The Austin Community College District Board of Trustees voted November 17 to expand the college’s smoke-free policy to also prohibit nicotine vapor products and devices (such as electronic cigarettes) and smokeless tobacco products. The policy is effective January 5.
“We want to maintain a healthy and safe environment for our students and employees,” says Dr. Mary Hensley, ACC executive vice president of operations. “Research indicates that smokeless tobacco products pose significant health hazards, causing cancer and other diseases.”
ACC’s current smoke-free policy, adopted in October 2011, prohibits the use of smoke-producing tobacco in district facilities, on college grounds, and in ACC-owned vehicles. With the decision to become tobacco-free, ACC joins a growing number of Texas colleges and universities opting to become both smoke- and tobacco-free.
The board’s action also extends existing policy prohibiting tobacco-related advertising and sponsorships at ACC events and in college publications to include smoke, nicotine vapor, and related products.
In January signage and informational materials will be placed at all ACC campuses and facilities. ACC’s Human Resources Department also will offer smoking cessation workshops for faculty, staff, and students.
Back to Top
By Karen Gonzales November 19, 2014 - 8:35 pm
Please include making ACC a marijuana smoke free environment too. It has been an issue and if someday it becomes legal to smoke marijuana in Texas or Austin whether it is for medicinal purposes or not, I don’t think it’s cool to be smoking that on campus.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Karen B. Gonzales
Director Of Communications
Student Government Association
Austin Community College District
Ph: 512.669.5414
Cell Ph: 512.779.2541
Fax: 512.669.5303
By Jeff November 24, 2014 - 5:27 pm
I need it for my philosophy class though. Haha!
By Joel November 26, 2014 - 1:25 pm
You must distance your self as far as possible from your body and its desires Jeff, only then can you truly practice philosophy.
By Jesse Williams December 2, 2014 - 11:26 pm
Whose philosophy class are you in? Cause if that is what you learned, I don’t know how the hell you passed. Just a thought.
By Rose November 25, 2014 - 9:58 am
Pretty sure ACC already is a marijuana smoke free environment. We can start mandatory drug testing of students as part of registration, though, if you like!
By Karen Gonzales November 28, 2014 - 10:31 pm
Actually, it needs to have better monitoring. The question is how do you monitor it when it gets smoked in the restroom?
By Karen Gonzales November 19, 2014 - 8:39 pm
I also want to add, having a smoke free environment at school is important too because some people like myself might be a chronic asthmatic, and smoke can really irritate an asthmatic.
Thank you.
Karen
By oppressed Student November 20, 2014 - 6:57 pm
Thoroughly disgusted at the lack of communication prior to such a big decision. Get your facts straight before you jump to conclusions.
And your remark about “people like myself might be a chronic asthmatic, and smoke can really irritate an asthmatic” … let me educate you;
Vaporizers and e-cigs produce vapor
yes thats right vapor witch is
vapor
[vey-per] Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
a visible exhalation, as fog, mist, steam, smoke, or noxious gas, diffused through or suspended in the air:
the vapors rising from the bogs.
2.
Physics. a gas at a temperature below its critical temperature.
3.
a substance converted into vapor for technical or medicinal uses.
4.
a combination of a vaporized substance and air.
5.
gaseous particles of drugs that can be inhaled as a therapeutic agent.
so by your statement; as a chronic asthmatic “Smoke” is a trigger
so since y’all didn’t do the research hear or some of the numerous examples available via Google
Example 1
Project:Vape » What is Vaping? » Second Hand Vapor
Second Hand Vapor
For the user, it’s obvious that vaping is a great alternative to smoking. Many of us, including myself, now prefer vaping to smoking entirely. I really enjoy all the different flavor options and being able to vape a single hit or two without dedicating 5-10 minutes to go have a cigarette.
Now what about what you exhale when vaping? We already know what’s in the e-juice, but what exactly is coming out of our lungs into the air to potentially bother those around us?
The most recent study I know of is conducted by clearstream working closely with utah vapers. The study has completed and is now in the process of full doctoral review so the summary is no longer published at that page. The short version is that second hand vapor contains no harmful chemicals and no nicotine. Really the only possible irritants that I can think of are the trace amounts of flavor.
Here is an excerpt of what used to be there:
In December 2011, the Utah Vapers began working closely with FlavourArt from Milan Italy to research the current studies on electronic cigarettes. What we found is a lack of evidence to support the belief we all had in that there was no harm to bystanders in exhaled vapor (second-hand vapor). After months of coordination, Clearstream Air was announced to the world electronic cigarette community on 22 March 2012 – also known as World Vaping Day.
Simply put, the Clearstream Air project is a comparative evaluation between tobacco and electronic cigarettes and hoped to draw a positive conclusion about the lack of harm with electronic cigarette usage. The study focused on the release of airborne contaminants in closed room environment to determine if there are any contaminants and if so, at what levels.
The following substances were measured for in the exhaled smoke and vapor.
Carbon monoxide CO
Nitrogen oxides NOx
Acrolein
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons PAHs
Volatile Organic Compounds VOC
Total Organic Carbon TOC
Nicotine
Glycerine and propylene glycol (components of the electronic cigarettes fluids)
Study Results
As the study has been completed and a professional doctoral review completed, I’m proud to announce that the results are better than we could have anticipated. In short, there is NO harm found in exhaled vapor from electronic cigarettes. The most exciting results I found is that testing did not detect any nicotine in the exhaled vapor. Now, you may ask why I find this exciting. Well, my excitement is on two levels. 1) This means that the human lung absorbs most if not all of the nicotine which has long been questioned within the global electronic cigarette community; and 2) This also means no nicotine was detected in the ‘second-hand vapor’. All other substances measured for electronic cigarettes were FAR below allowable levels for human inhalation according to the FDA. In fact, the levels were so low that it proves it is more hazardous to your health to breath the air in any major downtown metropolitan city during heightened times of driving.
I invite you to review the study yourself and draw your own conclusions. If you are in the medical or scientific fields, please take the invitation to review the report in detail and let me know if you draw a different conclusion. If you prefer to wait for the full doctoral paper, we anticipate the full peer reviewed release of this paper to occur near the end of July 2012.
Clearstream Air Laboratory Results
Air filter from tobacco cigarette room (19 tobacco cigarettes)
Air filter from electronic cigarette room (1.5ml eLiquid)
ecig second hand vapor study results
Should you wish to discuss the results of this study further or have any questions, please contact Aaron: [email protected]
Example 2
Many the published lab tests we know of have been conducted by people who did not know how an e-cig works, and who did not even perform complete tests of the mainstream vapor ingredients. The ecigs were tested upside down, which means they would have quickly dried out and melted the internals [1]. There is no known test of 100% of the vapor ingredients including water. So even ‘mainstream’ vapor has not been tested properly or fully.
In multiple sample tests, it was found that only the first test was accurate as the mist could not be cleaned out of the equipment, sticking to the inside, so that all subsequent tests were contaminated by the first. And after that is solved, nobody has even suggested how a filter to replicate the lungs could be constructed; but since all tests that used tobacco cigarette smoke protocols ended up faulty, it can be assumed that this much more complex test is beyond the capabilities of current lab technicians in this field.
You can make a rough estimate, with little basis for the evidence though. It goes like this:
1. Mainstream vapor probably consists of about 66% water, 3% PG, 1% glycerine, 1% nicotine, and the bulk flavoring. Yes, that is a lot of flavoring – but as everything else is accounted for, that’s probably what it is (plus any flavor diluents such as alcohol).
2. After filtration by the lungs and mucous membranes of the mouth and nose; plus additional water since all exhaled air contains water; ignoring air gases such as nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide and argon; the vapor could consist of about 90% water, 0.5% PG, 0.1% glycerine, 0.1% nicotine, and around 9% flavoring.
The water is harmless, as is the PG and glycerine. PG is likely to be found in the air in large buildings such as hospitals since it is used in the air conditioning plant to kill airborne pathogens such as Legionnaire’s Disease (and as a harmless, non-toxic antifreeze) [2]. The nicotine is likely to be in such small quantities that it is much less than the amounts in the daily diet (everyone consumes nicotine in the diet, and everyone tests positive for nicotine as a result – it is neither an alien toxic chemical nor harmful). The largest ingredient of any interest is likely to be the flavoring. So far we think it unlikely that this is likely to cause harm on a wide scale, if at all.
Some people are intolerant to some flavors, and some flavors are known to be harmful if inhaled, although these are generally avoided now. It’s basically down to whether or not you think chocolate flavor in minute quantities and often undetectable is likely to harm bystanders. There is reasonable evidence that room air fresheners would be worse in this regard, as some of the aromatics and excipients they use would not be safe for use in an ecig, and because the scent (and therefore the quantity in the atmosphere) is much stronger. Often, you can vape away without anyone catching the aroma of what you are vaping. A room air freshener though will always be easily detectable unless it has been exhausted (since that is its purpose).
Many of us would be happy to vape in a room with our children as the street air is likely to be far more contaminated. It’s about the same as ultra-low amounts of disco fog. Individuals may feel differently of course, especially if they are mega-vapor producers, as some are. Using the average mini ecig probably wouldn’t even be detectable. However I don’t know if even minuscule quantities of certain compounds could affect pets, I’d imagine that fish and birds would be most vulnerable if so.
[1] Check the photos: there are about twenty or so tests, all incomplete; and all that included pics showed the device being used inverted, in a manner in which it could not possibly work correctly. An ecig is a gravity-fed liquid-feed device like an electric kettle.
[2] This is actually the follow-on from tests as far back as the 1940s that clearly showed PG mist in hospital ward air killed airborne bacteria and viruses, reducing infections by 95% in some wards tested. It was not necessary to take this further, since it became used in the aircon plant, and performs the same function. As pathogens clearly spread into building air from the aircon cooling/filtration water, it is assumed that PG molecules do exactly the same, since they are demonstrated to adapt to air dispersal so very well.
Rest assured i will be conducting a more thorough search of studies and results.
By Karen Gonzales November 23, 2014 - 10:30 pm
Thank you for the information. So if I understand correctly, electronic cigarettes do not produce smoke, but still produce a substance that can be harmful.
When I say, “I also want to add, having a smoke free environment at school is important too because some people like myself might be a chronic asthmatic, and smoke can really irritate an asthmatic,” I am referring to the issue about marijuana smoking.
Liquid nicotine can be lethal. It can cause harm when it’s inhaled, but it can also be harmful when ingested or absorbed through your skin. Only a small dose is dangerous — less than one tablespoon of many of the e-liquids on the market is enough to kill an adult, and as little as a teaspoon could kill a child) [source: Richtel]. The number of calls to poison control centers regarding e-cigarette nicotine-infused liquids rose sharply every month between September 2010 and February 2014, from just one call per month to as many as 215 — that’s a rise from 0.3 percent to 41.7 percent of all emergency calls. As many as 51.1 percent of those calls involved accidental poisoning of kids under the age of 5 (roughly 42 percent involved adults age 20 or older) [source: CDC].
Some testing suggests it’s not only the nicotine that may be dangerous. Certain e-cigarette devices may also release metals during use — including tin in some cases — as well as other impurities known to be toxic and/or carcinogenic.
By Glenn Conrad November 29, 2014 - 3:30 pm
Karen,
I think you’re misunderstanding what the bounds of harmful are. You can even die from oxygen if the percentage of atmosphere you’re breathing contains too much of it.
The vapor is not harmful, and at best qualifies as an irritant no worse than cedar pollen. I’m also asthmatic and a non-smoker. I have exposure to vapor because I’ve made a point of turning my friends and family on to the idea to save their health as well as my own.
Nicotine can be lethal, yes, but so can caffeine. There are more adverse medical reactions to caffeine than there are for nicotine. Essential vitamins you require to live can also be fatal in large and pure concentrations such as vitamin A.
There is no circumstance where a user would attempt to swallow the liquid and the devices prevent the expression of the liquid to the user, only vapor can ascend through the plumbing to make it to the user.
The campus actually advocates the smoking patch, so to say that absorption through the skin is harmful is moot, the campus is not doing anything to prevent consumption through that manner.
You also do not flash-absorb nicotine through your skin, you would have have to spread that tablespoon of liquid out all over your body, and even then, the glycerin and propelyn glycol would interfere with the absorption rate enough for you to metabolize the nicotine to prevent overdose. ( Kind of like saying you can overdose on pot, if you could somehow smoke a cubic meter of it in less than a minute. )
We’re talking about adults smoking, kids and their safety are not a factor in this ban. I frankly do not feel like bringing up the calls to poison control have any baring on this smoking ban.
As far as metals in liquids like tin and lead? You can make the same claims for candy you buy from Mexico through the NAFTA act.
Most users here in Austin buy their liquid from US suppliers, not through Mexico or China.
Frankly, I get the impression that you are an advocate, Karen, and I say that because your talking points ( child poisoning ) do not even correlate to the ban for adults using a product on college property.
By Glenn Conrad November 29, 2014 - 3:36 pm
Lastly, if you want to talk on campus, I’m at North Ridge constantly. I don’t feel that you’re representing the student body entirely, as I have never had a survey or a meeting with the SGA that dealt with this issue.
You’re the director of communications, why is the SGA not communicating to the student body to poll them for opinions or ask for scientific input from both sides of the issue?
I’d not seen one mention of this on the website, on the student life board, or in the cafeteria area.
The only time I feel communicated to is when SGA people are in the eating area asking for signatures.
By Karen Gonzales November 30, 2014 - 7:12 pm
Glen, in order to be heard you have to be willing to be proactive and sign up with the SGA. You do realize you are part of the SGA right? Posting your opinions online will not do much. Meeting with an SGA officer and getting involved is where you start.
By Glenn Conrad November 29, 2014 - 3:12 pm
I am a current student I’m very upset by this, and I do not vape, smoke or dip.
I’m a chronic asthmatic, I’ve been on a nebulizer many times in my life. Vapor does NOT bother me one bit and to use people like me as some kind of excuse for this draconian and unscientific ban is just disgusting.
The two main ingredients in E-liquid are food safe additives, and the third is nicotine.
Nicotine is recognized by the FDA as safer than caffeine, which ever school bookstore peddles hand over fist.
It helps calm neurological issues, increases focus and memory, and has documented impact on pushing away depression.
What makes cigs harmful are the hundreds of additive chemicals that are put into them to make them more addictive. E-cigs completely sidestep this issue.
Many people smoke E-cigs because they can smoke them where they can’t smoke cigarettes, BANS LIKE THIS promote them to go back to normal tobacco and cause people to do MORE HARM to themselves instead of promoting HARM REDUCTION.
Patches and gums both can cause strokes, and taking nicotine from the skin or through is more dangerous in general.
Can we please stop banning crap without asking students and scientists how they feel?
Or is this all to get another fat endowment check from the anti-nicotine groups such as UT-Austin has done?
By Karen Gonzales December 1, 2014 - 3:28 pm
I think you keep misinterpreting the information. Nobody is saying that a chronic asthmatic is going to be affected by someone’s vaping.
By A.D. November 20, 2014 - 11:40 am
You all realize that e-cigs are commonly used as a smoke cessation device, right? Hopefully your workshops will include this information.
By RELIEVED STUDENT November 24, 2014 - 3:17 pm
Now, and since vaping was first marketed in the U.S., the industry’s ad campaign was, “Fall in love with smoking all over again!”
(Gee, could there be a link to the major tobacco industry [which includes nicotine] there?)
Major Congrats on seeing past the “smokescreen” of propaganda claiming that vaping is a smoking cessation tool and unharmful to the user, bystander and environment.
Even in the pro-vapor study that OPPRESSED provided, (“the Clearstream Air project is a comparative evaluation between tobacco and electronic cigarettes and hoped to draw a positive conclusion about the lack of harm with electronic cigarette usage”), showed that e-cigs contain carbon monoxide, and other poisonous substances!
“The following substances were measured for in the exhaled smoke and vapor.
Carbon monoxide CO
Nitrogen oxides NOx
Acrolein
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons PAHs
Volatile Organic Compounds VOC
Total Organic Carbon TOC
Nicotine
Glycerine and propylene glycol (components of the electronic cigarettes fluids)”
The cigarette industry and lobbyists have long advocated similar ‘research’ that has been more marketing that substance to suppress, distort and fabricate over 50 years of empirical data about harmful effects of nicotine, tobacco, and smoking. Nicotine is one of, if not the most addictive substances known to humans. These industries and their lobbyists have a very well documented, long-standing practice to entice and hook new generations through any means necessary, i.e., “Joe (Cool) Camel” image and merch, reward points, vaping, claiming vaping is harmless, and even a way to quit. Nicotine is carcenogenic, physically and emotionally addictive (Source: Mayo Clinic). It takes 72 hours to physically withdraw from nicotine. If you “vape” after that, the physical addiction returns and is reinforced, keeping the addiction alive.
That’s in addition to high levels of poisonings data already provided by Ms. Gonzales.
Way to go, ACC!
By angel's advocate November 25, 2014 - 9:57 am
You know that a lot of those substances are normal products of expiration, right? You are always breathing out carbon dioxide. It’s kind of the point of exhaling.
E-cigs contain glycerine, propylene glycol, and nicotine in the juice. Many people start with higher nicotine levels equivalent to cigarettes, then continue to reduce it.
In fact, I know MANY people who have 0 nicotine in their juice. Yes, they sell that. Yes, people buy it. Yes, people vape it.
I’m all for disallowing it in ACC buildings, but the fact of the matter is there is not a “second hand smoke” concern for vaping. It seems silly and like a knee jerk reaction to disallow e-cig usage outside on campus.
By Karen Gonzales November 25, 2014 - 8:11 pm
The way I see it, since there is proof that liquid nicotine can be lethal and can cause harm when it’s inhaled, be harmful when ingested or absorbed through your skin, and only a small dose is dangerous — less than one tablespoon of many of the e-liquids on the market is enough to kill an adult, and as little as a teaspoon could kill a child) [source: Richtel], I think if the school wants to ban using electronic cigarettes on campus, we should be able to respect that. This is not like using an inhaler to relieve an asthma attack. After all, we’re at school to learn and get an education. I don’t see how vaping comes into play with that.
I personally don’t have a choice but to be dependent on bronchial dilators. But when you vape, please remember there are other people around you that might not want to be around it.
By Follow up November 26, 2014 - 10:48 am
With all due respect, I’m not sure if you’re reading the links provided to you.
Here’s results from a study funded by the by The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives (CASAA) Research Fund (http://blog.casaa.org/2013/08/new-study-confirms-that-chemicals-in.html)
Turns out, they like e-cigs! A common theme is smoking is certainly bad for you and everyone else around – no one can argue that.
Also, on your nicotine fears :
“Nicotine, when it does not involve smoking [cigarettes], is very low risk and has not been clearly shown to cause any disease. However, like caffeine and other common indulgences, it may cause some tiny risk of heart attack and stroke…If there is any risk from nicotine, however, it is so low that it is similar to everyday hazards like drinking coffee or eating dessert, and is far less than the risk from smoking.”
So, we should both agree here that if we’re banning e-cigs for the nicotine, we also need to ban the sale of coffee on campus and disallow students/teachers from bringing in Starbucks. Nicotine can have stimulant effects, like caffeine and many other drugs that we simply look the other way from.
To be honest, I tried to look more into your nicotine concerns. And I found quite the contrary – the pharmacodynamics health effects of this drug on Wikipedia say some very nice things!
“…significant performance enhancing effects, particularly in fine motor skills, attention, and memory…
there is evidence that nicotine itself has the potential to prevent and treat Alzheimer’s disease…
results in an antidepressant effect, with research showing low dose nicotine patches being an effective treatment of major depressive disorder in non-smokers…(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Pharmacodynamics)
But I’d like to re-iterate here :
Many people with e-cigs have a 0 nicotine level in them. They’re just for the Pavlovian response after working down from cigarettes.
Also, I am sorry for your dependence on bronchial dilators. But I must also re-iterate that e-cigs will not increase your usage of it. Drexel University (PDF study available in link)found
“these smokeless, tobacco-less, tar-less products are not a cause for concern – or at least not a cause for the same concerns that accompany traditional cigarettes and second-hand smoke.”
(http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/09/reason-tv-replaye-cigarettes-second-hand)
This study is super relevant! “…indicates no apparent risk to human health from e-cigarette emissions based on the compounds analyzed.”
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23033998)
Anyway, I completely respect your choice to abstain from e-cigs, and I agree that they should only be used outside. I also completely agree that we pay good money to go to college and get an education, and obviously we’re not paying just to have somewhere to go and vape. What I don’t see is how someone in class from 9-4 walking outside to take a vape break is somehow throwing that away. And I wouldn’t mind banning them, if only it were for a good and well researched reason.
By Karen Gonzales November 29, 2014 - 11:30 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiUXXx6kPbk
By Ryan Fontenette-Mitchell November 25, 2014 - 11:12 am
Editors note:
Me personally, I’m apart of the vaping community and I love it. Though I never smoked cigarettes due to all the chemicals in one cigarette, I knew vaping would be a different outcome. Before buying my frist pen I made sure to do as much research as possible to figure out what exactly I’m putting into my lungs. Like previous comments said and the facts can back it up as well, vaping is a much better and safer alternative then smoking cigarettes. There are far less chemicals in vaping, your inhaling water vapor, no second hand smoking, and the odor from the vape does not stay on your clothes. Addressing the issue with vaping on campus, vaping should be allowed. Our generation is about to beat out cigarettes for good vaping is doing most of the battle to beat out cigerettes. It’s time for people to realize the positive side of vaping and to put cigarettes in the past for good.
By Billy Mills November 25, 2014 - 4:23 pm
Thanks. I’m sure my dip was hurting everyone around me. Everyone I touched was going to get cancer.
I’m also glad to to know that the one substitute for Adderall I had since my epilepsy started, is not allowed where I need it most.
Don’t make decisions for me. It’s none of your business, especially if it hurts no one but myself.
By J November 28, 2014 - 4:06 pm
I’m thoroughly disgusted at the underhanded way this ‘policy’ was put into place. There was no committee involving input from the people this would actually affect.
I’m an ex-smoker, have been quit for a year now, and it’s all thanks to vaping. I vape, by myself, with no one else around, and I’m friendly and courteous. I take extra care to not offend anyone, even though extensive research has shown that vaping is no more harmful for you than a cup of joe.
The ACC Board of Directors should have let this be a community decision, instead of unilaterally deciding what was best for everyone. A large portion of vapers vape for aid in quitting smoking, and as a direct alternative to ‘conventional’ quit-smoking aids that simply DON’T WORK, like patches and gum.
If you are going to ban vaping, then you will have to ban patches, gum, and pretty much everything else that is ‘bad for you’. No more processed foods, sodas, energy drinks, hairspray, perfumes, etc. I don’t know what ACC’s real motive is for this ban, but it’s not for public health.
I for one will have no part in this ban. I am a paying student, and it’s paying students that allow your school to exist in the first place. Just as a taxpayer has a say in public policy, a student should have a say in school policy. We are all adults, and we don’t need a nanny school board making unilateral decisions on our behalf. Until I have fair representation, I refuse this ban.
By anonymous November 29, 2014 - 6:06 pm
(Some of) you vapers should have thought about the consequences of going WAY too far. i.e. vaping in elevators, classrooms, hallways, etc. This entire fiasco could have been easily avoided (or at the very least, postponed) however a good number of vapers are under the [mistaken] impression that it is their right to vape in close proximity to others, thereby impinging on their rights. A bit of common courtesy as well as common sense go a long way and appear to be absent from many student’s thought-processes. This decision was inevitable and I’m afraid you have only your yourselves and/or your fellow vapers to blame. Keep in mind that similar restrictions will likely be enacted elsewhere (with regards to vaping) unless some of you can restrain yourselves from going too far. It is sad indeed but it shouldn’t be unexpected. This situation follows the age-old axiom of when given an inch, folks want a mile.
-a saddened courteous vaper
By Exhausted Student December 1, 2014 - 5:31 pm
“Research indicates that smokeless tobacco products pose significant health hazards, causing cancer and other diseases.†-Readers, please be careful. While the article clearly addresses both electronic cigarettes and smokeless tobacco sources, this statement only applies to smokeless tobacco sources other than electronic cigarettes. At present, research has not been able to show that electronic cigarettes pose significant health-hazards or cancer. This statement in the article structured like this should raise concerns of the potential spread of misinformation. Further, since vapor is defined as a smokeless medium, it can be said that this statement is plainly untrue (i.e. a “lie”, intentional or not).
“We want to maintain a healthy and safe environment for our students and employees,†-I’m uncertain how banning “dip” and “e-cigs” further this goal more than it inconsiderately and unnecessarily oppresses a minority group. Studies explain that e-cigarettes are a source of second-hand exposure to nicotine but not to combustion toxicants. It’s important to remember there is no combustion or tobacco in an e-cigarette. There is “tobacco product” only in that the nicotine is sourced from the tobacco plant. Also, measured nicotine concentrations of indoor air per cubic meter expelled by an e-cigarette is on average ten times less than a cigarette. This explains that if a student uses an e-cigarette outdoors in a considerate and respectful way, that student does not negatively impact the “safe and healthy environment” for myself or anyone else. Certainly a student “dipping” anywhere does not affect my health either. Just how similarly that if I drink a soda, it will affect my health and not anyone else in proximity. Clearly the motive behind the ruling is something other than a healthy environment, because the two simply do not relate to each other. Further, if the goal was to impose on people who make unhealthy choices that affect themselves, there wouldn’t be a single soda-machine on campus.
There’s something else that the comments reminded me of that relates to my peers. I regularly witness a palatable distaste toward tobacco users bordering on hate. I think it’s very important to remember to hate the tobacco if you must, but not the person behind the tobacco on the grounds that they use it. Or in the case of “vapers”, people who use only nicotine. I personally think “dipping” is gross. The “spit-cup” concept is appalling and makes my stomach do gymnastics just thinking of it. But, it is very possible to dip in a way that is both considerate and respectful to my distaste and nausea of the whole thing just the same. Meanwhile, I’m an adult perfectly capable of asking someone being obnoxious to kindly knock it off in a considerate way. To date I’ve only had to do this once, it wasn’t at ACC, and it turned out the user was simply unmindful about it and not being purposefully rude. Being another capable adult, he was reasonable, desisted immediately and even apologized. Flat out banning his dip would be the childish and overly easy way out. It also adds another needless fracture in an already divided community. I don’t have to flex my empathy-muscle very hard to notice how unethical and cruel it would be to ban everyone who does something I do not like. And most relevant to the proposed rule, there’s no effect on my health from someone who chooses to dip in the same corridor, or vape outside. Well, except for the occasional stressed-out psychosomatic.
In the end, I’m personally neither here nor there on specifically banning “dip” and/or “vape” on campus. Instead, I am worried about a legislative process that is able to make serious, sanction-backed rules seemingly without evidence, consensus, and broadly considering alternatives. These are basic decision-making faults being committed by career decision-makers in an obvious way. Not because my feelings would be hurt if I never saw another overpriced, elaborate-looking e-hooka or the hipster behind the thing ever again.. But instead because I would be very concerned if we as a community barred a part of ourselves for simply ingesting a substance. Unfortunately, baffling legislation like this cannot be practically stymied by the community, tobacco-user or not. And I’m exhausted that when presented with a concern that could stand to improve, an SGA representative sooner says “no u” than anything else.
By Fellow Student December 2, 2014 - 2:35 pm
+1
By ACC Employee December 8, 2014 - 7:42 pm
+1.
It’s interesting that ACC health insurance charges a $30 per month premium to tobacco users and yet specifically excludes e-cigarettes from that charge.
Another insurance company, Domo Insurance, advertises this same thing. Switch to vaping, no tobacco user charge.
I switched from smoking to vaping in 2009. I weaned myself off nicotine, and now my eCig stays at home more often than not. I use it socially, or when I’m overly stressed but the bottom line is I am no longer a smoker, and I’m no longer even a daily vaper. These things work, they work better than the patch, better than Chantix, and exiling the vapers to take the “Walk Of Shame” off campus with the tobacco users is sending the wrong message about a potentially life-saving harm reduction technology.
At best, this is a “me, too” attempt for ACC to jump on what is perceived incorrectly to be a public health step forward, just like ACC wanting the biggest and best for the Highland Campus and the massive computer lab just so they can say they have the biggest one in the US. The sad part about it is this bandwagon could keep someone from switching to a tenfold safer vice that might just save them from health problems down the road – but it looks like smoking, and we can’t have that, so let’s ban it.
I am extremely disappointed this decision was not presented ahead of time to the faculty (some of whom vape), staff (ditto) and students for comment before the decision was made.
Also – this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/29/opinion/joe-nocera-nicotine-without-death.html?mwrsm=Email&_r=2
By Jesse Williams December 2, 2014 - 11:28 pm
“We want to maintain a healthy and safe environment for our students and employees,†says Dr. Mary Hensley, ACC executive vice president of operations. “Research indicates that smokeless tobacco products pose significant health hazards, causing cancer and other diseases.†But yet this doctor won’t take the soda or candy bars away, that after excessive use could cause weight problems and obesity. Being obese is a significant health hazard to yourself just like dipping tobacco is. I wonder how Dr. Mary Hensley would take to the CEO or the trustee’s telling her what she can and cannot put in her system in public if it has no bearing on anyone else?
For those saying that dipping tobacco is gross, I just hope that we can start pointing at the fat people while they eat candy bars saying “That’s gross and unhealthy for you” and not get called bullies. If you want equality, act like it.
By Lucy December 3, 2014 - 5:26 pm
You’re so right! Candy and soda and void of nutritional content bags of chips are doing NO ONE’S heath any favors. (In fact…they are causing significant harm!!!) The caffeine sold all over campus is ALSO an addictive drug with negative health effects.
What a great way to cherry pick your policy, ACC. I am really rather offended by the lack of oversight and lack of consideration for the students involving this matter. I thought this was COMMUNITY COLLEGE, meaning…well, we were more of a community, and adults. So…we don’t need to be told what we can and can’t consume. We should at least be consulted with a sweeping change like this, not just informed that it has already happened.
By Karen Gonzales December 9, 2014 - 3:46 am
I don’t see the logic behind the hostility. It’s not the end of the world if electronic cigarettes get banned from school. Smoking electronic cigarettes has nothing to do with our right to get an education. That’s what should matter most. If you have a disability or a medical condition that requires certain accommodations in order for you to get an education, ACC has an obligation to help you, but being allowed to smoke electronic cigarettes doesn’t fall under that category.
By Karen Gonzales December 9, 2014 - 3:37 am
The difference between the snacks we eat at school and the electronic cigarettes is we have to eat to stay alive but we don’t have to smoke electronic cigarettes to stay alive. Therefore, whatever we choose to eat is our decision.
By Jason December 10, 2014 - 2:09 pm
The snacks you’re eating out of vending machines are NOT what is keeping you alive, friend. They are pre-processed and devoid of nutrients, I’m afraid.
Electronic cigarettes aren’t keeping us alive, either. But if it’s your choice to waste calories on empty food, it should be our choice to waste breath on something else, no?
By Karen Gonzales December 11, 2014 - 7:16 am
I still disagree.