Azagba Sunday, Ebling Todd, Korkmaz Alperen, King Jensen Jessica, Qeadan Fares, Hall Mark
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
Rutgers Center for Tobacco Studies and Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
J Prim Care Community Health. 2024 Jan-Dec;15:21501319241280905. doi: 10.1177/21501319241280905.
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.
本研究考察了限制地方控制权的州法律(优先适用法)与地方无烟政策之间的关联。我们使用了来自美国非吸烟者权利基金会的政策数据。主要结果变量是在以下4种室内场所中是否存在“100%无烟政策”:工作场所、餐馆、酒吧和博彩场所。我们采用广义结构方程模型来研究优先适用的州法律对无烟室内空气监管的影响与地方采用在任何公共场所或特定场所要求无烟空气的政策之间的关系,并对社会人口特征进行了调整。我们的研究结果显示,截至2023年,州优先适用法与地方100%无烟室内政策的存在之间存在显著关联。在有优先适用法的州,与没有优先适用法的州的城市相比,这些州的城市在任何场所实施100%无烟室内政策的可能性更低(比值比=0.07,95%置信区间=0.05-0.10)。在考虑特定的无烟场所时,与没有优先适用法的州的城市相比,有优先适用法的州的城市实施覆盖工作场所(比值比=0.05,95%置信区间=0.03-0.09)、餐馆(比值比=0.04,95%置信区间=0.02-0.07)、酒吧(比值比=0.04,95%置信区间=0.03-0.08)和博彩场所(比值比=0.03,95%置信区间=0.01-0.09)的100%无烟室内政策的可能性更低。我们的研究表明,州优先适用法限制了地方决策以及针对烟草危害的公共卫生政策的实施。