By: Lauren Olsen
Last January, McMaster University’s president Patrick Deane took a stand and banned all forms of smoking on school grounds, making McMaster Ontario's first 100 per cent tobacco and smoke free campus. This included banning the on-campus use of cigarettes, cigars, hookah, pot and most importantly, the ever-popular vape pens.
The ban on campus was a welcome sight for those opposed to tobacco, however, the ineffectiveness of enforcing this policy rendered the ban as a bland suggestion rather than a legitimate rule.
You can witness this phenomenon simply by walking around campus. You won’t make it far before encountering students vaping in direct violation of the McMaster ‘ban’, with their discretion being non-existent. Students can be found vaping in classrooms, lecture halls, residences and around campus.
Recently, there was an opening of the 180 Smoke Vape Shop in Westdale which will only further support and make accessible the habits of smokers. The store offers everything including e-cigarettes, vape juice, pens and portable vaporizers, and is located just a short walk from McMaster University.
They are attracting not only smokers who may be trying to quit, but others who lack the proper information about the hazards associated with vaping, and may only be concerned with becoming part of the current trend. They are promoting this product as a commercialized, socially-acceptable activity rather than a helpful addiction quitting strategy for tobacco smokers.
For McMaster students, it’s just a short stroll to a readily-available addiction which is now a booming industry. According to BBC News, the number of vapers has increased rapidly — from about seven million in 2011 to 35 million in 2016. The global vaping products market is now estimated to be worth up to $22.6 billion USD.
The rapid growth of the industry is not a victimless development. New products need new users and stores like 180 Smoke Vape Shop will likely be getting their customer base from McMaster.
Other than perpetuating the ‘look’ and fueling the industry, students are playing with fire and risking addiction. Although e-cigarettes do not contain any tar, carbon monoxide or other chemicals found in tobacco smoke, they still mimic the familiar action of a smoker and can be addictive. What used to be a method to quit is now becoming a method to start, and making smoking acceptable again.
The smoking population who are slowly cutting back their nicotine addiction to quit smoking have made way for the young adults who are peer-pressured by the new “cool” thing to do and, in turn, are becoming dependent on the addictive drug.
Harvard Health Publishing describes the side effects of vaping to include the potential of diabetes, loss of impulse control, impairment of brain development and elevated heart rate and blood pressure. Thus, the antidote is quickly becoming the poison.
I am not advocating that McMaster shutdown 180 Smoke Vape Shop, or campaign to influence public policy. Rather, the university should enforce the very rule they promised in early 2018, in order to make McMaster a safer environment and community.
Creating a ban was a novel idea, but not following is more than just lazy enforcement — it is potentially dangerous to student health.
More and more youth will be exposed and persuaded to try vaping, which easily perpetuates an addiction whose lasting health implications are still being determined. Moreover, the campus itself is not an inviting space with smoke billowing from its hallways and paths. It’s time to inhale the future and start enforcing the smoking ban on campus.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
I would like to preface this by saying I have never smoked. Blame the contract six-year-old Sabrina signed in purple crayon or the hour-long lectures my mother gave about the “dangers of drugs” but to this day, I’ve never had the desire to smoke, cigarettes or marijuana. I actually dislike the smell of smoke, especially that of cannabis, and so I can understand the motivation behind campus smoking bans. And yet, I still think they’re wrong.
If the federal government can legalize cannabis use and possession for consenting adults, then what right does McMaster or any university have to impose their own notions of health onto their students? Especially amidst the lack of evidence concerning the risks and therapeutic benefits of cannabis, it screams arrogant paternalism for a university to infringe upon our autonomy like this. Whether I chose to smoke or not should be my decision, irrespective of the institution that I pay into.
Welcome to our Tobacco and Smoke Free campus: https://t.co/UaF8ukbles pic.twitter.com/jcxhj38zSc
— McMaster University (@McMasterU) 4 January 2018
McMaster prides itself on being the first Ontario campus to go 100 per cent tobacco and smoke-free. So far, the rules have been fairly simple. If you are caught smoking on campus grounds, you get a warning, and maybe a fine too. The ban has not stopped students from smoking, however. It has only stopped them from smoking in well-lit, safe areas.
And that’s the kicker. Prohibition has never worked. If someone intends to use a substance, they’re going to use it whether you ban it or not. The government realizes this. They realize this so much, in fact, that they have legalized — and will soon profit from — cannabis. If universities were smart, they would realize this too.
I am not saying that students should be encouraged to attend classes high or to smoke during lectures. But the rules need to be revisited and revised to be more realistic and definitely more comprehensive. Students will smoke. If the university truly cared about their students, they’d help these students smoke in a safe way.
Specialized university smoking policies are unnecessary. Smoking in Canada is already banned in indoor public spaces and within nine meters from the entrance of social service institutions, including universities. If these rules are sufficient outside of the university bubble, there’s no reason they can’t be sufficient within it.
Brock University has recently updated their smoking and vaping policy to address the use of cannabis on campus; specifically banning smoking cannabis, banning the production of any cannabis edibles, and implementing scent-free cannabis storage rules. In addition to these policy updates, Brock is proposing to create a new “Fit for Work Standard” which could potentially include the monitoring of substances including cannabis to judge the impairment of their employees.
This is where my main concern lies. Regulation of a substance is a slippery slope. It’s no question that marginalized communities are disproportionately profiled and stand a greater risk of being unfairly policed and mistreated. I fear that what may start as well-intentioned smoking bans could quickly lead to prejudiced behaviour against vulnerable groups on campus.
It’s important to remember that there are many social determinants of cannabis use, and its misuse. Last week, I attended a roundtable on the impact of cannabis legalization which was held by the Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research. One of the attendees, a representative from the Canadian Mental Health Association, stressed that we must not tread into the medical reductionism of cannabis. The harms that are associated to cannabis are tied to a myriad of social issues that we must address first. Poverty, housing instability, food insecurity and racism are all factors that contribute towards cannabis use. There are also those who use cannabis as a treatment for an uncountable number of diseases and disorders including insomnia, anxiety and depression.
How can we then justify a ban against cannabis? This would essentially be a ban against its users, many of whom are the vulnerable and disenfranchised. It’s unclear what McMaster plans to do. What is clear is that when creating policies like smoking bans, it is the responsibility of the university, which claims to care about its students, to consult the people who will be impacted.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
