Interesting. I received information this week that this policy includes "unlit" cigarettes. I guess UC is ensuring that folks that disagree with this policy won't walk around UC properties with an unlit cigarette in their mouth as a way to protest this policy. As a chewing tobacco user I was going to switch to a non-tobacco/non-nicotine product as a substitute...will this not be allowed like the e-cigarettes?

I am not a smoker and I certainly agree that smoking is a foolish thing to do. I think it is not reasonable to restrict people from smoking outdoors. The existing policy of not smoking near doorways is sufficient to not create a nuisance for people inside. If you are going to implement an extreme measure like restricting outside smoking then by extension you should ban any or all perfumes in side.

smokers should be able to smoke outside and in their personal vehicles. Taking someones right of freedom is as bad as suppressing free speech or freedom of religion. If I want to smoke away from others it is my choice.

As a smokeless tobacco user of many years, I am fully aware of the consequences of using said product. What I don't understand is why smokeless tobacco products(snus, e-cigs, etc.) would also be included in this policy? Snus is a new spitless form of smokeless tobacco that is held in ones cheek, offers no offensive odors, and is a great alternative for us smokeless users that are currently using snuff (spit) tobacco. E-Cigs are a great alternative to cigarettes. Neither of these product are offensive to the general public. Both can successfully be used as an aid to quit tobacco use, much the same as gums, lozenges, and patches, but at a much lower cost. What's next, a ban on doughnuts at work? They can harm us as well.....

I have been a non-smoker all my life. Current policy of limiting smoking to outdoors at a distance from buildings is more than adequate to ensure a healthy environment. It seems to me there are many more pressing issues for the administration to deal with. Why spent energy and resource on this?

I hate smoking, but I agree completely that this policy appears to be overkill. If there is good science showing that smoking outdoors reduces the health of other people, please post if here for us to appraise.

Dustin Flavell is Superintendent of the UC Sierra Foothill Research and Extension Center (SFREC). The SFREC is ANR-controlled property of some 5,700 acres of cleared and un-cleared foothill oak woodland and irrigated pastures available for research, extension, and teaching related to livestock (beef cattle) production. As such, Flavell's comments merit serious consideration.  
 
The original intent of this "tobacco-free policy", as drafted by former UC President Mark Udof, was for the policy to apply to and be enforced on University campuses such as UC Berkeley and UC Davis.  
 
It seems that ANR leadership reacted by saying, in essence, "Me too!, Me too!".  
 
The original "go" at this policy, as author Pamela Kan-Rice is well aware, was then "swept under the rug", presumably as a result of a flood of comments that identified its weaknesses.  
 
It has now been pulled out and re-floated, but its original defects as relevant to at least the two "rangeland" Research and Extension Centers, Hopland and Sierra Foothill, remain un-addressed.

I fully agree with the merits of the proposal for a smokeless work environment. However, tobacco plants are also employed as model systems for research and for the commercial production of useful pharmaceuticals, custom-made antibodies and, more recently, fuels and chemicals. Thus, I caution against a blanket ban of tobacco plants from the UC teaching and research environment. Provision(s) must be made in the "tobacco-free" policy to allow and support the use of tobacco for purely science, education, and R&D purposes.

I am a non-smoker. However... This policy is just bad policy. It will probably end up resulting in litigation, which will use up more of our dwindling UC resources and provide some additional income for lawyers. Our current policy is adequate and I don't think anything more is needed. I do not understand how smokers will be able to deal with this from a practical point of view, except to violate the policy. It will be interesting to see how our (smoking) administrators deal with it on a personal level. Of course, when it comes to faculty recruitment, this policy will ensure that tobacco users need not apply, even if they should happen to be National Academy Members. Interesting, that while UC is always talking the good talk about embracing 'diversity' in all of its diverse incarnations, the institution is not willing to accommodate a lifestyle that is practiced by up to 20? percent of the population. What comes next? Bans on coffee? tea? soft drinks? Fast food? (Better talk to our commercial vendors about that one, though.)

A hidden agenda?  
 
The tenor of the above comments is both obvious and consistent.  
 
Try this scenario on for size: Why re-run the same exercise? It produces the same results as before. But now UC has a new President. Perhaps ANR's gambit is designed simply to aggregate a sufficiency of negative responses to engineer change.  
 
For all we know, at this very moment, Barbara Allen-Diaz may be in earnest conversation with President Napolitano. Barbara's plea: "This is not working for us. (i.e., for ANR) "Is there any way we can get out of it?" "At least for these two (2) measly little Field Stations?"  
 
President Napolitano takes the questions and ponders. Then, a brilliant flash of understanding illuminates the room. "You know, Barbara," Janet replies, "I see your point. It shall be done!"

Smoking is certainly something to be discouraged but it would seem that this policy still needs some work to make sure that it accomplishes its goal of providing a healthier environment without impinging unnecessarily on individual's rights. And it is absolutely essential to allow researchers to utilize tobacco for their studies. This use has nothing to do with smoking per se but has everything to do with education and research, which are stated mandates of the university.

There is a huge difference between tobacco and nicotine. "smoking" tobacco is a known carcinogenic and contributes to a host of well-documented health problems including COPD. Nicotine on the other hand, used in nicotine gum, patches, nasal sprays, etc. has no such known health issues. As a matter of fact, if the goal is to promote wellness, one should ban the use of caffeine by EVERYONE, since it causes an exacerbation of hypertension. Additionally, alcohol is a horrible culprit, not only regarding personal health, but public health as well. I have never known a nicotine patch or gum (and I include nicotine personal vaporizing devices in this) to cause liver failure, altered mental status, motor vehicle accidents resulting in death, hangovers, vomiting, absenteeism, dysfunctional family dynamics, etc. I would put a ban on all alcohol use as well just so the institution is able to stop the detrimental effects of alcohol which are far worse than any NICOTINE consumption (not including smoking). What is the purpose of targeting NICOTINE users? Targeting smokers and users of other TOBACCO products is clearly understood. Using these personal vaporizing devices, nicotine patches and gum are doing a great service to those who wish to refrain from TOBACCO use.

Dear Dustin,  
 
UC and ANR policies do not prohibit “unlit” cigarettes, nor do they prohibit the use of non-tobacco/non-nicotine products. If you found wording to the contrary please let me know. Robin

Several comments on the second draft of the policy were received. Some individuals commented that the prohibition on tobacco products should not be allowed to impinge on UC research. In response the first draft was modified and the revised second draft (http://ucanr.edu/sites/tobaccofree/) now allows for an exception to the policy for educational, clinical and/or sponsored research activities involving tobacco or tobacco products (see bottom of page 3, top of page 4).  
 
Some comments expressed the opinion that the UC policy should be applicable only on UC campuses. When the policy was announced, ANR consulted with The Office of the General Counsel of The Regents (OGC) to verify whether or not it was applicable in ANR’s unique non-campus environment. As many of the campuses own or occupy property that is not on their central campus, they too raised the same question. OGC has opined that as the policy describes, it is to be implemented “…in indoor and outdoor spaces, including parking lots, private residential space and the Medical Center campuses… “ and that it applies, “…to all UC facilities, whether owned or leased,” and irrespective of location.

There is a new page on the ANR's Tobacco-Free website that provides peer-reviewed studies, position papers, economic impacts, legal positions, news and press releases regarding smoke and tobacco.  
http://ucanr.edu/sites/tobaccofree/Research_-_Position_Papers/  
 
The papers mentioned above do not address every point of view expressed here and are not intended to. This paper, UC Smoke-free Policy Proposal Final (http://ucanr.edu/sites/tobaccofree/files/175145.pdf), might be of interest to those asking why...

Sadly, Dr. John Stobo's statement (which adds little to resolve an issue that has been extant for some time now), as relayed through ANR Report Lite dated December 19, 2013, leaves precious little time remaining in 2013 for needed clarification.  
 
It has, in fact, become a fait accompli.  
 
Please see the third paragraph in Dr. Stobo's belated statement: "Effective Jan. 1, 2014, the University of California will be entirely smoke- and tobacco-free ... (and the herein defined uses) will be prohibited across all campuses and facilities, including inside buildings, outdoor areas and sidewalks, parking lots, and residential housing areas."  
 
Until Dr. Stobo (but perhaps it requires President Janet Napolitano's attention?) can explicitly define "facilities" to include the Hopland and Sierra Foothill Range Research and Extension Centers, which are ANR facilities that encompass thousands of acres of wildlands, oak woodlands, and pastures, where a smoker might be miles away from any other person, and where enforcement of this cumbersome set of rules is, for practical purposes, impossible, this "Pandora's Box" will not go away.