yes, tobacco survey results are in. seems to be close to 50-50 which surprises me.
Also, a PSA to all my fellow law students: back up your school files NOW. save yourself some grief. and then do it again and again. with a few days thrown in between. good luck all- it's time for us to all get crabby.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I guess the interesting part to me is the response that the administration will give to the survey. Barely exceeding 50% doesn't seem to warrant or legitimize going forward with the ban. We'll have to wait and see what happens.
I agree with mcfrenchie, especially since response rate was pretty low. I think it is a terrible idea and a waste of resources. I also think that the decision should be left to the individual campuses, which vary quite a bit.
I'm not really invested either way, but I think the administration's thought was that the survey produced a disproportionate number of smoker/extreme anti-smoker responses since they're the ones affected by the ban.
The vast majority of students don't smoke and don't care enough to fill out a survey. The results reflect those who have a stake in being able to smoke on campus and those who are so offended by smokers that they're in support of the ban. I'd guess most of CU falls between the two ends of the spectrum.
The regent who is forcing this made a comment about being encouraged because if the pro-ban people came out in the majority (albeit a small one) and most smokers probably responded, then he sees that as an overall level of if not support at least complacency to not oppose a ban. (I'm not endorsing the argument, just something I read)
I agree with anon. 12:28, not the best use of our administrators' time or university resources.
I agree that it is a waste of resources, based on my understanding that no scientific studies have shown that outdoor exposure to second-hand smoke is harmful. If anyone has information to the contrary, I'd love to see it, so post away. However, even if outdoor exposure to second-hand smoke is harmful, I think our resources could be better spent in the following ways:
1. Fragrance-free policies.
Chemical fragrances found in perfumes, air fresheners, soaps, and fabric softeners are known toxins. This isn't some new agey hippy nonsense, either. In 1986, the National Academy of Sciences targeted fragrances as one of the six categories of chemicals that should be given high priority for neurotoxicity testing. The chemicals used in fragrances include benzene derivatives, aldehydes, and many other known toxics and sensitizers - capable of causing cancer, birth defects, central nervous system disorders and allergic reactions. "Neurotoxins: At Home and the Workplace" (Report by the Committee on Science and Technology. U.S. House of Representatives, Sept, 16, 1986) [Report 99-827].
Fragrances are especially hazardous for anyone with asthma or another breathing problem, and pregnant women (the same groups that are probably extremely anti-smoker).
That said, I'm in favor of an ad hoc approach to both smoking issues and fragrance issues (i.e. talking to the person), since, although technically both cigarette smoke and chemical fragrances are toxic to everyone, most people are only minimally effected.
2. CO2
This is another chemical that's really bad to breathe, and bad for the planet. We should look into how the University can cut our emissions. One easy option would be setting thermostats to, say 65 degrees when it's cold and 75 when it's hot. While cars are a big part of the problem, too, it's probably already difficult/expensive enough to park on campus, especially when compared to our spiffy bus passes.
Other good ways for the regents to spend their time that don't directly relate to cardio-vascular health include lobbying the legislature to fund public education in Colorado, working to attract the best and brightest students and professors, and working to improve the University's relationship with its neighbors.
The problem with the comments made by the regent who is pushing this is that ONLY 21.6 % of the respondents to the survey reported being tobacco users, while 78.3 % were NOT. It is true that 42 % reported smoking (how you are smoking but not a tobacco user is beyond my comprehension). Either way, more non-smokers or non tobacco users responded to the survey and the results seem way too close to justify the ban. This is just ridiculous!
Anon 4:41, I recommend you look at the raw numbers next to the percentages.
1868 people said they are tobacco users, while 1721 people said they smoke.
More people answered the tobacco user question than answered the smoking question, and that's why the percentages are so radically different.
And despite that common sense answer, you live in Boulder. Can't you think of some other way that people could smoke but not be using tobacco? I'll give you a hint: 4:20.
I think that if this passes, it will merely push tobacco users to alternative forms of intake (i.e. chewing tobacco). As a result, passage of this measure must be accompanied by funding for bronze SPITTOONS for each classroom and outside each building.
I am afraid that a failure to do this will mean pools of saliva infused tobacco leavings all around the entrance/exits of the buildings. Please hear me on this.
I would also like to see the spittoons emblazoned or engraved with the likeness of RALPHIE so as to imbue us all with civic and school pride.
- Your Favorite Crazy Wombat
Anon at 4:41
I can think of a few ways that students around CU boulder are "smokers" but not tobacco users
come on everybody, lets put our heads together and figure this one out...it is Boulder after all
whatever people are smoking, only 21% reported being tobacco users. The vast majority of respondents are NOT tobacco users. The ban is aimed at tobacco, right? The regent pushing this stupid idea forward should remember his target-- tobacco-- not smokers of other kinds.
If they did pass the ban, I wonder what would happen to the annual 420 at Farrand Field. Would the school actually get tough and use the smoking ban--rather than the pot laws--to go after the smokers? After all, in Boulder we know which is worse!
I seriously wouldn't put much stock in the survey results. Those in the CU admin. obviously can convince themselves of anything, like widespread support for the ban, if they can convince themselves of bullsh*t like this ban will improve the overall health of the campus.
Can't we just get rid of all the stinky hippies instead?
Can we get rid of the drunk frat boys and sorority bimbos instead? And if you don't like stinky hippies, may I suggest not moving somewhere that's *known* for them? There are 200 other law schools in the country, including one in Denver that does a better job at placing candidates in jobs than we do, if you're that concerned about staying in Colorado.
Someone's defensive!
Must be one of those goddamned hippies!
This whole thread reminds me of a column I saw in the Rocky Mountain News Spotlight section the other day about a guy complaining of popcorn smell in his office. The part I read was actually the reader responses to the original comment (it was a Dear Abby column or something) From what I gathered the original comment was sent in by someone who worked in a law firm and was annoyed by a co-worker who daily popped a bag of popcorn to share with everyone. Coincidentally, there is someone in my firm that does this same thing, but she only works Tuesdays and Thursdays. This man was outraged b/c of the smell it caused in the office. Of the replies, one other lawyer wrote in and said that without proper backroom ventilation, blah blah blah annoying lawyer talk, blah, popping popcorn was seriously offensive to co-workers. Another man wrote in about his corn allergies and how deadly popcorn fumes are. All this in light of the recent popcorn lung discovery and I still can't help but think "what a bunch of whiny babies!" Same with the perfume ban/smoking ban. Yes, some people have extreme allergies to corn, fragrances and smoke, but to begin to ban these things from campuses or offices is ridiculous. It's similar to the peanut allergy thing and schools that now prohibit anyone bringing in products that were manufactured in a plant containing peanuts. Guess what? We all still have to live our lives and I don't see why I should have to quit sending PB & J to school with my son because your kid has some super sensivitive allergy. Same goes for my use of perfume, cigarettes and popcorn! If you can't handle the daily encounters with offensive smells, Go live in a f@$%ing bubble, please! And if you're rare enough to have some ridiculously serious allergy to something as common as peanuts...maybe that is just natural selection at its best!
And yes I realize that there is actually a surprisingly large number of kids out there with peanut allergies, but I can't help but think this may be mother nature's way of telling us to stop procreating b/c the world is overpopulated and running short on resources! -anon 4:11
I'm allergic to gunners.
Post a Comment