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

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


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.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe