An Association Between State Laws Limiting Local Control and Community Smoke-Free Indoor Air in the United States.

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.

Coverage of Indoor Smoking and Vaping Restrictions in the U.S., 1990-2021.

INTRODUCTION: Secondhand smoke exposure increases the risk of premature death and disease in children and non-smoking adults. As a result, many U.S. states and local jurisdictions have enacted comprehensive indoor smoking restrictions (ISR). Indoor vaping restrictions (IVR) have also been adopted to protect against exposure to secondhand e-cigarette aerosol. This study aimed to quantify state and national U.S. coverage of policies restricting indoor cigarette and e-cigarette use over time. METHODS: Data from the American Nonsmokers Rights' Foundation on U.S. ISR from 1990 to 2021 and IVR from 2006 to 2021 were analyzed. Combining these data with 2015 U.S. Census population estimates, the percentage of state and national residents covered by partial and comprehensive restrictions in bars, restaurants, and workplaces, were calculated (analysis in 2023-2024) over time. RESULTS: Between 1990 and 2021, national coverage of comprehensive ISR increased for bars (0% to 67.3%), restaurants (0%-78.2%), and workplaces (0%-77.5%). Partial ISR coverage decreased for bars (14.8%-13.9%), restaurants (40.2%-15.4%) and workplaces (40.2%-22.5%). From 2006 to 2021, comprehensive IVR coverage increased for bars (0%-43.5%), restaurants (0%-51.5%), and workplaces (0%-53.2%). Despite these increases in coverage, by the end of 2021, <50% of the population was protected by comprehensive ISR for bars, restaurants, and workplaces in 19, 12, and 14 states, respectively. DISCUSSION: The percentage of the U.S. population protected by ISR and IVR has increased over time. However, gaps in coverage remain, which may contribute to disparities in tobacco-related disease and death.

Approaches for setting occupational exposure limits in the pharmaceutical industry.

The use of pharmaceutical drugs has provided a cure for many diseases. However, unintended exposure to drugs in the manufacturing workplace can cause significant health hazards to workers. It is important to protect the workforce from these deleterious effects by limiting exposure to an acceptable level, the occupational exposure limit (OEL). OEL is defined as airborne concentrations (expressed as a time-weighted average for a conventional 8-h workday and a 40-h work week) of a substance to which nearly all workers may be repeatedly exposed (for a working lifetime) without adverse effects. Determination of OELs has become very challenging over time, requiring an overall assessment of the preclinical and clinical data of the drug being manufactured. Previously, to derive OEL values, toxicologists used animal no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) data, which have been replaced with the overall assessment of animal and human data, placing a higher emphasis on human health-based data. A major advantage of working with human pharmaceuticals is that sufficient clinical data are available for them in most cases. The present manuscript reviews the latest knowledge regarding the derivation of occupational exposure limits as health-based exposure limits (HBELs) for pharmaceuticals. We have provided examples of OEL calculations for various drugs including levofloxacin (CAS No. 100986-85-4), dienogest (CAS no. 65928-58-7), and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA, CAS no. 50-78-2) using human data. This report will benefit professionals in the OEL domain in understanding this highly important, growing, and challenging field.

Association of state tobacco control policies with active smoking at the time of intervention for intermittent claudication.

OBJECTIVE: Active smoking among patients undergoing interventions for intermittent claudication (IC) is associated with poor outcomes. Notwithstanding, current levels of active smoking in these patients are high. State-level tobacco control policies have been shown to reduce smoking in the general US population. We evaluated whether state cigarette taxes and 100% smoke-free workplace legislation are associated with active smoking among patients undergoing interventions for IC. METHODS: We queried the Vascular Quality Initiative database for peripheral endovascular interventions, infrainguinal bypasses, and suprainguinal bypasses for IC. Active smoking at the time of intervention was defined as smoking within one month of intervention. We implemented difference-in-differences analysis to isolate changes in active smoking owing to cigarette taxes (adjusted for inflation) and implementation of smoke-free workplace legislation. The difference-in-differences models estimated the causal effects of tobacco policies by adjusting for concurrent temporal trends in active smoking unrelated to cigarette taxes or smoke-free workplace legislation. The models controlled for age, sex, race/ethnicity, insurance type, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, state, and year. We tested interactions of taxes with age and insurance. RESULTS: Data were available for 59,847 patients undergoing interventions for IC in 25 states from 2011 to 2019. Across the study period, active smoking at the time of intervention decreased from 48% to 40%. Every $1.00 cigarette tax increase was associated with a 6-percentage point decrease in active smoking (95% confidence interval, -10 to -1 percentage points; P = .02), representing an 11% decrease relative to the baseline proportion of patients actively smoking. The effect of cigarettes taxes was greater in older patients and those on Medicare. Among patients aged 60 to 69 and 70 to 79 years, every $1.00 tax increase resulted in 14% and 21% reductions in active smoking relative to baseline subgroup prevalences of 53% and 29%, respectively (P < .05 for both); however, younger age groups were not affected by tax increases. Among insurance groups, only patients on Medicare exhibited a significant change in active smoking with every $1.00 tax increase (an 18% decrease relative to a 33% baseline prevalence; P = .01). The number of states implementing smoke-free workplace legislation increased from 9 to 14 by 2019; however, this policy was not significantly associated with active smoking prevalence. At follow-up (median, 12.9 months), $1.00 tax increases were still associated with decreased smoking prevalence (a 25% decrease relative to a 33% baseline prevalence; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Cigarette tax increases seem to be an effective strategy to decrease active smoking among patients undergoing interventions for IC. Older patients and Medicare recipients are the most responsive to tax increases.

Alcohol drinking as a mediator of the influence of smoking prevalence on second-hand smoke exposure in workplaces: a mediation analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Both alcohol drinking and second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure have shown a strong association with smoking behaviour. This study uses mediation analysis to clarify the process underlying the relationship between smoking prevalence and SHS exposure and the extent to which this relationship is mediated by alcohol use in the workplace. METHOD: A total of 14,195 employees from 81 companies in China participated in this survey. Mediation analysis was used to establish the mediation effect of alcohol drinking. Structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to evaluate the role of alcohol drinking when a smoke-free (SF) workplace policy was imposed. RESULTS: For males, approximately 6.3% of the effects on SHS exposure were mediated through the channel of alcohol use. For females, this channel mediated 14.1% of the total effects. SF policy was negatively associated with smoking prevalence and SHS exposure. The indirect effect of the SF policy on reducing SHS exposure by controlling smoking behaviour was significant. For smokers, worksite smoking bans were negatively associated with the smoking amount and drinking behaviour, and the indirect effect of this policy on promoting smokers' intention to quit by reducing the smoking amount and controlling drinking behaviour was significant. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed that alcohol drinking is among the channels that mediate the association between smoking prevalence and SHS exposure in workplaces. Our results also find a spillover effect of SF workplace policy and call for effective interventions for alcohol use, which may influence the outcomes of SF policy implementation.

[Diagnostic difficulties and legal analysis of potential claims to occupational medicine specialists based on a case of unrecognizable cardiac angiosarcoma]. / Trudnosci diagnostyczne i analiza prawna potencjalnych roszczen wobec lekarza medycyny pracy na przykladzie nierozpoznanego naczyniakomiesaka serca.

The article presents a case of sudden death of a 56-year-old woman at the workplace, caused by a very rare primary cardiac tumor. The patient's family reported a crime to the prosecutor's office suggesting participation of third parties in causing the death or malpractice in physical examinations before the death. A review of clinical data concerning cardiac angiosarcoma, available in electronic databases (e.g., Web of Science, PubMed), was presented, which could be useful in the practice of occupational medicine specialists. A legal analysis of potential claims to occupational medicine specialist in the case of failure to recognize primary cardiac tumors was also included in the article. Med Pr. 2020;71(6):757-64.

Use of Cigarettes and E-Cigarettes and Dual Use Among Adult Employees in the US Workplace.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence-based interventions for tobacco control in the US workplace can reach a large audience. The purpose of our study was to explore the prevalence and determinants of type of tobacco use (ie, cigarettes only, e-cigarettes only, or dual use) among adult employees in the United States and to examine type of use by state. METHODS: We used data from the 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to examine the prevalence of cigarette use, e-cigarette use, dual use, and quit attempts. We used multinomial logistic regression to examine the relationships between sociodemographic characteristics and type of tobacco product used, and we estimated adjusted prevalence. RESULTS: Approximately 17% of respondents were current smokers, 5% were current e-cigarette users, and 2% were dual users. E-cigarette-only and dual use were generally highest among young (aged 18-24), male, and less-educated respondents and lower for respondents who identified as black, Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or Hispanic than for white respondents. Cigarette-only and dual use were higher for respondents who did not have health care coverage. Prevalence by state of e-cigarette use only ranged from 1.2% (Vermont) to 3.9% (Arkansas), whereas the prevalence of dual use ranged from 0.6% (District of Columbia) to 4.0% (Oklahoma). CONCLUSION: Prevalence of cigarette, e-cigarette, and dual use varied by sociodemographic characteristics and by state. These findings can support targeting of specific populations when designing and implementing evidence-based interventions for tobacco control in workplace settings.

Inequity in California's Smokefree Workplace Laws: A Legal Epidemiologic Analysis of Loophole Closures.

INTRODUCTION: California's landmark 1994 Smokefree Workplace Act contained numerous exemptions, or loopholes, believed to contribute to inequities in smokefree air protections among low-income communities and communities of color (e.g., permitting smoking in warehouses, hotel common areas). Cities/counties were not prevented from adopting stronger laws. This study coded municipal laws and state law changes (in 2015-2016) for loophole closures and determined their effects in reducing inequities in smokefree workplace protections. METHODS: Public health attorneys reviewed current laws for 536 of California's 539 cities and counties from January 2017 to May 2018 and coded for 19 loophole closures identified from legislative actions (inter-rater reliability, 87%). The local policy data were linked with population demographics from intercensal estimates (2012-2016) and adult smoking prevalence (2014). The analyses were cross-sectional and conducted in February-June 2019. RESULTS: Between 1994 and 2018, jurisdictions closed 6.09 loopholes on average (SD=5.28). Urban jurisdictions closed more loopholes than rural jurisdictions (mean=6.40 vs 3.94, p<0.001), and loophole closure scores correlated positively with population size, median household income, and percentage white, non-Hispanic residents (p<0.001 for all). Population demographics and the loophole closure score explained 43% of the variance in jurisdictions' adult smoking prevalence. State law changes in 2015-2016 increased loophole closure scores and decreased jurisdiction variation (mean=9.74, SD=3.56); closed more loopholes in rural versus urban jurisdictions (meangain=4.44 vs 3.72, p=0.002); and in less populated, less affluent jurisdictions, with greater racial/ethnic diversity, and higher smoking prevalence (p<0.001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Although jurisdictions made important progress in closing loopholes in smokefree air law, state law changes achieved greater reductions in inequities in policy coverage.

Effectiveness of Indiana's Statewide Smoke-Free Indoor Air Law in Reducing Prevalence of Adult Cigarette Smoking.

Indiana recently implemented a statewide smoke-free indoor air law that has prohibited smoking in both restaurants and non-hospitality workplaces. Evidence for the effectiveness of the recent statewide smoke-free indoor law may persuade 14 states that do not have any statewide smoke-free laws to enact such laws. We evaluated the effectiveness of Indiana's State Smoke-Free Air Law, implemented July 2012, in reducing adult smoking prevalence. We analyzed samples of U.S. adults using a nonequivalent control group design with multi-year, cross-sectional data from the 2011-2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System ( N= 2,259,014). Four state groups with different levels of comprehensiveness in regard to statewide smoke-free indoor air laws in 2011-2016 served as the comparison groups, namely those with: (1) no law; (2) a partial law (prohibiting smoking in either one or two of these three settings, namely non-hospitality workplaces, restaurants, and bars); (3) a comprehensive law (prohibiting smoking in all non-hospitality workplaces, restaurants, and bars); and (4) those that changed from a partial to a comprehensive law. We used a difference-in-differences approach with multiple logistic regressions to assess the net effect of the policy with a secular trend removed. The decline rate of cigarette smoking in Indiana was steeper, from 21.2% in 2011-2012 to 17.8% in 2013-2016, than in states in our four comparison groups, which suggests a significant reduction in adult cigarette smoking prevalence above and beyond the downward secular trend observed. All the comparison groups showed higher odds of cigarette smoking than Indiana (adjusted odds ratios range from 1.08 to 1.16). Although a long-term effect of Indiana's State Smoke-Free Air Law has yet to be evaluated, current data indicate that such a policy appears to be effective in reducing smoking prevalence. The implementation of statewide smoke-free indoor air laws in all restaurants and non-hospitality workplaces may help reduce smoking rates in the 14 states that still do not have any statewide smoke-free indoor air laws.

Differential Relationship between Tobacco Control Policies and U.S. Adult Current Smoking by Poverty.

The study's purpose was to identify differences in the relationship between tobacco control policies and smoking by poverty. We matched state smoke-free air law coverage (SFALs), tobacco control funding (TCF), and cigarette taxes with individual current smoking and demographics from supplements to the Current Population Survey (1985-2015). We regressed (logistic) smoking on policy variables, poverty (<138% of poverty line versus ≥138% of poverty line), interactions of policy and poverty, and covariates, presenting beta coefficients instead of odds ratios because it is difficult to interpret interactions using odds ratios (they are ratios of odds ratios). We coded SFALs as (1) proportion of state covered by 100% workplace, restaurant and bar laws (SFAL-All) or (2) proportion of state covered by workplace laws (SFAL-WP) and proportion covered by restaurant or bar laws (SFAL-RB). In the SFAL-All model, SFAL-All (Beta coeff: -0.03, 95% CI: -0.06, -0.002), tax (Coeff: -0.06, 95% CI: -0.07, -0.05), and TCF (Coeff: -0.01, 95% CI: -0.01, -0.001) were associated with less smoking. In this model, the interaction of SFAL-All by poverty was significant (Coeff: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.02, 0.13). In the SFAL-WP/RB model, SFAL-RB (Coeff: -0.05, 95% CI: -0.08, -0.02), tax (Coeff: -0.05, 95% CI: -0.06, -0.04), and TCF (Coeff: -0.01, 95% CI: -0.01, -0.00) were significant. In the same model, SFAL-WP (Coeff: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.15), SFAL-RB (Coeff: -0.14, 95% CI: -0.19, -0.09), and TCF (Coeff: 0.01, 95% CI: 0.00, 0.02) interacted with poverty. Tax by poverty was of borderline significance in this model (Coeff = 0.02, 95% CI: -0.00, 0.04, p = 0.050). Among adults, SFALs, TCF, and tax were associated with less current smoking, and SFALs and TCF had differential relationships with smoking by poverty.

Smoke-Free Policies and Smoking Cessation in the United States, 2003-2015.

(1) Background: Smoking restrictions have been shown to be associated with reduced smoking, but there are a number of gaps in the literature surrounding the relationship between smoke-free policies and cessation, including the extent to which this association may be modified by sociodemographic characteristics. (2) Methods: We analyzed data from the Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey, 2003-2015, to explore whether multiple measures of smoking restrictions were associated with cessation across population subgroups. We examined area-based measures of exposure to smoke-free laws, as well as self-reported exposure to workplace smoke-free policies. We used age-stratified, fixed effects logistic regression models to assess the impact of each smoke-free measure on 90-day cessation. Effect modification by gender, education, family income, and race/ethnicity was examined using interaction terms. (3) Results: Coverage by workplace smoke-free laws and self-reported workplace smoke-free policies was associated with higher odds of cessation among respondents ages 40-54. Family income modified the association between smoke-free workplace laws and cessation for women ages 25-39 (the change in the probability of cessation associated with coverage was most pronounced among lower-income women). (4) Conclusions: Heterogeneous associations between policies and cessation suggest that smoke-free policies may have important implications for health equity.

The effect of smoke-free legislation on the mortality rate of acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have demonstrated that smoke-free legislation is associated with a reduced risk of mortality from acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This study aimed to examine and quantify the potential effect of smoke-free legislation on AMI mortality rate in different countries. METHODS: Studies were identified using a systematic search of the scientific literature from electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Embase, Google Scholar, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), from their inception through September 30, 2017. A random effects model was employed to estimate the overall effects of smoke-free legislation on the AMI mortality rate. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore the possible causes of heterogeneity in risk estimates based on sex and age. The results of meta-analysis after excluding the studies with a high risk of bias were reported in this study. RESULTS: A total of 10 eligible studies with 16 estimates of effect size were included in this meta-analysis. Significant heterogeneity in the risk estimates was identified (overall I2 = 94.6%, p < 0.001). Therefore, a random effects model was utilized to estimate the overall effect of smoke-free legislation. There was an 8% decline in AMI mortality after introducing smoke-free legislation (RR = 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.90-0.94). The results of subgroup analyses showed that smoke-free legislation was significantly associated with lower rates of mortality for the following 5 diagnostic subgroups: smoke-free in workplaces, restaurants and bars (RR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.90-0.95), smaller sample size (RR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.89-0.95), study location in Europe (RR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.85-0.94), regional study area (RR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.89-0.94), and no previous local smoke-free legislation (RR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.90-0.93). However, there was not much difference in AMI mortality rates after the legislation between the longer (RR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.86-0.98) and shorter follow-up duration subgroups (RR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.89-0.94). CONCLUSION: Smoke-free legislation could significantly reduce the AMI mortality rate by 8%. The reduction in the AMI mortality rate was more significant in studies with more comprehensive laws, without prior smoke-free bans, with a smaller sample size, at the regional level, and with a location in Europe.

Clean indoor air laws, cigarette excise taxes, and smoking: Results from the current population survey-tobacco use supplement, 2003-2011.

There was an increase in the number and coverage of state and local clean indoor air laws in the US during the past fifteen years. These laws coincided with increases in federal, state, and local cigarette excise taxes. In light of these changes, the objective of this study was to examine the association between clean indoor air laws, cigarette excise taxes and smoking patterns between 2003 and 2011. Using data on 62,165 adult participants in the 2003 and 2010/2011 Current Population Survey-Tobacco Use Supplement who reported smoking cigarettes in the past year, we examined the association of state and county workplace, bar, and restaurant clean indoor air laws and cigarette excise taxes with quitting and current every-day smoking. Between 2003 and 2011, quitting increased and daily smoking among those who continued to smoke decreased significantly. Participants living in states and counties with higher excise taxes and more comprehensive clean indoor air laws had a higher likelihood of quitting and lower likelihood of everyday smoking. Based on the assumption of no uncontrolled confounding, changes in taxes and laws accounted for 64.8% of the increase in smoking cessation and all of the reduction in everyday smoking. Implementation of state and county-level clean indoor air laws and cigarette taxes appears to have achieved the intended goal of encouraging smokers to either quit or reduce their frequency of smoking.

Workplace Smoke-Free Policies and Cessation Programs Among U.S. Working Adults.

INTRODUCTION: Workplace tobacco control interventions reduce smoking and secondhand smoke exposure among U.S. workers. Data on smoke-free workplace policy coverage and cessation programs by industry and occupation are limited. This study assessed smoke-free workplace policies and employer-offered cessation programs among U.S. workers, by industry and occupation. METHODS: Data from the 2014-2015 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey, a random sample of the civilian, non-institutionalized population, were analyzed in 2018. Self-reported smoke-free policy coverage and employer-offered cessation programs were assessed among working adults aged ≥18 years, overall and by occupation and industry. Respondents were considered to have a 100% smoke-free policy if they indicated smoking was not permitted in any indoor areas of their workplace, and to have a cessation program if their employer offered any stop-smoking program within the past year. RESULTS: Overall, 80.3% of indoor workers reported having smoke-free policies at their workplace and 27.2% had cessation programs. Smoke-free policy coverage was highest among workers in the education services (90.6%) industry and lowest among workers in agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting industry (64.1%). Employer-offered cessation programs were significantly higher among workers reporting 100% smoke-free workplace policies (30.9%) than those with partial/no policies (23.3%) and were significantly higher among indoor workers (29.2%) than outdoor workers (15.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Among U.S. workers, 100% smoke-free policy and cessation program coverage varies by industry and occupation. Lower smoke-free policy coverage and higher tobacco use in certain industry and occupation groups suggests opportunities for workplace tobacco control interventions to reduce tobacco use and secondhand smoke exposure.

How to reduce biases coming from a before and after design: the impact of the 2007-08 French smoking ban policy.

BACKGROUND: Smoke-free laws aim at protecting against second-hand smoke and at contributing to change smoking behaviors. Impact evaluation studies can help understand to what extent they reach their goals. Simple before and after designs are often used but cannot isolate the effect of the policy of interest. METHODS: The short-term impact of the French smoking ban (2007-08) on smoking behavior outcomes was evaluated among smokers with data from the ITC project. We first conducted a before and after design on the French sample. Second, we added the UK (excluding Scotland) as a control group and finally used external pre-policy data from national surveys to control for bias arising from pre-policy trends. RESULTS: After one year post-implementation, the smoking ban led to a decrease in seeing people smoking in bars, restaurants and workplaces [estimated risk ratios (RR) of 8.81 IC95% (5.34-14.71), 2.02 (1.79-2.31) and 1.24 (1.16-1.33), respectively], as well as an increase in support for the smoke-free policy, but only in bars and restaurants [RR of 1.35 (1.15-1.61) and 1.25 (1.16-1.35)], respectively. No impact was found on smoking behaviors and on having a strict no smoking policy at home. The simple before and after design systematically overestimated the smoking ban's impact [e.g. RR of 29.9 (20.06-44.56) for observed smoking in bar, compared to 13.21 (7.78-22.42) with the control group, and 8.81 (5.34-14.71) with the correction from external data]. CONCLUSION: When data are lacking to conduct quasi-experimental designs for impact evaluation, the use of external data could help understand and correct pre-policy trends.

Impact of the Spanish smoke-free laws on cigarette sales, 2000-2015: partial bans on smoking in public places failed and only a total tobacco ban worked.

In January 2006, the Spanish government enacted a tobacco control law that banned smoking in bars and restaurants, with exceptions depending on the floor space of the premises. In January 2011, further legislation in this area was adopted, removing these exceptions. We analyse the effect produced on cigarette sales by these two bans. We approach this problem using an interrupted time series analysis while accounting for the potential effects of autocorrelation and seasonality. The data source used was the official data on legal sales of tobacco in Spain, from January 2000 to December 2015 (excluding the Canary Islands and the autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla). As confounder variables, we use the log-transformed average prices for manufactured and hand-rolled cigarettes (or the average minimum excise tax as a proxy), and log-transformed real-household disposable income. The implementation of a total smoke-free ban in Spain was associated with an immediate reduction in cigarette sales between 9% to 11%. In contrast, in the period immediately following the partial ban, no such reduction was detected, beyond the trend already present. Our results indicate that, in Spain, partial bans on smoking in public places failed, and that only a total tobacco ban worked.