Because I spent a good amount of space in Part 1 of this month's digest discussing two topics, I'm going to attempt to cover more ground by minimizing digressions in Part 2.
Ear Infections
Interesting fact that I was unaware of: Secondhand smoke increases the risk of ear infections in children. I can't say that I'm the least bit surprised by this, though, but I am curious about the science. I mean, it makes intuitive sense--toxic smoke entering two gateways to the brain in the side of a child's head can never be a good thing. A Harvard-based longitudinal study reports that the proportion of smoke-free homes has nearly doubled between 1993-2006, while the number of hospital discharges for ear infections has decreased more than three times during that period. At the bare minimum, at least we have evidence demonstrating that the absence of secondhand smoke doesn't increase the risk of ear infections in children!
Teenage Leaders
A couple of seventeen-year-olds have made some amazing progress in Rosenberg, Texas to get their city's government to prohibit smokers from lighting up at local businesses. I love what both of them had to say about their work: Andres Vidaurre insisted that they're, "not saying to ban smoking...You can still smoke in your home. I don't think you should endanger someone else's life just because you want to smoke." What a reasonable young man! His partner in the project, Lindsey Witte, added, "Our age isn't gonna hold us back from what we really want to see done." ...Someone give these young, blossoming leaders college scholarships!
Drive-thru Smoking
A fast food employee in Northern Michigan recently submitted an e-mail to a local journalist, who shared this thought-provoking dilemma: In Michigan, a state that recently established a smoking ban in restaurants, should drive-thru customers be permitted to have a cigarette lit while making their exchange with fast food employees? I've never been a fan of allowing smoking on the roads (to put it lightly), especially when children are trapped inside of a smoker's car. If nothing else, smoking while driving is a distraction on par with talking on the phone. Oh, and it's a fire hazard and an environmental hazard. Anyway, the journalist did his research and learned that, because a car is the property of its owner, people can smoke all the way through the drive-thru line, regardless of how susceptible the fast food employees are to the toxic stench. Lame. Nothing says "F#$& you" to fast food employees like a smoker carelessly allowing their secondhand smoke enter their drive-thru windows.
New York, New York
In September, I wrote about how New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg had endorsed a measure to make the city's parks, beaches, and pedestrian areas of Manhattan--including Times Square (a.k.a. the center of the world). So, because New York is kind of a big town, I'll share the latest news: The NYC City Council voted to ban smoking in city parks and beaches (and, apparently, Times Square--according to this UK source). However, Bloomberg announced a caveat to this plan: NYPD won't enforce the ban. Instead, he says that it "is going to be enforced by public pressure...Mainly it's just everybody's going to turn to you and say, 'Hey, you shouldn't be smoking.' And you know, most people listen." In theory, I really like where Bloomberg is going with this; if the police were to enforce it, then they would be perpetuating the image of a so-called "nanny state" and making enforcement more trouble than it is worth.Practically speaking, I don't think New Yorkers are going to see much of a change right away. I think that the peer pressure that Bloomberg speaks of is going to take several years--maybe even a whole decade--to take full effect. Considering that the efficacy of the ban will rely on the integrity of everyday citizens, to compare it to prohibition is absolutely ludicrous.
The College Scene: Smoke-free Rivals?
Coinciding with the aforementioned changes in New York City, the 23 City University campuses in New York are going smoke-free, which is certainly consistent with the city's ban on smoking in pedestrian areas. It seems that right after the University of Oregon announced a plan for a tobacco-free campus next fall, their rival, Oregon State University, decided to get moving on a similar project. Both Pac-10 campuses are going to be smoke-free by fall 2012. I think that the competitive dynamic of school rivalries can only help students and administrators who are advocating for smoke-free policy. I mean, if Yale goes smoke-free, won't Harvard want to one-up them by going tobacco-free? The funny thing is, a story like this might be unfolding. A quick blurb in The Harvard Crimson mentions that Yale is considering a campus smoking ban. You have to wonder how much discussion this has spawned among other Ivy League schools. If the heated comments following the Yale article are any indication of the magnitude of the controversy, I foresee several of these elite schools making the change within the next couple of years. Finally, on the west coast, the Nevada legislature may soon pass a bill that will ban smoking on all public college campuses, similar to what has already been done in Iowa and Arkansas.
2.19.2011
Digest #17: This Month in Smoke-free News [Part 1]
Smoke-free Travel: Isn't this concept redundant?
I received an e-mail a couple of days ago from my friends at the Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation (ANR) asking me if I had read the USA Today article that reveals the latest smoke-free trends in hotels and rental cars, the latter of which of I highlighted in my last post. I actually hadn't, because I usually rely on CNN.com for my news. After skimming the article, I realized that it wasn't really news to me! Besides giving me confirmation that I do a halfway decent job at staying on top of the latest smoke-free developments (and that Google Alerts saves me ridiculous amounts of time for coming up with good blog material), the article provided some great information, which I'll get to after I share what ANR had to stay about the article:
Smoking Hospital Employees: Feeling the burn...
I first heard about this before last month's post, decided to hold off on writing about it, but then my co-worker sent me a brief satire, drenched with sarcasm, on the topic. Apparently it's a big deal--the alleged movement toward "smoker bans" at hospitals. Even the New York Times wrote about it. I personally think that it's extremely overdue. Anyway, here's what's going on:
Hospitals are now trending toward "tobacco-free hiring" because workplace incentives to curb employee smoking, like offering cessation programs, increasing health care premiums for smokers, and banning smoking on the campuses, aren't working. However, even anti-smoking groups have spoken out against this. A professor at the Boston University School of Public Health insisted that, "Unemployment is also bad for health." He definitely has a point, but we're talking about hospitals, here--you know, the buildings where dangerously ill people go to maximize their chances for overcoming their illnesses? I'm fairly confident in saying that the combination of sick patients and secondhand smoke is simply incompatible with the mission of any hospital.
Other workers' rights groups are vehemently opposed to it as well...Cue the [stupid] quote of the month:
Of course, this all assumes that smoking hospital employees can't go an entire shift without a cigarette break--which is a safe assumption, right? So, if hospital executives want to prevent any possibility of patients being exposed to secondhand smoke, as well as encourage healthier living, save on health care costs, and increase worker productivity, I don't think that the new requirements for job applicants to submit urine tests for nicotine are going too far.
I received an e-mail a couple of days ago from my friends at the Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation (ANR) asking me if I had read the USA Today article that reveals the latest smoke-free trends in hotels and rental cars, the latter of which of I highlighted in my last post. I actually hadn't, because I usually rely on CNN.com for my news. After skimming the article, I realized that it wasn't really news to me! Besides giving me confirmation that I do a halfway decent job at staying on top of the latest smoke-free developments (and that Google Alerts saves me ridiculous amounts of time for coming up with good blog material), the article provided some great information, which I'll get to after I share what ANR had to stay about the article:
It's one of the highest profile articles about smokefree travel to appear in years. This is going to give other hotel, restaurant, and rental car brands serious food for thought to consider and hopefully encourage them to finally jump onboard with adopting a smokefree policy for all their facilities across the country. Now is a great time for supporters of smokefree environments to speak up with the expectation that all indoor workplaces and public places, including hotels, airports, and rental cars should be 100% smokefree at all times." --Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights FoundationHere is what I found most interesting in the article:
- The trend began sometime in 2006 with Westin Hotels and Resorts, and caught on to the Marriott brand soon thereafter. Hyatt followed suit with two smoke-free brands, Hyatt Place and Hyatt Summerfield Suites. Wyndham has a 100% smoke-free policy at its nearly 100 hotels in North America.
- According to data from AAA, the number of smoke-free lodgings in the United States has increased by approximately 55% over the past ~2.3 years. These increases are detailed by state here. Notice that all hotels in Wisconsin are smoke-free, which I mentioned in September.
- Most of the 27 states that have laws requiring hotels to maintain a minimum percentage of non-smoking rooms mandate that at least 75% of rooms be non-smoking.
Smoking Hospital Employees: Feeling the burn...
I first heard about this before last month's post, decided to hold off on writing about it, but then my co-worker sent me a brief satire, drenched with sarcasm, on the topic. Apparently it's a big deal--the alleged movement toward "smoker bans" at hospitals. Even the New York Times wrote about it. I personally think that it's extremely overdue. Anyway, here's what's going on:
Hospitals are now trending toward "tobacco-free hiring" because workplace incentives to curb employee smoking, like offering cessation programs, increasing health care premiums for smokers, and banning smoking on the campuses, aren't working. However, even anti-smoking groups have spoken out against this. A professor at the Boston University School of Public Health insisted that, "Unemployment is also bad for health." He definitely has a point, but we're talking about hospitals, here--you know, the buildings where dangerously ill people go to maximize their chances for overcoming their illnesses? I'm fairly confident in saying that the combination of sick patients and secondhand smoke is simply incompatible with the mission of any hospital.
Other workers' rights groups are vehemently opposed to it as well...Cue the [stupid] quote of the month:
“There is nothing unique about smoking...the number of things that we all do privately that have negative impact on our health is endless. If it’s not smoking, it’s beer. If it’s not beer, it’s cheeseburgers. And what about your sex life?” --Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights InstituteReally, Lewis? There's nothing unique about smoking? Ever heard of secondhand smoke? And do I really need to go off again about how the slippery slope argument doesn't work with smoking? Hospital employees' consumption of cheeseburgers has no secondhand effects on patients. Beer is certainly prohibited in hospitals already, as is sex. Yes, hospitals are starting to ban smokers (as opposed to smoking) from employment on their campuses, but here's the thing: Nobody is, by nature, a smoker. In my opinion, hospital "smoker bans" do not reflect unwarranted employment discrimination, simply because smokers are incapable of being discriminated against. Smoking is a choice--albeit a choice that can lead to addiction--but a choice nonetheless.
Of course, this all assumes that smoking hospital employees can't go an entire shift without a cigarette break--which is a safe assumption, right? So, if hospital executives want to prevent any possibility of patients being exposed to secondhand smoke, as well as encourage healthier living, save on health care costs, and increase worker productivity, I don't think that the new requirements for job applicants to submit urine tests for nicotine are going too far.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)