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.
No comments:
Post a Comment