Skip to Content
sitenum=10
News for UC Agriculture & Natural Resources employees.
Comments sought on ANR tobacco-free policy
Published on: April 29, 2013

Comments sought on ANR tobacco-free policy

On Jan. 1, 2014, the use of cigarettes and all tobacco products will no longer be permitted on UC campuses and at properties owned or occupied by ANR. Employees are invited to comment on this policy until June 17.

UC President Mark Yudof charged all UC campuses to go smoke and tobacco-free by January 2014 to save lives and improve the health of our community. As a leader in environmental research, policy, practice and education, ANR has a responsibility to demonstrate leadership in reducing tobacco use and secondhand smoke exposure for our students, faculty, staff, visitors and volunteers. This policy is about creating healthy environments for the thousands who learn, work, live and spend time in California. Cigarette butts are responsible for over a third of California’s litter.

This affects everyone on ANR property, including students, faculty, staff and visitors.

The policy covers the use of all tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigars and smokeless tobacco, as well as electronic cigarettes.

Tobacco use will be prohibited everywhere on UC campuses and at properties owned or occupied by ANR. There will be no designated smoking areas. Tobacco users are asked to be respectful of our neighbors and not congregate or litter on their property.

Enforcement will initially be educational. All students, faculty, staff and visitors are expected to abide by current policies.

All tobacco users who want to quit are encouraged to call the free California Smokers Helpline at 1-800-NO-BUTTS.

For details about the tobacco policy, visit http://ucanr.edu/sites/tobaccofree. Please send comments by June 17 to Robin Sanchez at rgsanchez@ucanr.edu.

 

 

 

Tags: policy (77), smoke-free (2), tobacco (1)
Comments: 17
Comments:
by Paul Wilson
on April 29, 2013 at 4:33 PM
I think this would put an to my bad habit of smoking, at least while I'm at work. To my knowledge there are very few smokers anyway, so this will only affect a small number of people.  
 
I don't believe that this is an unfair thing to ask of the students, faculty, staff and visitors.
by Dustin K. Flavell
on April 30, 2013 at 9:39 AM
I don't understand why why smokeless tobacco, as well as electronic cigarettes are included. People who use electronic cigarettes may be using these as a means to quit smoking and there are no second hand effects with the use of smokeless tobacco. Smokeless tobacco typically can not be seen by non-users and only effects the user and no one else.  
 
There are better ways to get people to quit using tobacco products than policies and enforcement. Tobacco use is down since it is socially less acceptable then before. Programs to quit have to be more effective than policies.
by Bette Lerol
on May 1, 2013 at 10:13 AM
As an ex-smoker, I applaud this move. As a grandparent, I'm very protective of my grandchildren being around second hand smoke now that they know how dangerous it is. I'm sure that this decision will help clear the air!
by Charles A Raguse
on May 1, 2013 at 10:35 AM
Quote: "...the use of ... all tobacco products will no longer be permitted ... at properties owned or occupied by ANR. ...This affects everyone on ANR property, including students, faculty, staff and visitors."  
 
As written, this would seem to include all Research & Extension Centers. Is this correct? Charles Raguse
Reply by Pamela Kan-Rice
on May 1, 2013 at 2:28 PM
The policy applies to all ANR Research & Extension Centers.
by Devon Rodriguez
on May 1, 2013 at 10:36 AM
Why in the hell would electronic cigarettes be banned as well? I think UC is over-reaching.
by Kathy Keatley Garvey
on May 1, 2013 at 10:52 AM
I wholeheartedly agree with this policy. We all know that smoking and second-hand smoking is hazardous to our health. See CDC website at http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/  
This ban cannot happen too soon!
by Patrick Davies
on May 1, 2013 at 11:01 AM
Please bear in mind that I am a former smoker, and smoked for over 15 years. I do not agree with these types of policies. While I will not deny the risks of smoking, I cannot agree with one's employer dictating what an individual does on her or his own time. There should be designated areas for people to smoke on her or his break. The underlying reason of protecting the health of workers is not really the issue at hand. If the UC really cared for their employees health and welfare, they would have figured out a way to give reasonable wages and salary increases across the board and not just for the few at the top. the fact is, UC does not want to pay for the high cost of health care that is likely to be incurred due to one's choice to smoke. The reality is that there are way more toxins that we are exposed to on a daily basis, than passing by a person who is smoking. Next they are going to ban obesity in employees. There is a fine line being walked that leans towards discrimination. Here is a link to some facts and figures about the demographics for smokers: http://oralcancerfoundation.org/tobacco/demographics_tobacco.htm  
Is this affirmative action at work? you tell me...
by Ardeshir B. Damania
on May 1, 2013 at 11:30 AM
I totally agree with the "Tobacco-free" policy of the UC. Smoking is not only extremely injurious to the smoker's health but also to those all around. I would strongly urge the ANR to also adopt the same policy from Jan. 1.
by Michelle Drummond
on May 1, 2013 at 12:00 PM
This is great!!
by Barbara
on May 1, 2013 at 12:52 PM
I see no point to the elimination of e-cigarettes, considering that Nicorette is not banned a well. And smokeless tobacco. This seems more a way to force a smoker to stop rather than protect those around the smoker. Smokers are the new pariahs.
by Leigh Taylor Johnson
on May 1, 2013 at 1:41 PM
As a child of 2 chain smokers, I learned first hand about the effects of first and second hand smoke on health and well-being. Kudos to ANR for acting on this issue!
by Mikal Saltveit
on May 1, 2013 at 2:10 PM
The sale and use of tobacco products is legal and can be ‘enjoyed’ by any adult. The health hazard to others caused by secondhand smoke provides the rational for the restriction of tobacco use so as to mitigate its harmful effects in enclosed spaces on non-smokers. However, what is the rational to exclude tobacco usage entirely? If its usage is not harmful to others, under what law can its lawful use be prohibited?  
Obesity and the lack of exercise are far bigger health problems on UC campuses than secondhand smoke. Should the sale and consumption of fast food (e.g., burgers, pizza, soft drinks, etc.) also be prohibited because of their deleterious effects on the health of others? If this mindset was carried to an extreme, should all students, faculty, staff and visitors be first encouraged and then compelled to exercise for their own good?  
I don’t know where the author lives, but in my experience her comment that ‘Cigarette butts are responsible for over a third of California’s litter’ sounds like an overreach that diminishes the force of her arguments in support of this policy.
by Charles A Raguse
on May 1, 2013 at 7:18 PM
Dustin Flavell said the "magic word" (remember Groucho Marx?) i.e., "enforcement". Now I am trying to make sense of including "all" ANR RECs. I'm thinking, Hey, surely on 7,500 acres of pasture and oak woodlands I can find a place to whip out my pack of Camels and light up. Well, but maybe the Sierra Foothill Range Research & Extension Center will beef up its police force so that anybody climbing out of their vehicle (once it has crossed the Station's boundary) will be assigned an officer to follow them (officers must be non-smokers). Most especially if the visitor looks like a smoker. But, I can still snooker them. I'll hie me down to the Yuba River, take two (2) steps into the river, and THEN whip out my pack of Camels, light up, and thumb my nose at the assorted group of gendarmes on the bank. Remember now, Pam Rice said there will be no (that's spelled "NO") designated smoking areas. But I doubt that she can include a major California river in that restriction.
Reply by Pamela Kan-Rice
on May 1, 2013 at 8:25 PM
Hey, for the record, I'm not the one making up these rules, Mr. Smartypants.
by Charles A Raguse
on May 2, 2013 at 8:17 AM
In an otherwise grim world, it's good to see that a bit of levity can find its way in now and then.  
And, thanks for the welcome repartee, Pamela Kan-Rice. Touché!
by Jim Coats
on September 24, 2013 at 4:45 PM
Like the fabled genie and his bottle, I'm sure it won't be easy to get Prince Albert back into his can, Bull Durham into his old corral, etc. etc., but it's worth a try.  
 
Too bad tobacco isn't good for you, since so many people obviously enjoy it so much. But there it is. Tobacco and its pal lung cancer took my father thirteen years ago, and most likely one or two people you've known too, and there's no bringing them back. For yourself, try the gum or the patch or acupuncture or hypnosis or whatever, and see if you can get by with just the memory or how it tasted and how it felt. Or watch old Brando or Bogie movies when you get the urge. Smoking always looked better in black and white anyway.
 
Login to leave a comment.