The University of New Hampshire instituted and revoked an on-campus ban on the sale of so-called energy drinks in the same day this week. Apparently the Dining Services administrator (although the exact individual or governing body initiating this policy wasn’t clearly identified in the Inside Higher Ed article) made the decision to ban the sale of all energy drinks on campus in an attempt to further its self-stated mission to turn UNH into the “healthiest campus in the US” by 2020. That same day, the university’s President quashed the ban indefinitely due to conflicting evidence regarding the health effects of those products. While weighing in on the topic, student leaders noted that students could simply walk across the street to get their fix of energy drinks, so a campus ban would be nothing more than an inconvenience. The bigger question that this ban elucidated was “Who is responsible for the health of students when it comes to lifestyle choices such as food/drink intake and by extension, alcohol, drug, and tobacco use?”
The University of Colorado weighed in on this topic in 2008 by conducting an optional survey of the University community (faculty, staff and students) regarding the total ban of tobacco product use on all of its campuses (which include a medical campus, a commuter campus, and two residential campuses). According to a Boulder Faculty Assembly Resolution of Support for Restricting Smoking on the Boulder Campus, the survey results indicated a “strong majority of persons supporting a total ban of smoking on University property, with strong majorities supporting the ban at UCD [which includes a commuter campus and a separate medical campus], and near majorities at UCB and UCCS [the two residential campuses]” (bold added). In other words, those who worked on the medical campus, or attended classes at a commuter campus strongly supported the ban, and those who actually live on their campuses full time did not support the ban. The use of the word “near majority” is a political way of saying that a simple majority of the constituents on the residential campuses did NOT support the ban. (In my opinion, that is somewhat like saying that Al Gore won the 2004 election by a near majority because he earned lots of votes in the states where he did gain a majority.)
Although I do not like being in the vicinity of smokers, and hate having to walk through a cloud of smoke every time I enter or exit the building where I work, I do not believe that it is within the purview of a university to dictate whether or not students, faculty, and staff engage in the use of a legal substance whether that be tobacco products, Pepsi Max, or a Snickers bar. On the other hand, I absolutely support the full ban of tobacco use inside a workplace. Second-hand smoke does not discriminate as it pervades the interior of a building, so if my office-mate or the occupant of a nearby office smoked, so would I whether I liked it or not. In the end, the University of Colorado did not ban the use of all tobacco products on all of its campuses. The medical campus (which houses the medical school, several hospitals and outpatient medical facilities) implemented a tobacco use ban on April 6, 2009. During the first six months of policy implementation, employees were provided with a “smoking shack” located away from the entrance of a building, and during that time, employees were encouraged to participate in smoking cessation session. After six months the policy was fully enforced. The most interesting question on the university’s Smoking Ban FAQ website was “Can I smoke in my car?” The answer stated that if you car is parked on campus then it would be a violation of the campus policy. It will be interesting to see if the other campuses decide to implement a similar policy in the future.
This discussion is right up my alley. I tend to be in support of legislation and policies which guide consumers towards healthier choices—whether that be taxing cigarette purchases, banning trans fats in restaurants (as New York City did in 2006), or regulating the foods available in high school vending machines. As an educator, my stance on this is even stronger when those consumers happen to be students.
ReplyDeleteYou ask, “Who is responsible for the health of students when it comes to lifestyle choices such as food/drink intake and by extension, alcohol, drug, and tobacco use?” I see this as a shared responsibility. Ultimately the student is most responsible for his or her own choices. However, the institution has a responsibility here too- we are responsible for creating an environment which is conducive to learning. Part of the discussion needs to be about which elements within our environment support student learning and success, and which may hinder success. Certainly we know that health and wellness can be a factor in students’ overall success. As such, these considerations are important ones for colleges and universities.
Of course, in addition to creating the environment for learning, we are also responsible for educating and empowering our students to make their own informed choices about matters such as their health. A straightforward blanket ban on any item or product deemed “unhealthy” on campus would therefore be inappropriate. Rather, institutions should directly engage students in policy development and communication on these issues, as many of the more successful smoke or tobacco free campuses have done.
I would assume that students at the University of New Hampshire are probably thinking more about their choices re. energy drinks, as a result of the hype that this ban (and reversal) has caused. Could the same opportunity for intentional consideration of these health-related issues have been created on the front-end by engaging students in the policy development process? I think so.
As a sometime smoker myself, I feel compelled to make a few points related to the discussion of campus wide bans on unhealthy products.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I would not put high caffeine drinks in the same boat as tobacco products. The ill effects of energy drinks, while worthy of concern, do not compare to the long term, life altering, and life shortening effects of tobacco products.
Second, although addictive, I believe one would be hard pressed to find a person dying of a caffeine related disease steadfastly gripping a high energy drink in their fist while gasping for their last breath. But, I have witnessed such with tobacco use. Ask anybody who has worked in health care any length of time and they will probably have a story to share of a patient shut their oxygen tank off to take a smoke break.
The larger question is not whether high energy drinks are a health hazard, but rather, who has the right to make the choice about what students may legally consume; the university administration or the students? It has been my experience that the more inconvenient it is to use tobacco and the more socially unacceptable it is, the more incentive for an individual to pursue a tobacco cessation program. But, as Braelin pointed out above, student engagement in policy development and implementation is imperative for success. However, I doubt that high energy drink sales will inspire students to strive for a campus wide ban with the same passion that tobacco use can garner at least not until such time that high energy drink consumption is viewed as undesirable and socially unacceptable as tobacco use.
I am relieved to see the ban at the University of New Hampshire was repealed. I firmly believe that battles should be chosen very carefully and with all of the serious health issues facing college students today does a ban on the sale of high energy drinks really rate as a top priority???
I flip-flop on this issue. Like Robyn, I despise walking across campus through clouds of cigarette smoke. I will take another path, or hustle to get in front of a smoker, just so I don't have to breathe that crap.
ReplyDeleteHowever, trying to police students' health choices is not really our job. These students are adults, and are free make their own choices. On the other hand, we CAN try to educate them about making healthy lifestyle choices.
Back on the side of regulation, I do believe that campuses should be tobacco free. More than just affecting the user, the smoke affects (and infects) those in the vicinity. I will even go a step further, and go on a little rant. I believe that tobacco use should be illegal. There is NOTHING that is beneficial about tobacco use, other than lining the pockets of the producers, who in turn donate to politicians who will legislate in support of their donors. The number of health problems, and the associated health care costs, caused by tobacco use are insane.
While I don't believe in the right of the government to limit choice, I do believe that tobacco should be placed in the same category as other illicit drugs, and be banned in this country.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI was very interested in your post as well as Braelin's response. I supervise the Center for Peer Education at UNC, and the students are responsible for planning educational and alternative programs for the campus community. Our mission isn't to discourage or reprimand students for their choices but instead educate them about the choices they are making and offering other safe alternatives regarding alcohol, drugs, tobacco use, sexual health, mental health, and general health and wellness.
ReplyDeleteRecently, we were asked to do education regarding the use of energy drinks and the affect it can have on the body and the influence it has in terms of the party culture as well as study and sleep habits. I agree with Braelin that it is a shared responsibility when it comes to who is responsible for healthy lifestyle choices at our universities. While it will ultimately be the students' choice whether they partake in particular activities or substances, it is our responsibility to educate students about the choices they are making and the potential consequences.
It was interesting that students made an argument saying that it doesn't matter if the university takes away energy drinks because they have the ability to walk across the street and get it anyways. Just because we know 11% of UNC students smoke, does that mean we should still have cigarettes or chew less tobacco available for purchase on campus? It is still our responsibility to educate students in all aspects of their college career and to foster a safe environment for them to live. While I do not agree that taking away energy drinks from campus is necessarily a rational way to do so, I think it leads to an interesting conversation for students to have about WHY the university would make a decision to.
We have discussed becoming a smoke-free campus for almost three years, and it has been one of the more fascinating issues to watch unfold on campus in a long time.
ReplyDeleteWe had the obligatory signs posted at all entrances stating that there was no smoking within 25 feet of the building, and that was generally, somewhat (OK not really) followed on most days...and then it would rain or get cold and suddenly there would be gaggles of smokers huddling around the doors. In their defense, generally our ash tray / trash cans were located immediately below the "no smoking" signs by each of the doors...not exactly the best planning if you ask me.
All of the smoking occuring at each of the entrances always brought complaints, and it was usually from students and visitors to campus, and not staff / faculty. After fielding enough complaints, our Executive Leadership team decided that, rather than becoming a smoke-free campus, we would become a "designated smoking area" campus with each of the designated smoking areas being strategically placed away from the main entrance.
The designated smoking areas have been in place for about a year and were implemented with very little resistance. There are still people who don't comply and smoke in other places, but it's the exception and not the rule.
This must have been an interesting few days at UNH. I actually feel sorry for the person/s who made this decision only be be publicly humiliated by the president. As the articles states, UNH has the self-stated mission of becoming the “healthiest campus in the US” by 2020 (good luck catching up to a number of institutions in a state west of us!). How does an institution go about actually becoming healthier? And who decided on that as a strategic priority? The kicker...I believe the article mentions that Duncan Donuts was opening a store on campus the same week this occurred, which would negate any health risks associated with energy drinks (energy drinks mixed with alcohol is a different story). I think the comments here reflect a great deal more thoughtfulness than what appears to have been a bad policy decision at UNH. Banning substances usually do not have the desired effects and often simply lead to people finding creative solutions that make the situation worse.
ReplyDeleteHooray! Another of my favorite topics. Smoking bans in generally bring into question how we look at individual freedom and the impact that one person's freedom has on another's. I find this issue especially interesting when we put it in the context of places where we legally already ban smoking in Colorado. State buildings, no smoking. The majority of bars and restaurants, no smoking. The rational is that public buildings are places of business and smoking impacts people working and using services. A similar health and enjoyment argument is made for bars and restaurants. Why then not apply this to college campuses? I work on campus. I have to walk from building to building, as do students. How is the impact of the smoke different to my health, work, or enjoyment on campus as opposed to the capitol or my favorite pub? I'm not really sure.
ReplyDeleteThe point about the residential component does complicate matters... in both directions. More and more campuses are banning tobacco products with varying degrees of success. I am curious if this trend will continue and become the norm. Time will tell.