Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

The new smoking ban battleground: detox clinics

DAVID HUTTON

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 1:34 AM EST 09/08/08

Many facilities ban smoking, sparking debate about what is more important - weaning patients off cigarettes or helping them break free of hard drugs ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. J R from Vancouver, Canada writes: Cigarettes are also a hard drug. It certainly is far more costly to society than its illegal brethren. Just because some rich establishment people profit from it, does not make it any less of a hard drug. Sure, there are "functional" cigarette addicts, just like most illegal drugs have its own "functional" addicts. But this is primarily because cigarette abuse is facilitated and tolerated by society. Moreover, allowing cigarette smoking in any public place is unfair to people who have chosen health over addiction, who do not want to be poisoned. In this case, that would be the detox clinic workers.
  2. Russell Barth from Nepean, Canada writes: these people should give up tobacco and hard drugs and use cannabis. it fights cancer, look it up:

    www dot webmd.com/cancer/news/20071226/pot-slows-cancer-in-test-tube
  3. A non-Imus from Canada writes: "Common wisdom has long held that it would be too difficult for patients addicted to drugs or alcohol to stop smoking while they are fighting a dependency on harder drugs. " There you have it. Cigarettes are the hardest drug habit to kick. No wonder cigarettes will never see an outright ban. The scene on the streets would make the days of Prohibition look like a joke. Organized criminals would be dumping coke and smack down the sewers to make room for their cache of contraband cigarettes.
  4. John Connor from Canada writes: Just move to Ontario.
    Bans on everything are to be found here.
    Just ask Father Dalton.
    If it can't be beaten with proper efforts,
    Just ban it.
    It works everytime and new jobs are readily created.
    To enforce another ban.
    Ya gotta love a bureaucracy.
  5. Barclay Logan from Bewdley, Canada writes: If detoxes have an area separate from the general population for smoking, then what's the problem? Smoking cessation can be dealt with later -- it's just bad timing to combine unwanted smoking "cures" with something far more immediately dangerous to the addict. These smoking areas also provide the opportunity for social behaviour, when the last thing a recovering addict wants is to "mix in".
  6. June from Western Canada from Canada writes: Someone please explain how an 'addictive personality' copes with all their addictions at once? As an alcoholic, I know I can never have one drink or I unleash the tiger to full blown self destruction, picking up where I left off many years ago. I have never been able to give up cigarettes as the one pleasure giver that I control to 10 cigarettes a day....If I have a box of chocolates...they are gone....I can't eat just a handful of popcorn, it's the whole bowl. After 50 years of smoking (now only at my home, outside) I am not on any medications, have no apparent health issues. So maybe it is something the scientists are just discovering, a lack of a gene, or DNA that causes cancer, addiction behavior...whatever. None of my children have adverse affects from the smoking prevalent in their young lives. Are we the exception to the rule? or has the medical society also found a scapegoat for every illness a person suffers. To me, chemical altered drugs are far more self destructive to human health. I have accepted many years ago, I will probably die of something caused by something...or as my mother at 92 said, "if I'd known I was going to live so long, I'd have taken better care of myself".
  7. Geoff Virgo from Vancouver, BC, Canada writes: Russel Barth, you are a prime example of why you simply can't believe everything that plebs quote from the internet. You do realise that you're quoting the study completely out of context and that that study was talking about petri-dish introduction of marijuana derived chemicals right? Actually SMOKING pot introduces far higher levels of tar and carcinogens to your body than smoking cigarettes, and that's saying a lot considering how bad cigarettes are.

    To the topic itself, I think forcing non-smoking bans on detox centres is absolutely ludicrous. The point of these centres is to try and help addicts overcome more immediately threatening addictions which have a much more negative effect on society than tobacco. If the addicts want to quit smoking at the same time then it's one thing, just like introducing them to cigarettes as a addiction substitution would be idiotic, but trying to force it on them is just going to decrease the number seeking help to begin with. Deal with the one that's likely to kill them in the short term first them sort out the cigarettes.
  8. harley ryder from pittsburgh, United States writes: Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger Written By: Jerome Arnett, Jr., M.D. Published In: Environment & Climate News Publication Date: July 1, 2008 Publisher: The Heartland Institute http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23399 Exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) is an unpleasant experience for many nonsmokers, and for decades was considered a nuisance. But the idea that it might actually cause disease in nonsmokers has been around only since the 1970s. Recent surveys show more than 80 percent of Americans now believe secondhand smoke is harmful to nonsmokers. Federal Government Reports A 1972 U.S. surgeon general's report first addressed passive smoking as a possible threat to nonsmokers and called for an anti-smoking movement. The issue was addressed again in surgeon generals' reports in 1979, 1982, and 1984. A 1986 surgeon general's report concluded involuntary smoking caused lung cancer, but it offered only weak epidemiological evidence to support the claim. In 1989 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was charged with further evaluating the evidence for health effects of SHS. In 1992 EPA published its report, "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking," claiming SHS is a serious public health problem, that it kills approximately 3,000 nonsmoking Americans each year from lung cancer, and that it is a Group A carcinogen (like benzene, asbestos, and radon). The report has been used by the tobacco-control movement and government agencies, including public health departments, to justify the imposition of thousands of indoor smoking bans in public places. Flawed Assumptions EPA's 1992 conclusions are not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The report has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge.
  9. harley ryder from pittsburgh, United States writes: Air quality test results by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:

    http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com

    All nullify the argument that secondhand smoke is a workplace health hazard.
    Especially since federal OSHA regulations trump, or pre-empt, state smoking ban laws which are not based on scientific air quality test results.
    Mark Wernimont
    Watertown, MN.
    US Supreme court decision 1992 NEVER OVERTURNED...

    A U.S. Supreme court decision during the early 1970's ((Lloyd Corp v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1992)) said a place of business does not become public property because the public is invited in.

    So, by that same reasoning. A restaurant or bar is not public property. We need to support small business and stop regulating them out of business.
    l
  10. Brad Pitt from United States writes: Rusty is back at it again - can't keep this man down.
    Regarding the article, could they not have picked a better example than a former crack addict - hell he couldn't even kick a bad Dairy Queen habit let alone a nicotine addiction!
  11. On Edge from Canada writes: If I were a heroin addict and a smoker, I would probably resist going to a treatment facility - I might want to get off the heroin, but not quit smoking at the same time. The same applies to hospital stays - I go in to get treatment for appendicitis, say, and I am not allowed to smoke, so I am made to quit and suffer even though I did not go there for anything related to smoking. Give smokers a separately ventilated room and grow up and get over yourselves, for the love of god...
  12. Brad Pitt from United States writes: Better yet On Edge - instead of constructing ventilated rooms for smokers - give them heroin instead - no harm to the other patients due to inhalation of tar and nicotine - and the smokers get one hell of a buzz during their hospital stay - not to mention adding a wicked additon to their arsenal
  13. Robert Waddell from Toronto, Canada writes: "J R from Vancouver, Canada writes: Cigarettes are also a hard drug. It certainly is far more costly to society than its illegal brethren."

    And where have you found some stats to support this conclusion? Not much murder, robbery, etc. going on to support cigarette smoking. I'm not saying there's no cost but to suggest smokes are as costly as heroin to our society is just crazy talk.

    Anyway, back on topic. If people are going to an addiction center to deal with a heroin problem why make it doubly difficult by forcing them to try quitting smokes at the same time? Far better to get people off the really hard drugs and deal with the smoking at a later date. Surviving cigarette addiction is much easier than surviving a herion addiction so deal with the most damaging first.
  14. Tim Meehan from Ottawa, Canada writes: "You do realise that you're quoting the study completely out of context and that that study was talking about petri-dish introduction of marijuana derived chemicals right? "

    FYI, most science is conducted this way at present due to "ethical" concerns, and most of the "X causes cancer" studies are too. That doesn't stop the press and moralist from making sweeping pronouncements " completely out of context." FYI, he's on the money: Spanish research dating back to the 70's has found this as well.

    "Actually SMOKING pot introduces far higher levels of tar and carcinogens to your body than smoking cigarettes, and that's saying a lot considering how bad cigarettes are."

    This is not true, but if you are concerned about smoke, then use a vaporizer. No tar. See storz-bickel dot com for info.

    Now that the moralist misinformation has been dealt with, let's turn to the subject at hand. Most of people in detox are suffering from some kind of mental illness. In some cases, smoking cigarettes is
    stimulant self-medication. As long as it's outside and no kids are around, who cares?
  15. Barclay Logan from Bewdley, Canada writes: It's difficult to ignore the facetious posts here, but I try ... But proselytizing for marijuana use as a cure for all society's ills is just silly. Some people (quite a few, really) use marijuana because they say it relaxes them and gives them a pleasant "high". I know quite a few who do just that, but have never pushed a joint in my face, never smoke it at work or when driving, and could stop if circumstances warranted it. They're generally pleasant, intelligent, productive types, and I'd probably join in if I didn't find the effects so unpleasant. Last time I checked, it was still illegal to have marijuana without a prescription, and I don't need any more complications in my life. A few telephone calls confirmed that detoxes, or "Withdrawal Management Facilities" allow patients to step outside for a cigarette, just like hospitals do. Rooms with special ventilation -- you'd often find nurses in there on their breaks -- seem to have faded away, while purveyors of coffee and fine food, like McDonald's and pizza joints are making big bucks setting up inside urban hospitals ... my eyes rolled a few years back when smoking was banned in jails/prisons -- nothing like having a bunch of angry, depressed, and in some cases psychotics locked in cages denied something which might calm them down a bit, eh? Hospital stays are generally unpleasant, and for someone trying to quit heroin or cocaine or whatever, let them quit that one when they start to get their lives back in order. Certainly, provide nicotine patches or gum, especially for non-ambulatory patients. A little empathy, please?
  16. Stan L from Canada writes: To what end? I have to ask this becuase I fail to see what the benefit is to a junkie looking to get clean. THEY have made a decision to get clean, THEY have made a very big and difficult step, THEY are going to have to change practically every aspect of their lives to be successful and go through a lot of physical and emotional turmoil.....so we should make the job just that much harder by not allowing smoking?......perhaps a less holier than thou approach would be recommended here, explaining to the person the benefits of quitting both at the same time and giving them the tools to do so.....and giving them a choice like the adults they are.
  17. June from Western Canada from Canada writes: Stan L...agree and other posters seem to understand, but the 'do-gooders' of this earth found the power to close down one of the legal harmful drug use (they never touch alcohol stats) Cigarette smoking is the bane of the world now and empathy, tolerance, accommodation is nowhere Incite...pun intended. Although unpleasant to a non smoker, I still have a hard time believing all this second hand smoke stuff...Hope we never have to go back to living in caves with a central wood fire....
  18. donald kennedy from Canada writes: Michelle Robson, programme manager for Saskatoon mental health and addiction services says " I don't know the difference between that(allowing cigarettes) and offering them alcohol."
    A re-education program for her is in order. In the meantime
    , she should be removed from her job as a clearly incompetent guide to others in fighting addiction.
  19. J S from Canada writes: I am not going to say smoking is fine. I'm a smoker and it's a filthy habit. However, I don't see the benefits of this FORCED nicotine detox when someone is trying very hard to battle a different addiction. It's kinda like going in to the hospital for the big gash on your leg and getting your hangnail treated instead.
  20. June from Western Canada from Canada writes: That's the problem, those trying to address the problem with their degrees in education, have never been there, felt it, lived it. Those who have lived through it and recovered are far more capable of helping those who still suffer.. We desparately need more treatment centers and more than in and out service....several months would assure better long lasting results. Detox should never be handled in our hospital system, but in special units. Smoking is now banned outside hospitals, Senior care facilities, near doors or windows. Even have signs at Dr's office Don't wear Perfume. We have become a country of hot house tomatoes and therefore have contracted asthma, allergies etc in un heard of numbers before we had all these chemical cleaners, carpets etc. For God's sake, a cigarette won't kill them tomorrow, but total drug withdrawal may.
  21. Michael Walsh from Victoria, Canada writes: Barclay Logan from Bewdley, Canada writes: If detoxes have an area separate from the general population for smoking, then what's the problem? Smoking cessation can be dealt with later -- it's just bad timing to combine unwanted smoking "cures" with something far more immediately dangerous to the addict. These smoking areas also provide the opportunity for social behaviour, when the last thing a recovering addict wants is to "mix in".
    _____________________________

    The smoking "pits" as they call them in treatment facilities are usually the areas where the gossip mills run rampant and can be an extremely dangerous area for someone to go. Mostly people who like chaos and negativity in their lives while also talking about everyone other than themselves. I would hardly call them opportunities for "social behaviour" sessions. I avoided them like the plague.

    www.unhooked.com
  22. Nickstar One from Canada writes: "....A little empathy, please?...."
    That's like asking for common sense and moderation from 'power and control' extremists on an agenda. This will never happen.

    The bottom line on Smoker Bans is that adults "will, can, must" be treated as children and every bigoted tactic that includes heavy use of demonization, discrimination, marginalization must be used to conform to the WHO-mandated agenda.
    If this makes it hard for users of detox centers, "well that's too darn bad"!
    Those who thrive on 'power and control' are not about to give it up for the sake of "empathy". It simply becomes "their way or the highway". Given this kind of idiotic ultimatum(rooted in the equal idiocy of 'zero tolerance'), the highway automatically defaults to being the preferred CHOICE.
  23. Vince Harden from Canada writes: The thing here is that the anti-tobacco gang does not actually care about the welfare of these addicts anymore than they actually cared about the welfare of say bar workers.They are just using them as an extension of themselves because they,themselves,are not being exposed to what they don't like-smokers.They have to feign "compassion" to further their brand of ethnic cleansing.
  24. c rob from Canada writes: If an addict wants the patch, give him or her the patch. If they choose the cigarette, then let them have it. I would say that they have enough of a battle in the beginning as it is. Why compound it?
  25. Alan Craigie from Aberdeeen, writes: The only stat I could find when researching the best method to get clean was that your 4 times more successful if you also give up smoking. I don't know why. Maybe the brain responding to the other craving leads to relapse or maybe you develop a healthy lifestyle and are less likely to associate with self destructive people (smokers).
    The idea must surely be to have a healthy life so there's not much point giving up one deadly drug but using another. Didn't work for Bill W. he died of lung cancer!
  26. Rollo T from 8>), Belgium writes: Do they have to give up coffee too? Cold Tur-key?
  27. Stan L from Canada writes: Treatment for addiction against ones wishes is never as successful as one who regonizes there is an issue and seeks treatment themselves. For years we have heard that 'the biggest step is admitting you have a problem', we have heard that you can't force someone to quit whether it be drugs, alcohol or etc....that they have to recognize the need to stop and take the first step themselves otherwise there is no point......well these people have made a choice to quite, with respects to their drug addiction that is, but what about the smoking? did they choose to quit smoking before they entered? how effective is getting them to quit smoking if they did not choose to quit? becuase forcing it seems to fly in the face of everything that has been taught for generations now about addiction....in fact I would say that this stats quoted in the article are somewhat suspect based on this....
  28. Gudrun Dekker from Vernon, Canada writes: It seems to me that these addicts have too much time on their hands. Complete transformation to a positive healthy lifestyle involves goals and affirmative action such as exercise and contributing to the betterment of self and society. Take a walk, pick up some garbage, visit an old folks home, volunteer at a shelter, read a good book and feel better about yourself. Smoking a cigarette only reaffirms the negative addictive cycle that these people ought to be trying to break. Getting a job is also a super way to keep your mind and fingers away from the drugs and cancer sticks. What a novel idea!
  29. Brent Wilkins from Canada writes: Most of them smoke when they arrive. So why ban it, who is going to complain? the workers?

    The workers knew what they were getting tinto when they took the damn job.
  30. Stan L from Canada writes: Gudrun Dekker.....if it were that easy then I doubt very much that we would need rehabs at all in our society. Drug addicts do not have a lot of time on their hands at all, they are very busy people who are at a worse case scenario singularily focussed on getting high and planning and getting drugs for their next high to the exclusion of everything else.
  31. bob london from Canada writes: Give a "liberal" an inch they steal a mile.

    Give the druggies smoking rights, I would life "safe smoking sites" at the pub.
  32. Randal Oulton from Toronto, Canada writes: Now we just need clinics to help government people give up their addiction to tobacco taxes.
  33. Ray McAdam from Winnipeg, Canada writes: I find all the statistical and philosophical arguments a bit much. I am 57 and male. I smoked cigarettes heavily for many years and then quit for 15 years. I now smoke cigars, 3-4 a day, which aren't inhaled. Either way it has been my choice to do so. I was not "hooked" by someone profiting off my nicotine use. I have never cost the health care system anything as a result of my smoking as I have never had treatnment or hospitalization for smoking related issues. In fact, with all the taxes I have paid over the years, I think the system is way ahead on me. Also, I may actually die sooner than if I didn't smoke but again, it is my choice. If I do die sooner, then the system has saved even more as they haven't had to look after me as long as they would a non-smoker. I enjoy smoking and would argue it is NOT a filthy habit. Picking your nose in public is a filthy habit, but no one is trying to ban that. I do not inflict my smoking on others. So why are all the non-smokers so damned anxious to tell me I have to quit? Why do they feel it is their duty to force me to quit "for my own good"? They don't try and get people who drink moderately to quit. They don't try to get people who gamble moderately to quit. What's the big deal? Find a cause that really needs supporting, such as poverty and disease in Africa, or micro loans to third world individuals so they can start a small business and feed their families. Your zeal is misdirected with all this brouhaha about smokers.
  34. M I from Canada writes: Let 'em smoke. Just don't subsidize it.
  35. Harbinger from Out West from Canada writes: How about setting up a cigarette exchange? Instead of getting clean needles, just bring in yer empty pack of smokes for a new full one. It's an addiction too, ya know.
  36. Gizella Oehm from Toronto, Canada writes: The anti-smoking lobby continues to hit new highs of folly in its fanatical 'righteousness'. No one in their right minds thinks smoking is a healthy habit. Even back when everyone was smoking everywhere (think the cocktail generation in the 50s and 60s), it was acknowledged that it was a bad habit. But reallly...I suppose we need a cause celebre - and in today's society it's health related issues, since a culture of moral relativism doesn't allow for other forms of moralizing. It's tiresome, and I wish we'd move on. These poor addicts are having a hard enough time as it is. And, by the way, doctors whose pregnant patients are heavy smokers, and whose babies may be at risk, do NOT insist their patients stop smoking during pregancy. Why? Because the added stress of quitting may harm or even end the pregnancy.
  37. Chazz Michaels from United States Outlying writes: Breathing in second-hand smoke causes at least 800 deaths in Canadian non-smokers from lung cancer and heart disease every year.

    (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/life-vie/shs-fs-eng.php)

    This article summarizes a study done by Toronto's health department. The study suggests that, as well as 1,000 deaths, poor air quality puts another 5,500 people in hospital annually. The main culprit in all categories was NOx, with carbon monoxide, particulates, sulphur dioxide and ozone all contributing significantly to the health damages.

    (http://info.wlu.ca/~wwwsbe/faculty/rwigle/ec238/news/may-18-00.shtml)

    what is the bigger problem? I feel like everyone has been brainwashed and I am around a bunch of zombies who regurgitate information rather than research and evaluate it merits?
  38. Thora Rasmussen from BC, Canada writes: These studies don't bother to indicate how the success rate of quitting the hard drug was affected by not smoking too. That is very telling, as if it made it easier they would have shouted that from the roof tops. The success rates of rehabs is abismally low, and this will do nothing to improve it. In researching publically funded rehabs for a friend, the only methods available in Canada are the ones with the lowest success rates, and the rehabs that have been closed were the ones that were more successful and did not rely on 12 step. (And yes, I did actually check this out.) There seems to be a push to make the publically funded rehabs be sure to guarantee many return customers, and if banning smoking lowers the success rate, then it will be sure to be pushed. This seems like a negative statement, but it is what I found over the last year and a half, and hundreds of hours of research in finding real cheap or free rehabs for a friend. And don't give the argument that the government doesn't have the money. BILLIONS of dollars is collected on alcohol sales, the people in need of rehab are often paying up to 80% of their income in the form of liquor/cig taxes. It is a disgrace that they will not fund PROPER rehab. The nanny state is not about health. One of its main objectives is making sure it continues to exist, creating jobs for decades for its workers.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top