Benefits vs. backlash: Are workplace smoking bans worthwhile?
February 27, 2009 by Jared BilskiPosted in: Benchmarking, Cost cutters, Healthcare, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest news & views, Management issues
Many have touted the benefits of workplace smoking bans, but is it just hype?
And is it worth the backlash it’s sure to cause?
Plus, if you ban smoking at work, won’t staffers just increase their nicotine intake at home?
Probably. But evidence from the Centers for Disease Control suggests ban benefits greatly outweigh any risks. It tracked the progress of a Colorado city for three years after its city-wide smoking ban of indoor workplaces and public spots.
Some key findings: 18 months after the smoking ban took place, heart attacks decreased by 27%. (The city also saw another decrease in heart attacks after 36 months.)
From the first screening to recovery from a bypass, average heart disease cost is slightly over $100,000. If you have any “at-risk” staffers, a workplace smoking ban may be at least worth looking into.
For more details on the study, click here.
CFODailyNews.com delivers the latest Finance news once a week to the inboxes of over 200,000 Finance professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to CFO Daily News!
Tags: Centers for Disease Control, Colorado city smoking ban, Workplace smoking bans
February 27th, 2009 at 11:39 am
After over a year of experience here in Chicago, now that the fanfare has worn off and the lobbyists have moved on to other states, it’s clearly obvious that trying to ban smoking in small neighborhood “shot and beer” bars is pretty useless. Many small bars in my area ignore the ban to keep their customers, neighbors, and local police (many are patrons when off duty) satisfied. In areas where real crime is an issue, the problem of undesirables being attracted by groups of people outside the bars and causing disturbances on the PUBLIC street, property that the owner has no control over, far outweighs the issue of people peacefully smoking inside a bar, bothering absolutly no one, Bars ignoring the ban also result in fewer kids being exposed to more smoke than ever before at home when adults gather at their homes, instead of at a local bar. Having kids exposed to smoke at home just gives the ban fanatics a reason to want to ban smoking in private homes, which is already happening in California. Once started, these bans never stop.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Iowa passed a Workplace Smoking Ban just over a year ago. Most establishments are accepting it. I think it is wonderful! Many flood recovered businesses were happy to reopen smoke free after rebuilding.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Now that the warm weather is here, even non smokers enjoy congregating outside the bars. That is illegal in Chicago, but the ban gives people an excuse to ignore that law, just as many bars are ignoring the ban.
October 12th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Here in California, the ban on smoking in bars, restaurants, public places, and any business with 5 or more employees is widely accepted. When the ban on smoking in bars took place, owners said they were going to go out of business- that never happened. Restaurants are doing well here, at least until the recession started.
Also there is a trend in banning smoking in apartments. A landlord can be sued for the smoke drifting from a smoker’s unit to a non-smoker’s. Smokers units often have holes in the carpets from cigarette burns, and need extra cleaning and painting when the smoker moves out. I work for a company that has 1000+ rental units. We have had one unit burned down and the adjoining units damaged because the tenant was on oxygen- and smoked while connected to an oxygen tank.
So I think that smokers are going to find it harder to find rental units too.
February 15th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Thanks, that is a very good article. I found it via Google and immediately incorporated into my feedreader. I am pleased to soon be back here to read again! Best greets