News
Anti-smoking law changes behaviour
First published in The Independent, 12 June 2008.
It is now almost universally accepted that smoking is a social ill in New Zealand.
One in five adults in this country smokes. About 5000 deaths per year are attributable to direct smoking or second-hand smoke.
Put simply, smoking is bad business for Government. Whilst it arguably enjoys a benefit from the tax raised through the sale of cigarettes, it is the State that must bear the brunt of the health costs associated with smoking which (as the above statistics suggest) can be significant over time.
But can legislation necessarily affect behaviour? And, if so, how can it be made to be most effective?
The answer, it seems, is to concentrate the law on the workplace.
In many respects, New Zealand has led the world in the introduction of anti-smoking legislation.
In 1990 New Zealand introduced the Smoke-Free Environments Act. This legislation regulates for smoke-free workplaces in public areas and also places controls on the marketing and advertising of tobacco.
Most significantly, however, the Act introduced restrictions on an employee's ability to smoke while at work. Practically, of course, it led to the now common sight of smokers clustering outside workplaces, often on street corners or in carparks and basements.
More latterly, restrictions have been placed on smoking in other places and, most recently, unpleasant pictures have been placed on tobacco products, with the intention of discouraging consumers from smoking.
So where has all this law got us? Judging solely by statistics, the introduction of anti-smoking legislation - particularly directed at the workplace - has been effective. In 1990 smoking prevalence was around 2000 cigarettes per adult each year. Now it is about one half that amount.
Put another way, less people are smoking and our overall tobacco consumption is down.
More interestingly, perhaps, is the reason behind this effective reduction in tobacco use.
Late last year two Professors from Harvard University's Department of Economics produced a research paper, summarising the conclusions from studies over the effects of non-smoking legislation.
As one might have expected, the studies confirm the effectiveness of workplace legislation on smokers. What might have been more surprising, however, was the conclusions about the consequential effects upon those workers' spouses and peers.
As the report notes, there are many reasons to think that peers matter for health-related behaviours. In many cases, for example, some things are more fun to do when others are doing them too (for instance, the drinking of alcohol).
Peers are also a source of information about relevant issues (for example, the benefits of a mammogram) – or about what might be acceptable in society, or at least to a particular sub-group of society (ie you and your friends). If all your friends smoke during break time, for instance, you might be more inclined to join in as well because of an impression that it is socially acceptable to do so.
The Harvard study suggests that these behaviours are particularly notable in the case of smoking. Put simply, if a person quits smoking (possibly at the encouragement of peers or a workplace ban) their spouse is 40 per cent more likely to quit as well.
Arguably, this conclusion means that workplace smoking bans can act as an effective component of social engineering – to achieve a desired public interest outcome, such as the reduction of smoking in society.
For some people, this conclusion is intuitive and precisely what this sort of legislation must have intended.
For others, however, the conclusions are surprising and perhaps even invigorating. They suggest that legitimate social good can be achieved by pursuing change in the workplace. Policy interventions that impact on an individual's smoking habit will have both direct effects and indirect effects outside of the person's place of work.
Whether this effect was intended may be a matter for debate. It does, however, suggest that workplace legislation may have a part to play in the achievement of greater social good.
