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