Your College Is Now Your Mommy: Smoking To Be Banned At UCLA
This country has really gone off the deep end. I always romanticized the American West as a place of freedom, but now they're trying to one up New York for telling people what they can't put in their bodies.
I hate cigarette smoke, but if you aren't blowing it in my face, it's really none of my business if you smoke. (I do have a problem with paying the health care costs for smokers, and if it were up to me, people would pay buttloads extra for health care for behaving in ways that could tax the system. And no, we can't count on all smokers to die younger and without costing us for emphysema or lung cancer treatment.)
Back to the subject of this blog item, I think coercive government measures -- like Bloomberg's soda nannying -- encourage more measures like them beyond government, like the upcoming ban at UCLA on all tobacco products...even electronic cigarettes. From the LA Times:
The days of lighting up a cigarette between classes or of a smoke break outside the dorm will soon be over at UCLA as the campus prepares to become tobacco-free.Chancellor Gene D. Block said in a letter that tobacco products -- cigarettes, cigars, oral tobacco and electronic cigarettes, among them -- will be prohibited as of April 22.
"Tobacco use and exposure to secondhand smoke remain the leading causes of preventable disease and death worldwide," Block said in the letter. "Cigarette butts, which are non-biodegradable, account for one-third of all the litter in California. Cigarette butts and cigarette smoke are toxic and degrade the quality of our air, water, forests and beaches.
"It is important to protect our community from these serious health risks and adverse environmental effects," he wrote.
The ban comes as part of a push across the UC system to eliminate tobacco use on campuses by 2014.
President Mark Yudoff said in a January letter that UC Medical Center and more than 500 university campuses nationwide already ban smoking, and the UC system -- as a "national leader in healthcare and environmental practices" -- should follow suit.
"Offering a smoke-free environment will contribute positively to the health and well-being of all UC students, faculty, staff, and our patients and visitors," Yudof wrote.
What's next, taking weekly stool samples from the student population -- and visitors, too?
What of people who continue smoking and have to leave campus to have a cigarette -- or maybe start fires sneaking one?
And what's with the ban on electronic cigarettes, which don't burn anything or contain tobacco? Will they also be banning Nicorette gum and The Patch?
The "drip, drip, drip" of "progressive" change, such as this smoking ban, is precisely why the NRA never budges even one tiny, little bit on anything.
Robert W. (Vancouver) at November 2, 2012 1:06 AM
Now, let's be logical: if those who push for legalization of drugs are actually correct about access to these drugs, then smoking at UCLA should increase as a result of this ban.
There is no such thing as a "safe" cigarette. That's what RJ Reynolds, a manufacturer, says. There was a multibillion-dollar lawsuit, remember?
Radwaste at November 2, 2012 1:56 AM
Will that include other obnoxious smoke products like pot or hookahs/shisha pipes.
What about incense, they can be pretty smelly.
What about cultural smoking like Native Americans and sweet grass.
Really I would promote electronic cigarettes as a way to have people reduce smoking to eventually quitting.
I expect this to back fire a bit.
John Paulson at November 2, 2012 4:40 AM
Noo Yawk.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 2, 2012 5:05 AM
No, seriously.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 2, 2012 5:15 AM
So yeah, I'm waiting for some enterprising student, who has a dispensation for medical marijuana, to light up a joint in the open on campus. Then watch the hijinks as he ties the administration into logic knots.
Cousin Dave at November 2, 2012 6:31 AM
We should ban irons. Because someone who buys an iron might live in a condo or apartment, and they could burn down someone's house.
Pirate Jo at November 2, 2012 7:11 AM
As noted above, left unsaid by the administration, marijuana smoking will not be banned and, in fact, tacitly approved by UCLA powers that be. It's not smoking or ill health that these people are against. It's those evil people that sell tobacco.
Used to work for UCLA. Money grubbing and stupid.
Kevin at November 2, 2012 11:03 AM
Colleges have always acted parenty. That's because it is usually the parents who are paying. (Yes, I know there are exceptions). Given that colleges used to have dorm mothers and not allow students of the opposite sex in dorms, I'm hardly shocked.
Cigarettes and incense were banned in my college dorm due to fire hazard, though people smoked around outside.
So yeah, it's annoying and an imposition, but not as much of an imposition as colleges used to take during our parents' time.
I feel like these things fluctuate.
NicoleK at November 2, 2012 11:21 AM
@Kevin: "It's those evil people that sell tobacco."
Or the people who use it. When I hear about things like this, I always wonder if it's an action the Powers that Be are trying to discourage, or the type of person who does the action.
@John Paulson: "I expect this to back fire a bit." I doubt it matters. I suspect UCLA is more concerned with the moral posture they've assumed, rather than if they can enforce a new rule.
Old RPM Daddy at November 2, 2012 3:15 PM
I recommend that smokers hold a smoke-in.
When you get down to citing people for smoking -- what kind of crime is that?
I still wonder how many citations have been handed out in NYC city parks. The park rangers in NYC are not law enforcement, they can't even demand your identification. Go ahead and write the citation up to Jim.
I wonder what the status of UCLA officers is?
Jim P. at November 2, 2012 8:13 PM
Leave a comment