UC Campuses To Become Smoke, Tobacco-Free as of January 2014



UCSB is currently making the shift to going totally smoke-and-tobacco-free, as all universities in the 10-campus UC system will be officially designated as non-smoking beginning Jan. 1, 2014.

On the first day of the new year, any tobacco and tobacco-free products smoked through cigarettes, pipes, water pipes and hookahs used on campus — in addition to smokeless tobacco and unregulated nicotine products such as “e-cigarettes” — will be in violation of the policy. Adoption of the policy will join the UC with 1,100 other colleges and universities throughout the U.S. that have already implemented such regulations to limit second and third-hand smoke exposure on campus. The UC system’s transition to becoming completely smoke and tobacco-free was first announced by former UC President Mark G. Yudof back in January 2012.

According to a statement released by the UC Office of the President, approximately eight percent of UC students and 10 percent of UC employees light up, and these figures place the University’s members below the respective national averages of 16 and 12 percents.

UCSB’s new Policy and Procedure regulations states that smoking will be prohibited in all buildings owned, leased or managed by the university, in addition to all vehicles owned or operated on university grounds.

Earlier this year, UCLA was the first UC campus to implement the smoking ban, and some other schools, such as UC San Diego, have followed suit, enacting smoke-free policies before the ban’s official start next year.

However, the new ban will have other far-reaching effects, as it will include a ban on tobacco-product advertising in on-campus publications and university-owned facilities, with the exception of non-campus-based newspapers and magazines on sale in campus stores. The sale or distribution of any smoking paraphernalia on campus will also be prohibited, although popular campus stores like the Arbor or the Corner Store already do not offer such products.

Associate Vice Chancellor for Public Affairs John Longbrake said the policy follows the UC system’s commitment to ensuring the health and well-being of campus community members.

“As a national leader in healthcare and environmental practices, the university system recognizes its responsibility to exercise leadership through the creation of a smoke and tobacco-free environment for all students, employees and visitors at all UC campuses,” Longbrake said in an email.

Student reception to the upcoming ban varies, however, as some students acknowledge the health benefits of going smoke-free, while others see the new ban as an infringement on individual rights.

Third-year chemistry major Nilou Sarvian said she looks forward to experiencing the change in campus climate, as the new policy may encourage some students to drop the habit.

“I’m really happy that UCSB has stepped up and is making this change,” Sarvian said. “It inspires a healthier atmosphere when you don’t have kids running out of section or lecture for a quick smoke.”

However, second-year feminist studies major Kelty Kauffman said the new regulation “doesn’t make sense” since it interferes with an activity that everyday Americans are legally allowed to engage in.

“Really, it seems like banning people from doing something adults have every right to do in the place where they spend the majority of their time, is invasive,” Kauffman said.

While the ban may seem like a violation of basic rights, first-year chemistry major Lex Jung said it acts as an incentive for him to quit smoking.

“I feel like the Jan. 1, 2014 no-smoking date for me was another motivation to quit my smoking habits,” Lex said. “I am using that, and I truly believe that by Jan. 1, 2014, I will not be smoking anymore.”

Nonetheless, some students are still unsupportive of the ban, as second-year biopsychology major Lakshmi Ganne said it is a limitation to one’s right to “self-expression” and other individual liberties.

“Obviously, cigarettes aren’t illegal in the United States, so why should smoking them be illegal on campus?” Ganne said. “The main argument that people have against people smoking in public areas is that the second-hand smoke harms people who are walking by, but if they have designated smoking areas, then the people who don’t want to be exposed to smoke can just avoid those areas, and that just limits the harm to anyone passing by.”

UCSB administrators are notifying students of the new ban through this fall’s Gaucho FYI sessions, which Longbrake said will also aid in outreach efforts in the coming months. Planned outreach methods include mass e-mails, social media channels, signs and flyers.

Tiana Miller-Leonard contributed to this article.

 A version of this article appeared on page 1 of Tuesday October 15th’s print edition of the Daily Nexus.

UCSB smoke

PETER VANDENBELT / DAILY NEXUS

Print Friendly

18 Responses to UC Campuses To Become Smoke, Tobacco-Free as of January 2014

  1. Kevin Fxr Reply

    October 18, 2013 at 8:38 pm

    Long time anti-smoker advocate Dr. Michael opines on his blog;

    “The rest of the story is that the UC smoke-free policy reeks of hypocrisy, intolerance, and moral judgment of others.”

    All things that are considered ignorant. Isn’t the idea of education to eliminate ignorance through understanding?

    Is this institution now so convinced that their own institution, is ineffective and promoting bans are the only solution here?

    Only because education is now considered secondary to domination and a firm hand?

    Because we say so?

  2. skycat Reply

    October 16, 2013 at 8:04 am

    @Klein Driving is a privilege that could be rationed according to necessity in order to reduce pollution and improve safety. I presume that Klein would also support road use bans. What doesn’t make sense to me is how someone who is so sensitive to false equivalencies can embrace a program that doesn’t bother to distinguish between e-cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes.

    • klein Reply

      October 16, 2013 at 8:19 am

      It not only is a privilege. It is a necessity for many (try commuting from Lompoc to UCSB by bike)who will not have $$ for eating, etc., if there work is distant from home. Be that as it may, there are steps being taken to offer alternatives (on campus, in the city…). We have encouragement for bike lanes, public transportation, etc.

      I don’t see the equivalence (I am tempted to say Limbaugh induced sound-byte discourse, but would not be fair…ooops!)

      I am not “so sensitive” to “false equivalence” — I just object to its incorrect use. So, I guess I am “so sensitive” to stupidity.
      When did I embrace the UCSB program (I don’t know the technical name for such a juvenile argument tactic –akin, I suppose, to the “look over there” argument maneuver). I never mentioned UCSB’s program. Do you mind read? Is that a benefit of smoking?

      I responded simply and exclusively to a posted comment that was logically incoherent (“that” I do object to — particularly from UCSB students. Though I suspect some of you respondents are not students, but smoke-threatened practitioners of the fine addiction from outside the academic community [now bring on the elite intellectual liberal dirt bag name throwing. FYI I am not a liberal, unless voting twice for Saint Reagan makes me so] I could be wrong).

      Learn to read what is written and then work on your comprehension.

    • Kevin Fxr Reply

      October 18, 2013 at 8:48 pm

      If driving is believed a privilege.

      Who grants your privileges?

      Under what right or color of law does that authority rest?

      None, in a free and democratic constitutional nation. If that Government is just and credible. No government may rise above the constitution the law or the courts. Without the people’s endorsement. Governments give you nothing, that they don’t first take away.

      You are being conned. Your rights are far more valuable than a temporal “privilege”. Repeating their promo and nonsense makes you a dupe.

      Selling us all short. Learn to distinguish, who your real friends are. Voting for a banner was your first mistake.

  3. klein Reply

    October 16, 2013 at 7:55 am

    Sentence in previous post “You are you likely to hear someone saying “I need my burger fix” should read You are not likely to hear someone saying “I need my burger fix”. Could not find an edit function.

    As for the argument about second hand smoke rings — laughable if not realized it is a “serious” attempt at argument!

    And though I am anosmic (look it up intellects)what gives smokers the right to infringe on someone else’s space with the reek of their addiction? And please, for the love of god, don’t retort that “well XXX (e.g., perfume, BO… fill in with your favorite example) does the same! Given the other (alleged in your view; the actual non-cherry-picked evidence suggests [even today, and not just in virtue of a memo from 40 years ago — which, by the way, is NOT science — i.e., empiricism is not a memo; another false equivalence!)issues surrounding the health consequences of smoking make the smoke ring comparison suggests you are the one in desperate need of a “get a firmer grip on reality”.

    • Kevin Fxr Reply

      October 16, 2013 at 2:24 pm

      anosmic or autistic?

      If you require “protection” from tobacco smoke, the later is confirmed. If you are crying for self sanctimonious comfort you have much larger social problems that require attention.

      Get over yourself, tobacco smoke much less e-cigarette smoke or someone using chew, is among the least of anyone’s worries in an outdoor environment. The comparison to a hamburger as a larger risk is legitimate, in direct comparison.

      Do you fear the sight of burgers as well? Or is it seeing other people that scares you?

      Mommy’s apron strings, can only be stretched so far.

      • klein Reply

        October 16, 2013 at 2:42 pm

        Anosmic or autistic? Do you have reading as well as comprehension issues?

        Look you dip sh-t. If you are able to read with comprehension you might be able to recognize that my original comment pertained in its entirety to the question of “false equivalence”. I neither endorsed nor refuted (hell I did not comment on) the article or its merits.

        I do care if you smoke. I do not care if anyone smokes. Go ahead and do so. Your lungs will end up as dysfunctional as your logical abilities.

        Now take a deep breath — if you still can — and repeat after me. “The original post was in reference to the question of the logical equivalence of a purported comparison. It made no reference, and it offered no opinion, concerning the value of the ideas expressed in the article. Therefore, I (you) am a fool –or perhaps intellectually challenged — in light of my clearly displayed inability to separate what was addressed in a post from whatever was be on my little mind in virtue of my personal hangups”.

        Given your inability to stay on point, I think future conversation (actually “monologue” vis a vis content) with you would be as meaningful as having a conversation with a chair. Rant on oh little one.

  4. Kevin Fxr Reply

    October 16, 2013 at 6:30 am

    One thing is certain, the Public Health Mafia is making a lot of easy money, by teaching people to hate smokers. Their primary weapon is fear. Aside of dispensing fear to promote their lobby campaigns what else have they given us? Risk is a measure of emotional distress, Pure science is something else entirely. How often they rely on a self perpetuating fear factory known as a Medical Journal, where a risk assessment is published, [unless it was produced for the mainstream media directly as a promotion] and how little they trust observations, says a lot, of whom we place our trust.

    Smoking patches and gum will no doubt be exempted from the rule making, because the anti-smoker lobby couldn’t survive without the manufacturers funding. Health experts who refuse to acknowledge the dismal failure rate of these products at close to 1% compared to 85% by cold turkey, according to a July Gallop poll will soldier on, keeping people from quitting or using safer alternatives. Because according to them, it is the right thing to do. “To protect the Public health movement” [the cult]. This has gone well beyond any “appearance of impropriety” Anti combines Investigations are warranted, and long overdue.

    Smokers are not at risk of smoke inhalation and non smokers have never been able to blow smoke rings with second hand or [the more laughable] “Third Hand smoke” “Consider your sources and follow the money” when judging the true nature of these chicken little laws. Risk is emotional, harm is real, get a firmer grip on reality. Giving over someone else’s rights and freedoms, is always ill considered, when all rights and freedom are bound to the same document. With laws limits and regulations, already more than ample to fill large libraries.

  5. klein Reply

    October 15, 2013 at 9:03 am

    A difference being that the argument is based on a false equivalence.

    Cars have a function other than that of personal enjoyment (though they can have that consequence [but not always --e.g., see my "car"]).

    Panda Express has a survival function (eating — albeit a consistent diet of such survival-relevant “substances” is of questionable merit).

    Coffee is (a) less likely to result in cancer and other seriousness of health issues that track to smoking, and (b) no one, to my knowledge, has been adversely affected by “second hand coffee”.

    Smoking, by contrast, serves no nutritive or survival function and does have (according to scientific research — which one can only legitimately contest if one has evidence to the contrary) “second hand” health consequences on others who (including those who choose not to incorporate smoking as part of their personal entertainment arsenal. I doubt, by contrast, that anyone is suffering from “second hand coffee”.

    So, you are comparing oranges and apples with cigarettes.

    • Kevin Fxr Reply

      October 16, 2013 at 7:17 am

      “False equivalence” would be like placing second hand smoke in the same risk factor valuation as nuclear radiation, when more equitable risk factors are limited to hamburgers and soda. With the risk diminished extensively, when diluted by hundreds of billions of cubic meters of outdoor air. But only if honesty and integrity are considered important.

      Otherwise fear sells more efficiently than sex and there is a “want” not a “need” to protect non smokers from second and third hand smoke. The so called “science” was settled by committee, back in the 70′s when Sir Godber announced to the NIH that “in order to promote an effective anti-smoking movement it will be necessary to convince non smokers that they were being harmed”

      Believe what you will.

      • klein Reply

        October 16, 2013 at 7:43 am

        No. A false equivalence is a false equivalence. “More equitable” risk factors” is a “look over there tactic” with little if any logical warrant. People tend not to not die (to anywhere near the same degree) from eating hamburgers. There clearly are health consequences. But hamburgers are not addictive by the same processes as are cigarettes. You are you likely to hear someone saying “I need my burger fix”. For many (even “for some” makes the point!), they are an occasional choice A few time a week perhaps?). Cigarettes are an addictive necessity (as determined scientifically — have you proof to the contrary?)

        You can redefine “false equivalence” using hyperbole (nuclear weapons), but that reeks (choice intended) of desperation and/or ignorance.

        Again, if second had smoke is not in principle different than second hand coffee or second hand hamburgers, then state why this is so. Don’t tell one person had a political or PC motive (according to whom?) some 40 years ago. Let’s see the relevant scientific evidence showing the null effect.

        Until you do — and no cherry picking if you can control yourself! — no debate worth pursuing here.

        • Kevin Fxr Reply

          October 16, 2013 at 2:39 pm

          Name a single person who died as you describe from casual exposure to tobacco smoke.

          The numbers you rely on are statistical with an absolute bias well entrenched. Search “Enstrom and Kabat, BMJ” if you have any argument with the existence of that publication bias.

          Cigarette smoke is a poorly guarded excuse for an undermining of personal autonomy, by coercion. It is not meant as a ploy to con smokers, it is an ad campaign that targets gullible non smokers. Fool enough to accept any lie that serves their comfort.

          The seat belt was once the example that legitimized government intrusions, today cigarette smoke is the larger example, of what could well be an elimination of individual rights entirely.

          Anyone who believes that government intrusions, will be limited to people who smoke cigarettes, are in for a rude awakening.

          This is a University, a place that should be teaching you to know better.

          • klein Reply

            October 16, 2013 at 3:00 pm

            You are an idiot. Read, re-read, and re-re-read my post (original and then the one trying — unsuccessfully to keep you on track with respect to a simple argument). I restate for the Nth time, I was not arguing the merits of smoking. Questions re second hand smoke are valid (despite your “ability” to cherry pick from the mass of scientific data) and cite few counter arguments (this is not how science or valid discussion actually work), or throw out some internal memo discussing policy and not science. The comment YOU cited concerned how to convince the public that X was the case (X = dangers of smoking). It did not, as state, refer in any way, shape, or form to the validity of the notion that X was not dangerous. That is off point (given what you cited as an example of the claim X is not dangerous). Are you too dense to interpret what you wrote!? Oh the humanity!

            My post remark about second hand smoke was PART of an the basis for citing a “false equivalencies made by you.

            To demonstrate a true equivalence absent hyperbole (e.g., your pathetic use of atomic weapons) you would need to address that SET of arguments (not cherry pick [again and again!] one issue and then throw a few pieces of counter argument (and I use the term “argument” loosely) at it as a refutation.

            Talking with you is like… well, I said it was like talking to a chair, but I reconsider. the chair might be more on point.

            If you went here (and most vociferous argument spinners –particularly at this time of day — either work here [I am guessing that is not the case] or live in mom’s basement.) it is, I agree a sad sad comment on our ability to teach fundamental logic and comprehension skills.

            • klein Reply

              October 16, 2013 at 3:04 pm

              I violate –one more time — my own pledge and will respond once (and only once) more.

              You state “The numbers you rely on are statistical with an absolute bias well entrenched.”

              What the hell does that mean. the number effected is statistical? What!? the mean, mode, median. Are they all zero. If not, then there is a quantitative fact of the matter about who has been influenced. Whether I know anyone or not is a moron’s tactic. I don’t know anyone who died in Serbia recently, but that does not mean or imply no one has!

              A bias well-entrenched. What the hell are you trying to say. Get a dictionary, get a language instructor. Get help.

              • Kevin Fxr Reply

                October 16, 2013 at 4:19 pm

                Take your meds and don’t forget your pimple cream.

                Maturing beyond puberty, will help develop your comprehension skills and all that persistent confusion.

                In the mean time you always have your video games.

            • Kevin Fxr Reply

              October 16, 2013 at 4:26 pm

              Quantify “there is no safe level of tobacco smoke”

              As the ads describe it, Nuclear radiation has known and established safe levels of exposure.

              Carcinogenic risks by consuming a char broiled hamburger are much more equitable in a true observational sense, beyond the drama and sound bites.

        • Kevin Fxr Reply

          October 16, 2013 at 4:05 pm

          Comparisons? Anyone can do a Google search and no doubt your response will call this “cherry picking” in ignorance of an obvious abundance information;

          The Surgeon General’s meta analysis, while doing some quite astonishing cherry picking at the time, estimated an increased lifetime risk for those most exposed at the most extreme levels at .13 increase above no risk. Duly reported in the funny papers,as a 13% increase, which was not entirely forthcoming considering the same methods would show a 25,000% increased risk for wearing a bra and breast cancer association.

          Acceptable risk in air, food, water and medications is seen as a 1 in 10,000 standard.[1x10-4] An increase less than 3 is considered unimportant and certainly would never qualify for additional research funding.

          At .13 the increase is so low it is ridiculous to even call it a risk much less a “significant” risk. Decimal point increases take us into the 1 in a million scale and with only 320 million in the entire population and so few among them legitimately qualified as at risk [due to long term and significant exposures] The .13 is only useful to scare people, if you apply it to the entire population and announce the results by ad agency promotions; 13 x 320 = 1180, which is a far stretch from the ever increasing numbers we hear in the press from close to 3000 initially and topping 50,000 and more of late.

          Any organic material will produce identical toxins and carcinogens and there is no good reason to believe they wouldn’t. A romantic evening in front of the fire exposes you to levels of toxins and carcinogens thousands to millions of times the measured levels found in tobacco smoke [even in the smokiest bar you could find]. Roasting marshmallows with the kids, is not child abuse nor should it be, because none of the toxins and carcinogens you inhale or eat with a burned marshmallow are considered cumulative. The proof in that is the decrease in a smoker’s health risks, which diminish to those of a lifetime non smoker after they quit. Smokers are just people and if the effects can be temporary, after inhaling thousands to millions of times the quantities a non smoker would see from second hand smoke. There is no reason to believe a non smoker would ever be harmed by the smell of smoke.

          Comparable? [actually much more dangerous by statistical risk comparisons, higher numbers incite more emotional "risk"] Risk is like currency to the fanatics and faithful, of late they are actually cashing in.

          Search “PubMed, BMJ, JAMA Burned organic carcinogen ”

          111,000 results (0.40 seconds) Take what you like…

          Meat
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterocyclic_amine

          Burned toast
          http://www.abc.net.au/health/talkinghealth/factbuster/stories/2011/01/25/3093063.htm

          Incense
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377255/

  6. Anthony Reply

    October 15, 2013 at 8:19 am

    Smoking is a bad idea…but so is eating Panda Express every single day for lunch. We should ban that as well. And coffee. And cars.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>