UCSF bans e-cigarette use where smoking is banned

[zoiDman]

It depends. How would people feel if UCSF was trying to ban bottled drinks because minors could be hiding alcohol in the them? Or baked goods because people could be eating pot brownies?

Just throwing it out there.

One thing to consider. Very Few Polices are based on One and Only One factor.

I don't think UCSF decision to ban e-Cigs is any different.

BTW – Food and Drink is Banned inside all Building except the Cafeteria.

And if someone wants to put Vodka in the Dr. Pepper, isn’t that pretty easy to detect be merely smelling the Dr. Pepper? Who can you tell what is in an e-liquid.

Not Defending or Condoning this ban. I can just see other Factors which might influence a Policy Maker.

 

[Thulium]

Just throwing it out there.

One thing to consider. Very Few Polices are based on One and Only One factor.

I don't think UCSF decision to ban e-Cigs is any different.

BTW – Food and Drink is Banned inside all Building except the Cafeteria.

And if someone wants to put Vodka in the Dr. Pepper, isn’t that pretty easy to detect be merely smelling the Dr. Pepper? Who can you tell what is in an e-liquid.

Not Defending or Condoning this ban. I can just see other Factors which might influence a Policy Maker.

Chewing gum is a useful analogy here. How can you tell what sort of chemicals might be in chewing gum? Could it be laced with nicotine or other addictive stimulants like caffeine? Could it have lots of other natural or artificial flavorings that we don't know if they are completely safe? Could it be used by smokers as a temporary "bridge" product to circumvent smoking bans rather than being forced to completely quit?


On second thought, maybe that's not a good idea. In one day, a person can chew gigantic wads of gum, but most people won't vape more than a teaspoon (5ml) or so of e-liquid. Gum is a type of candy and only children like candy and we don't want to market to children. Surely no adults would be interested in nicotine gum. ....Oh wait, don't those saintly pharmaceutical companies have something along those lines? Uh...hey look! Pinball! NICORETTE® QuickMist Pinball | Nicorette

ETA: But seriously, can anyone give me a good reason why banning or restricting where you can use an e-cigarette makes any more sense than banning or restricting where you can use chewing gum or medicinal inhalers?

 

[TennDave]

Simply put, PV's and e-cigs emit vapor and vapor looks like smoke. Since it looks like smoke, it must be smoke and smoke is bad for ya...that's the logic there... Either uninformed or informed and don't care or informed and has another agenda- it all stacks up to banning our use. Oh, and I forgot- Nicotine is highly addictive and is one of the most poisonous substances known to man- how many times have we all heard that? Gee Wiz.... We're putting that deadly poison in where? Our lungs- OMG- we have to save the vapors- make them quit...for their own good, by gosh...

 

[zoiDman]

I always subscribed to the thought that to Change a Policy you had to understand the Motivations behind a Policy.

I guess that concept is Out of Vogue.

 

[Thulium]

Simply put, PV's and e-cigs emit vapor and vapor looks like smoke. Since it looks like smoke, it must be smoke and smoke is bad for ya...that's the logic there... Either uninformed or informed and don't care or informed and has another agenda- it all stacks up to banning our use. Oh, and I forgot- Nicotine is highly addictive and is one of the most poisonous substances known to man- how many times have we all heard that? Gee Wiz.... We're putting that deadly poison in where? Our lungs- OMG- we have to save the vapors- make them quit...for their own good, by gosh...

As long as it is clear that the whole "problem" is what it looks like. If we follow this logic, all illusions and technologies that "look like" something that is prohibited should be treated as if the prohibited actually occurred. It doesn't matter that you didn't actually saw a woman in half, it looked like you did so you get The Chair. "I'm not smoking, I'm an amateur magician practicing the illusion of smoking." On some days, just breathing "looks like" smoke--should that be banned as well? What about COPD or asthma inhalers? We should probably ban those too. Oh and video games--those allow the "gamers" (addicts) to mimic all sorts of prohibited activities, including but not limited to murder and Grand Theft Auto...ban those right away.

 

[DC2]

I don't want to do this, but I see the argument from the other side, no matter how incorrect I believe it is.

And the difference between vapor and the other examples given boils down to one thing...
We are exhaling into the air something visible which other people will to some extent be breathing.

Personally, I think they ought to thank me for purifying the air for them.
But I can see why they would think they have to be concerned about what it is they are breathing in.

 

[Thulium]

I don't want to do this, but I see the argument from the other side, no matter how incorrect I believe it is.

And the difference between vapor and the other examples given boils down to one thing...
We are exhaling into the air something visible which other people will to some extent be breathing.

Personally, I think they ought to thank me for purifying the air for them.
But I can see why they would think they have to be concerned about what it is they are breathing in.

I see the argument from the other side as well, but I think that how incorrect it is does matter: It is based on a misconception (aka a lie) and instead of attempting to correct the problem through education, they magnify it by changing the meanings of words to include things that were never intended simply to advance a cause whose true motivations are wolves in sheeps clothing. (In this case, drug dealers wearing suits and FDA credentials)

 

[kristin]

I don't want to do this, but I see the argument from the other side, no matter how incorrect I believe it is.

And the difference between vapor and the other examples given boils down to one thing...
We are exhaling into the air something visible which other people will to some extent be breathing.

Personally, I think they ought to thank me for purifying the air for them.
But I can see why they would think they have to be concerned about what it is they are breathing in.

Except this policy applies to all campus buildings. That means a student cannot use an e-cigarette in the privacy of their own room (home), as well. How is an e-cigarette in one's own room offending anyone else? And it includes in your car parked anywhere on campus, as well. Not to mention that they want to go "tobacco free' by 2014. That means banning snus, lozenges and strips - which create no air pollution whatsoever.

Either way, smoking and vaping bans unfairly single out ONE air pollutant over hundreds of others. They don't ban the use hairspray, spray deodorant or air fresheners. Air fresheners may contain toxins and carcinogens, aren't regulated by the FDA and have not been tested for long-term exposure. Since air fresheners aren't addictive, they may be even more of a preventable source of diseases than smoke. And BBQ grill smoke is allowed on campus - how is that any safer? Not to mention all of the vehicle exhaust.

If it was a universal policy on air pollutants and didn't just single out vapers/smokers that would be one thing. But it's simply that smokers/vapers are an easy target and it's just a "feel good" policy that does little or nothing to improve air quality on campus.

 

[zoiDman]

...

Either way, smoking and vaping bans unfairly single out ONE air pollutant over hundreds of others. ...

I suppose that if Air Pollution was the Only Factor in this ban that this might be a Valid Argument.

 

[kristin]

What is smoke if not air pollution?

 

[zoiDman]

What is smoke if not air pollution?

What if "Air Pollution" was Not the Only Deciding Factor in Enacting a e-Cig Ban?

If there is More than One Factor in Deciding to Ban e-cigs, should the Other Factors be considered?

 

[kristin]

I. Purpose
The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) has adopted a smoke-free campus policy in order to minimize health risk, improve the quality of air, and enhance the environment in all facilities.

I see no other deciding factor listed here.

 

[zoiDman]

I see no other deciding factor listed here.

So just because there are No Other Factors listed in some PR Statement means that there are No Other Factors?

Hummm? OK.

Look. I don't think this is a Winnable fight to get Vaping Allowed inside Public Buildings. Let alone a School. But if you or CASAA want to fight it. Great.

Perhaps I can help you in your Fight.

Don't Ever Think that Policy is Based on One or Two Factors when Dealing with an Issue like this. Many Factors go into a Policy decision such as this one. Also what is in a PR Statement Usually Does Not reflex All of the Factors that went into a Policy Decision.

If I were on the Board Of Regents of UCSF and your Organization, or Anyone else, wanted to discuss a Proposed Ban on UCSF with myself, the Chancellor, the Dean of Academic Affairs, UCSF's Legal Counsel, a Representative of the Teachers Union, etc, here are a few questions I would want to ask you.

1 - Do you have any Published Peer Reviewed Studies to the Potential Harm e-Cigarette use May or May Not cause?

2 - Do you have any Published Peer Reviewed Studies to the Potential Harm Non Users of e-Cigarettes May or May Not receive from Second Hand Vape?

3 - Can you provide Any Information regarding what Governing Standards that e-Liquids are Produced and a List of All Chemicals that are Present in an e-Liquid?

4 - Can you cite any Legal Judgments either For or Against a Plaintiff in the state of California stemming from an e-Cigarette rated Lawsuit?

5 - Can you cite any Legal Judgments either For or Against a Plaintiff in Any state regarding an e-Cigarette related Lawsuit?

6 - Can you cite a Legal Precedent that the UCSF does Not have the Legal Right to Impose an e-Cigarette Ban on its Campus or any Buildings that the UCSF directly Controls?

7 - Can an Illegal Substance or Narcotic be Ingested Using an e-Cigarette?

8 - Can you Provide any Documentation regarding whether or not a Person is Likely or Not Likely to start using an e-Cigarette if they do not Currently use Nicotine?

9 - Can you give Any Compelling Reasons why a User of an e-Cigarette Can Not Abstain from Using an e-Cigarette while on the UCSF Campus?

---

You might be able to strike a Compromise on the In Car portion of a Campus Ban. The In Car portion could be Argued that it is an Enclosed Space in a Open Area which is Privately Owned. And that Occupants of a Car do so Under a Voluntary Basis. But the Rest of the Campus is Going to be a Very Hard Sell.

The Risk of Legal Litigation is a Huge Factor. Also item #7 & #8 is something that Policy Makers at Public School System will Strongly Consider.

Like I said before, I don't see getting a Ban Like this Overturned. Or even Future Bans like this Stopped. But perhaps with some Very Favorable Documentation for the 9 Items list above your might be able to Win a Small Victory of getting Vaping Allowed in a Car in a Outside Open Parking Area.

----

BTW - I'm Not for All Bans on e-Cigarettes. I can though see the Factors going into How and Why Bans are Imposed devoid of Many Emotional Biases.

It Really Doesn't Matter if I or Anyone is For or Against something like this. I am just Looking at it Objectively.

Perhaps it might even Help those who Choose to Fight such a Ban.

 

[rothenbj]

The Godber Blueprint in action.

 

[Thulium]

What is smoke if not air pollution?

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. From wikipedia:

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), also known as poly-aromatic hydrocarbons or polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, are potent atmospheric pollutants that consist of fused aromatic rings and do not contain heteroatoms or carry substituents.[2] Naphthalene is the simplest example of a PAH. PAHs occur in oil, coal, and tar deposits, and are produced as byproducts of fuel burning (whether fossil fuel or biomass). As a pollutant, they are of concern because some compounds have been identified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic. PAHs are also found in cooked foods. Studies have shown that high levels of PAHs are found, for example, in meat cooked at high temperatures such as grilling or barbecuing, and in smoked fish.[3][4][5]
They are also found in the interstellar medium, in comets, and in meteorites and are a candidate molecule to act as a basis for the earliest forms of life.[6] In graphene the PAH motif is extended to large 2D sheets.

To my knowledge, all studies on e-cigarette to date have failed to detect any PAH in the cartridge or vapor.

 

[Retriever]

I think we should change the term from "e-cigarette" to "smokeless cigarette". That might sound simple, but might help those who don't want to educate themselves.

 

[Thulium]

I think we should change the term from "e-cigarette" to "smokeless cigarette". That might sound simple, but might help those who don't want to educate themselves.

How about "Smoke-FreE-Cigarette"? To some extent "smokeless" is associated with old-fashioned tobacco products that pose known health risks. We can turn would-be ANTZ into advocates: "Want smoke-free air? Offer someone who can't or won't quit a SmokefreE-Cigarette." Instead of demanding proof that Smokefree-cigarettes don't have any unforeseen health risks and that they are "effective" (wait...we can't just vote with our dollars???), they should be asking us for our opinion on which products work best and who makes the highest quality Smokefree-liquids so they can recommend them to people who might already have a disease caused by smoking but have been unable or unwilling to successfully quit smoking completely.

 

[kristin]

So just because there are No Other Factors listed in some PR Statement means that there are No Other Factors?

Hummm? OK.

Look. I don't think this is a Winnable fight to get Vaping Allowed inside Public Buildings. Let alone a School. But if you or CASAA want to fight it. Great.

First of all, that wasn't a PR statement, that is from the actual policy document. And yes - if you are going to infringe on individual freedom you SHOULD be required to list all of the reasons WHY.

Second - are you just intentionally trying to miss the point or do you just like a good debate?

This is not just "in a school." This is an entire campus and grounds which also include living accommodations and hospitals. It's also just the first step to banning ALL tobacco products. Smokeless tobacco products, which are no more harmful than caffeine products, are being singled out. Someone dependent upon caffeine to get through their day is fine, but someone dependent upon nicotine is screwed. If this school for ADULTS is getting government funding, then the chance that smokers and other tobacco using taxpayers contribute to those funds, yet are being denied the same advantages and acceptance as caffeine users.

All of your questions that they would "require" are irrelevant. No other products are being required to provide the same evidence to be authorized for use on the property. All of those questions are assuming the lack of evidence to be acceptable for banning a legal activity, not to mention that this product is not required by any government agency to provide such evidence. It's like banning a new car because it cannot provide evidence it could drive under water!

I would agree with you that the owner of a private property has the right to control what happens on his or her property. But a partial owner of this property are the taxpayers of California. If the GOVERNMENT is going to restrict my actions, it had better be the one providing the evidence why I cannot do something on grounds my tax dollars help pay for. If a government or institution is going to restrict an individual's behavior, IT has the burden of proof that the behavior is a threat to the rest of society. They cannot, under any circumstances, just say "we don't know if it's safe or not but we aren't going to let you do it anyhow." Seriously, in what other venue other than this would we ever allow them to do this?? Anything that has EVER been banned has had public outcry or evidence of harm supporting the ban except with e-cigarette use - which has had neither. I take that back - other than growing hemp, I can think of no other product or activity that was banned without public outcry or evidence of harm.

The point is - how do we let society start controlling the actions of other members of society without any evidence that those actions are hurting anyone? Do you not see the infringement on liberty and freedom here at all? And its not stopping here. They also just came out with a report on how sugar is basically the new tobacco. Can you imagine the uproar if they tried to ban all products containing sugar from the property without any evidence of harm? You can drink ALCOHOL on the campus, for crying out loud. Alcohol is also known to be addictive, a gateway drug, harmful and its use has also been shown to be potentially harmful to bystanders (violence, drunk driving.) How can they justify allowing a known harmful substance while banning another that they have no evidence of harm to users or bystanders?

Seriously, if my college-age daughter had switched to vaping and she now has to go off campus just for a LEGAL puff, while other kids are drinking at a party on campus, you can bet I'd be mad as hell that my daughter is being unfairly singled out when I pay taxes and pay tuition just the same as their parents. Not to mention that they could be putting my daughter in harm's way if she has no one to protect her while off campus to use her e-cigarette. Sure, you can say "just quit" but other folks aren't required to "just quit" their legal activities in order to stay on campus. There's a lawsuit I bet they didn't consider, but since nicotine users have been so villified, people would probably take the attitude that it was "her own fault." Kind of like the old days of blaming victims of sexual assault for what they were wearing or where they were.

No, I don't think this is a fight CASAA would take on after the fact anymore. Besides, Stan Glantz is one of the most rabid of the ANTZ and he seems to be a god there. So it would be pointless. But that doesn't mean that I won't complain or write about how ridiculous, unfair and dangerous allowing this type of policy go unchecked really is. But if people do not get outraged at this; if people have the same attitude of "oh well" and "not anything we can do" or "that's reasonable" instead of getting angry and fighting hard when this kind of policy, legislation or ordinance is suggested where THEY live, work or play, then the future of vaping and tobacco harm reduction is doomed. Not to mention that this is just the first steps in the prohibitionist handbook. They will NOT stop at tobacco - they are already moving on to sugar, salt and fat. Then it's sex, guns, and any other individual freedom that allows for free will and accountability to ourselves and our families. We may as well be the tube-fed babies in the Matrix movie after that.

It's not just about UCSF - it's about all of the organizations, businesses and governments that will follow suit because no one AT LEAST stood up and said, "NO. THIS IS WRONG."

 

[zoiDman]

…Second - are you just intentionally trying to miss the point or do you just like a good debate? …

LOL.

I do Love a Good Debate. Not going to deny that.

I don’t have to Agree with a Topic to Debate it. The key is to Emotionally remove yourself from the issue to be able to see Both Sides.

You make some good points in your post. But isn’t there One Key Concept in my post that Trumps All Arguments.

“6 - Can you cite a Legal Precedent that the UCSF does Not have the Legal Right to Impose an e-Cigarette Ban on its Campus or any Buildings that the UCSF directly Controls?”

We can Debate Moral Issues and what is Fair and Unfair in the World until we are Both Blue in the Face. But if the Answer to Question #6 is “No” than is Debating it Really Necessary?

Shouldn't the Debate be Is It Legal or is it Not Legal to Ban e-Cigarette Use?

If an Individual, Company, Government or Legal Entity has the Legal Right to Ban the Use of e-Cigarettes in areas under which they control, there isn’t much that can be done about it.

It is going to take a Lawsuit where a Plaintiff’s Rights were Denied because of an e-Cigarette Use Ban to change anything. Kinda a “Had to Sit at the Back of the Bus” type suit for things to change.

My thinking is that People Passionate about e-Cigarette Use should put their Time and Effort into Curbing some of the Current Pending Legislature proposing Severe Taxation on e-Cigarettes and e-Liquids. These are Winnable Fights.

BTW – Very Good Job CASAA and Others did with HB 2557.

 

[Turnip]

Surely if the debate was based on common sense eCigs would be now be embraced by those who profess so loudly to care about Public Health, but thats not the agenda, pretty obviously.
When the prohibitionists, zealots, and other Health Nazis have stopped everyone on the Planet from doing anything they disapprove of, when everyones civil liberties have been stripped away for their own good-they still wont be satisfied-ever.!
I suspect the Drinkers and chubbys are in the crosshairs, perhaps they're running out of Smokers,