At the referendum debates on Tuesday night, Carly Caminiti and Emily Meyers mindlessly regurgitated their party line, while a pair of self-righteous pseudo-intellectuals (this writer included) scrambled to get a coherent thought together in response. No one could care less. The audience was disengaged and comprised of empty seats.

Smoke.free.slu had no questions to ask. How does one arrive at a debate where they are playing a central role without a single question to ask? The opposition had no shortage of points, but rather a disappointing inability to get their words out clearly: petty politics as usual.

The entire conversation surrounding the smoking referendum has been built upon doublespeak, rash decisions, a general unwillingness to cooperate, a farce of a survey and ego-lots of ego.

Our air is full of carcinogens. We are in a city, after all, and industrial zoning is right next door. The probable fact of the matter is that the amount of carcinogens in the air on this campus that result from smoking is so small that one would be hard-pressed to notice a difference, should this ban go into place.

Second-hand smoke is a problem in our bars, our homes, our cars and our office buildings, but not outside. That is why the states and countries that have smoking bans in place allow smoking outdoors.

We don’t need a ban that forces students to the most dangerous areas of campus and increases the budget. What we need is cooperation and communication. If students simply talk to one another and pursue a greater awareness of their surroundings, they would relieve a majority of the tension surrounding the issue.

Travis Brimhall
Senior, College of Arts and Sciences