Changes in Self-Reported Smokefree Workplace Policy Coverage Among Employed Adults-United States, 2003 and 2010-2011.

Introduction: The workplace is a major source of exposure to secondhand smoke from combustible tobacco products. Smokefree workplace policies protect nonsmoking workers from secondhand smoke and help workers who smoke quit. This study examined changes in self-reported smokefree workplace policy coverage among U.S. workers from 2003 to 2010-2011. Methods: Data came from the 2003 (n = 74,728) and 2010-2011 (n = 70,749) waves of the Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey. Among employed adults working indoors, a smokefree workplace policy was defined as a self-reported policy at the respondent's workplace that did not allow smoking in work areas and public/common areas. Descriptive statistics were used to assess smokefree workplace policy coverage at two timepoints overall, by occupation, and by state. Results: The proportion of U.S. workers covered by smokefree workplace policies increased from 77.7% in 2003 to 82.8% in 2010-2011 (p < .00001). The proportion of workers reporting smokefree workplace policy coverage increased in 21 states (p < .001) and decreased in two states (p < .001) over this period. In 2010-2011, by occupation, this proportion ranged from 74.3% for blue collar workers to 84.9% for white collar workers; by state, it ranged from 63.3% in Nevada to 92.6% in Montana. Conclusions: From 2003 to 2010-2011, self-reported smokefree workplace policy coverage among indoor adult workers increased nationally, and occupational coverage disparities narrowed. However, coverage remained unchanged in half of states, and disparities persisted across occupations and states. Accelerated efforts are warranted to ensure that all workers are protected by smokefree workplace policies. Implications: This study assessed changes in the proportion of indoor workers reporting being covered by smokefree workplace policies from 2003 to 2010-2011 overall and by occupation and by state, using data from the Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey. The findings indicate that smokefree workplace policy coverage among U.S. indoor workers has increased nationally, with occupational coverage disparities narrowing. However, coverage remained unchanged in half of states, and disparities persisted across occupations and states. Accelerated efforts are warranted to ensure that all workers are protected by smokefree workplace policies.

State and Local Comprehensive Smoke-Free Laws for Worksites, Restaurants, and Bars - United States, 2015.

Exposure to secondhand smoke from burning tobacco products causes stroke, lung cancer, and coronary heart disease in adults (1,2). Children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are at increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome, acute respiratory infections, middle ear disease, more severe asthma, respiratory symptoms, and slowed lung growth (1,2). Secondhand smoke exposure contributes to approximately 41,000 deaths among nonsmoking adults and 400 deaths in infants each year (2). This report updates a previous CDC report that evaluated state smoke-free laws in effect from 2000-2010 (3), and estimates the proportion of the population protected by comprehensive smoke-free laws. The number of states, including the District of Columbia (DC), with comprehensive smoke-free laws (statutes that prohibit smoking in indoor areas of worksites, restaurants, and bars) increased from zero in 2000 to 26 in 2010 and 27 in 2015. The percentage of the U.S. population that is protected increased from 2.72% in 2000 to 47.8% in 2010 and 49.6% in 2015. Regional disparities remain in the proportions of state populations covered by state or local comprehensive smoke-free policies, as no state in the southeast has a state comprehensive law. In addition, nine of the 24 states that lack state comprehensive smoke-free laws also lack any local comprehensive smoke-free laws. Opportunities exist to accelerate the adoption of smoke-free laws in states that lack local comprehensive smoke-free laws, including those in the south, to protect nonsmokers from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke exposure.

Stuck in Neutral: Stalled Progress in Statewide Comprehensive Smoke-Free Laws and Cigarette Excise Taxes, United States, 2000-2014.

INTRODUCTION: Increasing tobacco excise taxes and implementing comprehensive smoke-free laws are two of the most effective population-level strategies to reduce tobacco use, prevent tobacco use initiation, and protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke. We examined state laws related to smoke-free buildings and to cigarette excise taxes from 2000 through 2014 to see how implementation of these laws from 2000 through 2009 differs from implementation in more recent years (2010-2014). METHODS: We used legislative data from LexisNexis, an online legal research database, to examine changes in statewide smoke-free laws and cigarette excise taxes in effect from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2014. A comprehensive smoke-free law was defined as a statewide law prohibiting smoking in all indoor areas of private work sites, restaurants, and bars. RESULTS: From 2000 through 2009, 21 states and the District of Columbia implemented comprehensive smoke-free laws prohibiting smoking in work sites, restaurants, and bars. In 2010, 4 states implemented comprehensive smoke-free laws. The last state to implement a comprehensive smoke-free law was North Dakota in 2012, bringing the total number to 26 states and the District of Columbia. From 2000 through 2009, 46 states and the District of Columbia implemented laws increasing their cigarette excise tax, which increased the national average state excise tax rate by $0.92. However, from 2010 through 2014, only 14 states and the District of Columbia increased their excise tax, which increased the national average state excise tax rate by $0.20. CONCLUSION: The recent stall in progress in enacting and implementing statewide comprehensive smoke-free laws and increasing cigarette excise taxes may undermine tobacco prevention and control efforts in the United States, undercutting efforts to reduce tobacco use, exposure to secondhand smoke, health disparities, and tobacco-related illness and death.

State laws prohibiting sales to minors and indoor use of electronic nicotine delivery systems--United States, November 2014.

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), including electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) and other devices such as electronic hookahs, electronic cigars, and vape pens, are battery-powered devices capable of delivering aerosolized nicotine and additives to the user. Experimentation with and current use of e-cigarettes has risen sharply among youths and adults in the United States. Youth access to and use of ENDS is of particular concern given the potential adverse effects of nicotine on adolescent brain development. Additionally, ENDS use in public indoor areas might passively expose bystanders (e.g., children, pregnant women, and other nontobacco users) to nicotine and other potentially harmful constituents. ENDS use could have the potential to renormalize tobacco use and complicate enforcement of smoke-free policies. State governments can regulate the sales of ENDS and their use in indoor areas where nonusers might be involuntarily exposed to secondhand aerosol. To learn the current status of state laws regulating the sales and use of ENDS, CDC assessed state laws that prohibit ENDS sales to minors and laws that include ENDS use in conventional smoking prohibitions in indoor areas of private worksites, restaurants, and bars. Findings indicate that as of November 30, 2014, 40 states prohibited ENDS sales to minors, but only three states prohibited ENDS use in private worksites, restaurants, and bars. Of the 40 states that prohibited ENDS sales to minors, 21 did not prohibit ENDS use or conventional smoking in private worksites, restaurants, and bars. Three states had no statewide laws prohibiting ENDS sales to minors and no statewide laws prohibiting ENDS use or conventional smoking in private worksites, restaurants, and bars. According to the Surgeon General, ENDS have the potential for public health harm or public health benefit. The possibility of public health benefit from ENDS could arise only if 1) current smokers use these devices to switch completely from combustible tobacco products and 2) the availability and use of combustible tobacco products are rapidly reduced. Therefore, when addressing potential public health harms associated with ENDS, it is important to simultaneously uphold and accelerate strategies found by the Surgeon General to prevent and reduce combustible tobacco use, including tobacco price increases, comprehensive smoke-free laws, high-impact media campaigns, barrier-free cessation treatment and services, and comprehensive statewide tobacco control programs.

Estimating the Impact of Raising Prices and Eliminating Discounts on Cigarette Smoking Prevalence in the United States.

The average retail price per pack of cigarettes is less than $6, which is substantially lower than the $10 per-pack target established in 2014 by the Surgeon General to reduce the smoking rate. We estimated the impact of three cigarette pricing scenarios on smoking prevalence among teens aged 12-17 years, young adults aged 18-25 years, and adults aged ≥26 years, by state: (1) $0.94 federal tax increase on cigarettes, as proposed in the fiscal year 2017 President's budget; (2) $10 per-pack retail price, allowing discounts; and (3) $10 per-pack retail price, eliminating discounts. We conducted Monte Carlo simulations to generate point estimates of reductions in cigarette smoking prevalence by state. We found that each price scenario would substantially reduce cigarette smoking prevalence. A $10 per-pack retail price eliminating discounts could result in 637,270 fewer smokers aged 12-17 years; 4,186,954 fewer smokers aged 18-25 years; and 7,722,460 fewer smokers aged ≥26 years. Raising cigarette prices and eliminating discounts could substantially reduce cigarette smoking prevalence as well as smoking-related death and disease.