Smoke-free Law Coverage Research Articles

A longitudinal analysis of smoke-free laws and smoking initiation disparities among young adults in the United States.

Tobacco control policies may differentially impact smoking initiation among socio-demographic groups. We measured longitudinal associations between exposure to smoke-free laws in grade 12 (modal age 18 years) and patterns of smoking initiation in the United States. Prospective longitudinal analysis. We used data on US young adults sampled at modal age 18 years from the Monitoring the Future Survey. Baseline data were collected between 2000 and 2017, with the last year of follow-up in 2018. The sample number varied by outcome and time-point, ranging from 7314 to 17 702. Smoke-free law coverage in work-places and hospitality venues (restaurants/bars) was measured as the percentage of the county population covered by each type of law. We examined associations with any past 30-day smoking initiation and daily smoking initiation at modal ages 19/20, 21/22 and 23/24, using Poisson regression and calculating average marginal effects. We explored effect modification by sex, race/ethnicity and parental education by testing the significance of interaction terms. Work-place law coverage at modal age 18 was associated with a lower probability of daily smoking initiation at modal ages 21/22 [-2.4 percentage points (p.p.); 95% confidence interval (CI) = -3.9, -0.9] and 23/24 (-2.0 p.p.; 95% CI = -3.9, -0.2). Hospitality law coverage was associated with a lower probability of daily smoking initiation at modal ages 19/20 (-1.6 p.p.; 95% CI = -2.8, -0.4), 21/22 (-2.3 p.p.; 95% CI = -3.7, -0.9) and 23/24 (-1.8 p.p.; 95% CI = -3.6, -0.0). Findings were inconclusive with regard to associations with any past 30-day smoking initiation and with regard to effect modification, after adjusting for multiple testing. Exposure to smoke-free laws at age 18 appears to be prospectively associated with reduced daily smoking initiation 1-6 years later.

Smoke-Free Laws and Disparities in Secondhand Smoke Exposure Among Nonsmoking Adults in the United States, 1999-2014.

Little is known about the relationship between smoke-free laws and persistent disparities in secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure among nonsmoking adults in the United States. We constructed time-varying smoke-free law measures representing whether or not at least 50% of each US county's population was covered by smoke-free laws in workplaces and hospitality venues (restaurants/bars). We merged these data with restricted data on cotinine-derived SHS exposure among nonsmokers from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2014 (N = 25 444). Using logistic regression, we estimated associations between smoke-free law coverage and SHS exposure among all nonsmokers, and within age strata (25-39, 40-59, 60+). We explored differential associations by gender, race/ethnicity, education, and poverty-income ratio (PIR) by testing the significance of interactions terms for the full sample and within age strata. In adjusted models, hospitality coverage was associated with lower odds of SHS exposure in the full sample (odds ratio [OR] = 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.51-0.76), and within each age group, with ORs ranging from 0.58 (ages 25-39) to 0.67 (ages 60+). Workplace coverage was associated with lower SHS exposure only among younger adults (OR = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.65-0.99). Within the full sample and among adults ages 40-59, hospitality laws were associated with narrowing SHS exposure differentials between males and females. Among adults ages 40-59, workplace laws were associated with narrowing exposure differentials between males and females, but worsening exposure disparities by PIR. Smoke-free laws may reduce SHS exposure among adult nonsmokers, but may be insufficient to improve disparities in SHS exposure. In a repeated cross-sectional sample of adult nonsmokers, smoke-free laws in hospitality venues were consistently associated with lower odds of SHS exposure and appeared to narrow exposure differentials between males and females. Associations between workplace smoke-free laws and SHS exposure were variable by age. Among adults ages 40-59, workplace laws were associated with narrowing exposure differentials between males and females while exacerbating exposure differentials by PIR. Differential patterns of association highlight the need to examine the impacts of tobacco control policies on downstream health equity.

The impact of e-cigarette and cigarette prices on e-cigarette and cigarette sales in California.

Although numerous studies have examined the impact of cigarette prices on cigarette demand, research examining the impact of e-cigarette and cigarette prices on e-cigarette demand is relatively limited. This study estimated the impact of e-cigarette and cigarette prices on e-cigarette and cigarette sales in California. Using the 2012-2017 Nielsen Retail Scanner Data, we constructed e-cigarette prices, cigarette prices, and per capita e-cigarette and cigarette sales by year, quarter, and Nielsen scantrack market in California. E-cigarettes were categorized as disposable or reusable. Separate fixed-effects models estimated the impact of e-cigarette and cigarette prices on per capita disposable e-cigarette, reusable e-cigarette, and cigarette sales controlling for year, quarter, market, and smoke-free air law coverage. Average prices were $5.86 per pack of 20 cigarettes, $9.80 per disposable e-cigarette, and $19.11 per reusable e-cigarette. When prices of disposable e-cigarettes, reusable e-cigarettes, and cigarettes increased by 1%, per capita sales of the products decreased by 0.37%, 0.20%, and 0.21% respectively. Cigarette prices were positively associated with per capita sales of reusable e-cigarettes, indicating reusable e-cigarettes are substitutes for cigarettes. Reusable e-cigarette prices were positively associated with per capita sales of disposable e-cigarettes, indicating disposable e-cigarettes are substitutes for reusable e-cigarettes. No statistically significant association was found between disposable/reusable e-cigarette prices and cigarette sales. Our results suggest that raising prices of disposable e-cigarettes, reusable e-cigarettes, and cigarettes such as via tobacco excise tax increases would result in reduced sales for the products. Policymakers should consider the substitution between e-cigarettes and cigarettes when designing tobacco control policies.

Area-Level Predictors of Tobacco 21 Coverage in the U.S. Before the National Law: Exploring Potential Disparities

The goal of the paper is to characterize the geographic and sociodemographic patterns of policies prohibiting tobacco sales to people aged <21 years (i.e., Tobacco 21) at the local, county, and state levels in the U.S. before the national law. This study assessed area-level markers for region, race/ethnicity, education, poverty status, and smoke-free law coverage as predictors of Tobacco 21 passage as of December 20, 2019, using modified Poisson and negative binomial regression models with robust SEs. Data were analyzed in 2020. Before the passage of the national policy, 191 million people were covered by Tobacco 21 laws. Counties with higher percentages of non-Hispanic Blacks and individuals living below the poverty line had a lower probability of coverage, whereas counties with higher percentages of Hispanics/Latinxs and individuals with a college degree had a higher probability of coverage. Tobacco 21 coverage also varied by region, with far greater coverage in the Northeast than in the Midwest and South. The national Tobacco 21 law may address disparities in coverage by SES, race/ethnicity, and region that could have lasting implications with regard to health equity.

Differential Relationship between Tobacco Control Policies and U.S. Adult Current Smoking by Poverty.

The study’s purpose was to identify differences in the relationship between tobacco control policies and smoking by poverty. We matched state smoke-free air law coverage (SFALs), tobacco control funding (TCF), and cigarette taxes with individual current smoking and demographics from supplements to the Current Population Survey (1985–2015). We regressed (logistic) smoking on policy variables, poverty (<138% of poverty line versus ≥138% of poverty line), interactions of policy and poverty, and covariates, presenting beta coefficients instead of odds ratios because it is difficult to interpret interactions using odds ratios (they are ratios of odds ratios). We coded SFALs as (1) proportion of state covered by 100% workplace, restaurant and bar laws (SFAL-All) or (2) proportion of state covered by workplace laws (SFAL-WP) and proportion covered by restaurant or bar laws (SFAL-RB). In the SFAL-All model, SFAL-All (Beta coeff: −0.03, 95% CI: −0.06, −0.002), tax (Coeff: −0.06, 95% CI: −0.07, −0.05), and TCF (Coeff: −0.01, 95% CI: −0.01, −0.001) were associated with less smoking. In this model, the interaction of SFAL-All by poverty was significant (Coeff: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.02, 0.13). In the SFAL-WP/RB model, SFAL-RB (Coeff: −0.05, 95% CI: −0.08, −0.02), tax (Coeff: −0.05, 95% CI: −0.06, −0.04), and TCF (Coeff: −0.01, 95% CI: −0.01, −0.00) were significant. In the same model, SFAL-WP (Coeff: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.15), SFAL-RB (Coeff: −0.14, 95% CI: −0.19, −0.09), and TCF (Coeff: 0.01, 95% CI: 0.00, 0.02) interacted with poverty. Tax by poverty was of borderline significance in this model (Coeff = 0.02, 95% CI: −0.00, 0.04, p = 0.050). Among adults, SFALs, TCF, and tax were associated with less current smoking, and SFALs and TCF had differential relationships with smoking by poverty.

Key Factors Inhibiting Legislative Progress Toward Smoke-Free Coverage in Appalachia.

The Appalachian Region has among the highest rates of smoking and smoking-related illness in the United States. Strong smoke-free legislation could help protect nonsmoking residents from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke. However, there is a dearth of state, county, city, and subcounty smoke-free law coverage throughout Appalachia. As of July 2016, only 21% of Appalachian residents were covered by comprehensive smoke-free laws (i.e., 100% coverage for workplaces, restaurants, and bars). Only 46% of Appalachians lived in places with 100% smoke-free workplace laws, only 30% lived in places with 100% smoke-free restaurant laws, and only 29% lived in places with 100% smoke-free bar laws. Reasons for this lack of smoke-free law coverage include socioeconomic disadvantage, the historical importance of tobacco in Appalachian economies, and preemptive state legislation. By understanding the contextual issues that have inhibited smoke-free legislation, smoke-free advocates will be better prepared to lead efforts that expand smoke-free coverage in this region.

Smoke-Free Laws and Hazardous Drinking: A Cross-Sectional Study among U.S. Adults.

Tobacco and alcohol use are strongly associated. This cross-sectional study examined the relationship of smoke-free law coverage and smoke-free bar law coverage with hazardous drinking behaviors among a representative sample of U.S. adult drinkers (n = 17,057). We merged 2009 National Health Interview Survey data, American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation U.S. Tobacco Control Laws Database, and Census Population Estimates. Hazardous drinking outcomes included heavy drinking (>14 drinks/week for men; >7 drinks/week for women) and binge drinking (≥5 drinks on one or more days during past year). Chi-square tests compared hazardous drinking by sociodemographic factors. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine if smoke-free law and bar law coverages were associated with hazardous drinking, controlling for sociodemographics and smoking status. Subset analyses were conducted among drinkers who also smoked (n = 4074) to assess the association between law coverages and hazardous drinking. Among all drinkers, smoke-free law coverage was not associated with heavy drinking (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.99–1.50) or binge drinking (AOR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.93–1.26). Smoke-free bar law coverage was also found to be unrelated to hazardous drinking. Similar results were found among those drinkers who smoked. Findings suggest that smoke-free laws and bar laws are not associated with elevated risk for alcohol-related health issues.

Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Air Laws in North Dakota on Restaurants and Bars.

In late 2012, North Dakota expanded its statewide smoke-free air law to cover all restaurants and bars in the state. Several North Dakota communities also had local ordinances that prohibited smoking in restaurants and bars prior to the statewide law. Previous work found no effect of the initial statewide law or several local laws on restaurant and bar sales. Using quarterly county-level employment data from 1990 to 2014, we examined whether the expanded statewide law or pre-existing local laws were associated with significant changes in employment in restaurants and bars in North Dakota. Separate models were estimated for restaurant and bar employment using two methods of controlling for smoke-free air law coverage. We found no evidence of a significant association between employment in restaurants and bars in North Dakota and the expanded statewide law or pre-existing local laws. Prior employment levels in restaurants and bars and prevailing economic conditions were the main drivers of restaurant and bar employment, not smoke-free air laws. This study examines the economic impact of smoke-free air laws in North Dakota on restaurant and bar employment following the expansion of the statewide law in late 2012 to cover all restaurants and bars. We find no significant adverse effect of smoke-free air laws on restaurants and bars, consistent with results from previous studies conducted in North Dakota and throughout the United States. This study is the first to analyze the economic impact of smoke-free air laws in North Dakota on restaurant and bar employment following the 2012 expansion of the statewide law to cover all restaurants and bars. We find no evidence of a significant adverse effect of smoke-free air laws on restaurants and bars, consistent with results from previous studies conducted in North Dakota and throughout the United States. Prior employment levels and prevailing economic conditions proved to be the main drivers of restaurant and bar employment, not smoke-free air laws.

Perceptions of harm from secondhand smoke exposure among U.S. adults, 2009-2010.

BackgroundExposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) causes significant disease and death. We assessed the prevalence and correlates of perceptions about the health harm of SHS among U.S. adults at the national and state level.MethodsData came from the 2009–2010 National Adult Tobacco Survey, a national landline and cellular telephone survey. Perceptions about the health harms of SHS were assessed as follows: ‘not at all harmful’, ‘somewhat harmful’, and ‘very harmful’. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the prevalence of SHS harm perceptions by tobacco use and sociodemographic factors, including sex, age, race/ethnicity, education, marital status, annual household income, region, sexual orientation, children in the household, and smoke-free law coverage. Logistic regression was used to assess odds of perceiving SHS to be “very harmful” (vs. “not at all harmful” or “somewhat harmful”), adjusting for the aforementioned factors.ResultsNationally, 64.5 % of adults perceived SHS as ‘very harmful’ (state range: 73.5 % [Utah] to 53.7 % [Kentucky]). By tobacco use, the perception that SHS is ‘very harmful’ was: 76.5 % among nonusers of tobacco; 62.1 % among noncombustible only users; 47.9 % among combustible only users; and 40.8 % among dual combustible and noncombustible users. Following adjustment, the perception that SHS was ‘very harmful’ was higher among females, non-Hispanic minorities and Hispanics, respondents living with children, and states with 100 % smoke-free law coverage. Among current tobacco users the odds of perceiving SHS to be ‘very harmful’ was lower in the Midwest than the West.ConclusionsAlmost two-thirds of American adults perceive SHS as ‘very harmful’; however, currently only half of all Americans are protected by comprehensive state or local smoke-free laws. These findings underscore the importance of public education campaigns to increase awareness of SHS exposure harm and the benefits of smoke-free environments. Expanding comprehensive smoke-free laws could protect all Americans from SHS.

Relationship of Smokefree Laws and Alcohol Use with Light and Intermittent Smoking and Quit Attempts among US Adults and Alcohol Users

IntroductionLight and intermittent smoking (LITS) has become increasingly common. Alcohol drinkers are more likely to smoke. We examined the association of smokefree law and bar law coverage and alcohol use with current smoking, LITS, and smoking quit attempts among US adults and alcohol drinkers.MethodsCross-sectional analyses among a population-based sample of US adults (n = 27,731) using restricted data from 2009 National Health Interview Survey and 2009 American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation United States Tobacco Control Database. Multivariate logistic regression models examined the relationship of smokefree law coverage and drinking frequency (1) with current smoking among all adults; (2) with 4 LITS patterns among current smokers; and (3) with smoking quit attempts among 6 smoking subgroups. Same multivariate analyses were conducted but substituted smokefree bar law coverage for smokefree law coverage to investigate the association between smokefree bar laws and the outcomes. Finally we ran the above analyses among alcohol drinkers (n = 16,961) to examine the relationship of smokefree law (and bar law) coverage and binge drinking with the outcomes. All models controlled for demographics and average cigarette price per pack. The interactions of smokefree law (and bar law) coverage and drinking status was examined.ResultsStronger smokefree law (and bar law) coverage was associated with lower odds of current smoking among all adults and among drinkers, and had the same effect across all drinking and binge drinking subgroups. Increased drinking frequency and binge drinking were related to higher odds of current smoking. Smokefree law (and bar law) coverage and drinking status were not associated with any LITS measures or smoking quit attempts.ConclusionsStronger smokefree laws and bar laws are associated with lower smoking rates across all drinking subgroups, which provides further support for these policies. More strict tobacco control measures might help reduce cigarette consumption and increase quit attempts.

Sociodemographic Disparities in Local Smoke-Free Law Coverage in 10 States.

We assessed sociodemographic disparities in local 100% smoke-free laws prohibiting smoking in all indoor areas of nonhospitality worksites, restaurants, and bars in 10 states. We obtained data on local 100% smoke-free laws (US Tobacco Control Laws Database) and subcounty characteristics (2006-2010 American Community Survey) for Alabama, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia. Outcomes included (1) 100% smoke-free law covering restaurants, bars, and workplaces; (2) 100% smoke-free law covering restaurants, bars, or workplaces; and (3) number of venue types covered by 100% smoke-free laws (0-3). Sociodemographics included total population, urban status, percentage racial/ethnic minority, per capita income, percentage with high-school diploma, percentage with blue-collar jobs, and percentage of workers who live and work in the same locality. Across states, localities with less-educated residents, smaller proportions of workers living and working in the same locality, or both generally had lower odds of being covered by 100% smoke-free laws. Coverage varied across states for other sociodemographics. Disparities exist in local smoke-free law coverage. Identifying patterns in coverage can inform state efforts to address related disparities.

Association of Strong Smoke-Free Laws With Dentists’ Advice to Quit Smoking, 2006–2007

We examined the association of smoke-free laws with dentists' advice to quit smoking and referral to a quit line, among smokers who reported visiting the dentist in the past 12 months. We used the 2006 to 2007 Tobacco Use Supplement of the Current Population Survey merged with the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation Local Ordinance Database of smoke-free laws. The dependent variables were advice from a dentist to quit smoking and referral to a quit line, and the independent variable of interest was 100% smoke-free law coverage. We controlled for respondent demographics and an index of state-level smoking ban attitudes (included to ensure that the effect detected was not the result of social attitudes). Smoke-free law coverage was associated with dental advice to quit smoking (odds ratio [OR] = 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.01, 1.59; P = .041), but not with referral to a quit line (OR = 1.33; 95% CI = 0.79, 2.25; P = .283). Interventions with dentists are needed to increase referrals to quit lines and other smoking cessation efforts.

Strong Smoke-Free Law Coverage in the United States by Race/Ethnicity: 2000–2009

We determined whether racial/ethnic disparities existed in coverage by type of 100% smoke-free private workplace, restaurant, and bar laws from 2000 to 2009. We combined US census population data and the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation US Tobacco Control Database to calculate the percentage of individuals in counties covered by each type of law by race/ethnicity from 2000 to 2009. More of the US Hispanic and Asian populations were covered by 100% smoke-free restaurant and bar laws than non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black populations. Asian coverage by smoke-free bars laws increased from 36% to 75%, and Hispanic coverage increased from 31% to 62%, compared with 6% to 41% for non-Hispanic Blacks and 8% to 49% for non-Hispanic Whites. Hispanics and Asians benefited more from the rapid spread of smoke-free law coverage, whereas non-Hispanic Blacks benefited less. These ethnic disparities suggest a likely effect of geographic region and may provide a basis for more effective, community-based, and tailored policy-related interventions, particularly regarding areas with high concentrations of non-Hispanic Blacks.

Smoke-Free Air Laws and Secondhand Smoke Exposure Among Nonsmoking Youth

We investigated the association between smoke-free law coverage and cotinine among nonsmoking youth (3-19 years) with and without home secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure. We used data from the 1999-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a cross-sectional survey designed to monitor the health and nutritional status of the US population. Serum cotinine levels were available for 11 486 nonsmoking youth from 117 survey locations. Each location was categorized into 1 of 3 groups indicating extensive, limited, and no coverage by a smoke-free law. Cotinine was analyzed both as a dichotomous (> or =0.05 ng/mL) and as a continuous outcome. Among youth without home SHS exposure, those who were living in a county with extensive coverage of a smoke-free air law had an adjusted 0.61 times (95% confidence interval: 0.48-0.78) the prevalence of detectable cotinine and 0.57 (95% confidence interval: 0.41-0.79) times lower geometric mean compared with youth without a smoke-free air law. Among youth with home SHS exposure, youth with extensive coverage of a smoke-free air law had lower geometric mean cotinine compared with youth who were living in a county without a smoke-free air law, but these differences were no longer observed after adjustment for covariates. These results suggest that smoke-free laws are an effective strategy for reducing cotinine in youth without home SHS exposure; however, among youth with home SHS exposure, no benefit was detected.

Smoke-free laws and secondhand smoke exposure in US non-smoking adults, 1999–2002

Objectives: To investigate the relationship between smoke-free law coverage and secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure in the United States non-smoking adult population. Design: We used data from the 1999–2002 National Health...