Health Promotion International, Vol. 15, No. 2, 125-133,
June 2000
© Oxford University Press 2000
Out of sight, out of mind: workplace smoking bans and the relocation of smoking at work
Research Unit in Health and Behavioural Change, University of Edinburgh Medical School, Teviot Place, Edinburgh EH8 9AG, UK
Address for correspondence: O. Parry University of Edinburgh Medical School Research Unit of Health and Behavioural Change Teviot Place Edinburgh EH8 9AG, UK
As the cultural climate toward smoking changes, restrictive workplace smoking policies are becoming widely accepted by both employers and employees. There is, however, a crucial difference between those policies which accommodate reserved areas for smoking and those which do not. Smokers at work tend to prefer the former especially when the alternative is a total ban. An evaluation of a smoking ban implemented at a Scottish University in October 1997 suggests that the total ban is not only unpopular with smokers but also among non-smokers who experience unintended consequences of the new policy. The greatest complaint from non-smokers stems from the relocation of smoking to outside and particularly around the entrances to University buildings. This relocation has increased environmental pollution for those entering and leaving work, presents a poor image to outsiders and visitors, creates unsightly smoking debris and heightens the risk of fire. Furthermore, employees who smoke outside, in all weathers, have aroused the sympathies of a large number of their non-smoking colleagues. These unintended consequences have prompted many non-smoking staff to favour the reinstatement of reserved smoking areas inside work. In this article we argue, however, that this is not a sensible solution and that there may indeed be some advantage in increasing the visibility of smokers at work. In the short term non-smoking staff become more aware of the problems faced by smokers. In the longer term, this raised awareness may have implications for changing organizational attitudes to the provision of health intervention programmes at the University. Certainly, continuing organizational-based cessation support might demonstrate, alongside a restrictive smoking policy, a less punitive and more caring approach to the promotion of health-related behavioural change at work.
Key words: programme evaluation; smoking; workplace health promotion policies
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. T. Braverman, L. E. Aaro, and J. Hetland Changes in smoking among restaurant and bar employees following Norway's comprehensive smoking ban Health Promot. Int., March 1, 2008; 23(1): 5 - 15. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R Borland, H-H Yong, M Siahpush, A Hyland, S Campbell, G Hastings, K M Cummings, and G T Fong Support for and reported compliance with smoke-free restaurants and bars by smokers in four countries: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey Tob. Control, June 1, 2006; 15(suppl_3): iii34 - iii41. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Griesbach, J. Inchley, and C. Currie More than words? The status and impact of smoking policies in Scottish schools Health Promot. Int., March 1, 2002; 17(1): 31 - 41. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|