Digest #15: This Month in Smoke-free News [Part 2]

If you haven't had a chance to read Part 1 of this month's digest, by all means, catch up!

I ended Part 1 with some good smoke-free news at two Pacific-10 Conference schools, which is nothing unusual for this blog; I'm always highlighting good news. So, for Part 2, I want to begin by sharing and commenting on some not-so-good smoke-free news, which happens to be occurring a bit closer to the Atlantic.

While its sister school, Barnard, is on the brink of becoming a smoke-free campus, Columbia University is moving in the other direction. The University Senate is considering a reduction of the current policy, which prohibits smoking within 50 feet of campus buildings, by changing the policy to 20 feet. Now, I have seldom heard of campus smoke-free policies extending past 30 feet before, so, I am surprised that, of all places, one this strict would be found in the dense confines of New York City. Think about it: If two buildings are 100 feet apart (which I would imagine plenty are at Columbia) smoking is not allowed in between the buildings. How is someone who is about to light up going to be able to gauge this distance, or the 50-foot boundary around any given building? There's no line, and even if there were, is it realistic to expect people to not cross it--let alone, prevent their secondhand smoke from crossing it? It seems that a lack of policy compliance and enforcement instigated the resolution. Although the Senate appears to be genuinely interested in providing smoking cessation resources and being more realistic about policy enforcement, I think that Columbia would be forfeiting what is virtually a smoke-free campus with the 50-foot rule. Furthermore, I don't think that 20 feet is much easier to measure! The good news is that a straw poll in early November showed 22 senators in favor of the original 50-foot policy, and 16 opposed to it.

While I'm on the topic of enforcement, the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill has a 100-foot policy, which was adopted in 2008. People regularly violate the policy, yet no citations have ever been issued for smoking within 100 feet of a campus building. How can this be? According to the Daily Tar Heel Editorial Board, "UNC cares about smoking enough to have a restrictive policy, but not enough to enforce it." I couldn't agree more. There's really no getting around this--the campus is effectively smoke-free, yet the policy hasn't been enforced once. I only have two words for this: WHY NOT?

Well, here's my answer to the question, as applied to my limited experience with the 25-foot policy at UC Berkeley: Campus cops are not equipped to enforce the policy. I once approached two UCPD officers about their take on the campus smoking policy. I wasn't surprised when they told me that they rarely issue citations because they have more pressing issues to deal with, but I was livid when they told me that the policy extends to 20 feet from buildings and were unaware of the change to 25 feet, despite having nearly a whole year pass by since the change. This told me that, like the situation at UNC, the policy amounts to little more than words on a page. Legend has it that, at Berkeley, citations cost the smokers around $200--quite the stiff penalty, which leads me to believe that the problem is a matter of social pressure; nobody wants to be that guy who tells a smoker to move away from the smoke-free boundary, or worse, cite them for a violation. This is further demonstrated at the University of Iowa, an entirely smoke-free campus where stories of smoking "tickets" are myths. In short, smoking citations are underutilized as effective enforcement measures and great sources of revenue.

Some final highlights (and my brief reactions) for the month:

• All restaurants and bars in Spain will be smoke-free, beginning next week. Smoke-free law isn't just an American phenomenon!
• A Florida jury found R.J. Reynolds to be 90% at fault for the death of James Horner, a two-pack a day smoker, and awarded Horner's daughter $80 million. I realize that this is slightly off-topic, but it's a big deal because the past eight wrongful death cases against the tobacco industry in Florida have resulted in defense verdicts. Streak broken!
• "Smoking ban leads to major decrease in maternal smoking, pre-term births." Enough said.
• A new study shows a correlation between the presence of smoking bans and decreased symptoms of asthma in children. We all know that correlation doesn't equate to causation, but hey, this isn't exactly surprising news. Even if secondhand smoke isn't hurting young asthmatics, I can assure you that secondhand smoke isn't helping them.
• I should have added this to the segment of Part 1 of this month's digest where I talked about the CDC helping Southern Nevada colleges go smoke-free, but Las Vegas McCarran International Airport, which currently allows smoking in one airport bar, may soon be entirely smoke-free indoors. The last thing Vegas-goers need before/after a few days in the smoke-filled casinos on the Strip is to be exposed to secondhand smoke in the airport.
• Following in the footsteps of New York City, Los Angeles has a chance at a ban on smoking in "all public areas and common areas where people congregate." Is it just me, or is that city in dire need of a pollution reduction--no matter how insignificant it may be? Anyway, hopefully there will be more good news to come.
• Santa Clara County has passed one of the Bay Area's "most sweeping smoking bans." Within 14 months, smoking will be banned inside apartments, condominiums and townhouses, as well as in outdoor eating areas of restaurants. I applaud this change and can only hope that this ban will be at least a fraction as influential as Silicon Valley has been on the rest of the world.
• King County, better known as northwestern Washington and the city of Seattle, has passed controversial legislation on e-cigarettes, which will be banned in all places where cigarette use is already banned. In May, I called the e-cigarette a "worthy and selfless investment" for nicotine addicts because it doesn't emit secondhand smoke, and instead emits what amounts to water vapor. However progressive and effective this ban may be, I think that this particular one is a bit premature. The rationale behind the ban is that, by allowing the use of e-cigarettes in places where cigarette smoking is prohibited, the new devices effectively uphold the social norms of smoking in public, which the state's smoking ban passed in 2006 was successfully combating. In other words, King County wanted to make sure that people aren't being tricked by the rise in e-cigarette use, which may cause the widespread perception that public smoking is acceptable again. This kind of policy is perfectly fine for the university setting, where there are high concentrations of impressionable people (i.e., risk-loving college students), but, unfortunately, I honestly don't think that the public is ready for this tight of a ban on smoking--or, in this case, what merely looks like smoking. Even if we were to give cigarette smokers adequate time to switch over to e-cigarettes (which we really haven't), I think that this law is too far-reaching into the private choices of individuals. Nevertheless, I'm glad to see that some civic leaders are willing to take risks for the sake of public health improvements.
  

Digest #15: This Month in Smoke-free News [Part 1]

After nearly two months, I'm back, and just as excited as ever to share the latest smoke-free news with you.

I'll start with some news that was brought to my attention by my grandmother (thanks Grandma!). It's more of a personal point of pride than anything else, but Klein Steel, my uncle Joe Klein's business that operates in the four major cities of upstate New York, has gone smoke-free. Check out the company's official policy announcement, which actually qualifies the decision as a tobacco-free policy. I haven't devoted much time to news about private workplace smoking bans, mostly because I trust in basic economics, which tells me that prospective employees who want to work in smoke-free environments will ultimately work for employers that establish these policies. Nevertheless, having recently visited my uncle's new corporate and manufacturing headquarters in Rochester, I can attest to the fact that Klein Steel is a great example of how some businesses are prioritizing employees' health by making educated, rational decisions about smoking policy.

...and now, a ridiculous 'quote of the month' transition into some university and state-level smoke-free news:

"You own the air just as much as I do...What's next? Are you going to legislate farts?" -Devanshu Narang, South Dakota State University

(No, Devanshu, nobody is ever going to regulate flatulence. Why? Because unlike smoking, it is a necessary, inevitable part of humanity--but thanks for the good laugh.)

The South Dakota State University student government approved a resolution that the student body will likely approve with a majority vote, despite the protests of Devanshu and friends. On a larger scale, however, the state of South Dakota recently succeeded in passing an extension of their public smoking ban, which will prohibit smoking in all restaurants, bars, and casinos. South Dakota is the 29th state to accomplish this. Who's going to be the 30th?

Mississippi demonstrated solid support for smoke-free change during the American Cancer Society's Great American Smokeout on November 18. Meanwhile, in Indiana, "the stars might be lining up" for a statewide ban to be voted on in 2011. A court in Ohio recently upheld a challenge to the state's workplace smoking ban.

With that said, I'd like to return to the subject of college and university smoking bans, because it is clear to me that this domain is where smoke-free policy change is going to continue occurring most rapidly. Since I wrote my column for The Daily Californian in January, at least 65 colleges have instituted smoke-free policies. That's about six per month, or three new smoke-free campuses for every two weeks that passed by in 2010. Pretty sweet, if you ask me. However, I'm not at all surprised. Despite the bureaucratic challenges that many student activists face in trying to enact smoke-free campus policies, these virtually amount to nothing in comparison to those that state law poses to legislators. College campuses are especially conducive to quick policy change that affects large numbers of people, that could, in turn, serve as a "test run" for change on a larger scale. This conjures up the federalist genius of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis:

“It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system...that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” --Justice Louis D. Brandeis, 1932

Of course, Brandeis' famous "laboratories of democracy" concept speaks to the idea of states as laboratories in which laws can be tested by trial and error for the nation to learn from, but I'm relating his model to colleges as laboratories for trying out smoke-free policy for states (and ultimately, the nation) to learn from. Colleges are the ideal venues for testing out often-controversial smoking bans; not only are they full with highly-opinionated people who can debate endlessly over the issue, but they are also full with the educated people who are going to be the future leaders of our country. After all, if it works in colleges, why shouldn't it work for the rest of society? I know there are several legitimate answers to this question, and I'll admit, I'm a bit biased as a recent graduate. But still--if we're going to start somewhere with smoke-free policy, why not start in the very places where it has been discovered and confirmed that smoking is an unhealthy practice? Whether or not you like my argument, this is the reality; the speed at which colleges establish smoke-free campuses is only going to increase over the next few years.

Speaking of which, the University of Oregon--which just happens to have the #2-ranked football team in the nation (see my last digest)--is going to be a tobacco-free campus in 2012. As I mentioned in October, the student body president initiated this reform. However, it sounds like this change wouldn't be happening without the $1 million contribution by locally-based PacificSource Health Plans, which is funding smoking cessation programs on campus. Perhaps corporate sponsorship and involvement can expedite smoke-free policy change at colleges. Alternatively, it appears that government may be a valuable resource as well: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has allowed for $450,000 to be allocated toward making all southern Nevada colleges--most notably, the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)--smoke-free by March 2012.

Okay--this is where things get extremely bittersweet for me. The University of Southern California (aka USC, aka the "University of Spoiled Children") might, just might, be going smoke-free. Chances are, if you're reading this blog, then you know me pretty well, and if you know me pretty well, you know how much I can't stand the thought of the USC Trojans (as a Cal Bear, I've naturally allowed my aversion to the school's athletics programs form negative associations with everything USC) ...Anyway, Peter Conti, who heads the school's Academic Senate, said, "If the students want this [smoke-free policy] to happen, it will happen." He's got the right idea, and I hesitate to type this, but: Fight on, Trojans.

...Yup, I just said that; if I can admit that USC is doing something right, then anything is possible. More to come later.

Happy Holidays!

SURGEON GENERAL: SECONDHAND SMOKE CAN CAUSE IMMEDIATE DAMAGE

My next blog post was planned for next week, as I've been extraordinarily busy since the beginning of November. However, this is something I can't stand to withhold from my audience for more than a few minutes.

Our new Surgeon General, Regina Benjamin, has released her first report on the dangers of secondhand smoke. It's called 'How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease.' In it, she says, "there is no risk-free level of exposure to tobacco smoke." Okay, that's a strong statement--but we already knew that. Benjamin goes on to say,

"The chemicals in tobacco smoke reach your lungs quickly every time you inhale causing damage immediately...Inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage your DNA, which can lead to cancer." --Regina Benjamin, U.S. Surgeon General

(Oh, no!)...and one of 64 doctors who worked on the project concludes,

"Casual smokers think they are improving their health by cutting back but there is no safe level...It affects people's DNA immediately, and their heart and blood vessels literally seconds to minutes after being exposed...It inflames and irritates the lining of blood vessels, making the blood more prone to clotting and the combination of inflammation, irritation and increased clotting can literally cause a heart attack even from the kind of exposure from walking into a smoky bar." --Dr. Tim McAfee, director of the Office on Smoking and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Game over, Big Tobacco, GAME OVER.

Digest #14: This Month in Smoke-free News

It's been a long time (i.e., more than a month) since my last post. Between work, travel, and now a nasty cold, it's been difficult to catch up with my blog. So--here's what I've got for the month of October and late September:

• Today, I want to start off with a briefing about fires--building fires--but even more specifically, building fires caused by improperly extinguished cigarettes. Although these occur all too often (cigarettes are the leading cause of building fires), this instance in Potsdam, NY brought the issue to my attention. Fortunately, nobody was killed by this act of sheer carelessness and stupidity, but six people were left homeless and two firefighters were injured--all because of someone's disgusting habit that was not prohibited by their landlord. I'll let a quote from the op-ed segue me into my next point:

  "Landlords have a legal right to adopt smoke-free policies for their properties, just as they can adopt a no-pet policy. It is not discriminatory to do so. In fact, perhaps the most responsible action that a landlord of a multiunit dwelling can take is to adopt smoke-free policies for the entire building. Tenants paying rent should not have to be exposed to deadly secondhand smoke and if you reside in a multiunit dwelling there is no way of escaping it, as cigarette smoke, filled with cancer-causing chemicals travels throughout the entire structure."

• More news from New York: Scientists at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo conducted an air quality study of 30 apartments between 11 different apartment buildings. They concluded that people who live in apartment buildings are "particularly susceptible to secondhand smoke exposure in their homes." No surprise there. However, they offered a recommendation for apartment complexes to create smoking-free zones. I am unclear as to whether they recommended entirely smoke-free apartment complexes (which are popping up), or smoke-free zones within apartment complexes. Either way, I want to make it clear that I am not an advocate of private smoking bans, as I mentioned in a post this past May. Apartment complexes sure seem to blur the line between public and private, though. On that note, my exceptionally short, yet very telling, quote of the month:

  "Buildings are designed to breathe." --Rita Turner, Deputy Director, Center for Tobacco Regulation, Litigation and Advocacy, University of Maryland Law School

• My own (non-scientific) research tells me that there is a fairly strong correlation between universities that have highly successful football teams and have/will soon have, smoke-free campuses. As of Week 9 in NCAA Football, the #1-ranked team is the University of Oregon. The UO student body president, Amelie Rousseau, is pushing for a campus smoking ban, for which there is a 75% approval rate among students. Go Ducks. #2 Boise State University went smoke-free last fall, but apparently has experienced enforcement issues. Still, go Broncos. Skipping down the list to #6 Alabama, there seems to be a debate going on over establishing designated smoking areas; this is a good sign for the future--Go Crimson Tide. #7 Missouri will be smoke-free by January 1, 2014. Go Mizzou. #9 Wisconsin does not yet have a smoke-free policy on its main campus in Madison, but two other UW campuses are already smoke-free, Stout & Baraboo/Sauk County. The same can be said about #17 South Carolina, #20 Oklahoma State, and Texas, whose sister campuses, USC-Upstate, OSU-Oklahoma City, OSU-Tulsa, UT-Arlington, and UT-Brownsville are all smoke-free. Go Badgers, Gamecocks, Cowboys, and Longhorns. However, #18 Iowa and #19 Arkansas are entirely smoke-free universities. Go Hawkeyes and Razorbacks! The medical campuses of both #13 Stanford and #22 Miami are entirely smoke-free, and Miami has even implemented a $50 tax on student-smokers. I will not give a shout-out to Stanford, as they are my archrival school--so, go Hurricanes. The sister school of Nevada (Reno, who almost made the top 25 this week), Nevada-Las Vegas just received a $500,000 federal grant from the Centers for Disease Control, which will ultimately make UNLV a tobacco-free campus by spring 2012. Florida, also a top-program, just went smoke-free this past summer (see my thoughts about it), so the Gators have something to cheer about in Tim Tebow's absence. Michigan, another historic football powerhouse, is officially going smoke-free next year. Georgia may soon follow suit. Other notable football schools that are already smoke-free: Mississippi (Ole Miss), Brigham Young University, Notre Dame, and Kentucky...Okay, I lied: Kentucky is a basketball school. Nevertheless, the moral of the story may be (key word being "may") that if you want to increase your school's chances of winning football games, you might want to consider advocating for a smoke-free campus (:::cough, cough, Cal, cough, cough, Arizona State:::). Makes some sense, right? Check out the list of nearly 450 smoke-free US colleges at www.no-smoke.org.

• Cambridge, Massachusetts, home to Harvard University--a school not known for their football program, may soon ban smoking in city parks. Marjorie Decker, who proposed the plan, said,

  "I think anyone who is in a publicly funded space like a park should have a reasonable level of confidence that they are in a toxic-free zone." --Marjorie Decker, Cambridge City Council.

  Marjorie, you're preaching to the choir, but I hope the congregation can hear you! To add to the New England area controversy, nearby New Hampshire may soon be banning smoking on beaches and parks. Meanwhile, on the west coast, the city of Long Beach (Los Angeles area) has banned smoking in local parks, sports fields and hiking trails.

• International smoke-free news: Just when Finland's government takes matters into their own hands by commencing a progression of legislation (see video) aimed to end smoking, the Russian government proposes that its country, where 80% of the male population smokes, will be essentially smoke-free by 2015. Quite the bold move, I'll say. Oh, and let's not forget about Florida International University, yet another US educational institution that has passed a smoke-free policy. There are simply too many colleges that are banning smoking for me to provide interesting context for--but that is a very, very good thing.
  

Digest #13: This Month in Smoke-free News

Just to briefly update everyone on my last post--the second annual Jog For Jill went very well. For those of us who couldn't make it, student journalists from The Daily Californian were there in full force to document the day for all of us. Also--props to my good friend and world-renowned photographer, Victoria Chow, for putting together an awesome slideshow for the event.

Okay, I'm going to try a different approach to covering monthly smoke-free news--I was inspired by my other good friend, Alex Trembath, author of Energetics...so here it goes:

• An article in US News & World Report recently claimed that, "if everyone were to quit smoking today, nearly 450,000 fewer Americans would die annually from smoking-related diseases." Enough said? ...Not quite! After four decades of falling smoking rates, a recent study from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention has shown that smoking rates have plateaued at a rate between 20-21% since 2005. Personally, this is surprising, as I was under the impression that smoking rates would continue to drop as they had been since smoking was discovered to be unhealthy. As smoke-free advocates, we need to figure out ways to accelerate national (and global) smoking rates toward 0%. Therefore, this blog must go on.

• The Center for Tobacco Policy Research at Washington University has basically (and boldly, I might add) suggested that smoking bans that are not comprehensive are insufficient and ineffective. My take? I can't believe what I just typed; this notion shouldn't come off as bold at all! What good is a smoking ban if we are to allow smoking in select public places? Are patrons of casinos less worthy of inhaling clean air than patrons of restaurants? No! Good for the researchers at Washington University for saying what should represent a common sentiment.

• Arizona State University's law school has received a $1.3 million dollar grant to serve as a regional office for the Public Health Law Network, which I understand is a newly formed national organization funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Although ASU will serve as a hub for research on tribal health law and emergency legal preparedness and response, I'm predicting (and hoping) that tobacco awareness will remain an important part of the school's public health research agenda. What's interesting and coincidental here is that, just this past spring semester, ASU students had petitioned to make their campus smoke-free, and ended their efforts with a compromise for designated smoking areas. I wonder what kind of leverage the law school will be able to provide these student advocates with now...

• Speaking of designated smoking areas, Vanderbilt University now has them. I hear that's a pretty good school they've got going down there! Sense the sarcasm? This is a BIG deal! If colleges of this caliber start restricting smoking like this, there's no telling how influential they are going to be. Get on it, Berkeley! Still, as long as college campuses like SUNY Buffalo continue to go smoke-free, I think the top schools in the country will eventually cave.
  

• Something pretty cool that I hadn't realized until now: Wisconsin's recent statewide ban (see this post) prohibits smoking in all hotel rooms, no questions asked. What a dream come true; there are few things that turn me off more than walking into a "non-smoking" hotel room that smells of smoke...while I'm on vacation.

• More smoke-free apartments will hopefully be established soon on the west coast--the Seattle and San Francisco areas, in particular.

• Across the pond (and over to the right a little more), Finland's government has been reported to have said that it wants to be the first country in the world "to phase out smoking completely." Good stuff, but I'm very glad our government can't take this kind of unanimous, unwarranted action against us. Although it would be ideal to live in a smoke-free country, I think the decision should be made as democratically as possible. That said, don't get me started on what the interviewed man says 20 seconds into the video...

• According to CNN.com, a small town called New York City "could be inching closer to banning outdoor smoking in parks, beaches, marinas, boardwalks and pedestrian plazas." Yup, that means NO MORE SMOKING IN TIMES SQUARE. Although many New Yorkers are "fuming" over this measure, some definitely support it; one person even said, "As a former smoker, I have to say ‘yes’ [to supporting the ban]...As a city as densely populated as New York City, it’s reasonable to take measures." Anyway, I think that CNN is reluctant to admit that the largest city in the country is charging toward a change that a lot of people probably won't like. This is the feeling I get from what NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently said, which will also serve as my quote of the month:
  

"The science is clear: prolonged exposure to secondhand smoke – whether you’re indoors or out - hurts your health. Today, we’re doing something about it." --Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City

• Finally: ButtOut.com, my favorite online anti-smoking gear vendor, has a promotion going until the end of the month: Customers get a free t-shirt with every order. I'm ordering a poster and a super-cool wristband to earn my shirt!
  

Hope you enjoyed this month's digest. Until next time, my smoke-free brethren...

Jill Costello

I haven't posted on consecutive days since I created this blog. However, today, I was reminded of something that really hits home with me. It's a little off-topic, but I would be remiss if I failed to share it.

Jill Costello, a 22-year-old Cal Women's Crew coxswain--a classmate of mine and fellow rower at Berkeley--was diagnosed with stage-4 lung cancer on June 9 of last year, and passed away on June 24 of this year. Through her fight with cancer, the last year of her life was spent inspiring thousands of people by speaking at a campus luncheon (where she was named Cal's most inspirational athlete), winning a Pac-10 championship for her team (she was later named Pac-10 Athlete of the Year), and setting an audacious fund-raising goal that was recently exceeded.

This Sunday, September 12, the second annual Jog for Jill will be held at Golden Gate Park in San Francisco. If you are in the area and have time, I ask you to jog and donate in her honor. I also hope (and expect) that there won't be a lit cigarette anywhere near this event, which leads me to my rationale for sharing this story:

Jill never smoked. Given her age and background, it is highly unlikely that secondhand smoke was the primary cause of her cancer. Even so, whatever secondhand smoke she was exposed to during her life could have exacerbated her condition. This thought not only saddens me, but it angers me; it reinforces my passion for smoke-free advocacy. Although I never had the privilege of knowing Jill, I know that many others are similarly motivated by her courage and efforts.

Rest in peace, Jill. Your life will continue to inspire those of us determined to prevent lung cancer and discover its cure.

On sidewalk smoking...

A very brief anecdote and commentary:

I went for a run yesterday to Walgreens to pick up some photographs, and after passing two apartment complexes and no fewer than four smokers in a span of a half-mile, I just want to say that inhaling secondhand smoke while my lungs strain for oxygen is among the most uncomfortable, annoying, and unjust things I have ever experienced, and NOBODY should have to deal with it.

Granted, it was foolish and unusual for me to run outside in 107 degree heat. The more foolish activity, however, is smoking a burning cigarette on a summer day in Phoenix (how is that enjoyable?!), especially when other, non-smoking pedestrians have little to no choice but to inhale the resulting secondhand smoke. I truly empathize with the non-smokers who live in those apartment complexes and walk on that sidewalk daily.

The moral of the story: Smoking is a repulsive, avoidable, and selfish habit...but you knew that already.

Happy Labor Day!

Digest #12: This Month in Smoke-free News

Now that I'm officially blogging monthly, I'm going to cover more news and shorten (or at least attempt to shorten) my commentary on each topic. So, here it goes; this post will start with a couple of updates to smoke-free policies that I've previously written about.

Vancouver Parks & Beaches: Already Smoke-free
Back in April, I wrote a lengthy post about the Vancouver Park Board enacting a smoking ban at parks and beaches, thereby taking a big step toward eradicating secondhand smoke in its beautiful city. A few weeks ago, I ran across an article that mentions how the city has been experiencing unusually hot and dry weather--similar to the climate that my home state of Arizona has every summer, sometimes resulting in uncontrollable wildfires*--and has temporarily instated a smoking ban to prevent these. Alluding to the need for a permanent smoking ban (coming September 1), another source says that park visitors and beach-goers are obeying the temporary ban. But will compliance levels change in a few days, when the ban officially prioritizes public health over environmental hazard? Let's hope not.

*Although I've never made a point about this, the risk of devastating wildfires is yet another reason for why smoking should be banned in public spaces.

"San Antonio Joins the Fight Against Secondhand Smoke Through Clean Air Ordinance"
It's official, San Antonio, the second-largest city in Texas and one of the largest in the nation is now smoke-free. As this article mentions, workers will no longer have to tolerate secondhand smoke at their jobs...but the San Antonio City Council isn't stopping there! As of August 19, 2011, the ordinance will eliminate current exemptions for bars, pool and bingo halls, comedy clubs and restaurants with enclosed smoking areas, areas within 20 feet of outdoor public transit stations, and the entire San Antonio Zoo. Talk about a comprehensive ban. Apparently LULAC's claim that the ban would be an infringement on civil rights (see my post from July 7) wasn't so convincing.

Santa Monica!
In May, I wrote about my visit to Santa Monica and how the city is doing a lot to reduce public smoking. Well, a few weeks ago, the Santa Monica City Council approved a smoking ban that prohibits smoking everywhere within 25 feet of multi-unit housing structures, allegedly attempting to prevent secondhand smoke from drifting between patios and balconies. This "boundary ban," as I will call it, brings to mind various campus no-smoking policies (including that of UC Berkeley), which are good measures, but are extremely difficult to enforce. But hey, I'll take it.

The more exciting news, in my opinion, is that smoking will soon be banned on the Santa Monica Pier--one of the few places I like to visit in the entire LA area.

Other Up-and-Coming Smoke-free News

• The Boston Housing Authority is considering a smoking ban that would prevent people from lighting up inside their apartments. This would be nothing short of groundbreaking for a city of this size to enact an ordinance of this caliber. See this post for my take on the issue.
• The state of Arkansas seems to have taken a page out of North Carolina's playbook (can you tell I'm watching pre-season football?) and banned smoking on all public university campuses. It's called the Clean Air on Campus Act, and it's the future of American academia.
• As a football team, they may not be up to par these days, but the Michigan Wolverines, who play in the largest college football stadium in the country, are still "kicking butts."
• According to a CDC study, the number of movie scenes with cigarettes in top-grossing films is half of what it was four years ago.
  

Quote of the Week

"Like it or not, tobacco is not heroin. It is allowed as a legal activity and to prohibit it on private property, we think it's unconstitutional." --Joseph O'Leary, a Michigan activist who wants to challenge the constitutionality of the state's recently enacted smoking ban.

Interestingly enough, a North Carolina judge recently upheld the constitutionality of NC's smoking ban...Good luck, Joseph!!

Campus Tobacco Ban
I'll end this post with a topic that might make some of my smoking audience appreciate, or at least understand, my opinions a bit more. As I've said before, I don't favor smoking bans because I want the law to tell people what they can and cannot do. I favor smoking bans in the interest of improving public health. For this reason, I do not completely endorse the move to make Black Hills State University entirely tobacco-free. Yes, tobacco use that doesn't have secondhand effects (e.g., chewing tobacco) is still a public health issue, yes, it is often repulsive, and yes, smokeless tobacco can act as a "gateway" to cigarette smoking, but we cannot reasonably expect the public to accept laws that primarily target the health consequences of individuals' choices.

That said, I would be among the last people to protest this policy.

Digest #11: This [Month] in Smoke-free News

Okay, it's been over three weeks since my last post--I blame my full-time job (don't say I didn't warn you!). Anyway, during my quick scan of the smoke-free news that has accrued in my inbox over the past month or so, it seems that the Wisconsin smoking ban has garnered the most attention, so I'll focus on that state as a sort of case study of a public smoking ban nearly one month since its enactment:

Politicization of the Wisconsin Ban
What originated as a public health law for Wisconsin has turned into a hotly-contested political agenda item. This phenomenon isn't necessarily anything new, but having not followed smoke-free news for very long, I identified well with the writer of this editorial excerpt:

"Half-baked ideas get floated in election years all the time. The idea topping this year's list (it's still early) is repeal of Wisconsin's state smoking ban. Both Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker and former congressman Mark Neumann, vying for the GOP gubernatorial nomination, say they'd sign a bill to do just that if either becomes governor...What part of "carcinogen," "safe workplace" or "public health" don't the candidates understand?...So, on the heels of the state's instituting a measure that will likely decrease the number of heart attacks and mitigate other ills associated with secondhand smoke in Wisconsin, two candidates think the ban is a bad idea. That, in itself, is a bad idea." --Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel editorial

So, since public smoking is now the hot topic in Wisconsin, two politicians are trying to gain support from smokers who would otherwise not vote for them. Makes sense for them, but what a shame it would be if either of them were to succeed.

As a side note: I was recently joking with some friends about running for political office on a 'smoke-free' platform, and I just noticed that two Republicans seeking a nomination to the Missouri House 35th district actually have had to distinguish themselves by their opposite stances on tobacco tax hikes and a potential statewide smoking ban (one approves tax hikes and opposes the ban, while the other approves the ban and opposes the tax hikes). The (only) beauty of public smoking is that neither of the two major political parties takes a clear stance on the issue, ostensibly because there are significant numbers of people in both parties who smoke whose feelings can be hurt--hence why politicians rarely speak out on the issue. Nevertheless, the Wisconsin smoking ban is exemplifying how the issue is, inherently, a public health issue that everyone--regardless of political affiliation--can form their own opinion about. Wouldn't it be nice for large segments of both parties to unite and agree that public smoking is unjust? Perhaps a nationwide public smoking ban can be a catalyst for bipartisan cooperation...okay, that was quite the side note.

Enforcement: Always an Uphill Battle
Wherever a smoke-free law or policy is enacted, enforcement always seems to be the unforeseen problem. After all, how can we police an activity that, until recently, could start and stop in as little as two minutes (I have no idea how long it takes the average person to smoke a cigarette), and could occur virtually anywhere in public? We'd have to have some 1984-style, Big Brother surveillance to ensure that violators pay the price for smoking in public. So hey, I try to be realistic about this; the Wisconsin state smoking ban, and all state smoking bans for that matter, are, at the very least, setting a standard that later generations will hopefully revere more than the current smoking population.

The same newspaper I stole a quote from above is soliciting for readers' online responses to the question, "How is the [Wisconsin] smoking ban working?" Some respondents are serious about what they've witnessed, some just try to be funny, some legitimately fear a Big Brother takeover, and some I agree with. However, the moral of the story, as my good friend would say--regardless of the efficacy of the Wisconsin smoking ban, the state has made a bold statement to current and future residents that smoking is not welcome there (cue photo of lady celebrating in the smoke-free Wisconsin bowling alley...).

ASU Going Smoke-free
First, I apologize to my faithful non-smoking Arizonan audience because the ASU I am speaking of is actually Arkansas State University, not Arizona State--sorry...again. To reiterate, Arkansas State University is going smoke-free tomorrow, August 1. But, Sun Devils--don't give up on the progress you made back in spring semester; designated smoking areas aren't a bad compromise for the short-term, considering the mammoth size of your student population. If a public school in Arkansas can go smoke-free, so can the largest school in the country. Either way...go Red Wolves!

Lindsay Lohan Goes to Jail!
In other news, former pop star Lindsay Lohan is prohibited from smoking cigarettes in the jail that she has been assigned to. POOR BABY. But major props to the Century Regional Detention Facility for being smoke-free.

Okay, that's clearly all I've got for now. Thanks for reading!

Digest #10: This Week in Smoke-free News

Wow...since I started my job last week, a lot has happened in the fight for smoke-free air! So, I apologize for the break in posts, but this news will quickly bring you up to speed.

July 1: Kansas Goes Smoke-free
Two months after Michigan enacted its public smoking law, Kansas did the same, officially becoming a smoke-free state. Although a good number of private clubs are exempt from the law, all other bars, restaurants, and workplaces are subject to it. However, all state-run casinos will continue to allow smoking. This exception has drawn much controversy, and, in my opinion, doesn't stand much of a chance in court because it effectively creates a government monopoly on the market for casino-going smokers. Besides, I think there is a real inconsistency between permitting smoking in select private clubs and doing the same in public casinos. So, the law isn't perfect, and a temporary injunction is in place for the city of Wichita, but I'm not worried that this or anything else will somehow defeat the law.

July 5: Wisconsin Goes Smoke-free
What can I say? Just four days after Kansas went smoke-free, Wisconsin followed suit. While others are dwelling on the economic and moral consequences of the law, I can't help but look ahead; which state is going smoke-free next?

NYC Parks & Beaches
The New York Times recently reported that Mayor Michael Bloomberg is in favor of an ordinance that would ban smoking at city parks and beaches. The article cites a study that demonstrated how there is a relatively high percentage of non-smoking New Yorkers with traces of cotinine in their blood. Although I think this ordinance, if passed, would have some negative repercussions--burdens on smoking tourists, for example--I know that this would set a HUGE precedent for other American (and perhaps international) cities to follow. If a metropolis as large and diverse as New York can pass a smoke-free ordinance, any city can. Given the vast nationwide circulation of the Times, this article has undoubtedly spurred more progressive thinking; win or lose in NYC, this is good publicity.

Smoking in San Antonio
And now, for a more sensitive issue. The League of Latin American Citizens (LULAC) has taken to the streets to protest the San Antonio smoking ban because, as one member says, "there is a disparity in the application of this ordinance." In brief, LULAC insists that the city's efforts to create more smoke-free public spaces will adversely affect a disproportionate amount of businesses that employ people from low socioeconomic classes--which, in San Antonio, are predominantly made up of Hispanics and African-Americans. Ironically, these two groups typically suffer the most from secondhand smoke-related illnesses due to their frequent exposure to it in the workplace. Nevertheless, LULAC is primarily concerned about a loss of jobs that could result from an extension of the proposed ban that would cover most of the city's historic districts and outdoor stadiums.

...But is the smoking ban racially biased and/or a violation of civil rights? I think both contentions are ridiculous. Equivalent bans have passed in other cities, where some people probably lost their jobs too. That said, bans in other cities and states have reported positive economic returns. This has only become an issue because, in San Antonio, LULAC has the unique ability to speak for such a large, homogenous group and garner media attention. Although it is unfortunate for people to feel discriminated against, it is even more unfortunate when the alleged discrimination detracts from the real issue at hand: public health.

Digest #9: This Week in Smoke-free News

I'm going to preface this week's digest with some news that will likely affect the future of my blog: I've accepted a full-time job and am starting work this Monday. However, I am determined to find some time to share my thoughts about current smoke-free news. With that said, today is a very big day in tobacco control, and I will explain why in the second half of this post.

Third-hand Smoke and Multi-Unit Housing
Yep, you read it right. I was first introduced to the concept of third-hand smoke at the 2009 CYAN student conference. Members of my organization were given a copy of a New York Times article that described third-hand smoke as,

"the invisible yet toxic brew of gases and particles clinging to smokers’ hair and clothing, not to mention cushions and carpeting, that lingers long after second-hand smoke has cleared from a room. The residue includes heavy metals, carcinogens and even radioactive materials that young children can get on their hands and ingest, especially if they’re crawling or playing on the floor." --The New York Times

So, the discomfort that many feel inside a room that merely smells like smoke is more than just an annoyance--it's the product of a health hazard. When I ask smokers about third-hand smoke, they often laugh and say something like, "You mean you're actually concerned about the air exhaled by people who inhale secondhand smoke?" Okay, so maybe it's not the best name for the phenomenon, but research has shown that third-hand smoke is potentially dangerous.

Third-hand smoke has become a major factor in decisions to make public housing smoke-free. The same can be said for hotels and apartment complexes that are taking the matter seriously. I'm not saying that every apartment that has ever housed a smoker should be demolished and rebuilt, but I am saying that residents of multi-unit housing deserve the health benefits of a smoking ban. Even some smokers agree!

However, tackling the issue of third-hand smoke will be infinitely easier to do once secondhand smoke is removed from housing units. Of course, this is easier said than done. I just read a letter to the editor from a retired British Columbia cop whose neighbor is a heavy smoker. He writes,

"...my wife and I are disabled and we are severely allergic to cigarette smoke. My wife has multiple sclerosis and I have a similar disorder, and we can rarely get out of the house because of our disabilities. So we’re trapped and our health suffers with no hope of relief. Life is just not fair...An ordinary person might say — "just move." Well, it’s not as simple as that. Accessibility is an absolute need. We have equipped this unit with physical aids such as ramps, grab bars, safety poles, special shower/bath and the like...I don’t know what to do...Heck, all we would like is to breathe...Help, we need an advocate."--Langley

For the sake of brevity (and redundancy), I won't rant about the stark injustices that this elderly couple is facing. But I will say this: Circumstances like this inspire me--oblige me, rather--to take action against public smoking.

'The Tobacco War Still Isn't Won'
As I mentioned earlier, it is a big day for tobacco control. Today, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 goes into effect. The most apparent changes will be visible on cigarette boxes. Instead of labeling their "healthier" products as "light," "mild," or "low-tar," tobacco companies are now federally prohibited from selling certain products that are marketed as less dangerous than their alternatives. So, they have resorted to color-coding--an obvious attempt to gain leverage over the consumer through psychological associations. For example, Marlboro Lights will now be known as Marlboro Blues, ostensibly because the color blue tends to evoke serenity, and therefore safety. If only I still worked as a grocery store cashier and could witness customers' frustration as they try to describe the type of cigarettes they want to buy from me...

The law doesn't stop there. As of today, the prohibition of tobacco sales to minors is now a federal law. Furthermore, cigarette vending machines are only allowed in areas where kids are not allowed. Sponsorships, free giveaways, and other product distributions are further limited. In short, the U.S. government has taken a big step in tobacco regulation. However, it would be foolish for advocates to stop here; there is surely more to be done in curbing smoking and secondhand smoke, and I hope to contribute to this change one day.

Thanks for reading.

Digest #8: This Week in Smoke-free News

Honolulu Bus Stops
Smoking is legally banned inside and near the entrances of public buildings in Hawaii, but at the approximately 4000 open-sided bus stops on the island of Oahu, riders waiting for their buses are only protected by signs that encourage smokers to step aside when lighting up. Of course, this is hardly a solution to the problem of public secondhand smoke exposure, which is why the Honolulu City Council has proposed a bus stop smoking ban. In theory, this all-inclusive ban would be more enforceable than the existing rule that prohibits smoking inside the 38 bus shelters (which have two walls and a roof).

To me, the bus stop scene epitomizes the injustice of outdoor secondhand smoke. If two people are waiting patiently at a bus stop when a third person--a smoker--arrives, why should they be burdened by the third person's smoke? They shouldn't. Even if the smoker arrives at the bus stop first, the other two people have a right to breathe clean air and not have to go out of their way to find it while they wait for their bus. And, let's get real here--even if smokers step away from the bus stop to light up, they rarely go far enough to prevent their smoke clouds from drifting in the direction of other riders. I think the Honolulu City Council is on to something here, and I sincerely hope that the ban is approved and replicated in other cities.

Connecticut Parks & Beaches
A while back, I wrote about how the city of Vancouver will soon ban smoking in more than 200 parks and on all city beaches. In that mega-post, I gave my reasons for why it makes both scientific and philosophical sense. However, it doesn't end here. A public smoking ban in parks and on beaches also appeals to common sense, and the news I read about the efforts to make Connecticut parks and beaches smoke-free has reminded me of that.

First of all, parks and beaches are recreational areas. These facilities are intended for recreational activities that promote healthy lifestyles, like softball and swimming. The use of recreational drugs, like tobacco, simply cannot be considered in the same light. Some may say that if tobacco should be banned from parks and beaches, then so should alcohol. Good! After all, alcohol consumption has some its own, albeit more indirect, secondhand effects. We should keep both of these unhealthy habits out of parks and beaches.

Second, those who use city parks and beaches are escaping the confines of city life--most relevantly, the air pollution. Since parks and beaches should, theoretically, have the least pollution, they are often the most attractive places to get away. So why should smokers pollute this fresh air, let alone throw their cigarette butts on the ground? In short, Connecticut cities are doing the right thing by pushing smokers out of the cleanest areas of the state.

[Stupid] Quote of the Week

"Bowling, smoking and drinking go together." --Nancy McClain, owner of Belmar Lanes, Lincoln Park, MI

...If Nancy were right, ESPN would never show bowling.

In other Michigan "sports" news, Michigan International Speedway is having some trouble convincing NASCAR fans that a smoke-free venue is actually a good idea. Surprise, surprise! At least the drivers themselves don't light up behind the wheel.

Smoke-free Colleges: An Unstoppable Force
Aside from my harsh criticism of the University of Florida student newspaper editorial board last week, I haven't talked about the college smoke-free movement since I started this blog in April, but I just read an article that reminded me of the great progress that has been made on this front. In 2005, there were 18 smoke-free colleges in the United States. Today? 394. No big deal, right? This seems to be what UF's James Smith is thinking:

"UF's current policy states that people cannot smoke within 50 feet of any building on campus. However, 24-year-old UF Graduate James Smith often takes his smoking breaks right outside his workplace on UF's campus. He is usually about five feet from the building. People sometimes approach Smith and remind him of the smoking policy, but he doesn't listen.

"I just smile and keep smoking," Smith said. "There's not much they can really do. My bosses get on me about it, but if I'm on break, I'm not on the clock. They can't really do anything to me."

What a cool guy James Smith is! His acts of defiance and disrespect will surely stop the UF smoking ban from coming and penalizing him...NOT. Sorry buddy, you better invest in an e-cigarette before July 1, the day your right to smoke cigarettes on campus will be taken away.

Finally: A huge shout-out goes to my CYAN colleague, Amanda Swan, a pioneer in college smoke-free advocacy and enforcement at Santa Rosa Junior College, who was interviewed for the article that prompted this topic.

Digest #7: This Week in Smoke-free News

Starbucks: My New Favorite Coffee Shop
I don't like coffee very much; I never go out of my way to drink it, and I reluctantly suck down a Starbucks frappuccino once or twice per year when I desperately need energy. This is partially due to the fact that caffeine is addictive, somewhat like nicotine, and I don't want to be dependent on a foreign substance, particularly one that eats away at my wallet. However, in light of the news I just read, I have a new-found respect for Starbucks. Smoking has been banned on the outdoor patios at all California Starbucks locations. As of June 7, those who enjoy lighting up outside with a cup of coffee will only be able to partake in one of these guilty pleasures. Let's hope that every Starbucks franchise around the US follows suit, which will hopefully encourage other outdoor dining venues to go smoke-free.

Is Secondhand Smoke Making Us Crazy?
A study at the University College of London has determined a correlation between secondhand smoke and mental health illness. Although it is well known that nicotine is a depressant in the sense that it relaxes the mind and body, it might also be making people clinically depressed. How does it do this? I have no idea, so I'll just paraphrase: The presence of nicotine in the body inhibits dopamime transmission, which is commonly linked to altered mood and depression.

"What's particularly worrisome is that for the majority of the population, even transient exposure to secondhand smoke is sufficient to have an effect; those with the lowest cotinine [a biomarker used to measure SHS exposure] levels, equivalent to the amount that might be absorbed during occasional forays to a smoke-filled bar or restaurant, still increased their risk of depressive symptoms and anxiety by 25%, compared with those with negligible exposure."

To me, the most striking finding is that subjects exposed to a high level of SHS were 62% more likely to report psychological distress than those subjects who were not exposed. ...Yet another reason to ban smoking in public places.

What are these Gators Smoking?
The editorial board of The Independent Florida Alligator, the University of Florida's student newspaper, has officially denounced the smoking ban that is coming to their campus on July 1. The article takes a sarcastic turn, questioning why UF doesn't ban "everything unhealthy and fun for everyone," and ultimately calling the school's administration "hypocritical." ...Wait, did they just say smoking is fun? I've never heard the words, "smoking" and "fun" in the same sentence. Please excuse my digression. Now, I'm about to be more frank than I've ever been on this blog: If I read another one of these poorly-written, misguided columns in a student newspaper, I'm going to lose it! We need to dispel the notion that campus smoking bans are paternalistic policies that only take away rights and do not significantly improve public health. I realize that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and can write about whatever they want, but I think it's a shame that students might be persuaded by this kind of rhetoric. Hopefully, someone will respond to the editorial board's statement.

Quote of the Week

"We want kids playing on the beach to pick up seashells, not cigarette butts." --Sheelah Feinberg, Coney Island Coalition for a Smoke-free City

This is particularly ironic to me because, as a toddler, I used to collect cigarette butts from the ground...or so I've been told. I suppose that I started my smoke-free advocacy at a young age.

Off-topic: Discrimination & Equal Protection

[WARNING: Much of this post is extremely academic. I apologize in advance.]

I would like to address a topic that I touched on in a previous post, the so-called discrimination against smokers. With smoking bans being passed nationwide, some people (including non-smokers) can't seem to get over the idea that the laws discriminate. Now, I will explain why this idea is wrong.

First of all, the word 'discrimination,' as it is used in this context, is defined as:

unfair treatment of one person or group, usually because of prejudice about race, ethnicity, age, religion, or gender (Encarta)

...and a 'prejudice' is:

a preformed opinion, usually an unfavorable one, based on insufficient knowledge, irrational feelings, or inaccurate stereotypes (Encarta)

Therefore, for a law to discriminate against smokers, it would have to treat smokers unfairly due to unfavorable, irrational opinions of lawmakers. But what constitutes a fair law? In the United States, laws that treat people equally are fair because the 14th Amendment of the Constitution prescribes legal equality in its Equal Protection clause, effectively outlawing the creation of state laws that treat people unequally:

"no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, how do smoking bans treat smokers unequally? They don't, because smokers and non-smokers must follow the same law; neither group is treated differently. It is the act of smoking that is banned--not the smoker.

A typical reaction to the above statement: "But can't we consider smokers to be a distinct class of people and infer that a smoking ban is basically a smoker ban?"

My answer: Sure, we can attempt to draw a line between smokers and non-smokers, but it wouldn't get us anywhere. The concept of the social smoker (or occasional smoker) makes this task difficult, but it also illustrates how people have a choice to smoke. This common choice is what qualifies smokers and non-smokers as inherently equal, and therefore disqualifies them from "unequal" protection of the smoking ban law. In other words, because even non-smokers have the choice to smoke, we cannot infer that a smoking ban is a smoker ban.

A follow-up reaction: "But nicotine addicts don't have a choice as to whether they smoke or not, so they may as well be considered a distinct class of people."

For some smokers, this is where my argument might get personal. If addictions actually disabled choice and made smoking a potentially permanent habit, they would necessitate distinct social classifications like those based on personal identity, traits and lifestyles that the law has recognized in the past. Most recently, for example, some states have begun to formally accept homosexuality, an immutable trait/lifestyle that was once discriminated against despite homosexuals' lack of choice in their sexual orientation. This is an unrealistic trajectory for smoking to parallel because the states are going the opposite direction with smoking bans. Plus, I feel that a comparison between nicotine addiction and homosexuality is offensive to make, further validating my point that smoking has no place in a discussion about discrimination.

The harsh reality is that addictions do not completely disable choice, and at one point in time, addicted smokers had a definite choice to start smoking. Call me unforgiving and naïve, but there have been plenty of cases in which long-time smokers have successfully quit smoking--which is the beauty in all of this--smokers can quit smoking.

"What about those smokers who don't want to quit and claim that their habit is part of their personal identity and interests?"

This is more of a 1st Amendment freedom of expression argument, which I recently wrote about. Furthermore, I doubt anyone would ever go so far as to say that their nicotine addiction is akin to a religious affiliation because arguments like this have failed at the Supreme Court level.

With regard to the 14th Amendment, however, the Supreme Court has upheld the equal protection of constitutionally protected rights, like the right to vote. The right to smoking is not constitutionally protected, and,

"If a government classification affects an individual right that is not constitutionally protected, the classification will be upheld if there is...a rational basis for it. So long as secondhand smoke regulations are enacted to further the government goal of protecting the public's health from the dangers of tobacco smoke, the regulation should withstand judicial scrutiny if challenged." --There is No Constitutional Right to Smoke

Finally: "Some people might have a genetic predisposition to nicotine addiction, so they should qualify as a distinct class of people that a smoking ban should accommodate."

This is debatable. Until it can be proven that some people have a natural affinity and need for nicotine, I stand by my argument that smokers cannot be discriminated against, especially when they have perfectly acceptable alternatives (e.g., smokeless tobacco) for satisfying their addictions.

Even if smoking bans were discriminatory, the "prejudices" that lawmakers are accused of harboring are surely not based on insufficient knowledge, and therefore aren't prejudices. There is plenty of scientific knowledge about the dangers of smoking and secondhand smoke that negates these accusations.