The proposed tobacco-free policy would prohibit the use of all tobacco products on the University of Idaho campus.
The UI economics club has taken a stance against the proposed tobacco ban and wants the campus community to hear why in a public panel discussion with both sides of the issue present.
“Consider this an open invitation,” said Steve Peterson, the economics club adviser. “Our club specializes in debates and panel discussions and we think before the implementation of tobacco-free policy moves any further, there needs to be a panel discussion where both sides — ideally including members of the tobacco task force — should discuss the issue and open it up to the campus.”
The economics club arranged such an event last year when tobacco first became a hot topic on campus and nearly 300 people showed up, Peterson said. But, there was no representation on the pro tobacco-free side, due to disagreements on how the event was advertised.
After learning of the economics club intention and consulting with other members of the tobacco task force, Daniel Trautvetter, interim health education coordinator, said the task force would now be happy to participate in the panel.
“The taskforce would be interested in joining a panel discussion with the economics club,” Trautvetter said. “As long as we planned it together and had equal representation on both sides with adequate notice and both parties would agree on the marketing materials for the event.”
Peterson said one of the reasons his students are against the anticipated change of the tobacco policy is because it may have unexpected outcomes.
“Our concern is multifold in that laws that feel good — basically feel-good laws like this that are trendy and popular — often down the road have unintended consequences that will have adverse effect on people in the future,” Peterson said.
Nick Meixler, economics club president, agreed with Peterson and used an example to describe possible outcomes — he compared a university tobacco ban to alcohol prohibition in the 1920s.
“We should learn lessons from our history,” Miexler said. “Prohibition did not work. It’s one thing to try to eliminate the secondhand health effects of smoking, but it’s a whole other thing if your goal is to try to basically coerce people into not smoking. Eventually if you clamp down too much on that, it will backfire much like the war on drugs has and prohibition did.”
In a joint statement, the task force said while some people may not agree with a university-wide tobacco ban, it would be best for all students, staff, faculty and visitors — health-wise and financially.
“Besides the obvious health reasons for needing to go tobacco free there are financial reasons involved as well. A tobacco free campus will decrease costs and personnel resources related to tobacco litter. For example, several granting agencies such as the CDC and the NIH are adding stipulations to which university they award grant money to. One of those stipulations is that the universities have a comprehensive tobacco-free policy in place. In the future the University of Idaho, which receives millions of dollars from these agencies each year, could lose this funding due to a lack of tobacco-free policy in place.”
Representatives of both the task force and the economics club said a main priority of theirs is including the campus community in policy changes that affect the university. Each group also said there’s still room for discussion.
Amber Emery can be reached at [email protected]