Sunday Azagba, Todd Ebling, Alperen Korkmaz, Jessica King Jensen, Fares Qeadan, Mark Hall
{"title":"An Association Between State Laws Limiting Local Control and Community Smoke-Free Indoor Air in the United States.","authors":"Sunday Azagba, Todd Ebling, Alperen Korkmaz, Jessica King Jensen, Fares Qeadan, Mark Hall","doi":"10.1177/21501319241280905","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study examines the association between state laws limiting local control (preemption laws) and local smoke-free policies. We utilized policy data from the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation. The primary outcome variable is the presence of a \"100% smoke-free policy,\" across any of 4 indoor settings: workplaces, restaurants, bars, and gaming venues. We employed generalized structural equation modeling to investigate the relationship between state laws pre-empting smoke-free indoor air regulation and local adoption of policies requiring smoke-free air in any public venues, or for specific venues, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics. Our findings reveal a significant association between state preemption laws and the presence of a local 100% smoke-free indoor policy as of 2023. In states with preemption laws, cities were less likely to have a 100% smoke-free indoor policy at any venue than cities in states without preemption laws (OR = 0.07, 95% CI = 0.05-0.10). When considering specific smoke-free venues, cities in states with preemption laws were less likely to have a 100% smoke-free indoor policy covering workplaces (OR = 0.05, 95% CI = 0.03-0.09), restaurants (OR = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.02-0.07), bars (OR = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.03-0.08), and gaming venues (OR = 0.03, 95% CI = 0.01-0.09) compared to cities in states without preemption laws. Our study suggests that state preemption laws limit local decision-making and the implementation of public health policies focused on tobacco harms.</p>","PeriodicalId":46723,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Primary Care and Community Health","volume":"15 ","pages":"21501319241280905"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11403690/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Primary Care and Community Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21501319241280905","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study examines the association between state laws limiting local control (preemption laws) and local smoke-free policies. We utilized policy data from the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation. The primary outcome variable is the presence of a "100% smoke-free policy," across any of 4 indoor settings: workplaces, restaurants, bars, and gaming venues. We employed generalized structural equation modeling to investigate the relationship between state laws pre-empting smoke-free indoor air regulation and local adoption of policies requiring smoke-free air in any public venues, or for specific venues, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics. Our findings reveal a significant association between state preemption laws and the presence of a local 100% smoke-free indoor policy as of 2023. In states with preemption laws, cities were less likely to have a 100% smoke-free indoor policy at any venue than cities in states without preemption laws (OR = 0.07, 95% CI = 0.05-0.10). When considering specific smoke-free venues, cities in states with preemption laws were less likely to have a 100% smoke-free indoor policy covering workplaces (OR = 0.05, 95% CI = 0.03-0.09), restaurants (OR = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.02-0.07), bars (OR = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.03-0.08), and gaming venues (OR = 0.03, 95% CI = 0.01-0.09) compared to cities in states without preemption laws. Our study suggests that state preemption laws limit local decision-making and the implementation of public health policies focused on tobacco harms.