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:

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 Foundation

Here 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.

The article ends with a great line from a smoker who stayed in hotels for about 150 nights last year for work, but chose non-smoking rooms because--as he says, "the smell is terrible."

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 Institute

Really, 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.