Smoke-free and tobacco-free colleges and universities in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the number and proportion of accredited, degree-granting institutions with 100% smoke-free and 100% tobacco-free protections across the USA and by state. METHODS: Data on postsecondary education institutions from the US Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 2015, and smoke-free and tobacco-free campus protections from the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation's Smokefree and Tobacco-Free Colleges and Universities List 2017, were integrated to calculate the number and proportion of: (1) smoke-free and tobacco-free accredited, degree-granting institutions and (2) students and staff protected by campus policies and state laws. Campus protections are given a 100% smoke-free designation if smoking is not allowed on campus anywhere, at any time; 100% tobacco-free designations extend smoke-free protections to include non-combustible products such as smokeless tobacco. RESULTS: 823 accredited, degree-granting institutions (16.7%) representing 1816 individual campuses, sites and schools have either 100% smoke-free or 100% tobacco-free protections. An estimated 14.9 million college students (26.9%) and 8.9 million faculty and staff (25.4%) are protected by campus policies and state laws. Only three states and two territories have 100% smoke-free or 100% tobacco-free protections in over half of their institutions; four states and six territories have no known 100% smoke-free or 100% tobacco-free campus protections. CONCLUSIONS: In 2017, just 16.7% of accredited, degree-granting institutions in the USA had 100% smoke-free or 100% tobacco-free protections. Despite progress, more efforts can ensure that students and staff benefit from comprehensive 100% smoke-free and 100% tobacco-free protections at US colleges and universities.

A Tobacco Control Framework for Regulating Public Consumption of Cannabis: Multistate Analysis and Policy Implications.

Eleven US states and Washington, DC, legalized recreational (adult use) cannabis. Seven states-Alaska, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington-allow cannabis sales. A public health concern is that exemptions in state or local smoke-free laws for public cannabis smoking or vaping will weaken smoke-free laws, expose the public to secondhand cannabis, and renormalize smoking.We describe the experience of the seven states and challenges faced in maintaining smoke-free laws. Using elements of a tobacco control framework, we identify best practices in cannabis regulation by comparing each state's smoke-free laws and allowances for public cannabis use. All states prohibit public cannabis use; two lack 100% smoke-free protections; one lacks vaping devices in its smoke-free law; three allow cannabis use in retailers; two allow cannabis use in social consumption lounges; and two allow cannabis use in tourism venues.States should close gaps in smoke-free laws and not expand where cannabis use is permitted to ensure public health.

Smoke-Free and Tobacco-Free Policies in Colleges and Universities - United States and Territories, 2017.

Each year in the United States, cigarette smoking causes an estimated 480,000 deaths, including approximately 41,000 deaths from secondhand smoke exposure among nonsmoking adults (1). Smoke-free policies protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure, reduce the social acceptability of smoking, help in preventing youth and young adult smoking initiation, and increase smokers' efforts to quit smoking (1,2). Given that 99% of adult cigarette smokers first start smoking before age 26 years and many smokers transition to regular, daily use during young adulthood (2),* colleges and universities represent an important venue for protecting students, faculty, staff members, and guests from secondhand smoke exposure through tobacco control policies (3). To assess smoke-free and tobacco-free policies in U.S. colleges and universities, CDC and the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation (ANRF) determined the number of campuses nationwide that completely prohibit smoking (smoke-free) or both smoking and smokeless tobacco product use (tobacco-free) in all indoor and outdoor areas. As of November 2017, at least 2,082 U.S. college and university campuses had smoke-free policies. Among these campuses, 1,743 (83.7%) were tobacco-free; 1,658 (79.6%) specifically prohibited electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use; and 854 (41.0%) specifically prohibited hookah smoking. Smoke-free and tobacco-free policies on college and university campuses can help reduce secondhand smoke exposure, tobacco use initiation, and the social acceptability of tobacco use (1-3).

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.

Sociodemographic Disparities in Local Smoke-Free Law Coverage in 10 States.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed sociodemographic disparities in local 100% smoke-free laws prohibiting smoking in all indoor areas of nonhospitality worksites, restaurants, and bars in 10 states. METHODS: We obtained data on local 100% smoke-free laws (US Tobacco Control Laws Database) and subcounty characteristics (2006-2010 American Community Survey) for Alabama, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia. Outcomes included (1) 100% smoke-free law covering restaurants, bars, and workplaces; (2) 100% smoke-free law covering restaurants, bars, or workplaces; and (3) number of venue types covered by 100% smoke-free laws (0-3). Sociodemographics included total population, urban status, percentage racial/ethnic minority, per capita income, percentage with high-school diploma, percentage with blue-collar jobs, and percentage of workers who live and work in the same locality. RESULTS: Across states, localities with less-educated residents, smaller proportions of workers living and working in the same locality, or both generally had lower odds of being covered by 100% smoke-free laws. Coverage varied across states for other sociodemographics. CONCLUSIONS: Disparities exist in local smoke-free law coverage. Identifying patterns in coverage can inform state efforts to address related disparities.

US health policy related to hookah tobacco smoking.

OBJECTIVES: Although US cigarette smoking is decreasing, hookah tobacco smoking (HTS) is an emerging trend associated with substantial toxicant exposure. We assessed how a representative sample of US tobacco control policies may apply to HTS. METHODS: We examined municipal, county, and state legal texts applying to the 100 largest US cities. We developed a summary policy variable that distinguished among cities on the basis of how current tobacco control policies may apply to HTS and used multinomial logistic regression to determine associations between community-level sociodemographic variables and the policy outcome variable. RESULTS: Although 73 of the 100 largest US cities have laws that disallow cigarette smoking in bars, 69 of these cities have exemptions that allow HTS; 4 of the 69 have passed legislation specifically exempting HTS, and 65 may permit HTS via generic tobacco retail establishment exemptions. Cities in which HTS may be exempted had denser populations than cities without clean air legislation. CONCLUSIONS: Although three fourths of the largest US cities disallow cigarette smoking in bars, nearly 90% of these cities may permit HTS via exemptions. Closing this gap in clean air regulation may significantly reduce exposure to HTS.