Advertisement

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

Published:January 15, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2019.10.011

      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.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      REFERENCES

        • HHS
        The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General.
        HHS, CDC, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, Atlanta, GA.2014
        www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK179276/
        Date accessed: October 28, 2019
        • Tynan MA
        • Holmes CB
        • Promoff G
        • Hallett C
        • Hopkins M
        • Frick B
        State and local comprehensive smoke-free laws for worksites, restaurants, and bars—United States, 2015.
        MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016; 65: 623-626
        • ChangeLab Solutions
        Left behind in the smoke: how exemptions in California's Smokefree Workplace Act impact health inequities.
        2014 (Published)
        • Tsai J
        • Homa DM
        • Gentzke AS
        • et al.
        Exposure to secondhand smoke among nonsmokers—United States, 1988–2014.
        MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018; 67: 1342-1346
        • CDC
        State Tobacco Activities Tracking and Evaluation (STATE) System.
        CDC, Atlanta, GA2019
        www.cdc.gov/statesystem
        Date accessed: September 1, 2019
        (Updated)
        • Babb S
        • Liu B
        • Kenemer B
        • et al.
        Changes in self-reported smokefree workplace policy coverage among employed adults—United States, 2003 and 2010–2011.
        Nicotine Tob Res. 2018; 20: 1327-1335
      1. American Nonsmokers Rights’ Foundation. What is preemption?https://no-smoke.org/smokefree-threats/preemption/. Accessed September 1, 2019.

        • ChangeLab Solutions
        Tobacco laws affecting California.
        2018 (PublishedAccessed May 27, 2019)
        • American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation
        U.S. 100% smokefree laws in non-hospitality workplaces and restaurants and bars.
        American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation, California2019 (http://no-smoke.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/WRBLawsMap.pdf. Published April 1, 2019. Accessed May 27, 2019)
        • American Lung Association in California
        • Center for Tobacco Policy & Organizing
        Comprehensive outdoor secondhand smoke ordinances.
        2019 (PublishedAccessed May 27, 2019)
      2. Assembly Bill No. 1819, State of California, Sects. 1596.795 & 6404.5; 2014. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB1819. Accessed May 27, 2019.

      3. California labor code, State of California, Sec. 6404. 5; 2016.https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB§ionNum=6404.5. Accessed May 27, 2019.

      4. Proposition, State of California, Sec. 103. Ch. 27, 2016.https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB94. Accessed May 27, 2019.

        • Huang J
        • King BA
        • Babb SD
        • Xu X
        • Hallett C
        • Hopkins M
        Sociodemographic disparities in local smoke-free law coverage in 10 states.
        Am J Public Health. 2015; 105: 1806-1813
        • UCLA Center for Health Policy Research
        AskCHIS neighborhood edition. Current smoking status – adults at the jurisdiction level.
        2019 (http://ask.chis.ucla.edu. Exported June 15, 2019. Accessed June 15, 2019)
        • Levine TR
        • Hullett CR.
        Eta squared, partial eta squared, and misreporting of effect size in communication research.
        Hum Commun Res. 2002; 28: 612-625
        • National Policy & Legal Analysis Network (NPLAN), Public Health Law Center
        The consequences of preemption for public health advocacy.
        2010 (PublishedAccessed May 27, 2019)
        • Tobacco Control Legal Consortium
        Preemption: the biggest challenge to tobacco control.
        2014 (PublishedAccessed May 27, 2019)
        • Public Health Law Center
        Preemption and movement building: essentials of preemption.
        2010 (PublishedAccessed June 6, 2019)
        • Tang H
        • Cowling DW
        • Lloyd JC
        • et al.
        Changes of attitudes and patronage behaviors in response to a smoke-free bar law.
        Am J Public Health. 2003; 93: 611-617
        • Fong GT
        • Hyland A
        • Borland R
        • et al.
        Reductions in tobacco smoke pollution and increases in support for smoke-free public places following the implementation of comprehensive smoke-free workplace legislation in the Republic of Ireland: findings from the ITC Ireland/UK Survey.
        Tob Control. 2006; 15: iii51-iii58
        • Thomson G
        • Wilson N.
        One year of smokefree bars and restaurants in New Zealand: impacts and responses.
        BMC Public Health. 2006; 6: 64
        • Chapman S.
        “Half-pregnant” occupational health policy on environmental tobacco smoke.
        Occup Environ Med. 2004; 61: 383-384