Life for smokers in high-tax Massachusetts could become a bit more complicated Thursday if the University of Massachusetts Faculty Senate ratifies a proposal to ban tobacco use on campus at its Thursday meeting.
The Senate will vote on “A Tobacco-Free UMass Amherst” at its Thursday meeting, which will be held at 4 p.m. in Herter Hall room 227. The proposal has already been approved by the campus Health Council and by the Campus Leadership Council.
The proposed ban draws on a precedent set by what a UMass release says is some 400 colleges and universities which have already nixed on-campus tobacco use. UMass Worcester, the University-system’s medical campus, already bans tobacco use. The proposal would be encompassing, as it would ban tobacco use in any form across campus, even in motor vehicles while on campus. It would also ban smoking in vehicles or property owned by the University. The ban would apply to everyone in the campus community, even contractors and those passing through campus, according to the release.
The Student Government Association is also expected to take up debate on the measure and – were it to gain Faculty Senate approval – Chancellor Robert Holub would likely appoint a Tobacco-free Campus Committee. The committee would be composed of students, faculty, staff and administrators and would oversee the implementation of the ban, which would take full effect July 1, 2013. The plan, Holub explained in the release, would also include programs and measures helping students to quit using tobacco.
The proposal, which is viewable at the Faculty Senate’s website and at www.umass.edu/loop, states that “tobacco use compromises the health and well-being of the entire University community,” and that “as a public institution of higher education, UMass Amherst has an obligation to promote a healthy, and hence tobacco-free, environment.”
The ban would apply to all forms of tobacco products, whether they are smoked, chewed or snorted, and would also ban so called e-cigarettes. Enforcement of the ban would rest with campus employees’ supervisors and ultimately would lie with University Human Resources, while for students it would fall to the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs.
The Health Council would oversee and revise the ban as necessary.
The Tobacco-free Campus Committee would be charged not only with overseeing the implementation of the ban, but would also hold meetings drawing feedback from the campus community, produce materials aimed at promoting the ban, providing smoking-cessation resources, be consulted for making exceptions to the ban, such as for during artistic performances or scientific research projects, determine what steps may help expedite removing tobacco from campus, including creating specific smoking areas, and will be given the authority to fully oversee the implementation process, including generating a budget for the project.
The Faculty Senate’s meeting Thursday is open to the public.
Sam Butterfield can be reached at [email protected].
Trinity Starrett • May 29, 2013 at 7:55 am
To further backup the ability of cold lasers treatments to
deal with physical cravings, there was a fairly recent study on laser therapy treatments for quitting smoking done
in England at Middlesex University (1). It is no longer news that cigarette smoking is
such a nasty habit that will give you loads of medical problems and ultimately
reduce your life span on earth. It’s not that people have a self control weakness, it’s the chemicals the tobacco companies put in the cigarettes that make you become addicted
to their products.
John Jonik • Apr 26, 2011 at 9:04 pm
Clarification: Of course tobacco smoke has effects. Positive ones. That’s why it’s been used for about ten thousand years. It’s a natural appetite suppressant and it works for alertness, digestive relief, stress relief, and …now we know…relief of symptoms of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s etc.
Public domain tobacco competes with a good batch of patented pharmaceutical products…and, like hemp being a too-viable competitor to patented plastics and synthetics and lubricants etc etc….it is being shoved down the path to prohibition. This is Reefer Madness II, and part and parcel of the global corporate war on anything public.
Those pushing the bans (including universities) are almost guaranteed to be economically-linked to Big Pharm, chlorine, pesticides, etc., and their insurers and investors. It’s about money, not health or “clean air”.
John Jonik • Apr 26, 2011 at 8:55 pm
I dispute that second hand TOBACCO smoke causes anything (beyond effects that any kind of smoke would cause)except blood pressure rises and violent tendencies in anti-smokers.
I don’t believe any studies of primary or “second hand” smoke did the basic, necessary step of analyzing and defining what they studied. Probably every research facility was somehow connected to the cigarette industry which has huge motive to blame smokers, and the conveniently-“sinful” public-domain tobacco plant, for the effects of its Highly Adulterated (and sometimes tobacco-free!) typical product.
Considering that typical cigarettes are up to here with pesticide residues, many made by pharmaceutical firms, and that many of those pesticides are chlorine chemicals that put Dioxin (worst of worst industrial carcinogen) into the smoke, and contain cancer-causing levels of PO-210 radiation (from certain fertilizers), and chlorine-bleached paper that creates more dioxin, it’s an easy step to suspect that researchers linked to the chemical firms, the pharmaceuticals, any chlorine-using industry, and any radiological interests AND-OR any of their insurers and investors would NOT embarrass those generous benefactors.
So…they say “cigarettes” (undefined for content) and “smoke” (undefined for source) and “tobacco” (unqualified for toxic, carcinogenic, and untested adulterants) are the guilty parties. They “study” who-knows-what and conclude that tobacco is the villain.
That kind of “science” ought be grounds to challenge the licenses of just about every researcher or research institution that found that “tobacco kills” or …causes such and such disease. No plant on earth can cause some (or many, or most) of those so-called “smoking related” diseases. Fetal damage? Sperm loss? Endocrine disruption?
Hell, mesothelioma was considered a “smoking related” disease until overwhelming evidence pointed the finger at asbestos in Kent Filters…not at tobacco or “smoking”.
I’m saying that of course, contaminated tobacco products, like contaminated water, air, or contaminated baby food, causes disease and death.
To blame the public-domain tobacco plant (and deceived victims) for that is a cruel absurdity that only appeals to those who don’t know what a typical cigarette actually is, and to complicit parties hoping to evade what could be the biggest liability suit in corporate history.
This anti-smoking crusade is not about anyone’s health, except as the packaging. It’s about some of the worst health-damaging and environmentally-destructive industries on earth evading those liabilities…not to mention penalties, PR disasters, and prison.
See http://fauxbacco.blogspot.com for a collection of references that are integral to this issue.
Nill • Apr 23, 2011 at 6:05 pm
What research are you talking about?
Smoking causes cancers?
There is no such scientific publication.
Do you have a link?
It must have been published in Cell, Nature or Science, eh?
All we know is just statistics data showing that smokers have higher incidents in cancers.
That doesn’t mean smoking caused them.
It might well be the lifestyles of smokers.
Do not just say “oh, studies showed that.”
What studies?
Jay • Apr 7, 2011 at 11:52 am
I am allergic to cigarette smoke, and every time I am trapped behind someone huffing and puffing a cig while walking to class (which is every single day), I have to use an inhaler so that I can breathe again. These things cost me $25 each time I get one, and I have never needed them as much as I have here at Umass. $25 is really expensive for something that other people are causing to happen to me, not to mention the carcinogens that I inhale second hand while breathing in other people’s smoke. I don’t understand why they want to ban ALL tobacco on campus, and why they can’t just make smoking stations on campus, but if people who smoke on campus really think that they are not affecting other people by their decision to kill themselves, then you are wrong. It is not easy to just walk pass people who are smoking, smokers walk at all different speeds and with the amount of other students walking when classes change it can be nearly impossible. And to the person who suggests holding my breathe for 5 seconds… you need some serious help if you smoke your butts in 5 seconds. By the way, I do hold my breathe every time a smoker is in front of me, only to get a wonderful lungful of cancer every time I have to take a new gasp. Thinking that smoking isn’t harming the people around you is very ignorant. Also, I suggest people take a look at our walking pathways next time you go through campus. There are cigarette butts about every 2 feet in the grass on every path in campus, and giant piles of butts outside of building and popular spots. Cigarette butts take over 300 years to decompose in nature, and add harmful carcinogens and the tobacco mosaic virus to the environment as they do. So not only do cigarettes on campus harm my lungs but mine and my grandkids’ and their grandkids’ right to a clean environment. Ban smoking on campus UMass, but don’t be outrageous and ban all tobacco products. If people want to harm themselves that is one thing but when I and others are harmed because of someone’s dirty habit then that is obviously unfair and something should be done about it.
T • Apr 6, 2011 at 3:23 pm
I wrote an OP/ED about this my first year at UMass, but never got around to submitting it because I was way in over my head at the time with other personal issues. As an ex-smoker, the diatribes I went on had mostly to do with the constant temptation I was surrounded by more than the actual environmental impact of smoking on campus, but as time passed, I eventually resolved myself to holding my breath when walking by slow-walking smokers and not spending too much time thinking about how many cigarette butts could be found on the lawn outside my then dorm. That all being said, I knew it was only a matter of time before this sort of policy would be considered. The problem with the current regulations for smoking on campus is that most people do not follow them. Twenty feet is not relative, but somehow people seem to think that it is, which is a problem when we’re talking about building ventilation and the intake of smoke. With this in the news, I’m a little more inclined to review and submit that OP/ED now. Will you take it this time, Collegians?
Christine • Apr 6, 2011 at 10:14 am
John: Are you honestly disputing the fact that secondhand-smoke causes things like cancer, despite years of research on the subject? The US EPA classifies secondhand-smoke as a “Known Carcinogen.” If you are against the ban, that’s fine, but please do not spout unsupported opinions disguised as facts, your words are insulting to all of those who have died from smoke-related illnesses. I am very interested to see where you got such information from.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/secondhand-smoke
John Jonik • Apr 5, 2011 at 7:04 pm
PS:
– If anyone, in court, under oath, claims that tobacco or tobacco smoke caused this or that illness, they may be committing perjury. If they say such things elsewhere they are either lying, or are certifiably incompetent in the topic.
– If a judge or juror in a smoking related case has economic links to the cigarette cartel (incl. pesticides, pharms, chlorine, fertilizers, etc and their investors and insurers) then Due Process laws are violated.
– Many, if not most, so-called “smoking related” diseases are impossible to be caused by smoke from any plant—but are well established as symptoms of exposures to pesticides and chlorine by-product, dioxin.
– A top corporate promoter of “smoking” bans is Johnson & Johnson pharmaceuticals which hopes to eradicate tobacco, a public-domain natural competitor to it’s patented, synthesized (more profitable) nicotine-delivery products. Kind of like how hemp was prohibited (“Reefer Madness”) so it would not compete with the new, toxic, petroleum-based, chlorine-drenched synthetic fabrics, plastics and other products.
– Top health insurers invest billions (w/ a ‘b’) in cigarette manufacturers. Good investment—as long as smokers, and not the manufacturers, are blamed for all the disease and death. Search “PNHP tobacco insurers”.
– Natural tobacco also competes with corporate drugs for appetite suppression, alertness, digestive relief, stress relief, and even for symptomatic relief of Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s…noting that vast market of aging Baby Boomers.
No wonder the Corporatocracy wants to get it (and just about any other public thing) out of the way.
John Jonik • Apr 5, 2011 at 6:45 pm
To ban smoking, but to not ban or even warn about, the toxic, cancer-causing, addiction-enhancing, and untested, unlabeled non-tobacco parts of typical cigarettes, is as unjust, cruel and backwards as it would be to ban being mugged, while doing nothing about the muggers.
There is actually zero public health justification for tobacco bans. No studies of smoke from tobacco (itself) have been presented, any number of products may not contain a shred of tobacco (no tobacco smoke possible), and the studies of “cigarettes” or “smoke” fail uniformly to describe or analyze what was studied. Was it tobacco? Fake tobacco? Or was it multi-additive, dioxin-emitting, pesticide-contaminated, radiation-contaminated (from some fertilizers)smoking products?
We do not know what was “studied”. “Sinful” tobacco, and those “rude” “dirty” smokers (the primary victims) are being scapegoated and criminalized in a global scale industrial evasion of liabilities for secretly poisoning millions of people who thought, and are told, it’s just tobacco. The idea, perhaps above all, is to keep pesticides and chlorine out of the police line-up. Those industries’ insurers and investors prefer to blame the victims too.
It is very troubling that a University, with ample researchers and research tools available, would let such an unjustified, scientifically-fraudulent step towards another prohibition get a foot hold.
For a sort of “smoking 101”, search up terms “Fauxbacco” and “Drake Tobacco Cultivators Handbook”, for starters.
To blame tobacco is to blame Mother Nature (like “acts of God”) and to distract from a huge serious regulatory problem. To blame industrially-contaminated, dioxin-delivering smoking products is to rightly blame the perpetrators.
John S. • Apr 5, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Sounds like the rights of people who dislike smoke are more vital than the rights of those who want to smoke. It will be interesting to see exactly how such an Orwellian rule will be enforced, if at all. Perhaps it is just a “symbol”. Good grief.
It will also be fascinating to see how many students will now become “offenders”. I predict many.
Mike L. • Apr 4, 2011 at 8:27 pm
This will only upset the hipsters
anonymous • Apr 4, 2011 at 7:43 pm
Absolutely ridiculous. People can’t just simply stop smoking. And not allowing people to even smoke in their own cars on campus?! What the hell is that?! I understand non-smokers would love this to pass, but please consider how difficult it is for smokers to quit. We’re not purposely trying to harm you with our secondhand smoke. Smoking in campus buildings is prohibited already as well as within 20 feet of them. Walking through campus though? Just hold your breath for a damned 5 seconds as you walk by. I do however agree with having designated smoking areas, preferably weatherproof (rain and wind coverage) so we don’t have to stand so far away from a building in the puring rain and crazy wind (ahem, the Dubois library) for a fix.
Max • Apr 4, 2011 at 4:19 pm
This is CRAZY. Any smoker on campus, of which their are many, is not going to stop smoking and I can’t see people walking off campus, for many several times a day, just to have a smoke. I can’t see this idea passing but I think it might if there are “designated smoking areas” in which people can have a smoke on campus in less secluded areas…
WOW • Apr 4, 2011 at 3:56 pm
we need to ban smoking on campus. Smokers should no longer be able to harm the health of others. However, tobacco should be allowed to stay. If you choose to do chewing tobacco, that is your own choice and harms only you. I should no longer be subjected to your second hand smoke however.
T • Apr 4, 2011 at 3:53 pm
“compromises the health and well-being of the entire University community”
???
what about all these cars, most of which aren’t needed to get around campus? Lower the amount of those instead
MidnightToker • Apr 4, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Boy.. this will make smoking pot on campus a little harder.. If I get the stink eye for even lighting a smoking product my chances of it being a joint go way down.
Tabasco • Apr 4, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Lowering the cost of admission to a state university is far more important than eliminating smoking on campus. In fact, there are several issues which need pushing instead of this trifling one. If people don’t smoke inside, what is the point? Who is benefiting from this? You americans know time is money- why waste it on this??
Stephen • Apr 4, 2011 at 1:29 pm
I’m not even a smoker and I think this is beyond stupid. Besides being a colossal waste of money and resources, it will just anger a good number of the student body (and probably employees as well) and it seems unenforcable. This is totally unnecessary.
Adam Terry • Apr 4, 2011 at 12:58 pm
I think this is an absurd idea. Why interfere in students lives? This is supposed to be a point in people’s lives where they finally gain some independence for the first time – why inhibit personal freedoms where unnecessary? The UMASS Amherst campus is extremely windy on most days and tends to carry away the smoke preventing tobacco smoke particles from concentrating in any one particular area. On most days smoking is extremely difficult because of this wind.
Is there some way to object at the Faculty Senate meeting? And *why* is this the first the student body is hearing of this? Shouldn’t this be a bigger issue that the students themselves are presented with rather than passed behind closed doors until the last possible second?
Ben Taylor • Apr 4, 2011 at 11:00 am
I will be at this meeting. This proposal is absolutely preposterous, draconian and downright ill-considered. Is it even enforceable? Will police pull over all vehicles piloted by a smoker when they cross onto campus property?
The fact that it would extend to even smoke-less forms of tobacco shows that this has nothing even to do with 2nd-hand concerns- it’s purely a puritanical agenda. If you want to abolish all activities that are bad for one’s health, why not start with an even bigger killer: obesity? Surely the fattening fare from the Bluewall is at least as big a health risk as the occasional cigarette.
To the anti-smokers out there: get over yourselves. This proposal is utter non-sense and should be nixed immediately.
Michael D • Apr 4, 2011 at 10:02 am
Finally! I hate walking to class while battling smoke. It’s everywhere 🙁
Smoker • Apr 4, 2011 at 9:46 am
I think this is an awful idea. People should have the right to choose whether or not they want to smoke and to tell people that they can’t smoke OUTSIDE on this HUGE campus, not even drive through it!? I think that is pushing our freedoms into a deep dark hole. I think a fair solution would be to provide smoking areas throughout campus which would be located in inconspicuous places, this should keep both parties happy.
Dan • Apr 4, 2011 at 9:45 am
Good thing I will have all ready graduated.
Mike • Apr 4, 2011 at 9:13 am
This is ridiculous. If people want to smoke let them smoke. Hopefully the faculty makes the right decision to leave adults alone. Then again, this is academia, and for them to decide for others “what is best for them” would not exactly be unexpected.
Andrew Vernon • Apr 4, 2011 at 7:22 am
I think this is a great idea but a lofty hope at the same time. A ban is typically addressed legally, which I don’t see happening here, and more likely through social pressure. How will this smoking ban be enforced?