In order to promote the health and well-being of the campus body, Mark Yudof issued a mandate on January 9, 2012 to all UC Chancellors to implement a smoke-free policy on their campuses. UC Berkeley has made a draft Tobacco-Free Policy in accordance with this mandate to go into effect on January 1, 2014. This policy states: “the use of tobacco, smokeless tobacco, or unregulated nicotine products (i.e. “e-cigarettes”) is strictly prohibited in indoor and outdoor spaces owned or leased by UC Berkeley.” In the second campus-wide letter regarding this policy from August 1, Ron Coley claimed “The draft policy establishes no expectation or requirement that members of our community stop smoking; however, the campus strongly supports those ready to quit.”

It is refreshing to know that UC Berkeley is taking major steps to promote public health, and it of no surprise that nicotine was the first step in this campaign. Unfortunately, the recent Tobacco-Free Campus mandate appears very desultory and may in fact create more problems than it fixes. The University proceeds to launch a full-out offensive on tobacco, and all tobacco-related products, without compromises, and without realizing that the casualties may be the very people
that it is trying to protect. The University rationalizes the mandate by pointing out the negative effects of tobacco: “smoking and other tobacco use contribute to University costs in many ways, including costs associated with absenteeism, health care, and medical insurance, potential fire damage, cleaning and maintenance costs.” This argument significantly complicates the issue at hand, given that there are a multitude of other activities allowed on campus that also indirectly impact the University’s coffers: contact sports, fatty Crossroads meals, flyering, etc. Numerous essays could be devoted to the discrepancies and biases within this policy, but let us begin with the most blatant incongruity of this policy—the ban on e-cigarettes.

The Tobacco-Free website uses the following rationale for the ban, “The safety of e-cigarettes remains unclear. Some researchers are concerned that new health risks may emerge from their long-term use. As research continues on e-cigarette safety and efficacy as a cessation tool, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and the World Health Organization do not consider e-cigarettes to be safe at this time.” We would urge the UC Administration to put pressure on the FDA to regulate e-cigarettes soon, so that consumers may make more informed decisions about the products they choose to use, but ignorance is not an adequate rationale for a ban. Informing and are simply unable to quit or curb their nicotine consumption with the help of nicotine gum and patches alone.

Being dependent on nicotine is by itself a challenging obstacle to overcome and many smokers want to quit or reduce their consumption of nicotine; therefore, taking away an effective alternative method of consumption acts as an unjust form of punishment to a group of people who are already ostracized, stressed, and self-conscious about their habit. The safety of the student body is naturally in the University’s interest to promote, however, a prohibition of a legal and smoke-free product is a violation of the user’s rights masked under a public health campaign.

E-cigarette users are not the only victims of this unfair mandate—those that choose to use other alternative methods such as chewable tobacco, and even herbal cigarettes, which contain no nicotine in them, are equally unfortunate, since their product of choice happens to have a loose association with smoking and tobacco. After examining the list of products that are to be banned, it becomes very difficult to find a general over-arching category that encompasses them all. Is it
smoke? No, e-cigarettes and chewable tobacco are also banned. Is it nicotine? No, herbal cigarettes are banned and nicotine gum and patches are to be handed out by UHS. Is it things that happen to have any kind of association with tobacco and smoking? This seems to better fit the bill.

The purported goal of the Tobacco-Free Campus mandate does not at all align with the methodology that is going to be used to achieve that goal. If the UC Policy Makers do not fully understand the nature of nicotine addiction, then perhaps they should engage in a more democratic discussion of the issue, before issuing a completely undemocratic mandate that is contradictory and blatantly discriminatory. We demand that the policy be amended to better suit the needs of smokers who are trying to quit or find better alternative to tobacco, mainly by removing the ban on e-cigarettes and herbal cigarettes, or by providing us with sufficient evidence about the harmful nature of such products. Until then, the current Tobacco-Free Campus mandate stands as a highly discriminatory bill that does not address the public health concerns of the University of California, but rather acts as a political move to gain popularity by punishing the most hated minority in the United States—smokers.