www.ecigclick.co.ukE-Cigarette smokers won’t have the freedom they once had to puff inside University of Alberta buildings.
As of Jan. 1 2015, e-cigarettes will be held to the same standard as traditional tobacco cigarettes under Alberta’s Tobacco and Smoking Reduction Act. As a result, e-cigarette users are advised to smoke in designated smoking pits stationed across campus.
Associate Vice-President of Risk Management Services Philip Stack said e-cigarette users will no longer be allowed to smoke in public campus spaces — especially indoor areas — where smoking is usually prohibited. Similar to tobacco cigarettes, e-cigarette users are required to smoke five metres away from campus building entrances.
This is all in hopes of creating a healthier and safer campus environment, Stack said.
“We thought that in the interest of the well-being and safety of the community, it was prudent to treat it in a similar way as tobacco products,” he said.
According to Stack, the U of A has been conducting research on e-cigarette use and found insufficient evidence to determine any direct risks attached to their use. He said the university opted for precautionary measures as a result.
Those not abiding by the changes will be issued Code of Student Conduct violations in the same way as someone using traditional tobacco cigarettes in restricted areas. Legislation states that University of Alberta Protective Services have the authority to approach and warn, issue an offence or fine those not smoking in designated areas, Stack said.
“We haven’t had any issues when the legislation dealing with cigarettes came into effect,” he said. “The approach we have always taken with this is to inform and make people aware of legislation surrounding cigarette use.”
Stack said they are not expecting any issues to arise from this change, especially since they received concerns from students, staff and some faculty on the issue of e-cigarettes during their decision making process.
Student Advocates for Public Health raised their concerns about e-cigarette to the university in October 2014. Member Alethe Kabore said the group was “rooting for the decision.”
“We were really excited about the decision,” Kabore said. “It made us even prouder to be a part of the university because we realized that they listened and made well-founded decisions.”
She said this decision means that the university is not going to “keep that culture of smoking in public space.” It would also ensure that the university is maintaining a healthy environment, she added.
“We are not sure that this is not a toxic vapour, so we should treat it as a tobacco product before we confirm it isn’t,” she said.
Their advocacy efforts are “not quite done,” and said they are still in the process of lobbying city council to take measures against public use of the devices.
City Council passed a motion on Nov. 19 with the purpose of obtaining more information regarding the safety of e-cigarettes. The motion gave the City of Edmonton time to collect data that could prove useful when they review their smoking bylaws in March 2015.
Despite the social media backlash the Student Advocates for Public Health faced when they began campaigning, Kabore said those concerned just needed to know that the group was trying to restrict usage of the devices, and not the devices themselves.
“The more we get people understanding the issue the more we get everyone moving forward instead of pushing and pulling,” she said.
I will still vape on campus. This is. It gonna stop me. By the time the authorities arrive I will be long gone.
Apparently, the already did research and ignored it.
“According to Stack, the U of A has been conducting research on e-cigarette use and found insufficient evidence to determine any direct risks attached to their use. He said the university opted for precautionary measures as a result.
Prudent precaurionary measures would be to inform that vaping is not smoke or tobacco and promote ettiquette.
I’m confused why a great institution such as the U of A would restrict an individual’s freedom to utilize a product that can help them stop smoking. This is especially concerning given that there is no scientific evidence that vapor would harm bystanders in over 600 published articles.
As an alumni, my BScN gave me the skills to research credible evidence before forming an educated opinion as a responsibility to the public. Vaping is tripling the quit rate of patches/gum. Or smokers significantly reduce the number of tobacco cigarettes they smoke in a day. Maintaining nicotine levels in the brain & satisfying the physical habit are essential to reduce tobacco cravings.
Banning vaping is irresponsible & promotes tobacco addiction. It is clearly evident that those responsible for this decision were under-informed and/or misinformed. I would challenge those people to utilize their resources at this institution and conduct proper research.
I disagree:
Some factors that influence the decision:
The FDA has published concerns about the effects of inhaling the liquid (often propylene glycol), in which the nicotine is dissolved in some e-cigs. They also report some nitrosamines (known carcinogens), and there is increasing scientific evidence that nicotine itself has cancer causing properties.
The fact of the matter is that not enough research has gone into the effects of vaping. Not to mention it hasn’t been around long enough to see any long term effects.
It would be interesting to see references to your assertions. FDA has no upper limit for PG inhalation and it has been shown to be an effective anti-bacterial. Nicotine has been studied for 30 years and not considered a carcinogenic. “Smokers smoke for the nicotine an die from the tar”.
By the universities own admission they couldn’t find any direct harms to be concerned about and yet still make the decision.
In any case, causing non-smokers to expose themselves to smoking area we know is wrong. The decision was emotional.
@ Whitney.
I disagree with you as well. The FDA, like the many supposedly “Public Health” Organizations have established that the risk of using e-cigarettes is not nil. That’s it. By abusing the precautionary principal, they have equated “not 100% harmless” with “harmful”. The mere presence of certain chemicals does not automatically mean that they are harmful. The dose makes the poison. They fail to quantify what the level of risk is. We know what the short term and medium term risks are with e-cigarette use: essentially harmless. There is no evidence or even scientific theory as to how long term use could even begin to approach the harm that tobacco cigarette use causes. While you want to wait for long term evidence of absolute safety, millions of smokers will continue to smoke and suffer the consequences.
I’d rather inhale carbon monoxide than watch a few teens vape. We should all be in agreement on this.
“[e-cigs…] pose very small or maybe no health risks, they do not attract new users to nicotine so far, and they have the potential to help smokers to switch to something safer”
Professor Peter Hajek, Director of QMUL’s Tobacco Dependence Research Unit, talks about his research on e-cigarettes.
https://bit.ly/1uTEY2b
If people understood the issue, there wouldn’t be calls for treating ecigs like tobacco. Thinking those using ecigs should be in smoking areas are anti-health