Clearly, nonsmokers and exsmokers may be ex pected to favor smoking restrictions; it requires no change in behavior and offers the benefits of reduced health risks. Opinions of smokers are expected to be less favorable toward a restricted policy that, if any thing, is inconvenient. Smokers may argue that they have the least to gain from a no-smoking policy and they are valued employees who should not be confronted with a punitive policy. Smoking is an undesirable habit and a major preventable cause of death and disability; and this institution continues to emphasize that message as often as possible. Likewise, our institution remains committed to its employees, to the smoker and nonsmoker, to job satisfaction, and continued quality performance although we unequivocally support non-smoking efforts. To this end, we provide an alternative for the smoker—an off-the-main-campus setting where those who smoke can meet the need of their dependency—while at the same time we emphasize smoking cessation and smoking treatment pro grams, including group counseling and nicotine re placement therapy.
In conclusion, we strongly advocate that medical institutions should take the lead as responsible proponents of sociomedical policy by setting an example for the public as it relates to health care issues. We have tested a no-smoking policy and found it to be desirable for our medical institution and for the nonsmoker and smoker alike.
Blog invites submissions of review articles, reports on clinical techniques, case reports, conference summaries, and articles of opinion pertinent to the control of pain and anxiety in dentistry.