It’s not often that a policy manages to be both heavy-handed and completely toothless, yet the tobacco ban instituted on campus in April deftly embodies that oxymoron.
More than six months after an administrative policy declared UCLA a “tobacco-free environment,” we’re now in a position to pass judgment on the theory that banning tobacco outright will make the campus a better place for everybody.
Some evidence has emerged to suggest that, on the surface, the theory is a sound one: fewer cigarette butts, no more large clusters of smokers. But the most recent manifestation of the tobacco-free policy should give pause to anyone hoping to conclude the administrative edict is a good one.
Recently, the Tobacco-Free Task Force, charged with enforcing the April 22 ban on all tobacco products, sent out an alert to administrators, directors, deans and administrative officers, informing them the task force is “monitoring cigarette litter which is accumulating in some areas.”
Further, the notice, signed by Linda Sarna and Michael Ong, chair and vice chair of the task force respectively, and Administrative Vice Chancellor Jack Powazek, told the officials “if needed, you may receive a notice about continued tobacco use in your area.”
These two-bit detective tactics are evidence the original policy is a failed one, and administrators should understand them as such. They should prompt campus leaders, including the Tobacco-Free Task Force, to seriously re-evaluate the tobacco-free policy.
As it stands, the policy is not a public health measure, but an unwieldy and undiscriminating proclamation about how people should conduct their lives. It seeks not to protect people from their peers, but to enforce a lifestyle choice on everybody who steps foot on campus.
Take, for example, the provision that prohibits “any Tobacco Product, including smoking, chewing, spitting, inhaling, ingesting, burning, or carrying any lighted or heated Tobacco Product.”
The ban makes no distinction between a cigar and chewing tobacco, despite the fact that the former expels clouds of acrid smoke while the latter can hurt nobody but the person consuming it.
UCLA should revisit this policy, making allowances for certain types of tobacco use and designating areas away from public thoroughfares and gathering places where smokers can enjoy their bad habit without facing the officially sanctioned condescension of their peers.
The ban is a mockery of campus rule-making. Instead of instituting penalties, it recruits all campus members in “informing and educating members of the University community and visitors about the Policy and encouraging those who use Tobacco Products to seek treatment for tobacco dependence.”
Besides equating tobacco use with dependence, the policy purports to turn every student, professor and campus employee into a policeman responsible for scolding offenders.
Whether the policy has had the effect of reducing scourges like secondhand exposure and litter is beyond the point. In fact, a study conducted under the umbrella of the task force surmised that it has – although the study’s affiliation with the people responsible for the policy borders a conflict of interest. Nonetheless, it’s plausible that the smoking ban has driven cigarettes away from certain crowded areas. The steps in front of Powell Library almost overnight became a safe place to catch a breath of fresh air.
But does that mean the tobacco ban has created a better campus?
That claim is more uncertain, taking into account what the ban says about how we approach policy at UCLA. If the ban means administrative policies are to be enforced by nose-in-the-air chiding from fellow students, campus leaders should be dubious.
The new lengths to which the task force is going to enforce the ban makes it apparent just how absurd the policy is. The strategy of monitoring hot spots for smokers is intrusive and overbearing, serving only to drive a segment of the campus population further and further underground. And if the tobacco ban truly seeks to improve public health, the only reason to monitor cigarette butts is to put ashtrays where they crop up.
The move to alert campus officials of smoking hot spots makes sense in light of the logic of the original policy – which is to say, it makes no sense at all.
Enforcing an unenforceable rule is the height of futility. Good policies deserve policing. This one deserves revision.
Fantastic article, good points.
Surprised you didn’t mention the e-cigarette ban and how Dr. David Baron, former Chief of Staff at UCLA Medical Center says he’s never seen a product–ever–that stands to save as many lives as the electronic cigarette.
“If you can separate out the nicotine from the tobacco,” Baron says,
“then you remove the disease-causing elements of tobacco smoke.”
If pollution is really what we are fighting, why can’t UCLA ban cars on campus and turn all the parking lots into useful space (affordable housing, more outdoor exercise areas, green space, etc)