This looks like a good compromise for the smokers and non-smokers. There is a balance of discomfort for both the smokers that have to travel to get to an area of relief and the non-smokers that have to travel through those areas to get to their destination.

Add that on 3/22/2005 the AFT2121 unanimously passed a resolution to work for a smoke-free environment.

I have two concerns: (1) there is no smoking area one can reach from Cloud Hall without having to descend and ascend either the stairs or the ramp. It would be challenging for many to go down, smoke, and then go back up either the stairs or the ramp in a ten-minute break between classes, even in a powered wheelchair. This is my first term at CCSF in which I'm able to get around at all without a powered wheelchair, so I'm very challenged by that arrangement. (2) There is no designated smoking area anywhere on campus with an overhang, meaning there is no place at all on campus where one can smoke during rainy weather, even if one is willing to travel across campus.

The suggested smoke zone areas have several problems. First, each smoke zone will regularly be an area with a cloud of noxious fumes which will cause immediate health impacts on anyone with asthma or other respiratory concerns; just walking through such clouds can trigger headaches, wheezing, coughing, or allergic responses. These smoke zone need to be away from public passages as well as buildings. Many smoke zones will create toxic smoke cloud barriers to passage through key pathways needed to move around campus, including several that are designed for disabled access. Others are near buildings, vents, windows, and doors, some above or below ( we need to think in three not two dimesions). Specifically:

#1 creates a smoke barrier blocking the bottom of a long incline ramp connecting Science/Cloud with the parking lot—it has to be moved.

#2 creates a smoke barrier blocking the main path from Judson and is near a building (on with important art in it and many school-age visitors)—it needs to be moved toward the sidewalk on Judson, south east of the pathway.

#3 creates a smoke cloud within a short space from vents, doors, and windows just below the deck, and will drop to the heavily-used stairway to the lower campus. Also, the normal wind blows in straight into Batmale. This needs to be moved to the north apogee of Marston.

#4 can be recessed further from the sidewalk, but is otherwise ok

#5 creates a smoke barrier blocking a major ramp pathway from Circle to public transportation, is close to the building windows (second floor, just above), and needs to be moved to the south side of the parking lot.

#6 is well-thought out and looks fine.

Also, perhaps each area could be a tent, so that smokers have protection from rain and a wind barrier that will facilitate getting a match lighted. Tents would also be warmer.

I am SO PLEASED to see that this effort is being made. I am surprised by how accomodating the new regulations are, and apalled by any complaints! 'Waaah, what about when it rains?" Get real. If it's such a big deal... quit smoking, maybe? It's a disgusting habit detrimental to your health AND the health of those surrounding you. Infect yourself with lung cancer in the privacy of your own home, if you must.

If anything, I think the regulations are TOO accomodating- I would suggest pushing the smoking areas even FURTHER out of the 'regular paths' most staff and students take.

But 'hurrah' for change- thanks for fighting the good fight. There may be some details to iron out, but this is a step in the right direction.

It appears to me that the smoking areas are too close to main entrances. The plaza outside Batmale Hall and the entrance to Rosenberg Library are areas exactly where smoke should NOT be. I am not for forcing people to quit smoking. But I would like the choice not to breathe it myself. Twenty feet is not enough space to create a smoke free zone. And it is not enforced. Could we set up some gazebos, out of the way of any established path, similar to smoking areas I have seen near other smoke-free facilities? This would protect smokers from the rain and elements. There is also nicotine gum - very helpful if people need a fix on their way to class and do not have time to hit the gazebo.

Please, please take the smoking areas out of the regular pathways. Making the areas in front of Rosenberg and Batmale places for smoking is only going to force me to walk through clouds of smoke everyday on the way to/from class, whereas now I can usually take a step or two and avoid it completely. Is it so much to ask for smokers to step just OFF of campus to have a smoke? Many campuses have this rule and it would be much easier to implement than trying to corral the smokers into a few areas.

I have been a CCSF student for a couple of years now, the great majority of which I was a smoker. So I believe that I bring a smokers perspective. First off I agree that consideration should be taken for when it rains(I like the gazebo idea); you can have all the rules you want, but if it rains I would be smoking under cover. Secondly I am in support of this whole thing but we should try not to alienate smokers too much. Banishment is not going to aid in their quiting this harmfull habit. We should not force our values and ideals on others. They should be accepted and treated with the same respect as any student or faculty would, not treated as lesser human beings because they don't adhere to the majority's idea of health. My understanding is that this is mainly intended to protect non-smokers' health. Lastly I question the ability of the CCSF police officers to enforce these new rules. It all sounds very utopic but I envision many violations and sneaky smokers breaking the rules and upseting you people and all your efforts. This is going to be very difficult to enforce. What is going to be the punishment for a violation? We have many smokers on our camus and they don't strike me as the type to be herded into safe zones. Are the police officers really going to be expected to use their time to chase down violators of this new ordinance?

Banishment does, in fact, aid in helping people to quit smoking. You can look into the effects of non-smoking ordinances in bars, restaurants or other public places on the number of smokers. Even better, here's some info. from Philip Morris, in reference to workplace smoking bans: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?tid=qhs55e00&fmt=pdf&ref=results

The smoking area in front of Batmale should be moved to the patio on the north side on the third floor of the building. I think some smoking areas are too close to entrances of places where smoking should be prohibited. Rosenberg allows smoking right in front of its two main and only entrances.

I am really stoked that CCSF is taking the initiative to make itself a smoke free environment. Go CCSF!
However, I agree with t marie, Lillian Marrujo-Duck, katherine, and jeff. The new designated smoking areas are right where non-smokers travel to classes. I am really bummed that the areas are described too vaguely and that they are in main pathways.
It would be great if there was just one central location for people to smoke, like at the top of the stairs between cloud hall and the science building. Not necessarily the entire area, because non smokers also need to go there, but an area would be chill because then the rest of the campus would be below the noxious cloud since the smokers would be uphill.
I feel that it would be too much of a comfort for smokers to have an overhead shelter. If it's raining they should smoke with one hand, as usual, and carry an umbrella in the other. I also believe that an overhead shelter would contain the smoke cloud rather then let it pass more quickly.
I am worried that the new regulations will not be followed nor enforced. Right now sometimes people smoke within 20 feet of doorways and I am forced to walk through and breath the smoke. I have never seen security or a teacher tell them to stand away from the door. I'm hoping that will get better.
Finally, and again I am really stoked that CCSF is working towards a smoke free campus. Perhaps someday it will TRULY be smoke free and there will not be any smoking areas on the entire campus and people will have to go to the surrounding sidewalks to smoke. That would be really rad :D
Thanx for reading my comment yaw.

I am thrilled that our College is adopting a smoke-free policy. This will help me maintain better health and will likely slowly have positive effects on the health of smokers, as well. I agree with other posters who suggest that the designated smoking areas should NOT be near campus buildings or walkways. The no. 1, 2, 5, and 6 proposed areas are along pathways upon which students, staff, faculty, and administrators walk, ride bicycles, and use wheelchairs, and for which there are not nearby alternate pathways (as there is for no. 4, for example, where people can choose to cross the street and use the opposite sidewalk). Because ETS does have a bad effect on the health of non-smokers (and smokers), I strongly encourage the College to be less concerned with making smoking areas accessible. San Francisco State University, which has a much large campus than our Ocean campus, effected a smoke-free campus policy in 2004, and the designated smoking areas are delibateraly out of the way to ensure minimal exposure of ETS to non-smokers. Follow this link to see their designated sites: http://www.sfsu.edu/~news/announce/smokemap.htm

I forgot to add that I think smokers should be encouraged to carry umbrellas while smoking in bad weather, just as those of us who wish to avoid getting wet should carry umbrellas while waiting for the bus, etc., while it rains. Like others, I am also concerned with the ability to enforce this policy. I frequently ask people (usually students) who are smoking close to my building to step outside the 20 foot radius, and am often ignored or glared at. Sometimes people are happy to comply. We need to find a non-antagonistic way to enforce this policy while also allowing the consequences to have enough "teeth" to make people comply.

Katherine,
Interesting article, if not brief, and void of the supporting evidence. I was mainly speaking from my own experiance. For instance in high school smoking most definitly is not allowed, yet many kids smoke (maybe for different reasons than people at our age, but they smoke regardless of banishment). I wen't to a continuation high scool where they seemed to turn a blind eye to kids smoking in the bathroom. This was a good thing (in my experiance and opinion) because if they really did enforce it, I and many other students who where having a difficult time finding the motivation to even go to school, would have had one more reason not to go at all. Again I state, that total banishment is not the right way; especially in a city college where people are just trying to begin their education they should not be forced to quit smoking or leave, so I agree with our designated smoking areas idea. The key is education, not punishment for ignorance.

You may prefer NPR, this link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15610995 has some information on the many different way in which a smoking ban can help people cut down and/or quit. I understand that people are just beginning their college education at city college but that should not suggest that they are excused for being ignorant of the ill effects on health or the rules on conduct which have become commonplace in our society. Would you actually choose not to attend a school because they did not allow smoking on campus? Of course not. I was a smoker for nearly 10 years and I had a much easier time quitting once smoking bans were put into effect in bars and restaurants, exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke is possibly more harmful for smokers than it is for non-smokers because for smokers it triggers cravings and can lead to more smoking. As for education, saying that smoking on campus is not okay might be the best first step to communicating to students that smoking is a poor choice to be making...though i would be surprised if most were not aware of that already.

I seriously just want to thank who ever passed the policy on making the campus smoke free. My lungs thank you and will forever be in your debt. I have always been very uncomfortable with all the smoking that is on the campus. It seems that for every step that I take on the campus there is a chain smoker puffing away about 2 feet away. I realize that smoking is a choice that some people make but for those whom breaths in the second hand smoke, what choice do we have in the matter when smoking is unavoidable on campus? The special areas specifically made for smokers are a great compromise and those whom think they are not I don't quite understand the reasoning as to why. Must you smoke every chance you get? Is it nerves that make you smoke? Its perfectly fine to make yourself comfortable but it shouldn't be at the cost of others.

Last month I attended a conference at Santa Rosa JC which is a REALsmoke-free campus. Granted they are smaller but it is interesting that they have the guts to go smoke-free and CCSF doesn't.

I have asked many times for evidence (results of scientific studies) that show that exposure to outdoor, open air ETS is dangerous, and nobody has ever been able to provide it. So I will ask again here. I have seen references to many studies that seem to indicate a slightly increased risk for children and spouses of smokers who spend most of their lives in confined indoor spaces with the smoker, and those studies are always cited as the source of the assertion that ETS is dangerous. But smoking is already banned and basically nonexistant on the campus in confined areas, so studies about confined areas and near continuous exposure do not apply to the situation under consideration at CCSF, namely brief outdoor open air exposure to ETS.

If anyone has a link to the results of a scientific study which concludes that open air ETS damages health, please provide it here. I am genuinely interested in finding such studies. I just spent a half hour looking at the footnotes cited at the top of this page, and chasing down those paper's footnotes. I could not find any evidence that open air ETS is damaging.

And note that statements like "there is no safe amount of exposure to ETS" do nothing to indicate how dangerous ETS might be in open air situations. For example lets say open air ETS increases risk by 0.00000000000001%, while the risk of car accidents due to the distraction of lighting a cigarette that would otherwise have been smoked on campus is 0.0000001%. In that case this policy would cause more damage to people's health.

Until someone provides evidence, we should all be clear that the motivation for these restrictions is suspicion (not evidence) of very slight health damage and desire to make the nonsmokers more comfortable. We are an academic community and academics are serious about not overstating results or evidence.

I would like to see the statement "No known amount of ETS is safe" (the only assertion in that section without a footnoted source) removed from the draft policy. Statements like "No known about of driving a car is safe" don't appear in car policies, even though there is plenty of evidence that driving is always dangerous, and driving to campus continues to be allowed.

I also would like to see the statement "The simple separation of smokers and nonsmokers within the same airspace may reduce but cannot eliminate nonsmoker exposure to ETS and its implicated health risks" removed from the draft policy because the policy has nothing to do with people within the same confined airspace.

Tom - please read Laura M's comments on the" Front page"
Here is a link to a interesting study:
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/may9/smoking-050907.html
By the way smoking is currently not banned on campus, smokers are required by law to smoke 20 ft away from operating windows and entrances, which many do not follow.

Celly, thanks that is an interesting study. Essentially they measured tobacco smoke outdoors and found that if you get very close (18 inches to 2 feet) of the smoker and are downwind, then the amount of ETS is measurable and significant.

But spinning this as evidence of health risks is an unjustified leap. It's just evidence that if you sit 2 feet downwind from a burning cigarette you will get smoke in your lungs. I think that's common sense.

In fact the study shows how hard it is to get significant exposure if you aren't very close for a long time outdoors: Someone would have to spend about an hour per day that close to a burning cigarette before they reached levels of pollution that the EPA considers above their standard for outdoor air quality. Simply moving more than a few feet away, not being downwind, or spending less than an hour a day keeps you within the EPA guidelines. And realistically nobody likes to be a few feet downwind of a burning cigarette; it's common practice for smokers to move their cigarettes so that the smoke does not stream towards people sitting nearby.

A quote from the article: "when you go a little distance or stay upwind, the exposure goes way down. If there's just one smoker, and you can sit six feet away, you would have little problem."

Thanks for posting that. Although it's not evidence of health damage for outdoor ETS, it's useful information. Anyone else that knows about studies of outdoor ETS risks please post.

In spirit I support the idea of having designated smoking areas around campus. I do have a few concerns, though.

It appears to me that non-smokers selected the currently proposed designated smoking areas because these are --- without exception --- the worst places on campus to hang out in terms of wind, cold, out in the open, etc. Currently the proposed designated areas surround the campus on hillsides, in parking lots and on sidewalks. Does this mean that all of us non-smokers must walk through a ring of smoke in order to enter/exit the campus? Does this mean that students, faculty, and staff must stand in parking lots dodging cars and breathing in exhaust in addition to cigarette smoke? Does this mean that when inclement weather comes upon us that the smoking community huddles in overhangs of residences surrounding our college campus?

*The State of California prohibits smoking in all public buildings and facilities as well as within 20 feet of a main exit, entrance, or operable window of a public building.*

The law state does NOT state that smoking is prohibited within 20 ft of a building! The law focuses on main exits, entrances, and *operable* window (meaning that the window opens/closes)

SUGGESTIONS:
1) Clarify understanding of California State Law and *accurately* represent that law in the handout titled "Ocean Campus - Smoking Areas"
2) Convene a group of smokers consisting of faculty, staff, students and administrators who currently smoke to review the currently proposed areas and suggest new more acceptable areas that are within the state law.
3) Avoid designating areas along paths and sidewalks so that those of us who travel around campus aren't forced penetrate a ring or cloud of smoke every time we walk from the parking lot and/or up and down the hill on the paths that have been created and are well traveled.

How silly it is to compare smoking and obesity/ bad diet. Fat people do not go around stuffing hamburgers and french fries down other people's throats. Smokers emit deadly gas from their cigarettes and we can't get away from them.

The smoking policy and the designated areas are only as good as the enforcement, which is non-existent. There are butt buckets NEXT to the door (bad placement) of Statler Building less than 10 feet from hundreds of butts on the ground,mixed with a few empty cig. packs. There's no official smoking area nearby...

A student pointed this out to me today: " At least with cigarette smoke, I know to get away from it because it's disgusting. With other toxic fumes (like from cars) there's no odor and no warning to get out of the area."

This is a really interesting fact sheet dated Feb. of 2011 regarding tobacco and socioeconomic status (it also touches on levels of education): http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0260.pdf

I still can't find anywhere that says we are not leaving the smokers out in the rain and wind. How are shelters to be built for them? Where is money to come from?