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.