|Health Factors:||Tobacco Use|
|Decision Makers:||Educators Employers & Businesses Local Government State Government Public Health Professionals & Advocates|
|Population Reach:||100% of WI's population|
|Impact on Disparities:|
Is this program or policy in use in your community? Tell us about it.
Smoke-free policies for indoor areas prohibit smoking in designated enclosed spaces. Private sector smoke-free policies can ban smoking on worksite property or restrict it to designated, often outdoor, locations. State and local smoke-free ordinances can establish standards for all workplaces, designated workplaces, and other indoor spaces. Policies can be comprehensive, prohibiting smoking in all areas of workplaces, restaurants, and bars, or limit smoking to designated areas via partial bans (Cochrane-Frazer 2016). Restrictions may also extend to adjacent outdoor areas (CG-Tobacco use). Some local governments cannot enact smoke-free measures due to state preemption legislation (Grassroots Change).
There is strong evidence that comprehensive smoke-free policies for indoor areas improve health (Hoffman 2015, CG-Tobacco use, Cochrane-Frazer 2016). Smoke-free policies substantially reduce acute coronary events such as heart attacks (US DHHS SG-Smoking 2014, CG-Tobacco use, Tan 2012, Lin 2013, Meyers 2009, Cochrane-Frazer 2016) and secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure (Hoffman 2015, US DHHS SG-Smoking 2014, CG-Tobacco use). Policies reduce respiratory symptoms among hospitality workers and sensory symptoms among smokers and nonsmokers (Cochrane-Frazer 2016). Smoke-free policies can also reduce asthma attacks and hospitalizations (Been 2014, Hahn 2010, CG-Tobacco use), and may reduce the risk of preterm birth (Been 2014, Hahn 2010) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) (Hahn 2010).
Smoke-free policies have been shown to reduce hospitalizations and mortality due to cardiovascular (CG-Tobacco use) and respiratory diseases (Tan 2012). Smoke-free policies reduce smoking prevalence (Hoffman 2015, Lupton 2015) and cigarette consumption (Hoffman 2015, US DHHS SG-Smoking 2014), and can lead smokers to quit smoking (Hoffman 2015, CG-Tobacco use). Young people appear to reduce smoking more than older people following policy implementation (Meyers 2009, Hopkins 2010) and heart attack incidence appears to drop more in communities with larger reductions in smoking prevalence (Lin 2013).
Comprehensive policies reduce SHS exposure more than partial bans (Cochrane-Frazer 2016, Hoffman 2015, CG-Tobacco use) or policies targeted at specific industries (CG-Tobacco use), and appear to be associated with greater reductions in health risks (Tan 2012). Smoke-free policies reduce SHS exposure for hospitality workers and young people the most (Meyers 2009, Hahn 2010).
Some studies suggest that smoke-free policies reduce SHS exposure more in bars in low income areas (CG-Tobacco use). Other studies suggest that quit rates, prevalence, and SHS exposure may not drop as readily for lower income employees (Hill 2013a), especially if policies are not uniformly implemented (Hahn 2010). Workplaces with higher income employees may be more likely to enforce their community’s smoke-free laws. However, in communities without such laws, workplaces with low income employees appear less likely than those with higher income employees to voluntarily institute smoke-free policies (Hill 2013a).
Models suggest that smoke-free policies cost up to $25 per person to implement (CG-Tobacco use). Such policies are cost effective based on averted mortality and health care costs (CG-Tobacco use) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) saved (CG-Tobacco use, Hopkins 2010). Over the long-term, analysts estimate such policies save between $0.15 and $4.8 million per 100,000 persons in health care costs (CG-Tobacco use). Smoke-free policies do not harm hospitality businesses’ profits (CG-Tobacco use, Cochrane-Frazer 2016, Hahn 2010).
Experts suggest that states and communities provide and promote cessation services before smoke-free policies take effect (CG-Tobacco use).
Nationally, efforts are underway to enact or strengthen smoke-free policies, eliminate exemptions, and remove state restrictions on local policies (CG-Tobacco use). As of 2013, smoke-free legislation has been adopted by 36 states (US DHHS SG-Smoking 2014). Many states ban smoking indoors on college and school campuses, and in day care centers, hospitals, restaurants, and grocery stores (CDC-STATE). Some states also ban smoking in casinos, bars, personal vehicles, and common areas of government housing. Some communities are expanding such policies to outdoor public areas such as parks, applying smoke-free policies to public multi-unit housing, or requiring landlords of multi-unit properties to disclose the property smoking policy to prospective tenants (CG-Tobacco use). State legislation pre-empts local government control of smoke-free policies in 12 states, while 27 states allow local communities to adopt restrictions that are stronger than the state-level restrictions (CDC-STATE).
Wisconsin’s statewide smoking ban applies to enclosed places of employment or public spaces, but not outdoor areas (WI Statute 101.123).
* Journal subscription may be required for access.