To provide a smoke-free environment for its faculty, staff, students, patients, and visitors, UCSF shall be a smoke-free campus.
The policy, which has been flagged up by Glantz on his blog, applies to all "University-owned or leased property, buildings, space, and University-owned passenger vehicles and moving equipment" and includes all "smoking tobacco products".
To the scientifically illiterate goons at UCSF, "smoking tobacco products" includes products which are not smoked and do not contain tobacco.
Smoking tobacco products means inhaling, exhaling, burning or carrying any lighted or heated cigar, pipe or cigarette (traditional or e-cigarette).
Just unbelievable.
UCSF campus is like walking into a high security prison zone, in regards to smoking bans. They have plaques everywhere including huge metal disposal units ringing the campus approach zones with huge signage warning that smoking will not be tolerated. Armed guards sit in front of all campus buildings and frequently patrol out front, a puff of smoke or steam would not go unnoticed. The street separating the campus in two, Judah Street, runs right down the middle and is paid by taxpayer funds, being a city public street, but even there the signage is everywhere saying not to smoke on "UCSF's property". They have their own black and white police cars which go off campus into Irving Street commercial district heading below campus toward Golden Gate Park, another smoke banned outdoor place with $500 fines, and have been seen spinning around in the middle of busy intersections in order to rush off in whatever direction the UCSF armed police force feels the need to rush off too, without regard to safety of other vehicle drivers, passengers or pedestrians. They have also been seen miles and miless off-campus in Upper Market area running redlights with sirens flashing to pull over motorists they suspect of motoring violations, perceived or real, something outside their private jurisdiction that technically ends at the campus borders. I imagine soon they will have patrols looking for anyone creating puffs of steam from boiling soybean (vegetable glycerin) juice and water by use of a portable battery boiling device, which they apparently do not approve of, much as they approve of no smoking, outdoors included. Their influence, being largest employer and taxpayer in city of San Francisco, as well as bringing in large pharmaceutical companies to invest money and set up office and research labs there has what UCSF demands in regard to smoking bans be extended city wide, regional wide and even statewide, since Sacramento is not that far off and very close to lobby. What happens in San Franciso, experimentally, is what eventually they will plan to design for the rest of the state, country and other countries later on, once UCSF proves themselves "successful". "Successful" at what, I can't say, destroying science, destroying liberty, destroying economies and destroying peoples' lives is maybe it though UCSF would argue otherwise, being corrupted and prejudiced by big pharma interests.
ReplyDelete"UCSF campus is like walking into a high security prison zone.."
ReplyDeleteAs is much of California now...glad that I finally got the hell out of there.
Jr - you were wise. I hope the new place is a lot more free, as I have read that it is. I too am looking to get out but it is not as easy as would have been in my younger years. Still, I look for greener pastures also. Best of luck.
ReplyDeleteWell, lets see what the students do. Nothing probably. No idea how they're being Borgised.
ReplyDeleteUCSF campus also houses a full service major hospital and medical clinic, both of which are in standard daily operation year round as is any other hospital and medical clinic, complete with labs, emergency rooms, specialized wards, nursing staff, doctors, administration, etc.. This is not only a college campus being affected, this is also the way they wish to have all hospital grounds be modelled from here on out as well. What they are doing affects not only medical students, it also affects everyone who works there, is a patient there or who visits patients in their facilities.
ReplyDeleteOne step closer to total insanity! At some point even the radicals go,hey maybe we went to far!
ReplyDeleteOur local hospital has a land ban in place,the no smoking sign on the building is used for an ashtray by the locals and the front door to the ER is held open by a 5 gallon jug filled with sand thats used for another ashtray! We smoke in our courthouse and in the jails and police station and sherriffs office..........Not much respect in kentucky for non-smoking anything.
ReplyDeleteHarley
I can't help but think that just as California loosened up its ban on using marijuana (thanks to a citizen initiative in 1996) it cracked down on smoking out of doors in public places. Could the hidden agenda be a push back against the loosening of drug prohibitions?
ReplyDeleteMaybe next they'll ban simply exhaling on cold days. I saved this item from San Antonio TX News 4 a while back:
ReplyDeleteLisa Bixler, 16, of Olmos Park, couldn't find her cat Perkins and went out to her yard to look. It was one of those exceptionally cold Texas evenings--the kind that makes your breath turn to steam in the chilly air, and exhalations of "kitty-kitty" turn to probably cause for arrest. A passing policeman thought it was smoke. Sufficient evidence, he believed, to make a warrantless search of her person. Finding nothing, as Lisa recounts it, "he got down on his hands and knees and used a flashlight and pawed at the grass." Finding nothing-- not so much as a cooling match or a soggy butt, he nevertheless wrote up a ticket charging Lisa, who'd never smoked, as a "'minor possessing tobacco." Though her father summed it up as "start to finish Gestapo," a local judge upheld the charge.
:
Circumstantial evidence convicts again.There seems to be no factual basis of evidence anymore needed to get a conviction.........This has been going on for quite awhile!
ReplyDeleteWould I be wrong in assuming that if Stanton Glantz's ancestors lived in 1930's Germany, they would have had yellow stars sewn onto their coats?
ReplyDeleteWonder if Mr Glantz sees the irony. Then again he is an American, so I guess not.
Smoking bans in CA have nothing to do with legalization of medical marijuana by CA state and local initiatives. In fact, some of the strongest proponents of legalizing marijuana have been the strongest proponents of making tobacco defacto illegal, not just to smoke but to retail as well. So no, the smoking bans in CA are not in response to the legalization of marijuana efforts. If anything they are a see-saw in opposition to one another. Politician Tom Ammiano is a good case in point as has been Pelosi, pro marijuana, anti-tobacco-smoking. That is how progressive CA politicians project as public policy.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"I can't help but think that just as California loosened up its ban on using marijuana (thanks to a citizen initiative in 1996) it cracked down on smoking out of doors in public places. Could the hidden agenda be a push back against the loosening of drug prohibitions? "
ReplyDeleteBecky,
OMG!!!! YES! I too have been wondering the same thing. It may factor into (part) of the overall equation. BTW, many cities/towns in California are now voting to ban dispensaries all together. So much for Cali being a liberal, "pro-pot" state. Many so called Liberal politicians are now showing their true colors with regards to the marijuana issue.
It doesn't matter whether the issue is marijuana or tobacco, big pharma (and their bureaucratic friends) wants to control both markets, while the Nanny State (NS) puritans lust to have complete and utter control of our every move. Politicians, of course, love it all as they view the NS as a litmus test for encroaching totalitarianism; they also love the $$ and the payoffs (from the pharma lobbyists) that help them along the way as they pursue their agenda, which is anything but Democratic.
Chris,
ReplyDeleteJust a few points.
Concerning university (and medical) campus bans, there is a background in the comments section of Siegel’s blog for October 12 as to who is pushing these bans for pay (Ty[rant] Patterson) and how they are being pushed:
See “comments section” for Wednesday, October 12, comments by “Shadow Guest” about half-way down the comments page.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011_10_01_archive.html
Firstly, educational and medical institutions are leading the way in this social-engineering madness. You’ll notice that it’s straight out of the Godber/WHO Blueprint (smoking/tobacco eradication plan) where educational/medical institutions are “encouraged” to adopt anti-smoking/tobacco policies as [physicalist] “exemplars” for the rest of society, i.e., as in a supremacist cult.
Secondly, there is an organization/person pushing these bans in America, instructing campus students/administrators on how to impose such bans. A campus can have outdoor designated smoking areas, a total smoking ban, or a total tobacco ban. The last is considered the highest “health” ranking. These bans have no public health (protecting nonsmokers from SHS) basis. They are entirely a social-engineering exercise. Required are a few gullible students who believe they are helping to “fix” the world with smoking/tobacco bans. The antismoking organization then instructs these dimwitted students on how to approach the administration to get bans imposed. It involves the standard inflammatory clichés, slogans, rhetoric, and motivational meetings a là Amway.
2.
ReplyDeleteNowhere is it considered whether it is “right/moral” to impose such bans. The major concern is how these bans will be enforced. The antismoking organization in question involves an ex-smoker who is also ex-military. His involvement has essentially “militarized” antismoking on campus. He recommends roving antismoking patrols to catch “offenders” and three “infringements” can actually get a student expelled. The conduct is very much that of a supremacist group. These bans pose actual health issues, particularly for young female students. In the case of medical campus bans, it is particularly elderly smoking patients that are being persecuted. Antismokers don’t care.
Thirdly, the case of Kafilornia/San Francisco is of particular interest. Stantonitis “The Mechanic” Glands didn’t just declare himself a “Professor of Cardiology”. His rabid antismoking was legitimized by the medical administration at UCSF. Parts of Kafilornia had already passed indoor smoking bans by 1984 (see Godber Blueprint) on the basis of just one (Hirayama, 1981) study. Kafilornia has a strong eugenics past. It performed - by far – the most [reproductive] sterilizations in America. It was a eugenics epicenter in America, and from memory, Pasadena was a eugenics epicenter within Kafilornia.
Eugenics, a physicalist/materialist framework, views humans as a herd that can be engineered along particular physical dimensions, much in the same way as other animals. Although it is notorious for the racial/heredity/breeding dimension, eugenics also has a behavioral dimension. For example, in attempting to rear the best cattle, not only is breeding an issue, but also what the cattle are fed, their [physical] environment, and “behaviors”. In applying this to humans, along the behavioral dimension, physicalism is anti-tobacco/alcohol (these are viewed as body poisons that detrimentally affect physical performance), dietary prescriptions/proscriptions, and physical exercise. What makes eugenics eugenics – the fascist dimension – is not just the philosophical perspective, but that a self-installed elite made up primarily of physicians should impose/enforce this biological reductionist perspective/edicts on the population at large.
3.
ReplyDeleteThe greatest concentration of eugenicists post-WWII was in America. They were never brought to account for anything: America never resolved its eugenics past. Physicalism is a lowest-common-denominator perspective and of limited repertoire. This is how physicalists “reason”; it is impossible to just “drop” the entire perspective. Eugenicists didn’t just drop their perspective post-WWII. They certainly dropped the racial dimension, not only because their “heredity trees” were thoroughly flawed, but it was, and still is, a very “hot” issue. The eugenicists also dropped the “E”[ugenics] word and emphasized the behavioral dimension which has come to be referred to as “healthism”: It is eugenics by another name. It took only a number of decades – by the late-1970s – for the obsession with physical health – health reduced to only a biological phenomenon – to dominate proceedings again. And Kafilornia has been a/the leader in the degeneration, continuing its strong eugenics [physicalist] history.
We currently see all of the standard eugenics “traits” – health reduced to biology, domination by physicalists, obsession with [flimsy] statistics (the term “eugenics” was coined by the statistician Francis Galton, and quite a number of currently used statistics were developed by eugenicists for population-level analysis/control, e.g., Karl Pearson), obsession with shallow, divisive “cost analyses” declaring certain groups as “burdens” to society, and the vulgar practice of denormaliztion/propaganda to achieve fascist social-engineering goals. In a critical regard, antismoking is but a symptom. The actual “beast” is the shallow, demonstrably dangerous, physicalist framework that has legitimized antismoking and other points of social control. Physicalism and the medical model dominate government health bureaucracies around the world. This is where the primary damage has been done.
4.
ReplyDeleteAlthough religious groups, to their shame, have since been brought “on board”, the current antismoking crusade is in the eugenics tradition. As can be seen from the World Conferences on Smoking & Health, which is the basis and starting point for the current crusade, involves the standard eugenics personnel – physicians, biologists, statisticians, and those trained in the medical model. Although Godber was not an identified eugenicist, his view on smoking – just an “addiction”, no benefits and only detriments, to be eradicated from society – is the classical eugenics view of smoking. There was nothing peculiar about Godber’s view of smoking; he was a fascist physicalist.
There are specific places assigned by officials as smoking areas. No harm would be done if people follow the rules of the university. That can also play a part in disciplining the youth on smoking.
ReplyDeleteShala Ohms
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/more-nhs-patient-contact-urged-000114830.html
ReplyDeleteDon't you just love it?
Have a happy and exciting +28
Winston Smith
There are no "specific places assigned by officials as smoking areas" on UCSF campus - none. This includes for both tobacco and e-cig products. Secondly, in a free society, persons should not have to sieg-heil to "rules of the university", aka "experts", nor youth learn from early on they must be "disciplined" into obeying and never questioning authority, especially when second hand smoke harm is a trumped up fraud and farce designed by "experts" to receiving ever increasing grants to discriminate and focus pure vile hatred against smokers. It sounds like Nazi advice to go along with "rules of the university", especially when the university in question extends these rules onto the public streets and areas around campus, which the university does not own nor the university pay for. Sucking up to Stanton Glantz and "experts" of his sort is just playing up to the Nazis, is all it is. Next thing is you'll be telling "the youth" who need "disciplining" to never question authority - which is the common practice in schools these days where the kids are being dumbed down, indoctrinated, not being taught critical thinking, a vital skill necessary for remaining free.
ReplyDelete