university represent students of all education streams in different parts of the world. This has made sure that the results of this study can be relevant in all countries and universities. Sample Size: The sample size chosen for this survey is 56. There were 29 males and 27 females They were given a week to fill out the survey. The respondents have been chosen randomly and their e-mail ID’s have been taken from the background data available with the AUS management. The survey questionnaires have been mailed to the students. The students had been made aware about the study from beforehand via e-mail as well. The survey was done online on www.surveymonkey.com. The policy of this website allows only 10 questions per survey. The total number of questions created was 14, which means it was necessary to divide them into two different surveys. Both surveys were distributed by sending inbox messages to AUS students only on facebook. Also, it was done by sending the link of the survey as broadcasts through the blackberry messenger, and sending it by email to students’ mail. Mainly those students were the classmates of the researcher. All the questions were multiple-choice questions. The first survey was mainly asking about the gender, age, and whether the respondent smokes or not. This means that the first survey is for both smokers and non-smokers. The first survey was under the name “Smoking at the American University of Sharjah.” The researcher kept collecting respondents until the number of the second survey reached 30. Usually 30 responds is a relevant number for a survey. That’s why collecting the responds took a whole week as most of the student weren’t corporative in answering the questions. However, some other friends and students volunteered to broadcast the links of the surveys to other AUS students. Sampling Technique: The random sampling method has been chosen for this study as in this way, a sample can be involved in the study which correctly represents the entire student population of AUS. Also, this method ensures that no preferential selection has been used based on race, religion and other factors. Essentially, the respondents represent college going students globally. Data Analysis: The data collected through the survey have been represented through charts and bar graphs. Then, the findings have been tallied with available literature and specific conclusions have been drawn. Data Analysis Tools: MS Office and MS Excel have been used to represent the collected data graphically. Findings: The first survey was under the name “Smoking at the American University of Sharjah.” The fourth question in the 1st survey was a link meant for smokers only that they had to follow in order to answer few more questions. This second link had the remaining 10 questions for smokers. It was under the name “smokers’ questionnaire”. Both surveys were piloted to 4 students by hand. Mainly, there were no problems in the second survey. However, the first survey had some issues in both questins 3 and 4. Question 3 was asking if you currently smoke. Some smokers answered ‘no’ thinking that it is only focusing on cigarettes. In fact it was referring to all types of smoking. This issue was solved by implementing “any type” between brackets. Question 4, as mentioned earlier, led to a link only for smokers. Most of the respondents did not get that they had to follow the link in order to answer few more questions. Similarly, the question was edited to help smokers access the second questionnaire easily. Question 1 in survey number 2 is asking about the kind of smoking the smoker indulges in. Questions 2 and 3 are focused on whether the smoker had any smokers in the family and what made him smoke. It is mainly aiming to find if there is a link between smoking and having a smoker in the family. Question 4 is asking how often does the student visit the smoking room that is in the student center. Then, questions 5, 6 and 7 are asking if the smoker has ever smoked in undesignated areas on campus and whether he had to explain this behavior or not (if yes, in question 6) and question 7 (if not). Questions 8 asks if the smoke-free policy at the university made him/her smoke less or not. Next, question 9 asks the student if he/she would like to have more than one designated smoking areas on campus. Finally, the last question is questioning the respondent why does he/she think this policy was implemented on campus. For any further details about both surveys please refer to appendixes A and B. Analysis of responses to the smokers’ questionnaire: Analysis of Survey Q1: What do you smoke? The first question asked was what the students smoke. In response to the question, maximum students stated that they smoke Hubbly-Bubbly only and many students stated that they smoke Cigarettes and Hubbly-Bubbly. Some other students stated that they smoke Medwakh and Hubbly-Bubbly. A major number of students replied that they smoke all of the mentioned things. Analysis of Survey Q2: Do you have any smokers in your family? The second question asked to the participants was whether they have any smokers in their homes. All questions answered to the question. 80% participants stated that they have smokers in their family whereas 20% students stated that they do not have smokers in their family. Analysis of Survey Q3: What made you smoke? The next question asked was what made the students smoke. In response to the question maximum students replied that they tried it once and they liked it. Few students stated that smoke due to peer pressure. Analysis of Survey Q4: How often do you visit the smoking room that is located in the Student Center? The fourth question asked was how often the students visit the smoking room that is located in the Student Center. In response to the question maximum students stated that they do not visit the smoking room located in the student center. Some of the students stated that they visit smoking room whenever they get a break. Analysis of Survey Q5: Have you ever smoked in undesignated areas on campus? (ex; wash rooms, class rooms, ...) The last question asked to the students was whether they have ever smoked in undesignated areas on campus ex; wash rooms, class rooms. In response to the question, maximum students stated that they have smoked in undesignated areas on campus and some students stated that they have not smoked in the undesignated areas on campus. Analysis of Question 6: As per the respondents, 18.18% stated that they smoked in undesignated areas due to short breaks. 54.55% cited the far away smoking rooms as the reason, while 4.55% said that they did not care for the rules. The rest 22.73% gave a variety of other responses. Analysis of Question 7: When questioned on why the students used the smoking room, 16.67% stated that they were scared of the rules. 25% stated that they respected the policies. 8.33% stated that the security arrangements were responsible. 16.67% stated that they did not want to disturb non smokers. The rest provided other responses. Analysis of Question 8: 36.67% smokers felt that the smoking ban made them smoke less than usual; while, the rest 63.33% felt that it did not have any affect on changing their smoking habits. Analysis of Question 9: As per the survey, 80% of the smokers would like there to be more smoking areas on campus, while, just 20% of them are satisfied with the current arrangements. Analysis of Question 10: When questioned about the reason behind the ban, 3.33% of the students stated that the university authorities hated them. 16.67% stated that the authorities cared for health of smokers. 60% stated that they cared for the health of non smokers. Analysis: From the analysis, it can be stated that the smoking ban is not effective in the public places. The respondents reported that they often smoke in various places apart from the designated areas for smoking in the university. It is evident from the analysis that there are very few students who smoke in the designated areas such as the smoking room in the student center. It can be stated that most of the people are influenced to smoking due to the presence of smokers in their families. The reasons for smoking among youngsters have also been described by many researchers. Most of the people smoke frequently because they try it once and they get addicted to it. Another major reason of smoking is the peer pressure people are having today. There are various types of things that people smoke among which the most popular ones are Cigarette, Medwakh and Hubbly-Bubbly; there are many people who smoke all of them. The main reason due to which smokers went against the AUS ban and smoked on campus secretively is the location of the smoking zone. If it was located on campus and at close distances to the classrooms, students would have accessed them easily. This would have removed the need to break the rules. However, a lot of the smokers refrained from breaking the rules out of respect for university policies. Also, the security arrangements prevented a lot of students from smoking secretly on campus. Thus, if the security measures are made stricter, the ban can be more effective. The majority of the smokers did not change their smoking habits due to any influence of the ban. Thus is mainly because they responded to their urges to smoke and either smoke secretly in campus or went to the smoking zone. But, the ban is successful in reducing the impacts of second hand smoke. A huge majority of 80% smokers have stated that more smoking zones should be there on campus so that they can smoke easily. This will prevent smoking in other campus areas and the second hand smoke will be restricted within smoking zones. A positive aspect of the AUS scenario is that the majority of smokers have identified the reason behind the ban. They have understood the health concerns and have acknowledged the need for protecting the health of non smokers. This means that they will cooperate with the authorities to minimize the impacts of second hand smoke. Discussion: The result of the study can be compared to the other researches done on the field of ban of smoking. Most of the researches have revealed the fact that despite the regulations to ban smoking inside university campuses, most of the students smoke in their university campuses. From the earlier researches done on the area of ban smoking in other universities and the result of the research are quite similar. In the "Social Report 2006/07 - Responsibility in Dialogue" by British American Tobacco Institute, it is shown that it is in support of catering to the establishment of Smoking and Non Smoking areas as well as to improve the indoor air quality to take an ethically and morally sound action through the mode of corporate social responsibility. The efforts of the AUS authorities to reduce second hand smoke and protect the health of non smokers can be tallied with this report. 60% of the students recognized the concern for health of non smokers as the reason behind the ban. In 2013, the University Council Committee of the University of Pennsylvania declared that smoking will be banned in all campus areas. People were allowed to smoke only at a distance of 20 feet away from the gates of the campus. No smoking rooms have been established on campus. The University of Minnesota is also following this example and will establish a ban soon. This is tough on smokers, who are a majority in most universities. These people in turn resort to breaking the rules and smoke secretly on campus. This makes the ban ineffective. It has been found from this research that the ban has not affected the smoking habits of the majority of smokers. If the smoking habits are to be changed, the rules need to be stricter and they should be enforced. However, if smoking zones are established within campus, the students will no longer have the need of breaking rules. This will control second hand smoke. Conclusion It can be concluded from this study that smoking increases the relative risk for stomach and intestinal ulcers, chronic lung diseases and cardiovascular diseases. The particularly evident increase is in the risk of lung cancer: More than 85% of lung cancer patients get the disease due to smoking. However, depending on the age group, gender, and population - only about 25 to 35 percent of the general population are smokers. Even in former smokers, an increased lung cancer risk remains. Since the harmful effects of smoking are medically proven, there have always been increasing tendencies of appeals to policy makers to counteract the state of smoking in different countries. A pioneer of smoking bans is the United States, where usually municipal regulations prescribe the places where tobacco smoking is tolerated and what is not. Here, cases are known where smoking in public (that is on public roads and squares) was generally prohibited in a commune. In New York City, smoking was banned in restaurants in 2003. At the same time here cigarette prices are extremely high. The Himalayan Kingdom Bhutan became the world's first country to have established a ban on smoking in public on 17 December, 2004. These efforts against smoking have led to the smoking ban in the AUS. However as per the survey results, the ban has not been very successful in reducing smoking on campus. It can be concluded that the ban at AUS has not affected the smoking habits of the majority of smokers. If the smoking habits are to be changed, the rules need to be stricter and they should be enforced. However, if smoking zones are established within campus, the students will no longer have the need of breaking rules. This will control second hand smoke. Recommendations Certain strategies can make the ban at AUS more effective. Firstly, cameras should be established at different points in order to monitor students. This will help the authorities catch people smoking at unauthorized areas. The fear of getting caught on camera will prevent people from smoking on campus. Smoke signals should be established at toilets to detect smoking. This will make smokers avoid smoking due to the risk of setting off the alarms and getting caught. Heavy penalties should be imposed for smoking on campus. The fines should be so high that students fear having to pay them. E-Cigarettes should be made available on campus. These are healthy alternatives to smoking cigarettes and can help smokers stop smoking. This product needs to be promoted on campus. It can help those who are addicted to smoking and find it difficult to alter their habits. E-cigarettes are completely safe and provide the experience of smoking a real cigarette without involving any of the negative impacts. Finally, awareness should be increased about the negative effects of smoking. This will make smokers realize the harm the are causing to their own health. Shortcomings of this research: This research has some shortcomings. Firstly, it is focused only on AUS and thus, the results of this study cannot be considered valid for all universities. Secondly, it is focused on Sharjah. The customs and laws of different countries vary a lot. Hence, the results cannot be considered to be valid universally. Lastly, the authenticity of the responses of the survey can be questioned. Many students might have given false replies in order to avoid any negative consequences. For example, many students who have actually smoked on campus by breaking the rules, might have responded that they never went against the ban in any way. Thus, the data might not be completely accurate. References Dajani, H. (2011). Smoking ban at American University of Sharjah. UAE: The National, available at < http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/education/smoking-ban-at-american-university-of-sharjah> [Retrieved July 6, 2013] Guerriero, L. (2010). Smoke out: Salem State to become a tobacco-free campus. Salem Gazette, available at [Retrieved July 6, 2013] El Ansari, Walid, and Christiane Stock (2012). "Factors associated with smoking, quit attempts and attitudes towards total smoking bans at university: a survey of seven universities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland." Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention 13.2: 705. Johnson, J. (2011). Towson University fires up a strict anti-smoking policy. The Washington Post, available at [Retrieved July 8, 2013] Kincaid, S. (2010).U-Mary group wants campus to be tobacco-free. The Bismarck Tribune, available at [Retrieved July 9, 2013] Samet, J. (2011). Smoking Bans Prevent Heart Attacks. AHA Journals, available at < http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/114/14/1450.full> [Retrieved July 6, 2013] Kolodner, M.; Barbarino, A. (2011).CUNY Board of Trustees Bans Cigarette Smoking on all 23 Campuses, NY Daily News, available at [Retrieved July 7, 2013] Lee, J. & Shah, V. (2010). Statewide diffusion of 100% tobacco-free college and university policies. Tobacco Control 19 (4): 311–317. Malcolm, W. (2010).Delaware Technical & Community College smoking ban seen as a help.The News Journal. available at [Retrieved July 7, 2013] Surgeon General of the United States. (2011). Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke.  The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General, available at < http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/secondhandsmoke/executivesummary.pdf > [Retrieved July 10, 2013] McVicar, B. (2010). Baker College smoking ban extended to include outdoor spaces. The Muskegon Chronicle, available at [Retrieved July 8, 2013] Michael, J. (2011). University of Mary latest school to ban smoking and tobacco on campus.The Bismarck Tribune, available at < http://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/university-of-mary-latest-school-to-ban-smoking-and-tobacco/article_f4d5df3e-cab0-11e0-8540-001cc4c002e0.html> [Retrieved July 9, 2013] WHO. (2005). Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco causes death, disease and disability. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, available at < http://www.who.int/tobacco/framework/WHO_FCTC_english.pdf> [Retrieved July 11, 2013] Patuwo, G. (2011). Yale debates smoking. Yale Daily News, available at [Retrieved July 9, 2013] WAM (2012). Smoking in American University of Sharjah banned. UAE: Emirates 24/7, available at [Retrieved July 11, 2013] Appendix A: Smoking at the American University of Sharjah: 1. Gender: a. Male b. Female 2. Age: a. 16-18 b. 19-21 c. 22-24 3. Do you currently smoke? (any type) a. Yes b. No 4. If you smoke, kindly select the option below and follow the link (you may need to copy and paste it) to answer few more questions: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JYZ9ZW2 Appendix B: Smokers’ questionnaire: 1. What do you smoke? a. Cigarettes only b. Hubbly-Bubbly only c. Medwakh only d. Cigarettes and Hubbly-Bubbly e. Cigarettes and Medwakh f. Medwakh and Hubbly-Bubbly g. All mentioned 2. Do you have any smokers in your family? a. Yes b. No 3. What made you smoke? a. Tried it once and you liked it b. Due to peer pressure c. Due to peer pressure 4. How often do you visit the smoking room that is located in the Student Center? a. Whenever you have a break b. Once a day c. Every week d. None 5. Have you ever smoked in undesignated areas on campus? (ex; wash rooms, class rooms, ...) a. Yes b. No 6. If yes, what made you do this behavior ? a. Short breaks b. The smoking room is far c. Didn't care about rules d. Other (please specify) 7. If not, what made you not do this behavior? a. Fear of university policies b. Respect to university policies c. Security supervision d. Not to disturb non-smokers e. Other (please specify) 8. Do you think that the smoke-free policy made you smoke less than you usually do? a. Yes b. No 9. Would you like to have more than one designated area for smoking on campus? a. Yes b. No 10. Why do you think the University made AUS a smoke-free campus? a. They hate you b. They care about your health, as a smoker c. They care about non-smokers health d. Other (please specify) Read More