The Smoking Climate
The Implementing of the Toronto by-law on
smoking In the workplace was far from the 111(st
time the Personnel Managers had been re-
quIred lo deal with the Issue. The secondhand
smoke problem, the one non-smokers are most
concerned about (though odour bothers them
as well), had been causing conflict for some
years. Dividing offices along smoking lines had
been Ineffective. as had buying Ecologlzers for
smokers. Both approaches had been widely
tried, as had offering Smokenders.
The by-law had largely solved the connict,
but had created two Issues of Ks own. There
was no problem with compliance, but loss of
productivity was occurring. For one, smokers
were taking upwards of an hour a day for smo-
king breaks. something the Personnel Mana-
gers tolerated as a hopefully passing phase.
The other was resentment by non-smokers at
the way smokers can take liberties with time
that non-smokers cannot. That. plus complaints
about Increased smoking In lounges and cafe-
terias, caused continuing pressure from non-
smokers to take further action.
The Personnel Managers could foresee the
day when they might have to ban smoking
entirely. though that wasn't their goal per se.
The elimination of conflict was the goal. Some
firms had gone to the extent of Inslafling costly
air purification equipment to Improve the air
quality In the remaining designated smoking
areas. to try to keep the peace. Smokers in
Toronto face an Increasingly hostile climate.
Smoking In public, once an assumed right, Is
now an uncertain privilege. The singles at least
could smoke at home without need for consci-
ence. The marrieds, especially those who were
the orily smokers in their household, had seff-
Imposed or fam3y-Imposed restrictions on smo-
king at home too.
The workplace by-laws had not been reacted
to by smokers as negatively as one might have
expected. For one thing. they yielded a forced
economy. For another, the smokers readily
admitted to quite freely taking smoking breaks.
Few really wanted to reinstate smoking at their
desk, and none seemed mottvated to become
activists for their cause.
Unexpectedly, the non-smokers who had
never smoked were notably less tolerant of
smoking than were the former smokers. This
was especially true of the women who had
never smoked; they were easily the most rigidly
antismoking of all, with male former smokers
being the most empatheft.
Excessive smoking breaks caused resent-
ment among the non-smokers, as did smoke
build-up In designated srmking areas. As ex-
pected, their main Issue was secondhand
smoke. an assumed health hazard. plus odour.
The most mflftant, largely women, objected to
merely being In proximity to smoking.
Air Purification Concepts
Small air cleaners were nothing new, The ers. that any such device could turn back the
Philips Ecdogizer has been around for years, clock on workplace regtgatlons at this too4ale
but was considered Ineffective. For that reason, date. Non-smokers saw the by-laws as Impor-
there was much scepticism about the efficacy tant social progress. and perceptually regres-
of small free-standing units. How"r, the sing on It was unacceptable. Al best, such a
Smoke Magnet concept, promising 'electrosta- device could forestall or make unnecessary the
tic' operation. sounded like It might really work. eventual total banning of smoking In the work-
The Interest in it among the smokers was for place, The Personnel Managers were In favour
home use. and among non-smokers, lo help of this objectives and encouraged the develop-
clean the -%;r In designated smoking areas. ment of devices that could truly help. They dId
Thera was time or no belief among the smok- not want to take unnecessarily harsh measures.
efs, or open-mindedness among the mon-smok- but did want lo be responsive lo the needs of
P i 9 C f P T I 0 X A E S EARCH IN(.
CD
CD
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 16 April 1999

4 r
'Ji
both sides. The Investment that many of the device In restaurants, and especially In typically
firms represented had already made In special smoky bars, II might alleviate the recirculation
ventilation equipment was testimony to this. problem. Evolving ways of forestalling stricter
The Smoke Slak concept was just an object by-laws about smoking In restaurants and bars
of humour. The smokers rejected h as an un- would likely be desirable. Increased strictness
natural way to smoke. The non-smokers doubt- was seen as Inevitable In the longer term. As I
ed smokers would use ft faithfully. and even If is, non-smokers consider separate sections
they did, sidestream and odour would still be alone to be an Inadequate solution.
released. It was assumed such a device could A similar device for commercial aircraft was
only be partially effective. Some exhaled smoke fairly acceptable to non-smokers, If used In a
was expected to be released as well. separate smoking section. Naturally, the smok-
The wall panel Smoke Magnet concept ers who flew were much In favour. Stiff, it was
would allow smoke to circulate In the air before seriously doubted that airlines would now back-
being trapped, unlike a device In Immediate track, having come this far. The social progress
proximity to the source of the smoke. For that regression aspect aside, one anticipated airline
reason. ft was not favoured for either home or reason for reluctance was concern that R would
office use. However. as an unobtrusive passive also reintroduce (Ire hazard.
Product Modifications
Reduced sidestream was fairly appealing to and peripheral pleasures of smoking, replacing
the smokers. It promised to alleviate at least them with a bluntly pleasureless means of set-
one objection, albeit a minor one, at theoretl- Isyng an addiction. The krr@cLk_gEs would much
cally no per-Laity to themselves. The non-smok- rather not smoke In restricted areas than use a
ers; saw reduced sidestream as mere tokenism. product like this. They saw Essence as a - -smok-
i It would not affect secondhand smoke. and In cessa lop aid. To the non-smokers, Esspnce
9 . . ...- Y.
would likiely have little Impact on odour. This was hilarious. It smokers really were prepared
concept would do more for the smoker's con- to use such a thing. few nonsmokers wWd
science than anything else, but It could easily care, but they doubled smokers would want to
.have appeal for that reason alone, especially If seem so foolish and transparently addicted.
11rom a credible brand like duMaurler. QuIx. a 51mm product might be marketable
The samples tried by the smokers shed as a price proposition. At regular prices, shorter
lakes of ash In a highly obledlonable way. cigarettes offer the smoker no benefits.
Much development work remains to be done Advent. wfth reduced Ore-hazard, addressed
before the product Is ready lo market. an Issue of m[nin-Lal or nonexistent concem. It
Chelsea. using vanifla.lici-niask odour, was sounded rrustratIng to smoke too. likely going
per llt'dt'a Ta product. The Smoke Saver Idea could have a fair de-
likely to appeal only to. young. IreMy la Tals grate of novelty Interest. However. it was per-
smokers seeking novelty rather then social ceived as unlikely to be used regOarly. For one
benerits. The non-smokers saw Chelsea as just thing, 4 would -qulckiy become too messy and
4 pretence, not a solution. - --- smelly for pocket or purse, being In effect a
The Esserce aerosol substhLrtq provoked portable enclosed ashtray, For another, relight-
much laughter. It wotAd eliminate the manual Ing cigarettes results In taste degradation.
quite unattractive to both s e smokpis out If not actively puffed on.
1)[RCEPTION RESEARCH 141
CD
CD
LA
L-4
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 16 April 1999