At tonight’s ASUO Senate meeting, President Rousseau announced that the ASUO is moving forward with a smoke-free campus policy. The Executive received an $800,000 grant to be spent over a number of years from PacificSource Health Plans as part of their Healthy Campus Initiative. The plan would be implemented over two years, starting with a “Great American Smoke Out” in November. The money from PacificSource will go to the hiring of three staff members, one full time and one part time, to deal with creating a healthy campus. Rousseau stated that a Tobacco Free Campus would be the primary issue those people will work on, specifically a promotion and education plan. Rousseau mentioned adding signage promoting a smoke-free campus and taking down the smoking stations, but there would be no enforcement of the policy other than peer pressure and a culture change. The idea is to educate new students that UO is a tobacco-free campus, so that is their expectation when they become students. Rousseau also mentioned that Oregon State University is implementing a policy in January, and she would love to do it first.

Other campuses in the country do this, including Arkansas and Kentucky. Should Oregon be added to that list? Comment it up, kids, I want to know what you think. Then I’ll tell you what I think (although I think you already know).

P.S. Smoke-in next week. More details with the next post.

Taking away student rights in the name of “progress” has never really been my jam. It is with this in mind that I say WHAT. THE. HELL. ASS. AMELIE.

President Rousseau is gearing up to back the Smoke Free Task Force in attempting to make campus smoke-free. This is not news. But now, with an article in the Ol’ Dirty, she has made it news again.

ASUO President Amelie Rousseau is pushing for a smoke-free campus and has joined the University’s Smoke Free Task Force to start gathering support.

The task force, a group of mainly University faculty created in the 2007-08 school year, surveyed students, faculty and staff in April 2008 and found support from 75 percent of its 4,769 participants.

…

Rousseau said a major component of a potential smoking ban would be preventing second-hand smoke on campus.

“It’s about protecting students and staff from second-hand smoke, because our campus is a workplace, and people do have to travel between buildings and are exposed to second-hand smoke,” she said.

She also referenced the Smoke Free Task Force survey that said 3,576 of 4,769 University respondents, 75 percent, were “occasionally or often bothered by second-hand smoke on campus.”

So, according to the Daily Emerald, everyone who is occasionally or often bothered by second-hand smoke on campus supports making the space smoke-free. That seems like putting the cart before the horse a little, no?

Unfortunately for students at the University of Oregon, this is how our ASUO is operating right now. The folks in that office make absurd claims and leaps of logic to prove their point over and over, and I am starting to get sick of it. Just because students are frustrated by second-hand smoke does not necessarily mean they want to start taking away the rights of students. This is a slippery slope.

But students who smoke on campus say a major part of it is the convenience of a cigarette after class.

“After class, it’s really nice to just be able to walk out the door and smoke a cigarette and then walk out to the bus or something,” University freshman Ben Danner said.

Rousseau hopes a cigarette ban on campus would make this habit a chore, which would in turn discourage smokers.

“We want to make it easier for people to live healthy lives,” Rousseau said. “We want UO to be a healthy community, and that starts with being tobacco-free.”

Let’s tackle the health issue here for a minute. Our student union has a contract with the fast food company, Panda Express. Panda Express serves many meals every day. Through some quick and unscientific observation, the most commonly ordered item is a two-entree plate with Orange Chicken, Beijing Beef, and a side of Chow Mein. According to the Panda Express website, the nutrition breakdown of these items is as follows:

In the interest of not making you take out your calculator, that’s a total of 1,650 calories, 82g of fat, and 2,820mg of sodium. That is a lot. I am not suggesting that the EMU take Panda Express out of the building. I am suggesting that we allow students to make their own choices about their health on campus. Nowhere on the UO campus are cigarettes sold.

Additionally, there are designated “smoking stations” located more than 10 feet away from the entrances to buildings. People smoking by the door and under breezeways are a problem, but there is no entity on campus enforcing the current rules. I think it’s a little quick to say we need a smoke-free campus, when the intermediary steps are not being taken. Even designated smoking areas is a better idea. Overarching University-wide rule changes should be well thought out and the student government and other interested groups should take an interest in process and talking to students.

Beyond all this, I understand the desire to make campus smoke-free. But Amélie claims to want to eliminate student smoking altogether. Rousseau said she wants people to stop smoking because of what a chore it is to walk off campus. Nowhere does she address the safety issue, which I brought up in the Back to the Booze issue of the Oregon Commentator. To ban smoking on campus is to push smoking students off campus and out of Department of Public Safety jurisdiction. While the ASUO is continuing to fund a 24-hour Knight Library, it doesn’t seem entirely in the student interest to make us leave campus to smoke and subsequently put us in the path of the 3AM riff raff of the West University neighborhood. Assaults happen in the areas directly adjacent to campus a lot more often than they do on campus.

Just because you make us move, doesn’t mean you’re going to make us quit. No member of the student body — elected or not — should be able to tell another member of the student body not to exercise their rights. You won an election. You are not my mother.

A friend of mine made another point — if students are forced off campus to smoke, won’t students entering campus be faced with a lot more second-hand smoke in a lot more of a concentrated area? I guess Rousseau doesn’t care about that, because it’s not on campus. It is, however, a legitimate concern.

There is a lot to consider here. Think about it, and do some research. And pay attention for an announcement about a smoke-in happening soon. For the final word, I’m going to turn it over to President Bartlet and the championship status of Aaron Sorkin:

The Ol’ Dirty’s Back to the Books issue is on stands today, and new campus and federal politics reporter Franklin Bains has stretched his legs with not one, not two, but three boring articles about the ASUO intended to introduce coverage of the topic. I’m going to summarize each article quickly:

1. Rousseau has big plans for first few weeks of fall term: ASUO President Amélie Rousseau wants to do more legislative work (see: get a job with the Oregon Student Association or United States Student Association after graduating). She’s going to try and go talk to Greeks, because she wants “to do a better job of reaching out to students who don’t usually get heard.” The ASUO is registering voters, like every year. Amélie appointed her boyfriend, Robert D’Andrea, to the highly controversial Political Director position that she created just for him, but he has since resigned, “saying that his presence detracted from the ASUO’s ability to deal with important issues.” [More on this later in the post.] She moved money designated for the 2009-10 budget for use in the 2010-11 budget, which no other student program has been allowed to do, ever. AND, finally, she is “attempting to implement a smoke-free campus to protect students and staff from the adverse effects of secondhand smoke.”

“It’s the right thing to do,” Rousseau said.

First of all, great justification, Amélie. Seriously, top notch.

The Oregon Commentator has long held the opinion that a smoke-free campus is an absurd and draconian response to the issues created by students being able to exercise their rights on campus. The City of Eugene and the state of Oregon both have laws surrounding smoking near doorways and places of business — sometimes individuals must smoke ten feet from the door, sometimes 25 feet — that are as of this point not enforced by the Department of Public Safety on this campus. To create a smoke-free campus at this point would be putting the cart before the horse and simply an attempt by President Rousseau to say that she actually did something while holding the position. There are other problems associated with a smoke-free campus, including student safety and, y’know, policing adults consuming tobacco products in the ambient air.

The Oregon Commentator and the Coalition of On-Campus Smokers regularly organize smoke-ins in the EMU Amphitheater. Look forward to announcements of a fall term smoke-in around week two or three.

2. Who’s who at the ASUO: Descriptions of ASUO President Amélie Rousseau, ASUO Vice President Maneesh Arora, Summer Senate Chair Kaitlyn Lange, ASUO Legislative Affairs Coordinator Sara Marcotte-Levy, and Former ASUO Political Director Robert D’Andrea. From that section:

After Rousseau created this executive post in May, she announced this month that Robert D’Andrea would be stepping down from his position. D’Andrea said his involvement detracted from the ASUO’s focus on campus issues because of the controversy surrounding his appointment. D’Andrea’s appointment drew some criticism from the ASUO Senate for appointing her boyfriend because of how it might affect the running of the ASUO. Rousseau insisted that D’Andrea’s appointment to the post was based on the years of experience he had at the Emerald as an ASUO reporter, news editor and opinion editor. D’Andrea worked as a campaign manager for Rousseau and Arora in the 2010 ASUO election. As political director, he would have assumed some of the strategic functions similar to the chief of staff, while also directing other members of staff in media communication . Nevertheless, he will still be involved with campus groups.

What this article neglects to mention is the fact that since becoming ASUO Political Director, Robert has assumed the position of chair of the Working Class Caucus in the United States Student Association. For those playing along at home, many a former ASUO politico has gone on to get a position in the Oregon Student Association, United States Student Association, Fund for Public Interest, or other similar political organizations that seek to fund themselves from student money and support. In fact, some say it has a hand in who gets elected each spring. Robert is no different, and assuming he is still a student come fall term, I’m sure we’ll see him continuing on in this position.

3. ASUO’s importance exists in representation of students: An article outlining the structure of the ASUO, its various finance committees, and who technically has power over whom.

The one comment on that article, by “Thom,” states:

This article explains the ASUO’s functions, but falls flat on explaining the importance of such functions to the everyday student. The ASUO is a disconnected group of children playing esoteric games with other people’s money.

Thank you, Thom. I couldn’t agree more.

The first winter term edition of the Daily Emerald came out today, inexplicably without any editorial or opinion column whatsoever (where’s my D’Andrea retrospective on the last decade?) What the paper chose to run on its opinion page was instead an enlarged section of its “Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down” blurbs.

Now if you’re not familiar with the section, they are essentially uncredited (read: without a byline, standing as the general editorial stance of the newspaper) paragraph blurbs about news stories the Emerald approves or disapproves of. My favorite of today? This one:

“Thumbs Up for No Smoking – North Carolina, the nation’s top tobacco-producing state, went smoke-free inside bars and restaurants Jan. 1. If it can happen there, it’s hard to imagine why smoking would be allowed anywhere else. Say, on campus, for instance.”

Glad to see the Emerald still has the wonderful editorial slant that disallows private business owners to make decisions for themselves. And if they had it their way, students as well.

It’s good to be back.

[UPDATE] The second edition of the Emerald came out today, and despite their 5-person paid opinion staff, the entire opinion page had borrowed columns from Portland State’s The Vanguard. I wonder if the Vanguard staff collected a stipend for that?

For those interested, you can read the Smoke Free Task Force’s full report to the administration here. It’s worth a read, if just to see how biased and asinine the whole process has been. Join me as I wade through document and pick out some of my favorite parts. For example, this is part of the recap of the “forums” held to discuss the smoking ban:

A staff member stated we needed to look past the glamorous side of smoking. The smell of smoke makes him ill. He made the comparison of secondhand smoke to someone who is HIV positive spiting [sic] on another individual and being charged with assault.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Ol’ Dirty Emerald issued an editorial two days ago against the statewide ban on smoking in workplaces that went into effect on the 1st. Seriously. And it wasn’t even all that wishy-washy. Check it out:

Cigarette smoke is undoubtedly bad for one’s health, and people should not be forced to breathe it in when they want to go out for a drink. But couldn’t there be some middle ground? Banning smoking from all but a few public places could seriously damage bar owners’ and others’ business, and is a decision that should be left up to the owners’ control. In order to curb smoking, the state could offer tax breaks to smoke-free establishments, rather than taking the most restrictive course possible. Let’s not forget that if an individual wishes to avoid secondhand smoke, he or she can simply choose not to go to establishments where smoking is allowed.

Aw, I didn’t think you guys had it in you – what with your embrace of novel concepts like “individual choice” “business” and all. Of course, the first comment on the online version makes me weep a little bit for humanity:

[sic]once again the poor victim is being abused. the smoker who won’t acknowledge the health cost of their vice for themselves or the people who are forced to exist near their areas of smoking. the smokers could have stopped, could have stopped tossing their butts anywhere, could have had establishments designate areas and require air systems but no they would rather demand freedom to kill themselves and others.
i am sorry i won’t feel sorry for smokers who are being inconvienced.  and if any smoker doesn’t like it have a cold and then walk into you living area and see how your world smells to others [/sic]

As you’re probably all aware, Oregon’s new smoking ban goes into effect on the 1st, meaning tomorrow is your last day to enjoy delicious tobacco in a bar. (Of course, smoking is banned in all bars in Eugene already. We’re way ahead of the curve in overbearing nanny-ism). But would you believe that the Oregonian had the cojones to run an anti-smoking ban opinion? Check it out:

The state could have considered offering tax breaks to smoke-free businesses, for example. Instead, it’s taking the most restrictive course possible, banning smoking in all but a few specialized shops and lounges. The fact that smoking gets such harsh treatment while workers in far more dangerous fields receive not an ounce of notice suggests that the ban actually has little to do with employee safety. Protecting workers is simply the polite fiction by which nonsmokers have imposed their will on an increasingly unpopular minority.

However, I liked the Willy Week’s more blunt take on the matter:

Congratulations, you busybody neo-Puritan health-crusade fuckwads: You win again. You have assured that the people who make a living distributing poison to addicts will not have to breathe the poison of other addicts. And the only collateral damage is the neighborhood dive: the hole-in-the-wall joint where beautiful people never congregated anyway. So one of life’s little consolations—a beer and a cigarette—is now illegal in Portland. Good work, team.

For the record, we at the OC have taken many firm stands against smoking bans local, state and national.

P.S. Don’t be too surprised to see newspapers coming out against the ban. Journalists are rather notorious smokers. See also: Edward R. Murrow, Hunter S. Thompson and apparently every reporter in China.

From the Chronicle of Higher Education:

Some students at the 14 universities in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education are fuming over a decision announced by their chancellor last week. On Wednesday, the day before a state law that prohibits smoking in any public place in Pennsylvania took effect, Chancellor John Cavanaugh informed them that the ban would be enforced everywhere on the system’s campuses, even outdoors.

I’m sure all the nannies in the Oregon State Board of Higher Education are stroking their chins thoughtfully.

According to one of our nefarious sources, the Smoke Free Task Force is recommending to the administration that campus become completely smoke-free. Once enacted, the ban would not actually be enforced for a couple of years. (This would be the transitional “culture change”). However, after this there will be $15 fine if one is caught lighting up on campus.

To read the sordid history of the smoking ban, check the archives.

The ODE issued an editorial today criticizing plans to make campus smoke-free. However, it didn’t take an absolutist stance on the issue. Instead, the editorial suggests placing designated smoking areas on campus. From the article:

Further regulating the areas where people can smoke on campus would be a more reasonable, effective and generally welcomed change. People who smoke cigarettes right outside of campus buildings are a nuisance to non-smokers who must pass through the toxic cloud on their way to class, but they shouldn’t be forced from campus. Smoking is a vice and an addiction. This is common knowledge, and as a society we have chosen, as illustrated by our laws, to maintain cigarettes as a legal right to citizens who choose to consume them. If cigarettes are indeed banned on campus, smokers will simply go elsewhere when their nicotine cravings strike, or more likely will just flout the law and light up anyway. Nevertheless, they won’t stop smoking. University officials need to realize when their attempts to regulate student behavior will have palpable effects, and when they will fall on deaf ears.

Many of the other Commentators and I believe that a much better solution than both of these proposals would be to simply enforce the existing rules that ban smoking within a certain number of feet from a building entrance. The majority of complaints about smoking on campus are due to people smoking in front of doors. If the rules were actually enforced, I don’t think the smoking ban would have half the support it does.

As advertised in the Ol’ Dirty this week, there will be two open forums held by the Smoke-Free Task Force to hear public opinion about proposing a smoking ban on campus. The first is tonight from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. and the second on Thursday from 12 p.m. to 2 p.m. Both are in the Knight Library Browsing Room. Comments have a three minute time limit and must be “respectful and relevant to the topic.” It’s time to start shaking those fists toward the nicotine Nazis.  

From a press release just issued to the Daily Emerald and the Register-Guard:

The Oregon Commentator is proud to present its first annual Great American Smoke-in on Friday, Nov.30 from noon to 3 p.m. in the EMU amphitheater.

In response to the ever-increasing vilification of smokers on campus, the Oregon Commentator presents the Great American Smoke-in as an opportunity for students to join together and enjoy the pleasures of fine tobacco products. Says Oregon Commentator Editor-in-Chief Ossie Bladine: “This is really a community event, a chance for smokers to have a safe space and fight the institutional bias against them.”

The Commentator opposes a smoke-free campus and other draconian measures proposed by the Clean Air Project. Bladine says these efforts are part of a larger scheme to “discriminate against and marginalize smokers.” The Great American Smoke-in, says Bladine, is a chance for smokers “to make their voices heard.”

The event will be held, rain or shine, and all forms of tobacco are welcome, including cigarettes, cigarillos, cigars, pipe tobacco and the use of hookahs. Although the Commentator supports the legalization of marijuana, the event is for tobacco products only.

Today the Daily Emerald ran another smarmy, biased story about making the campus smoke-free. If you’re wondering just how smarmy and biased, check out the lead:

Like other University students, Kira Fonarow worried about deadlines, classes and time management. But for her, the few minutes she spent walking across campus between classes were the most stressful.

Fonarow’s sensitive lungs and vocal cords could not function efficiently when she inhaled cigarette smoke, and it took a toll on her daily life.

Way to go, ODE. Way to go. Next time, why don’t you put a three-legged puppy in the lead? Better yet, why not just let the Clean Air Project write the article for you?

Like I said before, I don’t even smoke, but this whole idea is absurd. Barring people from smoking next to building entrances is at least justifiable in some way, but making acres and acres of open space smoke-free? Bitch, please! It’s starting to sound like this is going to be the Stupid Pet Project of the Year, with the Daily Emerald leading the charge.