Letter: More help to quit

“Over the next month, Colleges Against Cancer will be surveying Yale Dining employees to estimate the costs smoking imposes on Yale from the time lost due to smoke breaks…”

While you’re at it, why not estimate the costs eating imposes as well? (especially excessive eating and little between-meal snack breaks)

How dare those workers take brief breaks throughout the day! All of Yale is suffering because of this imposed non-productivity.

I think Yale should not just be tobacco free but also alcohol free!!!!!!

Guys, this isn’t actually such a revolutionary or absurd idea. Many other institutions, such as Stanford and UVA, already have such smoking cessation programs in place. We’re not rewarding anyone for being “stupid” – we’re trying to help people become healthy, regardless of their circumstance. Addiction is hard to overcome without assistance, and many people don’t have access to the smoking cessation tools that would help them quit. Pierson 90, I understand that you may not think that the economic aspect of smoking breaks are that important, but smoking breaks are not analogous to “eating breaks” at all…First of all, you actually have to go outside for longer periods of time to smoke, and people who are addicted feel the need to take more breaks than they would otherwise. I’m not saying that dining hall workers shouldn’t take breaks – but showing the economic costs of such breaks may be one of the most effective ways of getting Yale on our side. It’s just one of those unfortunate truths. This is obviously not the only argument for changing the health plan, as Avi stated in his letter. This is one of the many approaches that CAC is going to take toward the end goal, to show all sides of the issue.

Much of the buzz in healthcare reform debate has centered on and emphasized preventative care (ie: increasing compensation to pediatricians/other primary care physicians, decreasing/eliminating co-pays for preventative visits, increasing access to preventative tests such as mammograms, colonoscopies, etc)
Subsidizing smoking cessation is another way of decreasing future costs to the already over-burdened system and supporting healthy lifestyle choices. You aren’t paying people who smoke to quit, just simply helping to provide them with the means necessary to do so. Employers all over the US have recognized the benefits to such programs and have adopted them successfully. It’s time for Yale to get on board.

Regardless of whether or not starting to smoke in the first place was a mistake, if people in the Yale community want to stop smoking the University should support that endeavor in any way possible. Not only will it save the University money, which CAC intends to demonstrate through the surveys, but it will also save people’s lives. Personal financial limitations should not stop Yale employees and students from being able to protect their own health and the health of those around them.

Even if this article was intended just to focus on the Medical School, it doesn’t have to be that narrow. It is a campus wide problem, and one that can be, at least in part, addressed through the subsidization of smoking cessation by the Yale Health Plan.

I just wish that the comments pages would be used as a forum for frank, yet respectful discussions. This should be a place for meaningful conversation in an effort to better the Yale community, not to be sarcastic and attack others. I just hope that cancersucks and BK ’13 can be more civil to one another when talking about issues of such importance. Maybe an open debate with professors in the relevant fields might be an order? Best wishes to everyone.

I think Avi presents a solution that strikes a careful balance between ostracizing smokers and providing a supportive avenue for recovery.
Smoking is a choice which leads to myriad health problems that Yalies are well aware of. It’s addictive power has been compared to that of cocaine and other illegal drugs. That it remains legal is an enigma of politics.
Nevertheless, it is our duty to respect the choices of those who smoke, including the choice to quit. That crucial latter choice is often inhibited by the kinds of economic and social disincentives that could be combatted by a Yale policy supporting aid in cessation.
This is quite patently not a distribution of money to smokers as opposed to non-smokers, or a discrimination against smokers as opposed to a discrimination against the obese or overweight. This is at once an exercise of the kind of preventative medicine that will form the cornerstone of tomorrow’s health care reform and an affirmation of the human will to overcome chemical addiction.