Digest #18: This Month in Smoke-free News [Part 1]

As we quickly approach the one-year anniversary of Smoke-free Digest, let me just say that every time I sit down to go through my weekly Google Alerts for "smoke-free" and "smoking ban," I still feel that I have so much to write about. One would think that I'd run out of content, or that it would at least get repetitive, but the fact that I can keep finding new angles to share with my audience goes to show how the smoke-free frontier is ever-changing. With that, here's the latest:

Tobacco-free Hiring
Last month, I spent a good amount of time discussing the controversy behind tobacco-free hiring at hospitals. Well, a couple of weeks ago, I ran across an article in The Arizona Republic that explained how many county employees in Phoenix are in outrage over a new saliva test requirement. Those who test negative for nicotine use (who make up approximately 90% of the workforce) receive a $480 medical insurance discount. Others view the insurance premium as a penalty, and I completely agree with them--but I don't think that there is anything wrong with it. I understand the concern among smokers (and many non-smokers) that having to submit to a saliva test is an infringement on personal liberties, but as I've explicated before, when the public's health is at stake, sacrifices need to be made. It's sort of analogous to airport security: Everyone must go through the same annoying, embarrassing process of removing belts and shoes and having their personal belongings X-rayed to ensure that nobody is carrying a bomb with them. Likewise, it is reasonable for every employee to be checked for nicotine use to find out who is carrying that bomb and treat them accordingly. After all, why should every employee pay the same amount for medical insurance when only a small minority is making a preventable (and punishable) choice that makes them exponentially more likely to collect on their insurance down the road?

New York, etc.
It's official: New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg signed the city's new public smoking ban into law. The ban will go into effect in late May, so I'm sure more news will arise then. In response to the news on the east coast, the Los Angeles Times is asking the same question I am--which city is going smoke-free next? LA just implemented a smoking ban in outdoor dining areas a couple of weeks ago, so it's probably only a matter of time until they extend it elsewhere.

Still, secondhand smoke still bothers many who live in New York apartments and co-ops. One couple is suing their neighbor, whose secondhand smoke is a constant hazard for them and their 3-year-old daughter, for up to $25,000. In an attempt to get the smoke out and fresh air into their apartment, they open the windows--even in the winter.

"We had to decide between getting sick from the cold or from the cigarette smoke." --Britt Ewen, NYC resident

The high-profile coverage from The Wall Street Journal and TIME, however, has sure brought the issue of residential secondhand smoke to the forefront of the public interest.

As I mentioned in December, Barnard College in Manhattan was looking to ban smoking on its campus, and as of March 21, it went smoke-free. Meanwhile, a libertarian student group at Yale recently protested a potential campus smoking ban. Do they really think that they can stop the trend? I thought those students are smart...

As long as I'm discussing developments in New England, I'd like to share a very well-written op-ed by Mark Gottlieb, executive director of the Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University School of Law. Gottlieb's article focuses on three reasons for why a public smoking ban in the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts is beneficial:

1. Secondhand smoke exposure is more dangerous than most people realize, and it is especially difficult to avoid on a windy day.
2. "Smoking is something I don’t want my kids to think is cool to do in the park." Enough said.
   
3. Cigarette-related litter is the most common litter in the world (and U.S.), can take up to a decade to degrade, is detrimental to wildlife, and is dangerous to children.

I can definitely relate to that last point. My parents have told me that when I was a toddler, I used to collect cigarette butts from the ground wherever we would go. Trust me, I was on to this issue a long time ago.

Part 2 to follow...