Smoke-Free Homes Discouraged Smoking Overall

Adopt a smoke-free home.”
Maya Vijayaraghavan, MD, and John P. Pierce, PhD, from the University of California, San Diego Moores Cancer Center, led this investigation into ways to reduce smoking in the US.
According to these researchers, laws that have made smoking illegal indoors have been one of the most effective ways to reduce smoking in the US.
For this study, the researchers looked at data from the Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey (TUS-CPS), which is a monthly survey conducted by the US Census Bureau on people 15 and older not living in jail or a mental institution.
From 2006 to 2007, and over three separate surveys, 150,967 people aged 18 and older responded to the survey.
The researchers found that persons living below the federal poverty line were 38 percent more likely to have smoked more than 100 cigarettes over the course of their lifetimes than individuals living in moderate- to high-income households.
Persons living below the federal poverty line were 21 percent less likely to have quit smoking and twice as likely to be current smokers than individuals in moderate- to high-income households.
Smokers living in a home where smoking was not allowed smoked 35 percent fewer cigarettes per day than smokers living in a home where smoking was permitted.
Individuals living in a smoke-free home were more successful at quitting smoking compared with persons trying to quit in homes where smoking was permitted (7.9 percent versus 1.5 percent, respectively).
The authors of this study concluded that adopting a smoke-free home helped people either smoke fewer cigarettes per day or quit smoking altogether.
“We are telling people that if they really want to quit, then introducing a smoke-free home will help them be successful,” Dr. Pierce said in a press statement.
This study was published in October in the American Journal of Public Health.
The UC Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program provided funding for this project. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Outdoor smoking restrictions in Toronto parks approved by committee

Toronto’s parks and environment committee unanimously endorsed a plan to restrict outdoor smoking in city parks.

The report, which had already been endorsed by Toronto’s Board of Health, is part of a comprehensive plan to restrict smoking in outdoor locations in the same way legislation currently restricts smoking in bars and restaurants.

The more controversial elements of the policy are going forward either slowly or through requests to other levels of government.

The proposed smoking ban in city parks – which would prevent smokers from lighting up within nine metres of an amenity – went through the parks committee easily.

“I don’t want to kiss an ashtray and I don’t want to play in one either,” said committee chair Giorgio Mammoliti, who supported the matter.

In the past, Mammoliti has been more skeptical about smoking bans. In the 1990s prior to amalgamation, Mammoliti led the charge to overturn a smoking ban in bars and restaurants in the former municipality of North York.

But at the committee, he said the argument for going slow on anti-smoking measures is out of date.

“There was a time when some of us who’ve been around a long time recognized there was an argument economically,” said Mammoliti. “But that was when the other municipalities weren’t banning smoking and Toronto wanted to set an example.”

Deputations to the committee all agreed smoking in parks was bad for the health of parks users and also, at sports fields, set a bad example for young people.

“Smoking on the sidelines does not mix with a quality sports experience,” said Jeff Carmichael of the Toronto Sports Council.

He said his organization supported the ban, noting most sporting events ban smoking in city parks already. A ban, he said, would make the behaviour easier to enforce.

Beaches-East York Councillor Mary-Margaret McMahon called the decision “a no-brainer health-wise.”

The ban would also make it unlawful to smoke at public beaches, as well as within nine metres of sporting field, shelters and picnic areas.

The matter will go to Toronto Council in November.

Sick of attacks on smokers

PEOPLE asked whether they favour any move to protect children from danger will surely agree, naturally assuming the problem to exist. Your report (News, September 29) of 75 per cent public support for a smoking ban in children’s play areas is a typical example of such manipulation employed by Ash Scotland, who commissioned the poll.
Predictably, they offer no evidence. From personal ­observation of a number of playgrounds near me, I’d say that’s because none exists, but I invite Ash to prove me wrong.
The stipulation of a ban “in” play areas suggests enclosure, but this is not always the case, apart from which there would be nothing to stop smokers standing outside any fence.
I consider paying a great deal of money to draw in air and blow out smoke ridiculous behaviour, but it’s legal – and it gives many people pleasure – and I for one am sick and tired of groups like Ash campaigning for ever more restriction on freedom of choice.

PCC administration submits new smoking restriction proposal

Pima Community College may implement a policy to restrict smoking, e-cigarette and tobacco products to designated areas on campus.
PCC administration submitted the proposal to the PCC Governing Board Wednesday night.
Board Policy 2304 limits smoking, e-cigarette and tobacco product use to designated outside areas on PCC property, in order to compliance with the Smoke-Free Arizona Act and related Pima County code provisions and city of Tucson ordinances, officials said.
The administration suggested that the proposed policy replace the current smoking policy, which prohibits smoking in all buildings owned or leased by PCC. Smoking is also not permitted within 25 feet of entrances and exits, fresh-air grills and in other seating areas, such as baseball fields.
According to a campus-wide survey of about 4,700 people, 81 percent indicated they do not smoke; 78 percent supported either the creation of designated smoking areas or prohibiting the use of tobacco products on college property; 70 percent agreed that smokeless tobacco should be banned from inside all buildings; and 21.8 percent supported the current policy.
If the board approves the proposed policy, faculty and staff will help determine designated smoking areas.
The policy will be submitted to the board with a final reading projected for early 2014.

David Preece: Jack Wilshere smoking outrage clouded the real issues

I’m not a big fan of international fortnight.
With no football to keep you going except for the Northern section of the Johnstone’s Paint Trophy and a repetitively boring loop of an interview on Sky Sports News with a young lad still apologising for smoking a cigarette over a week after the incident.
Then having to make do with an England performance so tepid it should be prescribed to lower blood pressure, there are plenty of reasons to dislike international football.
I’m actually half-hoping we don’t qualify, if only to push forward the revolution needed to overhaul our national game. Also I’d enjoy having a bit of a moan.
For the record, can I say what a load of old nonsense that was about Jack Wilshere smoking a cigarette?
Imagine that, someone doing something perfectly legal in the privacy of their life outside of football. It’s a strange perspective we British have on smoking and drinking.
We’re up in arms about someone smoking but has anybody questioned the wisdom of his presence in a nightclub during the week where a few drinks would have a more detrimental effect on his performance than a cigarette?
I’m not a smoker despite both my parents and all four of my grandparents being constantly shrouded in a nicotine-laden fog when I was a kid.
But it did make me wonder how many of the people making a fuss of Wilshere’s “reckless abandon” actually drink and smoke in front of their kids on a regular basis? Some people forget they are their kids first role models, not Wilshere, or Harry Styles for that matter.
I’ve digressed but the fact it’s still being mentioned on TV is down to the news blackhole that’s international week.
As a player it was always something you looked forward to. If you were involved in your national team, great.
If you weren’t, the manager might give you anything up to five days off to recharge your batteries and spend some time with your family.
Not that I ever had to worry about any call-ups after I’d passed youth level. I was always jealous of team-mates jetting off to join international squads.
When you’re playing for a club with a few internationals you feel like you’ve been left at home to babysit while all your friends have gone to a party.
You wait for them to return to hear their stories about who got off with who and who was drunk by nine o’clock and threw up everywhere.
Putting on my coach’s hat for a minute, I can see how much of a pain it is for Derek McInnes but it really is a double-edged sword. If your charges are scattered around the world, it means you have good players. On the other hand, if you have a full squad at home for a whole fortnight, it gives you the chance to get down to some hard graft.
Perhaps that’s the secret of making sure your team actually benefits from the boredom of international fortnight.
Assemble yourself a squad of quality players but just make sure they’re not quite good enough to be picked or that they have already retired from international football.

Smoking rules

It's surprising and disappointing that Gov. Mary Fallin has delayed action on an initiative petition to tighten state smoking regulations.
In February, a Senate committee effectively killed a Fallin-backed bill until 2015 that would have allowed local governments to pass smoking ordinances that are stricter than state law.

The governor jumped out front, held a press conference with a big crowd of health officials and said she would lead a campaign to take the issue to the people.

The vast majority of Okla- homans want local government control on smoking regulation, Fallin said. She was right.

While the governor didn't say the initiative she would push would be for local control, everyone assumed that would be the idea.

Since then, not much has happened. Fallin now says that such a proposal would stand a better chance after the 2014 general election.

We're not sure we see the political logic of that choice.

We are sure that delays will mean some nonsmok- ers will continue to work in second-hand smoke environments longer.

Second-hand smoke is deadly, and only a handful of states don't allow local governments to restrict it.

Anytime smoking regulation is the topic, suspicions quickly arise about the influence of Big Tobacco money, but we don't doubt Fallin's personal commitment on this issue —both of her parents were smokers and the habit affected their decline and death.

Putting off the initiative campaign could give the Legislature another shot at the issue. Our hope is that this important issue can be dealt with as soon as possible. The health of Oklahoma citizens is at stake.