Presentation on theme: "Our Tobacco Compromise Proposal By: Joseph Cook Keith Davis Steven Peterson Presentation to the University of Idaho Faculty Senate January 27,2015."— Presentation transcript:
Our Tobacco Compromise Proposal By: Joseph Cook Keith Davis Steven Peterson Presentation to the University of Idaho Faculty Senate January 27,2015
Who We Are Introductions Who We Represent
Purpose Educate campus at large on the current proposed ban. Propose an alternative to a complete tobacco/nicotine ban.
Idaho Tobacco Compromise Proposal Partner with the smoking population and non-smoking population to create and enforce a system of carefully designated smoking areas. Away from doorways. Away from walking corridors.
Let’s Vote: Idaho Tobacco Compromise Proposal - Students & Full Faculty Proposal: An advisory ASUI referendum/Full Faculty vote with two propositions of the ballot in the Spring semester that is well advertised: 1) Tobacco Task Force Proposition 2) Idaho Tobacco Compromise proposal for designated smoking areas on campus.
“Official Task Force” From the beginning it was a group of true believers and advocates rather than an objective task force. It took the Economics and Veteran’s Clubs three years to get them to finally agree to a public forum held last Fall (and only after petitioning President Staben).
“Official Task Force” Misinformation Misinformation Argued it would cost $500,000 to have designated smoking areas. Stated the Dean of Students would treat smoking violations as ‘MIPs’ - Minors in Possession of alcohol. Argued it would cost the UI “millions in research dollars” if the institution did not impose a tobacco ban. Compared the UI to universities (UW, University of California, universities with high student growth rates) when arguing a tobacco ban would not reduce non-resident (foreign) student enrollments.
The False Premises of the Tobacco Prohibitions Tobacco bans will effectively reduce or eliminate tobacco use. Outdoor secondary tobacco smoke constitutes a serious health risk to non-smokers. Everybody is “Doing It” (i.e. all college campuses)….so that makes it right. It will drive smoking underground.
The False Premises of the Tobacco Prohibitions (cont.) Parallels the failed war on drugs that has led to the highest incarceration rate in the world (2.4 million). …and an Alcohol Prohibition on Adults Ages 18-21 that has not worked. If outdoor second-hand smoke were as dangerous as presented by the task force, there would be an epidemic of cancer deaths of nonsmokers… from toddlers to seniors. They Ignore Other Outdoor Pollutions.
Statistically Flawed Surveys… Some faculty with considerable expertise in surveys and statistical sampling believe that the surveys conducted by the Tobacco Task Force may be fatally flawed. It would take an investigation of the primary data sources and methodology to ascertain this scientifically. Some decisions have already been made based off of these potentially flawed surveys.
Tobacco Prohibitions Discriminatory: Class warfare. Smokers tend to be in the lower-social income classes. Those promoting the prohibitions tend to be in the upper income brackets. UI Classified staff are on the time clock and can be fired for an off-campus smoke break. The UI faculty are not on the time clock. Foreign students tend to have a higher percentage of smokers and they pay full nonresident tuition which holds resident tuition down. The prohibition will drive off these badly needed students.
Tobacco Prohibitions (cont.) The UI requires freshman students to live in the dorms… and now they will force them to quit smoking. The students may move to another university. Safety: Freshmen men and women will have to walk 20 minutes to get off-campus for a “legal” smoke break. At late night hours this could prove to be a safety risk. Tobacco restrictions at the other Idaho universities are a joke. Except for (perhaps) Idaho State University, they are all urban campuses. You walk one block and you are off campus. BSU excludes the tailgate parties from the ban (the ultimate act of hypocrisy).
Tobacco Prohibition (cont.) No Cost Reduction: University smoking bans are exporting the cost of cleanup to the local communities. Is it now “politically correct” to openly insult smokers and tobacco users? Did the Tobacco Task Force seek out their voices? Are tobacco users even aware of this debate? Are they “second class” citizens?
Predictions: Law of Unintended Consequences A classified staff member will ultimately be fired for smoking. A student will be expelled for smoking. News update: A New York City man was “strangled to death” by police while being arrested for selling unlicensed “single” cigarettes. http://www.ibtimes.com/nyc-police-union-denies-chokehold- use-during-eric-garner-arrest-1650410
Adults? The overwhelming majority of students are adults. They can vote to decide the future of the state and the nation. They can decide to serve and die for this nation. Why does the University want to babysit adults, by imposing a greater nanny presence on campus?
Adults? (cont.) Imposing arbitrary unnecessary regulations on legal actions stunts the maturity of the students subjected to them. It is being proposed that they are not capable enough to decide to how to use or not a legal product within the confines of current state law.
What is Freedom? Freedom is not limited to only the freedoms listed by our founding documents. States’ citizens have created laws to better refine what they are free to do. If an action is not illegal we as citizens are free to do them, it is our right to do them.
What is Freedom? (cont.) Idaho Code 39-5501 and 39-5503 already stipulates where smoking is legal to consume and by whom. Idaho Code 39-5507 discusses enforcement of the state laws… the University already does not enforce state law, within the code, why should the public trust the University to enforce arbitrary regulations uniformly.
From Here - I am a veteran and many other veterans share my opinion. I am part of a group of veterans, along with the officers of the Veterans Club, that oppose the complete ban on all tobacco and some non-tobacco products, but do favor a more tempered approach that includes designated area that does not infringe on people’s right to make decisions for themselves.
From Here – (cont.) We are reaching outside to concerned parties, legislators, governor’s office, donors, alum, and local citizens. We are planning an event to protest the proposed arbitrary and over-reaching policy changes.