13 dec Why Is Smoking Legal in Public Places
In the United States, 28 states, Washington, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, as well as hundreds of cities and counties, have passed comprehensive smoke-free laws covering workplaces, restaurants and bars. The states are: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.2 other states and Guam have enacted strict smoke-free laws for restaurants and bars: New Hampshire and North Carolina. As of July 2017, five states banned smoking in most enclosed public places, but allowed adults such as bars (and casinos, if applicable) to smoke if they wished: Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, and Nevada. In Florida, state law prevents local governments from enacting stricter smoking bans than the state, although in Idaho, Indiana, and Louisiana, some cities and/or counties have enacted stricter local smoking bans to varying degrees, in some cases they ban it in all enclosed workplaces. See each status below for more information. In 2012, the California legislature passed the following law, California Civil Code Section 1947.5. (a) The lessor of a unit within the meaning of section 1940 or his representative may refuse to smoke a cigarette within the meaning of section 104556 of the Health and Safety Act or any other tobacco product on the property or in any building or part of a building, including a dwelling; forbid. other indoor or outdoor spaces or the premises in which it is located, in accordance with this Article.
(b) Every tenancy agreement entered into on or after January 1, 2012 for a unit on a property where the landlord has prohibited smoking cigarettes or other tobacco products in accordance with this section shall contain a provision specifying the areas of the building where smoking is prohibited if the tenant has not previously occupied the unit. (2) In the case of a lease agreement entered into before January 1, 2012, a prohibition on smoking cigarettes or other tobacco products in a part of the property where smoking was previously permitted is a change to the terms of the lease requiring reasonable written notice in the manner prescribed in section 827. (c) A landlord exercising the power under clause (a) to prohibit smoking is subject to federal, state and local requirements regarding changes to the terms of a lease or lease agreement for tenants with leases or leases that exist at the time the smoking restriction or prohibition policy is adopted. (d) Nothing in this Section shall be construed as prejudging a local ordinance in force on or before January 1, 2012 or a provision of a local ordinance in force on or after January 1, 2012 prohibiting smoking of cigarettes or other tobacco products. (e) No restriction or prohibition on the use of a tobacco product affects any other term of the lease, nor shall this section be construed as requiring legal authority to establish or enforce any other legal term of the lease. (Added by Stats. 2011, chap. 264, para. 2. Effective January 1, 2012.)  In Connecticut, Oregon, Montana, Utah, and Wisconsin, state law prevents local governments from enacting stricter smoking bans than the state, although some cities and/or counties in some of these states have adopted local versions of the state`s smoking ban. In the other 23 states with nationwide blanket smoking bans, some cities and/or counties have enacted stricter local smoking bans to varying degrees. In California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah and Vermont, the use of e-cigarettes indoors is prohibited.
The strictest smoking ban in the U.S. is in Calabasas, California, where smoking anywhere a non-smoker might congregate, including public sidewalks and apartment complexes, is an offense punishable by a fine of at least $250.  In addition, there may be voluntary smoking bans in certain areas prior to the implementation of the legislation. For example, many hotel chains, some restaurant chains, airlines and other public transportation systems, office buildings, health care facilities, schools, and private facilities implemented bans long before counties, cities, or states issued bans. Categorizing a county without a smoking ban may not reflect the fact that the average smoker might spend a lot of time in a work environment that prohibits smoking inside and outside a building, might dine at a smoke-free restaurant, and shop at smoke-free stores. This is increasingly the case. In 1993, 46.5% of workers in the United States were subject to smoking bans; from 1998 to 1999, 69.3% were affected by smoking bans (Shopland et al., 2004). These prohibitions have increased, making it more difficult to attribute changes in tobacco use or exposure in a defined geographic area even over time to the absence or existence of tobacco regulation. This could contribute to underestimating the true effect if there had been no prior ban.
In contrast, many bans allowed smoking outside public buildings or at more than a specified distance from entrances. While it is possible that outdoor smoking may mitigate the benefits of a smoking ban, second-hand smoke concentrations in these areas and the safety or hazardousness of these areas in the human population have not yet been assessed. BAYER: Well, I actually think there`s a risk. My concern is that when public health officials make claims that cannot be supported by evidence, they run the risk of people saying, “We cannot trust you. I understand that it`s probably more effective to say that the reason we ban smoking in parks and beaches is because we`re protecting you from second-hand smoke, or we`re protecting your kids from something very bad for them, or we`re protecting wildlife. This may be more effective in the short term in adopting and implementing these laws or regulations. Per capita cigarette consumption among adults and major smoking and health events, United States, 1900-1999. NOTE: FDA, U.S.
Food and Drug Administration. In 2017, New York State expanded Section 13-E of the Public Health Act, also known as the Clean Indoor Air Act (the Act). The law prohibits smoking and vaping in nearly all indoor public and private workplaces, including restaurants and bars, to protect workers and the public from exposure to harmful second-hand tobacco smoke and vapor aerosols. Communities can continue to enact and enforce local laws on smoking and vaping. However, these rules must be at least as strict as the law. As shown in Table 5-1, smoking bans have been introduced at the city, district and state levels in the United States at various times. When considering the effects of a smoking ban on an adverse health effect, the extent of the reduction in the adverse effect depends in part on the extent of a restriction or partial ban that existed prior to the ban under investigation. For example, some sites had already implemented partial bans, and some areas of the sites studied (e.g., New York City and several other large counties in the New York State study) had already implemented sweeping bans (Juster et al., 2007). In these cases, a decrease observed in the study could be reduced by restrictions or prohibitions already in place. Similarly, in studies that have comparison populations, partial restrictions in control sites may affect the extent of observed differences. Two large casinos on Mohegan and Mashantucket Pequot tribal lands, Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods, allow smoking in many areas of their properties. In the United States, Fichtenberg and Glantz (2002) evaluated 26 studies on the effects of smoke-free workplaces in 2002; They found small but significant inverse associations between completely smoke-free workplaces and smoking prevalence (3.8% reduction in prevalence; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8-4.7%) and daily cigarette use among persistent smokers (3.1 fewer cigarettes; 95% CI, 2.4-3.8).