The nanny state goes nannying on, and as it often does, under the guise of doing the right thing.
Starting Monday, tobacco smokers won’t be able to light up anywhere on any of the Maricopa County Community College District campuses, as even those few outdoor designated smoking areas will become undesignated.
This column is no fan of cigarettes and is not recommending their use in any way. I have had close relatives die far too young of lung cancer. But as completely unhealthful as cigarettes are, they are a legal product.
While some rather convincing evidence of the effects of second-hand smoke means that designating areas to smoke away from non-smokers’ lungs is appropriate, an outright ban is nothing more than the government legislating morality.
Now, moral crusades are popular vote-getters and create strange bedfellows. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s motion picture fame and monetary success were based on his, um, entertaining use of various firearms and explosives to rid this planet and others of several individuals. But as governor of California he campaigned for and signed legislation banning minors from owning or playing violent video games.
The ban was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011, according to a report by National Public Radio, the justices ruling that California lacked the authority to “restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.”
But while a video game may represent an idea, it’s not what’s for dinner.
Today the entire state of California goes foie-gras free, as a state law Schwarzenegger also signed, back in 2004, becomes effective. It bans the raising and sale of foie gras, French for engorged goose and duck livers, which to some are quite tasty and worth the expensive price (I am not among them) while to others it’s an inhumane and disgusting way to treat waterfowl.
In early June New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced a plan for a Big Apple ban on the sale of sugary sodas larger than 16 ounces. If it becomes effective you could still get larger ones at convenience markets, but not at food carts, theaters or restaurants. Or, if there, you could just buy two of them. I imagine New York merchants planning buy-one-get-one-for-a-quarter offers.
And at least once every several months some government official announces plans to ban the sale of fast food, an idea augmented in recent years since documentarian Morgan Spurlock’s 2004 film, “Super Size Me” followed his spending 30 days eating nothing but stuff you can order through a loudspeaker at McDonald’s.
Which brings us back to our community colleges. At least 95 percent of those on those campuses on any given day are adults. While minors lack the legal capacity to decide whether to smoke, by law adults do. MCCCD Chancellor Rufus Glasper said in a statement that he sees the colleges as needing to set an example. He said, “As an educational institution, we have an obligation to lead the way in matters of health awareness and education.”
As an educator, Glasper could have capitalized on an opportunity to lead by example, not fiat, say, starting a petition drive to ask all faculty, staff and students to pledge to be tobacco-free.
Who knows? Seeing thousands of your friends and teachers — including some who have just recently quit — all saying publicly that they won’t smoke might be the kind of support needed to get smokers down the path of quitting cigarettes.
Or Glasper could offer incentives and prizes donated by health-minded local merchants to employees and students, all to discourage smoking. Is this more complicated than simply announcing a campus ban? Sure. But it preserves freedom of choice.
Government has the power to approve or ban certain products from sale through several agencies. Many proven harmful by science have been outlawed, and cigarettes are definitely harmful. So far the government hasn’t banned them. Maybe Dr. Glasper and officials at the college district believe they don’t control the whole government, just their slice of it, and that justifies the decision. But that’s a slippery slope.
Maybe the district, the nation’s largest, could modify the petition I mentioned above and ask all the other community colleges in the country to create their own. Hundreds of thousands of community college employees and students asking Congress to ban the sale of tobacco products nationwide would be quite a demonstration of leadership, indeed.
Far more than merely putting up a bunch of no-smoking signs.
Read Tribune contributing columnist Mark J. Scarp’s opinions here on Sundays. Watch his “On the Mark” video commentaries on eastvalleytribune.com. Reach him at mscarp1@cox.net.
domusrex posted at 2:17 pm on Sun, Jul 1, 2012.
Having been a student at both MCC and ASU I enthusiastically embrace the ban. In fact, I signed a petition at ASU for it to become smoke free.
In the article, the columnist came up with the statistic that 95% of the campus population are adults. Not sure where he got this statistic so I'll throw out another one...of those 95%, we'll say 80% are over 21 and thus allowed to drink. Why can't those adults over 21 be allowed to bring their alcohol on campus and consume it?
I'm not comparing alcohol drinking to smoking tobacco, but I am pointing out that there is precedent for legal substances to be banned from public campuses.
All of the Banner Hospitals and even Phoenix Children's hospital (I'm sure others too, but I've worked at these ones) have a ban on tobacco use on campus. Yes they even call their property a "campus." Does the author want to overturn those bans because adults should be allowed to use a legal product wherever they want?
If you have ever been on ASU's campus, chances are you have been stuck walking behind someone who has lit up a cigarette. Sometimes you are walking the smoke for a few hundred yards. Irritating at the least and asthma exacerbating at the worst if you are a non-smoker.
Although I think the ban over 16 oz sugary drinks is a little much, I don't think that is legislating morality. We have a real endemic of obesity and other diseases like diabetes in this country because of our high caloric diets. Public awareness really isn't changing that either. Personally I hope they ban the 44 oz at Circle K. I drink way too much diet Dr. Pepper. Also I do wish that the restaurants here would put their calories on the menu like they do in California. This would allow adults make better informed decisions.
geekette posted at 2:46 pm on Sun, Jul 1, 2012.
There's a major difference between smoking and drinking a 44 oz slurpee: the smoker forces everyone around him or her to smoke. The slurpee drinker affects no one else. Try walking up the outdoor stairwells at any campus building. You have to make your way through clouds of smoke, walking ankle-deep in discarded butts. Non-smokers cannot sit outside on nice days without becoming smokers, against their will. No, banning smoking is not nanny-state legislation, but banning oversized drinks is.
Masterrogue666 posted at 6:47 pm on Sun, Jul 1, 2012.
I agree that if you wish to smoke, you have that right. However, the problem is that it took YEARS for those who didn't wish to smoke (or be subject to 2nd hand smoke) to get THAT RIGHT observed. However, there are still those smokers that continue to ignore that fact.
mesadog posted at 7:52 pm on Sun, Jul 1, 2012.
I agree with Mark on this issue and so far the first three opinions only show support for the nanny state. you have choices to make on what you do with your life. If you require the government to legislate every aspect of your and everyone else's life because you are too lazy to decide for yourself or can't respect others rights to do something you may not agree with - I pity you. I tend to think the descriptions of the smoking on campus is exaggerated but that is okay - it is how you see it. Many non-smokers (I do not BTW) are very self righteous about it. As for the drinks. No one is putting a gun to your head making you buy a 44oz drink. Grow up, be an adult and buy a smaller one. Or better yet, don't, drink water, black coffee or tea. I do believe there is a growing need by people to be taken care of by the government and willing to give up all their rights and basic decision making in the process. Be careful what you ask for.
mscarp posted at 11:23 pm on Sun, Jul 1, 2012.
Mark Scarp here. Thanks for your comments, folks. I prefer proper "time, place and manner" restrictions that respect individual rights but majority rule. Reader domusrex wonders why I can advocate allowing smoking on campus when those of drinking age can't drink on campus. My reply is, why shouldn't alcohol be permitted under certain strictures? I see nothing wrong with responsible use of alcohol by those at least age 21 in designated areas ("time, place and manner"), which means that like smoking, drinking has no place in a classroom, but drinking might at a social function or even at a sporting event, just as smoking might in a designated away-from-others area. Why ban something like alcohol entirely because a few people behave badly?
That's why designated smoking areas are a good compromise. Smokers may light up in a separate place from the lungs of nonsmokers.
And stronger penalties and enforcement should indeed be present to keep areas free of cigarette butts, as reader geekette points out. I also note that litter has many disgusting forms, including tossed soft drink cups. We should no more ban cigarettes because a minority of smokers toss them wrongfully and illeglaly on the ground any more than we should ban soft drinks because some people toss cups on the ground as well.
Arizona Willie posted at 7:18 am on Mon, Jul 2, 2012.
I don't see banning smoking on campus as legislating morality.
It is a public health measure.
They are not saying it is morally wrong to smoke.
They are saying it hurts other people when you decide to smoke in a public place, so you can't do that.
It's the old principle that you have the right to swing your arm as much as you want to -- until it comes to someone's nose.
You have to right to smoke in your home if you so choose.
You don't have the right to smoke where other people inhale the smoke and it affects their health and comfort.
If you want to destroy your own health -- that's your business as long as you do it where it doesn't have an effect on others.
No morality involved.
Just public health and the rights of others to NOT smoke secondhand smoke.
chuckles3 posted at 8:20 am on Mon, Jul 2, 2012.
Sigh...AZ Willie your argument falls apart very quickly....."you have a right to smoke in your home if you choose"....but what if you have a baby?Or kids with Asthma? What if you live in an apartment complex and your neighbors smell the smoke?
Very easily the government can step in there next.
And for all you health nuts, if smoking is so bad, why doesn't your nanny state make it illegal? Oh yea, the BILLIONS in taxes they collect.
BTW, never smoked, think it is a filthy, disgusting habit.
Arizona Willie posted at 9:29 am on Mon, Jul 2, 2012.
chuckes3, no it doesn't.
Your home ( even if an apartment ) is your property and you have the right to do as you please ( within the law -- no meth lab or whorehouse for example ).
If you have children, until they reach the age of majority you have to right to impose their living circumstances on them.
If you choose to smoke around your kids, well that may say something about the kid of person you are.
Why doesn't the state make it illegal?
Mostly because of lessons learned from prohibition and the drug war.
Making things illegal just funnels money to criminals.
And, allowing people to smoke if they choose to ( in the privacy of their own living space ) puts chlorine in the gene pool. It helps to weed out the terminally stupid.
BTW I was a 2 pack a day smoker for 40+ years.
I swore they would bury me with a carton and a lighter.
I LOVED my smokes.
Even today I will catch myself reaching for my shirt pocket once in awhile.
I know how hard it is to quit.
ragdoll posted at 10:55 am on Mon, Jul 2, 2012.
If Glasper is choosing to improve peoples health, shouldn't he be banning meat from campus? After all, he is trying to lead by example. If he is a real educator, he would know the harm of eating meat. Is Glasper banning cigerettes because he doesn't smoke and not meat because he eats it?
Tobacco users can get lung and throat cancers. Meat-eaters face a higher risk of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, kidney disease, osteoporosis, and obesity. Natural carnivores can eat lots of animal fat without getting heart attacks, but humans can’t. People who avoid animal protein also have dramatically lower rates of prostate, colon, and breast cancer.
Which is risker? Meat or tobacco? What will Glasper do next? I hope the right thing to prove he is actually educated.
Engaged Voter posted at 12:22 pm on Mon, Jul 2, 2012.
I've said it before, but it bears repeating:
"As an educational institution, we have an obligation to lead the way in matters of health awareness and education,” - MCCCD
Either MCCCD stops selling all unhealthy, sugary snack-type foods IMMEDIATELY...or they've just revealed themselves to be nothing more than filthy liars and hypocrites.
They COULD have chosen morality, but they CHOSE to make it a health/education issue. Now they need to follow through.
mrconservative posted at 10:44 pm on Mon, Jul 2, 2012.
Tell me, EV, do you support vouchers? School choice?
Leon Ceniceros posted at 6:17 am on Tue, Jul 3, 2012.
BAN SMOKING BUT LET SOCIALISM AND SEPARATISM RUN RAMPANT ON CAMPUS = BOY, DOES THAT EVER MAKE SENSE.
DON'T BELEIVE ME....JUST GOT THROUGH WATCHING THE....MARICOPA COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE......BLACK-AMERICAN GRADUATION SERVICE COMPLETE WITH AFRICAN STYLE GRADUATION STOLES.....THEN IT WAS THE TURN OF THE .....YUP, YOU GUESSED IT.......THE HISPANIC-AMERICAN AND THE NATIVE-AMERICAN (SEPARATE BUT EQUAL....ISN'T THAT THE SAME TERM THAT BIGOTS IN THE SOUTH USED ABOUT SEGREGATED SCHOOLS....LOL). THE HISPANIC-AMERICAN GRADUATES HAD THEIR "SERAPE" WOVEN GRADUATION STOLES AND THE NATIVE-AMERICANS HAD THEIR "INDIAN BLANKET WOVEN GRADUATION STOLES.....
HOW MUCH MORE LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE/SOCIALIST CAN YOU GET WHEN YOU........................SEGREGATE YOUR COLLEGE'S GRADUATION CEREMONIES ALONG...............RACIAL....AND ETHNIC LINES.
I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED PATRIOTIC HOLIDAYS LIKE THE 4TH OF JULY, MEMORIAL DAY OR VETERAN'S DAY........BANNED BY OUR LOCAL COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN THE FUTURE.
THEY ARE PROBABLY CONSIDERING A WAY TO BAN ACTIVE DUTY/RESERVE/NATIONAL GUARD WARRIORS FROM WEARING THEIR "WAR-MONGERING" UNIFORMS ON CAMPUS..........AS WE SPEAK.