trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
It is more expensive to employ a smoker than a non-smoker
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
3 sources for · 0 against

Multiple studies and economic analyses conclude that employing a smoker involves higher overall costs due to increased healthcare utilization, absenteeism, presenteeism, and smoking breaks.

Evidence for · 3
tobaccocontrol.bmj.com: Estimating the cost of a smoking employee | Tobacco Control
cited by 0
Aims to estimate excess costs private employers attribute to a smoking employee.
See more details
The analysis

Judged against statistical and reference sources.

More for · 2
doi.org: The Relationship Between Smoking and Health Care, Workers' Compensation, and Productivity Costs for a Large Employer
cited by 0
Quantifies higher health care, absenteeism, and productivity costs for smokers.
doi.org: Estimating the cost of a smoking employee
cited by 0
Finds that employees who smoke impose significant excess annual costs on employers.
The paper trail · every fact has a biography
first checked31 Jul 2026
judged → SUPPORTED · 7531 Jul 2026
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt