Editorial: Proposed bill blows hot air

Last semester, a bill introduced by California Assemblyman Kevin McCarty, D-Sacramento, concerning a campus smoking ban passed from the assembly to the Senate.

The bill, AB 1594, states that it would, starting Jan. 1, 2018, “prohibit smoking, including the use of an electronic smoking device, and the use of a tobacco product on a campus of the California State University or the California Community Colleges.”

This means that Skyline College and many other campuses will lose their designated smoking areas and begin imposing fines for the “inhaling, exhaling, burning, or carrying any lighted or heated cigar, cigarette, or pipe, or any other lighted or heated tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation, whether natural or synthetic, in any manner or in any form.

Having garnered enough votes to reach the Senate floor, this bill is running on the platform of public health and wellness, with McCarty stating, “The enactment of AB 1594 would ease the problem of secondhand smoke for the non-smoking community at all public higher education institutions. It would focus on a universal policy for all public higher education institutions that aims to create a healthy and safe environment for all.”

To a certain extent, this bill seems more confusing than helpful. With the active decline in smoking across the U.S. down to approximately 16.8 percent in 2014, it seems this bill aims to control the additions rather than the tobacco. This would explain the phrasing of, “or plant product intended for inhalation,” in the definition of what will be fined.

It also explains why the bill would add in a mention of electronic smoking devices instead of specifying devices used for the consumption of nicotine.

This bill is coasting its way through votes, but it won’t result in anything more than disgruntled students. Banning campus smoke areas will not cause all of the smokers to suddenly quit, nor will it save nonsmokers from starting. And that extends to the electronic cigarettes as well.

The CDC reports that “about 69 percent of middle and high school students were exposed to e-cigarette advertisements in retail stores, on the Internet, in magazines/newspapers, or on TV/movies.”

While that may be true, it is also true that those same students were likely subject to an equal or greater amount of adverstiments for unhealthy foods, snacks, candies, and sodas.
The American Psychological Association also links food advertisements to childhood obesity.

According to the CDC, approximately 2.4 million middle and high school students were current users of electronic cigarettes. In contrast, according to the CDC, 12.7 million children and adolescents are obese.

This bill isn’t controlling commercials or advertisements though. It’s just restricting people that have already succumbed and become addicted to smoking.

Campuses never endorsed, sold, or encouraged smoking. Smoking areas merely allowed students to avoid secondhand smoke, avoid inconveniencing other students, and dispose of their specific trash accordingly.

In short, this bill is only superficially intended to increase the health and wellness of students. Looking into it, everything seems to point more towards restricting electronic cigarettes, an even smaller issue. And even when mountains of evidence have been pointing towards obesity as the real growing issue, it begs the question why this bill is being passed right now. And this bill is well on it’s way to passing, having hit no bureaucratic snags yet.

In the meantime, if health truly is a concern for anyone, stop buying food on campus. Maybe when Doritos and Cheetos stop selling so well, the health of any given campus will rise.