UC President Mark Yudof asserts that “offering a smoke-free environment (on UC campuses) will contribute positively to the health and well-being of all UC students, faculty, staff, patients, and visitors.”
The UC-wide campus smoking ban, which will go into effect April 22, will prohibit the use of all tobacco products on all UCLA property. According to an educational flier regarding the ban, neighboring areas immediately off-campus may be affected by increased smoker presence, piling on to requests currently being made for people to “not congregate or litter on their property.”
If people can’t smoke on campus and shouldn’t smoke off campus, their choices become quite limited. They can break these new rules by smoking on campus, they can walk 10 minutes off-campus to a non-restricted area and 10 minutes back, or they will be forced to go through the hazards of quitting smoking – in the middle of a stressful quarter, no less.
Problems that exist with the current system include poor signage of smoking areas and low enforcement of smoking restrictions.
Since elementary school, students have been educated about why smoking is unhealthy. Such education has clearly not deterred smokers up to this point. If the intention of the ban is to reduce smoke on campus, informing students about the proper areas to smoke on campus as opposed to why smoking is bad may hold more success in reducing smoke in smoke-free areas.
Instead of marking non-smoking areas, it would be better to indicate clearly where smoking is allowed.
Smokers can go there and non-smokers can easily avoid it.
With cigarette smoking comes a culture of interaction. It is an opportunity for smokers to step outside and engage in conversations with other smokers. Smoking is also a chance to step away from the books for 10 minutes and just relax.
It’s easy to believe that the ban is to restrict the effects of secondhand smoke on students, but by banning smokeless tobacco products and electronic cigarettes, it is clear that the health of non-smoking students is not the primary concern. Electronic cigarettes, for example, are smokeless, smell-less, and only produce a comparatively non-harmful vapor which has little effect on non-smokers.
While the university is providing a free hotline, more steps may need to be taken to provide support for those who may want to quit. Different methods for quitting, which can range from over-the-counter meds to counseling programs, can often exceed the cost of smoking, according to an article from Bloomberg Magazine. Regardless of what method of quitting is used, should students choose to quit smoking because of this ban, they would be pitted against the financial costs of quitting.
At a campus where grades are increasingly competitive, all-nighters are common occurrences and anxiety about success is high, it is unreasonable to use a smoking ban to coerce students into quitting. The new policy implies that it is acceptable to shame people for smoking through embarrassment and fines.
But we must keep in mind that smoking is a completely legal practice and can provide relief from these worries for a 10-minute period of time for some students. Quitting should be a personal choice that comes at a time when the individual is fully ready. Getting rid of an addiction is not a casual practice; you have to genuinely want it.
The new policy minimizes individuals’ choices and assumes that even through years of education regarding smoking, they just weren’t informed enough to listen, and maybe they’ll wise up now that the UC system has banned it on campus.
Alternatives to the campus-wide smoking ban could include banning smoking in high traffic areas. For example, instead of using Janss Steps and outside of Powell Library as a smoking area, UCLA could restrict smoking to another area nearby that is less impacted by pedestrian traffic. Smoking while walking on Bruin Walk, or other areas of campus, could be banned.
Placing smoking areas in remote locations would reduce unwilling passersby’s exposure to smoke. But writing off smokers entirely alienates a portion of the student body, which goes against the ideals of community and acceptance that this campus strives to uphold.
These students, faculty, staff, patients and visitors are able to make their own decisions about life. If Disneyland can allow smoking, so can the University of California.
Cook is a fourth-year anthropology student.
Couldn’t agree more.
I don’t smoke, and can’t stand the smell of it. But how much of the 500 acres of open airspace above our heads can we fairly regulate? We’re not talking about being inside buildings, here – we are talking about open air.
There are lots of offensive things floating through the air – germs from sick people that refuse to stay home, cigarette smoke, odors from people whose hygiene habits are questionable, car exhaust, allergy-inducing cologne-doused people, chemicals and paints from UCLA’s numerous construction projects…how much of this is feasible, fair, or sensible to ban? I’d say none of these things. But, due to the unpopularity of smoking, it’s easy to isolate this one group and claim that banning their vice will greatly improve air quality on campus.
Given the number and proximity of buildings on campus, having a “stay 25 feet away from the building” smoking policy already confines smokers to limited areas. And with UCLA’s ever-increasing numbers of international students, faculty, and visitors, many of whom smoke, calling this policy unenforceable is an understatement.
Let’s allow health education and societal pressure to take care of the issue of smoking. Force is not the way to handle this.
nobody cares if the internationals or smokers have to stay x feet away, we still have to walk by you all
That’s a great reason to ban behavior you don’t like. Tell us what else makes your butt hurt and how we should fix it.
And I still have to look at your ugly face.
I agree. Public universities go beyond the applicable code that deals specifically with smoking in the workplace and public areas. Students are not public employees, and because they are not employees, banning the use of tobacco products on campus grounds constitutes a misuse of the law. The code stipulates buildings to be smoke-free, but intentionally does not address outdoor areas because- duh- outside is not sn enclosed area.
This sort of reasoning is faulty. Earth is, in a sense, due to the ozone layer, a somewhat “enclosed area”. Your limited vision only considers buildings. You must expand your vision. You must consider the larger picture. It’s not about UCLA, or even the US. It’s about our world. In this capitalistic system, consumers are king. To put the blame of the state of our world upon things like corporations is irresponsible — they tend to point it right back to us. We need to do something. We need to change the way we consume.
Argue for the good and the noble, not for what seems to be an arrogant show of clever logic. Logic should be used as a means to achieve the good, and not as an end in itself – to argue this way is useless and self-defeating to humanity. While your argument makes sense, it is clear to see that following that line of thought creates a world that inevitably self-annihilates. It is a line of thinking that will cause homo sapiens to become extinct on this planet, and perhaps allow a new more ‘evolved’ organism to dominate this earth.
WAKE UP NOW.
A few more things John.
Some shopping districts in Pasadena have a smoking ban. That includes outdoor walking areas.
Also, it is common for restaurants to ban smoking within 10 feet of their entrances. This is evidence to show that it is a conventionally accepted notion, that smoking affects outdoor areas, not just indoor areas.
Finally, you bring up a good point that UCLA is a public campus. Therefore, the grounds of UCLA are unique in that the area needs to be able to address issues of the “common good”, not just private interests. Because cigarette smoke is blown into the air (which is a common good), there is an issue of the common good. While cars also have emissions that affect the common good, cars are more necessary than cigarettes. Cigarettes are a luxury item. Cars are tools to help humanity achieve figure out what is the good and beautiful, and to make those visions real.
Cars and cigarettes are very different things.
If you are going to argue that cigarettes help humanity manifest its ultimate form, then I think you are pretty dumb.
A few things.
Some shopping districts in Pasadena have a smoking ban. That includes outdoor walking areas.
Also, it is common for restaurants to ban smoking within 10 feet of their entrances. This is evidence to show that it is a conventionally accepted notion, that smoking affects outdoor areas, not just indoor areas.
Finally, you bring up a good point that UCLA is a public campus. Therefore, the grounds of UCLA are unique in that the area needs to be able to address issues of the “common good”, not just private interests. Because cigarette smoke is blown into the air (which is a common good), there is an issue of the common good. While cars also have emissions that affect the common good, cars are more necessary than cigarettes. Cigarettes are a luxury item. Cars are tools to help humanity achieve figure out what is the good and beautiful, and to make those visions real.
Cars and cigarettes are very different things.
If you are going to argue that cigarettes help humanity manifest its ultimate form, then I think you are pretty dumb.
UCLA is restricting your “individual choice” to emit carcinogenic chemicals into the air that everyone is breathing? I’m sorry, get over it. Your rights end where mine begin. Thousands of people get lung cancer due to second-hand smoke every year. I’m sick of hearing all this neo-conservative libertarian garbage about “individual rights” and “freedoms” and “I don’t care about anyone else, it’s all about me, me, me”.
“Your rights end where mine begin.”
But you don’t have a right to demand that 50,000 other people make the air just the way YOU like it (speaking of me, me, me!). If that’s the way the world worked, we’d all be able to sue each other for lost wages because someone coughed germs into the air, or for allergies induced by perfume wearers. What rubbish.
Speaking of carcinogens, are you planning on banning cars and construction machinery on campus? Let us know how that goes.
PS – I’d be willing to bet that most of the people dying from second hand smoke didn’t drop dead after a cigarette was puffed halfway across a 500 acre campus.
It was based on junk science & spin doctors. The real data shows that a solo question was asked, so a solo answer would be forthcoming.
That’s not science.
Can you please back up your 2nd hand smoke accusations with the study’s that were done. Not the spin doctors take, not the take by those who make a career off the smoke taxes each year, not the propaganda spread by hearsay & alarmists, but the facts. Just the facts.
Can you also compare those facts to daily environment toxins?
Being sick with germs is different from smoking, because smoking is a voluntary choice, while being sick is not something people choose to and can stop any time they want. Comparing being sick with smoking, is illogical and so it is a bad example.
Driving a car is also a bad example, because people use cars to get to work or school, so that they can work and learn and in thus doing, they are self-actualizing their human potential. This is a matter of principle, and is essential to humanity. On the other hand, smoking does little to “self-actualize”. I cannot imagine that someone’s life-long goal might be something like, “to become the best smoker in the world.” While there is the principle of “personal liberty” involved here, still we have to consider whether “just anyone” should be allowed “personal liberty” to the point where it harms or bothers other people. I will discuss the issue of personal liberty next, but the point of this paragraph is that driving a car and smoking are bad comparisons, since one is a necessary means to self-actualization of humanity, while the latter is a poor excuse for very public display of “animal-like” behavior. To compare driving with smoking is faulty reasoning.
On the issue of personal liberty, the point is very simple. Everyone is at liberty to walk off campus and smoke all they want. Everyone is at liberty to go home and smoke drugs instead of attending classes. Everyone is at liberty to drop out of college and smoke all day, whatever they want, whenever they want. If it’s a matter of principle of personal liberty, please exercise it. Kant says, that “freedom” is liberation from the sensory inclinations. If you wish to be “free”, please control yourself and keep your addiction in check (or at least, restrain it from systematic public display).
Finally, as a Korean-American student, I want to publicly declare that I am personally EMBARRASSED at every single Korean-American student that smokes in front of the university buildings. What bothers me is not that cigarettes are bad for the smoker’s health. As long as the smoker has a plastic bag on their head, I couldn’t care less about their health. After all, why should I care about a smoker’s health if they don’t care themselves, and it is obvious that they don’t care about mine?
What bothers me the most is that I see Korean-American students who smoke as being embarrassingly insensitive to today’s world. There are some Korean-American students who come from wealthy families, so I will speak only to those rich students. As I will explain later, I am not addressing poor students. Now, because ordinary people are willing to do many things for money, a wealthy person can be very influential. I see Korean-American students abusing the wealth that they may have, by funding greedy corporations like cigarette companies, while not doing enough to either elevate humankind by investing in themselves in a productive way, or to make the world a better place to live by helping others and making life more pleasant for others.
A rule of the people, ie a democracy, can only succeed when “the people” make intelligent and humane choices in their private lives. Careless spending, careless behavior, and careless thinking destroys a nation that is built on the ideals of self-control and reciprocation.
I don’t speak to poor Korean smokers. I only speak to wealthy Korean smokers. The reason is this: I don’t expect stupid poor students to be able to do much in the world, and life is pretty hard on them already as it is, and anything they do that is unwise will immediately only injure themselves. My intention is not to preach or stand on a pulpit and pretend to be superior to anyone else. However, a stupid wealthy person can do much damage in the world, and because of their wealth, they are somewhat protected from their own bad choices. But, their choices harm others, and this is unjust. Also, a stupid wealthy person has more resources to choose healthy alternatives to smoking, and so smoking is less of a necessity than it might be for a poor person. My position is to implore the wealthy student to use their wealth and influence in the world in a wiser way, because I am affected by their careless and insensitive behaviors, and since I am a poor student, I am less powerful than the wealthy. All I can do is implore those who are stronger to use their power to make life better for the rest of us.
I believe that those with power have a duty to those who are less powerful, to use their power for the highest good. This is the only justification that I can see, for certain people to amass more wealth and influence than others. If being wealthy just means you can smoke more cigarettes than a poor smoker, then be warned: I am at war with you, and I will not be merciful in the moment of your doom, because I now know your nature. I am declaring a revolution against you, and all your kind. When you get cancer, I will not sympathize with you. When you get huge medical bills to pay for your cancer treatment, I will not sympathize with you. When you are probed and pricked and experimented on by researchers in order to treat your cancer, I will not sympathize with you. Just know that this is my wrath visited upon you, and there will be no solace for your soul because my wrath is justice. And my wrath will be relentless and great. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BzwxJ-M_M0
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BzwxJ-M_M0
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Finally, as a Korean-American student, I want to publicly declare that I am personally EMBARRASSED at every single Korean-American student that smokes in front of the university buildings. What bothers me is not that cigarettes are bad for the smoker’s health. As long as the smoker has a plastic bag on their head, I couldn’t care less about their health. After all, why should I care about a smoker’s health if they don’t care themselves, and it is obvious that they don’t care about mine?
What bothers me the most is that I see Korean-American students who smoke as being embarrassingly insensitive to today’s world. There are some Korean-American students who come from wealthy families, so I will speak only to those rich students. As I will explain later, I am not addressing poor students. Now, because ordinary people are willing to do many things for money, a wealthy person can be very influential. I see Korean-American students abusing the wealth that they may have, by funding greedy corporations like cigarette companies, while not doing enough to either elevate humankind by investing in themselves in a productive way, or to make the world a better place to live by helping others and making life more pleasant for others.
A rule of the people, ie a democracy, can only succeed when “the people” make intelligent and humane choices in their private lives. Careless spending, careless behavior, and careless thinking destroys a nation that is built on the ideals of self-control and reciprocation.
I don’t speak to poor Korean smokers. I only speak to wealthy Korean smokers. The reason is this: I don’t expect stupid poor students to be able to do much in the world, and life is pretty hard on them already as it is, and anything they do that is unwise will immediately only injure themselves. My intention is not to preach or stand on a pulpit and pretend to be superior to anyone else. However, a stupid wealthy person can do much damage in the world, and because of their wealth, they are somewhat protected from their own bad choices. But, their choices harm others, and this is unjust. Also, a stupid wealthy person has more resources to choose healthy alternatives to smoking, and so smoking is less of a necessity than it might be for a poor person. My position is to implore the wealthy student to use their wealth and influence in the world in a wiser way, because I am affected by their careless and insensitive behaviors, and since I am a poor student, I am less powerful than the wealthy. All I can do is implore those who are stronger to use their power to make life better for the rest of us.
I believe that those with power have a duty to those who are less powerful, to use their power for the highest good. This is the only justification that I can see, for certain people to amass more wealth and influence than others. If being wealthy just means you can smoke more cigarettes than a poor smoker, then be warned: I am at war with you, and I will not be merciful in the moment of your doom, because I now know your nature. I am declaring a revolution against you, and all your kind. When you get cancer, I will not sympathize with you. When you get huge medical bills to pay for your cancer treatment, I will not sympathize with you. When you are probed and pricked and experimented on by researchers in order to treat your cancer, I will not sympathize with you. Just know that this is my wrath visited upon you, and there will be no solace for your soul because my wrath is justice. And my wrath will be relentless and great. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
The wrath is over nine thousand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BzwxJ-M_M0
Are you crazy?
I think the ban on electronic cigarettes is a bit much (its a less dangerous way of getting nicotine with a similar sensation, as I have heard. dunno why THAT was ).
But on the other hand, I don’t have to be greeted by a giant cloud of smoke every time I step out of Powell.
Ron Swanson once said “The whole point of this country is if you want to eat garbage, balloon up to 600 pounds and die of a heart attack at 43, you can! You are free to do so. To me, that’s beautiful.”
The difference between cigs and bad food is that you can actually exercise off the calories from eating McDonalds all day, but you can’t directly eliminate the stuff that causes cancer. Not to mention, I inhale those carcinogens whenever I’m in the vicinity of someone who’s smoking, and the only thing I inhale is the delicious scent of burgers when someone eats a whopper.
One person mentioned banning cars. Cars and machinery aren’t banned, but their emissions are regulated by the government, so everyone has clean air to breathe. Its a totally obtuse argument to make
An interview that was on NPR a few months back is quite interesting and relevant:
http://www.npr.org/2012/09/07/160752629/the-secrets-in-a-cigarette
On a more personal note, you might be interested to know that I never got to meet my grandfather, who died of lung cancer long before I was born.
I’m all for personal freedom and what not (even if it is self destructive and shortsighted), but I’m overall glad that this ban is occurring.
Car emissions are regulated by the government and are reduced – not banned. Cigarette smoke is regulated by the government and is kept away from certain areas – not banned. If you think you’re getting more carcinogens from walking past a smoker at Powell than you are crossing Charles E. Young, you are sorely mistaken.
Kendi’s point that being sick is not a choice is valid – but going outside when you’re sick IS a choice, just like smoking is. If you get people sick with your germs, and they have to stay home from work or school, the effects on yourself and others are more immediate and significant than you, as a non-smoker, walking past a puff of smoke. But of course I’m mistaken on that – we all know that the smell of an icky cigarette is enough to knock someone to the ground dramatically – arms flailing and all!
Let’s just call this what it is – an effort to ban traces of a smell that most people (including myself) don’t like – thinly veiled by an argument that it’s making a significant impact on our collective health.
Hi Reason 3.
I know my original post is really long (as well as this one), but if you read through the whole thing, you’ll see that it’s not about my health. It’s a matter of principle.If it were merely a matter of smell, I would advocate to ban the public bus systems. There are some smells I can tolerate with more good grace, while others sorely test my patience.
You said that sick students can choose to stay home.
Well, touché. Excellent point. Now let me tai-chi it back — if all else is the same, then smoking students can ALSO STAY HOME.
I think we as a society have gotten more and more used to the idea of industrial carcinogens in our environment, and in our bodies. Do you know what is in your food? If I saw people care more, I wouldn’t see so many people eating McDonald’s and Taco Bells, or even Subways (do you know what they do to treat that chicken patty that looks so “fresh”?). To see an argument of self-degradation as a defense for perpetuating a culture of masochistic self-harm is both alarming and disgusting. In fact, these are the very reasons why many teens rebel for a short while; it is because they become disappointed and disillusioned with the stupid state of affairs as adults have created. This is of course, before they finally accept the reality of their world, and either choose to conform or to fight.
While you and I are debating hotly about this very important issue, Phillip Morris is sending his own children off to another day at an expensive private school, and planning his summer vacation at his Newport estate. I’m sorry, but considering that Phillip Morris doesn’t seem to be interested in reciprocating the “love” for his fellow humans (or even lesser animals), I cannot tolerate the smell of his smug smile with good graces. He is undeserving, and I am tired of being the one to tolerate the acrid smell of his zombies, so he can live to the fullest. I’m not a trash can.
But smoking students do stay home – because they live here. Smoking is banned inside the residence halls (rightly so – it travels through the vents), so their only choice is to go somewhere 25 feet away from the building, which relegates them to a very small portion of campus. The idiots smoking outside Powell are violating existing rules, and should be dealt with accordingly.
And who cares what Philip Morris does? I mean – aside from the fact that he’s been dead for several centuries now – if you don’t like his douchery, then protest! Educate people! Convince them of your opinion using the free exchange of ideas, as you’re doing here. Not by force.
I think that in order to see it from my perspective, you have to have a desire to treat yourself a certain way. Let me explain this point with an example.
Let’s say you wash your hands after you use the toilet, and for you, this is a normal habit. Let’s say other people don’t wash their hands after using the toilet, and this is their normal habit. If you try to argue with such a person, they will not be able to see your POV, since they will also argue that nobody has ever immediately dropped dead after shaking hands with them, just because they don’t wash their hands after using the toilet, and so it is not a dangerous thing.
Similarly, if you feel that the chemical contents of cigarettes are “not that bad”, you will never be able to understand the disgust and resentment that I might feel about walking into a cloud of such chemical contents, for which you might be solely responsible for and without any other productive result to come by it except that somehow it must make you happy. But, the fact that you don’t “think” it’s that bad doesn’t justify the fact that the smoke is unhealthy – not only for you, but also for me. It just admits that perhaps your standards for health are somewhat lower than mine. Taco Bell is also unhealthy, but if you eat that, at least I am not directly harmed by it — only you are. (Actually, I happen to believe that you consuming Taco Bell also indirectly harms me, but that is a different issue.)
The only reason why hand-washing isn’t mandatorily required, is that it can’t be enforced since it would encroach upon privacy issues. However, with smoking cigarettes, it is something that can be enforced — if anything else, it would give people like me more support, to inform smokers that they are not welcome to smoke on campus, and that they need to respect the health of the majority of others.
Finally, I am not interested in talking. I am interested in making a better world a reality. For this, some measure of peaceful force might be required.
“the hazards of quitting smoking” no, really? i quit after smoking almost two packs a day for two years, it’s tough and feels terrible, but the only real hazard here is actually smoking. just a reminder, hazard means: A danger or risk. explain how quitting is a danger or risk?
I know how hard it is to self-change, especially behavioral habit. But it’s easier I think, when a person is passionate about a principle. Your power is over 9000. I think people have done amazing things over principles. This is a war against rich people who don’t use their money properly and in selfish ways. Let’s boycott those bastards!
May you not get cancer. Live long and prosper.
“…writing off smokers entirely alienates a portion of the student body…” Oh. Of course. Well then, let ’em go anywhere they want, including classrooms and hallways giving off their second-hand smoke while they give themselves cancer. God forbid we should inconvenience these fools while they kill themselves.
@Reason3:disqus : “your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.” and in this case, you don’t have the right to pollute the air. Don’t say “but cars can pollute” because it sounds like a child saying “but how come he gets candy.” We’re not paying $30,000 a year to deal with bull or anything that smells like it.
ECigs are being banned because they work, because smokers like them better than smokes. Banning them is ridiculously cruel. Banning them while promoting big Pharma products says it all.
Berkeley really should investigate who owns the products they are promoting.
Berkeley really should investigate who I distributes the smoking ban propaganda.
Berkeley really should educate themselves in all invested areas.
I’ve been reading some of the ridiculous comments on this page. Should smoking cessation tools such as e-cigs should be banned as well? Because natural cooking extracts and vegetable glycerin, vaporized, is apparently “bad for everyone” as well? Give me a break. I’m sick of these non-smokers enforcing false power over others because the only thing good they have to show for their empty lives is the fact that “they said no” to cigarettes when they were teenagers. How often do you even come across a smoker? Jesus christ, you people act like you can’t even walk down the street without being consumed in cigarette smoke. Live and let live. You wan’t to reduce crime? Let people smoke their god damned cigarettes.
Is it good policy for the campus? Not right now. Obviously its turning a blind eye to a horde of common sense counter-arguments. But is it good policy for the health of the overall student body, and by extension, the health of California’s population? Yes. It is imperfect, but I respect and support the UC’s decision to swing towards the bigger picture.