2004_0816_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

II. Background Overview Page 5 Restrictions on the time, place and manner in which public smoking may occur have been increasing over the last several years. While the early focus of anti-smoking initiatives was on consumer education and industry advertising restrictions, over past two decades, smoking opponents have increasinglytaken their battle to state and local governments, seeking prohibitions on smoking in a wide variety of public establishments. Advocates of these bans claim to be protecting the nonsmoking public and workers &om the adverse healih effects of secondhand smoke. Opponents of smoking restrictions dispute the existence and/or severity of these adverse consequences and claim that bans have the unintended consequence of hurting business. State and Local Smoking Ordinances Nationwide Nationwide, the number of local communities implementing full or partial bans on smoking in public facilities --including worksites, bars and restaurants — has increased more than eight-fold over the past two decades. More than 200 U.Smunicipalitieshad local clean indoor air laws in effect during 1985; by April 2004, over 1,700 communities had enacted such laws.l Almostone-third of th� U.S.populationnow is subject to some type of smoking restriction, with various combinationsof crnstxa�rLS being imposed. Some smoking laws are less restrictive than others. Many provide for full or partial bans on smoking; some apply only to workplaces, restaurants, or bars, or a combination of these three. A total of 80 out of �� municipalities with 100% smoke free provisions apply that restrictionto all three target environments - workplaces, restaurants, and bars, more than four times the number of communities with such full-scale bans in effect in the year 2000. Approximatelyone-third of the U.S.population is estimatedto live in areas covered by these ordinances and laws providing for 100% smoke free workplaces, restaurants and bars. While these 80 municipalities are scattered across 15 states, Massachusetts (with 45 such areas) and California (with 11) account for 70 percent of the total. Eight states have only one municipality within their borders that has this blanket prohibition. The first such comprehensive ban was enacted just over 11 years ago, and the movement did not grow rapidly, reaching a total of just 20 localities over seven years by 2000. Sixty more municipalitieshave signed on to full-scale bans since then. � See ��p�P+4��*fh�p a�d. ( k�/ess otherwise noted, all data canCeming the spread a f� ban ordinances In the United States am derivod (rom Ute ANRF surveys reported at Uiis yy�blq�,