Something ‘insidious’ about Mac’s plan

RE: Mac’s smoking ban

I can understand the reasoning behind banning smoking at McMaster — it’s about public health. There’s no doubt that smoking is harmful, but why include smoke-free devices such as e-cigarettes and marijuana vaporizers?

The Royal College of Physicians concluded that e-cigarettes are likely to be beneficial to UK public health, and that the use of e-cigarettes and other nontobacco nicotine products should be promoted. You can Google the report ‘Nicotine without smoke: tobacco harm reduction.’ If the findings of this study are correct, then McMaster will not achieve the best possible health outcome for its students and faculty with its ‘no vaping’ policy. It would be better to ban smoking but allow vaping.

It’s not clear why a university, especially one so focused on health research, would choose to ignore critical fact-based research from such a reliable and prestigious institution. Perhaps the powers-that-be are against the public display of addiction, or maybe vaping feels ‘disgusting’ to them, and their reasoning for banning e-cigarettes is simply a post-doc rationalization of an already formed judgment. Whatever their rationale, the choice to limit the freedom of the adults who occupy their campuses, despite cold, hard facts that suggest they are wrong to do so, does feel like a symptom of a greater problem (other symptoms include safe-spaces, banning controversial speakers, and condoning violence). You’re not wrong to feel that there is something insidious about their plan. James Liddycoat, Hamilton