Airport Smoking Lounges
A recent CNN article described airport smoking lounges, which are slowly disappearing, as "smoke-filled, glass-encased fishbowls." I've actually never seen one (probably because I don't fly often), but this really caught my attention because it implies that smoking lounge patrons can be perceived by others as subhuman, like fish. I have mixed feelings about this notion. As much as I attack smoking, I want to reiterate that I am not attacking smokers. So, on one hand, I'd like to say that smokers don't deserve to endure the humiliation of a quarantine. On the other hand, I recognize that it is a practical compromise; after all, the five busiest airports in the nation still have these designated smoking areas inside terminals. These "fishbowls" allow people who are waiting for a connecting flight to take a much-needed smoke break, while many others look on in disgust.
"As long as smoking is legal in the United States, smoking lounges will continue to represent the tension between those who detest the addictive habit and those who can't quite rid themselves of it."However, with scientific evidence showing that separate ventilation systems for smoking lounges don't entirely prevent secondhand smoke from polluting the rest of the airport, the compromise is beginning to favor smokers, and many smoking lounges are in danger of being removed. If this happens, there's a solution for smokers who can't light up in airports. It's called smokeless tobacco, and if smokers absolutely need to get a nicotine fix, they can use this to get them through the day.
No Smoking 25 Feet from...Kids?
The city of Schertz, Texas is not going to have a smoking ban in parks. Instead, the city is going to have a smoking ban near kids. The city spokesman said that, "the general rule of thumb is if you see kids, stay 25 feet back and everything should be gravy." In theory, I like this idea. In practice, I'm a little pessimistic that it will be effective. I've never been a fan of bans that are based on distances because 1) the boundaries are not drawn out, and 2) the boundaries can't stop secondhand smoke from drifting across. The 25-foot rule, when applied to kids, is especially difficult because, well, kids move! Not only do they move, but they can "sneak up" on smokers and potentially get them in trouble. Plus, the 25-foot rule won't do much for decreasing the visibility of public smoking. As Mark Gottlieb recently said, "Smoking is something I don’t want my kids to think is cool to do in the park." But hey, at least Schertz is being proactive about it.
Collegiate Update
Anti-smoking initiatives at four major universities have made headlines over the past month:
- The University of Massachusetts, Amherst is going to be tobacco-free as of July 1, 2013. It appears that the school's Faculty Senate really took to the smoke-free concept and ran with it, as comprehensive bans on all tobacco products are rare at universities of this size. Congratulations to UMass students, faculty, and staff for being leaders--not followers.
- The University of Missouri is creating designated smoking areas, which are likely to be in parking lots or on the top floors of parking structures. What I like most about this development is that the designated areas are only an incremental step toward the university's goal to be entirely smoke-free by 2014.
- Faculty at Louisiana State University have considered a resolution to prohibit smoking 75 feet from buildings. Nice thought, but good luck getting people to comply with it! It's hard enough for smokers to eyeball 25 feet. My advice: Consider the other resolution to make the campus tobacco-free.
- Lastly, a column by a University of Southern California freshman has me reconsidering my judgment of the USC Trojans (again). She says that they "should be ashamed USC still permits smoking on campus." I couldn't have said it better myself; I'm still a bit embarrassed to have graduated from a school that is tarnished by a seriously outdated smoking policy.
The 30th state to have smoke-free workplaces may be a big one. Texas, which happens to be where my friend and guest blogger Calvin Cohen recently traveled through, is on the brink of a big change. The state could save more than $400 million in health care costs if a workplace ban is passed, which is looking more and more likely, as lawmakers are weeks ahead of schedule.
Moreover, Lance Armstrong--my second favorite athlete (to Steve Nash)--is backing a smoke-free Texas as well. In this interview, he argues against smokers' rights by saying, "when you are jeopardizing the lives and health of other people around you, you then lose your rights." Armstrong goes on by drawing an analogy between a smoking ban and a school zone, further justifying his claim that a smoking ban is not an overbearing law.
My favorite line: "Paris, France--really, smoke-free? ...If they can do it, then why the hell can't we do it?" For some sound points made by one of the world's best athletes, I definitely recommend watching this:
A Smoke-free United States by 2020?
I've saved the best for last. In last week's "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report," the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) predicted that, by the year 2020, all fifty states will have smoking bans in restaurants, bars, and workplaces. The fact that not one state had a comprehensive smoking ban in 2000, yet twenty-five do today, certainly supports this claim. However, there are currently seven holdout states with no smoking bans: Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia and Wyoming. The good news, though, is that legislators in most of these states have at least attempted to pass smoking bans. So, I'm confident that it's only a matter of time until they succeed.
Other sources say that if smoking rates keep declining as they have been, smokers may not even exist in as little as 30 years.
Maybe I'm not crazy, after all...
