Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.


Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS TOBACCO POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Students Working Against Tobacco."— Presentation transcript:


2 Outline  Tobacco Policy Trends  Why Go Tobacco-Free  Opposing Arguments  Recommendations

3 Tobacco Policy Trends  Global  Amsterdam coffee shops tobacco-free, 2008.  France banned smoking in public outdoor places, 2007.  Nationwide  The U.S. Open held first smoke-free major, 2008.  San Francisco pharmacies can’t sell tobacco products because pharmacies are places of healing, not harm, 2008.  D.C. restaurants and bars smoke-free, 2007.  Calabasas, CA prohibits smoking in all indoor and outdoor public places, 2006.  Smoking is prohibited on most So. California beaches and piers, 2003.  Statewide  30 Utah cities/communities have enacted smoke free policies that prohibit smoking on a number of city owned properties including parks, cemeteries, bus stops, recreational areas, etc. Every city in Salt Lake County has an outdoor smoke-free policies, excluding Bluffdale, 2008. Weber-Morgan County banned smoking in all outdoor publicly owned places, 2008. Davis County adopted an outdoor smoking ban, 2007. Utah County has smoke-free parks and tobacco-free hospital campuses, 2008.

4 Tobacco Policy Trends (2)  Universities and Colleges  260 campuses 100% tobacco-free  Utah Colleges  SUU—campus-wide conversation about going tobacco-free.  USU—currently working on policy to prohibit smoking in (or within 25 feet of an entry to) any building owned or controlled by the University (including the football stadium), in courtyards or other areas where air circulation may be impeded by architectural, landscaping, or other barriers.  U of U, SLCC, & Snow—enforce the UICAA - 25 feet rule from any campus building including any entrance-ways, exits, open windows, or air intake of a building.  UVU— prohibits use of tobacco inside campus buildings and within 25 feet of entrances, windows, and air intake vents. Tobacco use also prohibited in partially enclosed areas (such as covered walkways, walkways between sections of buildings, courtyards, and bus stop shelters) and exterior stairways and landings. Tobacco use prohibited at UVU sponsored outdoor events.

5 WSU Students Support Tobacco-Free Policy  Utah Health Behavior Survey (2007)  80% WSU students and 76% higher education students in Utah would support a campus-wide tobacco ban.

6 Why make campuses completely tobacco free?  Promotes clean air and a healthy environment  Assures access for those affected by exposure to SHS  Teaches respect for others  Prepares students for the future  Demonstrates leadership  Eliminates unspoken approval of under age tobacco use

7 Promotes Clean Air & Healthy Environment  EPA classifies secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen containing chemicals such as asbestos and radon.  CDC reports prevalence of smoking in the 18-24 age group is greatest (24.4%).  Stanford Study

8 Assures Access  Higher education institutions are committed to providing access for those with disabilities. Many disabled have conditions which are adversely affected by exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS).  The CDC estimates approximately 10% of the population suffers from conditions aggravated by exposure to SHS. Making campuses completely tobacco-free assures access for anyone adversely impacted by exposure to SHS.  The US Surgeon General reported in 2006 there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

9 Teaches Respect For Others  Recent tragedies on college campuses reveal the need to emphasize respect for others.  Making campuses 100% tobacco-free is done only because tobacco users disrespect the impact of their use on others. Were they to respect the effect of tobacco use on others, there would be no need for such policies.  The tobacco-free policy provides a framework for discussion about respecting others.  All policies teach!

10 Prepares Students For The Future  By adopting this policy the institution prepares its students for entry or advancement in workplaces that are becoming increasingly tobacco-free.  Many states have passes laws requiring medical facilities to be completely tobacco-free. And, according to the US Chamber of Commerce over 7,000 businesses are tobacco-free.  The Cleveland Clinic (third largest medical organization in the world with 33,000 employees) became 100% tobacco-free last year and gave employees 3 months to quit using tobacco or lose their jobs.

11 Demonstrates Leadership  A 100% tobacco-free institution establishes itself as a leader with businesses, industries, health care institutions and municipal governments in the movement to assure clean air and a healthy environment for all.  The institution will be in a position to help other universities in Utah learn how to develop and successfully implement a tobacco-free policy.

12 Eliminates Unspoken Approval Of Underage Tobacco Use  Institutions that allow tobacco use in designated areas or at specified distances from building entrances/exits are giving unspoken approval for the under aged to use tobacco on their campuses.  A completely tobacco-free institution does not face the moral problem of giving silent approval for the under aged to smoke or chew tobacco on campus.  Institutions with 100% tobacco-free policies are overwhelmingly supported by parents of minors.

13 Why do people oppose tobacco-free campus policy?  Tramples on tobacco users rights  Would be unenforceable  Everyone would have to approve  Enrollment would decline  Would push tobacco users off campus  Would be costly

14 Tobacco Users Have Rights  The use of tobacco is not a right. The institution has the authority to restrict or prohibit tobacco use; as it most often does alcohol use. Most institutions restrict smoking to areas outside buildings with the possible exception of on campus living areas.  100% tobacco-free policy often requires re-thinking one’s position in light of evidence of the damaging effects of SHS.  This is the only argument challenging whether the policy is right. It bears more scrutiny than “practicality” arguments.

15 Policy is Unenforceable  Usually presented because enforcement of designated smoking areas or building perimeter restrictions has not worked in the past.  This argument assumes (or supports the notion that) non compliance with a policy is an option. In fact, there is no option for an employee or student to be non compliant with an institutional policy! Expectations must be managed.  The best approach is to focus on educating about the policy and seeking compliance. Essentially, a 100% tobacco-free policy will ultimately be self enforced. In time the culture will embrace and revere the policy as the campus does its dry- campus status.

16 Everyone Needs To Approve The Policy  A bottom up approach to the tobacco-free policy may not be necessary but is sometimes used when the leader perceives a lack of board support or if there is a desire to delay the process.  In recent cases at Pennsylvania State University and University of Arkansas, Fayetteville; the Chancellors succeeded in getting their Boards to approve the policy without approval by employees or students.  In community colleges it is not as common for policies to be established from the bottom up but student and employee support is often solicited.

17 Enrollment Would Decline  There is often fear of undesirable consequences when a controversial policy is proposed. This argument is based on the notion that individuals who oppose the policy will decide not to attend in greater number than those who decide to attend in greater number than those who decide to attend because of the policy.  There is no way to prove who decides to express interest in a college because of a policy.

18 Would Push Tobacco-Users On Neighbors  This argument is dependent on the proximity of commercial and residential areas to the campus. When there are neighbors who might be affected it is important to discuss the policy with them.  A number of institutions have found support for tobacco-free campus policy among potential residential and or commercial property owners. Understanding the impact on neighbors is important in developing a successful plan.  This has caused some institutions to choose to “not enforce the tobacco-free policy in vehicles parked on campus.”

19 Would Be Costly  The cost of messaging/signage and other expenses of making our campus tobacco-free are minimal. Based on feedback from tobacco-free institutions the cost of implementing and maintaining the policy is less than the cost of removing tobacco litter from the campus before the policy went into effect.  It is recommended any revenue from citations for violation of the policy be applied to the tobacco-free education and maintenance account.

20 Recommendations  Campus-wide outdoor smoking ban  Adoption of a formal anti-tobacco advertising policy  Increased marketing of smoking cessation resources  Prohibiting all campus entities from accepting monies from tobacco companies

21 WSU Rodeo Club  U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company (USSTC) and NIRA  Annual contribution to WSU $3,000-$5,000 annually  Alternative campus or community sponsorship

22 Time Frame 1. Agree and announce we are going to be tobacco free by such and such a time (one year out and beginning of new term is best) 2. Communicate why, when, and what it means through:  All recruitment materials, HR, website, orientations etc.  Education campaign (press releases, signs, newspaper articles, focus groups, etc.)

23 Higher Education Policies Higher education institutions use behavioral policies regularly to:  reduce illness and injury  eliminate hazards, unsafe behaviors and conditions  protect the greater campus community


Similar presentations

Ads by Google