8.27.2012

Digest #31: This Week in Smoke-free News

By far the biggest news in tobacco control this week was the US Court of Appeals decision against the proposed FDA graphic warning labels that were originally set to debut on all cigarette packages in September. Again, RJ Reynolds and other tobacco companies won on First Amendment grounds, in that the government's attempt to force tobacco companies to include the warning labels surpasses the limits of commercial speech regulation.

This is such a tough issue for me because, on the one hand, I do believe that the government has a substantial interest--backed by more than a "shred of evidence"--in discouraging the purchase of cigarettes, but on the other hand, I have the utmost respect for the First Amendment and freedom of speech. I've joked about how we somehow need to amend the First Amendment so that regulations such as this one can pass legal scrutiny, but the problem isn't with the way that the First Amendment is worded (i.e., "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."), but rather the precedent for regulating commercial speech that has been developed over the last century or so. Since Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission was decided in 1980, the following four questions have generally been asked of cases involving regulation of commercial speech, so I'll attempt to answer them:


  1. Is the expression protected by the First Amendment? Lawful? Misleading? Fraud? The expression is lawful and not misleading. Statements like "Smoking can kill you" are scientifically verifiable.
  2. Is the asserted government interest substantial? You bet it is. Healthcare costs alone make smoking prevention a substantial interest of government.
  3. Does the regulation directly advance the governmental interest asserted? I sure think so. By placing graphic warning labels on the cigarette packages, the FDA is attempting to intercept smokers before they pull out a cigarette.
  4. Is the regulation more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest?  This is where I think the issue lies and the FDA may have gotten ahead of itself. Some of the proposed images depict worst-case scenarios: a man exhaling smoke with a hole in his throat, a pair of the ugliest lungs possible, and a corpse. However, some images, like the child being exposed to secondhand smoke, aren't unreasonable--they merely elicit strong emotion. Perhaps if all of the imagery were illustrated similarly to the one pictured above, the Court would have ruled differently.

For the sake of public health, I hope that the Supreme Court has a different opinion.

8.19.2012

Digest #30: This Summer in Smoke-free News

I'm back! I bet you thought that I'd never post again--but here I am. It's been an incredibly busy few months for me in terms of work, my Legacy fellowship, my various volunteer commitments, and my move to a new apartment, so I have a ton of news to share, which means I'll have to keep my commentary to a minimum. Going forward, I intend to blog more frequently with shorter posts, which will probably be easier for me to sustain and for my audience to digest. But for now:
  • The Oregon Zoo went tobacco-free on May 26. Kim Smith, the zoo director, was quoted saying, "Eliminating tobacco and its byproducts, particularly secondhand smoke, will help us provide a healthy, safe environment for visitors, staff and animals." Although I've discussed the need to reduce smoking exposure among children in places like county fairs (great job, San Diego!), I haven't discussed much about how secondhand smoke--and thirdhand smoke, for that matter--impact animals. Many animals have lungs, so they face several of the same risks that humans do. Moral of the story: Don't let anyone smoke around your pets.
  • Contrary to what had been reported soon after the smoking ban in New York City parks went into effect, there is evidence that it is working. The health department observed 68 percent fewer smokers in 13 selected parks in Manhattan and Brooklyn, including Central Park. A comparable reduction in cigarette butts on beaches (where smoking is also banned) was also witnessed. These findings are timely, as Atlanta's City Council recently approved a ban in city parks, and the King County (i.e., Seattle area) Council is considering a similar measure.
  • And now for a topic that pulls my conscience in two opposing directions: smoking bans in apartment buildings. I've said that I'm conflicted between my sense of need to improve the public health at all costs and my more libertarian side, in that I am hesitant to approve of a smoking ban in private spaces. Now, a new study has found that, in many non-smoking apartment buildings, non-smokers are still frequently exposed to secondhand smoke, a small segment of which reported exposure in their own units (presumably through shared ventilation). So, while the bans may not be effective, this begs the question of whether these bans are even enforceable. Back in April, though, NYC Mayor Bloomberg pushed to require owners of residential buildings to adopt smoking policies (whether smoking is permitted or not), which would then have to be disclosed to prospective buyers and tenants. The still doesn't address the enforcement issue, but this seems like the logical first step to me. Interestingly, Santa Monica, CA was going to require that existing apartment tenants who want their units excepted from the new apartment smoking ban to declare so--but reneged upon a second reading of the ordinance. 
  • The U.S. Air Force has cracked down on not only smoking, but all other tobacco use on Air Force property. As of March 26, all Air Force hospitals and clinics are tobacco-free environments Lt. Col. John Oh, chief of health promotion for the Air Force Medical Services Agency, says that, "tobacco use is really a mission-readiness issue...It's associated with decreased productivity, increased absenteeism and decreased endurance." Additionally, tobacco consumption is associated with nearly $2 billion of the Department of Defense's annual health care budget. The new policy restricts all tobacco use to designated tobacco areas, all of which must be at least 50 feet from building entrances and exits, sidewalks and parking lots, as well as 100 feet from playgrounds. I'm sure that my friends at Project Uniform and CYAN are thrilled. 
  • Moronic Quote of the Summer, by perennial West Virginia Republican Senate candidate John Raese: 
"In Monongalia County now, I need to put a huge sticker on my buildings to say that is a ‘Smoke Free Environment.’ This is brought to you by the Government of Monongalia County. Remember, Hitler used to put a Star of David on everybody’s lapel. Remember that? ...Same thing." 
This type of thinking should partially explain why Raese has never won a Senate election.
  • The New Zealand government is considering raising the price of a pack of cigarettes to as high as $100 by the year 2020. I'd be surprised if that actually happens, but I couldn't help but share this.
  • July 1 marked the first day that the Indiana's watered-down indoor smoking ban went into effect. While the law prohibits smoking in public places and workplaces, exceptions include 21+ bars (24/7) and riverboat casinos. On the surface, it's a step forward--but the fact that it took so long to arrive at this particular compromise tells me that the ban won't be expanded any time soon.
  • Mississippi prisons went smoke-free on July 1. This is the second such policy that I've heard of, as it follows Florida's prison smoking ban that I shared in a previous post.
  • Kansas City area casinos are among the latest facilities targeted by smoke-free advocates to adopt smoke-free policies. I actually just returned from the National Conference on Tobacco or Health in Kansas City, and there I was fortunate enough to receive a free t-shirt that reads, "Time to go all in! Bet on smoke-free casinos." I'll be wearing this shirt proudly, especially after my recent visit to a Phoenix-area casino for some late-night bingo...terrible mistake!
  • Collegiate Update:
    • The University of Central Florida is set to go smoke-free tomorrow, August 20. I strongly approve of the systematic cigarette butt counts that will be used to evaluate the efficacy of the smoking ban.
    • The Ohio Board of Regents have strongly encouraged public university leaders to adopt tobacco-free policies, but for whatever reason, the Board can't require a tobacco ban. Hopefully, there will be more news to follow.
    • CSU Fullerton is set to become the first smoke-free California State University campus on August 1, 2013.
    • The entire State University of New York (SUNY) system, comprising of 64 college campuses, will be smoke-free starting in 2014.
    • The University of Maryland announced that all campuses will be smoke-free by June 30, 2013, but students are pushing back, using potential enforcement issues to advocate for designated smoking areas instead of an outright ban.
    • The University of Mississippi is going smoke-free on January 1, 2013.
    • Maricopa Community Colleges (local to me in Arizona), which went tobacco-free on July 1, has what I think is a model informational website for a campus ban.
That's all for now... look for more frequent, more brief updates from me in the near future.