2(Photo: Jeff T. Green/Getty Images)Public-housing residents in Philadelphia are getting a breath of fresh air: A new study presents evidence that a 2015 policy by the Philadelphia Housing Authority has led to lowered levels of second-hand smoke in the city’s public housing communities.“We can with confidence say that the policy can explain at least part of our findings,” says lead researcher Ann Klassen, a professor at Drexel University.“We really can’t think of another plausible explanation.”The risks of second-hand smoke exposure are well documented: Each year about 3,000 lung-cancer deaths in the United States are a result of second-hand smoke exposure.Following a suggestion by the Department of Housing and Urban Development in 2009, housing authorities across the U.S.have been issuing smoking bans in shared public-housing spaces.But these bans haven’t addressed smoking in the homes of public-housing residents, and that’s a real issue for public health, as cigarette smoke has been shown to drift throughout a public-housing community.The Philadelphia Housing Authority took this policy a step further, and, in 2015, banned smoking across public-housing communities, affecting shared spaces and private residences.To determine the effectiveness of the 2015 policy, Klassen and her team at Drexel conducted a series of surveys and nicotine monitorings both before and after the smoke-free policy implementation.“The culture of tobacco use in the communities has begun to shift in a positive direction.”Klassen and her team placed nicotine monitors in 132 common areas across various public-housing communities in Philadelphia in 2013 and 2014, and then again in 2016, after the policy went into effect.

Monitors were placed in shared public spaces such as laundry rooms, lounges, hallways, and entryways for seven to 14 days.After retrieval each year, monitors were assessed for second-hand smoke by a laboratory at John Hopkins University.Looking at data from 2013, before Philadelphia issued its all-encompassing smoking ban policy, Klassen and her colleagues show that as much as two micrograms of nicotine per cubic meter of air — the equivalent of six to 10 cigarettes — was detected in public-housing common areas.This high exposure endangers populations that rely on public housing, such as low-income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities.Turning to data from 2016, their findings indicate that the amount of detected nicotine in shared public spaces was reduced by almost half after the ban was enacted.In 2013, they found an average of 0.44 micrograms of nicotine per cubic meter in public-housing community air; one year after the policy, in 2016, that number dropped to 0.23 micrograms.“The culture of tobacco use in the communities has begun to shift in a positive direction because there’s so much less second-hand smoke in the air, so the number of people who violate the rules and smoke in the hallways and laundry rooms has gone down,” Klassen says.Researchers find this especially promising given the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development’s announcement last year that it will require public-housing authorities across the U.S.

to implement similar smoke-free policies by 2018, banning smoking in both shared and private spaces.Smokers seem to favor this policy too.It appears public-housing residents will be able to breathe a deep, clear sigh of relief.Medical doctors are supposed to adhere to the age-old principle of medicine: “Above all, do no harm.” However, it appears some that physicians don’t follow that mantra anymore.This week, Dr. Rima Himelstein of Philadelphia wrote an opinion piece about electronic cigarettes detailing all the reasons why should would give e-cigs a failing grade.e cigarette ampérageMost of her argument was predictable and relatively boring.e cigarette 700 puffsCan’t these e-cig opponents come up with anything original?boutique ecigarette 93

Let’s take a look at why Dr. Himelstein decided to declare e-cigs a fail and look at the actual truth behind her statements.Her first big argument centers on the National Youth Tobacco Survey and interestingly enough, she doesn’t even get the numbers right.Himelstein pointed out that e-cig use among teenagers doubled from 2011 to 2012.She mentioned that 1 out of 100 teens had used an e-cig in the previous month and 3 out of 100 teens used an e-cig in the month before that.e cigarette benzeneIn reality, she took the survey numbers out of context.e cigarette business for saleThe actual data looked at only the previous month’s usage and never even measured the month before that.e cigarette barnInstead, it looked at whether teens had ever used e-cigs at any point in the past.

Next, Himelstein reports that e-cigs don’t help people quit smoking.She said, “Although e-cigarettes have been promoted to help people quit smoking, there is no scientific evidence for this claim.” That’s an interesting point, but the problem is that it’s a complete and total lie.There have been numerous studies on whether e-cigs were effective for smoking cessation.In November 2011, the University of Catania followed smokers over a six-month period as they tried e-cigarettes for smoking cessation purposes.By the end of the trial, nearly a quarter had completely quit smoking and over half had reduced cigarette consumption by at least 50 percent.Last year, Dr. Richard Polosa published his study on e-cigs for smoking cessation.He chose participants that were not interested in giving up cigarettes at all and gave them e-cigarettes to use for one year.At the end of the trial, he found that after one year, nearly 9 percent of smokers quit completely even though they never intended to give up cigarettes in the first place.

Dr. Himelstein’s next angle is based on health.She claims that e-cigs have cancer-causing chemicals and harps on the dangers of nicotine.She stoops to the typical, “It’s bad for you” argument and totally ignores the fact that e-cigarettes are designed to eliminate the harmful carcinogens that smokers inhale by replacing the toxic smoke with a tobacco-free vapor.While the nicotine in some e-cigarettes does carry some degree of health risk, it is comparable to the dangers of caffeine exposure, but we are not outlawing coffee and Red Bull, right?Next, she points out that e-cigs are easily accessible to minors and give them dangerous access to nicotine.While it is true that many states have not yet outlawed the sell of e-cigs among minors, we have never encountered any e-cig shops or brands that will sell products to people under age 18.Kids access e-cigs in the same way they access regular cigarettes and alcohol.They make it a habit to seek out the things they are not supposed to try.

That’s just what kids do.However, there is no reason to eliminate all the positive change that e-cigs can offer for the adult smoking population just because rebellious teens try to get them covertly.If that was the case, we need to also fully ban all tobacco products and even alcohol.Her final argument against e-cigarettes is bogus.“Using e-cigarettes can kill,” she claims.Himelstein bases this point on the fact that the nicotine in a standard e-cig cartridge could be fatal to kids.However, the same could be said for the bottle of liquor in a lot of kitchens around the world.It’s more about parental responsibility than dangerous products.At the simplest, e-cigarettes are meant to be a life saver, not a killer.When doctors like Rima Himelstein call vaping products deadly, they violate the very oath they took to protect the public.Bashing e-cigarettes is doing great harm to smokers all over the world.Why are doctors trying so hard to convince smokers e-cigs are deadly before they ever have a chance to use them?