06-26-2017, 09:56 AM
(06-26-2017, 09:42 AM)SammyOES2 Wrote: I see ijmorlan's point, but I also see the point that hospitals have a duty to provide quality health care to their patients. We don't allow sick patients to have booze on the property. We don't allow them to do (unauthorized) drugs. Sometimes patients aren't allowed to have coffee. All addictions for some people, and all things that the hospital sometimes (or always) needs to restrict in order to provide quality care. So it seems at least reasonable that we don't enable smoking on the property when people are in the care of the hospital. Especially if the hospital can provide remedies to the patient to deal with the addiction while they are admitted.
Its honestly mind boggling to me that non-smoking isn't enforced in transit shelters. Seems like a no brainer 'money-grab' for the city.
Edit: To be clear, if I had the power to make the decision, I don't actually know what way I'd go without looking at a lot more data. But I don't think its obvious that ijmorlan is right or wrong.
While I've never have a nicotine addiction it seems like it's not the kind of thing that you can give up easily, for the day, week, even month, you might be in the hospital---even with nicotine addiction aids. Worse, visiting a hospital is usually a very stressful experience, something which I understand is generally a trigger for people who are addicted to smoking.
There are other reasons for the prohibition against booze which don't apply to cigarettes as well.
As for patients not being allowed coffee, usually that's for a medical reason.
Again, please don't use the term "enable", it's an accommodation for people with an addiction, you can't just stop doing something when you're addicted, no matter how much you may want to. The fact is some will have a physiological need to smoke (this is what a chemical addiction is) and just trying to stop them is unlikely to be successful. Much better to accommodate them in a way which prevents harm to other people through second hand smoke. Providing a tiny glass box outside seems to be a reasonable measure to achieve this.
As for enforcement being a "money-grab"....doubtful, enforcement of this form often barely covers it's costs, and again, keep in mind who you're "grabbing" money from.
This all comes back down to a point in society that we should treat addiction, drugs, etc., as a medical issue not a criminal one. But that's obviously straying very far from transportation policy.