State House members: It's time to ban smoking
State government has duty to protect workers, citizens and taxpayers' money
Editorial in The Tennessean
Published: Thursday, 05/25/06

The Tennessee House has snuffed out many anti-smoking bills through the years. It may try to kill the measure that just passed in the Senate.

But as House lawmakers consider the bill, they need to look beyond the traditional arguments they've used through the years to kill anti-smoking bills - arguments about individual rights, smokers being victims of discrimination, and the importance of tobacco farming in Tennessee . As state lawmakers who ultimately are responsible for state finances, House members need to look at the dollars and cents behind the smoking measure.

State Sen. Roy Herron, D-Dresden, is one of the sponsors of the bill that passed unanimously in the Senate on Tuesday. It would ban smoking in all of the 528 buildings owned or operated by the state, including state prisons.

Herron shared with senators some statistics: The Center for Disease Control estimates that 26.1% Tennesseans smoke. Apply that percentage to the state government workforce of 49,508 employees, and you come up with an estimated 12,922 smokers who are state employees.

On average, those smokers, according to the Personnel Department, miss two more days of work than non-smokers each year. They also take smoke breaks that total between six to nine work days per year.

Do the math: State employees who smoke miss a total of 122,759 more days of work. And with the average state employee salary of $35,399, Tennesseans are paying $18,336,682 each year because of the smoke breaks and increased sick days taken by state employees who smoke.

Does that mean that if the House passes the anti-smoking bill, Tennessee will save $18 million? No. The state would save much more.

It would save in absenteeism caused by secondhand smoke. It would save in reduced health-care expenses for workers and for prisoners. It would save the extra cleaning, painting and carpet replacement that must be done routinely in buildings where smoking is permitted.

And state lawmakers would save a measure of their own credibility. The fact that Tennessee state government is decades behind the private sector on anti-smoking measures is shameful. When school children who have been raised in smoke-free environments visit the seat of Tennessee government, they are aghast at the fact that smoking is permitted.

By any standard, this bill represents a modest step. For years, other businesses have declared their buildings off-limits for smoking. Some states have banned smoking in bars and restaurants. Even newspapers, with their tradition of cigar-chomping editors, have sent smokers outside.

Surely the business of Tennessee government can be just as responsible in protecting the health of workers and citizens and in protecting the interests of state taxpayers.

back to news