New Haven Independent

Posted by: City Hall Watch | January 23, 2009 10:52 AM

Nobody showed up at the public hearing because we were all fighting yet another hike from UI. We won with UI and lost our rights with the hospital.

This is a silly idea that takes a very large swath of public right away and appropriates it to the private wishes of the hospital. The alders both in committee and at the full board level should have done the right thing with our without the public standing there. Does nobody have a backbone or just when a crowd is watching?

Shame on the hospital for proposing it. I don't smoke, but perhaps I will smoke a cig or two and walk down the sidewalk as a protest. Will they slap the handcuffs on me? Watch out for the anti-smoking nazis to propose a ban on smoking on the Green, in the downtown biz district or public parks. Where does it stop?

Posted by: robn | January 23, 2009 11:43 AM

CHW,

It doesn't stop and it won't stop. If a certain kind of behavior harms innocent people, it should be made illegal. Its indisputable that 2nd hand smoke harms non-smokers and frankly...even if it didn't, I'm tired of paying high insurance rates partly becuase of uninsured peoeple who harm themselves by smoking.

http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/2009/01/02/health-buzz-smoking-bans-cut-heart-attacks-and-other-health-news.html

Posted by: Tim | January 23, 2009 1:22 PM

People that are protesting this ban need to think about the fact that this is hospital ground, do you need to smoke that badly that you are going to do it around hospital ground while you may have sick people walking around outside etc.

Posted by: William Kurtz | January 23, 2009 1:33 PM

The problem with that line of reasoning, Robn, is that what happens when someone else decides that he, too, would prefer not to pay the higher premiums associated with some other risky behavior? No more baseball playing; sometimes players get hit by balls. Let's not forget the runners, with all those ACL surgeries. No lifting boxes when you're moving, lest you hurt your back like the former vice-president. I know those are extreme examples and smoking's effects are much more pronounced but the possible precedent is worth noting.

I'm not a smoker and am entirely in favor of bans in indoor public spaces, and even indoor private spaces (such as cars) when minors are affected, but a private entity enacting a ban on public sidewalks is a little beyond what I am comfortable with.

Posted by: Cheri | January 23, 2009 3:35 PM

Kurtz is right. Smoking is just one of many habits/activities that affect people's health. I enjoy smoking from time to time, but pay for my own health insurance. My tax dollars pay for others who don't have insurance, but I don't mind, as it would be ridiculous to nit pick on such an issue...the world is a dangerous place. Hopefully, healthcare for everyone in this country will become more available in the next 5 to 10 years, but we'll still be paying for it collectively.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | January 23, 2009 3:43 PM

Grrr again St. Ray's here I come. OK no I trust Yale. You will have people in robes with their IV's walking down the street. And if you say no your wrong! I hope you left the glass show room for the smokers

Posted by: City Hall Watch | January 23, 2009 4:09 PM

First of all, you being affected by second hand smoke from a person smoking on the sidewalk next to the street is non-existent. That is, unless you stand around and hover over people who are smoking outside. ok. That thought creeps me out. But using your logic, let's ban all transfats, real butter, bacon, white bread, anything but whole grain cereals and Oreos, candy and other sweets. This stuff is making people fat. I'm tired of paying higher insurance premiums for fat people.

And let's ban beer and alcohol. People drink and drive and kill people; plus beer and alcohol make people fat too.

And let's pass a law requiring helmets while skiing because this chick just died from hitting a tree on a slope in VT.

Give me a break.

Posted by: robn | January 23, 2009 6:24 PM

WK,

Theres a difference between the risk of getting killed by a baseball (infrequent) and the risk of getting killed by smoking (quite frequent).

Sorry guys but was the evidence I linked too weak??? It only came from the internationally respected Center For Disease Control...should I find a better scientific source like maybe the reincarnation of Jonas Salk?

Posted by: tom gogola | January 23, 2009 6:36 PM

If the city is so concerned about illegal smoking, why don't they deploy some cops to Contoi's in East Rock, the most illegally smoky joint I have encountered in this town? It's a smoke-filled stench hole the last time I checked. Oh shit, that's because the cops are all actually hanging out in Contoi's, with the firemen. Smoking. Whatta town.

Posted by: JohnReal | January 23, 2009 10:37 PM

You have to be realistic folks. If someone stands by an asthmatic person eating a cheeseburger, its not going to affect their health (unless of course they get a craving and go buy one themselves). If someone stands next to someone who is drinking alcohol, it doesn't affect the other person physically. If someone stands by someone smoking, it will affect them, whether you agree or not. Second hand smoke affects the health of those around you (yes, even outside). You can't compare it to other types of bad habits that don't directly impact the health of others.

You have to remember, its only around the hospital where smoking is banned. Its not like the hospital wants smoking banned smoking around the New Haven green or area neighborhoods. It's a HOSPITAL people.

Also, you might notice this, but the hospital closed their smoker's room and patients aren't allowed outside anymore.

This is about the health of individuals seeking health care and their visitors and families, not about taking away anyone's civil liberties. Smoking will likely be illegal in most places outside one's home due to its effects on non-smokers.

I'm so glad patients can go in and out of the hospital without walking through clouds of smoke to get treatments for illnesses.

Posted by: PS | January 23, 2009 10:49 PM

Cedarhillresident....St. Rays is going smoke free in November....watch for it.

Posted by: LastStraw | January 24, 2009 6:42 PM

TG,
ixnay on the ontoiscay!
shhh!

Posted by: k | January 24, 2009 8:15 PM

Cedar hill,you wont see people walking down the street in robes and iv poles because patients are no longer allowed to leave the unit that they are a patient on.You are told this when you enter the ER. If the patient leaves the unit the Dr and security are called and you get discharged.There is an AMA form that gets signed and that is that.As far as the glass showroom goes,that was locked up as of Jan.1st.You have to cross the street and smoke where the picnic tables and vendors are to smoke cause that is university property so its no big deal you can just cross the street and its legal : )

Posted by: cedarhillresident | January 25, 2009 7:03 PM

not so sure K...I was put in a coma after a bad surgery I woke up on what ever drug they had me on walked out of the room, out of the hospital walked ..all in my gown with tubes hanging and they found me sitting in the snow smoking....Don't remember it, this is what the doctor and family told me. So never say never :)

Posted by: ParkStTaxPayer | January 25, 2009 7:17 PM

smoking harms everyone, and it's a disgusting habit. I'm glad the air will be a bit cleaner around hospitals/healing centers.

recently I was in Virginia Beach and I went into a Waffle House (chain restaurant). I was asked "smoking or non-?" I was shocked that people were still allowed to smoke inside a business! I stood there stunned for a moment, but when I saw a woman behind the counter take her inhaler, I busted a move and got the 'ell out of there.

clean air should be a right. and those who smoke around hospitals in New Haven are now in the wrong. Good riddance to a disgusting habit!

Posted by: William Kurtz | January 25, 2009 10:45 PM

Robn

Here's the complete text of the article I found at your link:

CDC: Indoor Smoking Bans May Cut Heart Attack Hospitalizations

Hospitalizations for heart attacks fell sharply in Pueblo, Colo., after the implementation of a law that banned smoking in public places and workplaces, according to the January 2 issue of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's journal Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. There were 399 heart attack hospitalizations in the city in the 18 months before the smoke-free law went into effect on July 1, 2003, compared with 237 hospitalizations for heart attacks in the 18-month period that began a year and a half after the law went into effect. Researchers also studied two nearby areas that do not have indoor smoking bans and found that there was no significant decline in hospitalizations for heart attacks during the same time periods in those areas, the CDC reports.

Nine previously published studies have found that indoor smoking bans are associated with large, rapid reductions in heart attack hospitalizations, but most of those studies looked at data covering a shorter period of time. The new study suggests that the reduction in hospitalizations for heart attacks persists over an extended period of time. Smoke-free laws likely reduce these hospitalizations by limiting nonsmokers' exposure to secondhand smoke and by reducing smoking overall, according to the CDC.

If you're a smoker, consider this New Year's resolution: Really quit smoking. Also, learn the secrets of those who've successfully quit smoking, and consult our list of 12 reasons to quit smoking.
As you can see, the CDC has concerned itself in this study only with indoor smoking bans. So, with all respect (since I usually agree with you), yes, your evidence was too weak. The hospital is well within its rights to ban smoking on its grounds, indoors and out, but the public sidewalks are not their grounds.

Posted by: robn | January 26, 2009 12:20 PM

WK,

The article header is incomplete....if you read the body text, you'll see that the ban is against "smoking in public places and workplaces" and it was conducted over a statistically significant time period and there has been a reduction in heart attacks.

Posted by: William Kurtz | January 26, 2009 5:13 PM

Robn,

The study you're referring to has been well-reported. As I said, I copied the entire text of the story I found at the link you posted; it explicitly refers only to indoor smoking bans and is silent on the effects of outdoor smoking. Perhaps you intended other posters to click through to the CDC press release, found here:

http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2008/r081231.htm

It, too, is silent about the effects of second-hand smoke in the outdoors. There is a link at the bottom of the press release that claims to lead to the 'full report,' but it only goes to the MMWR homepage; the actual report can be found here:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5751a1.htm

Once again, this report seems to limit its scope to indoor smoking bans. So yes, I did my homework.

But in my mind, this conversation isn't even about smoking; it's about handing off the power to regulate a public space to a private, corporate entity. The means may be harmless, and the ends benign, but I think there needs to be more careful consideration of the underlying rationale and the likely unintended consequences of giving away that type of authority. Don't we have enough of that, already? Shopping malls, golf courses, 'private' beaches tucked away behind condo complexes, 'special taxing districts' (aka 'merchants' associations) with their own electronic monitoring equipment and let's not forget 'exclusive' gated communities.

For the record, I don't dispute the science, and I don't recognize any kind of inherent 'smokers' rights.' I don't even need the science; the fact that I can walk out of a bar or restaurant and not smell like an ashtray is good enough for me; one's 'right' to smoke ends where my laundry bill begins. But let's be honest with ourselves: designating a public sidewalk as a no smoking zone is less about a clear and present danger to public health and more about a political and moral stance that while noble, doesn't need to be imposed on everyone.

That's a dangerous road to go down. Right of conscience laws, anyone?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/triage/2008/12/feds-issue-cont.html

As always, I appreciate the sincere and spirited conversation in these pages.

Posted by: robn | January 26, 2009 6:43 PM

WK,

Are you smoking crack dude???..I hit your first link and the first sentence says, "Heart attack hospitalizations in the city of Pueblo, Colorado fell sharply after the implementation of a municipal law making workplaces and public places smoke-free..."

Don't beleive me or the CDC though..go to Pueblo ordinance Title 7, Chapter 6, Sections 7-6-6.1 and 7-6-7

http://www.pueblo.us/documents/Clerk/Code_Charter/Title07.pdf

The ban is on smoking in indoor public places of accomodation like city offices, toilets, transportation facilities, etc... but the ban is also on smoking within 20' of an entranceway to a designated non-smoking place (outdoors) and the ban is also on smoking in any public right of way granted to a hospital (including their sidewalks)...exactly what we're writing about here.

You see this as a special rule made for a corporate entity...I see it as a sound health policy shared by that entity and the city.

Posted by: William Kurtz | January 27, 2009 9:02 AM

Why, no . . . I'm not smoking crack. Why do you ask? Oh, I get it. "Smoking?" Good one. You are by far the most amusing person in the world, now that George Carlin is dead.

I imagine you know that asking someone who disagrees with you if he is "smoking crack, dude" is second only to comparing him to Hitler on the list of things you can't do if you want to be taken seriously.

Thanks for the link to the code, though; I made an admittedly cursory search for the text of the ordinance and wasn't able to find the exact details.

I'm not going to bother reiterating that the CDC only claims that "eliminating smoking in indoor spaces is the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from SHS" despite the fact that the Pueblo law covers sidewalks bordering hospitals.

For one thing, Pueblo's situation is different; it's a blanket rule affecting all hospitals. If YNNH and St. Raphael's and the various medical facilities around the city had gotten together to lobby city government to pass a law like this, it would be a different matter. But they didn't: this is one private entity imposing its will on public space. And again, let me mention that I don't disagree that it's sound health policy (although I suspect there's limited evidence that a person walking by smoking a cigarette has much of an effect on anyone else's health), but it can be that, and at the same time a special rule.

Anyway, now that we're at the "are you smoking crack, dude" stage of the conversation, I think it's over.

Posted by: robn | January 27, 2009 12:10 PM

WK,

If I told you that I smiled at your classic Platonic rhetorical device of "I'm not goiing to bother reiterating...(reiteration follows)" would you maybe lighten up and have a laugh at my crack smoker quip?

Posted by: robn | January 27, 2009 5:41 PM

mmmm...guess not.

Posted by: William Kurtz | January 27, 2009 10:37 PM

Classically platonic, huh? Okay, I guess so. Dude.