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)
 2)
Tobacco Task Force Proposition
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-chokeholduse-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.
Thank You for
Your Time and
Consideration