Studies measuring tobacco consumption before and after the introduction of smokefree workplace policies show that bans bring about a reduction in numbers of cigarettes smoked on workdays,(78) which remains evident 18 months after the initial enforcement of restrictions.(79) Some smokers have extended their lower workday consumption patterns to non-workdays.(79)
In a follow-up study of smokers in the Australian public service six months after the ban, light smokers did not change their consumption patterns, but moderate smokers reduced the number of cigarettes smoked per day by an average of six cigarettes (a 29% fall in consumption), and heavy smokers reduced by eight cigarettes (a 27% fall in consumption).(78) Relatively little compensatory smoking was found; the small increases in smoking which occurred outside of work hours or during breaks did not make up for the cigarettes missed due to the workplace restrictions. Nor is it likely that deeper and more frequent inhalation of those few cigarettes, if it did occur, would have compensated the smoker for missed cigarettes.(78)
Simple quantification of lowered tobacco consumption brought about by workplace restrictions shows that they represent a significant area of loss for the tobacco industry (see Section 6.10 below, and Chapter 14, Section 20 for discussion). However workers taking time out for a cigarette outside the building can also be expensive for employers. According to one estimate, a 'quick smoke' cost up to twenty-five minutes of productive time -- they get distracted by thinking about having a cigarette, three or four minutes go on closing up the current work task, ten minutes are spent smoking the cigarette, and seven or eight minutes are spent regaining momentum. This can also cause resentment among non-smoking staff, who may feel that the smokers are not working as hard.(80)
The workplace is an important site for uptake of smoking,(81,82) (see also Chapter 10). The introduction of workplace restrictions on smoking suggests that it can also play an important role in preventing uptake of smoking,(81,82) and encouraging cessation.(79,83)
Workplace bans can insulate young people from the enhanced risk of uptake provided by a new environment, and remove the social influences to smoke experienced there.(78) The reduction in smoking opportunity may also serve to postpone young people's decision to smoke to the point where they are unlikely to start smoking at all.(82)
For smokers thinking of quitting, the introduction of a workplace policy might be the final catalyst to make them take action. And as the workplace is a common site for relapse, smoking bans could help ex-smokers resist the urge to smoke.(84)
Workplace restrictions can also provide a framework for smokers to gain control over their tobacco use. As average smoking consumption declines in a restricted environment (see above), smokers become accustomed to a lower rate of smoking on workdays which may extend to non-working days.(79) Moreover, smokers may learn techniques to manage without cigarettes which can carry over to non-work situations. With the contexts in which the smoker feels dependent on cigarettes decreased, cessation attempts are more likely to succeed.(85)
A study on smoking behaviour among Telecom Australia's workers prior to and up to 18 months following introduction of a smokefree workplace, showed that smoking prevalence had declined by about 5% in the sample, which the researchers estimated to be about twice the decline in the general community for the same time period. It was thought likely that the smokefree policy introduced by Telecom contributed to this fall in smoking prevalence.(79) A study from the United States measuring cessation rates following the introduction of a smokefree policy in the New England Telephone Company has also shown a significant decline in smoking rates.(86)
Australian and international studies have shown that workers who smoke suffer, on average, a greater amount absenteeism due to ill health than non-smokers.(87,88,89,90,91,92,93)
Australian data collected over an eighteen month period between 1990 and 1992 showed that smokers recorded an average of 27% more absenteeism than non-smokers.(91) Smokers also experience more accidents at home and at the workplace,(91) an American study finding that smokers suffer around 30% more industrial accidents and 40% more occupational injuries than non-smokers.(94)
A recent Australian study examining absenteeism among Telecom Australia's workforce estimated that illness attributable to smoking or alcohol accounted for 25% of sick leave. In the financial year 1991-1992 alcohol related absenteeism was estimated to cost $5.5 million, while smoking related absenteeism cost an estimated $16.5 million to this employer alone. Extrapolated to the Australian workforce, smoking and drinking costs Australian industry more than $2 billion a year,(93) of which $1.5 billion could be attributed to smoking. The authors emphasise that these estimates are conservative.
Workplace bans on smoking are likely to affect smokers' health in some measure (see below), which will in turn reduce absenteeism due to smoking.
While the emphasis on introducing smokefree environments has tended to be on preventing exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, because the risks of active smoking far outweigh those of passive smoking, it is probable that health benefits from workplace bans will be most strongly felt by smokers who reduce their tobacco intake or are motivated to quit smoking entirely.(79,84)
Because disease risk from smoking varies with the amount tobacco smoked and the duration for which it has been smoked, it can be expected that reduced consumption or delayed uptake of smoking effected by workplace bans will eventually be reflected in reduced morbidity and mortality from smoking. (As noted above, smokers on average take more time off work due to ill health than non-smokers). These projected public health benefits are difficult to quantify, but likely to be significant.(84)