Abstract

Smoke-free ordinances and policies protect youth from exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) and cigarette use. This study investigated whether smoke-free ordinances also protect youth from the use of other tobacco products. We compared the prevalence of SHS exposure, cigarette smoking, cigar smoking, smokeless tobacco use, and e-cigarette use among high school students living in a municipality with or without a smoke-free ordinance and in homes with and without smoke-free policies. Data were analyzed using the 2017 Mississippi Youth Tobacco Survey (n = 1923). Smoke-free ordinances were found to be associated with lower prevalence of SHS exposure (41.9% vs. 51.5%), cigarette smoking (5.1% vs. 11.4%), and cigar smoking (7.2% vs. 10.9%). There were no differences in smokeless tobacco use (6.6% vs. 6.5%) or e-cigarette use (11.2% vs 12.1%). Smoke-free homes were associated with lower prevalence of SHS exposure (38.0% vs 74.6%), cigarette smoking (4.8% vs. 17.6%), cigar smoking (6.4% vs. 16.4%), smokeless tobacco use (4.9% vs. 13.2%), and e-cigarette use (9.6% vs. 19.5%), p < 0.05 for all comparisons. The results suggest that smoke-free ordinances and policies protect against exposure to tobacco smoke and use of combustible tobacco products, but smoke-free ordinances do not protect from smokeless tobacco and e-cigarette use. Tobacco-free, rather than smoke-free, ordinances might offer more protection.

Highlights

  • Tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States [1]

  • The results suggest that smoke-free ordinances and policies protect against exposure to tobacco smoke and use of combustible tobacco products, but smoke-free ordinances do not protect from smokeless tobacco and e-cigarette use

  • This study investigated whether they were protected from the use of other tobacco products

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Most of the mortality attributable to tobacco occurs among adults, children’s passive tobacco smoke exposure harms their health during childhood and adulthood These harms include higher rates of sudden infant death syndrome, asthma prevalence and severity, lower respiratory infections, otitis media, and lung cancer as adults, as well as deleterious effects on behavior and cognition [2,3,4,5]. More than eight in ten U.S households do not allow anyone to smoke inside the home [7] These restrictions were initially enacted to protect nonsmokers from the harms of secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure. Subsequent research illustrated another impact, these restrictions were found to be associated with decreased prevalence of cigarette smoking, established smoking, and lower daily cigarette consumption [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]

Methods
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.