Starting next year, using smokeless tobacco as well as the usage of electronic cigarettes will not be permitted everywhere on University of California property. In the 10 campuses in the UC system these bans will accompany a ban on the utilization of cigarettes and other tobacco products.
Adoption of the plan will join up with the UC with 1,100 other colleges and universities throughout the U.S.A. which have implemented such laws to limit second and third hand smoke exposure on-campus.
The Remainder of the Story
This policy makes little sense. To begin with, while I understand the need to safeguard nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure, it hardly seems required to prohibit smoking everywhere on the whole campus to achieve this aim. Banning smoking in all indoor areas, in outside areas where people congregate or cannot easily prevent vulnerability, and within a reasonable distance of doors and entry means appears reasonable. But it’s not necessary to completely prohibit smoking, even in personal cars and remote areas of open fields and parking lots, in order to adequately protect nonsmokers from second-hand smoke.
Second, even though we all acknowledge a rationale for banning smoking, why would we want to also prohibit e-cigarette use? The overwhelming majority of smokers who use electronic cigarettes are trying to quit smoking. Why would we want to discourage this? Why punish these smokers in making a terrific health selection? Why provide a disincentive for smokers to stop, while providing an incentive in order for them to go back to cigarette use? How can this make any type of health statement?
Third, while banning smoking protects the well-being others, banning smokeless tobacco use is strictly paternalistic. However, if the university will place paternalistic policies to safeguard pupils’ health, then how can it ban smokeless tobacco use but not alcohol use? To be sure, booze can cause more death and destruction on such university campuses than smokeless tobacco. Worse, by ban smokeless tobacco but leaving alcohol untouched, these policies represent the worst type of hypocrisy.
You both decide to promote a wholesome campus or you also may not. And should you believe that promoting a wholesome campus means being paternalistic and regulating the behaviors that folks can or can’t do (even in case they don’t influence others), then you certainly can’t be discerning and simply cut out the behaviours which you personally don’t approve of.
The rest of the story is the fact that the UC smokefree policy reeks of intolerance, hypocrisy, and moral judgment of others. It really is certainly not a public-health coverage. Instead, it’s a statement of the warped ideology, by which getting drunk is good, but using a small dip is not, and by which trying to quit smoking via hypnosis is A-OK, but trying to stop using e-cigarettes is actually a nono.