2013 H Street, NW / Washington,
DC 20006 / (202) 659-4310
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) has often been asked to suggest the steps a college or university should take in establishing programs addressing the problems of smoking, and particularly the effect of ambient or secondhand smoke on nonsmokers. Before any steps are taken, faculty, staff, administrators, and even students should be educated as to the problems smoking poses for nonsmokers.
ASH proposes the following steps:
1) The first step in any program relating to work place smoking should be education, and that this would be true particularly for institutions of higher learning. Many nonsmokers do not realize that in addition to being an annoyance and irritant, ambient tobacco smoke presents very serious health hazards. For many Americans with a wide variety of medical conditions it presents a clear and immediate health danger.
2) It is important for the university to educate itself as to the extent, magnitude, and impact of the problem.
3) Any policy limiting smoking in the work place should be preceded or accompanied by a program to help smokers quit.
4) A number of universities also provide awards, bonuses, and other positive incentives for workers to quit. Many universities consider, in awarding increases in compensation, courses and other programs in which a person engages which will improve his/her performance on campus.
5) Limitations on smoking should be phased in slowly on a step-by-step- basis according to a timetable which is formulated with adequate input from all concerned and communicated to all who will be affected.
6) The most logical first step in any program would be to place those limits on smoking which create the least burden on smokers, provide significant protection for nonsmokers and serve as a reminder, as well as behavior modification reinforcement, for the smoker.
7) The logical step is usually to prohibit smoking in faculty meetings, conferences, etc. Breaks should be taken at reasonable intervals for the comfort of those who wish to smoke, as well as for those who may desire to use restroom facilities, etc.
8) Another step would be to permit individual employees to indicate, via appropriate signs, that they prefer not to have smoking around their desks, work area, offices, etc.
9) Those in charge should be encouraged to examine the layouts of larger multi-person offices to determine the extent to which problems can be alleviated by separating smokers from nonsmokers, and particularly those nonsmokers who object to tobacco smoke.
10) Where there are offices in which there are no smokers, the university may wish to consider implementing programs which give preference in hiring for such positions to nonsmokers, or make nonsmoking a condition of employment. It is easier to hire people who are nonsmokers, or to make nonsmoking a condition of a job for a new employee, than to impose restrictions on an employee who has been permitted to smoke for an extended period of time.
11) If nonsmokers object to working arrangements in which they are still subjected to other people's tobacco smoke, the university should go further and implement policies of limiting smoking in the work place to designated smoking areas.
12) There is little need to restrict smoking with regard to persons who have their own offices, provided they keep the door closed so that the smoke does not drift out and affect others.
13) Many universities control or are closely affiliated with hospitals and other medical-care facilities. Such institutions obviously should be even more concerned with the problems of ambient tobacco smoke. A hospital has a legal, ethical and moral obligation to take all reasonable steps to protect the health of patients. Patients should never be forced to share a room with someone who is smoking or to be in a room where other visitors are smoking.
Smoking is clearly the most pervasive, the most annoying, the most irritating, and the most dangerous work place pollutant in America. It is also the easiest and the most inexpensive to protect against. ASH suggests that it is time for universities to recognize their obligations in this area, and to act accordingly.
In summary, the above are the steps which ASH ordinarily would recommend for business employers concerned about the problem of smoking. Since the percentage of smokers decreases with increasing education; since those who are most educated would seem most likely to be knowledgeable about the hazards of tobacco smoke to nonsmokers; since members of an academic community should, if anything, be even more tolerant of the rights of others, and less likely to inflict harm or create a serious health risk for their colleagues, they should logically be even more willing than businesses to take the necessary steps to protect their own employees.
NOTE: This leaflet, which is distributed as a public service, contains general information for your interest. If campus authorities have any specific legal inquiries regarding smoking limitation they should, of course, consult their attorneys.
2013 H Street, NW / Washington,
DC 20006 / (202) 659-4310