2008 Woodie Awards
View print edition front page as a PDF
Opinions
Staff editorial: Where there's smoke...
The senate's newest smoking bill ignores the SG's previous smoking study.
2/21/08
Correction appended
As much as some of us despise the cloud of smoke that often hovers above the entrances to campus buildings, the Undergraduate Senate's newest proposal to "protect the health of the AU community and foster understanding" amounts to little more than a criminalization of smoking.
Although its authors casually refer to it as the "courtesy policy," the bill certainly appears to be anything but. The proposal would require smokers to keep 25 feet away from most buildings, with the exception of the Letts-Anderson Quad, where students may smoke on the island between the two residence halls. Most notably, the bill would create a special Public Safety hotline that students could call if carcinogen-crazed smokers prove too stubborn to handle with simple manners.
What's really missing in this plan, however, are all of the suggestions the SG gathered in its smoking survey last semester. The new bill has no provision for more ashtrays and no commitment to public relations campaigns or programs to help students quit. Instead, it is an attempt of some SG senators to put smokers on the defensive for a choice they made (and only they should make) about their own health. We thus commend SG President Joe Vidulich for promising a veto on such a bill - this one especially - that could eventually amount to a campus ban on smoking.
But do not misinterpret our dissatisfaction: For those of us who do not smoke, inhaling unwanted carcinogens is annoying and worrisome. Yet, we have to ask: Of the many students and senators who support partial or complete bans on smoking, how many of them have politely asked nearby smokers to relocate from the doors? Are we so immature we need SG bills to remind us of the importance of manners? Sure, let the senate codify a courtesy policy if that's what it feels will solve the problem. Just don't claim that such a bill "protects health" or "fosters understanding" if it does anything but that.
Correction: Because we received the revised bill at 12:30 a.m., long after we convened our editorial board, we overlooked updating our staff editorial, "Where there's smoke..." As a result, there were a number of errors in what we published. Contrary to the staff editorial, the revised bill does include provisions to add more ashtrays across campus and create a public relations smoking courtesy campaign. The revised bill also explicitly states that it does not advocate a campus ban on smoking.
As much as some of us despise the cloud of smoke that often hovers above the entrances to campus buildings, the Undergraduate Senate's newest proposal to "protect the health of the AU community and foster understanding" amounts to little more than a criminalization of smoking.
Although its authors casually refer to it as the "courtesy policy," the bill certainly appears to be anything but. The proposal would require smokers to keep 25 feet away from most buildings, with the exception of the Letts-Anderson Quad, where students may smoke on the island between the two residence halls. Most notably, the bill would create a special Public Safety hotline that students could call if carcinogen-crazed smokers prove too stubborn to handle with simple manners.
What's really missing in this plan, however, are all of the suggestions the SG gathered in its smoking survey last semester. The new bill has no provision for more ashtrays and no commitment to public relations campaigns or programs to help students quit. Instead, it is an attempt of some SG senators to put smokers on the defensive for a choice they made (and only they should make) about their own health. We thus commend SG President Joe Vidulich for promising a veto on such a bill - this one especially - that could eventually amount to a campus ban on smoking.
But do not misinterpret our dissatisfaction: For those of us who do not smoke, inhaling unwanted carcinogens is annoying and worrisome. Yet, we have to ask: Of the many students and senators who support partial or complete bans on smoking, how many of them have politely asked nearby smokers to relocate from the doors? Are we so immature we need SG bills to remind us of the importance of manners? Sure, let the senate codify a courtesy policy if that's what it feels will solve the problem. Just don't claim that such a bill "protects health" or "fosters understanding" if it does anything but that.
Correction: Because we received the revised bill at 12:30 a.m., long after we convened our editorial board, we overlooked updating our staff editorial, "Where there's smoke..." As a result, there were a number of errors in what we published. Contrary to the staff editorial, the revised bill does include provisions to add more ashtrays across campus and create a public relations smoking courtesy campaign. The revised bill also explicitly states that it does not advocate a campus ban on smoking.
Viewing Comments 1 - 6 of 6
Benjamin Schorr
posted 2/21/08 @ 5:41 AM EST
I am an SG senator and this is the most ill informed article I have ever read and you should be ashamed to have written it. I do no know what meeting you sat in on and tuned out the discussion but you certainly have not read the current bill nor understand its provisions. (Continued…)
Nick Troiano
posted 2/21/08 @ 7:31 AM EST
While I appreciate the input from the editorial staff at the Eagle, your comments are extremely unfounded and very misleading. I am even unsure if you read the bill that was passed out of committee before writing such as negative piece. (Continued…)
Jefferson Cabareau
posted 2/21/08 @ 11:30 AM EST
This editorial is precisely why you cannot claim to be an authoritative source on anything. When two columns within the same paper contradict each other so dramatically in regards to a single topic, and you spew such hateful lies about a policy you know nothing about, that seriously damages your credibility, and this is not the first time. (Continued…)
M
posted 2/21/08 @ 6:43 PM EST
Your request to come to meeting of the senate would be slightly more appetizing if you could spell.
Maggie_Jane
M
posted 2/21/08 @ 6:45 PM EST
Your offer to come to a senate meeting would be slightly more appetizing if you could spell.
Amy
posted 2/24/08 @ 2:04 PM EST
It's an opinion piece, guys. Calm down.
Post a Comment