| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
RESEARCH PAPER |
,
P H Fisher6,
R el Arculli7,
,
M H Alciati8
1 The MayaTech Corporation, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
2 Department of Community Health and Prevention Research Center, School of Public Health, St Louis University, St Louis, Missouri, USA
3 Division of STD Prevention, National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
4 Center for Tobacco-Free New York, Loudonville, New York, USA
5 Alpine, Texas, USA
6 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Washington DC, USA
7 National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
8 Management Solutions for Health, Reston, Virginia, USA
Correspondence to:
Jamie F Chriqui, The MayaTech Corporation, 8737 Colesville Road, 7th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3921, USA;
jchriqui{at}mayatech.com.
Objective: To develop and implement a system for rating state clean indoor air laws.
Design: The public health interest of state clean indoor air laws is to limit non-smoker exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Current estimates of health risks and methods available for controlling ETS provided a framework for devising a ratings scale. An advisory committee applied this scale to each of seven site specific smoking restrictions and two enforcement related items. For each item, a target score of +4 was identified. The nine items were then combined to produce a summary score for each state. A state that achieved the target across all nine items would receive a summary score of 36 points and be eligible to receive an additional 6 points for exceeding the target on six of the nine items, resulting in a maximum summary score of 42 points. Individual scores were also adjusted to reflect state level preemption measures. Each state's law was evaluated annually from 1993 through 1999.
Setting: USA.
Main outcome measure: A summary score measuring the extensiveness of the state's clean indoor air law.
Results: State laws restricting smoking in the seven individual locations of interest were relatively weak. The overall mean score across the location restrictions ranged from 0.72 in 1993 to 0.98 in 1999. Mean scores were higher for the enforcement items than for the location restrictions. Summary scores ranged from 0 to 20 in 1993 and 0 to 31 in 1994 through 1999. Average summary scores ranged from 8.71 in 1993 to 10.98 in 1999. By the end of 1999, scores increased for 22 states; however, between 1995 and 1997 there were no changes in the summary scores. Three states scored zero points across all years. From 1993 through 1999, there was a 41% increase in the number of states that had in place state level preemption measures.
Conclusion: The number of newly enacted state clean indoor air laws has remained relatively stagnant since 1995. With a few exceptions, as of the end of 1999, progress in enacting state laws to meet specified public health targets for reducing exposure to ETS was relatively low. Thus, state laws in the USA provide, on average, only minimal protection in specified areas and, given the increase in preemption, are increasingly undermining those passed in localities.
Keywords: rating; clean indoor air laws
Abbreviations: ASSIST, American Stop Smoking Intervention Study, EPA, Environmental Protection Agency; ETS, environmental tobacco smoke; NCI, National Cancer Institute; NIOSH, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; SCLD, State Cancer Legislative Database
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  L Joossens and M Raw The Tobacco Control Scale: a new scale to measure country activity Tob. Control, June 1, 2006; 15(3): 247 - 253. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J C Hersey, J Niederdeppe, S W Ng, P Mowery, M Farrelly, and P Messeri How state counter-industry campaigns help prime perceptions of tobacco industry practices to promote reductions in youth smoking Tob. Control, December 1, 2005; 14(6): 377 - 383. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M C Farrelly, J M Nonnemaker, R Chou, A Hyland, K K Peterson, and U E Bauer Changes in hospitality workers' exposure to secondhand smoke following the implementation of New York's smoke-free law Tob. Control, August 1, 2005; 14(4): 236 - 241. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K M McMullen, R C Brownson, D Luke, and J Chriqui Strength of clean indoor air laws and smoking related outcomes in the USA Tob. Control, February 1, 2005; 14(1): 43 - 48. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D T Levy, E Romano, and E A Mumford Recent trends in home and work smoking bans Tob. Control, September 1, 2004; 13(3): 258 - 263. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M Skeer and M Siegel The descriptive epidemiology of local restaurant smoking regulations in Massachusetts: an analysis of the protection of restaurant customers and workers Tob. Control, June 1, 2003; 12(2): 221 - 226. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J F Chriqui, M M Frosh, L A Fues, R el Arculli, and F A Stillman State laws on youth access to tobacco: an update, 1993-1999 Tob. Control, June 1, 2002; 11(2): 163 - 164. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
