Addiction Centers Should Think Twice Before Banning Smoking
Trying to get drug addicts to quit drugs and smoking at the same time may drive them out of a program prematurely. Christopher Intagliata reports
SUBSCRIBE TO Science Quickly
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
It’s not news that tobacco’s bad for your health—nearly half a million Americans die from tobacco-related illnesses every year. And among people who abuse drugs and alcohol, more than three-quarters use tobacco, which means tobacco is still the leading killer of the drug-dependent, not hard drugs.
So instituting a tobacco ban at rehab centers would seem like a no-brainer. But it’s not so clear cut, according to a study of an Ohio center for addiction treatment. The center imposed a smoking ban. And in the following months, the number of users who completed rehab dropped nearly in half. In addition, both smokers and non-smokers stuck with the program for fewer days than they had before the ban. That study appears in the Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions. [Gretchen Clark Hammond and Thomas Gregoire, "Breaking Ground in Treating Tobacco Dependence at a Women's Treatment Center"]
The researchers aren’t discouraging treatment centers from trying tobacco bans. Because previous studies do indicate that quitting tobacco and hard drugs at the same time ups the odds patients will stay clean in the long run. But as this study points out, even a well-meaning ban on tobacco may sometimes push away the very people who treatment centers are trying to help.
—Christopher Intagliata
[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
