Search News


Browse Archives

News

Toward Tobacco-Free Campuses

October 20, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The American College Health Association released new guidelines Monday urging colleges and universities to adopt policies barring all tobacco use indoors and outdoors on their campuses.

The recommendations signal a shift for the association, which in its previous position statement, adopted in 2005, urged campus health officials to ban all smoking indoors but still permit it in “designated smoking spaces” outside.

Jim Turner, president of the ACHA and executive director of the University of Virginia’s student health center, said the guidelines reflect policies that are “from a public health standpoint, what we all aspire to have for our campuses.”

He acknowledged the position statement “sets a very, very high bar for some campuses to get to,” but said that the members of the ACHA’s board, executive committee and Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs Coalition considered it “an important statement to be made” about tobacco use on campuses. “We may not achieve our total goal across the country but at least we can provoke a debate and get some movement on our campuses.”

Cynthia Hallett, executive director of Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights, called the guidelines “excellent” progress and said she hoped campuses would seriously consider adopting them.

As of October 6, Hallett’s group had identified 365 U.S. colleges and universities with policies requiring that all campus spaces, indoors and outdoors, be smokefree. Another 76 institutions have “100 percent smokefree campuses with minor exemptions for remote outdoor areas.”

All 33 public college and university campuses in the state of Arkansas prohibit smoking inside and outside. Despite complaints and protests coming from employees and students, a law enacted last year in Pennsylvania bars smoking indoors and outdoors at all 14 universities in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education.

The ACHA’s recommendations go even further. They ban not just the use of cigarettes, cigars and other smoke-producing products but also the use of snuff, chewing tobacco and other smokeless tobacco products. The eventual goal, as described in the position statement, is “becoming or maintaining tobacco-free living and learning environments that support the achievement of personal and academic goals.”

John Nothdurft, a legislative specialist on tobacco at the Heartland Institute, a nonprofit with libertarian and conservative positions, said he is “not surprised by any means” by the ACHA’s recommendations. “You saw this in Pennsylvania, you’ve seen this in other states,” he said. “This is more of a PR stunt than anything else. It’s more nannying going on by organizations trying to win brownie points from special interest groups.”

Nothdurft expressed concern that institutions would adopt policies “without considering all the unintended consequences and questions it creates.” Students, employees and visitors, he said, “will have to go off campus – maybe to an unsafe area, maybe not – just to use a legal product that they should be able to use outdoors without doing harm to others.”

He also criticized the absence of recommendations on how to enforce tobacco-free policies. “It’s hard to enforce a smoking ban and this document offers no suggestions,” he said. “As I see it, all these activities could keep going on” without penalty on campuses that choose to adopt the ACHA’s recommendations.

Turner said he “heard very little resistance” from within the ACHA on adopting the recommendations. “One concern a member had was that our guidelines not violate state or local law but, from a public health standpoint, we all agreed this was needed.”

Turner said that the University of Virginia, his institution and the flagship university in a state that’s had a dominant tobacco industry for centuries, enacted a ban on smoking outside all its medical facilities and research labs that went into place on October 1, having banned smoking indoors years ago.

“I go over to the medical school for meetings and I no longer see people in their scrub suits smoking outside the back entrance there,” he said. “Anecdotally, in my own little world, it’s really had a profound impact.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Toward Tobacco-Free Campuses

  • Smoker's rights?
  • Posted by JS , Student at University of Minnesota-Twin Cities on October 20, 2009 at 8:30am EDT
  • I think that we are beginning to push the boundaries. I recognize the importance of banning smoking indoors and it is a nuisance whenever I see smokers immediately next to a public entrance (now that smoking is banned in all public buildings). I don't smoke, however I recognize that the activity is legal. Furthermore, if the smoker is far enough away from a building and far enough away from non-smokers, then there's no real justification for such a ban.

    In fact I wouldn't be surprised if such a ban were tested in court (if a university did enforce it). Yet, perhaps there's no case there as I suppose a university can dictate what goes on on their grounds.

  • We can doesn't mean we should
  • Posted by David on October 20, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • I recently attended a presentation on this topic. I came away feeling fairly certain that colleges and universities probably are within their legal rights to impose such a ban. I also came away feeling that we are living in a very dangerous era of the nanny state. Arguments begin with second-hand smoke hazards, but they end with banning smokeless tobacco. Arguments begin with the rights of the majority, but end up denying rights to the minority. This is very, very scary stuff.

  • Not So Welcoming After All
  • Posted by Laura on October 20, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • We often hear how universities want to make their campuses more welcoming to homosexuals. Yet these smoking bans affect homosexuals at greater rates than that of other students.

    The findings, published in the August issue of the journal, Tobacco Control, show that as many as 37 percent of homosexual women and 33 percent of homosexual men smoke. That compares to national smoking rates of 18 percent for women and 24 percent for men in the 2006 National Health Interview Survey.

  • Well done, ACHA!
  • Posted by Travis on October 20, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • I applaud the ACHA for taking a stand for clean air and the rights of others to breathe it. Secondhand smoke is a deadly substance that has shown to have an adverse affect on the lungs in multiple studies, no matter how brief the exposure. An individual's rights end when they put the health of others in danger, and secondhand smoke - be it indoors or outdoors - produces an unnecessary health risk to those with or without lung conditions. I do not believe bans on smoking signify an intrusion into people's personal rights as much as they signify an elevation of our collective consciousness that smoking has no benefit save hastening death for those who smoke or those who are exposed to secondhand smoke.

  • Defending fashionable freedoms
  • Posted by David S. on October 20, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • There is simply no rational basis for banning smoking in outdoor areas away from buildings except selective intolerance. The idea that second-hand smoke at "any" level is dangerous is simply laughable, and in regard to outdoor spaces, unsupported by anything but conjecture.
    Only when this idea is weighed against other health threats is the sad comedy of the ACHA's proposal apparent. Cars driving through urban campuses expose student and faculty to known carcinogens. Sugared breakfast cereals and soft-serve machines in campus dorms are doing nothing positive for students' health. Rock bands in small spaces are harming long-term hearing. Where does this end?

    The real agenda is controlling people's lives because it is good for them. Let's not kid ourselves. Late-term abortions put women at risk of physical harm. Alcohol consumption with any group of people will lead to some number of deaths and accidents. Fried foods are not good for you. Step ladders are dangerous. Tens of thousands of people die in car accidents every year. Living at higher altitudes increases your chance of skin cancer. There are viable means of banning all of these things.

    At some point, personal freedoms matter as a general proposition, and right to do things that pose only a very remote risk to others must be defended. Unfortunately, too many campuses make principled claims to defend freedoms that are popular and fashionable, and take a pass when private totalitarianism is for your own good.

  • Smokefree Campuses are quite common
  • Posted by Cindy on October 20, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • Congrats to ACHA for strengthening its position on smokefree and tobacco-free campuses. There is so much evidence about the hazards of smoking and secondhand smoke exposure that these policies make sense to me. From reading the position statement, it sounds like they are advocating for smoking cessation services as well, so employees or students who smoke can obtain assistance to quit or at least abstain while on campus.

  • Well done!
  • Posted by Superdude on October 20, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • There's no such thing as "smokers' rights". The only concern is the rights people have to breathe clean air and to be free of nuisances created by others. Arguments about the "nanny state" are moot, as there are plenty of justifications for regulating smoking. Further, the "slippery slope" arguments are illogical. Finally, the argument about discriminating against homosexuals are tangential and irrelevant.

  • Posted by Assistant Professor on October 20, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT
  • I do not believe bans on smoking signify an intrusion into people's personal rights as much as they signify an elevation of our collective consciousness that smoking has no benefit save hastening death for those who smoke or those who are exposed to secondhand smoke.
    As a non-smoker myself (except rarely and only the sadly now-banned clove cigarettes) I don't much care what poisons other people stick into their body, so long as they don't push it on me or significantly impact my life because of their decisions.

    I find it a very authoritarian and extremely illiberal stance to ban cigarettes (or other smoke products). True liberals should take note of the undercurrent of "control" proffered by those that claim to be doing things for the "public good".

  • Posted by Assistant Professor on October 20, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT
  • Arguments about the "nanny state" are moot, as there are plenty of justifications for regulating smoking. Further, the "slippery slope" arguments are illogical. Finally, the argument about discriminating against homosexuals are tangential and irrelevant.
    Dismissing others' arguments as "illogical" or "tangential" or "irrelevant" is poor debate, and only displays ignorance on the part of the person who states it.

  • Well Said, David S.
  • Posted by David on October 20, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT
  • To: David S.

    Well Said.

  • fashion rather than substance
  • Posted by Phred on October 20, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT
  • David S. has it right. There are many activities that society permits that are more harmful than second-hand smoke. As for superdude, he seems to think he has disposed of the arguments by counter-assertions. Smokers do have rights, at the very least, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." So do non-smokers. When two rights conflict, then rational discussion is needed to resolve the issue. Outdoor smoking, far away from doors should be dispersed enough not to harm people more than breathing exhaust fumes or dust. The nanny approach reminds me of some of the political fascism from the left that I saw in the 1960's that was not much different from the censorship mentality of the right during the same period. "We know what is best for you, and we will make sure that you get it and not XYZ."

  • No Tobacco
  • Posted by Lil Johnny on October 20, 2009 at 4:45pm EDT
  • My community college recently banned all tobacco products on campus. People cannot even smoke in their own car once it hits campus property. Unfortunately, few people were involved in the decision to go tobacco free. It was not discussed or debated amongst the faculty and staff. The students were not asked what they would like to see happen in regards to the issue. The order came from "on high" and is being enforced. People are being ticketed. So... are we really here to serve the students? If so, why were they not involved at all in a decision that would affect so many people. Power to the people!

  • the tobacco Nazis
  • Posted by Dale , Psychology instructor at Roanoke-Benson Schools on October 21, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • Good Lord. No such ban is enforceable. Will we never learn? Would it kill a campus to designate an outdoor area for smokers? I wonder how many such campuses have a policy on banning alcohol at every event everywhere on campus. I wonder if the food service vendors on campus serve only the healthiest of foods. I'll bet cars spewing dangerous fumes into the environment have a designated place to park. A little perspective, please.

  • Posted by Think about it on October 21, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT
  • The missing part for some of these comments is the fact that tobacco is the only product that, when used as intended and directed, has harmful effects. The same is not true of food, alcohol, etc. To compare these products is the same level of illogical thinking that some commentors seem to rally against.

    Also consider that the non-tobacco use on campus concept is not a ban, it's a place restriction based on the property owner. Students, faculty, staff, alumni, visitors may use tobacco if s/he chooses, just where the use is permitted is controlled.

  • Posted by K.T. on October 22, 2009 at 12:45am EDT
  • next up is banning abortion. welcome to society controlled by the control freaks... the need to impose their world view on everyone else.

  • Smoking policy compliance
  • Posted by robert d on October 22, 2009 at 12:45am EDT
  • My campus is in the process of adopting a policy based on designated smoking areas to be served with butt trays and benches, eschewing the increasingly popular total ban. In my state the law prohibits smoking within 20 feet of a building entrance, so this proposed policy is more restrictive, but legal under law which gives public education administrators such powers on their campuses. Campus administrators do not have the authority to regulate pubic throughways, including the sidewalks and streets around campuses, however.
    Research shows that campuses which have enacted prohibitions get problems they did not bargain for--'movable feasts' of de facto smoking areas claimed by smokers, uncontrolled litter on the perimeter of the campus, even fires in trash cans. Activist groups like the ACHA naively believe that one can just lay down a policy and that is that, but this kind of social engineering is subject to the 'sea of troubles' concomitant to what traffic engineers discovered long ago, that human behavior is tough to regulate, and it may take more severe enforcement measures than most campuses are willing or able to devote to enforce the policy. Even including campuses where citations havae been issued, it is hard to imagine a public higher education institution willing to dedicate the resources to police smoking on a campus of more than 30,000 students, in addition to the burden of parking enforcement, crime investigation, and patrol.
    Notably, when our campus enacted the 20 foot policy, the announcement was accompanied by offers for cessation programs. Number of takers: Zero.
    Research also shows that virtually all educational institutions serve a growing population of international students, and many invite guest groups through profitable extended education programs, which populations do not bring the same sensitivity to the tobacco issue as well-socialized domestic students, faculty, and staff. Therefore extensive education and indoctrination in the policy is necessary.