Digest #26: This Month (and a Half) in Smoke-free News

I regret to admit that I failed to post a digest in the month of November. Have no fear, though; that was not the beginning of the end of my blog (at least I hope it wasn't). Anyway, now that I've officially broken my streak, I plan to defy the odds of the blog life cycle and continue sharing my opinions about smoke-free policies on a monthly basis. With that out of the way, I'll start with some fresh content:

Electric Light (Up) Parade

This past weekend, I went down to the APS Electric Light Parade in uptown Phoenix. Taking place in early December, the parade always has a holiday theme, so everybody is sipping hot chocolate and snuggling in their winter sweaters, while kids run around collecting candy and glow sticks thrown from the floats, most of which are covered with hundreds, if not thousands of Christmas lights. It's a great atmosphere. But this year, it rained--and it was cold (forgive me, my east coast friends). As if it weren't uncomfortable enough out there, my near-numb nose was able to detect something unmistakeable: cigarette smoke. Of course, I had to figure out where it was coming from. Sure enough, it was the guy right in front of me; no wonder I had such a great view. This guy was smoking in a fairly dense crowd of people, at least half of whom were young children. Normally, I would shake my head and reluctantly move away, but the fact that he was smoking in close proximity to several children at a parade--perhaps the most joyous public gathering that a city can put on--absolutely disgusted me. To make matters worse, another nearby person lit up. It all seemed ludicrous to me. Thankfully, my girlfriend sensed my anger rising and talked me out of making a scene, so I resolved to bring it up in my blog.

Coincidentally, I ran across an article that explained how the city of San Antonio, which recently went smoke-free last year, is considering a smoking ban within 50 feet of parade routes. Hopefully, it passes and other cities, like Phoenix, do the same. If nothing else, I think that cigarette and secondhand smoke exposure around children should be reduced. I really like the concept of banning smoking around kids, which a small town in Texas (see Digest #19). I think that an ordinance that does this could (and should) apply to all public places. If, as a society, we're currently not prepared to ban smoking in public places altogether, we should at least start by drawing the line around kids (see: "Smokers at hospital leave new dad fuming").

Congregating in California

I'll use the previous discussion about crowds as a segue to some progressive smoke-free news coming out of California. First, the city council of Hermosa Beach (just outside of Los Angeles) has passed a smoking ban that prohibits smoking in "virtually every area of the city where people congregate." ...Now that is what I'm talking about! Hermosa Beach is really going to live up to its name come March, when this is supposed to take effect. However, like nearly every other place where smoking has been banned, business owners are concerned that they'll lose customers. Assuming the Hermosa Beach economy will survive, I hope that the adjacent cities of Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach catch on and keep smoking and cigarette litter as far away from the beach as possible.

The city council of Alameda, the city/island just west of Oakland in the San Francisco Bay (not to be confused with Alameda County), has considered additions to the existing smoke-free indoor workplaces state law by further banning smoking in the state-exempt indoor workplaces, all outdoor workplaces, and all outdoor public spaces. These include outdoor dining areas, shopping malls, sidewalks, and recreation areas--all of which amount to areas where people congregate. Smoke-free multi-unit housing has also been proposed. I'm liking Alameda's "all-in-one" package, but as far as I know, it has yet to be approved.

Collegiate Update

• Ohio State University, the third largest college in the nation, may be going tobacco-free in the foreseeable future. But wait: In one of my first blog posts, I talked about the prospect of that campus going smoke-free, which has yet to happen. The momentum probably died for a reason that I suspect many college campus advocates face: A smoking ban is never a top priority for administration. As the OSU President said in April 2010, "A smoke-free campus is not at the top of my priority list, but if someone came to me with a proposal and we could make that happen quickly, I would be the first in line." This really speaks to the importance of students taking the bull by the horns and getting the work done themselves. Seeing how engrained the culture of smoking is in our society, and how the problem is easily shoved aside to accommodate current events, making a smoking ban a top priority for leaders--whether they lead a university, a city, or a state--is nearly impossible. Therefore, advocates need to make it as quick and painless as possible for leaders to flip the switch and establish a smoke-free policy.
• The University of Arizona, another large university, is showing signs of smoke-free potential. An article seems to suggest that the recent tobacco ban at the university's medical buildings could have been the impetus for one ambitious student's idea to work toward a smoke-free campus. This might make for an interesting strategy for other universities with medical centers: Step 1) Make medical buildings smoke-free. Step 2) Have this news published and get some students to wonder, "Why should only the pre-med/med students get smoke-free environments? Are the rest of us not important enough to benefit from the same smoking ban?" Step 3) Watch the larger-scale change unfold.
• The University of Illinois recently held a vote as to whether "campus dialogue and action by the administration to explore making the [University] smoke-free" should be held. More than 10,000 students voted, and over 7,000 approved this idea. Although it's hardly set in stone, it appears likely that the widespread support will ultimately yield a smoke-free campus.
• Over 3,000 gingerbread men were lined up on the campus of the University of Nevada - Las Vegas (UNLV) to represent the number of Nevadans who die from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke in any given year. The UNLV School of Nursing, in partnership with the Southern Nevada Health District's Evolvement project, was responsible for the undertaking.
• The undergraduate student government at the University of Southern California (USC) has officially disappointed me, now having resolved to create designated smoking areas in lieu of an entirely smoke-free campus. It's better than nothing, but they're just delaying the inevitable.
• Last, but not least...STFU! At the University of Oregon, the profane online chat acronym 'STFU' now means Smoke and Tobacco Free University. This is very creative marketing; I wouldn't expect anything less from the flashiest school in the Pac-12, and perhaps the nation.

 Quick Bits

• A U.S. District Court judge has delayed the FDA's plans to require all cigarette manufacturers to include graphic warning labels on all cigarette packages and cartons starting in September of next year. The Obama administration has filed an appeal against this injunction, which is giving the tobacco industry a chance to object to the new requirements on the grounds that they violate the First Amendment. I certainly understand and respect the industry's argument--more so than most anti-smoking advocates, I suspect--but when our President, a former smoker, is speaking out against the industry, I don't mind overlooking freedom of speech.
• Major League Baseball's new collective bargaining agreement didn't result in a tobacco ban, after all. However, players are no longer allowed to carry tins or packages in their back pockets when fans are permitted in the ballpark, and cannot use tobacco during pre-game and post-game interviews, or at team functions. This will help decrease young fans' exposure to tobacco use.
• The Mayo Clinic recently released the results of a study that demonstrated a 45% decrease in heart attacks and sudden death since the introduction of smoking bans in southeastern Minnesota. That's a statistic that simply can't be ignored.
• Legislators in Indiana appear to be close to resolving a long-fought battle for a statewide smoking ban.

Digest #25: This Month in Smoke-free News

UC Berkeley Update – Journal of American College Health

In one of my first posts, I shared an opinion-editorial that I wrote for The Daily Californian about why I think that smoking should be banned on the UC Berkeley campus. What I may not have mentioned is that I had already begun working on such a change:

Originally, I was committed to making UC Berkeley a smoke-free campus before I graduated. But after talking with campus administration and realizing the incredible uphill battle it would take to accomplish this (especially since I had just began my last semester of school), I teamed up with TobaccNO founder and President Trit Garg to target a smaller, yet equally important, domain: the campus residential communities, where secondhand smoke had become quite the nuisance. With the guidance of Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Director of the Center for Family & Community Health at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health, and Kim Homer Vagadori of the California Youth Advocacy Network, Trit and I presented a comprehensive, data-driven proposal to the UC Berkeley Office of Student Development for smoke-free residential communities. Although we ended up achieving designated smoking areas (due to safety concerns in pushing student residents off campus to smoke), Trit and I realized something very powerful: In just a matter of months, two ordinary students were able to enact significant change to a major university’s smoking policy. With this in mind, we felt compelled to share our work, in hopes that other college students could draw on it to create similar proposals for their own campuses.

On October 13, our work was published in the Journal of American College Health, which I highly recommend to those interested in public health. JACH is also active on Facebook, where you can read about the latest in college public health. Look out for another article from us within the next 12-18 months, as TobaccNO will soon be launching a follow-up survey to measure the impact of the designated smoking areas policy in the UC Berkeley residential communities.

The Market’s Impact on Smoke-free Apartments

Most of my posts share news about smoke-free policies or laws, but a headline featuring another approach to the smoke-free solution recently caught my eye: “Economics, not law, push landlords to smoke-free rules.”  The reason I’m sharing this is because I have previously discussed my firm belief in the power of basic supply and demand in creating  smoke-free multi-unit housing. It’s simple: As smoking becomes increasingly less socially acceptable, demand for smoke-free housing will increase, and landlords will be more apt to ban smoking in apartment complexes. Therefore, complexes where smoking is permitted will eventually become short in supply, driving up the costs to rent in these complexes, ultimately deterring smokers from paying the premium to live in “non-smoke-free” apartment complexes, effectively forcing them to quit smoking. Landlords are further incentivized to ban smoking because, according to Amy Doerrfeld, “it can save them a tremendous amount of money…the cost to go in and flip an apartment a smoker lived in is a lot higher. The smell is just hard to get rid of.” I believe that this laissez-faire approach is the right way to go with regard to multi-unit housing smoking policy; landlords and tenants should never be subject to government-mandated smoking bans.

Although I’m a huge proponent of public smoking bans and have written about how terrible it is for people to live in complexes where secondhand smoke can seep through walls, I just don’t see a more reasonable way to establish smoking bans in these quasi-public (yet still private) residences. With that being said, the city of San Diego is contemplating an ordinance that would ban smoking in common areas of multi-family complexes. Policies like these would at least address part of the issue. Still, other cities like Boston are banning smoking from all public housing.

Who Will Win the Pac-12 South?

Despite having been disqualified for the inaugural Pac-12 football championship and BCS bowl games, the University of Southern California has a chance to win the Pac-12 South in another field: smoke-free campus policy (the University of Oregon has already won the Pac-12 North, and therefore, the Pac-12). I realize that this is old news, but I want to point out some aspects about the Trojans’ fight for a smoke-free campus that I haven’t seen much of elsewhere:

• An open forum: Students were invited to share their thoughts with administration at the “Smoke-Free Campus Forum.” However, only about 40 students showed up. Coincidentally, a “town hall” meeting hosted by the Columbia University senate saw a similar showing (will they win the Ivy League?).
• A student survey: As of September 21, 45 percent of the 1,227 respondents favored a smoking ban, while 40 percent favored designated smoking areas. Interestingly, only 67 percent of respondents reported as non-smokers, which tells me that the smoking population feels especially drawn to stand up for their “rights” by completing the survey. 

Forty-five percent is far from compelling, so unless something radical changes to the survey data, I think that USC students can expect to have designated smoking areas in the near future. So, as a Cal Golden Bear who despises USC Athletics, I challenge all Pac-12 South universities (and Pac-12 North universities, for that matters) to BEAT USC by making their own campuses smoke-free first. That means you, Sun Devils—you already beat them on the football field this year, so it’s time to step up and continue where you left off.

Tobacco Use in Baseball

There has been much talk lately about a possible ban of tobacco use from Major League Baseball. Players have long been know to spit out sunflower seed shells while watching from the dugouts, chew gum in the batter’s box and on the field, and—unfortunately—chew and spit smokeless tobacco pretty much anywhere. In nearly all cases, I could care less if someone is chewing and spitting tobacco near me—it’s entirely repulsive, but it doesn’t hurt me. Baseball players chewing an spitting is a million times better than when Detroit Tigers manager Jim Leyland used to smoke in the dugout. But here’s the problem: Young kids attending or watching baseball games on TV look up to these players and tend to mimic everything they do at their own baseball games, from conforming to the ways in which players fold (or don’t fold) the bills of their caps, to gesturing a brief time-out to the umpire between pitches, to spitting out sunflower seed shells, to—God forbid—chewing tobacco. Pittsburgh Pirates pitcher Joel Hanrahan acknowledges the problem wih his habit, but does his best to hide it:

“We are role models…I don’t go out on the field and throw a dip in. In batting practice, I’ll kind of turn to the side and let them [the kids] use their imagination for what’s in my back pocket. I feel like I’m kind of decent at hiding it – sometimes.” – Joel Hanrahan, Pittsburgh Pirates

Still, why do I care? After all, this blog is entitled “Smoke-free Digest.” I care because, with tobacco permitted on the baseball field, impressionable kids will be more inclined to take up smokeless tobacco themselves, at which point cigarette smoking seems all the more reasonable. In other words, I am concerned that smokeless tobacco acts as a sort of “gateway drug” to cigarettes.

I often make jokes about the relative lack of athletic ability necessary to be a good baseball player, but the prevalence of tobacco in this “sport” only makes it seem more like just a “game” (a claim to which many baseball players would take offense). As basketball great Charles Barkley has been rumored to have said, "If you can smoke and drink while doing it, it’s not a sport." If the MLB bans smokeless tobacco, I will be much more confident in calling baseball a sport.

Other Recent Developments:

• A student leader at the University of Illinois is determined to add her campus to the list of nearly 600 smoke-free campuses in the United States. Her school’s associate vice chancellor of student affairs is using other campuses’ success in establishing smoke-free policies as fodder for the change. He says, “It’s a matter of changing the culture of the campus rather than just putting a sign up…It’s a great idea; it’s just a matter of making sure everyone has input.”
• Boston University appears to be heading toward a designated smoking areas policy on campus. The interesting thing about this scenario—and several urban campuses for that matter—is that many people not affiliated with the university walk through the campus on a daily basis, some of whom are bound to be smokers. Therefore, enforcement—as with many of these changes—is going to be the largest challenge faced by administration.
• The Maricopa Community College system, one of the largest of its kind in the country, announced, via YouTube, that smoking will be banned on all campuses starting july 1, 2012. It’s about time, Arizona!
• Since the start of the fall semester, Arkansas State University has issued 20 citations who have violated the campus’ Clean Air on Campus Act. Violators’ fines range from $100-$500. Now that’s proper enforcement!
• With the help of the State Island Smoke-Free Partnership and the NYC Coalition for a Smoke-Free City, a student-actor from Wagner College is taking a unique approach to educating Staten Island youth about the health hazards of smoking and the manipulative marketing tactics used by the tobacco industry: by dramatizing them through a play that is set to run 25 times, mostly performed at middle schools and high schools on Staten Island. I hope this play gets replicated elsewhere and makes it to Broadway (I dream big).
• Inmates in Florida prisons are now prohibited from smoking. The ban was justified on two grounds: 1) The state spent nearly $9 million on medical bills for inmates with tobacco-related illnesses (presumably within the past year), and 2) lighters can also be used to make weapons, or used as weapons themselves. Inmates were not forced to quit ‘cold turkey,’ though, as opportunities for purchasing cigarettes were gradually cut over the past six months and nicotine patches are now being sold in lieu of cigarettes.
• The Columbia, South Carolina city council has proposed a code of conduct for cab drivers, which—among other things—would mandate smoke-free vehicles. Considering my stance on smoking and driving, I think this is a great idea. It’s never pleasant when you hop into a taxi that reeks of secondhand and/or thirdhand smoke. You’ll never see me tip those drives generously…
• The city of Philadelphia is hosting a series of community discussions to determine the most viable option of nine ideas for a citywide tobacco policy. Hopefully, there will be more news to come…

Digest #24: This Month in Smoke-free News

Back to (Smoke-free) School

With college students returning to school this fall, smoke-free advocates are back in action. Among these advocacy groups is Tobacco Free UNLV, which, with the help of its college of nursing and government grants, is well on its way to bringing a smoke-free campus to Las Vegas.

My few loyal readers may remember my correlational "analysis" of top college football teams and smoke-free colleges from last fall. Well, I just happened to find out that current #1 Oklahoma may be going smoke-free this spring. And then I found another, more recent, article that officially announced the change. When considering that smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the US and the overwhelming amount of cigarette butts eating away at the campus' janitorial budget, University President David Boren asked, "My goodness, what are we doing to the health and well-being of the people in our community?" ...Go Sooners.

Other campuses, like that of the University of Missouri, are taking more incremental steps toward smoke-free policies, yet are facing significant opposition. Given the success of other schools, perhaps it's less "painful" for everyone to skip these steps and go straight to a smoke-free policy--like ripping off a band-aid rather than doing a little bit at a time. Either way, with mounting evidence that smoke-free policies are effective on college campuses, the future looks bright. At the University of Michigan and the University of Kentucky, two of the first major public universities to go smoke-free, officials say that smoking is indeed less common and more people are enrolling in tobacco cessation programs. Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights reports that 120 colleges, or approximately 25% of the current list of smoke-free campuses, went smoke-free in the past year. How many will it be this year? I don't have a count on the total number of colleges in the United States, but assuming there are at least 1000, I'm predicting that we'll get to this number by July 1, 2014.

Thirdhand Smoke, continued

Ever start talking to someone and get the sudden feeling that you're talking to an ashtray? Once the unmistakeable odor of recently-burnt cigarette travels from that person's clothing/mouth and into your nostrils, you're distracted, right? A recent article in the Huffington Post suggests that this isn't merely a feeling of repulsion, but a signal to run away. To mitigate the effects of 'third-hand smoke,' the Indiana University Health medical center has expanded its nonsmoking campus policy by prohibiting employees from smoking during the workday--which means no more smoke breaks. Dr. Richard Graffis, executive vice-president and chief medical officer of IU Health believes that this measure will prevent particles and toxins in thirdhand smoke from accumulating in the medical center. After all, research has already shown that these toxins do build up over time from secondhand smoke, most notably in residences and hotel rooms where smoking is permitted. Although the risk of third-hand smoke is certainly lower than that of secondhand smoke, hospital patients--especially those with respiratory problems--deserve care in the most smoke-free environments that we can provide, even if that means compromising hospital employees' freedom to smoke during the workday. Graffis said, "We're in the business of protecting people's health...It's ironic that a health care worker could be a vector of toxins." As for the policy's enforcement, Graffis warned that smokers are "self-incriminating," and although they have no hidden cameras, "if they go out and smoke, we'll know."

American Indians: Turning on Tobacco?

On July 20, the Navajo Nation's Tribal Council passed legislation to prohibit commercial smoking and chewing tobacco, with casinos as the only exemptions. After a presidential veto, an override vote fell two short of success. At 32.4%, American Indians and Alaska Natives have the highest smoking rate of any racial or ethnic group in the United States. However, this group is also one of the most impoverished, so the revenue generated from tobacco sales is important to the tribe's economic stability. Still, the fact that the Navajo Nation was two votes away from banning smoking goes to show how far the influence of scientific research and public health advocacy has come. This is a great sign of hope for the future, as big tobacco could feasibly lose some of their most loyal (and founding) customers.

The State of Smoking in America

A recent poll has suggested that one in four Americans have less respect for people who smoke, which is more than twice as many of those who look down on fat people. Although I'm somewhat glad to hear that a relatively small percentage is averse to obesity, it's certainly a shame that smokers endure this stigma. Like I mentioned last month, nicotine addiction is not an inherent trait for anyone, and for many, it is more avoidable than obesity.

According to a recent CDC study, about one in five Americans smoke, and although smoking rates have declined over the past five years, they haven't declined as much as they did in the previous five years. If this current rate persist, about 17% of Americans will be smokers in 2020, which is higher than what some have previously predicted at about 12%. The good news, as this article states, is that heavy smoking has dropped from 12.7% in 2005 to 8.3% in 2010. But on the other hand, light/casual smoking is on the rise, especially among teenagers. Smoking in New York City, where a public smoking ban was recently implemented, is at an all-time low of 14%.

On a somewhat related note, Health.com recently listed the "10 states most addicted to smoking." Here they are:

• Arkansas
• Indiana
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• Oklahoma
• South Carolina
• Tennessee
• West Virginia

The interesting thing about this is that I've written about specific smoke-free efforts in all but maybe two of these states. So I'd like to add an optimistic caveat to this list's title: "10 States Most Addicted to (and Ready to Quit) Smoking."

Other News:

• Back in March, I discussed how e-cigarette use was becoming a point of controversy on airplanes. Now, the federal government is looking to ban their use on flights. The public has until November 14 to submit comments about the proposed ban via www.regulations.gov. One critic asked, "How do you ban a product from a plane when it doesn't do anything?" My answer: Although e-cigarettes do not pose a threat to surrounding people's physical health, they may foster misconceptions and general confusion about the government's stance--and, by extension, society's stance on smoking. If nothing else, I say that we should ban them for the sake of impressionable children who can't tell the difference.
• Speaking of children, a recent study has shown that kids ages 6-11 who live with at least one person who smokes indoors miss, on average, one day more of school per year than kids who don't live with indoor smokers. Moreover, kids who live with two or more indoor smokers miss, on average, an additional half-day of school per year. I don't want to point any fingers, but...
• On September 12, Utah's Indoor Clean Air Act went into effect, which--on paper--held hookah smoke on par with cigarette smoke, but now it appears that hookah bar owners will be rejoicing due to a new definition of "lighted tobacco." How unfortunate.
• Lastly, I ran across an article that mentions how the grandson of R.J. Reynolds, Patrick Reynolds, started the Foundation for a Smoke-free America. He also happens to be an heir of his grandfather's tobacco fortune. This was news to me, as I think this is incredibly ironic, yet clearly awesome.

Digest #23: This Month in Smoke-free News

Unique Smoke-free Ideas
A very interesting smoke-free law proposal has come up in the town of Pendleton, South Carolina. According to the proposed ordinance, smokers who are within ten feet of a restaurant or public event at a stadium, amphitheater or ballpark must be moving--in other words, they cannot stop, stand, sit, or otherwise loiter while smoking in these areas. I have mixed feelings about this: On the one hand, I feel that this would be a good compromise because the law would not prohibit smoking in areas where smokers are already likely to be considerate and avoid polluting (i.e., within 10 feet of restaurants/events), so it could hardly be perceived as an infringement on their "rights." But on the other hand, it's a pain to dodge smokers who are on the move and sharing secondhand smoke with all they pass. Is it really better to make smokers walk in circles until they reach the ends of their cigarettes? I suppose that the science pertaining to outdoor secondhand smoke exposure would support this notion. Nevertheless, I appreciate this creativity and I'm really interested to see how this one will be enforced if it passes.

At Cocopah Casino in Yuma, Arizona, smoking is now prohibited...on Sundays (4am Sunday until 4am Monday, to be exact). Now this is a compromise, and I'm all for it.

"We didn't want to segregate people off and maybe put a nonsmoking room where we can shove them off in a corner. That is not very nice either. So how about giving them one day a week? Sunday is a nice weekend day. People are off and they can get together with their friends." --Jerry Lane, Cocopah Casino General Manager

My only concern is that non-smoking patrons who will now be going to the casino on Sundays will equate the absence of secondhand smoke with an absence of risk for toxic exposure, when in fact, third-hand smoke is bound to be in the seats, carpets and walls. Still, I think that casinos everywhere should adopt similar policies that can be utilized until smoking is no longer socially acceptable.

While a casino is the ultimate playground for adults, a county fair is the equivalent for kids. In Coos County, Oregon, anti-tobacco activists are hoping to make their upcoming county fair a smoke-free environment for everyone. Considering the numerous playground smoking bans that have passed all over the country, they certainly have the right idea.

Student Smoking
A recent CDC study has demonstrated that, although heavy smoking among teenagers has decreased substantially over the past two decades, casual smoking has become even more prevalent. According to the study, approximately 4 out of 5 teens in the US consider themselves to be casual, or occasional, smokers. Of course, the news that heavy smoking among teens is down from 18% to 8% is great news. But it may very well be worse that more adolescents are finding the habit to be socially acceptable. The study's co-author has this to say:

"It is important to note that light and intermittent smoking still has significant health risks...We may be creating a new type of smoker that may be more durable, that are adapting to smoke-free environments and to changing social norms." --Dr. Terry Pechachek

If this is true, maybe the United States won't be smoke-free by 2020. To ensure that this is still a possibility, institutions need to take action and reduce the visibility of smoking in areas populated by teenagers, the most obvious venues being schools. The Ohio Board of Education has officially recommended that state schools make entire campuses into smoke-free zones, meaning that teachers would have to go off campus to light up. As one recent high school graduate said, if students aren't seeing a good example set at home (i.e., by their parents), they should at least be able to see one at school.

Questionable "No Smoking" Sign
Okay, so the sign to the right is a bit over-the-top. But it sure gets the point across, right? This is posted in LDR Char Pit (aka LDR's), a hamburger restaurant on the shore of Lake Ontario in Rochester, New York. I've been going to this place just about every year for the last decade or so, and although someone always points this sign out to me, I'd never really thought much about it. As I've said before, I am--by no means--intending to patronize "smokers"; nobody is born a smoker, and despite its addictive nature, smoking is ultimately a choice. Therefore, I believe that it is entirely irrational to discriminate against smokers. So, back to the sign: Although it can elicit a chuckle out of nearly anyone, I would prefer that the act of smoking itself were conveyed as the problem, perhaps by rephrasing the sign to read something like, "People who smoke here will be pummeled with punishing blows all over their bodies." ...In the words of Ice-T, "Don't hate the player--hate the game."

Smoke-free Housing
As I've noted in previous posts, smoke-free policies multi-unit housing is a growing trend. Last month, I briefly mentioned that California landlords can now lawfully ban smoking on their properties. UCLA has followed up this news with research that demonstrates how California landlords can collectively save $18 million in cleaning costs attributed to cigarette butt removal. In Providence, Rhode Island, five public housing high-rise buildings for elderly and disabled people will be going smoke-free. Furthermore, the San Antonio Housing Authority plans to enact a similar prohibition in the city's public housing units, immediately following the city's new smoke-free law that took effect last Friday.

Update on NYC Smoking Ban
A Yahoo! writer recently called NYC Mayor Bloomberg's bluff on the self-enforcing mechanism of the new smoking ban. Apparently, so few people care enough about it that the "no smoking" signs are largely ignored--even by the NYPD (who actually defer official enforcement duties to the NYC Parks Service). One officer felt that it would be hypocritical for him to cite someone for smoking in a park where smoking is banned. The writer himself called to file a complaint about a violator, but was nearly "laughed off the phone" by the operator.

Interestingly, a recent poll of over 800 adult New Yorkers showed that 69% are in favor of the new smoking ban, and 45% believe that the ban is working. Perhaps the people surveyed don't venture to the parks or beaches much. Or, perhaps there has simply been more criticism than praise for the ban in the media. Either way, the next time I'm in Times Square, you better believe that I'll be calling people with lit cigarettes out on their violations.

Off-topic: Tobacco Industry Recruitment

I want to take a few minutes to comment on a topic that I've never really addressed in this blog: tobacco industry recruitment. A friend of mine recently accepted a job at Altria. Stylishly ambiguous in name, "Altria" did not ring any bells with me when I first heard the good news, so I Google'd it. As I skimmed the search results, I was overcome with anger at the realization that my friend had been recruited by one of the world's largest tobacco corporations.

Out of respect to my friend, I won't divulge any details, but I was appalled at what Altria offered in terms of compensation, benefits and other perks. This is not to say that my friend is under-qualified, but that the company clearly recognizes the need to influence what many would consider to be a moral dilemma in working for them.

To the credit of Altria and its largest subsidiary, Philip Morris USA, there is plenty of information and news about the perils of tobacco use and secondhand smoke on their corporate websites. It's not like Altria is trying to be completely deceitful in its hiring practices. With that being said, the company does its best to mask the nature of its business on its recruiting website, www.cantbeattheexperience.com.

After watching a few of the recruitment videos, I noticed that none of the testimonials mentioned the purpose of their business--it's all about the "experience" at Altria, which is what much of their audience is most interested in anyway: gaining work experience after college. They are proud of how many jobs they've had within the company, the quality of people with whom they work, and the many perks provided by their employer. The testimonials lacked substance; none of the people could say something remotely to the effect of, "I love working for Altria because the tobacco industry does so many great things for people"--and justifiably so. Perhaps I'm biased because I work for an organization with a clear-cut mission that is among the easiest to embrace. Regardless, I think it's a shame that recent college graduates can easily get sucked into an industry so far devoid of a noble purpose that it becomes difficult to find passion in their work. But hey, a job is a job in this awful economy, so at least they're making good money, right?

I'm still unclear as to what exactly the website URL, www.cantbeattheexperience.com, is supposed to mean. Is Altria claiming that the employment experience that, say, a college graduate would gain at one of their companies is superior with regard to the transferability of skills that he or she can gain for any career? Or, is Altria claiming that the employment experience with Altria, in general, cannot be beaten? Although I have never worked for Altria and therefore cannot truthfully speak to this claim, the fact that Altria has invested so much in these guileful recruiting practices suggests that it cannot be the latter; clearly, the applicant pool isn't exactly overflowing, ostensibly because few people want to be associated with such an infamous industry.

But perhaps I'm wrong, and the experience truly cannot be beaten. After all, there is no other work experience (that I can think of) for which you can get paid bountifully to promote products that are widely known to kill their customers and people around them.

Digest #22: This Month in Smoke-free News

How can people enjoy smoking in the middle of the summer? I was out with some friends last night on the infamous Mill Avenue in Tempe, AZ, and everywhere we went, people were lighting up. Wouldn't sucking on a flaming stick to inhale hot smoke be about the last thing you'd want to do on a warm mid-summer night? I'd rather suck on a nice, cold milkshake...Anyway, here are the past month's developments:

Macy's, Humana, hospitals take action
On July 1, two large companies started a new era in their employment practices. Macy's, the department store chain, began charging employees who admit to using tobacco an extra $35 per month for health coverage. Meanwhile, Humana, a health insurance company, completely stopped hiring smokers in Arizona, where state law allows employers to require smoking cessation programs, and the adult smoking rate is at a very low 13%. Much of this trend can be attributed to the new taxes on businesses that spend an inordinate amount on health care. However, Humana, as a health insurance company, insists that it cares about its employees' well-being, which happens to be why I think Humana's new policy is appropriate. If Macy's--a company with no ties to public health--were to stop hiring smokers, I'd have to object. My stance is simple: Where smoking and tobacco use is counterproductive and hypocritical to company culture is where I draw the line.

July 1 also marked the beginning of the tobacco ban at Sunrise Children's Hospital in Las Vegas. Here's the best part, which I suppose I'll make my 'quote of the month':

"...if you merely smell like cigarette smoke, forget about getting inside the hospital." --Las Vegas Review Journal

Another bit of hospital news that caught my eye: The Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital is going 100% tobacco-free. Incidentally, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is well-known for its support of various tobacco control initiatives. As if allowing smoking in any other hospital wasn't ironic enough...

Smoking on Film
To revisit a topic I introduced in March, when I actually downplayed the role of smoking in Rango, I have some good news to share: The tobacco industry is losing its fight on the film frontier. From 2005 to 2010, the number of times that smoking appeared in movies rated G, PG and PG-13 decreased from 2,093 to 595, or 71.6%. Furthermore, 75 of the 137 highest-grossing films in 2010 did not include scenes with smoking, compared to one-third of the total in 2005. Universal, Warner Bros. and Disney all have policies that were adopted between 2004 and 2007, but the real change came between 2005 and 2010, when tobacco use in films targeted to children sharply declined by 96%. It will be interesting to see if these changes correlate with a decline in adolescent smoking over the next decade, as research has shown that adolescents with the highest exposure to on-screen smoking are twice as likely to begin smoking as those with the least exposure.

Hooked on Hookah
Speaking of impressionable teenagers, The New York Times had a great article in May about the hit that hookahs have become over the past several years. The article explains why the health advantages of smoking tobacco through a water filter is marginal, at best. Contrary to popular belief, a hookah filters out less than 5% of the nicotine in tobacco, it doesn't prevent tar, heavy metals and other cancer-causing chemicals from entering the smoker's system, and it introduces a high level of CO exposure due to the heated charcoal used by the communal apparatus, which also promotes the spread of infection. Here's the most striking statistic:

"Many young adults are misled by the sweet, aromatic and fruity quality of hookah smoke, which causes them to believe it is less harmful than hot, acrid cigarette smoke. In fact, because a typical hookah session can last up to an hour, with smokers typically taking long, deep breaths, the smoke inhaled can equal 100 cigarettes or more, according to a 2005 study by the World Health Organization." --The New York Times

If we thought that cigarettes are alluring to teens, hookah is in a whole 'nother league of temptation. I, the one who is blogging about the idiocy of smoking, have even been misled into enjoying a hookah. Now that is saying something.

Other News (in brief):
- Update (May): California landlords can now lawfully prohibit smoking on their properties.
- Update (June): In response to questions about the smoking ban enforcement in New York City, parks commissioner Adrian Benepe said, "We’re going to rely on peer pressure. The other dog owners, when they see someone who doesn’t pick up after his or her dog, they say ‘pick up after your dog, don’t be a slob.'" Another great analogy.
- Update (June): On the Tuesday that the new cigarette warnings were unveiled, phones calls to 1-800-QUIT-NOW phone calls more than doubled the number from the previous Tuesday. The graphic images and warnings, which won't appear on cigarette packs until next year, are already working...or it was just a huge coincidence.
- British researchers have shown that smokers who receive encouraging text messages are twice as likely to quit as those who don't. What a great way of using one addiction to combat another!
- NYU has published its results for a study of 1,533 non-smoking adolescents that showed how teenagers who are regularly exposed to secondhand smoke are almost twice as likely to exhibit hearing loss as teenagers who live in smoke-free environments. The causal factors are still hazy, but the general idea is that SHS causes ear infections, which can potentially lead to hearing loss.
- After refusing to pay over $55,000 in smoking ban-related fines, a bar in Ohio has lost its liquor license. Well, that problem could have been easily avoided. Good luck profiting from root beer sales! ...Lame joke? Okay.
- Here's an interesting solution: The Chicago Tobacco Prevention Project has started to award grants to apartment and multi-unit housing complexes that go smoke-free. It's nice to know that owners of these developments can be bought out with grants or by government subsidy. Perhaps we can further increase cigarette taxes to fund these grants...there certainly is a demand for smoke-free housing.
- I've saved the best news for last: For the first time ever, most Americans want smoking banned in public places, according to a recent Gallup poll. In 2001, 39% shared this opinion, but this group has since increased by 20%. It feels good to be in the majority!

Digest #21: This Month in Smoke-free News [Part 2]

New Cigarette Warning Labels


Some of the biggest news in health this week was the revelation of the new federally-mandated cigarette warning labels. One of the things that I like most about this development is that there are several different image and message combinations, as opposed to the single, brief Surgeon General warning that now covers cigarette packages. So, come September of next year, smokers get to take their pick between nine enticing "buy me" messages when shopping for smokes:

- "Cigarettes are addictive."
- "Tobacco smoke can harm your children." [see left]
- "Cigarettes cause fatal lung disease."
- "Cigarettes cause cancer."
- "Cigarettes cause strokes and heart disease."
- "Smoking during pregnancy can harm your baby."
- "Smoking can kill you."
- "Tobacco smoke causes fatal lung disease in nonsmokers."
- "Quitting smoking now greatly reduces serious risks to your health."

Personally, I'm interested to hear if tobacco companies have a choice as to which labels they can use on their packaging. For example, is Phillip Morris going to be able to place the "Smoking during pregnancy can harm your baby," message on the traditionally masculine Marlboro Reds? I might be reading too far into it, especially because there hasn't been much research correlating graphic warning labels with decreased smoking levels in the other 39 countries that are a step ahead of the US. Either way, never before have I seen such antithetical messaging included on something for sale. The new packaging even features a cessation hotline number: 1-800-QUIT-NOW.

What do tobacco companies think? RJ Reynolds says that the requirement violates the First and Fifth Amendments. I sort of understand their concern with restraint on freedom of speech, but self-incrimination...? That's a stretch. Reynolds says that the government has unconstitutionally "confiscated" the top half of the cigarette pack, and is telling consumers not to buy or use cigarettes. Technically, the latter point isn't true, so they'll likely have a tough time challenging the law in court. Phillip Morris, on the other hand, only objects to the size of the new warnings--50% of the package as opposed to the 35% standard set by the World Health Organization...I'll just assume the government values symmetry.

Check out all of the new warning labels when you get a chance.

Cost of Smoking
Forget about the rising prices of cigarettes, and forget about the recent cigarette tax hike. Cigarette use incurs costs beyond consumers' immediate purchases. A recent study conducted by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network estimates that, if the 27 states without comprehensive smoke-free laws were to establish them, the US would realize the following savings in health care costs:

- $316 million in lung cancer treatment
- $875.5 million in heart attack/stroke treatment
- $43 million in state Medicaid funds
- $128 million in smoking-induced pregnancy treatment

Another blogger estimated that, in 2000, the purchase of a cigarette pack triggered $40 in social costs, including $33 worth of private costs, $20 of which is attributed to loss in productivity due to early death. Very interesting stuff.

Other News (in brief):
- After passing through the Texas House, the bill for the Lone Star State's indoor smoking ban was declared dead by its author...but was later revived! No word on what's happened since. Meanwhile, the city of San Antonio is within two months of going smoke-free.
- The mayor of Philadelphia signed an executive order to ban smoking from city-owned outdoor areas of recreational facilities.
- RJ Reynolds launched a Snus (smoke-free, spit-free tobacco) campaign in New York City that coincided with the city's recent smoking ban. Nobody ever said tobacco executives were stupid...
- Long Island is looking to ban smoking on all outdoor ticketing, boarding and platform areas of railroads.
- Princess Cruises, Carnival Cruise Lines and Holland America are all tightening up their smoking policies. I happened to be on a Carnival cruise a couple of weeks ago, and after running a few miles in the fitness center one morning, I walked outside for a cool-down walk. Instead, I was greeted by a couple of people smoking on the deck. So, I'm glad to hear that this is changing.
- A story that I've been following for a couple of years: The University of Michigan, which, in 2009 announced that all three of its campuses would be going smoke-free, is preparing for the change, effective late next week. Many thanks to my friend, Jiean Li, for the photo. If only UC Berkeley would get on this train...
- Close to home: The city of Glendale, a suburb of Phoenix, is looking to take the Smoke-free Arizona act a step further by creating designated smoking areas.
- Also close to home: The Coconino National Forest, which has been ablaze for several weeks now, now has a smoking ban in effect to prevent more wildfires. Why is smoking permitted in forests at all? Something about that just sounds like a bad idea. Oh wait, I just heard a news anchor mention that a lit cigarette may have caused another fire in eastern Arizona...no joke.

Until next time...

Digest #21: This Month in Smoke-free News [Part 1]

Man, oh man there is a lot of hullabaloo about the New York City smoking ban (no rhyme intended)! It's like I totally forgot how stubborn and irritating New Yorkers can be when I initially said that they would suck it up after a couple of weeks. Anyway, as promised, the public's reaction to the NYC smoking ban:

From the get-go, the issue of enforcement has been in the limelight. Mayor Michael Bloomberg made it clear that New Yorkers themselves would be the primary enforcers of the ban--not police officers, who threaten to issue $50 fines for ban violations. So, like a bunch of little kids testing the leniency of a new babysitter, journalists took to the city's parks and simultaneously tested patrons' sense of civic duty and police officers' resolve to hand out fines to smokers. The New York Times came to the following conclusion:

"...while New Yorkers may care about a lot of things — rent, sex, Derek Jeter’s batting average — some blowhard smoking in a public park is not high on the list." --The New York Times

With a decoy smoker deliberately blowing smoke in people's faces, it took over an hour and a half for someone to finally have the nerve to speak up and tell him to butt out. What a shame.

The New York Observer provided insight on how strict police officers are with regard to the new law. This was actually a really great piece of journalism (not that The Times article wasn't), even though I'm finding it difficult to handle the truth that it reveals about the ban's enforcement. Their conclusion:

"Fear not, smoke-happy brothers and sisters. The world is still our ashtray." --The New York Observer

(Gross.) The point that stuck with me after reading this was that park rangers--not police officers--are the only ones who have the authority to hand out the $50 fines. It makes sense, though, because most of the area covered by the ban consists of city parks, which is why the journalists from The Observer found it so easy to get away with smoking right in front of a cop in the middle of Times Square. What's even more troublesome to me is that park rangers are required to give smokers a verbal warning before issuing a fine. The New York Post similarly reports that smokers must refuse to put out their cigarettes before receiving the penalty. Even so, it took a Daily News photographer six whole hours to receive the city's first ticket.

My conclusion (albeit from 3000 miles away): The ban is hardly being enforced. Even though many would question the purpose of a 'biting' ban without any 'teeth', I think that this ban is much better than no ban at all. That said, enforcement needs to be ramped up, pronto, or else this is going to turn into a running joke very quickly, which really means one thing: the ban's repeal. And I don't necessarily think that government should be devoting more manpower to enforcing the ban. As Mayor Bloomberg said, enforcement will depend mostly on the integrity of citizens. However, I sincerely hope that Bloomberg plans on running a series of encouraging PSAs to rouse citizens to speak up to those who knowingly or unknowingly violate the ban.

In my mind, this is a real litmus test for, and pivotal point in, the future of American public smoking. If New Yorkers can toughen up and use the undeniable power of peer pressure to enforce this ban, this will be a huge step toward a smoke-free United States. If New York City fails, the media will eat it up, deterring other major cities from moving forward with their own bans. Don't get me wrong--smoking will eventually be banned in all public places--I just think that success in NYC can be a big catalyst in making this happen sooner.

Part 2 to follow...

P.S. - I can't decide what's worse: the purpose of NYC C.L.A.S.H. (Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment) or their awful website. Oops, was that harassment?

Digest #20: This Month in Smoke-free News

The Future of Social 'Smoking'
They've done it. Blu, an e-cigarette manufacturer, has developed what amounts to a smoker's social network. The new packs, which hold five e-cigarettes, send and receive radio signals and vibrate whenever they are within 50 feet of each other. Additionally, whenever a retail outlet that sells Blu e-cigarettes is nearby, the pack notifies its owner. Although the latter feature doesn't exactly pose a significant advantage over traditional cigarettes (since those are sold virtually everywhere), the social aspect of these new e-cigarettes certainly does. It's long been known that smokers, who tend to be exiled to the outdoors or designated smoking areas, inevitably tend to bond over their common habit. Given that e-cigarettes, despite their health and economic benefits, are still far from mainstream, I think their new social capabilities will make them more appealing products--which is a good thing, of course, because e-cigarettes do not emit secondhand smoke.

Still, there is some reluctance to adopt the new technology. One smoker interviewed by The New York Times responded to the prospect of his social life being enhanced by a vibrating cigarette pack by saying, "I think that’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard in my life...And I’m saying that in full acknowledgment that smoking is one of the dumbest things I can do.” Hopefully, he still recognizes that switching to e-cigarettes is one of the smarter things that he can do for himself and others around him.

Smoke-free California Apartments
It appears that landlords of California apartment complexes are soon going to be legally able to ban tenants from smoking. If the state Assembly passes the bill proposed by Senator Alex Padilla, not only will obvious issues pertaining to secondhand smoke be addressed, but the relatively new concern over third-hand smoke will be too. However, I should clarify my stance on this law. Just over one year ago, I wrote about my internal conflict with banning smoking in apartments. In sum, I don't believe that government has the right to ban smoking in private places--only public ones--and because apartments are only quasi-private, I am somewhat torn as to whether a ban is just or not.

However, this law would not ban smoking in all apartment complexes. This is ideal; it merely gives landlords the right to ban smoking if they choose. So, as long as there are smokers, there will be housing options that allow smoking...and all will be fair in the world!

The Debate Over Casinos
"You come to Vegas, you know exactly what you're getting into." These were the words of a Las Vegas hotel worker interviewed by the local CBS affiliate, who appears to believe that people who come to visit Las Vegas assume the risks of immense secondhand smoke exposure in casinos. For the most part, she's right. But what about the people who work inside casinos--particularly the non-smokers? Take Vincent Rennich, a never-smoker who worked in Tropicana Atlantic City for twenty-six years. In his words: "I began working in a casino when I was 22 years old...I never knew it would jeopardize my health. None of us did." Since he quit working there in 2006, he has had a third of a lung removed, but successfully sued his former employer toward a $4.5 million settlement.

Will these lawsuits continue to favor the nonsmoker who chooses to work in an environment notorious for heavily-concentrated secondhand smoke? Considering how smoking and secondhand smoke are now known to cause cancer, I'm guessing not. So, the only feasible way for non-smoking employees and patrons to combat the risk is to eliminate smoking in casinos altogether, which is what some Las Vegas activists are now trying to do. Although I am inclined to side with the activists, I actually think that the most realistic 'solution' is to let time do the work. At the rate that other types of businesses are making names for themselves as smoke-free establishments, I would be surprised if Vegas doesn't see a smoke-free hotel and casino pop up within the next five years. In the meantime, I'm more than okay with cigarette smoking being associated with the term 'Sin City.'

Niagara Falls - Now Smoke-free!
Although this article does not explicitly say that the Niagara Falls park will be smoke-free, the city of Niagara Falls, Canada will be. $100 fines will be handed out to violators. Personally, I think the fines should be higher in the park, but that's beside the point. What's interesting to me is that, because the waterfalls straddle the international border, I'm wondering how Niagara Falls, New York is going to react to the strict measure adopted by its Canadian counterpart. Either way, I'm looking forward to visiting Buffalo, NY in a couple of months and hoping to see sidewalks free of cigarette butts!

Smoke-free Sonoma State University
I'd like to give a quick shout-out to my friend Katie Robinson for supporting a resolution that has successfully banned cigarettes in the central part of the Sonoma State University campus. Congratulations to the Seawolves on this big achievement.

First Day of New York City's Ban
Here is what the New York Times has to say. Stay tuned for next month's digest for the public's reaction. My prediction: It's going to involve a week or two of argumentation, but once smokers realize that it's a reasonable policy and the world isn't going to end, they'll stop complaining. Hey, China--a.k.a. the largest country on the face of the earth did it, so why can't NYC?