Tobacco Documents Online

A' SMOKEFREE WORKPLACE A Message To Employers Irom the Calilonsla Monsnwkers' R19M* Fourndalion: As evidence of the hazards of breathing others' cigarette smoke builds, public tolerance for ,moke-fiiled air decreases. A poll conducted Iby the Roper Organization for the Tobacco Institute in 1978 found that "a majmrityof "anbelieve that it is probably hazardous to beanwnd people who smoke even ifthey are not smoking themselves' : Puqlic attitudes -employee attitudes-in the 1980's are more favorable to non-smoking policies in the workplace then ever before. CNRF has prepared this prospectus tohelp you establish a cleaner healthier environment at work. Detailed inside are the facts you need to make a nonsmoking policy work in your organization. Page 3 The law now protects nonsmokers in numerous situations. Cities and counties across the country are passing workplace nonsmoking ordinances while legal'action of all kinds on behaff'of nonsmokers are finding favor with courts and,administratnre bodies. Page 4 Labor relations may tie improved when employers communicate the message that aa nonsmoking policy is progressive and forward looking-a new employee benefit. Page 4 Health ihazards assoaaied Mrith secondhand smoke ane now knownto be ex3remely serious: Staff of the United States Environmental Protection Agency say that up to one-third of aI11Wng cancer cases in nonsmokers are a result of'involuntary smoking. page 6 Smoking costs business money. Increased costs due to smoking are reflected in higher C 3afth care costs, greater absenteeism and property damage: Since the incidence of'smoking decreases when a non srmoking policy is instituted, the net resultis a saving to business. Pape 7 Nbnsrnokingpoliciescanbetaibn3dtoyournee&a.Threeexamplesarepresentedlhere.You may ahoose one or you may devise your own, and CNRF is willing to help. Page 10 Nonsmokers and smokers may have problems shanng the same workspace. Technical I solutions such as smokeless ashtrays are largely ineffective. Airfittration systems are veryloostly. The, simplest'and most effective measure is to either eliminate or carefully regulate smoking, Page 1y' Developing and implementing a plan of action is nothard. Inside are some practical tips on how to forge your own nonsmoking policy and communicate it effectively to your employees. M~-36

2' c. Some facts abart smokirg.... T1w l+lasardsti of 3mokins Are Not a Mattor of Controwny. There is no longer any disagreement among scientists that smoking tobaccio.,panticulartycigarettes, isextremely hazardous. Every U.S. Surgeon General since 1964 hass emphasized the uniquely dangerousqualities of cigar- ettes. In 1982. Surgeon~General iC: Everett FKoop wrote in his report to the Congress; "Cigarette smoking...is the chief'single avoidable causeof'death in our society and i the most important public health issue of our tiarae": Over 350.000 Americans die each year of smoking-related diseases-lung cancer, heart attacks, emphysema and other diseases. Ci9a.att* snak. ~Can Harm Nonsmokers Too. Involuntary smoking;,the exposure of nonsmokers to others' smoke, is now considered a serious health hazard. Indeed, cigarette smoke is now widely recognized as the most serious indoor air pollutant-a leading cause of exposure to toxic chemicals for most workers : Smoking Is an Addiction Although the percentage of'Americans who smoke declines each ~year: there are still almost 50 million who smoke. The reason ~is that smoking is an addiction-90%% of smokers say they want to quit'and can't. The federall gpvernment's National Institute of Drug Abuse, theV'Vor1d Health Organizatiom andithe AmericanPsychiatric!Assu> ciation all classify smoking as a drug dependency, like alcoholism or heroin addiction. In addition to the physical addiction caused bynicotine, thereis an important behavioral component. Many experts feel that the prin- cipal reason smokersfind it so hard to quitis that smoking is socially acceptable. RESTRICTING OPPORTUNITIES TO SMOKE HELPS SIWOKERS'KICK A DEAl7L'Y HABIT M-37 i Most Americans Are Nonsmokers The U.S. government has determined'that over two-thirds of adult Americans are nonsmokers: Probably as.a resulf of this, the sociafclimate that once tolerated and even encouraged smoking is gone. A Gallup poll in April 1983 found that 82% of nonsmokers and 55% of smokers believed that smokers should refrain ~in the presence of nonsmokers. smokingCostts America 6illions It'has been reliamly estimated'that smoking costs the country over $42 billion per year in health care costs and decreased productiviry due toabsenteeism, sickness; disability and premature death~,property damage, and aa host of related effects.l3usiness and industry bearia large part of this economic burden. The CalMoenia Nonsavok.rs' Riyhts Foundation Can Molp CNRF'is a tax;exempt educational organization whose purpose is to protect people from the harmful'effects of second-hand cigarette!snake andto redbce the ecorkomic burden associated with smoking that nonsmokers must bear. The Foundation has prepared this prospectus in order to illwstrate the advantages of regulating,smoking in the workplace, and prowide sornepractical suggestions on how to do it: For further information call ICNRF at (41'S) 841-3032. Workplace smoking control is an issue whose time has come. CNRF'is glad to ~help you address this extremely importanttopic.

SJMOJK/Mri' A1VD TNIE LAW Gbvernrnent'is gett inmg into the workplace more and' more-especially when iit comes to protecting the health of nonsmokers:legislators, judgss, and administrative officials have beenmaking decisions that empkoyers must understand and to which they 1must respond. Local Ordinsness Since 1980 many cities and counties have passed'laws restricting smoking,in the workplace. Mostrequire the employer to establish a nonsmoking poticyof some sort~: While there is usually a significant degree of flexibility, these laws require the needs of nonsmokers for clean air be given priority over the desire of some employees to smoke. Compliance with local ordinances will be much more likely if the employer adopts the attitude that non- smoking is the norm. Smoking is a/loweci, if at a0, only in designated areass: Contact CNRI`to find out whetherthere is a!nonsmoking ordinance inyour community. Lega1 Actions Nonsmokers have successfully used administrative agencies and courts both to enforce the right to clean air ~ at work as well as to recover benefits as a result of b+eing exposed to smoke in the workplace. .Afthough these cases " have until now been fairly uncommon, we can!expect to see rnore and more of'them in the future as the scientific evidence mounts regarding the hazards of involuntary smoking; Indeed, employers who allownonsrrtokersto be 9xposed to cigarette smoke may inthefuture becorne. ~,.iable in ways we cannotinow determine. R.asonabl. tltue to Manditap. Recent cases on both the federal and state levels have held that nonsmokers who are sensitive to cigarette smoke may be considered "handicapped"'for purposes of' nondiscrimination laws. In October of 1984 the California Fair Employment and Housing Commission I ruled in a precedent-setting settlement that an employee was entitled to $27, D01Q'in back pay plus $10.000 in damages for emotional distress because her employer refused too accommodate her need fora smokefree workplaee: The federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires employers to make "reasonable accommodation" fbr handicapped employees, among whom are those who are extretnely sensitive to tobacco smoke. Discrimination suits against employers may be brought directly with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of'a state or the federal'govemment or a tawsuit'may be brought directly to the courts: wo./tan' comp.n.at3on t3.n.fits In additionitorthe potential for increased workers'' compensation premiums resulting from the claims of : smokers for other pb-related illnesses and injurues. recent cases indicate that emplayers may be liable for allowing an employee to smoke at work and ithus endanger his own health. In another case, a stewardess was awarded workers' compensation benefits because of an allergic reaction to the smoky air inside an airplane cabin. The EPA''s study showing thatione-third of''all lung cancers in nonsmokers are caused by involuntary smoking could result in workers' compensation death cases being brought by next of kin of nsrnoking employees exposed' to heavy tobacco smoke at work. unanolioyn>wnt.enefits Several icases in California have held that nonsmokers who are verysensitive to cigarette smoke may be consid- ered to have quit'for"good cause" and thus be eligible for unemptoyment benef'rtsidrtheiremployerdid not offer them an equivatent jmb in a smokefree environment (Alexander v. The Cafrfomia U nployment Insurance Appeals Board,1S80. also Gibson v. Starkist, 1983). Emplbv.rs' Duty to Pnsvide a:aft and M.allhhrl M/o.kpli.c. Cases in New Jersey (Shimp v. New Jersey Bell Tele- phone Company,,1976) and Missou0 (Smith v.Westem Electric, 1982) have held that employers have a common law duty to provide a safe workplace, and'that this duty required the employer to protect rioxtsmokers from the hazards of secondhand smoke. Inboth of these cases the plaintiffs demonstrated that secondhand srnoke was a hazard'to all employees exposed to lt and'inboth cases the court ruled that an iinjunction against'the employerwas the proper legal'remedy.Cases of this sort are being litigated in California as well I as other states. wrotrqftl Dischatr+p. Another potential source of liability for the employer is a, suit for wrongful discharge and retaliation by the employer because of'an employee's protest against workplace smoking. One Court of Appeal in California has ruled that an employee cannot be discharged or, discriminated against for complaining in good faith about workplace conditions felt to be unsafe. fk.d.ral Ent+ploy.es Disability and lMtirant+.at fs.n.flits Federal employees may be eligibte for disability benefits or even retirement if they are extremely sensitive to 1 cigarette smoke and Itheir employer, does not provide them with a smokefree environment. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in thecase of 'Parodi v. Merit System Protection Board (1882)'that suitable employment should be provided if available, and if it is not available or not offered, the employee may be eligible for disability j~ retirement benefits. 0 N ~ ~ ' w M-38 ''I V-j ~ (

4 LABOR RELATIONS Nonsmoking policies should be viewed as a progressive step by the employer. The great majority ofinonsmokers as well as a majority of smokers will welcome such a ipolicy- if'it'is implemented with a degree of sensitivity, Ermployees', should be included in the development of policies and wherever labor unionssre a factor they should bebrought into the policy-formutating,process. Union support, or at least neutrality: is useful in creating positive employee attitudes. Furthermore, some unions may take the position that the employer has the duty tobargain before making a unilateral decision to initiate a nonsmoking policy. The reasoning,behind such a position is that such ia policy would constitute a change iniconditions of employmentor working conditions. The rnore usual'view is that because a nonsmoking poticywould eliminate anexisting!hazard. an employer may implement it'without bargaining; unless there is specific language in the contract outlining the right to smoke incertain areas or atcertainrtimes. If'the emptoyer, presents the nonsmoking policy to his employees and the union inidsproperdight-as a reason+ able and necessary program to make theworkptace a i healthierenvironment-the potential for conflict is much reducedl Understanding of'the health issue isa key factor in this process. M-3'9 A' HEALTHY IrORKPLAfrh- A' SJMOKEFREE' WORKPLACE Tho R1sks of'saakiny 1 Most Americans have a vague understanding that smoking is hazardous. Few know just'how dangerous smoking really is, 8096of itungcanoer in men is caused by smoking, while lung cancercaused by smoking is fast replacing breasticancer as the number one cancer killer of women. But lung cancer„almost invariably, ffatal, is not the largest cigarette-related cause of death. Over 150,000 Americans die of srnoking-retated heartiattacks each year:. Millions of Americans suffer from the ravages of smoking- caused emphysema: The risks of smoking are quantified in the chart below: The only good news about Smoking,is that most of its effects are reversibte: One very large study found that ten years after quitting the risk of dying among ex-smokers approached'the same riskas amongipeopte who had never smoked. Ouitting, although difficult for some, has immediate results for the ex-smoker: Greatly improved taste and smell are experienced within days or weeks of quitting i Th. Risk: ofi's.aondh.nd smoking, Exposure to others` cigarette smoke is not just unpleasant. It can be asignificanthealth hazard. Tobacco smoke, which iis the principal source of indoor air pollution, contains over 2t>00 compounds (USDHEWII 1979a) many of which are known earcinogens and irritants. Since most people spend tietween 7596 and 90X of a 24-hour day indoor it is evidentithat exposure to tobacco smoke can become a serious hazard. An important 1980 study showed that'nons.moking employees chronically exposed to secondhand smoke in the workplace experienced Ithe same degree of lung damage as light srnokers, Several newer, studies have pointed toward the possibility thatisecondhand smoke increases the risk of lung cancer and other cancers in nonsmoking spouses. A recent Japanese study showss thatinvotuntary smoke exposure at work is at least as serious as exposure at home. Staff of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have prepared a report which says that wp toione-thirdof'au lung cancers in nonsmokers are caused by secondhand exposure to tobacco smoke: At the minimum 1500 people per y,ear, die of lung cancer frorn breathing others'.'srnoke: while the maximum is about 5000. This contrasts with the next rnostserious airborneloxic exposure at work: coke

( oven emissions in steel mills. One hundred andififty neopte per year are estimated to die of cancer from xposure to this pollutant. While even completely heatthy adults may be advers ely affected by cigarette smoke, those with preexisting health i ~conditions may experience much more severe reactions to secondhand smoke. Conditions such as asthma, bron- chitis; cardiovasculardisease, nhinitis. colds and allergies are often particulerly hard hit by secondhand smoke. Also, millions of people are sensitive to tobacco smoke. While apparently not technically an allergen; tobacco smoke's irritant qualities resemble those that characterize an allergic response. Concentrations of secondhand smoke that would not affect a healthy person appear to present aniincreased risk t© those with pre-existing heaith conditions. Certain effects of tobacco smoke occur in both healthy and impaired people. Researchers experimentally inves- tigated'the effecTof'side streamsmoke (smoke from the buming end of'the cigarette) on cardiovascular health in both smokers and nonsrraokers. They found that, side stream smoke increased heart rate, blood pressure and oxygen consumption. These responses were more prominent in nonsmokers than insrnokers. Further, these researchers noted a decrease inwork capacity in most groups:. It"s not too surprising thaf passive smoking can have Cuch significant effects. Tobacco smoke contains a. eritable witches' brew of hazardous substances, among which are tar, nicotine, carbon mxide, cadmium, nitrogen dioxide, nitrosamines. benzene. fbrmaldehyde, hydrogen sulfide; and hydtogen cyanide. Side stream smoke contains moreof these compounds than are found in mainstream smoke inhaled by the smoker, M-40 QIWANTIFYN1fG TNE RISKS OF SUOKING' 'A person who srnokes one pack of cigarettes or less aiday would be assuming,risks at the ktwer end of the spectnum. Those 5rnok+ ing more than a pack a day wouktassume risks,as the higher end. Most important, the smoker assumes all these risks at the same time. Soarce. The~.MMnOaniCoxlOdion:SL1e1Ge anQ hMNM ~. 5

SMOKING COSTS BUSINESS MO/IIEY' Employers must bear a very large part of the cost of smoking. In 1982, the Surgeon General said that smoking was responsible for up to $13 billion in lost productivity. tJtherexperts insist that'ithe losses due to smoking are much higher-as high as $47 billion per year. Employer costs are incurred lin the following iareas: employee adds between $20 and $33 per year to the annual life insurance bill. Fire insurance costs are also increased because of' smoking. $:5' per smoker peryear, is a conservative estimate of the additional fire insurance costs to 1 businesses having employees who smoke (Kristein,1983) Idsuranee Specific insurance costs attributable to smoking depend i on the type of insurance coverage a company offers its employees. Naturally, the more extensive the coveragee the more cost saving can be expected by restricting smoking at work. Health iinsurance is the most obvious type of insurance which has increased costs associated with smoking. Because it is estimated that 30% of all cancers (0olt and Peto 198t)), 2596 of all icardiovascutardisease (Kristein; Arnold and YM'ynder,1977), and 80% of all deaths from i respiratory disease (U!S. Surgeon General?s Report 1984) are related to smoking, it'is notdifficult to understand'why health insurance costs are increased by smoking. Using the Surgeon General's data (USDHEW,' 1979b)'and' estimating,that smokers use 5096 more health care services than nonsmokers, it is estimated'that business pays an additional $75 to $150 per year in healthh insurance for each smoker on the payroll. Life insurance costs are increased by employee smoking, because of the increased mortality rates between smokers and nonsmokers. Each smoking Absenteeism and i'iekness ssnefits The effectsof smoking upon absenteeism are well documented (tJSDHEVW,1979b). Repeated studies have shown a 33% to 45% higher absenteeism rate among smokers thanrnonsmokers (Knstein. 1983): In 1979 the Surgeon General reported that 81 million work days are lost per year due to smoking; It has been estimated that smokers are absent about two days more per year than nonsmokers: While this represents a staggering cost to society it also can have a large impact on your specific business. R*dNced IProduettiwil+y Smokers'spend some of their work time smoking instead of'working. Researchers vary in their estimates of the work time lost to the smoking ritua{, clean-up costs, and damage to furniture and iequipment, but even the most conservative estimate (Kristein) is that the average smoker costs the average business $166 per year in kut productivity, based on an estimate of aJbss of one minute per hour to smoking. Another researcher(Ulreis,1981) believes thatthe average annual on-the-pb time loss attributableto smoking,is over $1800 per year. In addition to this, Weis estimates the cost' of smoking-related repairs at an annual cost of $1000. Smoking and Occupational Disease Srnoking;and exposure to sorne hazards at work act in a synergistic manner to greatly increase the likelihood that an employee will'devebp an occupational disease. Entitlement to workers' compensation may occur for cases . of lung cancer~ chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. and heart attack when there is a pb-related cause even though thecondition might not have occurred if'the employee had not smoked. Furrthem7ore, corporations may have an obligation under OSHA regulations to control workplace smoking in thepresenceof certainioccupational' hazards such as asbestos. coal dust, andiradiation. Riesearohers have shown that the costs of smoking in the workplace are significant. This confirms what many employers already suspect. Thus in addition to the important health reasons for controlling workplace smoking there is a sound business reason: smoking is an i unrnecess'ary, business expenditure. ~. ~ NI ~ ~ i~. ~ M1i1 0

MODEL MOMSMOJICJMG POUCIES A successful ~norumoking poficy'isusualty one which has been developedby an employerwhoihas taken the imeto explain to his or her ernpbyees siome of the reasons behind its development and inplertMentation. The heahh reasons show why, a non-srtroking policy is!forthe benefit of employees; the legal and lecavornic rsasons demon- strate that a nonsmoking policy is a matter of sound business judgment. In order fora nonsmoking poGcy to be successful, top management must show that Itiis committed to the policy. The policy rnust be specifia-it must designate the areas where smoking is prohibited and where permitted, and it must define enforcement procedures. Also, the posting of appropriate signs is a vital component of a successful policy. Everycompany will formulate a unique smoking i poiicy, in accordance with its own particular needs: The following three versions of a non+smoking policy may be used as models to stimulate development of your own unique policy, These three policies form the spectrum from ttte'least specific and enforceablb to the most.• `Tnsse poici»s we adapted from reeonnisndafions of the Amencan Lunq M. Policy A In3nadualion: This policy maytie rthe easiest one of the three to initiate since it leaves aigreatdeal of'discretion to supervisory personnel and does not require'any sweepngi changes in working conditions. Its major disadvantage is that iit provides ambiguous'protection for employees and in the long run is extremely difficult to administer. Because the policy ladcs clarity and precision, it will require frequent intervention by supervisory personnel andimay be inconsistently enfbrcedJ leading to a perception that it is unfair. This policy should ihe considered as a possible beginning, rather than a long-range solution to the problem of smoking in the workpiace. ACME Coerpany,:nwlciM PoRey Smoking poses a serious risk to the health of'both i smokers and nonsmokers. Smoking at work is also an annoyance to many emplby,ees and a cause of lower productivity and increased unnecessary costs. For these reasons. Acme Company has decided to implement a nonsmoking policy whose aim is to eliminate the hazards associated with smoking ifor thebenefit of the company's employees and greateroverall econwrny: Effective , it 3s the policy of Acme Company to respect the preferencesof both'srnokers and nonsmokers in company buildings and facilities. When these preferen- ces conflict, employees and management will endeavor to find a Satisfactorycomprornise. If a comprornise cannot be found, the preference of the nonsmokers should prevaiU On requesi; supervisory personnel will make reasonable efforts to separate smokers from nonsmokers who request a smokefree work area. Smoking will continwe to be pro- hibited in areas where there are safetyor fire hazards and in other places desig nated i by the company. 1--4 2 C

I 8! Roffi'er R hnlrtodaelbet This policy dearfy'delineates where srnoking,is permitted and where prohibited and it also offers guidelines for conflict'nesoflJtiortt Its main draw, back is that'it allows smok'mg in areas wlwe smokers and nonsmokers worlt together. This could lead to ~con- flicts that require management time to resokre: Block Ccmpany, Zinoofctn8 PI Medical evidence clearly showsthatismoking is harmful to the health of'smokers, Smoke from cigarettes, cigars and pipes is also an irritant to many nonsmokers and can exacerbate allergic conditions. In sufficient concentrations secondhand smoke rnay be harmful Itb those with ehronic heart oriungidisease: New research indicates that long- term exposure to secondhand smoke may threatenthe health of nonsmokers as welll In an effort to consider the needs and concerns of smokers and nonsmokers alike and'.to provide a~healthful working environment for every B/ock employee, this company smoking policy will take effect on _ AII'. Block empf©yees, customers and visitors are expected to comply with the smoking regulations detailed in this policy. M-43 Srrroking-Pnohlti/t.d Ahws  Any area in which a fire or safety hazard exists.  Common areas. irxauding efevators, hallways. stairwe8s, lobbies. waiting rooms, copier rooms, mail rooms, auditoriums, reception areas, customer service areas, employee lounges, and restrooms.  Classrooms and conference rooms (a short smoking break may be provided during meetings lasting ilbnger than one houir, if requested by smokers):  Cornputer„production, and manufacturing areas.  All locations not specifically discussed'in the section below entitled "Other Areas". Other Areas ri Private offices may be designated"'Smoking Permitted" or "Nb Smoking" by the occupant. hlowever, the occupantt should refrain fromsmoking in his or'heroffice when a, nonsmoking employee orvisitor is present.  In areas where smokers and'nonsmokers work together, supervisors should take into consideration airflbw, ventilation, existing physical Ibarriers that migtnt be of ihelp, and individual sensitivities of nonsmokers.  Two-thirds of theseating in the cafeteria witl be setaside for nonsmokers.  Employees will refrain from smoking when in company vehicles with nonsmokers. Eh/orewn.nt The success of this policywiltdepend upon thethought- fulness: consideration and cooperation of smokers and nonsmokers. In the event of a conflict, employees are encouraged'to work ouCa compromise among themselves If this effort proves unsuccessfud, the situation should be brought to the attention of the appropriate supervisory . personnel: If necessary, the matter may be referred to the Vice-President for afiina/ decision. If a compromise cannot be reac.hed: the nglat of a non-smdcer to protect his or her health and comfort must prevail over an employee's desire to smoke. Cbpies'of this policy will Ibe distributed to all employees. Signs will be posted to designate all areas where.smoking is prohibited. Employees may use desktop signs to remind others.of their, desire for no smoking. Ashtrays will be removed from all no-smoking iareas and receptacles for disposal of smoking,material provided at entrances to these areas.

Policlr c Intraduct3ron: This policy is the ~most comprehensive •nd the one nwst likely to be axepted by empkiyees in .ie long term. ft diredly acknowledges that nonsrraoking is the norm, Smoking is prohibited throughout company premises„but employees are allowed to request that smoking areas be set aside; Smokers are also encour, aged to consider making an attempt to quit smoking. ConsotMst.diConnpany Nonsnwkift Policy. The U.S. Surgeon!General has named smokingPublic Healthfnerny # y' in light of its role as the teading~cause of ~ premature death and disability inour country. Research has shown that nonsmokers with chronictieart!or1irng disease canexperience severe distress when exposed to sufficient'concentrations of secondhand smoke. Many allergic individuals and even the majority of'healthy inon- smokers report discomfort when exposed to secondhand smoke.on the job: Furthermore, recent medical studies indicate that long-term exposure tosecondhand smoke may increase nonsmokers' risks ofdevetoping lung cancer. ComsolidatedCompany- is dedicated!to providing a healihy; cornfortable and productive work environment for our employees. This goal can be achieved, however, only through concerted efforts to protect nonsmokers and to help employees adjust to restrictions on smoking. Ctfective stnoking is prohibited througtnout ompany facilities except in designated smoking areas identified by "Srnoking Permittedl" signs: AII Coiasolidated employees, customers and visitors are expected to comply with the smoking regulatipns detailed in this polic}r. Oesignat'forr of "Smoking Prmr/tb0"Ahsas "Smoking Permitted" areas will be designated'only on request. Employees who are interested in having such areas designated should discuss the.matter, with their supervisor. Locations which may be considered for designation as "Smoking Permitted" include outdoor areas. empty rooms, infrequently-used Ihalh,vays , and other areas which are not used by nonsmokers. In addition, up to one-third of the cafetenamay be designated as "smoking permitted" it nonsmokers do not object. Private offices may be~desigrnated "smoking permitted"br"no smoking" bytheoccupant: However; the occupant should refrain ftom smoking in his or heroffice when a nonsmoking employee or visitor is present. Smoking mztst bre prtihibit.d 'U Ehr tolJorvJnQ araas.  Any area in which a fire or safety hazard exists. • Company-owned'vehictes.  Common areas, including eNavators, stairwells, lobbies, waiting rooms, copier rooms, i*ail rooms, auditoriurns, reception areas, customer service areas, employee lounges and restrooms.  Computer, production and manufacturing areas:.  Areas in which smokers iand nonsmokers work together.  Classrooms and conference rooms (A short smoking break may be provided during meetings Iasting longer than one hour, if requested by smokers).  Any area not specifically designated "Smoking Permitted". Enforcem.nt The success of'this policy will depend upon the thoughtfulness, consideration and cooperation of'smokers and nonsmokers. AII employees share in the responsibility for adhering to and enforcing the policy. Conflicts should be broughtito the attention of the appropriate supervisory personnel, and. if necessary, referred to the wice-President for a'final decision. In atl icases the rigM of a rwansmoker to ~ protectNs orher health and comfort mustprevail over an employee's desire to ~smoke : Copies of this policy will be distributed to all employees. Signs displaying the foAowing statement.will be posted at all Ibuilding entrances: "SSrnoking,prohibited except in designated smoking areas". Ashtrays will be placed in all "Smoking permitted" areas and removed from "no smoking" areas. Receptacles for disposal'of smoking, material willlbeprovidediat building entrances. M-44' 9' ( r

i . 10 G x;~~_N7W I1MWlLEMEJtITATlON ISSUES Eenpi+oy.. Atttitud.s One ofthe most difficult aspects of smoking regulation for employers who do not wish to adopt the third policy, involves the regulation of smoking in work spaces shared by smokers and nonsmokers, Often merely designating a portion of the space as a smoking section is ineffective in protecting nonsmokers from the effects of cigarette s.moke: If'a clear-cut decision mustibe made between the rights of nonsmokers to clean air and the desire of smokers to indutge; it is important to realize that nonsmokers are usually in the maprityand'that public attitudes now favor smoking, regulation. According,to the National Center for Health Statistics only one-third'of adultAmencans are regular cigarette smokers. While this means that there are 51J million smokers; the proportionof the population that smokes iss the lowest in forty years: Over 33 million Americans are fo mer smokers. Given these statistics, it'is not'surprising that smoking,is less acceptable than it used tobe:. Employers who must deal with smoking regulation of shared iwork spaces will find thektask less complicated if they affirm what is already the reality-NOJWSMOKING IS THE NORM. Shoking is allowed only in designated areas. Tiehnioal:oNrtioes The simplest and most effective way to deal with the problem of smoking in shared work spaces is to prohibit it. Smokers can be allowed to smoke in a Separate room set aside for that purpose during a break or lunch hour. However„if it is felt that this type of'nule is inappropnate, you may want to consider other more technical means of protecting your nonsmoking employees:. The following information should!help you deal with the problem of'shared work spaces. Vrntiirrtion i Areas where smoking is allowed should be located directly under or as near as possible to windows or return air ducts: The prevailing air flow should'be toward the areas where smoking is allowed. In some buildings there are differences iniair pressure indifferent'places. Smoking areas in these buildings should be in the lower pressure zones. The degree of air circulation in abuilding is very importanti The number of airchanges per hour and the quantity of ar being !circulatedlhave a direct and Isignificant' effect on the amount of secondhand smoke your employees breathe. Energy, eefficient buildings may present special problems: since they often have a much smaller number of air changes than conventional buitdings. If a!building;s ventilation system transports smoke from one roorndo another via heatmg and cooling dwcts. non. M-45 smokers may be exposed to secondhand smoke even if . they are in rooms that are completelyiseparate from those of smokers. Air Purification Some people have attempted to deal wittfthe problem: of secondhand smoke through the use of air purifiers and' special ashtrays. Unfortunately, these devices have only a very lirnited abilitytm removeparticutate matter fromahe air and cannot remove toxic gases such as carbon monoxide. The most effective; and'most costly, mechanical way to clean the air is a whole-room ainfiltration system. This wouldlconsist of electrostatic precipitators and highi efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters. Both systems mayy be used together. Electrostatic precipitators contain charged internal plates which electrically trap smoke particles, removing thernfromtheair. Theyrnaybe bought as either portable units or for permanent installation in air, conditioning or forced airheating diicts. The equipment is usually quite large and requires a source of high vottage to charge the collector piates: The collector plates must be cleaned often. HEPA fitters are considered the most effective type of'fiftration system, but they are also the most costly. It is advisable to obtain the iprofessional advice of an industrial Ihygienistior ventilation expert before buying any type of 9arge scale air filtration system. Table top air filters remove some particles from the air and some of them can absorb or mask odors. However, they have very limited capacity and are usually ineffective. Ion generators create electrically charged particles which cleanse the air by attracting smoke. Particles fa11!to the floor or, other surfaces and adhere to the walls. Since the particles are not actually removed, they may becornee airborne again. To remove the particles surfaces must be wiped down often. "Smokeless ashtrays" trap cigarette srnoke and!keep it from drifting out of the immediate area: according to . manufacturers' claims. Another type of ashtraylopens and closes so cigarette butts and ashes can be covered and the odor lessened. These ashtrays are thought to be not very effective in trapping particles or noxious gases.