Please read all instructions and follow rubric PROMPT:

Policies Prohibiting Tobacco and Alcohol Use in the Workplace Smoke

—Free Workplace Policies

Many U.S cities have already passed a law that involves banning smoking in public places especially in the workplace. This is mainly because, third hand smoke has been proven to impose a much higher risk to develop cancer than those who smoke tobacco directly. That's why these laws are passed, so that nonsmokers have as much right to breath in a clean and wholesome air. The smoker-free workplace policies are instituted by the employers but mainly promoted by the public health or tobacco control organizations, to refuse employment of smoking individuals or even fire existing smoking employees if they will not quit in a prescribed time period.

Thesis: Analyze the difference it will make if the policies prohibiting tobacco and alcohol use were applied to workplaces; These provisions or conditions of a tobacco and alcohol free workplace will be of great help to convince employees to undergo smoking cessation to have a better workplace.

Your paper must contain the following 5 components:

·       Describe the public health problem—in detail—addressed by the policy (including the problem definition and the magnitude of the problem).

·       Describe the policy--in detail. (Assume that the reader is not familiar with the policy). Be sure to include details such as “who, what, where, and when” about the policy, and what the consequences are for not following it.

·       Include a clear thesis statement. What side are you taking? What will you be arguing?

·       Using credible references including epidemiological and/or toxicological studies (primary literature studies), as well as data and statistics (e.g. from CDC, EPA or similar websites), and other credible sources throughout your paper, present the evidence that strengthens your argument as to why you believe the policy was implemented, and how effective (or ineffective) the policy is/has been in addressing the public health problem. If you do not feel that the policy is reasonable, suggest an alternative approach to a solution. Avoid the use of “I” in your paper.

·       Include the counterargument to the policy. In other words, why would some people be opposed to the policy. Use data to substantiate your counterargument (if there is any).

Format:

 APA citation style (both in text citations AND bibliography) Grading:

This will be graded on a) the quality of the sources, b) how well you synthesize the information from your sources, c) how you apply that information to your argument, d) the strength of your argument, and e) the quality of your writing (including appropriate citations). Be careful!

Plagiarized information detected in the paper will result in a 0 for the assignment.

Annotated Bibliography; some sources to use

Bardsley, P., & Olekalns, N. (1999). Cigarette and tobacco consumption: Have anti‐smoking policies made a difference?. Economic Record, 75(3), 225-240.

This research study was aimed to understand the effect of government policies at reducing cigarette and tobacco consumption. This approach was based on Becker and Murphy's (1988) rational addiction model. The authors suggested that to isolate the effects of government intervention, it is also necessary to understand all the other factors influencing consumption. This study then concluded that there is strong support in the Becker-Murphy rational addiction model. Through this study, it can deduce that current consumption is affected by past and anticipated future consumption. Price and income are necessary factors, therefore increasing the excise taxes on cigarettes and promotion of nonsmokers will help employees undergo cessation for a better workplace.

Bobo, J. K., & Husten, C. (2000). Sociocultural influences on smoking and drinking. Alcohol research & health : the journal of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 24(4), 225-232.

This study had examined the effects of sociocultural factors on the tendency of drinkers to smoke and smokers to drink. Results suggested that such factors exist and the strength of the association between tobacco and alcohol use varies with the levels of alcohol consumption. This study concluded that based on samples of recovering alcoholics, there is a weakening of the association between drinking and smoking. This conclusion led us to infer that public health policies imposed in workplace and public areas were effective in discouraging the concurrent use of tobacco and alcohol and should be imposed continually.

Cheng, K. W., Liu, F., Gonzalez, M., & Glantz, S. (2017). The Effects of Workplace Clean Indoor Air Law Coverage on Workers' Smoking-Related Outcomes. Health economics, 26(2), 226-242. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3288

This research had studied the workplace smoking policies in recent years, whether these policies had reduced smoking. Results suggested that workplace smoking bans reduce smoking prevalence by 5 percentage and daily consumption smokers by 10 percentage. It can be concluded that the rapid increase in banks contributed to the recent drop in smoking in workplaces. Policies involved in increasing excise tax and promotion of nonsmokers should be imposed continually as it clearly contributed to the drops of smoking incidences.

Pidd, K., Kostadinov, V., & Roche, A. (2016). Do workplace policies work? An examination of the relationship between alcohol and other drug policies and workers' substance use. International Journal of Drug Policy, 28, 48-54.

This paper reviewed three different strategies that workplaces are imposing in the attempt to lessen smoking employees: legalistic approaches use policies and rules to restrict or foreclose smoking on the job, economic strategies create incentives and disincentives, and educational programs that seek to motivate smokers to quit. These three types of interventions are currently combined by companies. This study suggested that companies refusing to employ smokers is an effective way to reduce their smoke-related costs. Other few companies have acted on the smoking issue as part of health promotion or wellness programs. These are rewarded through incentives to the employees. The reward system through incentives and disincentives help encourage the smokers to quit in exchange for higher pays.

Walsh, D. C., & McDougall, V. (1988). Current policies regarding smoking in the workplace. American journal of industrial medicine, 13(1), 181-190.

This study investigated the effects of workplace clean indoor air law (CIAL) coverage on worksite compliance with CIALs, smoking participation among indoor workers, and secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure among non-smoker indoor workers. This study expanded on previous research by using the probability of residents in a county being covered by workplace CIALs taking into account the state, county, and city legislation as a measure of workplace smoking ban and examined their impact on smoking related outcomes. This study found that workplace CIALs significantly decreased worker smoking participation (being a current smoker) by around 10%. This study provided evidence that workplace CIALs reduced nonsmokers' secondhand smoke exposure as well as reduced workers' smoking prevalence. Through this study, the

implementation of clean indoor air law (CIAL) may help smokers in quitting. This law should be added in the list of policies being mentioned above.