WEATHER »
<b>A DRAG:</b>  Casey Mokicky (right) smokes a cigarette while his friend Valerie Martin does homework at a designated smoking area on City College’s West Campus. The Board of Trustees voted to eliminate the three current smoking areas, making the campus completely smoke-free by August 5.

Paul Wellman

A DRAG: Casey Mokicky (right) smokes a cigarette while his friend Valerie Martin does homework at a designated smoking area on City College’s West Campus. The Board of Trustees voted to eliminate the three current smoking areas, making the campus completely smoke-free by August 5.


City College Bans Smoking

Change Goes Into Effect August 5


Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

Santa Barbara City College is now a butt-free zone after the Board of Trustees voted last week to ban tobacco on campus. President Lori Gaskin voiced her approval, saying, “As an academic institution, we have a responsibility to foster practices that address the education of the ‘whole’ student. Maintaining one’s health, fitness, and well-being are an important part of being a student, and becoming a completely nonsmoking campus communicates this message with great clarity and commitment.”

According to an American Lung Association tally, only 10 other colleges or universities in the state have completely banned smoking on campus. Not counted is UCLA, which went tobacco-free in April. Last year, UC President Mark Yudof called for the whole system to follow suit by 2014. UCSB will do so on January 1. Currently, SBCC offers designated smoking areas on campus. As of August 5, smokers will be obliged to travel outside one of the college’s entrances. “It will take a little bit of a hike if people have to smoke, and I understand addiction,” said Board President Marty Blum, adding, however, “The more we read about secondhand smoke ​— ​even outside ​— ​the more [a ban] makes sense.”

Head of business services Joe Sullivan, who ushered in the new regulations ​— ​which also ban e-cigarettes because they contain nicotine and emit vapors ​— ​kicked a two-pack-a-day habit when he was 28 and now competes in triathlons. The issue popped up on his radar because his department is responsible for cleaning up the smoking areas. He also fields complaints from people with health issues who are worried about secondhand smoke and environmental groups concerned about butts washing into the ocean.

The lone dissenting vote on the board was Craig Nielsen. (Trustee Veronica Gallardo was not present.) He said that he did not want to make a big deal of his disagreement and that the ban “is not a terrible thing in and of itself,” but he is concerned over the “erosion of individuals’ right to choose.” He added, “I just feel like there’s better things to spend campus money on than signs that say ‘No Smoking.’”

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Stupid, overreach. Gives Progressives a bad name to act like such meddling nannies.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 3, 2013 at 12:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think the people worried about the dangers of second hand smoke are off their rocker, and trash into the ocean? The worst counter argument ever! I think its just disgusting, ruins people's lives...and in my analogy, it would be like going down to the ocean on a nice day and smelling the ocean breeze and fresh air, then sitting on a bench next to a pile of doggy doo.. College is like high school, a place where people smoke because it seems cool. Replace those cigarette areas with areas for kids that want "to get medicated" on some herbal goodness.

skaterspoint (anonymous profile)
July 3, 2013 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My, thing is how are they going to enforce that rule? Tickets, Confiscation, Fines, Security escorting persons from the Campus? Extra camera's, for a cash strapped College to monitor smokers violating the ban?
The article doesn't explain this but maybe the SBCC website does; http://www.sbcc.edu/

dou4now (anonymous profile)
July 3, 2013 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SBCC is not cash strapped. Only the teachers unions want you to believe this. SBCC is a recipient of the last state wide sales tax increase, as well as receiving a larger share of state revenues per student under Prop 98 this year.

They don't need to make money fining students who intentionally break campus rules. Consider this campus smoking ban part of SBCC student's education for life. They are lucky to be getting this message, while they are still young.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
July 3, 2013 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If we made the Board of Trustees a Butt Free Zone, we wouldn't have any trustees.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 3, 2013 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

to ignore all the research and data that supports the ban would be irresponsible of the college, it is an academic institution after all.

StockiestCastle (anonymous profile)
July 3, 2013 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How about once Skaters Point gets closed down using the left over rowdy skateboarders to whiz by and knock any cigarettes or doobies out of the offending student's hands?

foofighter (anonymous profile)
July 3, 2013 at 11:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I dare anyone to stand between an actor on opening night and a cigarette .

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 3, 2013 at 11:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)


"I dare anyone to stand between an actor on opening night and a cigarette ."

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 3, 2013 at 11:51 p.m.

Well Ken, here's the response to THAT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZishw...

billclausen (anonymous profile)
July 4, 2013 at 2:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I suggest neighbors set out ashtrays.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 6, 2013 at 2:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dear StockiesCastle-We also have sound scientific proof that fast food, being a young black male, being illiterate in the english language, watching too much television, having unprotected sex, and on a on and on, are all bad for you. What other legal activities would you prefer to ban? I'll bet dollars to donuts you have some bad habits that are bad for you and society. Can we start by making your imperfect behaviour illegal as well?

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
July 6, 2013 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

All of you who see this as an erosion of personal liberties are in denial.

Second hand smoke affects other people and is undeniably dangerous to everyone's health.

I quit a 2pack a day habit 25years ago and I know firsthand that you have to be in denial to smoke in the first place....it's an addiction.

So please take you personal freedoms into your hermetically sealed room and smoke all you want because when you smoke in public you are affecting my freedom to live without your carcinogens.

billd (anonymous profile)
July 7, 2013 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Stupid, overreach. Gives Progressives a bad name to act like such meddling nannies." - KV

I can't think of a more accurate post.

Mayor Nanny Bloomberg wants to ban cigarettes for everybody under 21. Maybe we should increase the age of consent to 21. Then maybe we should increase the age at which you can consume alcohol to 25 and we can start all over again!

Why don't we just keep increasing the age at which we expect kids to start acting like adults so they can act like kids for as long as possible and bring their irresponsibility into adulthood?

More and more, institutions of higher education are treating their students like children instead of adults.

And no, second hand smoke from organic tobacco does absolutely zero harm to anybody unless they have asthma and are in close range. But guess what? I'm allergic to perfume but I don't go around using the police to fine or arrest women who wear it. I have asthma and cig smoke can bother me at times, but if it does I just move my ass. If you are going to ban smoking for health reasons, then at least ban the cigarettes which contain toxic additives and radioactive phosphorus fertilizer (since the 1930s!!) that cause cancer and lung disease, not organic products which haven't been proven to cause any type of lung damage at all. Then everybody will be walking around with American Spirits. Any reason that person hasn't chimed in yet?

loonpt (anonymous profile)
July 8, 2013 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, this is just retarded. This has nothing to do with second hand smoke, obviously, they banned e-cigs with these new rules as well. This is pure nanny state bullsh.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
July 8, 2013 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's the thing, Joe Sullivan.... there was a study released recently that showed that of a group of smokers who want to quit, on average less than 13% will be successful within 1 year.

If you give away a years worth of e-cigarettes to a random group of smokers who may or may not have any intention of quitting, MORE THAN 13% WILL HAVE QUIT SMOKING CIGARETTES and will have either quit smoking completely or switched to e-cigs within 1 year.

So WHY ARE YOU BANNING E-CIGS?!?!

There is an agenda against e-cigs, the FDA tried to ban them a while back but was unsuccessful. I don't understand why people on all sides of the cigarette issue cannot appreciate and embrace the e-cig???

loonpt (anonymous profile)
July 8, 2013 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah it's a law to make the Board of Trustees feel good about themselves.
How about doing something instead about Abercrombie & Fitch spewing noxious chemicals onto the street with the intent of forcing people to ingest their chemicals they call cologne?
It seriously DOES make many if not most people ill, even employees.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 8, 2013 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hope this backfires. They had designated smoking areas which probably kept most of the smoking confined to those areas. Now people will just do it wherever they think they can get away with it. Over by the stairs that go down to the park, near the stadium and behind just about any of the dozens of buildings around campus.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
July 8, 2013 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just spoke to some SBCC students, apparently a survey was conducted of students. On a Friday. During Summer session. When there's hardly anybody on campus. Talk about skewed stats and academic dishonesty. Why not conduct the survey when a normal population of students is on campus?
In addition most smokers were supportive of designated areas, which of course popped up on Sullivan's radar because clean up is his job. Disingenuous.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2013 at 12:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

But Progressives ARE meddling nannies, by definition.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2013 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ridiculous: There aren't many designated smoking places and, indeed, they are rather littered, but no way the cig filters would get from the upper campus to the ocean!

The real reason is indeed nannification. Interesting PBS Newshour report here, pointing out that the harm from secondhand smoke outside is non-existent: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2...

at_large (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2013 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: