Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Globally, workplaces have introduced non-smokers-only hiring policies to avoid hiring people who smoke since they cost thousands of dollars more annually to employ compared to non-smokers. Tobacco industry efforts gave rise to state smoker protection laws in the United States (U.S.), which protect people who smoke from employment discrimination.

Objectives

This study examined the association between living in a state with a smoker protection law and smoking status among U.S. adults and employment status and attempting to quit smoking in the past 12 months among those who currently smoke.

Design and Methods

Cross-sectional, nationally representative data from the 2015 – 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System were analyzed. Participants were U.S. adults who reported being unemployed or employed for wages. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models controlling for race/ethnicity, income, education, health insurance, state, and sex assessed associations between living in a state with a smoker protection law and smoking status (n = 678,203) and employment status and attempting to quit smoking in the past 12 months among people who currently smoke (n = 110,630). Interactions for income were assessed.

Results

Smoker protection laws were not associated with smoking status in the overall sample (OR_adj = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.89, 1.11) or employment among those who smoke (OR_adj = 1.23, 95% CI: 0.92, 1.65). They were associated with a significantly higher odds of being employed (OR_adj = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.06, 1.60) among those who smoke earning <$35,000. They were associated with a significantly lower odds of attempting to quit smoking among people who smoke (OR_adj = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.66, 0.97), especially those earning <$35,000 (OR_adj = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.53, 0.96) and $35,000-<$50,000 (OR_adj. = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.32, 0.84).

Conclusions

While smoker protection laws may promote employment among low-income individuals who smoke, they may reduce quit attempts. Policies should promote evidence-based smoking cessation treatments to support quit attempts among people who smoke.

Keywords

smoking health policy employment cessation tobacco smoker protections

Introduction

Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States (U.S.) and globally.^1,2 Despite an overall decrease in cigarette smoking in the last 50 years, 11.5% of adults in the U.S. and 22.5% of the global population still currently smoke.^2,3 Smoking rates are highest among individuals of lower socioeconomic status.^2,3

Globally and within the U.S., many workplaces have introduced non-smokers-only hiring policies to avoid hiring people who smoke since they cost thousands of dollars more per year to employ compared to non-smokers.⁴ The first U.S. non-smokers-only hiring policies date back to the 1980s. Massachusetts was the first state to prohibit hiring public safety employees who smoked either on or off the job in an effort to reduce government related costs.⁵ Non-smokers-only hiring policies have continued to gain popularity in the U.S. where legal. They have also spread globally beyond the governmental sector and can be found especially in healthcare organizations.⁶ For example, the World Health Organization implemented a non-smokers-only hiring policy in 2005 to align their hiring practices with their public health efforts to reduce tobacco use.⁷

In response to non-smokers-only hiring policies and concerns about potential decreases in tobacco use, the tobacco industry partnered with groups at the local level in the U.S. and launched a nationwide lobbying campaign to protect “smokers’ rights”, including protection from employment discrimination among people who smoke as an issue of right to privacy.⁸ These tobacco industry efforts gave rise to state smoker protection laws, which protect people who smoke from employment discrimination. In New Jersey for example, Phillip Morris drafted the state’s original smoker protection law bill, which used civil rights language to completely prohibit any kind of employment discrimination among people who smoke.⁹ We hypothesize that making it illegal to avoid employing people who smoke could be associated with increased smoking prevalence as well as increased employment and decreased quit attempts among people who smoke. The first smoker protection law was passed in Illinois in 1987 and the latest one was passed in Oklahoma in 2013.¹⁰ Twenty nine states and the District of Columbia currently have smoker protection laws protecting people who smoke from employment discrimination, most of which were passed in the 1990s.¹⁰ The exact wording of smoker protection laws has some slight variation across states. Smoker protections laws prohibit employers from refusing to hire or fire employees for using either “lawful products” or “tobacco products”.¹¹ Protecting people who smoke from employment discrimination has wide support in the U.S. A 2014 survey found that 86% of Americans disapprove of employer bans on hiring smokers.¹²

With employment discrimination being legal in about half of U.S. states, previous research has debated the ethics of such practices. Arguments that support not hiring people who smoke include “denormalizing” and reducing tobacco use to support a culture of health, especially in healthcare organizations, and taking responsibility for behaviors that financially affect employers and fellow employees.^13,14 Opponents of non-smokers-only hiring policies argue that such policies do not reduce tobacco use and are unfair to those who are more vulnerable to the burden of tobacco (eg, lower socioeconomic status, lower educational attainment, gay/lesbian, etc.), thus reducing job opportunities for these populations who already face barriers to employment.^15,16 Experts have questioned whether non-smokers-only hiring policies reduce smoking as a population health goal or bolster institutional financial goals by blocking people who smoke from employment.^15,16 Upon initial investigation, it appears that smoking prevalence rates are higher in states with smoker protection laws compared to states without smoker protection laws.¹⁷ For example, the lowest smoking prevalence in states with smoker protection laws was California at 11.2% while the lowest smoking prevalence in states without smoker protection laws was Utah at 9.0% as of 2018. Similarly, the highest smoking prevalence in states with smoker protection laws was West Virginia at 25.3% while the highest smoking prevalence in states without smoker protection laws was Arkansas at 22.7%.

Despite such ethical discussions, no studies have examined the effects of smoker protection laws (protecting people who smoke from employment discrimination) on smoking rates at a population level and employment and cessation behaviors among people who currently smoke. Given that people who smoke are typically from a lower socioeconomic status, it is important to understand the impact of such policies on economic opportunities and smoking behaviors. The primary purpose of this paper is to test the hypothesis that living in a state with a smoker protection law is associated with a higher likelihood of smoking. The secondary purpose is to examine the association between living in a state with smoker protection law and employment status and attempting to quit smoking among people who currently smoke. We hypothesized that people who currently smoke who live in a state with a smoker protection law are more likely to be employed but less likely to have attempted to quit smoking.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), RRID:SCR_012974.¹⁷ BRFSS is an annual telephone-based survey that uses both cellphone and landline random digit dialing to collect health related information from U.S. residents over 18 years of age across all 50 states. BRFSS data from survey years 2015 – 2018 were analyzed and included respondents from all 50 states. Data beyond 2018 were excluded to remove the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, which influenced smoking behaviors and employment.^18,19 Among the 1,815,211 respondents, 830,310 individuals who were self-employed, a homemaker, student, retired, or unable to work were excluded since smoker protection laws only apply to employed positions. Since there were no meaningful differences found when using chi-square tests to assess for patterns of missingness, missing values were excluded (n = 306,698). The final sample size for the main analysis was n = 678,203. For the sub-analyses of people who currently smoke, n = 110,630 participants were included who indicated that they currently smoke. This publicly available, de-identified data from the CDC were exempt from IRB review.

Measures

The dependent variable for the main analysis was smoking status and measured by the question “Do you now smoke cigarettes every day, some days, or not at all?” Respondents were coded as a person who currently smokes if they answered every day or some days and non-smoker if they answered not at all. For the sub-analyses of people who currently smoke only, the dependent variables were attempting to quit smoking in the past 12 months and employment status. For quit attempt, participants were asked “During the past 12 months, have you stopped smoking for one day or longer because you were trying to quit smoking?” Responses were yes or no. For employment, participants were asked “Are you currently employed for wages, self-employed, out of work for one year or more, out of work less than one year, a homemaker, a student, retired, or unable to work. Those who indicated that they were employed for wages were coded as employed and those who indicated that they were out of work for one year or more or out of work less than one year were coded as unemployed. Those who indicated they were self-employed, a homemaker, student, retired, or unable to work were excluded from the final sample as stated previously.

The independent variable was residing in a state with a smoker protection law, which was coded as yes or no. Information on states with and without smoker protection laws was obtained from the American Lung Association’s website and are displayed in Table 1 below.¹⁰

Table 1.

States With a Smoker Protection Law

State	Year passed	Smoking prevalence (%)
California	2005	11.2
Colorado	1990	14.5
Connecticut	2003	12.2
District of Columbia	1993	13.8
Illinois	1987	15.5
Indiana	2006	21.1
Kentucky	2010	23.4
Louisiana	1991	20.5
Maine	1991	17.8
Minnesota	1992	15.1
Mississippi	1994	20.5
Missouri	1992	19.4
Montana	1993	18.0
Nevada	1991	15.7
New Hampshire	1991	15.6
ew Jersey	1991	13.1
New Mexico	1991	15.2
New York	1992	12.8
North Carolina	1991	17.4
North Dakota	1993	19.1
Oklahoma	2013	19.7
Oregon	2005	15.6
Rhode Island	2005	14.6
South Carolina	1991	18.0
South Dakota	1991	19.0
Tennessee	1990	20.7
Virginia	1989	15.0
West Virginia	1992	25.3
Wisconsin	1991	16.4
Wyoming	1992	18.8

Information as of 2018.

Demographic covariates included race/ethnicity (White, non-Hispanic, Black, non-Hispanic, American Indian and Alaskan Native, non-Hispanic, Asian, non-Hispanic, Native Hawaiian, non-Hispanic, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic, Other, non-Hispanic, Multiracial, non-Hispanic, and Hispanic), household income (<$35,000, $35,000 - < $50,000, $50,000 - <$74,999, ≥ $75,000), education (did not graduate high school, graduated high school, attended college or technical school, graduated from college or technical school), health insurance (insured, uninsured), age, (18-29, 30-49, 50-64, 65+), and sex (male, female). These variables were examined as potential confounders because previous studies have found that they are associated with employment, smoking status, and attempting to quit smoking.^20-22

Statistical Analyses

STATA Version 17 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX) was used for all analyses. Survey weights using the STATA SVY command were applied to adjust for noncoverage and nonresponse and reflect regional and national population estimates. Descriptive statistics (weighted percentages and unweighted counts) were summarized overall and across those living and not living in a smoker protection law state. Chi-square tests were used to assess for demographic differences between respondents living and not living in a state with a smoker protection law. Logistic regression was used to generate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the main analysis (association between living in a state with a smoker protection law and smoking status) and sub analyses of people who currently smoke (association between living in a state with a smoker protection law and attempting to quit smoking in the past 12 months and employment). For each logistic regression analysis, an unadjusted model and an adjusted model controlling for race/ethnicity, household income, education, health insurance, state, and sex were run. These covariates were selected since they demonstrated a statistically significant relationship with living in a state with a smoker protection law. We also assessed for statistical interaction using the STATA testparm command see if these associations differed by household income since these policies may affect lower income individuals disproportionately.

Results

Table 2 displays the weighted percentages and unweighted counts for participant demographics overall and by those living in states with a smoker protection law and those in states without a smoker protection law. In the overall sample (N = 678,203), the majority were White, non-Hispanic (62.23%), earned over $75,000 annually (40.69%), had completed college or technical school (33.45%), insured (87.91%), ages 30-49 (45.56%), male (53.42%), employed for wages (90.78%), and nonsmokers (82.41%). Race/ethnicity, household income, education, health insurance, and smoker status varied by living in a state with and without a smoker protection law.

Table 2.

Weighted Percentages and Unweighted Counts of Respondent Demographics Overall and by Smoker Protection Law Residence (n = 678,203)

	Overall % (N)	No smoker protection law % (N)	Smoker protection law % (N)	P-value^a
Race/Ethnicity				<0.001
White, NH^b	62.23 (504,885)	62.46 (231,848)	62.04 (273,037)
Black, NH	12.26 (58,154)	13.07 (25,314)	11.61 (32,840)
American Indian/Alaskan Native, NH	0.89 (11,462)	0.84 (4252)	0.93 (7210)
Asian, NH	5.24 (18,349)	3.79 (10,411)	6.41 (7938)
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, NH	0.24 (3294)	0.29 (2652)	0.20 (642)
Other, NH	0.36 (3019)	0.30 (1299)	0.42 (1720)
Multiracial, NH	1.38 (14,666)	1.39 (8550)	1.37 (6116)
Hispanic	17.39 (64,374)	17.86 (32,680)	17.02 (31,694)
Household income				<0.001
< $35,000	29.66 (178,844)	30.55 (85,001)	28.95 (93,843)
$35,000 - < $50,000	13.24 (91,552)	13.75 (43,437)	12.82 (48,115)
$50,000 - < $74,999	16.41 (120,730)	16.76 (56,908)	16.12 (63,822)
≥ $75,000	40.69 (287,077)	38.93 (131,660)	42.12 (155,417)
Education				<0.001
Did not graduate high school	9.89 (32,522)	9.39 (14,730)	10.30 (17,792)
Graduated high school	25.61 (161,066)	26.44 (76,311)	24.95 (84,755)
Attended college/technical school	31.04 (184,926)	31.63 (87,634)	30.56 (97,292)
Graduated college/technical school	33.45 (299,689)	32.54 (138,331)	34.19(161,358)
Health insurance				<0.001
Insured	87.91 (618,028)	86.82 (287,343)	88.79 (330,685)
Uninsured	12.09 (60,175)	13.18 (29,663)	11.21 (30,512)
Age in years				0.76
18-29	22.58 (98,070)	22.66 (46,715)	22.52 (51,355)
30-49	45.56 (267,317)	45.51 (125,695)	45.60 (141,622)
50-64	27.55 (253,893)	27.49 (117,148)	27.60 (136,745)
65+	4.30 (58,923)	4.34 (27,448)	4.28 (31,475)
Sex				0.64
Male	53.42 (327,205)	53.48 (153,771)	53.37 (173,434)
Female	46.58 (350,998)	46.52 (163,235)	46.63 (187,763)
Employment status				0.08
Unemployed	9.22 (56,260)	9.36 (26,061)	9.10 (30,199)
Employed	90.78 (621,943)	90.64 (290,945)	90.90 (330,998)
Smoker status				0.0015
Nonsmoker	82.41 (567,131)	82.08 (266,587)	82.67 (300,544)
Current smoker	17.59 (111,072)	17.92 (50,419)	17.33 (60,653)

^aChi-square test.

^bNH = Non-Hispanic.

Table 3 displays the unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios for the association between living in a smoker protection law state with smoking status in the overall sample and attempting to quit smoking and employment among people who currently smoke. In the overall sample, individuals who lived in a state with a smoker protection law had significantly lower odds of being a current smoker compared to those who lived in a state without a smoker protection law (unadj. OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.94, 0.98). This association was not statistically significant in the adjusted model (adj. OR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.89, 1.10). There was not a statistically significant association between living in a state with a smoker protection law and attempting to quit smoking among people who currently smoke in the unadjusted model (unadj. OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.93, 1.02). In the adjusted model, people who currently smoke who lived in a state with a smoker protection law had significantly lower odds of attempting to quit smoking in the past 12 months compared to those who did not live in a state with a smoker protection law (adj. OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.66, 0.97). For the association between living in a state with a smoker protection law and employment status among people who currently smoke, there was not a statistically significant relationship in the unadjusted model (unadj. OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.12) or the adjusted model (adj. OR = 1.23, 95% CI: 0.92, 1.65).

Table 3.

Logistic Regression Results for the Association Between Smoker Protection Laws With Smoking Status, Attempting to Quit Smoking in the Past 12 Months, and Employment Status

	Unadjusted OR (95% CI)	Adjusted OR^a (95% CI)
Overall sample (n = 678,203)
Smoker protection law present
Current smoker	0.96 (0.94, 0.98)	0.99 (0.89, 1.10)
Smokers only (n = 110,630)
Smoker protection law present
Attempted to quit smoking	0.97 (0.93, 1.02)	0.80 (0.66, 0.97)
Employed	1.05 (0.99, 1.12)	1.23 (0.92, 1.65)

CI = confidence interval.

^aAdjusted for race/ethnicity, household income, education, health insurance, state, and sex.

A statistically significant interaction with household income was found for the association between smoking status and living in a state with a smoker protection law (P-value <0.001) in the overall sample. When stratified by income group, a statistically significant association was not found among households earning <$35,000 (adj. OR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.88, 1.27), $35,000 - <$50,000 (adj. OR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.79, 1.36), $50,000 - <$74,999 (adj. OR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.69, 1.15), and ≥$75,000 (adj. OR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.75, 1.16). Results not shown in tables.

Table 4 displays the adjusted odds ratios for the associations between living in a state with a smoker protection law and employment and attempting to quit smoking among people who currently smoke stratified by household income. Among those who currently smoke, statistically significant interactions with household income were found for the association between employment (P-value <0.001) and attempting to quit smoking (P-value <0.001) and living in a state with a smoker protection law. When stratified by income, living in a state with a smoker protection was associated with a significantly higher odds of being employed compared to living in a state without a smoker protection law in the lowest household income group earning ≥35,000 (adj. OR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.06, 1.60). This relationship was not statistically significant in the other household income groups earning $35,000 - <$50,000 (adj. OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.63, 1.59), $50,000 - <$74,999 (adj. OR = 1.14, 95% CI: 0.72, 1.81), and ≥$75,000 (adj. OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.75, 1.97). When stratified by income, living in a state with a smoker protection law was associated with a significantly lower odds of attempting to quit smoking in the two lowest household income groups earning ≥35,000 (adj. OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.53, 0.96) and $35,000 - <$50,000 (adj. OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.32, 0.84). This relationship was not statistically significant in the other two household income groups earning $50,000 - <$74,999 (adj. OR = 1.49, 95% CI: 0.94, 2.36), and ≥$75,000 (adj. OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.56, 1.26).

Table 4.

Adjusted Logistic Regression Results for the Association Between Smoker Protection Laws With Attempting to Quit Smoking in the Past 12 Months and Employment Status Among Current Smokers Stratified by Household Income

	<$35,000	$35,000-<$50,000	$50,000-<$75,000	>$75,000
	Adjusted OR (95% CI)	Adjusted OR (95% CI)	Adjusted OR (95% CI)	Adjusted OR (95% CI)
Smoker protection law present
Attempted to quit smoking	0.71 (0.53,0.96)	0.52 (0.32,0.84)	1.49 (0.94, 2.36)	0.84 (0.56, 1.26)
Employed	1.30 (1.06,1.60)	1.00 (0.63,1.59)	1.14 (0.72, 1.81)	1.21 (0.75, 1.97)

CI = confidence interval.

Adjusted OR is adjusted for race/ethnicity, education, health insurance, state, and sex.

Discussion

This study looked at the association between living in a state with a smoker protection law and smoking status in the overall sample and attempting to quit smoking and employment among people who currently smoke. Smoker protection laws weren’t associated with smoking status. While they weren’t associated with employment overall among people who currently smoke, they were associated with a higher odds of being employed among the lowest income group earning >$35,000 who currently smoke. Smoker protection laws were also associated with a lower odds of attempting to quit smoking, especially among the two lowest income groups.

This study did not find differences in smoking status across residents of states with and without a smoker protection law. Conversely, refusing to hire people who smoke may reduce smoking rates, although evidence is limited.²³ The Cleveland Clinic, located in Cuyahoga County, Ohio stopped hiring people who smoke in 2007. Smoking rates in Cuyahoga County dropped more than five percent between 2005 and 2009, which was much greater than the state’s overall decline in smoking rates during that same period of about two percent.²³ Based on this analysis, it’s unclear as to whether this greater decline in smoking was due to a change in hiring practices or other factors. For example, there are in person smoking cessation resources available through the Cleveland Clinic that could have contributed to the observed declines within Cuyahoga County compared to the rest of the state.²⁴ Furthermore, smoker protection laws are state-level laws and there is no federal law that protects people who smoke from employment discrimination in the workplace. Therefore, it’s up to states to enforce these laws. It’s possible states with smoker protection laws are not enforcing them, resulting in employers in both states with and without smoker protection laws refusing to hire people who smoke. This could explain why differences in smoking were not observed across states with and without smoker protection laws. It’s also possible that these laws do not affect smoking rates and that the tobacco industry’s concerns were invalid. A systematic review found that health concerns were the primary reason why people who smoked quit, not concerns around employment.²⁵ Lastly, it’s also possible that smoker protection laws may be associated with shifts in smoking patterns rather than smoking rates. One study found that workplace smoking bans do not affect the amount of cigarettes that people smoke, but rather influence their smoking behaviors and makes it so that they compensate for such bans by smoking off of work-site properties.²⁶

Surprisingly, we did not find differences in employment among those who lived in a state with or without a smoker protection law in the overall sample of people who currently smoke. Previous research has found that people who smoke are less likely to be employed and reemployed compared to non-smokers.²⁷ It’s possible that employers in states with smoker protection laws are still discriminating against hiring people who currently smoke due to a lack of oversight, thus diminishing any potential differences in employment among people who currently smoke in states with and without these laws. For example, California has had a smoker protection law since 2005.¹⁰ A 2020 qualitative study of people who currently smoke recruited from San Francisco’s Employment Development Department reported that their employers had written language in the employee handbook saying that they could be terminated due to their smoking status.²⁸ It’s possible states with smoker protection laws are not enforcing them, resulting in employers in both states with and without smoker protection laws refusing to hire people who currently smoke either intentionally or unintentionally. This could explain why differences in employment were not observed across states with and without smoker protection laws in the overall sample of smokers. Previous research using national samples in the U.S. have found that people who currently smoke are often perceived as less qualified and have worse impressions during the hiring process compared to non-smokers.^29-31 Hiring discrimination among people who currently smoke may be related to smoking-related stigma and unintentional practices stemming from implicit bias among employers rather than formal workplace hiring policies.

While an association was not found in the overall sample of people who currently smoke, smoker protection laws were associated with an increased odds of employment only among people who currently smoke only in the lowest household income group earning less than $35,000. This indicates that these laws may provide employment protection specifically for individuals with low socioeconomic status who smoke. In general, people who smoke tend to earn lower wages and work in industries such as food service, construction, and mining.³² It’s important to note that service and construction industries are less likely to offer health insurance compared to other industries in the U.S., which is a predictor of smoking cessation.^33,34

Interestingly, this study found that people who currently smoke who lived in a state with a smoker protection law were less likely to report attempting to quit smoking in the past 12 months compared to those who live in a state without a smoker protection law. When stratified by income, this finding applied to the lowest two household income groups (those earning less than $50,000) but was not seen in higher earners. Given that this is the first study to look at the association between smoker protection laws and smoking behaviors, it’s possible that smoker protection laws disincentivize people who currently smoke from trying to quit since they are protected from employment discrimination, especially among those with lower incomes who face unique barriers across the different phases of smoking cessation.³⁵ Other studies have focused on the effects of workplace smoking bans rather than policies around hiring smokers. Workplace smoking bans may support smoking cessation and are recommended by the U.S. Task Force on Community Preventive Services.³⁶ A systematic review found that work sites with smoke-free policies are associated with a 3.8% reduction in tobacco use, or 1.3 fewer cigarettes per day.³⁷ Another study found that people who smoke who work in a place with a strong workplace ordinance against smoking are more likely to report quitting smoking within 6 months.³⁸ A systematic review found that smoking bans in workplaces or public did not have differential effects across socioeconomic status.³⁹ However, it’s important to note that workers with a high school education or less and those with low income earning <$35,000 per year are less likely to be covered by a smoke-free policy in the workplace.⁴⁰

Strengths and Limitations

This study had several strengths. The study sample was obtained through random digit dialing, thus reducing sampling bias. The study sample was also nationally representative, making these results generalizable to U.S. adults. Despite these strengths, there are some limitations. An a priori power analysis was not conducted for this study. However, this study should have adequate statistical power given the large overall sample size. BRFSS data is cross-sectional, thus limiting the ability of the study to establish causal relationships. The independent variable was defined as living in a state with or without a smoker protection law, which assumes that all states apply these laws equally. We were unable to measure actual employment discrimination faced by people who smoke and whether these laws are being enforced across all states. Furthermore, smoker protection laws are not homogenous across all states. For example, only seven states explicitly apply smoker protections to all workers while the others include or carve out specific workers and industries (eg, public employees, healthcare workers, etc.). Given sample size limitations for a sub analysis and the inability to identify each participant’s specific occupation, the heterogeneity of smoker protection laws is a limitation to this analysis. Residual confounding may be an issue given that this is an observational, cross-sectional study. We were unable to measure employer specific smoking policies, which could vary greatly. While we found that living in a smoker protection law state was associated with a reduced odds of attempting to quit smoking, it’s possible that these results could be explained by confounders that were not accounted for in this study. For example, there could be differences in smoking cessation insurance coverage across states with and without smoker protection laws. Lastly, these policies were passed well before the 2015 – 2018 data included in this study, many of them in the 1990s. Thus, this limits our ability to fully decipher the effect of the passage of these policies on smoking behaviors and employment. While conducting a pre and post policy analysis of the data would be ideal, the BRFSS weighting and sampling methodology changed in 2011 and therefore should not be compared with previous years of BRFSS data.

Conclusions

This is the first study that has examined the potential impacts of smoker protection laws (protecting people who smoke from employment discrimination). These findings provide initial evidence that smoker protection laws may reduce quit attempts among people who currently smoke, especially among those with low income but may also support employment among low-income people who currently smoke. While these laws may have beneficial results on employment for people who smoke, the potential negative effects of smoker protection laws on cessation should be addressed in the greater context of health policy, especially given the Healthy People 2030 goal of increasing quit attempts among adults who currently smoke.⁴¹ Alternative and/or additional policies should be considered in conjunction with smoker protection laws that promote cessation and access to evidence-based smoking cessation programs, especially among those who are low-income. For example, employers should be required to provide health insurance to all employees to increase access to evidence-based cessation treatments for people who smoke, especially in states with smoker protection laws, since health insurance has been shown to be a predictor of smoking cessation.³⁴ State officials, especially those in states with smoker protection laws, could consider increasing cigarette taxes since increasing the price of cigarettes has been shown to increase cessation with the greatest effect on those with low socioeconomic status.³⁹ Future research should use longitudinal study designs to establish temporal effects of smoker protection laws that take their heterogeneity into account.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Adrienne B. Lent

Ethical Considerations

This publicly available, de-identified data from the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions is exempt from IRB review.

Author contributions

Moges R contributed to the formal analysis, drafted the original manuscript, and contributed to manuscript review and editing; Iaria R drafted the original manuscript and contributed to manuscript review and editing; Lent AB secured funding, supervised the project, conceptualized the study, supervised the formal analysis, drafted the original manuscript, and contributed to manuscript review and editing.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the BEACoN Research Scholars Program at California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo and National Institute of General Medical Sciences, URISE program (URISE at Cal Poly, grant number: 5T34GM149492).

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Data are in a public, open access repository at .

References

U.S Department of Health and Human Services . The Health Consequences of Smoking:50 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2014.

Commar

Prasad

d’Espaignet

. WHO Global Report on Trends in Prevalence of Tobacco Use 2000-2025. 4th ed. World Health Organization; 2021. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240039322. Accessed 30 November 2025.

Cornelius

Loretan

Wang

Jamal

Homa

. Tobacco product use among adults — united States, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71(11):397-405. doi:10.15585/MMWR.MM7111A1

Berman

Crane

Seiber

Munur

. Estimating the cost of a smoking employee. Tob Control. 2014;23(5):428-433. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050888

Allan

. Police and fire depts. Face Massachusetts smoking ban. nytimes.com. Published October 2, 1988. https://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/02/us/police-and-fire-depts-face-massachusetts-smoking-ban.html

Towers

. 19th annual towers watson/national business group on health employer survey on purchasing value in health care. 2014. https://meuhp.com/media/8815/towers-watson-account-based-health-plans.pdf

Dyer

. WHO will not hire smokers. BMJ. 2005;331(7529):1360.

Samuels

Glantz

. The politics of local tobacco control. JAMA. 1991;266(15):2110-2117. doi:10.1001/JAMA.1991.03470150082035

Slade

. Protection from job bias for people who smoke. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1993;10:229-231. doi:10.1016/0740-5472(93)90048-7

10.

American Lung Association . State “smoker protection” laws. lung.org. Updated May 2, 2024. Accessed June 17, 2024. https://www.lung.org/policy-advocacy/tobacco/slati/appendix-f

11.

Malouff

Slade

Nielsen

Schutte

Lawson

. US laws that protect users from employment discrimination. Tob Control. 1993;2:132-138.

12.

Riffkin

. Hiring discrimination for smokers, obese rejected in U.S. gallup.com. Published July 22, 2014. Accessed July 2, 2024. https://news.gallup.com/poll/174035/hiring-discrimination-smokers-obese-rejected.aspx

13.

Schmidt

Voigt

Emanuel

. The ethics of not hiring smokers. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(15):1369-1371. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1301951

14.

McDaniel

Malone

. Health care organizations and policy leadership: perspectives on nonsmoker-only hiring policies. Acad Med. 2018;93(2):299-305. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000001956

15.

Weber

. The questionable policy of not hiring smokers. Chausa.org. 2012. https://www.chausa.org/publications/health-care-ethics-usa/archive/article/summer-2012/the-questionable-policy-of-not-hiring-smokers. Accessed 5 August 2024. Published.

16.

Asch

Muller

Volpp

. Conflicts and compromises in not hiring smokers. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(15):1371-1373. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1303632

17.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . BRFSS annual survey data. cdc.gov. https://www.cdc.gov/brfss/annual_data/annual_data.htm. Accessed 19 March 2024.

18.

Zeng

Luk

, et al. Associations of changes in smoking-related practices with quit attempt and smoking consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods study. Tob Induc Dis. 2022;20:20. doi:10.18332/tid/156454

19.

Chetty

Friedman

Stepner

Opportunity Insights Team . The economic impacts of COVID-19: evidence from a new public database built using private sector data. Q J Econ. 2024;139(2):829-889. doi:10.1093/qje/qjad048

20.

Nguyen-Grozavu

Pierce

Sakuma

KLK

, et al. Widening disparities in cigarette smoking by race/ethnicity across education level in the United States. Prev Med. 2020;139:106220. doi:10.1016/J.YPMED.2020.106220

21.

Silver

Quay

. Employment status, unemployment duration, and health-related metrics among US adults of prime working age: behavioral risk factor surveillance system, 2018–2019. Am J Ind Med. 2022;65(1):59-71. doi:10.1002/AJIM.23308

22.

Leventhal

Dai

Higgins

. Smoking cessation prevalence and inequalities in the United States: 2014-2019. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022;114(3):381-390. doi:10.1093/JNCI/DJAB208

23.

Kleinerman

. Cuyahoga County Smoking Rate is Lowest in Ohio. Cleveland.com. Published September 16, 2010. Accessed July 7, 2024. https://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/2010/09/cuyahoga_smoking_rate_lowest_i.html

24.

Cleveland Clinic . Doctors that can help me quit smoking. clevelandclinic.org. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/departments/respiratory/depts/smoking-cessation#appointments-locations-tab

25.

McCaul

Hockemeyer

Johnson

Zetocha

Quinlan

Glasgow

. Motivation to quit using cigarettes: a review. Addict Behav. 2006;31(1):42-56. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.04.004

26.

Dunbar

Shiffman

Chandra

. Exposure to workplace smoking bans and continuity of daily smoking patterns on workdays and weekends. Addict Behav. 2018;80:53-58. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.01.006

27.

Prochaska

Michalek

Brown-Johnson

, et al. Likelihood of unemployed smokers vs nonsmokers attaining reemployment in a one-year observational study. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(5):662-670. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.0772

28.

Michalek

Wong

Brown-Johnson

Prochaska

. Smoking and unemployment: a photo elicitation project. Tob Use Insights. 2020;13:1179173X20921446. doi:10.1177/1179173X20921446

29.

Roulin

Bhatnagar

. Smoking as a job killer: reactions to smokers in personnel selection. J Bus Ethics. 2018;149(4):959-972. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3101-2

30.

Roulin

Bhatnagar

. Examining the impact of applicant smoking and vaping habits in job interviews. Hum Relat. 2021;74(8):1211-1239. doi:10.1177/0018726720912320

31.

Corbeil

Roulin

Bhatnagar

. When job opportunities go up in smoke: the role of applicant cigarette smoking or vaping and gender in cybervetting. J Person Psychol. 2024;24:33-43. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/A000352

32.

Syamlal

Mazurek

Hendricks

Jamal

. Cigarette smoking trends among U.S. working adult by industry and occupation: findings from the 2004–2012 National Health Interview Survey. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015;17(5):599-606. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntu185

33.

Claxton

Rae

Winger

. Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance 101. KFF.org. Published May 28, 2024. Accessed August 13, 2025. https://www.kff.org/health-policy-101-employer-sponsored-health-insurance/?entry=table-of-contents-how-many-workers-have-access-to-employer-sponsored-health-insurance-at-their-job

34.

Bailey

Hoopes

Marino

, et al. Effect of gaining insurance coverage on smoking cessation in community health centers: a cohort study. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(10):1198-1205. doi:10.1007/s11606-016-3781-4

35.

van Wijk

Landais

Harting

. Understanding the multitude of barriers that prevent smokers in lower socioeconomic groups from accessing smoking cessation support: a literature review. Prev Med. 2019;123:143-151. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.03.029

36.

Task Force on Community Preventive Services . Recommendations regarding interventions to reduce tobacco use and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(2 Suppl):10-15.

37.

Fichtenberg

Glantz

. Effect of smoke-free workplaces on smoking behaviour: systematic review. BMJ. 2002;325(7357):188-191. doi:10.1136/BMJ.325.7357.188

38.

Moskowitz

Lin

Hudes

. The impact of workplace smoking ordinances in California on smoking cessation. Am J Publ Health. 2000;90(5):757-761. doi:10.2105/AJPH.90.5.757

39.

Hill

Amos

Clifford

Platt

. Impact of tobacco control interventions on socioeconomic inequalities in smoking: review of the evidence. Tob Control. 2014;23(e2):e89-e97. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051110

40.

Syamlal

King

Mazurek

. Workplace smoke-free policies and cessation programs among U.S. working adults. Am J Prev Med. 2019;56(4):548-562. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2018.10.030

41.

Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion . Healthy people 2030 - tobacco use. health.gov. https://health.gov/healthypeople/objectives-and-data/browse-objectives/tobacco-use

The Association Between Smoker Protection Laws and Smoking,Employment,and Attempting to Quit Smoking

Abstract

Background

Objectives

Design and Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Measures

Statistical Analyses

Results

Discussion

Strengths and Limitations

Conclusions

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Ethical Considerations

Author contributions

Funding

Declaration of conflicting interests

Data Availability Statement

References