WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY
CAMPUS TOBACCO POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS
Students Working
Against Tobacco
Outline
Tobacco Policy Trends
 Why Go Tobacco-Free
 Opposing Arguments
 Recommendations

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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 drycampus status.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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
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
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.)
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