Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here
What Can I Do?


Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP
Resources
Resources
Find useful publications, online documents & more.


DrugScreening.org


 

All New York Addiction Treatment Centers Go Smoke-Free
July 24, 2008

Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
News Summary

New anti-smoking regulations that take effect this month for all addiction treatment centers in New York state have some center officials worried that the ban will dissuade some people with alcohol and drug problems from pursuing services, the Associated Press reported July 23.

State-operated addiction treatment centers in New York have been smoke-free for more than a decade, but the new regulations now extend the ban to privately operated facilities as well. "Oftentimes smoking was given as a reward in the day-to-day treatment programs, and we need to make sure that we're changing the culture to really promote an overall recovery plan that involves health and wellness for the optimal chance for recovery," said Karen Carpenter-Palumbo, commissioner of the state Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services (OASAS).

But some treatment program officials, while acknowledging the appropriateness of the state's health-driven policy stance, worry that the no-exceptions approach could make some addicts hesitant to pursue treatment. "We don't know how many people will leave, if any at all will leave," said Roy Kearse, vice president of residential services at Samaritan Village in Queens.

Treatment facilities have been given a six-month grace period during which their level of success in enforcing the ban will not have a bearing on their state certification status. Facilities also will have leeway to determine when a patient's violation of the rules must result in the person's removal from the facility.

Robert Doherty, executive director of St. Peter's Addiction Recovery Center at Albany, said his facility experienced few problems with the change since it decided more than two years ago to go smoke-free -- before the law required it. "It's a more healthy approach to providing care," Doherty said.

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by Jim Sharp on 12 Aug 08 08:21 PM EDT
All this whining about banning tobacco! Treatment centers have been banning marijuana, alcohol, coacaine, etc., for ages - why should tobacco be different? The dire results feared by commenters are not supported by research or the experience of those who been down this road. Ask yourselves if your concerns are valid or if they are the disease of addiction once again raising its ugly head saying, "Let me keep this one, it's not so bad!"

Posted by Captain America on 08 Aug 08 12:32 PM EDT
I'm 22 years sober, addiction counselor and Freedom From Smoking facilitator. I suggest that a more moderate approach be taken. During my first year sober I didn't get a new job, new relationship or go back to college. I needed to stabilize my recovery from my drug of choice, alcohol. Later I worked on each of the others. Smoking in middle and late stage recovery is not healthy. Forcing people to stop smoking is the treatment agency's problem not the client's. Addicts should not be punished for acting like addicts. The purpose of government is to help those who can't help themselves. Legislating health related behavior, usually fails (Prohibition). This is a huge diversion for every alcoholic and addict in treatment. They may never have another opportunity to get treatment for their drug of choice again. They may die, because of a policy. Let the smoking be a long term goal like weight loss, or getting a GED. If the length of treatment is insufficient, fix it. Give time time. How many of us got clean and sober on the first attempt ? Have we forgotten about progress rather than perfection ? Have we ignored the concerns of money, power and prestige around this issue?

Posted by Susan on 03 Aug 08 11:10 AM EDT
While the NYS regulation does read as Mr. Sorvino writes, in actuality, most if not all community residential treatment centers have banned smoking entirely for the duration of the patient's treatment. This includes while outside the residence, e.g. at 12 Step Meetings, on weekend passes, while going to appointments, etc. This encourages an atmosphere of sneaking, lying, and "telling on peers" by the patients. Again I ask, What is our mission?

Posted by The Arizona Connection on 29 Jul 08 11:14 PM EDT
As the times move toward good heath we may need to consider were we stand. Good job! New york...Good Heath or continued suffering. Make your choice.

Posted by Anonymous on 29 Jul 08 05:17 PM EDT
Shocked by the random cruelty and negative effects of the New York policy . Being sorely disappointed in the flat affect of JoinTogether.org’s summarization, I turned to the original article by AP The original article explicitly argued that such a policy would have negative effects and the journalist’s outrage at such a ridiculous policy was obvious. I began to question the intentions, intelligence and integrity of both JoinTogether.org and its readers, in that most of them thought that this is somehow a good idea! Although I am disappointed in the lack of hutzpa by JoinTogether.org in not pointing out the many obvious flaws in the policy, I am even more disheartened at the comments. Kudos for one shout out for Harm Reduction policies, but I don’t believe that creating a cigarette smoking ban while trying to focus on more critical issues will separate those who are “serious” about recovering from illegal drug abuse.

Posted by Silva on 29 Jul 08 02:10 PM EDT
Congrats! New York may be the only state with the integrity to ban all caffeine products as well! Drug free means drug free! With the right motivation, we can impose huge changes!

Posted by David S on 29 Jul 08 01:45 PM EDT
Medical Association aside, did Bill W. smoke? Did Dr. Bob smoke? In the very beginning, how many alcoholics quit drinking for good and enjoyed a life with spiritual principles, while smoking? Program of attraction means fewer resentments and we know about those, amen?

Posted by Paul Radkowski on 28 Jul 08 01:51 PM EDT
I believe the client to have a choice, to go to an entirely smoke free facility (that is hopefully still close, accessible to them etc) or go to a non-smoke ban facility where they are inclined to work on their "presenting concern" and then once in treatment we as clinicians are in a place to also address/educate the client to the concerns of nicotine dependence. I would like to see the research... I see two primary outcomes.... attract the more "committed" client with this ban... however at the very real and possible expense of losing the client (ie refusing treatment) reluctant to address nicotine addiction and have them "feel" turned away and not go through the treatment centre door because they are not in a place to give up that habit yet....? It seems a question of which is the lesser "evil" (ie "harm reduction")??

Posted by Paul Radkowski on 28 Jul 08 01:49 PM EDT
I certainly get the positive intention of this policy and the interest of "harm reduction" from nicotine, but at the expense of losing the more contemplative (or pre-contemplative) client who will resist treatment (more so) because of a zero tolerance ban? I get that the success rate may be higher (for some) of those addicted who endorse the ban and wilfully go into a centre knowing they will not be allowed to smoke, I'm guessing these folks are more in the "action phase" in terms of stage of change and more committed in their recovery. My focus is in getting the person through the door and address the more immediate and life threatening substances the client is coming in for.

Posted by Anon on 28 Jul 08 11:35 AM EDT
Arthur R. Vinsel said: "The Surgeon General's Report cites a far higher mortality rate among nonsmokers in this group." I would be really, really interested to see a full citation for that. I'll bet there isn't one.

Posted by Bob Savino on 28 Jul 08 10:45 AM EDT
The NYS regulation requires that all addiction centers,whether they be detox, rehab, community residences or outpatient become tobacco free. This means no tobacco or tobacco use of any kind on its grounds, in its building, and in any vehicles. It does not mean the the persons who use these services must stop smoking. It just means that while they are engaged in receiving addiction services at a NYS licensed facility they cannot use or possess tobacco or tobacco products. As a treatment provider in NYS, I welcome this change in policy and hope it will promote a healthier, sober lifestyle for our clients.

Posted by Arthur R. Vinsel on 26 Jul 08 10:03 PM EDT
I am a journalist, writer and devoted, but moderate pipesmoker, sober 18 years and media relations aide at a respected Los Angeles nonprofit social model recovery program. Our 120 men (19 to 68) may choose to smoke, in designated areas. Cessation is encouraged: hypnosis, gum, patches, support group. Peer counseling is key here at Beacon House. Many cease cigarettes, seeing friends quit. We stress maturity and growing wisdom as gifts of sobriety. Banning all smoking is a throwback to reform school-style zero tolerance, dictated too often by holier-than-thou minorities. You can bet it creates blueprints for a resentment factory and divisive climate. Here, reason, tolerance and reluctance to create issues where common sense already guide and inform our actions. Provided a program doesn't furnish tobacco and clients observe rules and courtesy, this should be enough. We are sober men, not children. I don't inhale, but enjoy my occasional pipe rituals as a fulfilling, meditative comfort. I'm 67, in sound cardiovascular health. The Surgeon General's Report cites a far higher mortality rate among nonsmokers in this group.

Posted by Susan on 26 Jul 08 10:26 AM EDT
No one would argue that smoking is good for you, or that it is not addicting. That said, if I had been told I was required to quit not only alcohol but also cigarettes, I definitely would not have entered treatment six years ago and I would not be sober today. I was rapidly killing myself, and potentially others, with alcohol, and I am grateful that there was a wonderful NYS facility for women that helped me understand my disease and how to change my life. I never received a "DWS"; however, three DWIs were more than enough. I have worked in an addiction treatment center for four years and have watched women who truly desired sobriety fail because we "set them up" to fail. Perhaps the concept of Harm Reduction should be considered for nicotine addiction. The idea that "a drug is a drug is a drug" is ill-conceived and not supported by research. I urge Commission Carpenter-Palumbo, who hails from the American Cancer Society, to reconsider.

Posted by Jim Sharp on 25 Jul 08 09:00 PM EDT
Tobacco kills more alcoholics and drug addicts than alcohol and drugs do. Having run a NYS addiction treatment center and been among the first to go tobacco free (1996), I am happy to report that, after some initial disruption, our census remained high, our completion rate increased, and our successful transition of patients from inpatient to outpatient was the highest in the state. We don't make exceptions for other drugs, why should tobacco be different?

Posted by John from Oceanside on 25 Jul 08 11:14 AM EDT
The article does not address outdoor smoking is this banned also? I used to think it was crazy to address tobacco and drugs and alcohol together. Then seven years into my recovery I decided to quit smoking. It was as hard as quitting the drugs and alcohol. It would have been easier to lump it all together and be crazy all at once. I wouldn't have known which substance I was missing. I now have been clean and sober 22 years and 15 smoke-free. But nicotine is a very nasty drug to stop using, because like Peter said it hard to see the short term consequences. I recently lost my brother to lung cancer and he had quit smoking when I quit using. He thought if I could change my life and stop using he could stop smoking. To every former smoker demand a chest x-ray when you get a physical, it would have saved my brothers life. He had a physical one year before they found the cancer and they didn't do a chest e-ray, by the time they found it, it was to late. Please take care of yourselves.

Posted by Peter O'Loughlin on 25 Jul 08 09:27 AM EDT
A great way to deter those who need treatment from seeking it. Why can't they just focus on one thing at a time. Yes, we all know the problems smoking causes, but smokers do no die as early as opiate addicts. Nor does smoking bore holes in the brain, or increase propensity for violence I have yet to meet a smoker who felt obliged to rob, or cheat to feed their habit

Posted by Laura on 25 Jul 08 08:56 AM EDT
Congratulations New York for taking this brave step. I think it's way overdue and I hope the rest of the states (including Ohio) adopt the same policy too.

Your Turn! Post a public comment (read guidelines):

Name:

Comment:
(limit 200
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

GUIDELINES: 
To keep this feature useful for everyone, please:

  1. Keep it clean, courteous, focused, and on-topic. Comments are meant for thoughtful discussion of the article published above.

  2. Do not post personal requests for help or general promotions for your organization (Get help).

  3. Proof your comments carefully, use good spelling and punctuation, and don't use ALL CAPS. Comments are published immediately and cannot be edited.

Deceptive, slanderous and commercially-motivated posts are prohibited. We reserve the right to remove comments not conforming to these guidelines. (Report a comment).

Have questions or feedback? Contact us.