UC system banning smoking from all campuses

LogicSoDeveloped

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
3,427
Location
The Mountains
The University of California is banning cigarettes and all other tobacco products from its campuses over the next two years, in a move designed to both protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke and prevent young people from developing the bad habit.

Students and staff alike will be prohibited from smoking anywhere on a UC campus - including outdoor spaces, parking lots and private residences. There won't be any designated smoking areas.

The main impetus for the policy is to reduce people's exposure to secondhand smoke, UC officials said. But a major benefit, they hope, will be an overall reduction in smoking among those who work or study on the campuses.

"Our young students who come here as freshmen, who don't smoke but come to college and start experimenting, maybe they won't choose to smoke now. That would be a huge gain," said Trish Ratto, manager of UC Berkeley's Health Matters wellness program and a member of the committee that is developing the UC-wide smoking ban.

Smoking has been forbidden at the UC medical centers, including UCSF, since November, and at least seven state university or community college campuses outlaw smoking.

The policy change was revealed this week in a letter from the UC President Mark Yudof to campus leaders. Details such as the exact date that the policy will take effect and how it will be enforced are still not known. Ratto said she expects UC Berkeley and other campuses to beef up programs to help staff and students stop smoking.

"This is a very important milestone in California," said Colleen Stevens, chief of the tobacco control branch of the California Public Health Department. "In other states, most young people start smoking in their teens, but in California, that start date is getting older. This policy will help protect the next generation from suffering the horrible impacts of tobacco."

California has some of the most stringent antismoking laws in the country, and has among the lowest rates of smoking. About 12 percent of Californians smoke, compared with 19.6 percent of people nationwide, according to state and national public health reports.

Smoking rates are even lower in the UC system - about 10 percent of employees and about 8 percent of students smoke regularly, according to a UC Office of the President report. Another 11 percent of students report that they smoke occasionally, or less than once a month.

Student smokers should be a focus of the new smoke-free policy, public health experts said. Multiple studies have shown that the fewer places people are able to smoke, the more likely they will be to quit.

If young people can stop smoking, or never start smoking, before they reach their late 20s, they will be unlikely to ever develop the habit as older adults, said Dr. Stanton Glantz, director of UCSF's Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education.


A school I plan on transferring to did the same thing recently though a friend who currently attends said that a lot of people are ignoring the ban.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/12/BAGJ1MOO9L.DTL#ixzz1jTkwcyxL
 
One side of me says that caffeine, an addictive stimulant like nicotine, is legal, and people indulge in caffeine use all over campus. It makes it very difficult to quit when I see people drinking large mochas in front of me.
On the other hand, it seems clear that tobacco has far more powerful negative health affects than caffeine.

Multiple studies have shown that the fewer places people are able to smoke, the more likely they will be to quit.
I haven't seen those studies, but assuming that they are valid, it does make sense to me to limit the availability of smoking locations in order to help people to quit, which is incredibly difficult.

However, I would approve of drug-use centers, where people could legally use all (currently legal and illegal) drugs, placed on college campuses and elsewhere in cities.
Want to smoke a bowl or inject a bag? Come right in. Drink an organic green tea? We have that, too.

I think that the real problem is the discrepancy between tobacco laws and weed laws, for example, and all legal/illegal drug laws.
 
^ Exactly, it is harder to justify why illegal drugs are illegal when you have substances that are legal-that are just as harmful as some illegal drugs-less harmful than some but more harmful than others-it doesn't make much sense. Now, if tobacco, caffeine and alcohol were illegal, they could say that they are preventing people from using any harmful widely used substances but this isn't the case.

They really should have drug use centers though, that is a really good idea. I'd certainly pay a membership fee of some sort to have access to such a place, while some might disagree such a place should have a fee, it would help curb costs of said place.
 
The bastards continue to try to make us smokers into second class citizens, not that surprised though, given the anti-smoking ads the California department of public health or whatever inundates the airwaves with. Currently one is implying that some dude smoking a cigaerrate in an apartment/condo in your complex, and the smoke then being blown into your window WILL KILL YOUR BABY (well, the insinuation is that such exposure will be significantly injurious to their health).
 
^ There is a good chance that the smoker lives there, and therefore that the baby is exposed to the secondhand smoke on a regular basis.
This was the case in my apartment complex while in college.
I was nearly constantly exposed to smoke if I dared to open my windows.
Could repeated exposure to secondhand smoke "be significantly injurious" to a baby?
There is evidence that says "yes".
I doubt that a single exposure would be significantly injurious, but it is not hard for me to imagine that being exposed repeatedly could be.
Not only that, but my life was definitely negatively affected by the smoke.
In the summer, I had to choose between
a) getting allergy from the secondhand smoke - in my own apartment - with other possible risks to my health, and
b) being uncomfortable from the heat with the windows closed, or
c) spending money on an air conditioner (which also would have sucked in the secondhand smoke, but filtered it).
It didn't seem fair to me.
 
One side of me says that caffeine, an addictive stimulant like nicotine, is legal, and people indulge in caffeine use all over campus. It makes it very difficult to quit when I see people drinking large mochas in front of me.
On the other hand, it seems clear that tobacco has far more powerful negative health affects than caffeine.
electronic cigarettes offer nicotine reward without the negatives of tobacco. i can't wait for electronic joints...
 
Top