Posts

Tobacco Myths Persist 50 Years After US Surgeon General Warned Americans of Smoking Dangers

Tobacco misconceptions prevail in the United States despite the dramatic drop in smoking rates since the release of the first Surgeon General’s Report on smoking and health in January 1964. Experts at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center dispel common myths and share new educational resources to address this persistent challenge.
“Since 1964, smoking rates have dropped by more than half as a result of successful education, legislative and smoking cessation efforts,” said Lewis Foxhall, M.D., vice president for health policy at MD Anderson. “Still, lung cancer remains the number one cancer killer and the leading preventable cause of death in the United States.”
With the approaching 50th anniversary of the Surgeon General’s Report, Foxhall and other MD Anderson experts urge the public to take a proactive stance against this pervasive health issue by gaining insight on current tobacco issues including information that disproves the following myths.
Tobacco Myth #1: Almost no one smokes any more.
Fact: About 43.8 million people still smoke. That’s almost one in five people in the United States.
“The current percentage of smokers is 19%. That’s significantly lower than the 42% in 1965,” Foxhall said. “However, the actual number of people smoking today is close to the same.” About 50 million people smoked in 1965. “Because our population is much larger, it just seems like we have a lot fewer smokers,” Foxhall explained.
“We have a lot of work ahead to prevent new smokers and help existing smokers quit,” said Ellen R. Gritz, Ph.D., professor and chair of behavioral science at MD Anderson. “Thanks to programs like the American Legacy Foundation’s truth national anti-smoking campaign, we have been able to achieve fewer youths smoking,” Gritz said, a previous vice chair on the Legacy board. “But funding for these campaigns is limited and unable to compete with the exorbitant and seemingly unlimited advertising dollars spent by tobacco companies.”
Tobacco Myth #2: e-Cigarettes, cigars and hookahs are safe alternatives.
Fact: All tobacco products, including e-cigarettes and hookahs, have nicotine. And it’s nicotine’s highly addictive properties that make these products harmful.
In 2008, the five largest cigarette companies spent $9.94 billion dollars on advertising and marketing products like e-cigarettes, flavored cigars, cigarillos and hookahs.
“The tobacco industry comes up with these new products to recruit new, younger smokers,” said Alexander Prokhorov, M.D., Ph.D., director of the Tobacco Outreach Education Program at MD Anderson. “And, they advertise them as less harmful than conventional cigarettes. But once a young person gets acquainted with nicotine, it’s more likely he or she will try other tobacco products.”
“While e-cigarettes may contain less harmful substances than combustible tobacco, they’re presently unregulated so quality control over the nicotine content and other components is left to the manufacturer,” said Paul Cinciripini, Ph.D., professor and deputy chair of behavioral science and director of the Tobacco Treatment Program at MD Anderson.
“At this time, it’s far too early to tell whether or not e-cigarettes can be used effectively as a smoking cessation device,” Cinciripini said.
Tobacco Myth #3: Infrequent, social smoking is harmless.
Fact: Any smoking, even social smoking, is dangerous.
“Science has not identified a safe level of smoking, and even a few cigarettes here and there can maintain addiction,” said David Wetter, Ph.D., chair of health disparities research at MD Anderson. “If you are a former smoker, data suggests that having just a single puff can send you back to smoking.”
Tobacco Myth #4: Smoking outside eliminates the dangers of secondhand smoke.
Fact: There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Even brief secondhand smoke exposure can cause harm. Exposure to secondhand smoke at home or work increases a person’s risk of heart disease by 25 to 30% and lung cancer by 20 to 30%. That’s because the amount of cancer-causing chemicals is higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers. Families that prohibit smoking in and around the home are on the right path, said Wetter.
Stay informed and take action
“Being educated and sharing this knowledge with others are ways to action,” said Ernest Hawk, M.D., vice president of cancer prevention and population sciences at MD Anderson. “For smokers, it’s never too late to quit smoking and reap health benefits.”
As part of MD Anderson’s Moon Shot program to end cancer, Hawk and other experts have developed a comprehensive plan that addresses the burden of tobacco use in institutions, communities, states and nations.
“The End Tobacco plan recommends more than 100 actions in the areas of policy, education and community-based services that MD Anderson can lead to end tobacco at the institutional, local, regional, state national and international levels,” Hawk said. “As a leader in the field of tobacco research, it’s vital we take a leadership role to confront the use of tobacco in any form.”
More than 200,000 people are diagnosed with lung cancer each year in the United States and about 150,000 people die as a result of this disease. Smoking contributes to almost 90% of lung cancer deaths and 30% of all cancer deaths.
Story Source:
The above story is based on materials provided by University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.
Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131107142436.htm

Representative Phyllis Kahn proposes ban on indoor e-cigarettes

By Allison Kronberg
Minnesota could start treating e-cigarettes just like regular cigarettes.
Rep. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis, proposed a bill Friday to include e-cigarettes in the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, which she authored in 1975, that would ban their use indoors.
She said she’s proposing the bill because the health effects of e-cigarettes are unclear, the smokeless alternative can appeal to young people and it would make the law consistent.
“The same controls that apply to smoking regular cigarettes would apply to smoking e-cigarettes,” Kahn said.
This summer’s new tobacco tax raised the price for a pack of cigarettes by $1.60. Since then, e-cigarettes have gained even more popularity with smokers in Minnesota.
Kahn said she’s heard many people support the bill.
“The negatives all come from people who are users of the e-cigarettes and maybe one from a manufacturer,” she said.
Bad for business
In its print ads, e-cigarette company FIN has encouraged its customers to “rewrite the rules.” Its website encourages users to “smoke when you want, where you want.”
University of Minnesota biology, society and environment sophomore Josh Meidl said he’s never smoked regular cigarettes and doesn’t plan to, but he carries his e-cigarette with him every day because he likes the taste.
“I feel like [the bill] just totally defeats the purpose of the e-cig, because one of its main purposes was to bring smokers back indoors,” he said.
While the move inside is a draw for some, businesses and agencies around the state are enforcing their own rules on the product.
Metro Transit spokesman John Siqveland said the public transportation network banned e-cigarettes from its buses, trains and facilities this summer. Hennepin County banned e-cigarettes on county property in July, a move that county administrator David Hough called proactive at the time.
Joe Berg, general manager of the Library Bar and Grill in Dinkytown, said statewide regulation would be beneficial. Now, the Library asks people not to smoke e-cigarettes on the property, and they generally comply, he said.
Kahn said opponents of the bill argue e-cigarettes are beneficial for smokers who are trying to quit.
“And the answer is no, we’re not going to take it away from you,” she said. “You use it exactly where you’d use a regular cigarette.”
Nasario Sepeda, manager at Smokedale Tobacco in Stadium Village, said the store relies “heavily” on e-cigarette sales and doesn’t agree with the ban.
“The only way to see if it has any effect on us is if it passes,” he said.
Health effects unknown
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration doesn’t regulate e-cigarettes, and experts say they’ve been researched little.
A 2009 FDA study found potentially harmful substances in a majority of the e-cigarettes sampled. E-cigarettes often have nicotine and can be addictive.
“One thing is that the FDA is still struggling over the safety,” Kahn said. “We’re looking at if it’s a safe thing for individuals to use.”
Kahn said e-cigarettes could be a gateway to their more dangerous counterparts, especially for young people. University research found young people would experiment with e-cigarettes because they’re often flavored and because the students view them positively.
Ferdinand Schlapper, director and chief health officer at Boynton Health Service, said the smokeless alternative just prolongs addiction, although many use e-cigarettes to help them quit smoking.
“Proven ways to stop smoking are nicotine replacement therapy and the patch, along with a supportive environment,” Boynton senior health advocate Timothy Bell said.
School of Public Health associate professor Deborah Hennrikus said she would support a ban on indoor e-cigarette use because there is still so little known about them.
“There isn’t enough known to the extent to which e-cigarettes can help people stop smoking, or to the extent to which they appeal to adolescents as a gateway to using other tobacco products,” she said.
“They’re new enough that the research hasn’t been done.”
http://www.mndaily.com/news/campus/2013/11/06/representative-phyllis-kahn-proposes-ban-indoor-e-cigarettes

Legislation would add e-cigarettes to Minn. smoking ban

State Rep. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis, wants to clear up confusion about the use of electronic cigarettes by adding the so-called vaping devices to the statewide cigarette ban.
She plans to introduce legislation in the 2014 session that would add e-cigarettes to the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act.
“Right now, we’ve got a patchwork system where local governments and even individual businesses make their own rules,” Kahn said in a press release. “It’s creating a lot of confusion. My bill removes any doubt as to where e-cigarettes can be used by applying the same regulations we have for traditional tobacco products.”
Kahn joins The Daily Circuit to discuss the issue.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2013/11/04/daily-circuit-e-cigarette-ban-kahn

Tobacco Marketing Costs Exceed Those of Prevention Efforts

By Marisa DeCandido – email
There’s been a statewide effort over the past several years to cut down on tobacco use in North Dakota. And state lawmakers now know exactly how much those prevention programs are costing.
It’s not easy for smokers in North Dakota to find a place to light up, and state lawmakers now know just how much it costs to keep it that way.
The Center for Tobacco Prevention and Control Policy says it spends about fifty-five dollars on each North Dakota Tobacco user. That money goes towards programs that help users break the habit.
“A great portion of the program is focused on preventing young people, youth and young adults, from ever using tobacco so we don’t have to spend as much on cessation, or getting them to quit later in life,” says Prom
And Prom says youth smoking rates have gone down in the last year. Even though the tobacco industry spends about one-hundred and ninety five dollars a year marketing to North Dakotans.
“It’s odd that we have a situation today where we have an industry, the tobacco industry, who promote a product that when used as intended kills. There’s really nothing normal about that. So we want to change that to where not using tobacco is the norm,” says Jeanne Prom, North Dakota Tobacco Prevention.
Prom presented these numbers on the same day that New York City proposed a law that would change the tobacco buying age from eighteen to twenty-one. But North Dakotans don’t thing that will happen here.
“North Dakota, at this time, we need to focus on our taxes and raising that, and that is going to make the biggest impact for stopping our youth from starting and helping others to quit,” says Kim Schneider, American Lung Association.
That’s because the tobacco tax here is only forty-four cents, one of the lowest in the country.
“We’ve spent a lot of time in the past year just educating again on the smoke-free law and on the tobacco tax. It’s a big issue in North Dakota,” says Schneider.
Tobacco prevention groups in the state say raising the tax is the next step towards fighting tobacco use.
For more information on how much smoking costs North Dakotans, visit breathend.com.
http://www.kumv.com/story/23842127/tobacco-marketing-costs-exceed-those-of-prevention-efforts

Costly cigarettes and smoke-free homes: Both effectively reduce tobacco consumption

Researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine say high-priced cigarettes and smoke-free homes effectively reduce smoking behaviors among low-income individuals – a demographic in which tobacco use has remained comparatively high.

Writing in the October 17, 2013 issue of theAmerican Journal of Public Health, principal investigator John P. Pierce, PhD, professor and director of population sciences at UC San Diego School of Medicine, and colleagues found that expensive cigarettes – $4.50 or more per pack – were associated with lower consumption across all levels.

Writing in the October 17, 2013 issue of theAmerican Journal of Public Health, principal investigator John P. Pierce, PhD, professor and director of population sciences at UC San Diego School of Medicine, and colleagues found that expensive cigarettes – $4.50 or more per pack – were associated with lower consumption across all levels.
“Living in a state where the average price paid for cigarettes is low ($3.20 or less per pack) means that all , regardless of income, will smoke a lot more than those who live in a state with higher prices,” said Pierce. “This is the case for those living below the  as well as for the wealthy.”
When smokers agreed to a smoke-free home, not only were they more likely to reduce their smoking but, in addition, if they quit, they were less likely to relapse.
“Price is a deterrent to smoking,” said Pierce, “but successful quitting (90 or more days) was associated in this study only with a smoke-free home.”
The challenge to anti-smoking groups is that low-income smokers are less likely to adopt a smoke-free home environment. Pierce offered several possible explanations: “First, there’s a higher prevalence of smoking in people with lower incomes, which means that there will be more spouses who smoke as well. When both adults smoke, there is much lower motivation to introduce a smoke-free home. Also, social norms against smoking have historically been lower in those with lower incomes.
“No one is mandating a smoke-free home,” Pierce continued. “We are telling people that if they really want to quit, then introducing a smoke-free home will help them be successful. This study supports the current policy of increasing (cigarette) prices and building social norms that protect against secondhand smoke. These policies will reduce consumption among all smokers – reducing potential harm – and the ensuing smoke-free homes will help smokers quit successfully.”
The findings are derived from the 2006-2007 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey, a monthly nationally representative cross-sectional survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. The researchers analyzed three sets of supplement data containing responses from more than 150,000 participants aged 18 and older who self-reported both income and smoking habits.
Maya Vijayaraghavan, MD, assistant clinical professor in the Department of Family and Preventive medicine and the study’s first author, said one potential avenue for intervention was to increase regulation of  in public housing.
“This may change norms around smoking among low-income populations living in public housing,” Vijayaraghavan said. “What is important is that clinicians need to emphasize  concerning tobacco use and should encourage and discuss strategies for adopting smoke-free homes among all smokers. Additionally, there is a lot of interest in raising cigarette price to reduce smoking. While we have evidence that moderate increases reduce  behavior in all income groups, it is important to match such a policy with support to help lower income smokers to quit successfully.”
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-costly-cigarettes-smoke-free-homes-effectively.html

More restrictions for smokers at Ralph Engelstad Arena

By: Jennifer Johnson, Grand Forks Herald
Those who want to take a smoke break during events at Grand Forks’ Ralph Engelstad Arena will be free to leave but they won’t be allowed back in starting Oct. 6, the night of the first UND men’s hockey game, according to arena spokesman Chris Semrau.
This will affect all events at the arena itself and the Betty Engelstad Sioux Center.
The arena’s new policy would be consistent with UND’s tobacco policy, and is another step to ensure a healthier workplace for employees on event nights, Semrau said on Monday.
UND became a tobacco-free campus in 2007, but the Ralph was among the places exempted. The arena was able to offer guests an outdoor smoking zone.
Arena officials have considered getting rid of those zones for years, Semrau said. Though he estimates the number of people who smoke at arena events is low, he said tobacco smoke drifting into the building while children were present was enough to trigger complaints. “Most guests and staff said they didn’t want smoking allowed anymore.”
“The community itself has voted to remove smoking from most establishments, and this is another step in that direction,” Semrau said, referring to city laws restricting smoking indoors.
“We thought this was the right next step for the facility,” he said. “With any change, you’ll always have some negative feedback. But we hope to address what we’re doing and why we’re doing it, and we believe it will not have a major impact on guests.”
Information about the new policy will be sent to season ticket holders in the next week, he said.
http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/273965/

Check Up: Study of casinos raises alarm on secondhand smoke

By Don Sapatkin, Inquirer Staff Writer
A half-century after a U.S. Surgeon General’s report raised the alarm on tobacco, most Americans know that smoking may eventually cause lung cancer. Far less appreciated is what can happen just minutes – 60 seconds, according to some research – after taking in a breath of smoke, even secondhand.
In the bloodstream, platelets are activated and become sticky. They clump together to form clots that can cause a heart attack or stroke. They stick to artery walls, ripping the lining when blood flow increases and interfering with the vessels’ ability to expand and contract as needed.
“I’m sure you’ve heard, ‘If you’re having a heart attack, take an aspirin,’ ” said Stanton Glantz, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. “Aspirin is an anti-platelet agent. And what the smoke is doing is exactly the opposite.”
His latest research, analyzing ambulance calls from casinos, illustrates the point.
Smoke-free laws in most of the country, including Pennsylvania and New Jersey, partly or completely exempt casino floors. Colorado’s law changed in the middle of the 13-year study period, offering what Stanton calls “a natural experiment” in secondhand smoke’s short-term effects.
On July 1, 2006, the state implemented a smoking ban in all workplaces, public spaces, restaurants, and bars; casinos were exempt. Ambulance calls in rural Gilpin County dropped 23 percent from locations other than its two dozen casinos, where they were unchanged.
Gambling floors were added to the law effective Jan. 1, 2008. Ambulance calls from casinos (and their parking lots) swiftly dropped 19 percent; every place else remained the same.
Numerous studies have found declines of roughly 20 percent in hospitalizations for various conditions after comprehensive smoking bans, Glantz said. That is likely due to a mix of short- and long-term factors: less secondhand smoke, more smokers quitting, and a snowball effect that further reduces smoking rates.
By focusing on emergency calls from casinos, which players visit for specific time periods, the new study was better able to isolate the near-instantaneous effects of exposure to secondhand smoke.
The study, published last month in the journal Circulation, did not track outcomes or reasons for the calls. Instances of wheezing, runny eyes, and elevated blood pressure weren’t recorded either, noted Jennifer Ibrahim, an associate professor of public health at Temple University, who studies tobacco and public health law.
“It is probably 10 times that for people who are experiencing symptoms, but might not need a trip to a hospital,” she said.
Tobacco companies have worked for years to exempt casinos from smoke-free laws, said Glantz and Ibrahim, who have each examined the links.
Delaware bans smoking in casinos. New Jersey exempts them, but defers to localities, and Atlantic City restricts smoking to 25 percent of the floor. Pennsylvania allows smoking in up to 50 percent of the casino floor and preempts all local smoke-free laws except Philadelphia’s – but supersedes it specifically for the gaming floor, where the city would prohibit smoking.
Glantz argues that lawmakers who say they are concerned about costs ought to read the research. “A heart attack is a lot of money,” he said, much of it paid by taxpayers.
http://articles.philly.com/2013-09-15/news/42083527_1_casinos-secondhand-smoke-smoking-rates

City Council votes to restrict e-cigarette use in Duluth

By: Peter Passi, Associated Press
New restrictions soon will confront users of electronic cigarettes in Duluth.
A series of ordinances passed Monday night by the Duluth City Council will subject people using e-cigarettes to the same restrictions faced by smokers puffing on conventional cigarettes. The ordinances also will prevent hookah bars from doing business in the city.
But several councilors expressed misgivings about different aspects of the new rules.
Councilor Sharla Gardner supported many of the restrictions but not one that would prevent patrons of smoke shops from testing out e-cigarettes and sampling different flavored solutions on premises.
“I’m really not OK with banning something or demonizing it when everyone agrees all the science isn’t in on this,” Gardner said.
She also noted that e-cigarettes have been a helpful tool in helping wean some people off yet more dangerous conventional cigarettes.
“I certainly don’t want to be harming people’s efforts to quit,” she said.
But Councilor Jennifer Julsrud, who introduced the ordinances, said they were necessary.
“I wrote these ordinances and I pushed for them because I want to protect kids, and I believe in supporting clean air,” she said.
Councilor Jay Fosle, who opposed all the new ordinances, said the rules were unnecessary, as it’s already against the law to sell e-cigarettes to minors.
He said individual businesses and properties already have the right to ban the use of e-cigarettes if they wish and said the council should be more concerned with the use of other products.
“What we should really be concerned about is the use of heroin and ecstasy,” he said.
Fosle said that by taking such a restrictive stance toward e-cigarettes, the city would push businesses into neighboring communities.
“We’re going against businesses that would bring more money onto our tax rolls,” he said.
Fosle contended it was wrong to lump e-cigarettes in with tobacco.
But Duluth resident Sharon Lund testified that e-cigarettes have not been shown to be harmless. She said the devices have been found to emit about 20 percent of the pollutants that regular cigarettes do, but she could not support introducing them into spaces where clean air has become the norm.
“Do we really want to take a step backwards and expose people to more carcinogens and toxic chemicals again?” she asked.
Lund said she also was sickened by e-cigarette manufacturers’ attempts to appeal to young people with flavored solutions, such as bubble gum or cookies and cream.
Councilor Jim Stauber said that for him watching out for the public welfare, particular for young people, takes top priority.
“I generally don’t like government intruding on people’s lives, but I think this is the right thing to do,” he said.
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/277452/

WSC Going Smoke Free

By Chris Williams – email
It’s a move more college’s across the country are starting to make…going smoke free.
Out of the 11 institutions in North Dakota, 10 of them are smoke free, and now Williston State College is going to make it 11.
Last but not least. On November 1st of this year, Williston State College is going to be not only smoke free, but tobacco free.
“It includes e-cigarettes, it includes chewing tobacco, any other kind of tobacco form, it is all forbidden to be on campus and being used on campus,” said Williston State College Faculty Senate Chair Kim Weismann.
WSC administrators have been busy over the last several years, adding new buildings, and getting new projects ready to go. This year, school officials were able to do some things they’ve been waiting to do. Like creating a tobacco free campus.
“All the governing bodies in campus needed to approve the policy, but we also need to make sure there’s enforcement, and signage and all of those other things we really don’t ever think about when it goes through with policy changes,” added Weismann.
One Teton says she is excited the campus is going to be tobacco free.
“We’re getting all of these new things, so we want it to keep looking new, we want to show we’re appreciative of all the things that we have,” said Student Senate President Samantha Chamberlain.
Chamberlain says a large portion of the student body are athletes, and they shouldn’t be smoking anyways.
“They need to be able to run up and down the court to win us games,” Chamberlain added.
If you’re caught smoking on campus when the policy goes into effect, you will be issued one warning, and after that you will be fined. This policy is for all buildings owned by the college.
“The apartment complex is also tobacco free, so even in your own personal apartment there’s no smoking or tobacco use,” Weismann added.
http://www.kqcd.com/story/23386262/wsc-going-smoke-free

Ohio State study: Smokers cost employers $6K more annually

By Alexa Carson
Employees who smoke cost their employers almost $6,000 more annually than nonsmokers, according to a recent study conducted by Ohio State researchers.
Lead author Micah Berman, from the College of Public Health and Moritz College of Law, told The Lantern he decided to research this topic when he was asked to give a presentation on policies involving smoking in the workplace, such as smoke-free policies and not hiring smokers. He discovered no studies had been done on the comprehensive costs of employing a smoker versus a nonsmoker.
“It was odd to me that the question hadn’t been answered given that employers were making decisions about smokers in the workplace,” Berman said.
By performing an analysis of previous studies done on individual smoking related expenses to an employer, Berman and his co-authors estimated a $5,816 annual excess expense from discrete costs related to smoking.
These costs include smoke breaks, health care costs, absenteeism and presenteeism, which Berman described as “reduced focus in the workplace due to going through nicotine withdrawal throughout the work day.” The study adjusted for the fact that smokers tend to make less than nonsmokers, and even factored in a “death benefit,” Berman said.
“Companies with defined benefit pension systems may save some money due to the fact that smokers die earlier than non-smokers,” Berman said. “But the cost savings is very minimal.”
Berman said he had expected to find smokers would incur excess costs, but two results of the study surprised him.
“One is the extent of the cost,” said Berman, “and second is the health care costs. Well, everyone’s aware of those, but in fact the majority of the costs weren’t due to health care costs but due to productivity costs from things like smoke breaks.”
Brooke Cavallo, a third-year in strategic communication, said she thinks productivity costs can be an issue between smokers and employers based on what she has seen at work.
“I work in a bar and most of my coworkers do smoke, and we are constantly getting in trouble because they take smoke breaks,” Cavallo said.
Berman said his research takes no position on whether businesses should or should not hire smokers, and focuses on the economical rather than ethical issues related to smoking policies. He believes, however, tobacco cessation programs, which “cost up front but save money over time,” or tobacco-free policies can reduce costs to employers.
Under the tobacco-free policy OSU plans to implement this semester, no tobacco products of any kind are allowed on any OSU property either indoors or outdoors. Previously, the university followed a nonsmoking policy that prevented smoking indoors but had no restrictions on smokeless tobacco or smoking outdoors, except in certain “tobacco-free” areas. The policy began on Aug. 1, but will not be implemented in earnest until January 2014.
Dr. Peter Shields, co-chair of the Tobacco-Free Implementation Committee at OSU, said the “first and foremost reason we are going tobacco free is because we want to have a healthier community.”
Shields is also the deputy director at the OSU James Comprehensive Cancer Center and a professor at the College of Medicine. He said cost was a factor in deciding to implement a tobacco-free policy.
“There are other reasons that follow behind that are not necessarily as important,” Shields said, “and one of those is the cost to the university for faculty and staff who continue using tobacco.”
Berman said he had similar beliefs about the policy.
“I don’t think cost is the most important reason for the adoption of the policy,” Berman said. “But it may end up saving the university money too.”
http://www.thelantern.com/campus/ohio-state-study-smokers-cost-employers-6k-more-annually-1.3051093#.UhTN2mRUM0M