Off-topic: Smoking on the Job

A few weeks ago, I read a very intriguing article by Joel Stein entitled, "The Secret Cult of Office Smokers." I've been meaning to write about it since, but haven't found a good way to introduce it into my blog--hence, my first "off-topic" post. I've written plenty about how smoke-free initiatives are combating secondhand smoke, but have not yet written about smoking in the workplace (though many state laws include the workplace in their indoor bans). In this context, I'd like to consider other byproducts of smoking: social stratification, decreased productivity, and general fairness.

Despite his preconception that smoking is no longer the "cool" thing to do, Stein describes how the smokers we see at work are just like the "cool" kids in high school:

"...smokers are precisely the type of people who thrive on being ostracized and banished. These aren't the ex-football players and class presidents who fought for your approval. These are the brooding loners, the ones who...start smoking not because they want to look cool but because it goes along with all their other self-destructive, class-cutting, early-sex, authority-flouting coolness. These are people who willingly put fire in their mouths. So that little area in front of the building that looks so lame from afar is actually the high school bathroom of the Information Age. Around the country all the cool engineers, accountants, and salespeople skip out of work, duck their boss, gather outside the building, gossip, and—though I could not confirm this—make fun of me." --Joel Stein

I can attest to this. Stein mentions that about 20.6% of Americans smoke today, but the percentage was certainly higher at the grocery store I clerked for during high school. Small groups of my co-workers would often gather behind the store for smoking breaks, talking amongst each other while I crushed and baled boxes. To them, I was the innocent, "straight edge" kid who worked too hard. But to me, they were the lazy smokers who didn't work hard enough. Our quick and mutual judgments of each other undoubtedly prevented any kind of meaningful social interaction. Nevertheless, I was the one who had the problem with them. As I worked and they smoked, all I could ask myself was, "Why should they get extra breaks to smoke, and why should I have to pick up their slack?"

My theory is that the American workplace, in general, treats smokers as if they are handicapped. Some will surely take offense to this notion, but logically speaking, a nicotine addiction nearly disables its victims from changing their lifestyles, thereby classifying them into a category of employees who need extra accommodation. Because there are so many nicotine addicts, and because employers cannot legally discriminate during hiring processes, employers are forced to allow smoking breaks. Not only does this put time constraints on smokers' productivity (though some may argue that smoking breaks promote efficiency upon return), but it gives employees who are eager to go home or socialize a good excuse to take a break. In other words, smoking breaks promote more smoking. And, quite frankly, they leave some non-smoking workers feeling like they are being treated unfairly.

In my perfect world, smoking breaks wouldn't exist. So for now, I'll just have to embrace a couple positive things about them: They instill a sense of camaraderie among smokers who would otherwise not have the opportunity to know each other. Likewise, they promote networking and can potentially lead to smokers' faster promotion...But how is that fair for those of us who aren't "cool"?

Digest #5: This Week in Smoke-free News

Smoke-free Mississippi?
The Mississippi State Department of Health is spearheading a two-year campaign against secondhand smoke that will, hopefully, culminate in the passage of a smoke-free air law. A map provided by the Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation shows that the southern United States, aside from Louisiana, Florida, and North Carolina, is far behind the rest of the nation in smoke-free legislation. According to that same map, many cities in Mississippi have already enacted their own smoke-free laws, so the state is sure to go smoke-free after this campaign. Furthermore, once the rest of the conservative South gets on board with the dozens of other states that have enacted smoke-free laws, I believe there will be a legitimate chance for a nationwide public smoking ban. It's only a matter of time, people!

Arizona Hospital Study
University of Arizona researchers recently conducted a study that shows a significant decrease in hospital admissions since Arizona enacted its statewide public indoor smoking ban. Their research covered all 87 hospitals in the state, leading to the conclusion that there is a relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and prevalence of asthma and cardiovascular disease.

"Herman and Walsh found that in the 13 months after the law took effect in May 2007, admissions for asthma went down by 22 percent; heart attack admissions went down by 13 percent; admissions for unstable angina were reduced by 33 percent and admissions for acute stroke went down by 14 percent."

Enough said.

Smoking in a Chicago Suburb
A Kane County, Illinois resident has proposed a county-wide outdoor smoking ban because secondhand smoke is difficult to avoid in her neighborhood. Many of the houses are built within a few yards of each other, and even with closed windows, she is bothered by the smoke that seems to seep through. I know what she's talking about, and it's undoubtedly annoying. She also says,

"These smokers, nothing personal against them, but they don't really have a constitutional right to smoke. But people do have a right and a need to breathe." --Stacy Blaszak

I agree that the right to breathe clean air is far more important than the right to smoke (more on this topic later). However, as smoke-free advocates, we need to focus our energy on the public sphere before we start to regulate any private property. That said, if Kane County somehow manages to pass the ban, I will be very interested to see if other counties follow suit.

Quote of the Week
"Secondhand smoke is worse than firsthand smoke because you're breathing someone else's cigarette smoke - against your will. And that's not fair." --Stockton, CA resident

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Digest #4: This Week in Smoke-free News

Jail Time for Public Smoking?
Wheat Ridge, a suburb of Denver, Colorado is reportedly considering the following:

"A proposed city council ordinance would prohibit all public smoking. Smokers could be fined from $25-$1,000 and potentially face up to one year in jail for lighting up on public sidewalks, in parks or at bus or light rail stations."

Although I agree with the interviewed city council member's premise that all secondhand smoke (i.e. outdoor SHS) impacts public health, I think that jail time is excessive punishment, not to mention costly to the state. I'm sure it would only take a handful of jailed smokers for Wheat Ridge residents and visitors to realize that the law is being seriously enforced (thus instilling a strong deterrent effect), but society simply isn't ready for a law that could put people in jail for smoking. This proposal sounds like its about ten years before its time. Rather than putting public smokers in jail, I would hope to see the city issue hefty fines and make some money off of the violations.

Smoke-free Zoos
It appears that the Little Rock (Arkansas) Zoo may ban smoking. Again, another no-brainer to me. Why do we allow people to smoke in areas heavily populated by children--isn't a zoo basically a playground with animals? To keep smokers as paying customers, of course. However, I suspect that among people who go to zoos, a relatively small percentage are the "edgy" type who smoke, so zoos wouldn't be missing out on much revenue (they may even get more from parents currently annoyed by SHS). Excuse me for generalizing, but in this case, it has to be true. Plus, flicking extinguished cigarette butts into the man-made habitats can only pose hazards to the hungry, claustrophobic animals.

E-Cigarettes: Full Steam Ahead
Since Michigan's state-wide smoking ban took effect May 1, the popularity of e-cigarettes as an alternative to smoking in restaurants seems to be on the rise. One restaurant is even renting them out for customers to use; the "smoke" emitted is actually just steam, qualifying them as smoking ban-friendly. They still look just as stupid as cigarettes to me, but at least they don't burden us non-smokers with secondhand health effects. The nicotine cartridges only cost $2, and they last slightly longer than a normal pack of cigarettes. For those pack-a-day smokers out there, it would only take about a month to break even on the purchase of a $100 e-cigarette smoking device--sounds like a worthy and selfless investment to me. That is, if the e-cigarette market share isn't taken over by Japan's new smokeless cigarette--which, unlike the e-cigarette, has actual tobacco inside.

A Response to Simon Waxman
Dear Simon Waxman,

I would like to briefly comment on the following excerpt from your op-ed in the Boston Globe:

"What is more, how can it be ethical to harass adults for the ostensible benefit of children? Human beings do not have greater moral worth as children than as adults. An adult’s freedom to pursue legal activities in peace shouldn’t be sabotaged because some of his peers want a different lifestyle for their children."

First of all, nobody is "harassing" anybody--please go easy on the hyperbole. In my experience, non-smokers who are bothered by SHS rarely have the courage to ask smokers to stop smoking around them, so they turn to the government for help. How does citizens' proper use of government equate to harassment? Cigarette taxes, cigarette pack label regulations and smoke-free laws are practical, non-intrusive ways to curb smoking and secondhand smoke, the limitations of which would not "ostensibly" benefit children. Let's get real: Secondhand smoke is dangerous in any amount, especially to those with smaller lungs (i.e. children).

Secondly, since when do we not prioritize the well-being of children over the rights of adults? Part of our responsibility as knowledgeable adults is to protect those who are unable to protect themselves. Think about school zones. Are we not supposed to slow down to 15-25 mph (depending on the state) for the safety of children crossing the street? Maybe you're one of those people who speeds through them--I wouldn't know. My point is that, as adults, we make sacrifices while we pursue certain peaceful, legal activities in the presence of children. Smoking is just another one of these activities; cigarette label warnings and smoke-free laws are merely sacrifices that smokers must make for the sake of others around them--most notably, children.

Sincerely,

Nick Fradkin

Quote of the Week
"Many states just don't seem to get it. Twenty-eight states aren't doing enough to ban secondhand smoke in public areas such as workplaces, restaurants and bars, according to the CDC. In a dozen states, the tax on an individual pack of cigarettes is less than 60 cents." --American Medical News editorial

Progress and Conflict Down Under

I recently ran across an article in Australia's The Age with a very provocative title: "Will you even be allowed to smoke in your own home?" Clearly, I had to read it. Although the focus was on government intervention with the tobacco industry, I was most interested in the information about apartment complexes banning smoking in their buildings. Apparently, they're modeling their policies after those of some California developments. So, why is this interesting to me?

Though I believe that various apartment complexes are doing the right thing by banning smoking, I still believe that people have the right to smoke in their own homes, as long as children don't live there. As I've said before, I only approve of smoking in private spaces. Apartments, as homes, are quasi-private property for tenants. So, I have an internal conflict with this. Hypothetically, if all apartment complexes were to ban smoking, smokers would be forced to live in houses--which are usually more costly. Is this just? Not entirely. Thankfully, basic economics tells me that as long as a small portion of the working class smokes, there will be apartments available for them, but they'll be in low supply and thus very expensive. I guess that will be a reality that smokers will have to live with, as if it were another tax on cigarettes. But hey, it surely wouldn't hurt cessation efforts, especially among social smokers.

I envision the establishment of "smoking-approved" apartment complexes, where smokers can live and smoke happily amongst themselves, while the rest of a city's apartments are smoke-free by default. The same goes for hotels. Hopefully, instead of hotels sporting 'no smoking' signs, hotels will be assumed to be smoke-free, unless otherwise noted. That said, I'd hope that developers of smoking-approved apartments and hotels consider the proximity of fire stations...

Another interesting bit from the article: In Victoria, the smallest, yet second-most populous state in the country, people are prohibited from smoking in restaurants, bars, public schools, cars carrying children, covered train stops, casinos, and most other public buildings. This includes Melbourne, population 4 million--in other words, the Los Angeles of Australia.

"...when you look at the data you see it [smoking] is by far the biggest avoidable cause of cancer death, so we simply can't afford to neglect it.'' --David Hill, Director of Cancer Council Victoria

In short, Australia really seems to be accelerating smoke-free progress on several fronts. I'm sharing all of this to make the point that smoke-free movements are not solely American phenomena, and they aren't misguided products of an extremely health-conscious culture. Rather, smoke-free policies are products of common sense.

Digest #3: This Week in Smoke-free News

Oklahoma’s Smoke-free Subsidy
The governor of Oklahoma recently signed the Clean Air in Restaurants Act, which will channel revenue from the state’s tobacco tax toward a 50% rebate for individual restaurants with separated ventilated smoking rooms that convert their restaurants into smoke-free environments by January 2013. If restaurant owners are smart and realize that their state will likely pass a public smoking ban and will soon require the change, this should be a huge incentive for them to do it now. Great idea, Oklahoma.

Smoke-free San Antonio?
Assuming San Antonio Spurs fans have yet to recover from their disappointing NBA playoff sweep by the Phoenix Suns, here’s something they can smile about: The city of San Antonio may soon become smoke-free. A local TV station reported that the city’s mayor is on board with the change, as are many restaurant customers. In my mind, this is a big step toward making Texas a smoke-free state; if the state’s other major urban centers follow suit, I don’t see how the rural population can stall a statewide smoking ban much longer.

Dilemma in Toronto
For the past four years, St. Joseph’s Hospital in Toronto has abided by the Smoke Free Ontario Act, which prohibits smoking within 9 meters of hospitals. However, people who live directly across the street from the hospital have been complaining about secondhand smoke near their homes:

“Smokers sit on the grass by the sidewalk or stand anywhere near the hospital entrance. Late Wednesday morning, at least eight smokers — including two patients with IV stands and a healthcare worker — stood directly across Jackowski’s home. Dozens of butts were stubbed out on the sidewalk and in the grass…She said there probably isn’t a single moment from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. when someone isn’t standing by the sidewalk smoking.”

I don’t think I need to explain why smoking around hospitals is absolutely asinine, but I do think that this article exemplifies how smoking is simply unacceptable in certain communities. So, if smoking isn’t allowed on hospital grounds, and people shouldn’t be allowed to smoke near others’ homes, where should Toronto draw the line for smoking? …Nowhere! One day, we shouldn’t have to draw any more lines because smoking will likely be banned in all public spaces.

Crescent City’s Public Area Smoking Ban
Crescent City, a small city in northern California, is ahead of the game in mitigating outdoor secondhand smoke. Starting in June,

“…people will not be allowed to smoke within 25 feet of playgrounds or entrances of buildings that are open to the general public. It also prohibits smoking in all parks within Crescent City’s jurisdiction and at events such as farmers’ markets, parades or festivals.”

This may be the closest thing I’ve seen to a total outdoor ban, so if I were a smoker living in Crescent City, I wouldn’t even try to light up outside my home. That said, the ordinance also makes it illegal for smokers to “intimidate or threaten” people who ask them to comply with the policy. Even better!

Smoking in Santa Monica
And now, for a firsthand report… I was visiting my sister at UCLA this past weekend, and on Saturday night, we went down to the Third Street Promenade in downtown Santa Monica. As we were searching for a restaurant with a reasonable wait, I noticed several “no smoking” signs that applied to the entire promenade. Skeptical of the policy’s efficacy, I noticed a couple of women smoking. They seemed considerate enough to avoid the crowds of people walking on the promenade (or maybe the crowds were avoiding them), but hey, they were breaking the rule. Conveniently enough, I had just passed two authoritative-looking men wearing community volunteer badges, so I asked them if smoking is allowed here. They said that smokers have to light up elsewhere, so I pointed the women out to them, and they asked the women to move.

Call me a “tattletale”—I don’t care. At this point in time, outdoor smoke-free policies largely rely on self-enforcement, so people who are bothered by secondhand smoke in places where smoking is prohibited should take matters into their own hands, or else the policies will lose effect.

Smoking on the Road

Imagine: You’re driving home from work on a warm evening, so you roll down your windows. There’s a red light ahead, so you slow down to a stop. Then, when you notice the car in the adjacent lane begin to move forward, you turn your head toward the intersection, press the accelerator, take a deep breath, and…Ugh! You just drove through a cloud of cigarette smoke exhaled by the driver in front of you. Disgusting.

Yes, smokers can make the point that drivers constantly inhale carbon monoxide while they’re on the road, which is far more dangerous than a breath or two of secondhand smoke every now and then. So what? That doesn’t mean people should be allowed to puff at will around other cars; it’s a secondhand health hazard that clearly doesn’t need to be paired with the car exhaust resulting from driving and rush hour traffic. With that said, one state is increasing enforcement of a law that protects a smoker's passengers.

Jonesboro, Arkansas police seem to be cracking down on drivers who are seen smoking in their cars with children inside. According to the article I read,

"Arkansas Act 13 makes it a ticketed offense to smoke in a privately owned vehicle with a child in a safety seat under 6 years of age or 60 pounds."

Good for Arkansas! Children of that size don't exactly have a say in, let alone an understanding of, the secondhand smoke consequences that their smoking parents inflict upon them, so they shouldn't have to suffer. But why draw the line at age 6 or 60 pounds? This limit, although somewhat arbitrary, has a scientific explanation:

"Pound for pound they [small children] are going to breathe in more air on a minute by minute basis…they are going to be breathing in more pollutant than an adult is in the same environment." --Dr. Lowery Beck

Personally, I don't think people should be permitted to smoke while driving on public roads--if not for the sake of their own passengers' and other drivers' health, then for safety reasons. And, let's be honest--most smokers on the road don't dispose of their cigarette butts inside their own cars. Unfortunately, my hopes will have to persist for years before smoking is banned from the road.

In the meantime, I think all states--at least those with public smoking bans--should adopt a similar law to Arkansas Act 13, which mandates a $25 fine for drivers who are caught smoking in their cars with small children in them, regardless of whether the windows are up or down. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Digest #2: This Week in Smoke-free News

Michigan Smoking Ban

It’s official—as of this past Saturday, Michigan has become the 38th state to institute a public smoking ban. To celebrate, Detroit Free Press reporters collaborated to write a lengthy journal about the state’s first smoke-free day. A couple of points the article helps to drive home:

1. The ban will not hurt local business. One bar patron said, “If smokers don’t show up, other people will.” He couldn’t be more accurate; since more people are bothered by smoking than people who smoke, it’s safe to say that bars where smoking is banned (i.e., all of them) will be more popular.

2. The ban is enticing smokers to quit. A 60-year-old Vietnam veteran decided to quit because the ban has made smoking too much of an inconvenience. He said, “It's either I spend my time in the parking lot smoking or I quit and hang out here.” A woman at a Detroit Tigers baseball game said, “I’m all for it…it’s one more thing to convince me to quit smoking.” Tigers fans who wish to light up are now limited to designated areas outside of the park. For many, smoking really isn’t worth the hassle. So, why should nonsmokers suffer from secondhand smoke when smokers can admit that their habit isn’t necessary?

E-Cigarettes in Virginia

Virginia’s Attorney General has declared that use of e-cigarettes does not violate the state’s smoking ban in restaurants and other public places.

My opinion? For once, I’m somewhat ambivalent.

If the vapor that e-cigarettes emit is, in fact, not harmful like secondhand smoke, then I have no problem with the Attorney General’s exception. In my mind, e-cigarettes are a selfless alternative to smoking real cigarettes, on par with smokeless tobacco and nicotine patches.

However, I believe there is an issue with the visibility of e-cigarettes—the article mentions this in the last paragraph. For example, in the context of a college or university, I think e-cigarettes should not be excluded because a primary goal of campus smoking bans is health promotion. Some e-cigarettes look nearly identical to the real thing, so enforcement would be difficult and people would get the sense that smoking and tobacco use are still prevalent among students.

There’s something to be said for an “all or nothing” approach to banning tobacco, but at the moment, the best argument for tobacco-free environments is that which targets secondhand smoke as the culprit. So, e-cigarettes should be put on the backburner for a while.

Governator Strikes Down Park Smoking Ban

Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have banned smoking in California’s state-run beaches and parks. Despite the fact that the ban would limit the number of littered cigarette butts, he reasoned that the legislation would have been an “improper intrusion of government into people’s lives.” No real surprise here. He makes a good point, though: individual cities and parks can already ban smoking where they deem necessary. But hey, if the city of Vancouver can do it, all it should take for California is the right governor in office; it’s only a matter of time before some of the most beautiful parts of the country are smoke-free.

Children in Danger

A new study that measured exposure to secondhand smoke among different housing types revealed that 84% of children living in apartments and 70% living in detached houses have been exposed to tobacco smoke. These high percentages imply that children who live with nonsmokers are also susceptible to secondhand smoke.

“We are starting to understand the role that seepage through walls and through shared ventilation may impact tobacco smoke exposure in apartments.” --Karen Wilson, M.D., MPH

I’ve never been a proponent of any sort of private smoking ban, simply because it would be the epitome of an invasion of privacy. Nevertheless, this research is food for thought. It is children we are talking about…

“About 18 percent of U.S. children live in apartments, and many of these children are living in subsidized housing communities where smoking is more prevalent… many parents are trying to limit their children's tobacco smoke exposure by not allowing smoking in their apartments, but they say they can smell tobacco smoke coming from other apartments or from common areas.”