UCSD snuffs all smoking on campus

[alp227]

Source: San Diego Union-Tribune

A strict new policy at UC San Diego bans tobacco use anywhere on the campus, even outdoors. That means smoking is prohibited on the university’s more than 2,100 acres and Chancellor Pradeep Khosla, a smoker, won’t be allowed to light up at his soon-to-be official residence — a blufftop mansion in La Jolla that’s undergoing renovations.

Starting last Sunday, the school outlawed use of all tobacco and unregulated nicotine products, such as e-cigarettes. The affected areas include outdoor spaces, parking lots and residence halls. The policy also snuffs out the sale and advertising of tobacco merchandise.

Students will face the new restrictions when they arrive on campus for the fall quarter, which begins Sept. 26. The school previously banned smoking inside buildings or within 20 to 25 feet of them.

The University of California San Diego launch of the sweeping new measure comes four months before the entire 10-campus UC system is scheduled to roll out the same rules. Smoking has been prohibited at UC medical centers since 2011.

Read more: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/sep/06/ucsd-smoking-ban-outdoors-indoors/all/

---

GOOD. No more blowing smoke in everyone else's faces!

[onehandle]

1. How dare they attack an individual's 'right' to poison people around them!

Jack-Booted Thugs!

[Warpy]

2. I can understand why they're sick of cleaning up butts and ashes everywhere

but I find this a little on the Draconian side.

Students who are dumb enough to smoke will likely just go elsewhere. Or they will very rightly ignore the ban and light up out of sight. Or the campus will be ringed with smokers standing just over the line, trying to suck enough nicotine into their lungs before they rush off to the next class, late to all of them for that reason.

The school would be better off with designated smoking areas outdoors. No one is going to quit because of these regulations.

[tammywammy]

3. There's no smoking allowed where I go to school.

I think in the last year I've seen two people smoking.

I'm a smoker and this doesn't bother me, there's also no smoking allowed on property where I work. I smoke after I leave work while driving to campus. Then 3 or 4 hours later when I'm out of class I have a cigarette on my way home. Cigarette smoke is disgusting. During my undergrad at another school we could smoke on campus, but I always stayed far away from the building's door.

The only issue I have with UCSD is the ban on e-cigs.

[Warpy]

7. Agreed. I can see why you might want to ban them indoors

because some of the "flavors" can be cloying, to say the least. I can't see why they would be banned outdoors.

[snappyturtle]

4. I never, never have had a smoker blow smoke in my face!

You must have met up with many rude people.

[Nye Bevan]

12. Have you ever been outside, enjoying a beautiful day,

then all of a sudden you smell something horrible, look around to see where it is coming from, and you see a smoker whose second-hand smoke happens to be blowing towards you?

[Igel]

18. Yup.

And it's a good reason to ban dogs who poo on the ground, most buses, diesel cars, a lot of SUVs, all big rigs, and more than one person with poor hygiene.

It's also a good reason to ban having curbside pick-up of garbage as well as garbage trucks.

Why, I think I'm just important enough that these should be laws.

Of course, immediately banning all diesels and garbage pickup would stop a lot of asthma attacks and certainly make our cities more pleasant to look at. Dogs and other pets bear diseases--yeah, they don't have to, but people regularly fail to get them inoculated or ensure proper hygiene, so they're also a menace to my sensibilities ... er, public heahtl. So I have really good reasons beyond my personal likes for imposing my sense of morality on everybody by decree. Can't let myself be confused with one of those republicans who want to go around making sure that everybody observes the right morality. That would be mouth-breather behavior and nobody on this site would ever do that.

[Nye Bevan]

22. Nothing to do with "morality".

People can smoke 50 cigarettes per day for all I care, provided they do it on their own property.

[snappyturtle]

28. I can't agree with you more than I do. Sensbilities is right. I'm asthmatic

and I would guess that some of the most vitriolic responders
here would literally choke me with their artificial scents via
colognes, perfumes, fabric softeners etc.

If only these complainers would address their hatred to NSA
spying, unilateral proposals to attack foreign countries, etc.
I think the whole of society would be better. It's odd that
these same people who have gotten everything they asked
for to limit their exposure to smoke never seem to have
enough power. I love the post down thread complaining of
the smoke smell on someone's clothing.

[Nye Bevan]

30. When people in the office go out for smoke breaks,

leaving everyone else to take up the slack for them, they smell absolutely disgusting when they return.

[snappyturtle]

31. Well take your own break & go outside to chew gum or something

and let them take over for you while you're away.

[Nye Bevan]

32. So how does that solve the problem of the smokers stinking up the place

when they return from their smoke breaks?

[snappyturtle]

35. Oh puleeze....buy an Airwick or something, take it up with

managagement or become self-employed and you will be
able to control all that affronts your sensibilities. I'm
leaving now to return my attention to important matters.

[Nye Bevan]

38. I have taken it up with management, and they are leaning towards a complete ban on hiring smokers.

So the problem will eventually work itself out, except that current employees who are smokers are not being fired.

Thanks for the Airwick suggestion, however. Having people spray themselves with air freshener prior to returning from a smoke break might be something worth considering.

[beaglelover]

53. AWESOME POST!

I agree 100%. Banning smoking outside away from entrances to buildings is just ridiculous nanny state bullshit!

[snappyturtle]

27. I have come into scent range of joggers who smell like

liquid piss and I find that offensive. I wish they had bathed before
mingling with the public.

[Nye Bevan]

29. The good thing about joggers is that they are out of there fairly quickly,

unlike someone standing there, taking his time smoking his cigarette, while the wind blows the fumes right at you.

[snappyturtle]

36. I suggested up thread that you become self-employed....that

is even more evident here as being a good suggestion.
Don't stand down wind...????

Joggers who are ahead of me in line at a store do not
move that quickly but being a grown up I endure.

[Nye Bevan]

37. Hmmmm. I can't recall ever having a bad experience with a jogger ahead of me in line at a store.

Perhaps I am luckier than you in this respect. But then I do a lot of my shopping online, so perhaps this helps.

[Heywood J]

58. I have.

I called them "neighbor".

[Hippo_Tron]

5. Banning e-cigarettes outdoors seems a little ridiculous

[d_r]

51. yes it does to me also

the e-cig seems like a good way for people who are addicted to wean themselves off it.

[Brainstormy]

52. banning e-cigarettes anywhere is ridiculous

they emit water vapor.

[Arugula Latte]

6. Good.

I hope this kind of policy spreads.

Just because a cloud of smoke is outside doesn't mean you can necessarily avoid choking on the stinking stuff.

I was in a photo print place yesterday (yes, they still exist) and a woman came in. The stench of cigarettes on her clothes and hair was simply overwhelming. I backed away from her as much as I could but it was a tiny store.

[Sunlei]

8. doubt people will stop the e cigs. or the Chancellor in his home.

[99th_Monkey]

9. Wow that is harsh .. but then we all know there will be illicit pockets of smoke here and there.

That's the problem I have with super-harsh extremist "prohibitions" against anything really. It just
gets absurd, pushing people into being "rule-breakers" and then acting all surprised because you get
a fucking revolt on your hands before the final act.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

16. Smokers wont revolt.

They might get mad for a few seconds but then they'll need to catch their breath.

[99th_Monkey]

26. lol - perhaps

I've smoked T and quit, on and off, dozens of times, but most recently
have totally quit for about 5 years; and am so happy about that.

I still don't like Prohibitions of any kind, but that's just me.

[aggiesal]

17. Just think . . .

Smoking illegal, and Pot legal.

Will happen within 5 years!

[Iggo]

23. Won't that be something!

[99th_Monkey]

25. Fashion Follows Me

that's been my trajectory for past 3 years... tobacco > to > pot

[Brother Buzz]

10. UC system banning smoking from all campuses

http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/UC-system-banning-smoking-from-all-campuses-2501008.php

[dbackjon]

11. Good for them!!

[TransitJohn]

13. Hopefully the real health menace of the internal combustion engine is banned next. eom

n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

14. Jeez--

does that include weed?

[Dorn]

15. Michigan Smokefree since 7/11 www.smokefree.umich.edu

The University of Michigan has been a smoke-free campus since July 1, 2011, and that policy includes all buildings, facilities and university-owned vehicles.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

54. Well, smoke-free except for that Hash Bash ...

... or has the festivity switched to hash baked into brownies?

[small D democrat]

19. I think my sig line adequately expresses my sentiments

[fujiyama]

20. No littering is one thing

and so is no smoking within a few feet of a building. But ANYWHERE on campus?

C'mon this is just ridiculous. At the same time they're trying to make it harder to smoke e-cigs as well, which many use as a way to quit. This is going well beyond public health and just plain controlling behavior.

[alp227]

21. What about the rights of the majority not to breathe in others' filth?

You wanna smoke? Do it where you don't force others to breathe it in.

[Iggo]

24. Good!

[Nanjing to Seoul]

33. I love the non-smoker argument: "your freedom ends at my lungs."

I normally say "your freedom ends at my ears, so shut the fuck up."

And I don't smoke.

This policy is horseshit. . .not even bullshit. Horseshit!

[Nye Bevan]

34. That's what some people said when smoking in restaurants was banned.

And when smoking in bars was banned. And when smoking in shopping malls was banned. And when smoking indoors in the workplace was banned. And when smoking on airplanes was banned.

At some point smoking outdoors in a public place will be banned. The trend towards cleaner air is, fortunately, unstoppable.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

41. Because smoking does as much damage to lungs as industrial carinogens

I loathe rabid non-smokers. And I don't smoke.

[alp227]

40. what's up with all the second-hand smoke apologists on DU?

Did the tobacco industry hijack some people's accounts or something?

[Nanjing to Seoul]

42. Now I am a second hand smoke apologist?

Look, if someone wants to end their life smoking, let them.

Same with heroin, cocaine, meth or any other drug. This goes equally for alcohol and people who kill themselves with a fork.

I'm tired of nanny state government. I'm tired of being told, under penalty of law, what I can do to my body. Stop protecting me from me. And if you don't like if I smoke (I don't smoke, never touched a cigarette), be polite and ask me not to. I don't allow people to smoke in my home, but they can always go out on the balcony or the hallway.

Honestly, this is getting insane

[alp227]

43. What's insane? The right not to breathe in others' filth?

It's one thing for people to fuck over their own lives with smoking but another for them to force everyone else around them to suffer with them. Sadly, I gotta say YES to your first question. What's so HARD to understand this SIMPLE MORAL ISSUE:

[font color="black" size="20" face="face"]STOP BLOWING SMOKE IN EVERYONE ELSE'S FACES[/font]

[Nanjing to Seoul]

44. I have never seen, in my 36 years of life, a smoker purposely blow smoke in someone's face

Alcoholics force everyone else around them to suffer with them. What's so hard to understand this SIMPLE MORAL ISSUE:

STOP TRYING TO CONTROL EVERYONE'S FUCKING LIFE!!!

And again, I don't smoke. Why not just politely ask the smoker to put out the cigarette, instead of demanding laws to punitively punish people.

[Nye Bevan]

45. I was at the beach with my kids.

Someone was smoking and their smoke was blowing towards us. I did ask him politely to stop, or to move, and he refused. That is an example of why a law is needed.

And again, this is not a moral issue. I support the right of anyone to smoke pretty much anything, as long as they do so in a private place.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

46. You asked. He does have the right to say no. People can tell you to go away

And you could have moved to another part of the beach.

Why should there be a law? Because you don't like it. I don't either. I can cope.

[Nye Bevan]

47. I did move to another part of the beach.

My kids were upset because theit sandcastle was half finished.

Then another couple came and sat near us and started smoking.

And when my kids were digging in the sand they encountered several cigarette butts.

Why should the small minority of smokers ruin things for the rest of us?

[Nanjing to Seoul]

48. Because the minority has rights too.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I find smoking disgusting and distasteful. I have a conscience issue with telling others how to live their lives, even if it affects me.

[Nye Bevan]

49. Again, I'm not telling anyone how to live their life.

Just like I support laws banning public urination, but I fully support the right of people to urinate in private. People can smoke whatever they want, out of whatever orifice they choose, provided nobody is ever exposed to the fumes against their wishes.

[Heywood J]

55. By your logic,

it's OK to cram sand down the throats of people on that very same beach, because they could have left but chose not to, and we should tell them to shut the fuck up. After all, rules against cramming sand down people's throats are horseshit.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

56. that's legally called assault. Where is smoke assault in the eyes of a law?

And your argumentum ad absurdum is duly noted.

[Heywood J]

57. It's only absurd when someone goes against something you like.

http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/hhsa/programs/phs/documents/TobLegal_OptionsforTenantsSufferingfromDriftingTobaccoSmoke.pdf

Battery
Intentional contact with another person that results in harm or offense.
A battery can involve intentionally causing another person to come into contact with a foreign substance.

Example:
A Georgia court held that it is possible for a smoker to inflict a battery on another person with his tobacco smoke. The court reasoned, “We are not prepared to accept the argument that pipe smoke is a substance so immaterial that it is incapable of being used to batter indirectly. Pipe smoke is visible; it is detectable through the senses and may be ingested or inhaled. It is capable of ‘touching’ or making contact with one’s person in a number of ways.”

Negligence
Failure to exercise the amount of care that a reasonable
person would use in a similar circumstance.

Example:
A California court ruled that, although negligence claims associated with secondhand smoke may be novel, the law leaves room for a neighbor to be found negligent for generating second-hand smoke that harms a neighbor. The court noted that “the dangers of ‘secondhand smoke’ are not imaginary, and the risks to health of excessive exposure are being increasingly recognized in court.”

Trespass
Unauthorized invasion of another’s property. It can include the “deposit of particulate matter” or the “casting of substances” upon someone’s property.

Example:
A Florida court found that a condominium owner who subjected a neighbor to “excessive secondhand smoke” was liable for trespass because he “discharge[ed] a foreign polluting matter [i.e., drifting tobacco smoke]” from his condominium, which invaded the neighbor’s condominium.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

59. Stuffing sand in someone's mouth on the beach is the definition of battery and assault

Blowing smoke does not qualify as battery or assault.

A California court also decided OJ and the four Rodney King beaters were not-guilty. Courts can be wrong.

Trespass: This happened in Florida. We're talking about California.

And your ad hominem attack has been noted and flagged.

[Heywood J]

60. Ironic that you interpret a post

that answers your question as "ad hominem", but then try to throw aspersions at all California courts based on OJ and Rodney King. You also don't respond to the points made. I think we're done here.

[Iggo]

50. I love it, too.

Really.

[gopiscrap]

39. Good for them