Tobacco use is widely recognized as a major preventable cause of many diseases in smokers and non-smokers alike. It includes but is not limited to smoking, chewing tobacco, snuff, snus, and any product that simulates tobacco use. To provide a safe, healthy, comfortable, and productive environment for all who visit, study, or work on campus, Drake is revising its Smoke-Free Campus Policy to include all tobacco or tobacco-like products. Drake follows many other institutions of higher education in making this revision, including Grinnell College, Iowa’s state institutions, and DMACC.
A tobacco-free policy eliminates any confusion for students, faculty, staff, and visitors about what is or is not allowed on campus. It also shows our commitment to helping employees, students, and visitors live longer and healthier lives.
The “Tobacco-Free Campus Policy” is posted on the University-wide policy website for your review, along with an FAQ. Please forward comments and concerns regarding the policy to dupolicies@drake.edu by Sept. 27. In keeping with the policy on Policy Development, Approval and Communication, the comments will be submitted as a part of the president’s review and approval process.
—Linda Feiden, Assistant Director, Wellness & Engagement
It’s one thing to prevent students from smoking, which it can have a negative, second-hand affect on others in the vicinity, but I question the Univeristy’s right to prevent items like chewing tobacco which only have a negative affect on the user. Nothing in this news item or any of the linked documents provides justification for the Univeristy to restrict activities that only affect the actor. There is a difference between “helping” employees, students, and visitors to live healthier lives and forcing them to. One is admirable, the other is totalitarian.
Additionally, I don’t know of anyone who was confused about the previous policy. “Don’t smoke” is fairly straight forward. The new, more complicated policy is not quite as clear. That’s not to say that new policy is impossible to understand, but increasing clarity is hardly a justification for its adoption.
Finally, the fact that Grinnell College, Iowa’s state institutions, and DMACC are doing something doesn’t make it right. I sincerely hope we aren’t just doing this because everybody else is doing it.
I don’t appreciate other people telling me what I should and shouldn’t do for my “health”. Nothing was confusing about the policy the school is just buying into the villainization of tobacco. Sure it shortens your life but it greatly depends on how much you choose to consume. Same thing with eating food. Why not just ban all the soda, all the caffeine, and all the junk food? Unhealthy eating causes just as many problems as smoking cigarettes does. I’m an adult I should have free choice over what I put in my body and what I enjoy; you aren’t my parents. Isn’t it already enough to push smokers off campus just to hit a dart for 5 minutes? That’s weak, DU, just weak.
This expansion of the policy appears to be an example of regulatory creep. Bossiness seems to have an unstoppable growing power. What is the justification for prohibition of individual activities that don’t harm others? E-cigarettes don’t emit second hand smoke, and smokeless tobacco only harms the person doing it. E-cigarettes may be a healthier alternative to smoking, and they are definitely less intrusive on the comfort of others than tobacco smoking.