Strength of clean indoor air laws and smoking related outcomes in the USA.
OBJECTIVE
Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is often encountered in the workplace. There have been efforts to apply and enforce state laws limiting workplace smoking. There has been little study of the relative effectiveness of state and/or local laws in affecting both rates of workplace ETS exposure and adult smoking rates. This study investigates these hypotheses, as well as the effect of these laws on youth smoking.


METHODS
This is a secondary data analysis using sources including the Current Population Survey (CPS), Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), and the National Household Survey of Drug Abuse (NHSDA) between the years of 1996 and 1999. Linear regression models were used to investigate the effect of a state's clean indoor air (CIA) law (using a measure of extensiveness) on the overall amount of people who reported working in a smoke-free environment, youth smoking rates and adult smoking rates.


RESULTS
The extensiveness of a state's CIA law was found to be a reliable predictor of the percentage of indoor workers who report a smoke-free work environment and the rates of youth smoking. State CIA laws were not conclusively associated with adult smoking rates.


CONCLUSIONS
The extensiveness of a state's CIA law is strongly associated with a higher percentage of indoor workers reporting a smoke-free work environment. This study did not reveal a similar association between local laws and smoke-free work environments. Youth smoking rates, shown to be related to state CIA laws, may be further affected with more stringent CIA policy.
McMullen
K M
KM
Infection Control, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, One Barnes-Jewish Hospital Plaza, Mailstop 90-30-632, St Louis, Missouri 63110, USA. pebpegasus@yahoo.com
Brownson
R C
RC
Luke
D
D
Chriqui
J
J
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D016902:Air Pollution, Indoor / Q000191:economics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000517:prevention & control; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D016273:Occupational Exposure / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000517:prevention & control; D011057:Politics; D011159:Population Surveillance / Q000379:methods; D011203:Poverty; D012907:Smoking / Q000191:economics / Q000453:epidemiology; D000074606:Smoking Prevention; D013660:Taxes; D014028:Tobacco Smoke Pollution / Q000191:economics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000517:prevention & control; D014481:United States; D017132:Workplace; D014026:Nicotiana
D014028:Tobacco Smoke Pollution
Tob Control. 1999 Autumn;8(3):272-7
10599571
Am J Health Promot. 1998 Nov-Dec;13(2):83-104
10346662
Am J Health Promot. 2000 Nov-Dec;15(2):81-8
11194699
Am J Prev Med. 2001 Feb;20(2 Suppl):16-66
11173215
Tob Control. 2001 Sep;10(3):267-72
11544392
Tob Control. 2002 Mar;11(1):26-34
11891365
Tob Control. 2002 Mar;11 Suppl 1:I62-72
11893816
Annu Rev Public Health. 2002;23:333-48
11910066
Public Health Rep. 1988 Jul-Aug;103(4):366-75
2841712
Am J Public Health. 1992 Jan;82(1):24-8
1536329
J Public Health Policy. 1992 Spring;13(1):42-51
1629358
J Occup Med. 1992 Jul;34(7):693-7
1494961
Arch Intern Med. 1993 Jun 28;153(12):1485-93
8512439
Epidemiology. 1994 Sep;5(5):545-9
7986871
Am J Epidemiol. 1995 Mar 15;141(6):575-80
7900725
JAMA. 1996 Apr 24;275(16):1233-40
8601954
Annu Rev Public Health. 1997;18:163-85
9143716
BMJ. 2000 Aug 5;321(7257):333-7
10926588