Antismoking laws
Antismoking laws are regulations that restrict where and when individuals can smoke, particularly in public spaces, to protect public health. These laws have proliferated across various jurisdictions in the twenty-first century, encompassing areas such as government buildings, restaurants, and bars. Proponents of these regulations argue that they are essential for mitigating health risks associated with secondhand smoke, while opponents raise concerns about personal freedoms and the potential economic impact on businesses that cater to smokers. As of 2023, nearly all U.S. states have enacted some form of antismoking legislation, although the extent and coverage of these laws can vary significantly. For instance, notable laws have even been passed in areas traditionally associated with tobacco production, demonstrating a shift in public policy regarding smoking. Research on the effects of these bans shows mixed results; some studies indicate reductions in smoking behavior, particularly among younger populations, while others suggest limited impact on overall smoking rates. Compliance with these laws appears to improve over time, and evidence suggests that smoke-free policies do not adversely affect businesses. Additionally, as the use of electronic cigarettes has risen, new regulations are emerging to address this trend among youth. Overall, antismoking legislation remains a contentious issue, with ongoing debates about its implications for health, personal rights, and business ownership.
On this Page
Antismoking laws
SIGNIFICANCE: Laws that restrict cigarette smoking have extended the authority of government entities to regulate when and where people can engage in what is otherwise a legal behavior and have extended the reach of the government to regulate the policies and practices of private businesses.
During the twenty-first century, the number of state, municipal, and county jurisdictions passing antismoking ordinances steadily increased. The ordinances prohibit smoking in public places such as government buildings, restaurants, and even bars. The primary rationale behind such legislation is public health. Political sponsors and advocates of antismoking legislation frequently cite significant health-related issues that are correlated with secondhand smoke as the justification for antismoking legislation.
However, opponents of antismoking legislation have frequently cited what they call the rights of the smokers themselves, as well as the rights of private business owners to make decisions about what constitutes permissible behavior within their own establishments. In addition, business owners who oppose antismoking laws frequently argue that such bans will cost them the business of smokers who choose not to visit their establishments.
While the issue continues to be intensely debated, it is clear that the trend toward antismoking legislation is gaining strength. As of 2023, nearly all US states had some sort of antismoking legislation, although some laws did not cover all workplaces, restaurants, and bars. Some legislation has been passed in what many would regard as highly unlikely places. In 2004, for example, a smoking ban was passed in Lexington-Fayette County, Kentucky—in the center of a major tobacco-producing region. After lengthy delays because of legal challenges to the ban, it took effect in April 2004, after Kentucky’s supreme court ruled that it was within the province of local authorities to establish smoking bans and that doing so did not preempt state law. The Lexington-Fayette County ban prohibited smoking in all areas open to the public, including restaurants and bars, with the exceptions of dwellings and designated motel and hotel rooms, tobacco warehouses, nonenclosed public spaces, rooms and halls used for private social activities that are not open to the public, and nonprofit private organizations.
While much is understood about the intense and ongoing political debates between advocates and opponents of antismoking legislation, less is known about the impact of the smoking bans themselves. The findings of such research as has been done are mixed. Some studies have indicated no effects in terms of the prevalence of smoking, while other studies have observed reductions in smoking behavior. A study published in 2021 in Health Economics found that full bans, meaning that smoking is prohibited in all workplaces, restaurants, and bars, have reduced smoking among young people over time. It is not as easy to prevent people from smoking in their homes, however, even though secondhand smoke is dangerous to non-smoking occupants. A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), published in 2020, found that more than 50 percent of homes in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom completely banned smoking, while about 45 percent of multiunit homes in these countries banned smoking.
Some research has also addressed compliance-related issues. A 1996 study found that many of the concerns of opponents of smoking bans about such matters as enforcement problems, negative reactions of customers, and effects on business were unrealized fifteen months after the bans took effect. Research has also reported that employee and patron compliance with California’s Smoke-Free Workplace law improved between 1998 and 2002. Furthermore, a study by the CDC, published in 2024, analyzing the impact of smoking bans on businesses found that smoke-free policies did not harm businesses. Therefore, while antismoking ban legislation continues to be controversial, there is evidence of its having positive community-based effects.
In the 2010s, as the prevalence of electronic cigarette use increased, several states instituted legislation to regulate usage. The number of US students in grades six through twelve who reported using e-cigarettes, called vaping, between 2011 and 2013 grew from 79,000 to 263,000 people, according to the February 2015 Nicotine and Tobacco Research Study cited by the American Public Health Association’s May/June 2015 issue of the Nation’s Health. This number of students vaping has continued to grow. Another study by the CDC found that in 2023, 7.7 percent, or 2.1 million, middle and high school students used e-cigarettes, and nearly one in two students who tried e-cigarettes became regular users.
Bibliography
Catalano, Michael, and Donna B. Gilleskie. "Impacts of Local Smoking Bans on Smoking Behaviors and Tobacco Smoke Exposure." Health Economics, vol. 30, no. 8, Aug. 2021, pp. 1719-1744, doi.org/10.1002/hec.4280. Accessed 14 July 2024.
Driezen, Pete, et al. "Self-Reported Exposure to Secondhand Smoke and Support for Complete Smoking Bans in Multiunit Housing Among Smokers in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 25 Nov. 2020, www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2020/20‗0201.htm. Accessed 14 July 2024.
Hudson, D. Smoking Bans. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers, 2004. Print.
Jacobson, P. D. Tobacco Control Laws: Implementation and Enforcement. Santa Monica: Rand, 1997. Print.
McGill, Natalie. “States Taking Action to Regulate E-Cigarettes.” Nation’s Health 45.4 (2015): 1–12. Health Business Elite. Web. 24 May. 2016.
Pacheco, Julianna. “Trends—Public Opinion on Smoking and Anti-Smoking Policies.” Public Opinion Quarterly 75.3 (2011): 576–592. Business Source Complete. Web. 24 May 2016.
Rabin, R. L., and S. D. Sugarman, eds. Smoking Policy: Law, Politics, and Culture. New York: Oxford UP, 1993. Print.
Schaler, J. A., and M. E. Schaler, eds. Smoking: Who Has the Right? Amherst: Prometheus Books, 1998. Print.
Weber, M. D., et al. “Long-Term Compliance with California’s Smoke-Free Workplace Law Among Bars and Restaurants in Los Angeles County.” Tobacco Control 12.3 (2003): 269–273. Print.