WORCESTERSHIRE County Council won’t be following the example of their
hospital colleagues in banning smoking among staff – for now.
Worcestershire
Acute Hospitals’ NHS Trust last week announced a blanket ban on its
staff, contractors and volunteers lighting up in the grounds of its
three county hospitals.
From 2015, patients and visitors will also be prevented from lighting up on site.
But despite a plea from Councillor Andy Roberts,
chairman of the county council’s health overview and scrutiny
committee, the council says staff at County Hall can continue to use its
smoking shelters for the time being.Classic cigarettes.
“I welcome the news that Worcestershire Acute Hospitals’ NHS Trust
aims to be smoke-free by 2015 and Coun Roberts raises a very pertinent
point,” said Coun Marcus Hart, the county council’s cabinet member for
health and wellbeing.
“In my role as cabinet member and as chair of the Worcestershire
Tobacco Control Alliance, I am very supportive of any measures that help
reduce smoking and which make it no longer the norm.
“The smoking ban in public places in England and Scotland drew
attention to the health burden of passive smoking and this has been an
important part of improving the health of the UK population.
“Staff at County Hall are currently able to use smoking shelters if
they wish and at this time this remains in place. I have raised the
issue before and will continue to do it again to see what more the
county council can do on its own premises.”
Coun Roberts said it would make sense for the county council to follow suit.
“We – the county council – are now responsible for public health,” he said.
“Now that the hospital has taken this initiative I think the county council should look at itself.”
The NHS Trust said its plan will support its “prevention message” to
patients, as they will now be treated by staff not smelling of smoke.
The trust’s decision came at the same time as the National Institute
for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) urg-ed the NHS to ban smoking on
all hospital grounds across the country.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Friday, December 6, 2013
Thursday, December 5, 2013
UMass Faculty Senate passes campus tobacco ban
Members of the University of Massachusetts Faculty Senate yesterday
passed a proposition that aims to ban the use of all tobacco products on
campus beginning in 2013.
The Senate approved of the proposal in a 14-7 vote, after several students spoke against it and some faculty members spoke in favor of it.
The policy – which won’t go into effect until July 1, 2013 – was brought forward to the Senate by the University Health Council. It calls for the prohibition of all tobacco products on University property. In addition, it bars tobacco use in any vehicles on school property, and also prohibits the use of electronic cigarettes.
Sen. Tobias Baskin, a professor of biology who serves as the chairman of the Health Council, said at the onset of discussions on the matter at yesterday’s meeting that statistics show tobacco use is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans each year, and that similar propositions have worked at many colleges across the country.
“It is reliably estimated that in America last year tobacco use killed more than 400,000 people,” Baskin said, adding that use of such products can make people susceptible to diseases and can lead to economic hardships.
Baskin also said studies show that students enrolled at tobacco-free universities are less likely to become smokers.
“There’s enough history with tobacco-free campuses that there [is] actually data,” he said. The proposal cites the Universities of Florida, Oregon and Michigan, as well as the UMass Medical School in Worcester as campuses with similar tobacco-free policies.
Additionally, Baskin noted that “the purpose of the policy is educational, not punitive.”
Baskin added later on during the discussions that the new policy will mostly be enforced on a voluntary basis. He likened it to when signs went up at the UMass Recreation Center instructing students not to dispose of gum in drinking fountains – which, he said, significantly decreased the practice.
“Mostly, people will comply voluntarily,” Baskin said, adding that it’s his understanding that 95 percent of people on campuses already with a tobacco-free policy voluntarily comply with regulations.
In addition to Baskin, Sen. Richard Bogartz, a professor of psychology, also spoke in favor of the ban. He said that he often feels “attacked” by cigarette smoke on campus, and that he thinks a state law that requires smokers to be at least 20 feet away from a building is often violated.
And Wilmore Webley, a professor of biology who has been spearheading many of the efforts behind the proposal, noted during the meeting that it’s hard to enforce rules that require smokers to be a certain distance from a structure. He also said that second-hand smoke affects many in the country.
“Second-hand smoke kills more Americans in any year than guns,” Webley said.
He added that the he feels a tobacco-free policy is “preserving everyone’s right,” noting that it doesn’t necessarily force smokers to quit because they can continue to smoke off-campus.
However, many students expressed their opposition to the proposal during the meeting, noting that it would be unrealistic to have all smokers go off-campus to smoke, and that they feel the policy infringes upon their rights.
Nathan Lamb, a political science major who also serves as a senator in the Student Government Association, said he feels parts of the policy entrench on individuals’ rights. He said that people should be allowed to smoke in their own cars when on campus – because it’s not affecting anyone else. He added that rather than issuing an ultimatum of sorts, the University should plan to work with students on such an initiative.
Ben Taylor, who is also a political science major, said that he doesn’t feel that instituting a prohibition policy will be very effective.
“We have found as a country that prohibition doesn’t work,” Taylor said, noting that it didn’t work with alcohol and that he doesn’t think it works with marijuana.
Taylor added that he doesn’t think the resolution will be enforceable. He also said that the policy would be unfair for UMass employees – who, like all students and guests on campus, would not be permitted to smoke on University property.
George Williams – a freshman English major who said he grew up under tough circumstances and smoked in middle school, but no longer smokes – told Senate members that sometimes when he was younger cigarettes were the only thing that got him through the day.
“The only thing that really kept me from killing myself was cigarettes,” said Williams, who noted that he is not in that condition anymore. “I know I really should have done something else, but I didn’t have the option.”
“You’re [going to] have deaths” with the policy, Williams added.
Other students – some of whom brought protest signs to the meeting – noted that such a policy could affect the University’s enrollment, that it oversteps regulatory lines and that it will force more people to smoke in hiding. Some students also vocally expressed their disapproval of some statements that were made during the meeting.
Sen. Norman Sims, a professor of journalism, brought forward a motion to have the Senate’s Program and Budget Council look at the proposal before going forward. That motion ultimately failed.
Besides gaining the approval of the Health Council, the proposition also got the go-ahead from the UMass Campus Leadership Council – which is composed of members of the administration – before being approved yesterday.
Additionally, the approved smoking ban proposal calls for the creation of a Tobacco-Free Campus Committee, which will be made up of members from the student and faculty body and will be charged with carrying out most of the implementation of the policy.
Secretary of the Senate Ernie May, who also served on the Health Council, said that members will be willing to meet with representatives from the Student Government Association to go over any concerns.
Faculty Senate Presiding Officer W. Brian O’Connor also noted that there are still two years until the policy goes into effect – which, he said, will allow for most people to have their say in the matter.
“We’ve got two years to work on this,” he said. “I’m convinced everyone will have their say.”
The Senate approved of the proposal in a 14-7 vote, after several students spoke against it and some faculty members spoke in favor of it.
The policy – which won’t go into effect until July 1, 2013 – was brought forward to the Senate by the University Health Council. It calls for the prohibition of all tobacco products on University property. In addition, it bars tobacco use in any vehicles on school property, and also prohibits the use of electronic cigarettes.
Sen. Tobias Baskin, a professor of biology who serves as the chairman of the Health Council, said at the onset of discussions on the matter at yesterday’s meeting that statistics show tobacco use is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans each year, and that similar propositions have worked at many colleges across the country.
“It is reliably estimated that in America last year tobacco use killed more than 400,000 people,” Baskin said, adding that use of such products can make people susceptible to diseases and can lead to economic hardships.
Baskin also said studies show that students enrolled at tobacco-free universities are less likely to become smokers.
“There’s enough history with tobacco-free campuses that there [is] actually data,” he said. The proposal cites the Universities of Florida, Oregon and Michigan, as well as the UMass Medical School in Worcester as campuses with similar tobacco-free policies.
Additionally, Baskin noted that “the purpose of the policy is educational, not punitive.”
Baskin added later on during the discussions that the new policy will mostly be enforced on a voluntary basis. He likened it to when signs went up at the UMass Recreation Center instructing students not to dispose of gum in drinking fountains – which, he said, significantly decreased the practice.
“Mostly, people will comply voluntarily,” Baskin said, adding that it’s his understanding that 95 percent of people on campuses already with a tobacco-free policy voluntarily comply with regulations.
In addition to Baskin, Sen. Richard Bogartz, a professor of psychology, also spoke in favor of the ban. He said that he often feels “attacked” by cigarette smoke on campus, and that he thinks a state law that requires smokers to be at least 20 feet away from a building is often violated.
And Wilmore Webley, a professor of biology who has been spearheading many of the efforts behind the proposal, noted during the meeting that it’s hard to enforce rules that require smokers to be a certain distance from a structure. He also said that second-hand smoke affects many in the country.
“Second-hand smoke kills more Americans in any year than guns,” Webley said.
He added that the he feels a tobacco-free policy is “preserving everyone’s right,” noting that it doesn’t necessarily force smokers to quit because they can continue to smoke off-campus.
However, many students expressed their opposition to the proposal during the meeting, noting that it would be unrealistic to have all smokers go off-campus to smoke, and that they feel the policy infringes upon their rights.
Nathan Lamb, a political science major who also serves as a senator in the Student Government Association, said he feels parts of the policy entrench on individuals’ rights. He said that people should be allowed to smoke in their own cars when on campus – because it’s not affecting anyone else. He added that rather than issuing an ultimatum of sorts, the University should plan to work with students on such an initiative.
Ben Taylor, who is also a political science major, said that he doesn’t feel that instituting a prohibition policy will be very effective.
“We have found as a country that prohibition doesn’t work,” Taylor said, noting that it didn’t work with alcohol and that he doesn’t think it works with marijuana.
Taylor added that he doesn’t think the resolution will be enforceable. He also said that the policy would be unfair for UMass employees – who, like all students and guests on campus, would not be permitted to smoke on University property.
George Williams – a freshman English major who said he grew up under tough circumstances and smoked in middle school, but no longer smokes – told Senate members that sometimes when he was younger cigarettes were the only thing that got him through the day.
“The only thing that really kept me from killing myself was cigarettes,” said Williams, who noted that he is not in that condition anymore. “I know I really should have done something else, but I didn’t have the option.”
“You’re [going to] have deaths” with the policy, Williams added.
Other students – some of whom brought protest signs to the meeting – noted that such a policy could affect the University’s enrollment, that it oversteps regulatory lines and that it will force more people to smoke in hiding. Some students also vocally expressed their disapproval of some statements that were made during the meeting.
Sen. Norman Sims, a professor of journalism, brought forward a motion to have the Senate’s Program and Budget Council look at the proposal before going forward. That motion ultimately failed.
Besides gaining the approval of the Health Council, the proposition also got the go-ahead from the UMass Campus Leadership Council – which is composed of members of the administration – before being approved yesterday.
Additionally, the approved smoking ban proposal calls for the creation of a Tobacco-Free Campus Committee, which will be made up of members from the student and faculty body and will be charged with carrying out most of the implementation of the policy.
Secretary of the Senate Ernie May, who also served on the Health Council, said that members will be willing to meet with representatives from the Student Government Association to go over any concerns.
Faculty Senate Presiding Officer W. Brian O’Connor also noted that there are still two years until the policy goes into effect – which, he said, will allow for most people to have their say in the matter.
“We’ve got two years to work on this,” he said. “I’m convinced everyone will have their say.”
Friday, November 29, 2013
Young Children Recognize Cigarette Brands
The study, published in the journal Pediatrics, examined the reach of tobacco and cigarette marketing among some of the world’s most vulnerable populations, sampling
five and six year-old children from Brazil, China, India, Nigeria,
Pakistan and Russia. These countries were selected because they have
the highest number of adult smokers among low- and middle-income
countries.
“Previous studies show that children and adolescents who are highly exposed to pro-smoking messages are more likely to smoke,” said Dr. Dina Borzekowski, lead author of the Pediatrics study and research professor in the UMD SPH Department of Behavioral and Community Health. “It should be of great concern that the majority of very young children in our study were familiar with at least one cigarette brand. Even in households without smokers, children could identify tobacco logos.”
The United States created stronger regulations for tobacco advertising in the 1990s after similar research found that six year olds were as familiar with Camel tobacco’s “Joe Camel” mascot as with the Disney Channel’s Mickey Mouse.
“Regulations created by the World Health Organization to restrict tobacco advertising exist outside of the United States, but beyond our country’s borders these regulations may not be as effective,” Borzekowski explains, referring to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. “Multi-national tobacco companies appear to have moved their promotional efforts from high-income, industrialized countries to low- and middle-income countries where there are often weak tobacco control policies and poor enforcement.” While smoking is stabilizing or decreasing in wealthy countries, people in low and middle-income countries are taking up the habit at alarming rates. In China, for example, nearly one third of adults are cigarette smokers ( about 53 percent of men) , according to WHO data.
With five and six year-old children aware of domestic and international tobacco brands, there is a need to enforce stronger regulations in countries where tobacco companies have increased efforts to attract new users. When children are aware of logos, they are more likely to like and want those products. This is concerning when the products – such as tobacco – should not be used by children. Borzekowski and colleagues suggest changes including requiring larger graphic warning labels on cigarette packages. Additionally, they urge changes to limit children’s exposure to the point of sale of tobacco products, including establishing minimum distances between these retailers and places frequented by young children.
“This study reiterates that more needs to be done to reduce the ability of tobacco companies to market their products to children,” said co-author Dr. Joanna Cohen, director of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Global Tobacco Control. “Countries can implement and enforce bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship, including putting large picture warnings on the front and back of cigarette packs. Plain and standardized packaging, now required in Australia, also helps to reduce the attractiveness of cigarette packs among young children.”
“Previous studies show that children and adolescents who are highly exposed to pro-smoking messages are more likely to smoke,” said Dr. Dina Borzekowski, lead author of the Pediatrics study and research professor in the UMD SPH Department of Behavioral and Community Health. “It should be of great concern that the majority of very young children in our study were familiar with at least one cigarette brand. Even in households without smokers, children could identify tobacco logos.”
The United States created stronger regulations for tobacco advertising in the 1990s after similar research found that six year olds were as familiar with Camel tobacco’s “Joe Camel” mascot as with the Disney Channel’s Mickey Mouse.
“Regulations created by the World Health Organization to restrict tobacco advertising exist outside of the United States, but beyond our country’s borders these regulations may not be as effective,” Borzekowski explains, referring to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. “Multi-national tobacco companies appear to have moved their promotional efforts from high-income, industrialized countries to low- and middle-income countries where there are often weak tobacco control policies and poor enforcement.” While smoking is stabilizing or decreasing in wealthy countries, people in low and middle-income countries are taking up the habit at alarming rates. In China, for example, nearly one third of adults are cigarette smokers ( about 53 percent of men) , according to WHO data.
With five and six year-old children aware of domestic and international tobacco brands, there is a need to enforce stronger regulations in countries where tobacco companies have increased efforts to attract new users. When children are aware of logos, they are more likely to like and want those products. This is concerning when the products – such as tobacco – should not be used by children. Borzekowski and colleagues suggest changes including requiring larger graphic warning labels on cigarette packages. Additionally, they urge changes to limit children’s exposure to the point of sale of tobacco products, including establishing minimum distances between these retailers and places frequented by young children.
“This study reiterates that more needs to be done to reduce the ability of tobacco companies to market their products to children,” said co-author Dr. Joanna Cohen, director of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Global Tobacco Control. “Countries can implement and enforce bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship, including putting large picture warnings on the front and back of cigarette packs. Plain and standardized packaging, now required in Australia, also helps to reduce the attractiveness of cigarette packs among young children.”
Friday, November 15, 2013
Under Obamacare, large companies will punish employees who don’t quit smoking, lose weight
Employers tried the carrot, then a small stick. Now they are turning to bigger cudgels.
For years they encouraged workers to improve their health and productivity with free screenings, discounted gym memberships and gift cards to lose weight. More recently, a small number charged smokers slightly higher premiums to get them to quit.
Results for these plans were lackluster, and healthcare costs continued to soar. So companies are taking advantage of new rules under President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul in 2014 to punish smokers and overweight workers.
Some will even force employees to meet weight goals, quit smoking and provide very personal information or pay up to thousands more annually for healthcare. That could disproportionately affect the poor, who are more likely to smoke and can’t afford the higher fees.
Nearly 40 percent of large U.S. companies will use surcharges in 2014, such as higher insurance premiums or deductibles for individuals who do not complete company-set health goals, according to a survey of 892 employers released in September by human resources consultancy Towers Watson and National Business Group on Health, which represents large employers.
That is almost twice as many as the last time they did the survey in 2011, when only 19 percent of companies had such penalties. The number is expected to climb to two-thirds of employers by 2015.
Employers are getting much more aggressive about punishing workers who are overweight or have high cholesterol. A study released on Wednesday by the Obesity Action Coalition, an advocacy group, covered workers at more than 5,000 companies who must participate in their employer wellness programs to receive full health benefits. Sixty-seven percent also had to meet a weight-related health goal such as a certain body mass index.
Almost 60 percent of these workers received no coverage that paid for fitness training, dietitian counseling, obesity drugs or bariatric surgery to help achieve a body mass index under 25, which is considered healthy.
“Weight requirements are an effective way to make it harder for people with obesity to qualify for full health coverage,” said Ted Kyle, the study’s lead author and founder of Conscienhealth, a Pittsburgh-based company that advises other companies on obesity programs.
“Some programs can verge on discrimination,” he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)