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.

Digest #6: This Week in Smoke-free News

Supreme Court Upholds Theater Smoking Ban
A Colorado theater has officially lost its fight for an exemption to the Colorado Clean Indoor Act. In half of the states with indoor bans, actors are permitted to "set a mood" by smoking on stage, but the Colorado Supreme Court has chosen to prioritize public health concerns over actors' freedom of expression.

To me, this is a huge victory for opponents of public smoking because, more often that not, 1st Amendment claims seem to win out; it's easy to say that the government is intruding on one's freedom of "expression." Realizing this constitutional ambiguity, the theater basically attempted to pair smoking with the likes of religion, speech, and press--the other freedoms that the 1st Amendment protects from government intrusion. But with a 6-1 decision against the theater, the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that smoking is not a protected form of expression--at least when the public's health is at stake. And, because the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to hear the case (though they hear very few cases), the federal government has effectively said the same thing, for now.

Because the theater challenged the law on 1st Amendment grounds and lost, I think that this case has set a fairly significant precedent for issues between smoking and freedom of expression. With that said, the theater's founder is optimistic that his failure will breed future success in allowing smoking on stage.

Michigan: So Far, So Good
The indoor smoking ban that went into effect on May 1 seems to be going over well in the state of Michigan. No surprise here! However, considering the state's political orientation, this is especially good news for the 39th and 40th statewide public smoking bans that are about to go into effect on July 1 in Kansas and July 5 in Wisconsin.

NC High School Students Count Butts
A group of North Carolina high school students recently demonstrated how their state's Smoke-Free Restaurants and Bars Law has burdened the environment. They conducted cigarette litter scans on a street in downtown Chapel Hill and found 5,866 butts over two days. Comparing this to the 3,538 butts found during a 2008 scan (before the law was enacted), the students confirmed their hypothesis: Although the indoor smoking ban has been effective, the amount of outdoor cigarette litter has increased.

Their proposed solution? Restaurants should have ashtrays outside of their doors for the public to use. Even if this could work, I have a hard time believing that this would solve the problem. About a month ago, I read a great column written by a University of Maryland law student, who describes a similar problem in Baltimore:

Why do so many people who would never dump other garbage in the street nevertheless flick their butts without a second thought? The problem is twofold: (1) many smokers are unaware of the problems related to littered butts; and (2) smokers face little consequence for improperly disposing of their cigarettes.

That's unfortunate. Because filters are made out of cellulose-acetate, a material that does not biodegrade, a butt littered today will remain in the environment forever, and smokers have little incentive to change their behavior.

This leads me to believe that as long as smoking is permitted in outdoor public spaces, laws against cigarette littering (and all littering, for that matter) need to be more heavily enforced. The challenge, however, is making revenue from fines pay for the cost of enforcement.

Quote of the Week

"I wasn't looking for a loophole...I was looking for a niche." --Nathan Porter, owner of Huka Bar & Grill

Although Porter opened his hookah bar before the Utah indoor smoking ban was passed, this is the kind of rationalization that I suspect goes on in the minds of people who attempt to open hookah bars in states with smoking bans. With any luck, the niche for hookah bars, which are all too popular among young adults, will soon be closed.