Tobacco.org

Quitting smoking cuts health costs 

Offering resources to help employees quit smoking can improve wellness, increase corporate moral and reduce health-care costs to employers.

Employees who smoke will cost businesses in direct health-care costs including more visits to health-care facilities, more hospital admissions and higher average insurance premiums. The indirect health-care costs amount to a loss in productivity in increased absenteeism.

Some things to think about during Lung Cancer Awareness and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Awareness month.

Fact: Smoking is the single largest preventable cause of disease and premature death.

Fact: Tobacco-related diseases kill 438,000 Americans annually. . . .

n Louisiana Tobacco Quitline at (800) QUIT NOW.

n Quit With Us, La at www.QuitWithUsLA.org.

The LSU Tobacco Control Initiative also offers programs at Leonard J. Chabert Medical Center in Houma, 873-2499; Assumption Community Hospital, 369-3600; and Terrebonne General Medical Center, 876-7577.

Jump to full article »

Delhi University campaign now targets beedi smokers 

The Delhi University Smoke-Free Initiative, after being extended to all DU colleges, has now turned its focus to beedis, as its usage among the youth is increasing.

The primary target of the campaign against beedis, however, would be the non-teaching staff. Beedis were the main agenda in a meeting of nodal officers of the project on October 25.

Every college of the university has a member of the faculty assigned as the nodal officer.

"We'll be targeting karamcharis (workers), who form a significant chunk of the university population. A large number of karamcharis smoke beedis. It has also been noted that rickshaw-pullers, who form the backbone of the DU transport system smoke beedis," said G R Khatri, president, World Lung Foundation (South Asia).

"Nodal officers have been asked to educate smokers that beedis are no less harmful than cigarettes," said Khatri.

"Cutting the source rather than a smoking ban is the aim of the project; and we have been largely successful in doing so. We'll discourage non-teaching staff from smoking on campus," said St Stephen's nodal officer Pankaj Misra.

Jump to full article »

• Anti-smoking laws being violated  

Smokers violating the law of complete ban on tobacco use at work and public places have still continued this practice in the federal capital. Citizens complained that after withdrawal of Statutory Rules and Orders (SRO), all public and work places have become smoke-free, therefore, smokers should not be allowed smoking or using tobacco in any other form in any public place.

They said individuals and offices are clearly violating the ordinance. They said complete implementation of law would help protect the health of non-smokers and make the smokers abiders of the concerned laws.

It is pertinent to mention here that earlier, all public and private offices were allowed to designate a separate place for smokers to smoke within office premises with adequate arrangements to protect the health of non-smokers.

However, such permission was being misused

Jump to full article »

CHILDERS: Gavel to Gavel: Up in smoke  

It is easy to get caught up in the anti-smoking movement and assume that smokers in the workplace have no protection. However, that assumption would be a mistake, especially in Oklahoma.

Interestingly, in Oklahoma those who choose to use tobacco products do have certain rights conferred upon them by the Oklahoma Legislature. Specifically, 40 O.S. §500 states that “It shall be unlawful for an employer to: (1) discharge any individual, or otherwise disadvantage any individual, with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because the individual is a nonsmoker or smokes or uses tobacco products during non-working hours; or (2) require as a condition of employment that any employee or applicant for employment abstain from smoking or using tobacco products during nonworking hours.”

This statutory language means that while Oklahoma employers can establish anti-smoking rules, they cannot hold it against employees who choose to use tobacco during nonwork hours or on noncompany property. So, refusing to hire an applicant because he or she smokes is prohibited. Likewise, taking an adverse action against an existing employee because it is learned he or she smokes is prohibited.

Where it really gets tricky is with anti-smoking campaigns by employers that encourage and incentivize employees to quit smoking. . . .

Bottom line, the anti-smoking movement is here to stay and efforts by Oklahoma employers to void their workplaces of tobacco use are largely supported. However, you would do well to remember that smoking employees in Oklahoma are not without any rights

Jump to full article »

• Smoking debate sparks new row 

Smokers are being told to stub it out in their OWN homes before any visit by council staff. The move by Moyle District Council is designed to protect employees from exposure to second-hand smoke.

But it was slammed as "ludicrous" last night by lobby group Forest, who warned other local authorities across Northern Ireland were likely to follow suit.

The smoking ban, introduced in May 2006, covers all enclosed public places as well as the workplace.

But the legislation did not include any reference to extending it to people's homes.

The new policy in Moyle, which covers areas including Ballycastle, Cushendun and Bushmills, stipulates:

"Where council employees are required to work or visit other premises that are not entirely smoke-free, all reasonable arrangements will be made to minimise exposure to second-hand smoke.

Jump to full article »

Kelantan govt may not promote staff who smoke 

KOTA BARU: The PAS government is studying the possibility of penalising state government servants by not promoting them if they are smokers.

State Women's Development, Family and Health committee chairman Wan Ubaidah Omar said the government was serious in getting the masses to quit smoking.

"The federal and state governments have done a lot to discourage people from smoking and it may be time to take punitive measures," said Wan Ubaidah during the State Legislative Assembly meeting in Kota Darul Naim yesterday.

Wan Ubaidah (PAS-Kijang) said this in response to a supplementary question from Abdul Fattah Harun (PAS-Bukit Tuku) who suggested penalising civil servants in line with the proposal by Kelantan Mentri Besar Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat that PAS leaders who smoked not be given a chance to contest in any general election.

Jump to full article »

Govt amends 'workplace' clause  

While Government is seeking a complete ban on smoking in public and workplaces, it wants to make sure that private residences are not captured in the Tobacco bill which has penalties ranging from a $10,000 fine to $500,000 fine and imprisonment.

Government has therefore amended the definition of workplace to specify it only includes homes "where such residences or vehicles are also used for commercial purposes".

Speaking in the Tobacco bill in the Senate yesterday, Health Minister Jerry Narace stated: "This amendment is to ensure that the definition of workplace does not capture domestic workers, as our policy is not to make private residents subject to this Bill, other than when such residences are used for commercial purposes". . . .

Under the bill there would be a complete ban on smoking in public transportation terminals, workplaces, retail establishments, including bars, restaurants and shopping malls, clubs, cinemas, concert halls, sports facilities, pool and bingo halls, publicly owned facilities rented out for events; and any other facilities that are accessible to the public.

The bill also prohibits any person from smoking within 15 metres of any place that caters primarily to children, such as schools, children's playgrounds and amusement parks.

The bill also prohibits the publicising of the name of a sponsoring entity where tobacco sponsorships, tobacco advertising and promotion are present. "As such, tobacco companies are permitted to sponsor events but they cannot take any overt credit for such sponsorship," Narace said.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Health incentives 

The State Employees Health Plan is about to reward people who take better care of their own health with lower costs. Those who smoke, or who are obese, will pay more. Beginning July 1, 2010, the 600,000 state employees, retirees and teachers in the plan will be enrolled in either of two packages. In one, they will pay 20 percent of their medical costs. In the other, 30 percent. Also starting that day, smokers will be enrolled in the more expensive program. . . .

North Carolina is not breaking new ground here. It is doing what is smart for both its workers and its taxpayers. Other states already differentiate in their health-care coverage based on smoking.

SEANC may not get very far claiming that testing for tobacco use is an invasion of privacy. At many state offices, state employees are allowed smoke breaks. . . .

Programs exist to help employees with both smoking and obesity.

In the future, if individual state employees choose not to take care of themselves, that is their own business only to an extent. While the program may seem harsh to some, state employees are using a plan that costs taxpayers billions of dollars a year, and those taxpayers have a right to expect that employees will help keep costs down. They can do so either by living healthfully or by paying a little extra.

Jump to full article »

• Could smoking cost you a job?  

The cost of being a smoker

Employers pay in excess of 70% of the total cost of health insurance premiums each year. They also carry the additional burden of health-related absenteeism and reduced productivity.

With so much money at stake, it is no surprise that employers are increasingly looking beyond insurance company negotiations for ways to cut these expenses. Rightly or wrongly, many are turning now to another primary source of rising health care costs: workers themselves.

The facts are simple: Lifestyle choices, particularly those related to eating and smoking, play a major role in the development of chronic diseases, which in turn account for some 75% of all health care spending in the United States.

For example, smokers' health care costs run about 40% higher than nonsmokers' costs. Preventable illnesses caused by smoking and obesity annually account for more than $100 billion in overall health care spending -- and some experts estimate that smoke breaks and smoking-related absences cost employers an aditional $100 billion in lost productivity every year.

So it's no surprise that some employers want to exclude smokers and overeaters from their payrolls and, by association, from their health plans. Is it legal for them to do so? As is so often the case with any question of law, the answer is: It depends.

Jump to full article »

• No Country for Smokers 

While the omnipresent electronic gaming and casinos in Montana don’t appear to be going anywhere, the iconic smokey barrooms of that state are now just a memory. On Oct. 1, Montana became the most recent state to prohibit smoking indoors of all public places. Bars across Montana have scrambled, several news outlets reported, to concoct new ways to provide alternative smoking areas, by putting chairs and heaters in adjacent garages, or even building makeshift “butt huts” outside.

The Wyoming state legislature, meanwhile, has declined to touch the issue, with few indications it might pick it up in the forseable future. Some have suggested the influence of tobacco lobbyists in Cheyenne is to blame. But others, including a state representative involved in the smoking issue in Teton County, say Wyoming legislators are politically hardwired to avoid what they perceive is over-governing, which would include passing a statewide smoking ban. Legislators have decided instead to let individual communities decide whether to implement local smoking bans.

So when the Teton District Board of Health took it upon itself in March to pass a county-wide rule that would prohibit smoking inside public places, with an exception or two, it followed a few other communities that have passed some kind of smoking ban. Cheyenne, Evanston and Green River have adopted smoking rules (yet bars are exempted in Green River), but no other county health board in the state has taken on smoking, according to county attorney Keith Gingery.

A lawsuit filed soon after the vote put the ban on hold, allowing people to keep lighting up in the Virginian, which happens to be the only bar in the valley that has not voluntarily prohibited smoking. The owners of the Virginian Saloon and three other organizations are challenging the ban. . . .

In her decision, Judge Guthrie will weigh whether the smoking ban meets equal protection laws, which state that a law must be evenly applied to everyone. Freudenthal argues the smoking rule should be struck down in part because it forbids employees from smoking in company-owned vehicles. . . .

The judge could rule on the case sometime in the first months of 2010, Gingery said.

Until then, smokers will continue to light up in the Virginian, where, according to some, cigarette smoke is as much a part of the atmosphere as the jukebox, the shake-a-shift and the baskets of free popcorn available at the bar. A smokey bar is an increasingly rare site in America, but it remains to be seen whether its time has come for Jackson Hole. One thing is clear: some form of public smoking ban found today in all but 14 states, including Wyoming, the spark of community bans across the state, and the dominance of voluntary smoke-free policies locally, has spelled out the shift against smoking in general.

“I think some people are already saying ‘Why didn’t we do it here sooner?’” Blue said.

Jump to full article »

The Real Villain of Halloweentime at Disneyland 

This year at Disneyland, HalloweenTime is full of pumpkins, candy, new fireworks, attraction layovers, villains, and cigarette smoke. Yes, that’s right, cigarette smoke. The powers-that-be have put the Disney villains this year in a character walk in front of it’s a small world. In previous years, this would be a wonderful location. The line for it’s a small world isn’t as prohibitive as it will be for Christmas, there is ample room to make a line for a character meet n’ greet, and there are even trees around to offer some respite from what has been scorching sun. The downside is what is right behind the small backdrops they have made for Disney’s villains.

Fantasyland’s smoking section is located several yards away, close enough that smoke regularly wafts into the character location. It is also close enough that guests could be heard complaining about it in the park on Sunday. It is even close enough that one Cast Member had to be removed from this location when the smoke caused this person to have an asthma attack.

This is a problem that needs to be addressed. . . .

Within the Disneyland Resort, smoking is relegated to specific smoking areas. However when the smoking areas and an attraction or queue end up sharing air, there is a safety and comfort issue for the majority of guests and cast members who are not smokers. . . .

Disney has made great strides in past years in dealing with the smoking issue. This could have just been a case where the ramifications of the proximity of the characters to the smoking section weren’t thought through all the way. Now that a problem exists and has been recognized, it is time to fix it. Hopefully, this fix will come swiftly. The health of the Cast Members who work so hard daily to make magic for the families that visit must be vigorously protected so that Disneyland remains as healthy and safe as it is fun “for all who come to this happy place.”

DAPs Magic emailed the Disneyland Press Office but did not receive a response for comment on this story.

Jump to full article »

NBCH Releases Findings on Tobacco Cessation Efforts of Health Plans 

Tobacco cessation is one of the most cost-effective activities an employer can implement to improve the health and productivity of their employees while reducing health care costs. To help employers in this effort, the non-profit National Business Coalition on Health today released its report on health plan performance related to tobacco cessation. The report finds that health plans are playing an important role in administering smoking cessation benefits and encouraging physicians and other providers to focus on smoking cessation through education, tools, and incentives.

Using data from the eValue8(TM) Request for Information (RFI) tool which examines current health plan performance for a variety of areas including tobacco cessation, the report illustrates how employers can leverage health plan services to help their employees to quit smoking. NBCH's eValue8 is the nation's leading standardized RFI tool used by employers and coalitions to measure and compare health plan performance from more than 100 health plans and health insurers. Over 100 million Americans, or two in every three Americans insured through an employer, are members of health plans that respond to eValue8. Publicly available, the report can be accessed on NBCH's website.

eValue8 establishes benchmarks, along with specific performance scores of health plans which are then used by employers and

Jump to full article »

Workplace study: 45% of food-service workers smoke  

If you break smokers down by their occupations, the workers who are most likely to smoke are in the food-service industry, says a report from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Out of all U.S. full-time employees ages 18 to 64, more than 33.6 million (28% of the total) smoked cigarettes in the past month. Yet almost 45% of food-service workers reported smoking cigarettes in that time.

Construction workers and miners are the second-highest group with a rate of 42.9%.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, those who work in education, training and library fields are least likely to be smokers; their rate is 12.3%. . . .

The study could make the workplace an ideal place to educate the public on the dangers of smoking, the leading cause of preventable death in the USA, says Peter Delany, director of the substance abuse agency's Office of Applied Studies.

Jump to full article »

Fine reveals smoking laws hazy for truckers 

The fining of an Ontario truck driver for smoking in his rig has sparked questions about discrepancies between provincial and federal smoking laws, and what steps law officials must take in enforcing them.

Essex County Ontario Provincial Police pulled over a truck on Highway 401 near Windsor at about noon on Wednesday after the 48-year-old driver was seen smoking.

Some truckers say it's ridiculous that they can't smoke in their cabs and think their industry is already regulated enough. (Sandy Tymczak/CBC News)

He was fined under the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, a 2006 law that prohibits smoking in enclosed workplaces and public areas such as bars and restaurants.

Jump to full article »

Ont. man fined $305 for smoking in workplace - his truck 

Ontario's transportation minister was surprised by the first charge laid in the province against a trucker for smoking in his rig but the province's health promotion minister hopes the incident will help convince more people to butt out.

Ontario Provincial Police pulled over a truck on Highway 401 near Windsor on Wednesday when the driver was seen smoking.

Police handed out a $305 ticket because the truck is his workplace and smoking is prohibited at all workplaces in Ontario.

That's the way the law is supposed to work, said Health Promotion Minister Margarett Best.

Jump to full article »