Pros And Cons Of Restrictive Policies

Tobacco has and still is the most important public health issue faced in Australia and internationally. (Jochelson, 2006). Many countries such as North America, England, Australia, Canada and Ireland have introduced policies regarding smoking in public areas and restriction of smoking in indoor areas. (Thomson, Wilson & Edwards, 2009). The government, community leaders and policy makers work towards introducing policies that will stop consumers from smoking in public areas. (Pizacani, maher, Rohde, Drach & Stark, 2012). Government intervention should extend public smoking bans so that second hand smokers can be safe, a better environment and less death incidents relating to smoking.

The Company’s pledge to provide a safe and healthy work environment bans smoking on Company properties, including but not limited to break areas, bathrooms, and work areas. Employees who smoke will be able to do so only on break and lunch times. They will have to go outside of the Company’s facility in the designated smoking areas on the property.

The consumption of cigarettes negatively impact the health of smokers and nonsmokers exposed. In this section we will focus in the negative heath effects of consumption in smokers. The consequences of tobacco consumption to the health appeared in the early twentieth century. there are published thousands of articles and reviews of this theme and show us that smoking is related with alterations in all organs and systems.

In calculating the economic influence of smoke-free policies and laws, the Surgeon General considered their constructive effect in decreasing health care costs. Utilizing a simulation prototype, the Surgeon General concluded, if all U.S. workplaces implemented an all-inclusive smoke-free policy, it would result in 1.3 million smokers renouncing, 950 million less cigarette packs being smoked, 1,540 heart attacks and 360 strokes being prevented, and $49 million passive medical cost savings being attained within the first year.” The costs saved would increase over time. (American for nonsmoker’s rights,

Smokers face many challenges in the modern world, and one of the biggest happens in the workplace. Many large – and small – employers have taken a strict zero-tolerance approach to smoking in the workplace, and that can literally leave smokers with no place to

Cigarette smoking is the principal form of tobacco use worldwide and has many adverse effects on the health of smokers. In 2000, there were about 5 million tobacco related deaths globally and smoking currently causes almost 1 in 5 deaths in the United States. Aside from causing around 90% of all lung cancer deaths, cigarette smoking harms almost every organ in the body and adversely affects the health of those around the smoker through second-hand smoke. While the rate at which people quit smoking is limited due to the development of nicotine addiction, rates of smoking initiation can be rapidly be changed through intervention. Such interventions include smoke-free policies like that advertised by the “Tobacco-Free Campus” sign pictured

Specifically, implementation of rules is on the overall safety of each and every person within the workplace. Unfortunately, there will be people who feel triumphant and those who feel discriminated against and defeated. The manufacturers, distributors, and retailers who sell tobacco and now the e-cigarette that creates a vapor for the customer, feel defeated as they and the customers continue to receive push-back from those who do not smoke. Allowing the use of e-cigarettes in the workplace creates a double edge knife for the employer. In defense of the e-cigarette user production will not diminish, and the person will be more enjoyable to be around, since they are able to receive their nicotine addiction. On the other hand, for the worker who does not smoke, while there is still evidence Trtchounian, Williams & Talbot (2010) the vapors released from the e-cigarette and the smoke exhaled by the smoker, possess a health risk to others purely on the chemicals used within the e-cigarette. Moreover, further findings indicate the non-cancer exposure of nicotine and propylene glycol still exceed the minimum of 1.0 parts, which creates a health risk for anyone who inhales the smoke exhaled from another person (Offermann, Francis (Bud), 2014). Any time a person’s actions in the workplace can possibly bring pain and

Adriaanse, H., Van Reek, J., Zandbelt, L., & Evers, G. (1991). Nurses' smoking worldwide. A review of 73 surveys on nurses' tobacco consumption in 21 countries in the period 1959-1988. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 28, 361-375.

The issue about smoking in the workplace is important to organizations today because it has direct impact on both smokers and non-smokers. With this issue, it forces organizations to develop smoking policies. If I was the HR director at the castle, the policy

A number of states have passed some sort of law protecting employees from employer discrimination based on legal off-duty conduct, and many of these laws explicitly protect the use of tobacco products (Garcia, 2008). Some health systems have justified this ban under non-profit status, Garicia (2008) explains, smoking is often contrary to the mission of the health system and as non-profit entities, their mission is the key to their success. The opponents of banning smokers for the workforce claim that it provides undue hardship in obtaining or retaining employment (Sulzberger, 2011). While the legal aspect may still be gray in some areas, I find the social aspect already determined. If I were running an HCO, my recommendations would be to follow the plan of no longer hiring smokers, and not allowing smoking on the premises of the hospital, but perhaps grandfathering in the people who already work for the organization. If the HCO were to enact a ban on smoking for all employees, they would certainly need to offer cessation programs free to all current smokers. Not doing so could result in major pushback for the organization. My last recommendation would be to emphasize that the policy is about the effects of smoking and tobacco use, and not the user. Sulzberger (2011) says that this an important aspect of implementing a tobacco ban, this strategy helps employees understand that it’s the not action of smoking but the negative effects it has on both the user and those around

The evidence based practice that drives the article, Nonsmoker and “Nonnicotine” Hiring policies: The implications of Employment Restrictions for Tobacco Control, concludes that hiring policies that prevent applicants from employment for smoking can actually do more harm than good. Ethical concerns include the addictiveness of smoking, exposure to second hand smoke, the use of smoking cessation aids, stigmatism towards smokers, and the prevalence of smoking in the lower socioeconomic class. Research included in the article conducted in the United Kingdom shows that 74% of smokers expressed that they wanted to quit smoking. According to cancer.org only 4% to 7% percent of people who try to quit smoking are successful (“A word about success rates

Introduction: Hi everyone, recently when I walk outside our company and could not help but notice the amount of cigarettes scattered all over our front lawn, a smoke smell that seems to never disappear and there always seems to be people taking smoke breaks polluting up the air. The reason I called for this meeting is to discuss why we should ban smoking on company property and most importantly the benefits that this smoking ban could bring to our company.

Smoking is one of Australia's leading causes of death and illnesses. Smoking claimed 14,900 deaths in 2004-05 alone. Employers should ban employees from smoking during the working day both inside and outside the environment. Smoking is unhygienic, can effect job performance and cause illnesses. If all of these factors are caused by cigarettes why is it still allowed in the workplace environment?

public health is the failure to take an environmental approach to modern day killers such as smoking (Northridge). Such environmental dilemmas are causing a domino effect in government. Economic Impact of exposure to secondhand smoke (2009) demonstrates the political and economic forces campaigning against the growing tobacco industry. Public health’s initiatives in incorporating education and health promotion campaigns have convinced many to resist the urge of smoking. Congress which still provides subsides to tobacco growers are examining evidence of high economic costs paid by government paid programs which include Medicaid and Medicare for the treatment of tobacco caused disease has forced government to question their previous assumption about the economic advantage of supporting the tobacco industry (Schneider,

Thesis Statement: Smoking has many dangerous effects on a smoker 's health and the health of those around them; it harms every organ in the body and leads to premature death.