Archives

Student debaters discuss smoke-free UAA campus Political science major Mark Simon speaks against a smoke-free UAA Nov. 5. Students were invited to debate the pros and cons of the anti-smoking campaign and whether or not it should be enacted on campus. Photo by Dan Duque. - Political science major Mark Simon speaks against a smoke-free UAA Nov. 5. Students were invited to debate the pros and cons of the anti-smoking campaign and whether or not it should be enacted on campus. Photo by Dan Duque. Full view

Student debaters discuss smoke-free UAA campus

Political science major Mark Simon speaks against a smoke-free UAA Nov. 5. Students were invited to debate the pros and cons of the anti-smoking campaign and whether or not it should be enacted on campus. Photo by Dan Duque.
Political science major Mark Simon speaks against a smoke-free UAA Nov. 5. Students were invited to debate the pros and cons of the anti-smoking campaign and whether or not it should be enacted on campus. Photo by Dan Duque.

As part of Engage Week, UAA’s Smoke-Free Task Force, Seawolf Debate, the Journalism and Public Communications Department, and the Department of Health hosted a soapbox debate about whether or not UAA should initiate a comprehensive smoke-free policy. Five people represented the smoke-free proposition and four people represented the opposition.

Emmy Webb kicked off the debate by discussing anonymity. Webb stated everyone has the free choice to smoke but also said people have rights not to smoke and to not breathe in secondhand smoke.

Webb, who is pregnant, addressed concerns about the health risks of smoking to her unborn child. She said by breathing in secondhand smoke she is at higher risk for miscarriage and preterm labor asthma, and her child is at increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome.

“Those who smoke on campus are putting their problems above other’s health considerations,” Webb said in the debate. “Your choice too smoke is taking away my choice of whether or not I want to smoke.”

English major Arlo Davis spoke on behalf of the motion to make UAA a smoke-free campus. Davis is a smoker who would like to quit smoking.

He said smoking tobacco has affected his life in a negative way. He has trouble keeping up with friends on hikes and camping trips, experiences shortness of breath and has a diminished sense of smell and taste because of cigarettes. Davis stated he was unaware of the resources available to him as a student to stop smoking.

Political science major Mark Simon spoke against the smoking ban. He said one of the most important things students learn in college is not something that is learned in the classroom, but rather outside the classroom. That lesson is teaching students how to make decisions for themselves, including smoking.

“If someone else made that decision for us, we are not going to learn the most important lesson for us in college,” Simon said. “If we want to talk about clean air, lets talk about car emissions and pollution. Let’s not talk about something as small as cigarettes.”

Shortly after the debate, business marketing major Andrew McConnell created a new Facebook page, “Proud to Oppose a Smoke-Free UAA.” The page is intended for students to discuss ideas that would be good alternatives to the 100 percent smoke- or tobacco-free policy. The page had approximately 90 “likes” within 24 hours.

McConnell dislikes cigarettes and has had a family member die from smoking tobacco. One of his friends is in the hospital and is battling life-threatening mouth cancer. However, McConnell, who is the former USUAA student body vice president, does not support the initiative in its current form because it is too drastic.

McConnell says his group has not heard of any effort by the Smoke-Free Task Force to be more flexible in their stance. He referred to an e-mail to a member of his group from Gabriel Garcia, who is a faculty adviser for the task force, that stated the following:

“Thank you for your perspective. UAA already has designated smoking areas. However, any level of secondhand smoke is harmful. Just because you don’t see or smell it doesn’t mean you aren’t affected by secondhand smoke.”

McConnell also referred to statements made by the Smoke-Free Task Force at the Board of Regents meeting last year. When asked by a board member about designated smoking areas, Garcia stated designated smoking areas would not be effective because the smoke would still travel and continue to affect people who don’t smoke at UAA.

The Stop Smoke-Free UAA Task Force believes the e-mailed survey sent from the Smoke-Free Task Force was too biased. The Stop Smoke-Free UAA Task Force is collecting data about alternatives. They plan on presenting this data to USUAA student government, the Faculty Alliance and the Chancellor’s Office. They also plan on discussing the matter with the Board of Regents if the current initiative moves forward.  UAA has been designated the “health university” among the University of Alaska system. Those who started the Smoke-Free Task Force believe UAA must lead by example because of this. They would eventually like to see all campuses within the UA system go smoke-free.


There are community-wide and on-campus resources available for those who would like to quit smoking. The UAA Health and Counseling Center in Rasmuson Hall Room 116 has resources available to students at reduced rates. The Alaska Tobacco Quit Line is another resource, and it can be reached at 1-800-784-8669.

 

Written by Suhaila Brunelle

1 Comments

  • “Webb, who is pregnant, addressed concerns about the health risks of smoking to her unborn child. She said by breathing in secondhand smoke she is at higher risk for miscarriage and preterm labor asthma, and her child is at increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome.”

    Very sad. Ms. Webb, you have been made to worry about things you should not be worrying about. There has never yet been a single study, out of all the tens of thousands upon which hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent, that would show any “higher risk” for such things from even ten or a hundred times the amount of exposure you would get on campus.

    And yet you’re living in fear over such a thing, possibly even putting your life at *real* risk by crossing a street rather than walking by smokers.

    You should be angry. But first you’d have to read a few things that are *not* on the official “approved” list to understand *why* you should be angry.

    To start off, I’d suggest “The Lies Behind The Smoking Bans.” It’s a quick-reading, big print, kind of splashy, and openly one-sided 24 page booklet designed for free downloading, printing, distribution and reading in bars and on campuses under attack by the Antismokers. Google “V.Gen5H” and you’ll see it near the top of the results.

    Ask Gabriel Garcia what study shows that “Just because you don’t see or smell it doesn’t mean you aren’t affected by secondhand smoke.” When people like him use words like “affected” they are, in essence, lying with the language. Are you “affected” by my ordinary human exhalations when I walk into a room where you are? In a strict sense, yes: my exhaled acetones, carbon dioxide, formaldehyde and other bodily metabolic waste products are filling your air space with “poisons” and I’m forcing your to breathe them.

    If I tried to frighten you with such words and using “affect” and “poisons” in such senses, would you really feel I was telling you the truth.

    As I said: you should be angry.

    Michael J. McFadden
    Author of “TobakkoNacht — The Antismoking Endgame”

Comments are closed.