MONOGRAPH 11

State and Local

Legislative

Action To Reduce

Tobacco Use

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

AND HUMAN SERVICES

Public Health Service

National Institutes of Health

National Cancer Institute

SMOKING

AND

TOBACCO

CONTROL

Cover For Comp 

Purposes Only

Blue: 2745

Red: 221
Note, when citing this monograph in other works, please use the following format:

National Cancer Institute. State and Local Legislative Action to Reduce Tobacco Use.

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11. Bethesda, MD: U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health,

National Cancer Institute, NIH Pub. No. 00-4804, August 2000.
State and Local

Legislative

Action to Reduce

Tobacco Use

SMOKING

AND

TOBACCO

CONTROL

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

AND HUMAN SERVICES

Public Health Service

National Institutes of Health

National Cancer Institute

MONOGRAPH 11
Smoking and Tobacco Control Monographs Issued to Date

Strategies to Control Tobacco Use in the United States: a blueprint for public health action in the 1990’s. Smoking

and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 1. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. NIH Publication No. 92-3316,

December 1991. 

Smokeless Tobacco or Health: An international perspective. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 2.

Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of

Health. NIH Publication No. 92-3461, September 1992. 

Major Local Tobacco Control Ordinances in the Unites States. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 3.

Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of

Health. NIH Publication No. 93-3532, May 1993.

Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung cancer and other disorders. The Report of the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 4. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, NIH Publication No. 93-3605,

August 1993

Tobacco and the Clinician. Interventions for Medical and Dental Practice. Smoking and Tobacco Control

Monograph No. 5. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,

National Institutes of Health. NIH Publication No. 94-3693, January 1994.

Community-based Interventions for Smokers: The COMMIT Field Experience. Smoking and Tobacco Control

Monograph No. 6. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,

National Institutes of Health. NIH Publication No. 95-4028, August 1995.

The FTC Cigarette Test Method for Determining Tar, Nicotine, and Carbon Monoxide Yields of U.S. Cigarettes. Report

of the NCI Expert Committee. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 7. Bethesda, MD: U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health. NIH

Publication No. 96-4028, August 1996.

Changes in Cigarette Related Disease Risks and Their Implication for Prevention and Control. Smoking and Tobacco

Control Monograph No. 8. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health

Service, National Institutes of Health. NIH Publication No. 97-4213, February 1997.

Cigars. Health Effects and Trends. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 9. Bethesda, MD: U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health. NIH

Publication No. 98-4302, February 1998.

Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. The Report of the California Environmental Protection

Agency. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 10. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. NIH

Publication No. 99-4645, August 1999.
This monograph is the eleventh volume in the Smoking and Tobacco

Control series released by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The National

Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) and the

National Association of Local Boards of Health (NALBOH) are working with

NCI in disseminating findings from this important publication. 

NACCHO is a nonprofit membership organization that serves all of the

nearly 3,000 local public health agencies (LPHAs) in the nation’s cities,

counties, townships, and districts. The organization provides local health

departments with education, information, research, and technical assistance

on a variety of topics. It also facilitates partnerships among local, state, and

federal agencies in order to promote and strengthen public health.

NALBOH is an organization that represents the interests of local boards

of health and assists those boards in assuring the health of the community.

NALBOH enhances and supports all 3,200 local health boards across the

country by providing linkages, networks, education, and training. It is also

committed to promoting health and effective public health policy at all levels of government and also to strengthening the ability of health boards to

develop tobacco control policy efforts.

NACCHO and NALBOH constituents have unique roles in tobacco prevention and control. They often represent the local government infrastructure, and as such, they can play leadership roles in local policy development, implementation, and enforcement.

For years, tobacco control legislation enacted at the city and county levels were much more stringent than those enacted at the federal or state

level. However, few local communities were involved in implementing and

managing actual public health programs to reduce tobacco use. This was

seen primarily as a national or state responsibility. Fortunately, local communities have become more involved in recent years. This trend has been

supported mainly by LPHAs, and both NACCHO and NALBOH have helped

local communities become more involved in the development of public

health policy. 

LPHAs tend to partner with a wide variety of organizations, including

state health agencies, hospitals, local governments, nonprofit and voluntary

groups, universities, businesses, community health centers, faith organizations, and insurers. Because of their connections with local organizations,

LPHAs often have the connections needed to convene coalitions around

health issues. In addition, they have direct and daily interaction with community members. 

i

Preface
About 20 percent of LPHAs are “safety net” providers of primary care

services for underserved populations. An even greater number of LPHAs

provide a variety of clinical preventive services, such as adult and child

immunizations and blood pressure screening. Because of their role in ensuring community health, LPHAs are considered a source of local expertise on

health issues. Their credibility regarding tobacco and other health and prevention issues is high, and they can therefore play a strong role in educating both the general public and local policy makers about tobacco control

issues. 

Coupled with broad-based grassroots support and effective advocacy

efforts, the public education provided by LPHAs is a critical element of successful local tobacco control policy initiatives. According to past experiences of communities throughout the United States, grassroots advocacy

and strong community support have shown themselves to be cornerstones

of successful tobacco control policy initiatives. Local health board members

are ideal allies for grassroots tobacco control coalitions working on local

policy initiatives; they act as the community’s voice and its avenue to set

local policy pertaining to the community environment. Because of their

role in policy making, local health boards are in a unique position to promote or enact strong and effective clean indoor air, youth access and outdoor advertising regulations in their localities.

Both NACCHO and NALBOH believe this monograph represents a valuable tool for those local public health professionals working on tobacco

control issues—issues that are of vital importance to local public health

practitioners because of their capability to help reduce tobacco use in their

communities. This monograph discusses state and local policies and regulations designed to reduce tobacco use among both adults and adolescents,

and it provides a snapshot of the progress that has been made by LPHAs

and local boards of health. Some of the findings contained in this volume

also raise serious concerns about policy trends that may be detrimental to

the goal of reducing tobacco use at the local level.

Of particular concern to NACCHO and NALBOH constituencies has

been the significant increase in state laws that preempt local jurisdictions

from enacting stronger, more comprehensive laws. The tobacco companies

have promoted statewide preemptive legislation as a means of stripping

local health authorities of their ability to enact local tobacco control regulations. In order to conceal the source of this political effort, the tobacco

industry tends to interfere by using front groups and trade associations to

oppose local tobacco control policies. 

In the mid-1980s, faced with an increasing number of effective, local

anti-tobacco ordinances, the tobacco industry quickly realized that preemption was the most effective method for countering local tobacco control

policies. By 1998, a total of 30 states had enacted some form of legislation

that precluded local jurisdictions in those states from enacting more stringent laws. These preemptive laws included 14 that preempted some or all

clean indoor air ordinances, 22 that preempted some or all youth access

ordinances, and 17 that preempted some or all tobacco advertising and proii

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
motion ordinances (see figure above). By comparison, only three states had

any form of preemption legislation on the books just 10 years earlier. Only

one state, Maine, has ever successfully overturned preemption in a state law

once it was enacted, and that law was limited to ordinances restricting

tobacco displays. 

There is also concern about the significant drop-off in the number of

clear indoor air ordinances enacted during the latter part of the 1990s. To

be sure, some of the drop-off can be attributed to industry success in convincing state legislators to enact preemptive state laws. In addition, local

jurisdictions have enacted ordinances covering single issues like youth

access or advertising and promotion, to the detriment of clean indoor air

concerns. While each of these issues is important, a significant body of

research clearly demonstrates the broader public health importance of clean

indoor air legislation. Not only does such legislation protect nonsmokers

from a documented health risk, but research clearly shows that smoke-free

public places, especially workplaces, provide a more supportive environment for smokers to quit. Even the tobacco industry’s own internal research

has shown this. For example, a Philip Morris study that followed some

25,000 smokers over time found that those working in a smoke-free work

environment experienced an 84 percent higher quit rate than those facing

no or minimal smoking restrictions. 

In light of findings like these, a considerable value can be placed on the

compilation of local and regional tobacco control ordinance information,

such as that found in this monograph. It is for this reason that NACCHO

and NALBOH have begun to expand their roles beyond the efforts to proiii

Preface

0

50

100

150

200

250

Cumulative Number of Preemptive Provisions

Marketing

Smokefree Indoor Air

Minors' Access

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Year

Number of Provisions

Cumulative Number of Local Tobacco-Control Ordinances Preempted by State Laws

by Year Preemptive Law Became Effective—United States, 1982-1998
mote effective public health policy and education. Both organizations

recently began collaborating with the American Nonsmokers’ Rights

Foundation (ANRF)—a major provider of local ordinance information for

this monograph.

In early 1999, NACCHO, NALBOH, and the ANRF joined together with

the Office on Smoking and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC-OSH) and with researchers from the University of Illinois

at Chicago (UIC). The organizations began discussing how they could work

together to improve surveillance and analysis of local tobacco control ordinances. Results thus far have been promising. The NACCHO and NALBOH

ordinance solicitation effort has substantially expanded the coverage of

ANRF’s database. The effort has also provided an exciting opportunity to

nurture relationships between local public health agencies, local boards of

health, and the ANRF.

As local public health practitioners, we all need to begin to think comprehensively if the problem of tobacco use is to be solved. Weak ordinances

and ordinances that only address one aspect of a problem will never prove

to be as effective as more comprehensive ordinances designed to reach both

adults and children. Working together with grassroots advocates and local

board-of-health members, the tobacco industry’s influence can be countered. 

Stephanie B. C. Bailey, M.D., M.S.H.S.A. Vaughn Manlin Upshaw, Dr.Ph., Ed.D.

NACCHO President NALBOH President

Michael C. Caldwell, M.D., M.P.H. John C. Saccenti, M.S., Ed.Spec., PROF. Dip.

NACCHO Tobacco Prevention NALBOH Tobacco Committee

and Control Committee

iv

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
State and Local Legislative Action to Reduce Tobacco Use was developed

under the editorial direction of Donald R. Shopland, Coordinator,

Smoking and Tobacco Control Program (STCP), National Cancer Institute,

Bethesda, Maryland. The editors were Robin Hobart, M.P.P., M.P.H., 

Co-Director, American Nonsmokers’ Rights (ANR) Foundation, Berkeley,

California, and David M. Burns, M.D., Professor of Medicine, School of

Medicine, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California. The

managing editor was Richard H. Amacher, KBM Group, Inc., Silver

Spring, Maryland.

This research was supported in part by funds provided by the

Cigarette and Tobacco Surtax Fund of the State of California through the

Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program of the University of California,

Grant Number 6SP-0454.

Special recognition is due to Mark Pertschuk and Walt

Bilofsky, Board Members, ANR Foundation, for creating the database of

local tobacco control ordinances on which this volume is based, and to

Leonard Casey, Director of Operations, for maintaining the database. 

The editors and STCP staff members gratefully acknowledge the

many researchers and authors who made this monograph possible.

Attributions for each chapter are as follows:

Section I The Role of Robin Hobart, M.P.P., M.P.H.

Public Policy Co-Director

Change in American Nonsmokers’

Tobacco Control. Rights Foundation 

Current State of Berkeley, CA

the Science

Donald R. Shopland

Coordinator

Smoking and Tobacco

Control Program (STCP)

National Cancer Institute

Bethesda, MD

David Shields, Ph.D.

Associate Director

American Nonsmokers’

Rights Foundation

Berkeley, CA

v

Acknowledgements
Cynthia Hallett, M.P.H.

Associate Director

American Nonsmokers’

Rights Foundation

Berkeley, CA

David M. Burns, M.D.

Professor of Medicine

School of Medicine

University of California 

San Diego

San Diego, CA

Section II State Laws and Leonard Casey

Local Ordinances Director of Operations

to Reduce American Nonsmokers’

Tobacco Use Rights Foundation 

Berkeley, CA

Holly Senn, M.L.I.S.

Senior Policy Analyst

American Nonsmokers’

Rights Foundation 

Berkeley, CA

Maggie Leighninger

Policy Analyst

American Nonsmokers’

Rights Foundation 

Berkeley, CA

Robin Hobart, M.P.P., M.P.H. 

Co-Director

American Nonsmokers’

Rights Foundation 

Berkeley, CA

Kathryn B. Gower, B.A.

Statistical Assistant

Tobacco Control 

Policies Project

University of California

San Diego

San Diego, CA

Cassandra E. Welch

Manager of State Government

Relations

American Lung Association

Government Relations Office

Washington, DC

vi

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
Section III Kathryn B. Gower, B.A.

Statistical Assistant

Tobacco Control 

Policies Project

University of California 

San Diego

San Diego, CA

David M. Burns, M.D.

Professor of Medicine

School of Medicine

University of California

San Diego

San Diego, CA 

Thomas G. Shanks, M.P.H., M.S. 

Principal Statistician

Tobacco Control 

Policies Project

University of California

San Diego

San Diego, CA

Jerry W. Vaughn, B.S.

Programmer/Analyst

Tobacco Control 

Policies Project

University of California 

San Diego

San Diego, CA

Christy M. Anderson, B.S.

Statistician

Tobacco Control 

Policies Project

University of California 

San Diego

San Diego, CA

Donald R. Shopland

Coordinator

Smoking and Tobacco

Control Program (STCP)

National Cancer Institute

Bethesda, MD

vii

Acknowledgements

Workplace

Smoking

Restrictions,

Rules About

Smoking in the

Home, and

Attitudes Toward

Smoking

Restrictions in

Public Places.

National and

State-Specific

Estimates from

the Current

Population Survey
This volume is the third report released by the National Cancer

Institute (NCI) focusing on trends in local tobacco-control ordinances. It is

the second volume of its type to be included in the STCP monograph series,

and it represents a significant departure in content from its predecessors in

two important ways. The first report, published in 1989, focused exclusively

on local clean indoor air laws—the predominant type of local tobacco control ordinance at that time. By 1993, when the second volume on the topic

was published, communities had begun adopting ordinances designed to

restrict youth access to tobacco products; therefore, the 1993 monograph

reported on both clean indoor air and youth access provisions. The latest

additions to the lexicon of local tobacco control ordinance development are

restrictions on tobacco advertising and promotion. In keeping with these

national trends, this current volume identifies, in matrix form, all known

local tobacco control ordinances in the United States that have one or more

of the following provisions—clean indoor air, youth access, or restrictions

on tobacco advertising and promotion. 

In addition to an expanded collection of information regarding local

ordinances, this volume also contains detailed national and state estimates

from NCI’s Tobacco Use Supplement to the Census Bureau’s Current

Population Survey (CPS) for 1992/93 and 1995/96. Data from the CPS are

presented in considerable detail and include both national and state-specific data on three major areas: workplace smoking policies; rules about smoking in the home; and attitudes and support for smoking restrictions for various public settings—restaurants, hospitals, indoor work areas, bars/cocktail

lounges, indoor sporting events, and indoor shopping malls. 

The local ordinance information contained in this volume was developed for the National Cancer Institute by the American Nonsmokers’ Rights

(ANR) Foundation. The research was supported in part by funds provided

by the Cigarette and Tobacco Surtax Fund of the State of California through

the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program of the University of

California, Grant Number 6SP-0454. This publication covers ordinances

adopted through December 1998. Given the lag time involved in identifying, collecting, and analyzing ordinances, data for 1998 will most certainly

reflect an undercount of the total number of local tobacco control ordinances adopted that year.

The ANR Foundation has maintained a database of local tobacco-control ordinance provisions since 1985. The database is a unique resource for

public health advocates and researchers; to date it is the only national comprehensive collection of local ordinances maintained for any public health

issue. The database contains both ordinances adopted by local municipal

and county bodies, and regulations adopted by local boards of health.

1

Introduction
Staff members of the ANR Foundation identify, track, and collect ordinance information in a variety of ways. Information specialists monitor

electronic and print media sources for news clips. Useful sources include

newsgroups, e-mail list servers, public health journals and newsletters,

tobacco industry journals, and smokers’ rights newsletters—the Tobacco

Institute’s annual legislative report on local ordinances has always been a

particularly rich source of information. 

The Foundation also solicits ordinance information through the use

of biannual mailings sent to individuals and organizations in all 50 states.

Those surveyed include local and state nonsmokers’ rights groups, local and

state health departments, county health officers and local boards of health,

voluntary health agencies, and state/county associations and city leagues. 

All of the collected ordinance information is analyzed using a standard evaluation instrument before being included in the ANR database.

MONOGRAPH ORGANIZATION This monograph is divided into four major sections. Section I presents a discussion of the background, effects, and industry responses to local tobacco control ordinance development in the United

States. 

Section II presents local ordinance data taken from the ANR

Foundation’s database. The data are broken down into three major categories—clean indoor air ordinances, youth access restrictions, and tobacco

advertising and promotion restrictions. For each category, this section

includes a summary table of the total number of ordinances for each state,

and one or more listings of the individual ordinances presented by state

and community. The summary tables present only those states that have

local communities with applicable ordinances. 

This section also includes five maps prepared by the Tobacco Control

Policies Project at the University of California, San Diego. The maps are

designed to give a visual overview of certain state laws and local ordinances, allowing for direct state-to-state comparisons of the levels of restriction required by law. Presenting the ordinances on a map also allows for

the communities with strong tobacco control laws to stand out, especially if

the state has weak or non-existent tobacco control laws.

The data used to create the maps were obtained from two sources. The

state data were taken from State Legislated Actions on Tobacco Issues (SLATI),

American Lung Association, 1997 and are current through Dec 31, 1997.

The local ordinance data were taken from the National Matrix of Local

Ordinances, maintained by the ANR Foundation. The local ordinance data

as presented in the maps are current through December 31, 1997. 

The appendix to Section II presents four tables summarizing information on state tobacco control laws. The tables cover state laws that restrict

smoking in public places; age restrictions for the sale of tobacco products;

state laws that restrict tobacco sales through vending machines; and state

restrictions on the distribution of tobacco product samples. The state data

in these tables were taken from the 1998 SLATI report.

2

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
Section III presents nine tables containing a variety of state-specific

and national estimates from NCI’s Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current

Population Survey (CPS) for the survey periods 1992/93 and 1995/96. Data

are presented in both tabular form and in 24 state maps designed to present

shifting public opinion in a more visual and comprehensive format. 

Section IV concludes the monograph with four model ordinances

designed to help local jurisdictions enact effective clean indoor air, youth

access, and advertising restrictions.

3

Introduction
Section I:

The Role of Public Policy

Change in Tobacco Control. 

Current State of the Science

Robin Hobart, Donald R. Shopland, David Shields,

Cynthia Hallett, David M. Burns
List of Tables

Table 1 Health Effects Associated with Exposure to 

Environmental Tobacco Smoke 

(From California EPA Report) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Table 2 Percentage of Indoor Workers Covered by a 

Smoke-free Workplace Policy in 1993 and 1996 

by State, and Relative Change (Percent) Between 

the Two Time Periods, Based on Current 

Population Survey—1992/93 and 1995/96 . . . . . . .29

Table 3 Domestic Cigarette Advertising and 

Promotion Expenditures—1996 & 1997 

(Thousands of Dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

List of Figures

Figure 1 Trends in 30-day Prevalence of 

Cigarette Smoking for Eighth, Tenth, 

and Twelfth Graders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Figure 2 Prevalence of Current Tobacco Use Among 

9-12th Grade Students, by Type of Product and 

Gender—United States 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Figure 3 Local Ordinance Provisions Enacted Per Year: 

Youth Access/Clean Indoor Air/Advertising 

Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Figure 4 Public Support for Smoking Restrictions in 

Various Public Places—United States 1996 . . . . . . .25

Figure 5 Tobacco Institute Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Figure 6 The 100% Smoke-free Restaurant Ordinance in 

Force in Beverly Hills did not Reduce Sales by 

30% as the Tobacco Industry had Suggested; 

Rather, it had No Significant Effect on Sales . . . . . .27

Figure 7a Differences in Smoke-free Workplace Policy 

Coverage: Food Service Workers Compared to 

All Other Workers—CPS 1995/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Figure 7b Among Workers Reporting No Smoking is Allowed 

in their Work Area, Percent Reporting that Someone 

has Smoked in Their Work Area in the Past 2 

Week—CPS 1995/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

7

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES IN SECTION I
Figure 8 Number of Communities Adopting Ordinances 

with Major Smoke-free Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Figure 9 Number of Communities Passing Major Youth 

Access Provisions by Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Figure 10 Number of Ordinances Containing Advertising 

Restrictions by Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

Figure 11 Organizational Chart of Philip Morris, Inc. Front 

Groups in California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

Figure 12a Cumulative Number of Local Tobacco-Control 

Ordinances Preempted by State Laws by Year 

Preemptive Law Became Effective—United 

States, 1982-1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

Figure 12b Cumulative Number of States with Preemptive 

Clauses—United States, 1982-1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

8

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
9

Tobacco smoke contains carcinogens, toxins, and irritants that

cause disease risks proportionate to the intensity and duration

of exposure. Exposure of nonsmokers to tobacco smoke in the general environment—particularly enclosed indoor environments—results in irritation

and annoyance, causes lung cancer and heart disease in adults, and causes

asthma, bronchitis, pneumonia, and chronic ear problems in children.

Concerns about environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure were

first raised by Surgeon General Jesse Steinfeld. In January 1971, the Surgeon

General suggested that even low-dose exposure to a carcinogen as powerful

as tobacco smoke was a potential public health risk for nonsmokers

(Steinfeld, 1972). After more than 20 years of scientific inquiry, 

Dr. Steinfeld’s warning has been extensively validated and documented, and

there is no longer any doubt that exposure to ETS is a cause of death and

disease among nonsmokers. 

Early efforts to restrict exposure of nonsmokers to ETS were driven by

the irritation and annoyance created by exposure to cigarette smoke.

However, by the 1970s it was increasingly clear that ETS exposure also

placed vulnerable individuals at increased risk. Infants and children of

smoking parents were shown to be at increased risk of respiratory problems,

and individuals with pre-existing heart and lung disease had functional

impairment following exposure to ETS (U.S. DHEW, 1975 & 1979).

In the early 1980s, a concern was raised that ETS exposure could also

cause serious illness in otherwise healthy adults. In 1981, three independent epidemiological studies on lung cancer in nonsmoking wives who lived

with smoking husbands were published (Garfinkle, 1981; Hirayama, 1981;

Trichopoulous et al., 1981). Two of the studies observed an increased risk

for lung cancers and demonstrated an increased risk with increased levels of

smoking by the husband. In 1982, when Dr. C. Everett Koop issued his first

report as U.S. Surgeon General (U.S. DHHS, 1982), an assessment of the

then available scientific evidence on ETS was included. While the report did

not find the evidence sufficiently compelling to conclude that a causal connection existed, it warned that involuntary smoking could indeed pose a

carcinogenic risk to the nonsmoker and that individuals should avoid exposure to ambient tobacco smoke to the greatest extent possible (U.S. DHHS,

1982).

By 1986—the year Dr. Koop issued his report, The Health Consequences

of Involuntary Smoking—the number of studies of ETS exposure and lung

cancer had risen to 13. Any genuine controversy over whether ETS could

cause disease in nonsmokers ended in 1986 with the publication of a review

by the National Research Council (NRC, 1986) and the Surgeon General’s

CLEAN INDOOR

AIR

THE PROBLEM
report on the health consequences of involuntary smoking (U.S. DHHS,

1986). The Surgeon General’s report concluded the following:

“Involuntary smoking is a cause of disease, including lung cancer, in

healthy nonsmokers.

The children of parents who smoke compared with the children of

nonsmoking parents have an increased frequency of respiratory infections, increased respiratory symptoms, and slightly smaller rates of

increase in lung function as the lung matures.

The simple separation of smokers and nonsmokers within the same

air space may reduce, but does not eliminate, the exposure of nonsmokers to environmental tobacco smoke.”

These two reports contributed to a surge in efforts to protect nonsmokers from the health effects of ETS through legislative and policy

changes, and by far the most significant trend was toward the passage of

local clean indoor air ordinances. By the fall of 1989, 397 ordinances limiting smoking in workplaces, restaurants, or other places had been enacted

(Pertschuk and Shopland, 1989).

With the growing recognition that tobacco smoke poses a significant

health threat to individuals other than the smoker, Congress and federal

health and regulatory agencies were increasingly asked to take action to

protect the public. The General Services Administration issued new rules

protecting workers and visitors in all federal buildings, and in 1988

Congress banned smoking on all domestic airline flights with a duration of

6 hours or less, resulting in virtually smoke-free air travel for all but a fraction of 1 percent of all flights within the United States.

As the evidence linking ETS to adverse outcomes in nonsmokers

increased, many businesses and employee groups began implementing

smoking restrictions at their work sites. The Administrative Management

Society Foundation, which has conducted a small, annual smoking policy

survey since 1980, found that the number of companies with smoking policies increased from 16 percent in 1980 to 60 percent in 1988. By 1988, a

quarter of the companies responding reported smoke-free facilities

(Administrative Management Society, 1989; Gerlach et al., 1997). 

One of the more significant actions by a federal agency

occurred in 1990, when the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) began a formal risk assessment to determine

whether ETS meets the Carcinogen Risk Assessment guidelines for classifying a compound as carcinogenic. By the

time the EPA issued its draft report, Respiratory Health Effects of Passive

Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders in May 1992, findings from 26

case-control and 4 prospective cohort studies from 8 different countries

comprised the available scientific evidence on ETS and lung cancer. All 4

cohort studies and 20 of the 26 case-control studies observed an elevated

risk for lung cancer in never-smokers exposed to ETS (NCI, 1993b).

10

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

1992 Report of the 

U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency

ETS and Lung Cancer
Many of these studies also showed a dose-response effect; that is, the

greater the level of exposure, the greater the lung cancer risk. The overwhelming weight of the evidence permitted the EPA to conclude that ETS

belongs in the category of compounds classified as Group A (known

human) carcinogens, a category reserved for only the most toxic of compounds regulated by the EPA, such as radon, asbestos, and benzene 

(NCI, 1993b).

ETS and Children In addition to lung cancer, the EPA report examined the issue of

ETS and respiratory diseases and disorders in children and concluded that

ETS exposure was causally associated with (1) increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia; (2) increased prevalence of middle-ear effusion; (3) a small but statistically significant reduction in lung function; and (4) decreased rate of lung growth (NCI, 1993b).

The report further estimated that ETS contributes to between 150,000

and 300,000 lower respiratory infections annually among infants less than

18 months of age, resulting in between 7,000 and 15,000 hospitalizations

annually. Of equal importance, the EPA estimates that ETS is causally related to additional episodes and increased severity of pre-existing asthma in

children and that it exacerbates symptoms in approximately 20 percent of

the estimated 2 to 5 million asthmatic children annually. The EPA report

leaves open the question of whether ETS is directly related to asthma incidence in children who have not previously exhibited the disease, terming

the evidence “suggestive but not conclusive” (NCI, 1993b). Nonetheless,

ETS from parents who smoke half a pack or more daily may contribute to

up to 26,000 new cases of asthma annually.

In a 1998 ruling, which the EPA is appealing, North Carolina District

Court Judge William L. Osteen vacated the EPA's classification of ETS as a

known human carcinogen but did not invalidate any of the EPA's findings

regarding the role of ETS in respiratory problems among children.

In early 1991, researchers at the University of California at San

Francisco reviewed the existing studies on ETS and coronary

heart disease (CHD)(Glantz and Parmley, 1991). After an examination of 13

epidemiological studies, the investigators concluded that ETS was causally

associated with CHD in nonsmokers and that such exposure may be

responsible for 10 times more deaths annually than those attributable to

ETS-induced lung cancer. A meta-analysis of 19 studies available by 1997

(Law et al., 1997) estimated a 23 percent increased risk of ischemic heart

disease as a direct effect of a nonsmoker’s ETS exposure from living with a

spouse who smokes. More recently He et al. (1999) found almost identical

results in their meta-analysis of 18 epidemiological (10 cohort and 8 casecontrol) studies that met pre-stated inclusion criteria. These investigators

found an overall, statistically significant (p < 0.001) relative risk (RR) of 1.25

for coronary heart disease (CHD) among nonsmokers exposed to ETS. In

the analysis, ETS was consistently associated with an increased risk of CHD

in cohort studies (RR = 1.21), in case-control studies (RR = 1.51), in men

(RR = 1.22), in women (RR = 1.24), in those exposed at home (RR = 1.17),

11

Section I: The Role of Public Policy Change in Tobacco Control

ETS and Coronary

Heart Disease
12

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

and those exposed at work (RR = 1.11). A significant dose-response relationship was identified for nonsmokers exposed to less than 20 cigarettes per

day (RR = 1.23) compared to those exposed to 20 or greater per day (RR =

1.31). When the analysis was confined to the 10 studies that adjusted for

other important heart disease risk factors, such as age, sex, blood pressure,

body weight, and serum cholesterol, the overall relative risk was 1.26 

(p < 0.001).

In September of 1997, the California

Environmental Protection Agency released a comprehensive review of the total range of health effects associated with ETS;

the report concluded that

“The epidemiological data, from prospective and case-control studies

conducted in diverse populations, in males and females and in western and eastern countries, are supportive of a causal association

between ETS exposure from spousal smoking and coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality in nonsmokers.” 

The 1997 California EPA report also reviewed other health risks associated with smoking and concluded that ETS exposure was causally or suggestively associated with the diseases listed in Table 1.

The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council also

reviewed the evidence on the health effects of passive smoking in 1997 and

concluded, “The scientific evidence shows that passive smoking causes

lower respiratory tract illness in children and lung cancer in adults and contributes to the symptoms of asthma in children. Passive smoking may also

cause coronary heart disease in adults” (NHMRC, 1997). A similar review of

all smoking related illness was conducted by the British Independent

Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health (ISCOSH) in 1998, and the

section on ETS exposure stated that ETS exposure is a cause of lung cancer,

ischemic heart disease, serious respiratory illness and asthmatic attacks in

children, sudden infant death syndrome, and middle ear disease in children

(ISCOSH, 1998).

Multiple reviews conducted by medical and governmental organizations over the last 12 years leave no doubt that environmental tobacco

smoke causes disease in nonsmokers and is particularly dangerous for children. Regulation of smoking in indoor environments clearly stands on a

strong foundation of scientific support.

YOUTH TOBACCO USE Tobacco use trends among youth continue to be a problem in the United States. According to a study conducted by the Centers for

Disease Control (CDC), 70.2 percent of all high school students had used

some form of tobacco in their lifetime and 42.7 percent reported they were

currently using it at the time of the survey in 1997 (CDC, 1998). 

Cigarettes Nearly 90 percent of all current adult smokers began smoking as children or adolescents (U.S. DHHS, 1994). Each day in the United States,

approximately 6,000 youth try smoking for the first time and 3,000 become

regular smokers (CDC, 1998a). Of these new smokers, between one-third

The California Environmental

Protection Agency Report
Section I: The Role of Public Policy Change in Tobacco Control

13

(CDC, 1996b) and one-half (Thun et al., 1995 & 1997) will die prematurely

because of their smoking unless they quit. 

The smoking rate among high school seniors decreased 11 percent

from 1977 to 1991, but the rate increased each year from 1991 to 1997

before dipping again slightly in 1998. Despite an intense focus on youth

access regulations during the 1990s, the daily smoking rate rose from 18.5

percent in 1991 to 22.4 percent in 1998 among high school seniors

Table 1

Health Effects Associated with Exposure to Environmental 

Tobacco Smoke (From California EPA Report)

Effects Causally Associated with ETS Exposure 

Developmental Effects

Fetal Growth: Low birthweight or small for gestational age

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)

Respiratory Effects

Acute lower respiratory tract infections in children

(e.g., bronchitis and pneumonia)

Asthma induction and exacerbation in children 

Chronic respiratory symptoms in children

Eye and nasal irritation in adults

Middle ear infections in children

Carcinogenic Effects

Lung Cancer

Nasal Sinus Cancer

Cardiovascular Effects

Heart disease mortality

Acute and chronic coronary heart disease morbidity

Effects with Suggestive Evidence of a Causal Association with ETS Exposure 

Developmental Effects

Spontaneous abortion

Adverse impact on cognition and behavior

Respiratory Effects

Exacerbation of cystic fibrosis

Decreased pulmonary function

Carcinogenic Effects

Cervical cancer
14

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

(Johnston, 1998). Smoking experimentation by younger students increased

even more sharply. Over the same 7-year interval (1991-1998), the proportion of students reporting having smoked within 30 days of being surveyed

rose by nearly 50 percent among 8th and 10th grade students (Figure 1;

Johnston, 1998). Moreover, teen smoking rose in virtually every demographic group: urban and rural, males and females, all socioeconomic levels, those bound for college and those not, and among those in all major

racial/ethnic groups.

The earlier a child begins to use tobacco, the less likely that he or she

will be able to quit, and children are beginning to smoke at younger ages

than ever before (Johnston, 1996). Young smokers often underestimate the

harmful effects of their tobacco use and do not recognize that they quickly

move from experimentation to addiction. In a National Institute on Drug

Abuse study, 95 percent of daily smokers in high school predicted they

would not be smoking 5 years hence, yet 75 percent were still smoking in

follow-up studies 7 to 9 years later (Johnston et al., 1987).

Smokeless Tobacco An increasingly severe problem is the use of smokeless tobacco (i.e., moist snuff and chewing tobacco), especially among white male

adolescents and young adults. By 1996, almost one in five male high school

students in the United States reported smokeless tobacco use (CDC, 1996a;

U.S. DHHS, 1998b). Local surveys typically reveal that 40 to 60 percent of

0

10

20

30

40

50

'75 '76 '77 '78 '79 '80 '81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98

12th Grade

10th Grade

8th Grade

Figure 1

Trends in 30-day Prevalence of Cigarette Smoking for Eighth, Tenth, 

and Twelfth Graders

Calendar Year

Percentage

Source: The Monitoring the Future Study, The University of Michigan
15

Section I: The Role of Public Policy Change in Tobacco Control

young males have tried smokeless tobacco (Boyd et al., 1987). First experimentation often occurs between ages 10 and 12 (Boyd and Glover, 1989). 

The health risks of smokeless tobacco use include oral cancer and various other diseases of the mouth, gums, and throat (NCI, 1992). A Swedish

study has suggested that smokeless tobacco use also increases the risk of

heart disease and stroke (Bolinder et al., 1994). 

Cigars Since 1993, cigar use has also risen dramatically, both in the general

population and among youth (NCI, 1998). Between 1993 and 1998, cigar

consumption in the United States increased by more than 50 percent, with

consumption of large cigars increasing by more than 70 percent. A review

of the health effects of cigar use published by the National Cancer Institute

in 1998 concluded that cigars are associated with an increased mortality

risk for a number of cancer sites, including cancer of the oral cavity, larynx,

esophagus, and lung. It also concluded that regular cigar smokers are at an

increased risk for coronary heart disease and chronic obstructive lung disease, especially if they inhale (NCI, 1998). A national survey conducted by

the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that 37 percent of male adolescents and 16 percent of female adolescents had smoked at least one cigar

in the past year (CDC, 1997). In the 1997 CDC study, 31.2 percent of male

high school students and 10.8 percent of female high school students

reported smoking cigars on one or more of the 30 days preceding the survey (Figure 2; CDC, 1998b).

Figure 2

Prevalence of Current Tobacco Use* Among 9-12th Grade Students,

by Type of Product and Gender—United States 1997

50

40

30

20

10

0

BOYS GIRLS

*Current Use = any use in one or more of the 30 days preceding the study

Source: CDC, 1998b Percent
16

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION Between 1970 and 1994, adult smoking

dropped nearly 32 percent, a decline that posed a significant economic

challenge to the tobacco industry. However, during the same period, expenditures for the advertisement and promotion of cigarettes increased more

than 1,500 percent. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reports that in

1997, the major cigarette manufacturers reported an increase of $522 million in advertising and promotional spending over the previous year (FTC,

1999). Total advertising and promotional expenses for the industry now

exceed $5.6 billion, an increase of 11 percent over 1996. While spending

has remained slightly below the $6.0 billion level reported in 1993, it has

increased annually since 1987, except for the 1-year period between 1993

and 1994 when it declined. Though denied by tobacco industry representatives, evidence is overwhelming that much of their advertising is targeted at

the youth market (Evans, 1995; Pierce et al., 1991; U.S. DHHS, 1994).

Clearly, the marketing strategies are working. Approximately 6,000 minors

begin experimenting with cigarettes each day (U.S. DHHS, 1994). 

Numerous studies have demonstrated the link between advertising

and youth smoking initiation (U.S. DHHS, 1994). Tobacco marketing relies

heavily on image advertising, a technique that is particularly effective with

adolescents because of their heightened sensitivity to identity issues (IOM,

1994). Adolescents, in numbers disproportionate to those of adults, buy the

most advertised brands of cigarettes (CDC, 1994). There is also evidence

that restrictions on tobacco advertising and promotion can reduce youth

smoking rates (Smee, 1993).

No one escapes the marketing efforts of the tobacco companies, but

specific promotions and advertising campaigns aim at distinct market segments. In addition to youth, tobacco companies have designed campaigns

to attract women (O’Keefe and Pollay, 1996), specific racial/ethnic groups

(Moore et al., 1996; Robinson et al., 1992), blue-collar workers (Davis,

1987), and the gay/lesbian community (Goebel, 1994). 

Advertising aimed at girls and young women typically links images of

tall, thin, elegant, and attractive young women with cigarettes, particularly

“slim” cigarettes. The result has been a significant uptake in smoking by

teenage girls (O’Keefe and Pollay, 1996; Pierce et al., 1994). This approach

continues a half-century of cigarette marketing aimed at women, an

approach that continues to take advantage of changing social roles (Brandt,

1996). The advertising, however, not only affects the consumer directly, it

affects many groups indirectly as well. Girls and women, for example, are

affected by the fact that the women’s magazines that carry advertisements

for tobacco products are less likely to carry articles that address the harmful

effects of smoking (Warner et al., 1992). 

Surveys conducted in cities throughout the United States indicate that

communities with large minority populations have many more tobacco and

alcohol billboards than neighboring communities with fewer minority residents. In Baltimore, Maryland, for example, a survey revealed that 20 percent of the billboards in predominantly White communities advertised

tobacco or alcohol, whereas 76 percent of the billboards in predominantly
17

Section I: The Role of Public Policy Change in Tobacco Control

African American neighborhoods advertised these products (Quinn, 1990).

A study of tobacco advertising in Massachusetts found that the proportion

of retail storefront advertising dedicated to tobacco advertising was greater

in high-minority communities than in low-minority communities (MA TCP,

1998). The differences are especially pronounced when the communities

surveyed are of differing socioeconomic status. Lower income communities

have been shown to have a greater number of tobacco and alcohol ads than

nearby, more affluent communities.

Advertising aimed at disadvantaged minority youth tends to emphasize such themes as glamour, sex, rebelliousness, social mobility, success,

and escape. These themes, which have broad youth appeal in general, play

especially to the social needs of disadvantaged youth (Robinson et al.,

1992). Moreover, many smaller minority-owned media—as well as business,

civic, and cultural organizations within minority communities—are highly

dependent on tobacco-industry revenue. As a result, many minority-owned

magazines and newspapers are less likely to carry stories on the health

effects of smoking or ETS (Tuckson, 1989), and many local minority leaders

are reluctant to challenge the tobacco industry’s influence in their communities (Robinson et al., 1992). Strategies for dealing with tobacco influences

in these communities need to take into account their specific economic,

social, and cultural dynamics.

Lesbians and gays also face tobacco targeting. Wishing to avoid controversy that may alienate their more conservative customers, marketing to

the gay community is often subtle or hidden in layers of meaning (Goebel,

1994). Ads often feature dual-level messages that can be understood in one

way by heterosexuals, but in a different way by gay readers. A recent example is a Virginia Slims ad that features a heterosexual couple walking down

a path with the woman glancing backward over her shoulder where another woman is walking. The caption: “If you always follow the straight and

narrow, you’ll never know what’s around the corner.”
19

The first local tobacco control ordinances were promoted by

nonsmokers’ rights activists who objected to breathing secondhand smoke (NCI, 1991). For many years, local tobacco

control ordinances focused almost exclusively on clean indoor air; ordinances restricting youth access to tobacco and tobacco advertising and promotion were not passed in significant numbers until the 1990s. Until the

late 1980s, local tobacco control ordinance development was largely a grass

roots affair championed by local and state nonsmokers’ rights groups, in

some instances in partnership with local health departments or local voluntary health association units such as the American Cancer Society,

American Heart Association, and American Lung Association (Bierer and

Rigotti, 1992; Hanauer et al., 1986; U.S. DHHS 1989).

The public health community began to get involved in policy development in the mid- to late 1980s, reflecting a philosophical shift from

approaches that addressed individual behavior to more comprehensive

approaches designed to change the environment and social norms (IOM,

1988). State tobacco excise tax programs passed by voters in California

[Prop 99, 1988] and Massachusetts [Question One, 1992] encouraged and

supported local policy development in their respective states. In 1991, the

National Cancer Institute launched its 17-state American Stop Smoking

Intervention Study (ASSIST) demonstration project; the framework of

ASSIST emphasizes the importance of policy interventions to tobacco control (NCI, 1991). The Initiatives to Mobilize for the Prevention And Control

of Tobacco Use (IMPACT) program, started by the Office on Smoking and

Health in 1993, also endorses policy development as integral to the success

of any tobacco control program.

The results of this change in focus, and the dramatically increased

infrastructure and resources for tobacco control in the 1990s, have been

mixed with regards to local ordinance development. Both California and

Massachusetts experienced a virtual explosion in the number of local ordinances enacted following implementation of their respective dedicated state

tobacco tax programs in the early 1990s. Several ASSIST states—most

notably Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina (before preemption was

adopted), and West Virginia—also experienced a marked increase in the rate

of local ordinance enactment. Nonetheless, since the mid-1990s, the overall

rate of local ordinance enactment has fallen off (Figure 3). 

Local jurisdictions have been the innovators of and

testing grounds for the development of effective tobacco control policies. The local level is where the strongest and most comprehensive tobacco control policies are enacted, and is where the greatest

progress has been made (NCI, 1991; Samuels and Glantz, 1991; 

BACKGROUND

HISTORY OF LOCAL

TOBACCO CONTROL

ORDINANCES

Advantages of Local

Ordinance Development
20

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

0

50

200150100

Sum of YouthAccessSum of CleanIndoor AirSum ofAdvertising

1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980

(First Study Linking

ETS to Lung Cancer)

(Surgeon General's Report

on Involuntary Smoking) (Synar Amendment)

(Final EPA Report)

(Baltimore 4th Circuit Court Ruling)(FDA Regulations)

(Multi-State Agreement)

Number of Communities

Figure 3Local Ordinance Provisions Enacted Per Year: Youth Access / Clean Indoor Air / Advertising Restrictions
21

Section I: The Role of Public Policy Change in Tobacco Control

Rigotti and Pashos, 1991). Local tobacco control ordinances enjoy the following advantages over federal and state legislation:

Ease of Enactment—Local legislation remains far easier to pass than

state or federal tobacco control legislation (Moore et al., 1994; Siegel et al.,

1997). Local elected officials are highly responsive and are more directly

accountable to their constituents (Skolnik, 1995). In addition, the tobacco

industry’s influence and ability to control a legislative agenda is more powerful at the state and federal level than it is at the local level. Tobacco executives concede that their industry is relatively ineffective in preventing passage of strong tobacco control measures at the local level as compared to

the state or federal levels (Flinn, 1991; Pertman, 1994; Pritchard, 1986).

A notable exception occurred in Maryland where, in 1995, the

Maryland Occupational Safety and Health (MOSH) advisory board proposed

sweeping new workplace smoking rules covering virtually all indoor workers in the state, including those working in bars and restaurants. A tobaccoindustry-backed legal challenge successfully delayed implementation of the

proposed MOSH regulation, and the Maryland state legislature quickly

passed a state-wide law eliminating smoking for the vast majority of workers. However, the state law was not as stringent as the original MOSH proposal, as it exempted large segments of the hospitality industry. While the

law eliminated smoking in restaurants without bars, those with bars could

allow smoking and restrict it to the bar portion of the restaurant. Bars

themselves were completely excluded from the legislation. Nonetheless, as a

result of the 1995 Maryland state law, the percentage of indoor workers in

Maryland employed in a smoke-free environment increased from 53 percent in 1993 to just over 84 percent in 1996—one of the highest rates of

coverage in the nation.

Higher Level of Public Health Protections—Local ordinances are almost

always stronger and more comprehensive than their corresponding state

laws (U.S. DHHS, 1989; Siegel et al., 1997). More than 110 local smoke-free

ordinances had been passed in the United States before the first state law

with smoke-free provisions was passed in Vermont in 1993.

Enforcement and Compliance—Local enforcement agencies are more

accessible and are more likely to energetically enforce a law, compared to

the often distant enforcement agencies for state or federal laws. City and

county laws levy fines that go entirely to their own jurisdictions, whereas

state fines may only share a percentage with the city or county. Research

has also shown that employers’ awareness of and support for local workplace ordinances tends to be high as well (Rigotti et al., 1992 & 1994).

Community Education—Local ordinance development puts in motion

an educational process of letters to the editor, press coverage, town hall

meetings, and public hearings. Even if an ordinance fails to pass, the community will have been educated and informed on a variety of tobacco

issues (Jacobson and Wasserman, 1997; Siegel et al., 1997). More than one

community has reported an increase in the number of voluntary smoke-free

restaurant policies, even though a proposed ordinance has failed to pass
Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

(e.g., La Crosse,WI; Oakland, CA). It is precisely this type of change in attitudes, knowledge, and social norms surrounding tobacco use that is the

ultimate goal of tobacco control efforts to reduce death and disease caused

by tobacco (U.S. DHHS, 1989; NCI, 1991).

Despite these advantages, some tobacco control advocates prefer statelevel tobacco control laws, arguing that it is generally simpler and quicker

to provide state-wide coverage than to enact protections one community at

a time. However, by focusing on local ordinance development, two states—

California and Massachusetts—have achieved public health protections for

a significant proportion of their population in a relatively short period of

time. There was an explosion of local smoke-free workplace ordinances in

California beginning in 1990, and by 1993 nearly two-thirds (64.6 percent)

of all indoor workers in California reported a smoke-free workplace (Patten

et al., 1995b). By early 1996 (and before Boston adopted a smoke-free ordinance in 1998), nearly 50 percent of the population in Massachusetts lived

in communities covered by some kind of local restaurant ordinance 

(MA DOH, 1996).

The earliest laws restricting tobacco use (both

local and state) were adopted as fire-safety measures and would not be considered tobacco control laws by today’s standards

(U.S. DHHS, 1989; Jacobson and Wasserman, 1997). The first modern tobacco control laws designed with the purpose of protecting nonsmokers from

secondhand smoke appeared in the early 1970s (U.S. DHHS, 1986). In 1975,

Minnesota became the first state to pass a comprehensive state Clean

Indoor Air Act restricting smoking in public places, restaurants, and public

and private workplaces. While the earliest clean indoor air laws were passed

largely at the state level, progress began shifting to the local level by the

early 1980s (NCI, 1991; Bierer and Rigotti, 1992). In 1977, Berkeley,

California enacted the first modern local tobacco control ordinance limiting smoking in restaurants and other public places. Similar ordinances continued to pass during the late 1970s and early 1980s. These early ordinances

typically restricted, but did not eliminate, smoking in public places, workplaces, and restaurants. 

The 1986 Surgeon General’s report on the health consequences of

involuntary smoking greatly accelerated the passage of early tobacco control ordinances. By 1988, nearly 400 local ordinances had been enacted to

restrict smoking throughout the United States (Pertschuk and Shopland,

1989).

In 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency released its draft Risk

Assessment on Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS), classifying ETS as a 

Group A carcinogen. Following this report, jurisdictions increasingly moved

to adopt ordinances eliminating smoking in indoor environments, rather

than restricting smoking to specified areas. In 1990, Lodi, California introduced an ordinance completely eliminating smoking in restaurants. Other

cities and counties soon followed suit. Smoke-free ordinances either eliminate smoking in enclosed areas, or restrict it to enclosed rooms that are separately ventilated and directly exhausted to the outside to prevent the recirculation of ETS into smoke-free areas. 

HISTORY OF CLEAN INDOOR

AIR LEGISLATION

22
23

Section I: The Role of Public Policy Change in Tobacco Control

In keeping with the ever-growing body of evidence implicating ETS as

a serious health hazard, the adoption of more restrictive clean indoor air

ordinances has increased over time. For example, in 1984, there were no

local ordinances completely eliminating smoking in restaurants or workplaces. In 1987, only one ordinance banned smoking in restaurants, while

none did so in workplaces. In contrast, by December of 1998, 227 ordinances completely eliminated smoking in restaurants, 209 in workplaces,

and of these, 155 eliminated smoking in both. Although the majority of

these smoke-free ordinances have passed in California and Massachusetts,

smoke-free ordinances have also been passed by local jurisdictions in

Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, New

York, Oregon, Texas, and West Virginia.

Studies in both workplace and restaurant settings confirm that only

those policies that require establishments to be 100 percent smoke-free (as

opposed to requiring only partial restrictions) adequately protect nonsmokers from exposure to ETS (Patten et al., 1995b; Brauer and Mannetje, 1998).

Despite continued high levels of support for restrictions on smoking

in enclosed places, local clean indoor air ordinance development has fallen

off sharply, following a record 180 new local clean indoor air ordinances

adopted in 1993 (Figure 3).

The effects of clean indoor air ordinances are apparent

in a variety of ways. With the passage of clean indoor air

ordinances, the general health of the community improves and social

norms about tobacco use change, all with no undue economic impact on

the local business community. 

Public Health Benefits—First and foremost, clean indoor air ordinances

provide protection against exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS),

a known human carcinogen. The presence of a strong workplace ordinance

significantly reduces nonsmokers’ reported exposure to ETS in their workplace (Pierce et al., 1994a). Between 1990 and 1993, the percentage of

California workers reporting smoke-free workplaces increased from 35 to

64.6 percent (Patten et al., 1995b). This increase was a direct result of local

smoke-free ordinance development in California, where over 100 smokefree workplace ordinances were enacted (MacDonald and Glantz, 1997).

This trend has continued beyond 1993; data from the 1995/96 Current

Population Survey show that 76 percent of California workers were

employed in smoke-free environments by that time.

The health benefits gained through the implementation of clean

indoor air policies are significant. A recent study of San Francisco bar

employees found demonstrable improvements in their health status after

California began implementing AB13, a statewide ban on smoking in bars

and restaurants (Eisner et al., 1998). Fifty-nine percent of bartenders reporting respiratory problems before the restrictions were implemented reported

a reduction in symptoms 4 to 8 weeks after the ban took effect. 

Not only do smoke-free policies protect against exposure to ETS, they

also have a secondary benefit of decreasing smoking prevalence and conEffects of Clean Indoor

Air Ordinances
24

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

sumption. Studies of workplaces in California found that individuals in

smoke-free workplaces had a lower smoking prevalence, and that continuing smokers in smoke-free workplaces had a lower consumption rate than

individuals working where smoking was permitted (Woodruff et al., 1993;

Patten et al., 1995a). Clean indoor air policies also offer promising results in

reducing youth tobacco consumption rates (Wasserman et al., 1991;

Ohsfeldt et al., 1998).

Studies conducted by the tobacco industry go even farther in their

assessment of the impact of smoke-free workplace policies on the smoking

behavior and consumption patterns of smokers. For example, in 1987

Philip Morris began tracking between 22,581 and 28,003 smokers from its

Product Opinion Lab (POL) database in order to estimate the impact of

workplace restrictions on industry sales (Philip Morris, Inc., 1992a). Major

findings from this previously secret industry report are revealing: 

“Total prohibition of smoking in the workplace strongly effects [sic]

industry volume. Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11%-15%

less than average and quit at a rate that is 84% higher than average.

Milder workplace restrictions, such as smoking only in designated areas,

have much less impact on quitting rates and very little effect on consumption.”

Impact on Social Norms—For the past decade, major opinion polls have

consistently shown that the public supports policies designed to reduce

their ETS exposure in enclosed public places and workplaces (U.S. DHHS,

1986 & 1989; NCI, 1991; IOM, 1994). In fact, public support for smoking

restrictions has consistently been ahead of enacted legislation (NCI, 1991),

evidence that the tobacco industry’s well-funded opposition to smoking

restrictions has had the desired effect on lawmakers. 

Data from NCI’s Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population

Survey clearly demonstrate the level of public support for restricting smoking in settings open to the public. The fraction of the adult population who

think most public facilities should be smoke-free increased between 1993

and 1996, while the fraction who think smoking should be allowed in all

areas remained extremely small, the only exception being bars and cocktail

lounges. The data for 1996 are shown in Figure 4; more detailed information can be found in Section III, Table 8.

Economic Impact—The economic impact of smoke-free restaurant ordinances has been a subject of intense debate. The tobacco industry claims

that smoke-free restaurant ordinances will lead to a marked decrease in

business, usually of 20 to 30 percent. To date, however, all credible scientific studies of smoke-free restaurant ordinances have found no evidence of a

negative economic impact. In fact, some studies, notably Hyland et al.

(1999), found that taxable sales from eating and drinking establishments in

New York City were up 2.1 percent compared with sales 2 years before the

city’s smoke-free law took effect. In the rest of the state, in contrast, taxable

sales from eating and drinking establishments declined 3.8 percent. 
25

Section I: The Role of Public Policy Change in Tobacco Control

Since 1993, numerous economic impact reports have been published

indicating no negative impact on restaurant sales due to smoke-free ordinances (Bartosch and Pope, 1999; Hyland et al., 1999; Goldstein and Sobel,

1998; Sciacca and Ratliff, 1998; Glantz and Smith, 1997; Cummings, 1997;

CDC, 1995; Glantz and Smith, 1994; Maroney et al., 1994). These studies

have examined the impact of ordinances by reviewing sales tax data to

determine the economic impact of smoke-free ordinances on businesses

throughout the United States, including Arizona, California, Massachusetts,

New York, North Carolina, and Texas. The claim that smoke-free restaurant

ordinances are particularly harmful to communities dependent on tourism

was recently examined and refuted in a study of tourism-related revenues in

six cities and three states (Glantz and Charlesworth, 1999).

The tobacco industry has sponsored a score of economic impact surveys alleging severe losses of revenues as a result of smoke-free ordinances

(KPMG, 1998; InContext, 1996; Price Waterhouse, 1993; Laventhol and

Horwath, 1990). These analyses, which have been aggressively disseminated

to elected officials and businesses, tend to rely on business owners’ perceptions of the impact of smoke-free ordinances or predictions of future

impact, or they look at a limited, non-random selection of data. This

methodology is inherently subjective and does not accurately reflect the

real impact of smoke-free restaurant ordinances on sales.

For example, pro-tobacco front groups surveyed restaurants in Beverly

Hills, California, asking owners what they thought they had lost in sales,

without substantiating claims by checking sales tax revenues. The survey’s

finding of a 30 percent perceived loss in business was used widely by the

Tobacco Institute to oppose local ordinances in other jurisdictions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Bars/Lounges Sports Events Malls

Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas

Completely Smoke-free Allow Smoking in Some Areas No Restrictions

Figure 4

Public Support for Smoking Restrictions in Various Public Places—United States Percent
26

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

(Consumer Reports, May 1994). Figure 5 shows an ad typical of those run

by the Tobacco Institute. But contrary to tobacco industry claims of a 30

percent reduction in sales, UCSF researchers found no such decline during

the period the ordinance was in effect and found no increase in sales following its repeal 4 months later (Glantz and Smith, 1994). In fact, the actual impact of the Beverly Hills ordinance was a 2.4 percent gain in revenue

during the time the smoke-free provisions were in effect (Figure 6).

There are several key components to review when evaluating an economic impact study. First, it should always rely on objective data such as

sales tax receipts, which are an unbiased, accurate measure of revenue loss

or gain. Studies should also include information about sales for several

years before and after the implementation of a smoke-free ordinance to

help identify underlying trends in sales each year. It is also important to

look at comparisons—e.g. to compare restaurant sales with total retail sales

or to restaurant sales in comparable cities. These comparisons help to identify general economic trends and do not look at the impact of an ordinance

in a vacuum.

Impact on Tobacco Industry Sales—The tobacco industry has expressed

considerable public concern over the claimed negative impacts of tobacco

control regulations on other businesses

and on the restaurant industry in particular. However, internal industry documents show that their real concerns lie

with the regulations’ effects on their own

profit margins. A workplace smoking policy study conducted by Philip Morris, Inc.

(1992a—the same study cited on page 24)

clearly demonstrates that smoking restrictions represent both short- and long-term

threats to the industry’s bottom line. Two

conclusions contained in that document

are particularly noteworthy:

“From 1989 to 1991, the industry lost

an estimated incremental 1.7% (9.5 billion units) due to increasing workplace

restrictions. If these trends continue, the

industry will loose an additional 1.3% to

1.9% (8.4 to 11.4 billion units) from

1991 to 1996.

If smoking were banned in all workplaces, the industry’s average consumption would decline 8.7%-10.1% from

1991 levels and the quitting rate would

increase 74%.”

Yet another Philip Morris report found that smokers were facing more

and more restrictive policies in the workplace and noted “that smokers who

face ‘designated areas’ type restrictions are four times more likely to face

The Tobacco Institute

1875 I Street Northwest

Washington, DC 20008

What if they

passed a law

that took away

30% of your

business?

 hat happens if your state legislature

 or city council bans smoking in

restaurants?

You'll lose business. Maybe as much

as 30 percent of your business, according

to restaurant owners who have

experienced such bans. Before a

smoking ban was repealed in Beverly

Hills, restaurants were expecting to lose

a total of $12 million in 1987 as a result.

Here's the real news, though. In a 

recent Gallup poll almost 20

percent of the U.S. population said they would not visit

a restaurant that prohibits smoking.

Can you risk closing your doors to 20

percent of your customers?

The Tobacco Institute can help you

make sure this never happens.

Write us and we'll send you

information on how other resturants

groups have fought smoking bans. We'll

help you develop ways to accommodate

all your customers—smokers and nonsmokers alike. And we'll help you ensure

that your voice is heard

when government takes up

the issue.

W

Figure 5

Tobacco Institute Advertisement
27

Section I: The Role of Public Policy Change in Tobacco Control

total prohibition the following year as those facing no restrictions” (Philip

Morris, Inc., 1992b). Clearly the trend of smoke-free workplaces has major

ramifications for the economic viability of the tobacco industry. 

Implementation and Enforcement Local clean indoor air laws are considered to

be largely self-enforcing, that is, enforcement is not activated unless and

until a complaint is made. Studies of local clean indoor ordinances in

Massachusetts found that the workplace smoking restrictions were generally

popular with business owners (Rigotti et al., 1992 & 1994). A 3-year study of

workplaces in California found that compliance with smoke-free policies

was nearly 90 percent (Patten et al., 1995a & b). In addition to the enforcement activities of receiving and responding to complaints, compliance is

improved when implementation includes ongoing efforts to educate and

inform business owners about the requirements of the ordinance (Rigotti et

al., 1992 & 1994; Pierce et al., 1994a).

Workplace Smoking Policy Trends During the past decade, the prevalence of

voluntary workplace smoking policies has increased, as has the restrictiveness of those policies (U.S. DHHS, 1989; Gerlach et al., 1997). However, this

trend is not evenly distributed. Larger employers are more likely to adopt a

smoking policy than smaller employers (fewer than 100 employees), and

workplaces in the manufacturing and processing industries are less likely to

have a smoking policy (BNA, 1991; U.S. DHHS, 1989; Fielding and

TI Claim

$40

$20

$30

$10

$0

(millions)

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

Note: Period of smoke-free ordinance is indicated by the solid triangles.

Source: Glantz and Smith, 1994.

Figure 6

The 100% Smoke-free Restaurant Ordinance in Force in Beverly Hills did not

Reduce Sales by 30% (Dashed Line with “TI [Tobacco Industry] Claim”), as the 

Tobacco Industry had Suggested; Rather, it had No Significant Effect on Sales
28

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Piserchia, 1989). The presence of a local clean indoor air ordinance greatly

increases the probability that a workplace will adopt a workplace smoking

policy (Pierce et al., 1994a; Rigotti et al., 1992 & 1994).

In a 1997 report of national workplace smoking policies based on the

1992/93 CPS Tobacco Use Supplement, 86.1 percent of indoor workers

reported that their workplace had an official policy that restricted smoking

in some way (Gerlach et al., 1997). Almost half (46 percent) reported their

workplace was smoke-free, which the authors defined as having an official

policy that did not permit smoking in either the common or public areas of

their workplace (e.g., cafeteria or restrooms), or in work areas. There were

significant differences based on gender, age, ethnicity, smoking status, and

occupation of the worker. The prevalence of smoke-free policies was much

lower among younger, less skilled and/or educated workers, and among

those employed in the service, hospitality, and blue-collar industries. More

women than men reported smoke-free policies; African Americans reported

working for employers who had established a policy, but were less likely

than Whites and Asian/Pacific Islanders to work under a smoke-free policy.

Current smokers were also less likely than former and never-smokers to

report that their workplace had a smoking policy.

Table 3 in Section III presents data from the Current Population

Survey showing that the percentage of the national indoor workforce now

covered by a smoke-free policy has increased significantly between 1992/93

and 1995/96. That increase is only the most recent step in a trend that has

been going on for more than 10 years. Only 3 percent of workers reported

being employed in a smoke-free environment in 1986 (Gerlach et al., 1997).

CPS data show that by 1992/93, just under 47 percent of workers were covered by such a policy, and by 1995/96, that percentage had in-creased to 64

percent—nearly two-thirds of all indoor workers. The 1995/96 figure represents a 37 percent increase in only 3 years. These positive trends reflect

actions imposed by state and local jurisdictions through legislative requirements (including regulations) as well as independent actions taken by

employers out of concerns for the health of their employees.

Geographic Variation in Coverage—Considerable geographic variation

exists in the prevalence of workers covered by a smoke-free worksite policy,

and the fraction of workers covered by such policies has increased between

1992/93 and 1995/96. In 1992/93, only 18 states reported that 50 percent

or more of their indoor workforce was covered by a smoke-free policy, but

by 1995/96 only three states—Arkansas, Kentucky, and Nevada—were

reporting rates below 50 percent. No state reported a rate of 70 percent or

higher coverage in 1992/93, but 13 now report having reached that level.

Table 2 presents each state’s rate of smoke-free coverage for workers in

1992/93 compared to its 1995/96 rate and lists the relative change between

the two time periods. Table 4 in Section III presents additional information,

including differences by strength of policy and by smoking status of

respondent for each state and for the District of Columbia. 

In terms of absolute coverage, the five states with the highest percentage of workers covered by a smoke-free policy by 1996 were Utah (83.7 percent), Maryland (83.2 percent), Vermont (78.9 percent), California (76.1
Section I: The Role of Public Policy Change in Tobacco Control

29

Alabama 39.0 55.4 42.0

Alaska 58.7 69.9 19.0

Arizona 56.8 65.1 14.5

Arkansas 32.5 48.0 47.6

California 58.4 76.1 30.2

Colorado 53.5 71.5 33.7

Connecticut 48.3 67.3 39.4

Delaware 50.3 66.0 31.2

District of Columbia 51.9 74.7 43.9

Florida 53.6 66.5 24.1

Georgia 47.4 56.7 19.8

Hawaii 47.1 61.3 30.0

Idaho 59.5 70.9 19.1

Illinois 40.0 60.8 52.0

Indiana 35.1 51.3 46.1

Iowa 45.1 62.2 38.0

Kansas 49.4 63.2 27.8

Kentucky 28.6 49.3 72.2

Louisiana 39.3 56.6 43.9

Maine 55.7 73.4 31.7

Maryland 52.9 83.2 57.2

Massachusetts 48.7 71.1 45.8

Michigan 39.6 53.1 34.3

Minnesota 54.5 67.9 24.5

Mississippi 40.3 54.2 34.5

Missouri 39.1 58.5 49.7

Montana 43.7 58.8 34.6

Nebraska 44.4 63.6 43.3

Nevada 33.8 40.5 19.8

New Hampshire 53.3 72.9 36.7

New Jersey 46.3 68.0 46.7

New Mexico 55.3 65.5 18.5

New York 42.7 64.6 51.1

North Carolina 31.0 54.7 76.5

North Dakota 47.5 61.0 28.4

*Smoke-free = smoking not permitted in public and common areas of the worksite or in work

areas. Data based on CPS Tobacco Use Supplement conducted in September 1992, January

1993, and May 1993; September 1995, January 1996, and May 1996.

Table 2

Percentage of Indoor Workers Covered by a Smoke-free* Workplace Policy in 1993 and 1996

by State, and Relative Change (Percent) Between the Two Time Periods, Based on Current

Population Survey—1992/93 and 1995/96

% of workers % of workers

State covered in 1993 covered in 1996 Relative change %
Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

30

Ohio 37.9 56.6 49.5

Oklahoma 41.5 58.0 39.6

Oregon 59.9 66.9 11.6

Pennsylvania 42.2 59.9 42.0

Rhode Island 44.9 69.6 55.1

South Carolina 37.7 58.8 55.9

South Dakota 43.8 62.3 42.4

Tennessee 36.2 53.5 47.8

Texas 51.2 64.8 26.7

Utah 65.4 83.7 28.0

Vermont 58.7 78.9 34.4

Virginia 43.8 62.6 43.0

West Virginia 38.6 58.9 52.6

Washington 68.3 73.2 7.2

Wisconsin 43.8 62.0 41.7

Wyoming 48.4 61.2 26.6

*Smoke-free = smoking not permitted in public and common areas of the worksite or in work

areas. Data based on CPS Tobacco Use Supplement conducted in September 1992, January

1993, and May 1993; September 1995, January 1996, and May 1996.

Table 2 (continued)

% of workers % of workers

State covered in 1993 covered in 1996 Relative change %

percent), and the District of Columbia (74.7 percent). The five lowest were

Nevada (40.5 percent), Arkansas (48.0 percent), Kentucky (49.3 percent),

Indiana (51.3 percent), and Michigan (53.1 percent).

The states that experienced the greatest rate of change in the percentage of workers employed in smoke-free worksites between 1993 and 1996

were North Carolina (+76.5 percent) and Kentucky (+72.2 percent); no

other state experienced a relative increase of 60 percent or higher.

Nonetheless, both North Carolina and Kentucky are still significantly below

the national mean in terms of worker protection from ETS. 

Restaurant Workers—Unfortunately, not all occupational groups have

benefited equally from implementation of smoke-free workplace policies.

Food service workers rank last among the Census Bureau’s list of major

occupational groups in terms of worksite smoking policy coverage (Figure

7a and 7b). Furthermore, it appears that the gap between food service workers and all other workers is widening. While the majority of smoke-free

restaurant policies are adopted under the rubric of protecting patrons, the

fact that restaurants and bars serve as workplaces for millions of workers

often goes unmentioned. Not only do food service workers enjoy fewer protections against ETS, they are also exposed to higher levels of ETS compared

with other indoor workers. Siegel (1993) found that food service workers

were exposed to levels of ETS in restaurants that were up to 2 times higher

than those found in offices; ETS levels in bars were between 3.9 and 6 times
31

Section I: The Role of Public Policy Change in Tobacco Control

0

3

6

9

12

15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

All Other Workers

Food Service Workers

Figure 7a

Differences in Smoke-free Workplace Policy Coverage: Food Service Workers Compared 

to All Other Workers—CPS 1995/96

1993 1996

Percent

65.3

36.3

48.0

21.2

Figure 7b

Among Workers Reporting No Smoking is Allowed in Their Work Area, Percent Reporting that

Someone has Smoked in Their Work Area in the Past 2 Weeks—CPS 1995/96 Percent

Food Service Workers All Other Workers

5.7

13.1
32

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

higher than those in offices. Even when workers report that their employer

prohibits smoking in the employee work areas, significantly more food service workers than other workers report non-compliance with the policy

(Figure 7a and 7b).

In 1994, the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) began the process of promulgating a workplace smoking standard. The agency held

public hearings in 1994 and 1995 and is currently reviewing testimony and

finalizing a workplace smoking standard. The current proposed rule would

require employers to either eliminate workplace smoking entirely or restrict

it to designated smoking areas that are either outdoors or fully enclosed

and separately ventilated, with the air directly exhausted to the outside.

If adopted, OSHA workplace smoking regulations may preempt many

state and local workplace smoking ordinances. In 1992, the U.S. Supreme

Court ruled that the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act preempted

an Illinois law that made specific requirements of employees at hazardous

waste sites, stating that the law overlapped with OSHA’s standards (Glantz,

1997; 29 CFR 1910.120). It is likely that a similar ruling would be made

regarding local and state smoke-free workplace laws should OSHA promulgate a standard regulating smoking in the workplace. Glantz (1997) raises

several issues that require further study, including whether or not a single

national standard would be enforced locally; whether there are mechanisms

that would eliminate preemption of local and state workplace smoking control ordinances from the OSHA rule; and whether the rule could be

designed to overrule existing statewide legislation that preempts local clean

indoor ordinance development.

The tobacco industry has, on occasion, informed local jurisdictions

that they are preempted from enacting local workplace smoking ordinances

under current OSHA regulations. However, this assertion has been rejected

by OSHA staff (Capreol, 1993; Frodyma, 1998). 

There are 846 local clean indoor air ordinances listed in this publication, covering a total population

of 88 million (see Section II, Summary Table 1). Two of the most common

areas protected by clean indoor air provisions are workplaces and restaurants. Figure 8 shows the number of communities adopting 100 percent

smoke-free workplace and/or restaurant provisions during the period of

1985 to 1998.

Workplace Restrictions—An unanticipated consequence of the earliest

smoke-free workplace ordinances was the congregation of smokers immediately outside smoke-free buildings. Workers—particularly those in lobby

areas or near first-floor windows—began complaining of secondhand smoke

re-entering the building through open doors and windows. To address this

problem, many smoke-free ordinances now include provisions banning

smoking within a minimum distance from smoke-free buildings to prevent

re-circulation of ETS back into the smoke-free building. Federally, the

National Institutes of Health revised their smoking policy in March of 1999,

banning smoking in and around specific outdoor areas such as building 

Findings: 

Clean Indoor Air Ordinances

Federal Regulation: The

Occupational Safety and

Health Administration
33

Section I: The Role of Public Policy Change in Tobacco Control

entrances and exits, air intake ducts, loading docks, covered parking

garages, and designated courtyards. However, the policy still permits smoking in most other outdoor areas.

Some jurisdictions have expanded outdoor smoking restrictions

beyond workplace settings, adopting provisions making outdoor lines and

waiting areas smoke-free (e.g., Davis, CA), making outdoor public park and

recreation areas smoke-free (e.g., Bellaire, TX; North Providence, RI), or

establishing smoke-free seating in outdoor sports venues (e.g., Nassau

County, NY; Northampton, MA). These outdoor restrictions make the most

sense when they are part of a natural progression of ordinance development, making enclosed venues smoke-free before addressing outside venues

(Carol and Hobart, 1998). 

A total of 642 local ordinances limit smoking in workplaces. The ordinances range from simple requirements that workplaces adopt written

smoking policies to 181 ordinances that require the total elimination of

smoking in the workplace (see Section II, Chart 2).

Restaurant Restrictions—The most recent trend in clean indoor air ordinance development is to extend smoking restrictions to bars. San Luis

Obispo, California, was the first to restrict smoking in bars, including freestanding bars, in 1990. Currently, 35 local jurisdictions and the state of

California have laws that eliminate smoking in all bars (free-standing and

those in restaurants). Another 17 cities have ordinances that prohibit smoking only in restaurant/bar combinations. This growing trend to protect bar

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

100% Smoke-free Workplace

100% Smoke-free Restaurant

Both Restaurant and 

Workplace Provisions Adopted

1985 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Types of Provision:

Number of Communities

Year

Figure 8

Number of Communities Adopting Ordinances with Major Smoke-free Provisions
34

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

workers is supported by research demonstrating that bar and restaurant

workers have the least protection from ETS in the workplace and are

exposed to a higher concentration of ETS than employees in other workplaces (Siegel, 1993).

A total of 753 local ordinances limit smoking in restaurants. These

range from laws that merely require restaurants to set aside a nonsmoking

section of unspecified size to 227 ordinances that completely eliminate

smoking in restaurants (see Section II, Chart 1).

By the early part of the twentieth century, a number of

states had adopted laws making it illegal for underage

youth to use tobacco products. These laws were adopted on moral rather

than public health grounds, and were largely unenforced. In fact, by the

mid-1960s, a number of states rescinded their youth-oriented tobacco laws

(Jacobson and Wasserman, 1997). At the local level, as early as the 1940s,

jurisdictions had adopted ordinances requiring tobacco retailers to obtain a

license; however, the intent of these ordinances was to generate revenues,

not to regulate youth access to tobacco. In 1989, the Surgeon General’s

report concluded that there were fewer laws restricting youth access to

tobacco products on the books than had been the case in the previous quarter century (U.S. DHHS, 1989).

In the late 1980s, the public health community began to discuss

youth access to tobacco as part of a tobacco control policy agenda (IOM,

1994). This focus was intensified by a 1990 Office of the Inspector General

(OIG) report, which found that despite youth access laws in 44 states, active

enforcement was non-existent in all instances (OIG, 1990). In 1990, the

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) developed and distributed a Model Sale of Tobacco Products to Minors Control Act for state

and local jurisdictions. Two years later, Congress adopted the so-called

“Synar Amendment,” requiring all states to adopt laws prohibiting the sale

and distribution of tobacco products to minors, to enforce such laws, and

to provide annual reports to DHHS as to their compliance. 

DHHS’s recommended youth access provisions include a tobacco

retailer licensing structure, a graduated system of penalties and suspensions,

an emphasis on civil (rather than criminal) penalties, a legal age of sale set

at 19, minimum-age-of-sale warning signs at points of sale, a designated

state enforcement agency supplemented by local efforts, and a ban on

tobacco vending machines. Several of these provisions would be reiterated

in the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) proposed tobacco regulations,

issued in 1996.

Although the early youth access legislation was passed mainly at the

state level, followed in the early 1990s by intensive federal activity, youth

access policy development moved relatively quickly to the local level. In

1989, the U.S. Surgeon General’s report noted that a handful of local jurisdictions had banned the practice of distributing free tobacco products, stating as their purpose the reduction of youth access to tobacco (U.S. DHHS,

HISTORY OF YOUTH

ACCESS LEGISLATION
35

Section I: The Role of Public Policy Change in Tobacco Control

1989). By September of 1992, the ANR Foundation’s database of local ordinances included records for 161 communities with ordinances containing

at least one provision designed to reduce youth access to tobacco products

(NCI, 1993a). 

Local ordinances include and go beyond the DHHS recommendations.

The most common of these ordinances ban or limit the placement of cigarette vending machines. Others include bans on self-service displays, distribution of free tobacco products and/or single cigarette sales, and a number

of state or local laws are also being enacted that criminalize youth for possession and/or use of tobacco products. Finally, an increasing number of

ordinances include provisions for licensing tobacco retailers.

Following enactment of the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health

Administration Reorganization Act in 1992, local youth access ordinance

enactment escalated, quickly replacing clean indoor air as the chief subject

of legislation at the local level. Beginning in 1994, the number of local

youth access laws being enacted exceeded the number of clean indoor air

laws being enacted in every year (see Figure 3). 

Despite major efforts at the federal, state, and local levels to curtail

access to tobacco products by minors, there is no compelling evidence that

minors experience any significant difficulty in obtaining tobacco products,

nor that teen tobacco consumption has declined as a result. In fact, the

opposite appears to be the case. Tobacco use among youth remained relatively stable from 1980 to 1992, a year that marked the beginning of significant increases in local activity around youth access and an increase in

youth smoking rates (Johnston, 1998).

Youth Access and Youth Smoking The effort to restrict youth access to cigarettes and other tobacco products stems from a desire to reduce tobacco use

by minors. Youth access is itself a global term encompassing such diverse

strategies as merchant education campaigns, signage, required ID checks,

bans on self-service displays, the elimination of vending machines, and

other strategies designed to make it more difficult for youth to obtain

tobacco products. Of these strategies, most resources have been devoted to

lowering the rate of illegal sale of tobacco products by merchants. 

To date, there is little experimental evidence demonstrating that higher rates of merchant compliance with age-of-sale laws will result in significant reduction of youth smoking rates. Early support was offered by Jason et

al. (1991) and DiFranza et al. (1992), who found decreases in self-reported

cigarette use following enforcement of age-of-sale laws. Both studies, however, used non-random samples with no control group. Studies with more

rigorous methodologies have failed to replicate these findings and have

found no consistent relationship between the presence of, or the enforcement of, youth access laws and smoking patterns among youth (Chaloupka

and Grossman, 1996; Hinds, 1992; Rigotti et al., 1997). In one study widely

cited as supporting the efficacy of youth access ordinances (Forster et al.,

1998), youth smoking rates increased less substantially in “intervention”

communities where youth access laws were passed than in “control” communities where no youth access legislation was enacted. However, since
36

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

there was no statistical difference in the rates of illegal tobacco sales to

minors between the intervention and control communities either before or

after the intervention, it is likely that the observed differences in youth

smoking behavior resulted from unmeasured factors (such as changing

community norms in response to increased community action) rather than

the presence of the youth access laws.

One reason that youth access legislation may be ineffective in curbing

youth smoking is that only 38.7 percent of current smokers under the age

of 18 purchase their cigarettes in stores (CDC, 1996a). Even when strong

enforcement of local youth access laws improved merchant compliance and

decreased illegal tobacco sales to minors, adolescents’ perceived access to

tobacco was not altered (Rigotti et al., 1997). Numerous social sources of

cigarettes are available to youth who seek to obtain them, including older

friends, family members, and strangers who will purchase them if given the

money. While attempts to convince social sources not to provide cigarettes

to minors may have modest impact, given the widely available nature of

tobacco to adult consumers, it is probable that even in the best of circumstances, minors who seek tobacco can easily find channels of supply. 

Glantz (1996) questions the whole focus on youth access, noting that

it unintentionally reinforces the “forbidden fruit” theme of tobacco advertising and that strategies that target all citizens, youth and adults alike, may

prove more effective. Wasserman et al. (1991), for example, found that

clean indoor air laws had a strong deterrent effect on teen smoking, a finding supported by Chaloupka and Grossman (1996). Traditionally, youth are

among the least protected by clean indoor air regulation (Gerlach et al.,

1997). However, when they and the adults around them are not allowed to

smoke at work or in other public venues, smoking may have less appeal. 

The Synar Amendment A provision of the 1992 Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and

Mental Health Administration Reorganization Act (known as the “Synar

Amendment”) requires states to: (a) adopt laws prohibiting the sale and distribution of tobacco products to minors under age 18, (b) implement

enforcement programs, and (c) provide annual reports to DHHS demonstrating that they have complied. If they fail to comply, states risk losing

block grants for substance abuse prevention and treatment programs. 

The effects of the Synar regulations on tobacco control are complex.

After Synar was passed, tobacco industry lobbyists succeeded in getting

Congress to leave final implementation of the amendment up to state legislatures (Weisskopf, 1993). Moreover, the time lag between original passage

and the release of accompanying regulations by DHHS in 1993 provided

ample opportunity for tobacco industry lobbyists to press both national

and state legislators for measures favorable to the industry (IOM, 1994).

Most importantly, the tobacco industry and its allies used the Synar

Amendment to push for passage of relatively weak state laws that were preemptive, foreclosing the opportunity of local jurisdictions to enact more

stringent local ordinances (Weisskopf, 1993; Feder, 1996; Siegel et al., 1997). 

According to the 1998 Report to Congress on Synar Implementation submitted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
37

Section I: The Role of Public Policy Change in Tobacco Control

all states were in compliance with the Synar Regulation as of fiscal year

1997. The median noncompliance rate of sales to minors as reported by the

states was 40 percent, down from rates of 60 to 90 percent in pre-1997 studies. All states reported that they expected to achieve a maximum illegal

sales rate of 20 percent or less by fiscal year 2003 (U.S. DHHS, 1998b). 

The Food and Drug Administration Rule On August 23, 1996, the Food and

Drug Administration (FDA) asserted its authority to regulate nicotine as an

addictive drug and cigarettes as drug delivery devices. It issued its final rule

designed to reduce youth tobacco use by 50 percent in 7 years. The regulations were to be implemented in three phases. The first phase, which began

6 months after the rule’s publication, requires retailers to check the photo

ID of anyone under 27 and not to sell tobacco products to anyone under

age 18. The second phase, which was to go into effect on August 23, 1997,

contains a number of youth access provisions—most notably bans on free

samples and single cigarette sales—and includes the elimination of vending

machines and self-service displays, except in adult-only venues.

Additionally, a number of advertising restrictions were to be implemented, including a ban on outdoor advertising within 1,000 feet of

schools and a ban on all color and graphics in print advertising. The final

phase, originally intended to take effect 2 years after publication of the rule,

would have prohibited brand-name sponsorship of sporting, cultural, and

entertainment events. 

The FDA rule was immediately challenged by the tobacco industry

and its allies on a number of legal grounds. On April 25, 1997, the Federal

District Court in Greensboro, North Carolina upheld the FDA’s jurisdiction

over nicotine-containing products. The court also upheld all restrictions

involving youth access and labeling, but it invalidated on statutory grounds

the FDA’s restrictions on advertising and promotion of tobacco products.

Significantly, the judge did not rule that the FDA’s advertising and promotions restrictions violated the First Amendment, only that the FDA charter

did not give it sufficient authority. The Court allowed the proof-of-age

requirements, which were already operative, to remain in force. However,

though upholding the other youth access restrictions, the Court delayed

their implementation pending appeals. Both sides of the dispute appealed

those aspects of the District Court ruling that went against them.

On August 14, 1998, a three-member panel of the Fourth Circuit

Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s decision, striking down all of

the FDA’s 1996 regulations. The following month, the government petitioned the Court for a rehearing by either the three-member panel or by

the entire Fourth Circuit Court. Although the Court denied the government’s petition, the Department of Justice appealed the Fourth Circuit

Court’s ruling to the Supreme Court on January 21, 1999; the Supreme

Court has agreed to hear the case.

One issue of considerable concern to the tobacco control community

is FDA preemption. Because case law requires FDA regulations to be preemptive, whatever regulations are eventually implemented will preempt

stricter state and local laws. Preemption will apply to all issues addressed by
38

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

the FDA regulations, such as age, identification, vending machines, selfservice displays, and advertising—assuming the regulations are upheld.

However, in its regulations, the FDA has established a procedure whereby

state and local jurisdictions can appeal for exemption from preemption if

their legislation is stronger than the FDA regulation and will result in a benefit to the public. 

Enforcement Studies on interventions to reduce illegal youth access to tobacco

show that a major predictor of success in reducing sales to minors is active

local enforcement of laws prohibiting the sale of tobacco to minors

(Jacobson and Wasserman, 1997). Civil penalties are preferable to criminal

penalties, as youth access to tobacco is often a low priority for police and

the court system (Feighery et al., 1991; IOM, 1994). Civil offenses are generally handled administratively, and many local jurisdictions designate the

health department or the city manager as the enforcement agency. Rather

than being found guilty by a court of law, an offender may pay a fine or

lose his or her license to sell tobacco products.

There are 764 local ordinances containing one or more

youth access provisions listed in the monograph (see

Section II, Summary Table 2). Figure 9 shows the trends in the passage of

various types of local youth access legislation from 1987 through 1998.

Tobacco Vending Machine Ordinances—Vending machines account for a

relatively small percentage of total tobacco sales, but they account for 16

percent of sales to minors (OIG, 1990). Those sales are frequently to the

youngest customers (U.S. DHHS, 1994). Young children, often too intimiFindings: 

Youth Access Provisions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Self Service

Sampling

Licensing

Vending

Machines 

Banned

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Year

Number of Communities

Figure 9

Number of Communities Passing Major Youth Access Provisions by Year
Section I: The Role of Public Policy Change in Tobacco Control

dated to attempt over-the-counter purchases, have no such barrier when

facing a vending machine. 

Currently, a number of vending machine ordinances institute partial

bans that permit either (a) vending machines with locking devices, or (b)

the placement of machines in bars and other facilities from which minors

are excluded by law. The effectiveness of partial bans, however, is limited

(Forster et al., 1992; IOM, 1994; U.S. DHHS, 1994). The state of Utah and

the City of Seattle, Washington, for example, both passed legislation requiring locking devices, only to find them ineffective. Both states have gone on

to pass more restrictive ordinances. 

To date, 263 cities and counties have passed ordinances that completely ban tobacco vending machines (see Section II, Chart 4). If the courts

uphold the FDA regulations, all vending machines in areas accessible to

youth will be banned. Exceptions will be made only for vending machines

in adult-only venues that are placed at least 25 feet from any entrance.

Tobacco Self-Service Displays—Tobacco companies spend over $1 billion

per year in subsidies to retailers to ensure that tobacco products are openly

displayed and within easy reach of customers (Working Group AG, 1994).

Self-service displays in which tobacco products are featured prominently

near checkout counters are an important source of tobacco products for

minors. It is less intimidating to pick up a pack of cigarettes from a selfservice display than to request one from a clerk. Self-service displays are

also a source of tobacco via shoplifting (IOM, 1994), a fact that the tobacco

companies exploit to their benefit (Cooper, 1999). R.J. Reynolds distributed

a document called Pilferage in Perspective to convince retailers that theft is

no reason to abandon self-service displays, since slotting fees more than

make up for loss due to pilferage (R.J. Reynolds, n.d.).

Two hundred thirty-three (233) local jurisdictions have passed bans

on self-service displays. If the courts uphold the FDA regulations, all selfservice displays will be prohibited except in adult-only venues. 

Tobacco Sampling Bans—Both cigarette and chewing tobacco manufacturers distribute free product samples as part of their advertising and promotional activities. Typically, distribution of free samples is conducted in

locations where young people congregate: music concerts, county fairs, athletic events, and motor sports races (Davis and Jason, 1988).

Although most states prohibit the distribution of free samples to

underage youth, there is significant evidence that such laws are poorly

enforced (Davis and Jason, 1988). A survey of elementary and high school

students found that 20 percent of high school students and 4 percent of

elementary students reported receiving free samples, and approximately

half of elementary and high school students reported having seen children

and adolescents receive free samples (Davis and Jason, 1988). 

A total of 208 cities and counties have passed ordinances prohibiting

the distribution of free tobacco product samples or coupons for free samples

(see Section II, Chart 4). These ordinances typically eliminate free sampling

completely, or at minimum, do so on public property, such as sidewalks

39
Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

and fairgrounds. If the courts uphold the FDA regulations, the distribution

of free samples of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco will be prohibited. 

Single Cigarette Sales—Merchants sometimes remove cigarettes from

their package and sell them individually. This is a violation of the federal

prohibition on selling tobacco products without the required warning label,

but it is a practice that is widespread nonetheless. In a study of convenience

stores in a Southern California community, 49 percent of the stores sold

single cigarettes, and most were sold to minors (Klonoff et al., 1994). This

practice may mitigate the negative influence of increases in cigarette prices

on the purchasing habits of youth (IOM, 1994). 

One hundred twenty-one (121) local jurisdictions have enacted ordinances that prohibit single cigarette sales to youth. If the FDA regulations

are allowed to go into effect, they will prohibit the sale of cigarettes in anything less than packs of twenty. 

Licensing Tobacco Retailers—Requiring a license to sell tobacco products

provides localities with a mechanism to enforce merchants’ compliance

with laws prohibiting tobacco sales to minors. Merchants more carefully

monitor tobacco sales to minors when such sales jeopardize their license to

sell tobacco to adults. One city—Woodridge, Illinois—has carefully monitored its licensing ordinance and has found it extremely effective in reducing tobacco sales to minors, particularly over-the-counter sales (Jason et al.,

1991).

Only those ordinances that actually provide a mechanism for revoking or suspending a tobacco license for selling to minors are included in the

present document; 252 local jurisdictions have enacted such licensing ordinances (see Section II, Chart 4).

Youth Possession Laws—A growing trend is to pass or begin enforcing

laws that penalize youth for the purchase, possession, and/or use of tobacco. Such laws have a long history, dating back to the early part of the century (Cismoski, 1994). They are supported by some law enforcement agencies, in part because they can be used for other law enforcement goals. The

tobacco industry has also supported the enactment and enforcement of

youth possession laws (Pasternak, 1997; Wolfson and Hourigan, 1997). The

Institute of Medicine opposes imposing legal penalties on youth who

obtain tobacco products and recommends that existing penalties be

repealed (IOM, 1994).

To date, there are no well-designed studies suggesting that penalizing

youth for purchase, possession, or use of tobacco has any deterrent effect

on either the initiation of tobacco use or the consumption of tobacco products. In fact, some tobacco control experts suggest that such laws are either

ineffective or counterproductive (Carol, 1992; Cismoski, 1994; Jacobson

and Wasserman, 1997). Concerns that youth penalties shift the responsibility from adults to under-age youth have been validated; where youth possession laws are enacted, enforcement targeting the adult merchants who sell

to youth typically declines (Forster et al., 1996; Wolfson and Hourigan,

1997).

40
41

Section I: The Role of Public Policy Change in Tobacco Control

There are 156 local jurisdictions that have enacted ordinances allowing for the citation of youth for one or more of the following: purchase,

possession, or use of tobacco. In contrast, the FDA’s regulations do not

include penalties for any of the above activities.

The preemption clause of the Federal Cigarette

Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA) prevents

states and localities from regulating or prohibiting

cigarette advertising based on health-related reasons. In 1973, Utah enacted

a ban on most forms of tobacco advertising, including billboards; however,

the tobacco industry never filed a legal challenge of Utah’s law. In general,

however, the FCLAA preemption clause, coupled with First Amendment

concerns, has had a dampening effect on local ordinance development in

this area.

The first local advertising ordinance, which banned tobacco advertising on public transit, was adopted in 1987 by Amherst, Massachusetts. This

ground-breaking effort was not duplicated until the early 1990s, when a

handful of jurisdictions began passing restrictions on tobacco advertising,

again focusing on public transit. The tobacco industry did not legally challenge these early advertising ordinances, perhaps because they only covered

tobacco advertising on public and quasi-public systems.

Then, in 1994, a number of communities adopted broader restrictions

on tobacco advertising, either by prohibiting placement of outdoor tobacco

advertisements near youth-oriented venues (e.g., schools and playgrounds)

or by allowing outdoor tobacco advertisements only in locations zoned for

non-residential uses (e.g., industrial and commercial zones). Although the

bulk of these ordinances were passed in Massachusetts (Canton, Holyoke,

Dudley, Holliston, and Attleboro to name a few), the industry—apparently

wanting a high-profile target—filed a legal challenge to an advertising ordinance adopted by the city of Baltimore, Maryland. 

As intended, the lawsuit against Baltimore’s ordinance had a chilling

effect on further advertising ordinance development. However, following a

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling upholding the ordinance in 1996, an

immediate increase in local advertising ordinance enactment occurred (see

Figure 10).

The Food and Drug Administration’s proposed regulations, released

in 1996, further stimulated interest in tobacco advertising issues. Although

the industry’s legal challenge to the advertising provisions remains unresolved, if implemented, the FDA regulations will ban outdoor advertising

within 1,000 feet of schools and will ban all color and graphics from print

advertising, as well as prohibiting brand-name sponsorship of sporting, cultural, or entertainment events. 

The recent multi-state Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) settling

the state Attorneys General Medicaid lawsuits against the tobacco industry

includes a series of advertising restrictions. However, there are significant

HISTORY OF ADVERTISING

AND PROMOTION

LEGISLATION
42

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

exceptions in the agreement that will allow a number of tobacco ads to

remain in place. It is too early to determine the level of compliance with

the settlement provisions, or the ban’s effect on local advertising ordinance

development. Nor is it known whether the agreement will have any effect

on national advertising and promotional expenditures.

The major cigarette manufacturers spent $5.66 billion on all forms of

cigarette advertising and promotion in 1997, the last year for which data

are available—an increase of nearly 11 percent over the previous year’s

spending. Detailed data for 14 separate categories of advertising and promotional expenditure by the tobacco industry for calendar years 1996 and

1997 are presented in Table 3.

Legal Issues The effort to regulate tobacco advertising and promotion through

local ordinances requires careful attention to potential legal obstacles, most

notably potential preemption by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and

Advertising Act (FCLAA), and challenge under the Constitutional protection

of free speech.

FCLAA Preemption—In 1965, with passage of the Federal Cigarette

Labeling and Advertising Act, Congress required cigarettes to carry health

warning labels. In addition to providing the tobacco industry with significant protections against lawsuits brought by smokers, the FCLAA also

restricted state and local authority to regulate tobacco advertising with the

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Public Transit

Location/Zoning

Retail

Type of Restriction:

Year

Number of Ordinances.

Figure 10

Number of Ordinances Containing Advertising Restrictions by Year
43

Section I: The Role of Public Policy Change in Tobacco Control

following preemption clause: “No requirement or prohibition based on

smoking and health shall be imposed under State law with respect to the

advertising or promotion of any cigarettes the packages of which are

labeled in conformity with the provisions of this chapter” (Section 5 of the

Cigarette Act, 15 USC § 1334).

This clause is not all encompassing, however; it does allow for laws

that regulate tobacco advertising based on issues other than the relationship between smoking and health. Several court cases have interpreted the

scope of preemption under FCLAA.

In 1992, New York City adopted an ordinance requiring that one antismoking ad be run for every four tobacco ads run on city cabs. In a legal

challenge to the ordinance (Vango Media v. City of New York), the court ruled

that the city’s ordinance was preempted by FCLAA. The declarations section

of the ordinance stated that the ordinance’s purpose was to reduce economic costs to taxpayers, referring to health care benefits and lost productivity

caused by smoking. In addition, other parts of the ordinance made reference to the health risks of smoking.

In 1994, the city of Baltimore, Maryland adopted an ordinance

restricting tobacco and alcohol billboards in residential areas, making

exceptions for ads in stores, on commercial and public vehicles, in stadiums, on billboards by highways, and in certain industrially and commercially zoned neighborhoods. The stated purpose of Baltimore’s ordinance is

Newspapers $ 14,067 0.3 $ 16,980 0.3 + 20.7

Magazines $ 243,046 4.8 $ 236,950 4.2 - 2.5

Outdoor $ 292,261 5.7 $ 295,334 5.2 + 1.1

Transit $ 28,865 0.6 $ 26,407 0.5 - 8.5

Point of Sale $ 252,619 4.9 $ 305,360 5.4 + 20.9

Promotional Allowances $ 2,150,838 42.1 $ 2,438,468 43.1 + 13.4

Sampling Distribution $ 15,945 0.3 $ 22,065 0.4 + 38.4

Speciality Item Distribution $ 544,345 10.7 $ 512,602 9.6 - 5.8

Public Entertainment $ 171,177 3.4 $ 195,203 3.4 + 14.0

Direct Mail $ 38,703 0.8 $ 37,310 0.7 - 3.6

Endorsements/Testimonials* ----- -----

Coupons and Retail Value Added $ 1,308,708 25.6 $ 1,522,913 26.9 + 16.4

Internet $ 432 0.0 $ 215 0.0 - 50.2

All Others $ 46,696 0.9 $ 50,207 1.0 + 7.5

Totals $ 5,107,700 100.0 $ 5,660,014 100.0 + 10.8

*In 1989 the FTC required cigarette companies to declare whether any money or form of compensation had been paid to have any cigarette brand names or products appear in any motion picture or TV

shows. This practice has been reported as unfunded since 1989.

Source: Federal Trade Commission, 1999

Table 3

Domestic Cigarette Advertising and Promotion Expenditures—1996 & 1997 

(Thousands of Dollars)

% total % total Relative

Type of Advertising 1996 1996 1997 1997 Change % 
to reduce illegal sales to minors by reducing their exposure to advertising

that encourages the use of products they cannot legally purchase. It is thus

a law-enforcement issue, avoiding potential preemption under the FCLAA’s

prohibition against health-based legislation. 

The tobacco industry challenged the ordinance, but the Fourth

Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Baltimore ordinance was not preempted by FCLAA because it did not relate to the content of advertising but

rather to billboard location, and that it attacked a “particularly large and

attention-attracting medium while not unnecessarily interfering with local

businesses” (Penn Advertising v. City of Baltimore, U.S. Court of Appeals,

Fourth District, 1995).

Also in 1994, Preston, Minnesota adopted an ordinance prohibiting

point of sale tobacco advertising in stores, allowing only “tombstone”

advertising of price and tar/nicotine information. This ordinance failed to

withstand a legal challenge (Citgo One Stop v. City of Preston, U.S. District

Court, Third Division,1995). The court distinguished Preston’s ordinance

from the Baltimore ruling in two ways. First, the Baltimore ordinance was

designed only to reduce underage tobacco use. Preston, on the other hand,

made mention of health risks. Second, the Baltimore ordinance regulated

location but did not address content of tobacco ads, whereas the Preston

ordinance regulated content of tobacco ads.

First Amendment Issues—The U.S. Constitution provides for freedom of

speech, but not all forms of speech are protected and some forms of speech

are offered only limited protection. One type of speech afforded limited

protection is commercial speech, defined as speech that does no more than

propose a commercial transaction. The Supreme Court has prescribed the

four-part Central Hudson test to determine whether a particular restriction

on commercial speech is constitutional (Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v.

Public Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557, 1980). Accordingly, (1) the restriction

must deal with speech that is protected (that is, it must concern a lawful

activity and not be fraudulent or misleading); (2) there must be a substantial government interest in regulating it; (3) the restriction itself must

directly advance the government interest; and (4) the regulation must not

be more extensive than necessary to serve that interest; this last point does

not require the restriction to be the “least restrictive alternative,” only that

it be carefully tailored to its goals. Tobacco advertising ordinances can meet

the Central Hudson test, but to do so they need to identify the governmental

interest involved, provide evidence that the restriction will advance that

interest, and demonstrate that the restriction is sufficiently narrow in scope

and is targeted to meet its objective.

The first part of the Central Hudson test requires identifying the government interest involved. An advertising ordinance based on protecting

public health, however, risks preemption by the Federal Cigarette Labeling

and Advertising Act (FCLAA). State and local governments can regulate

tobacco advertising, but the regulations must further a state interest that is

different from “smoking and health.” 

44

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
45

Section I: The Role of Public Policy Change in Tobacco Control

Multi-State Master Settlement Agreement—In November of 1998, the

State Attorneys General signed a multi-state Master Settlement Agreement

(MSA) settling the state Medicaid lawsuits against the tobacco industry. As

of April 22, 1999, all tobacco billboards exceeding 14 square feet in area

were to be removed. The MSA also provides for the elimination of signs and

placards that are outdoors or on the surface of a window facing outward.

But there are significant exceptions—ads outside a tobacco manufacturing

facility; ads that are less than 14 square feet in area and are either outside a

tobacco retail store or inside the store on a window facing outward; ads

inside a tobacco retail store; ads outside an adult-only facility promoting a

tobacco company sponsored event within 14 days of the event; and billboards advertising the brand name sponsored event at the site of the event

for 100 days.

There are 68 local ordinances containing restrictions on

tobacco advertising, covering a population of 28 million

(see Section II, Summary Table 3).

Location Restrictions—In 1997, the tobacco industry spent $295.3 million on outdoor advertising (FTC, 1999).

Some communities, such as Fort Worth, TX and Warren, MI, ban outdoor tobacco advertising (e.g., billboards, free-standing signs, banners, etc.)

in designated areas (e.g., within 1,000 feet of schools and other youth-oriented venues). Some communities have set the minimum distance so that it

becomes a de facto ban on outdoor tobacco advertising (e.g., within 2 miles

of any school or playground). Others, such as Oakland, CA and Cleveland,

OH, allow outdoor tobacco advertising only within certain designated zones

(e.g., areas zoned for industrial uses, areas facing interstate highways). A

handful of communities, such as Seymour, CT and Dudley, MA, have eliminated outdoor tobacco advertising in all areas.

Advertising tactics used by the tobacco industry make it clear how

important location restrictions are to a successful tobacco control program.

A series of 1991 R. J. Reynolds memos outlines a plan of “having outdoor

suppliers locate near middle/junior high school locations.” Staff were sent

into communities to ensure that the company had not missed any nearschool placements, and suppliers were not to be paid for locations too far

away from schools (Harris, 1991a & b).

Through calendar year 1998, 47 communities have adopted ordinances that restrict or eliminate tobacco advertising by location or zone.

Public Transit Restrictions—Both transportation shelters and the vehicles themselves have been a popular advertising venue for tobacco products. In 1997, the tobacco industry spent $26.4 million on transit advertising (FTC, 1999). Children and the poor—traditional tobacco industry target

groups—comprise 60 to 70 percent of the ridership in cities with populations under one million (APTA, 1999).

Bans on public transit tobacco advertising have not been challenged

in court, perhaps because transportation systems are usually public or quasipublic entities, and policies restricting advertising on them are not treated

Findings: 

Advertising Restrictions
46

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

as broad regulations on advertisements in the private sector (Pertschuk and

Siegel-Morse, 1994).

Twenty-eight (28) communities have adopted ordinances that ban

tobacco advertising on public transit. In addition, a number of transit systems have adopted their own resolutions or policies banning tobacco advertising. These policies are not captured in the ANR Foundation’s database,

which includes only local ordinances adopted by city or county jurisdictions.

Retail Stores Restrictions—The tobacco industry spent over $2.74 billion

in 1997 on retailer-based point-of-sale advertising and promotional

allowances to encourage retailers to stock and promote their products (FTC,

1999). Studies of tobacco advertising patterns in both California and

Massachusetts documented that stores located within 1,000 feet of schools

have a higher average number of cigarette ads and promotions than do

stores outside the 1,000 foot radius (CA DHS, 1996; MA TCP, 1998).

Furthermore, the California study found that stores close to schools are

more likely to place tobacco ads near candy displays and at child’s-eye level.

Twenty-five (25) communities have adopted restrictions on tobacco

advertising in retail stores. The majority of these ordinances restrict “publicly visible” tobacco advertising (in the form of signs, banners, etc.) on

storefronts and windows that are visible from the street. Some, like Pierce

County, WA, extend retailer restrictions to all stores, while others, like St.

Louis, MO, affect only those stores within a specified distance of schools

and other youth-oriented venues. Other communities, like Deptford, NJ,

prohibit tobacco advertising placement at child’s-eye level.

Exemptions for Tombstone Advertising—Tombstone advertising is generic, black-and-white text-only advertising that provides information on price

and availability. Twenty-two (22) communities with restrictions on tobacco

advertising have allowed exemptions for tombstone advertising.

TOBACCO INDUSTRY RESPONSE Not surprisingly, the tobacco industry has

fought aggressively against local tobacco control ordinances (Samuels and

Glantz, 1990 & 1991; Advocacy Institute, 1995; Aguinaga and Glantz, 1995;

Ellis et al., 1996). In the early 1990s, the industry became increasingly concerned with local ordinance activity and developed a sophisticated national

strategy to defeat local ordinance development (Malmgren, 1992). 

In 1978, a secret public opinion survey conducted on behalf of the

Tobacco Institute concluded the following: 

“What the smoker does to himself may be his business, but what

the smoker does to the nonsmoker is quite a different matter. This

(the nonsmokers’ rights movement) we see as the most dangerous

development to the viability of the tobacco industry that has yet

occurred” (The Roper Organization, 1978). 
47

Section I: The Role of Public Policy Change in Tobacco Control

An internal Philip Morris document uncovered during the Minnesota

Medicaid case reiterates the industry’s concerns about smoke-free ordinances: 

“Financial impact of smoking bans will be tremendous. Three to five

fewer cigarettes per day per smoker will reduce annual manufacturers

profits a billion dollars plus per year” (Philip Morris, Inc., 1993).

The Attorneys General Medicaid lawsuits against the tobacco industry

have resulted in the availability of millions of pages of internal industry

documents. These documents have provided a wealth of information confirming the tobacco industry’s long-held antipathy to local ordinance development and have outlined its strategies to thwart such development. These

strategies include discrediting legitimate scientific research, forming smokers’ rights and business front groups, promoting ineffective prevention or

policy programs as alternatives to legislation, filing legal challenges against

local ordinances, and promoting state and federal legislation to preempt

local tobacco control ordinances.

An internal memo from Philip Morris, Inc. outlines the tobacco company’s strategy to oppose local ordinances in California during the height

of local ordinance enactment in that state (Merlo, 1994), a strategy that has

since been used in other states. The strategy included filing a legal challenge as “co-plaintiff along with local business people” against San

Francisco’s smoke-free workplace ordinance; introduction of “smoking

accommodation” ordinances to “confound the antis” and forestall smokefree ordinance development in other jurisdictions; and the introduction by

“three independent business and/or association members” of a statewide

initiative to preempt smoke-free ordinances.

Discrediting Research The tobacco industry has a long history of disputing the

links between smoking and disease. A Wall Street Journal article described

the tobacco industry’s activities as “the longest-running misinformation

campaign in U.S. business history” (Freedman and Cohen, 1993).

The industry’s campaign to discredit the scientific evidence implicating ETS as a cause of disease in nonsmokers began years before the groundbreaking 1986 Surgeon General’s Report on involuntary smoking. In 1978, a

Roper Organization report for the Tobacco Institute made the following recommendation: “The strategic and long run antidote to the passive smoking

issue is, as we see it, developing and publicizing clear-cut, credible, medical

evidence that passive smoking is not harmful to the nonsmokers’ health”

(The Roper Organization, 1978).

The industry vigorously attacked both the 1990 draft and the 1993

final Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Risk Assessment report. The industry began by challenging the report’s finding that ETS was a Group A carcinogen during the public comment period. The majority of submissions

(71 percent) received by the EPA claiming the conclusions to be invalid

were from individuals affiliated with the tobacco industry (Bero and Glantz,

1993). Following the release of the EPA’s completed report, six tobacco-related organizations filed a lawsuit against the EPA in federal court asking the
48

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

court to “declare that the EPA’s classification of ETS is wrong as a matter of

law and science.” 

On July 17, 1998, North Carolina District Court Judge William L.

Osteen vacated the EPA's classification of ETS as a known human (Group A)

carcinogen (Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative v. EPA, U.S. District Ct., LEXIS

10986, 1998). He did not, however, invalidate the EPA's extensive findings

regarding secondhand smoke and respiratory disorders other than lung cancer. The EPA will appeal Judge Osteen’s ruling. 

In 1995, the tobacco industry began disseminating a study by the

Congressional Research Service (CRS), claiming that the study refutes the

EPA report (Perske, 1996; Chwat, 1995). However, the CRS study does not

dispute the EPA’s finding that secondhand smoke is a known human carcinogen, and one of the study’s authors has stated that the study was being

misinterpreted or selectively referred to out of context by clean indoor air

opponents (Jalsevac, 1996).

Tobacco industry sponsored research disputing the health effects of

ETS often relies on non-peer-reviewed literature and typically focuses on

individual studies, while ignoring the full body of scientific evidence (Bero

and Glantz, 1993). In addition, newly released documents from the

Minnesota Medicaid trial show that the tobacco industry paid scientists up

to $10,000 to draft letters critical of the EPA’s 1993 ETS report. The letter

writing campaign was organized by the Tobacco Institute and two of the

industry’s law firms—Covington & Burling and Shook, Hardy & Bacon. In

the majority of cases, the letter writers did not reveal that they had been

paid by the tobacco industry for their services (Hanners, 1998b), nor did

they reveal that the attorneys from both law firms often reviewed and

approved all text prior to publication.

The tobacco industry and its allies have also attacked individual scientists engaged in tobacco-related research. In 1997, the Philip Morris-funded

National Smokers’ Alliance sponsored a lawsuit against University of

California researcher Stanton A. Glantz, 3 years after the release of his study

in the American Journal of Public Health on the economic impact of smokefree restaurant ordinances. The lawsuit was eventually dismissed with prejudice from a California court (Californians for Scientific Integrity v. University of

California, 1997). 

Smokers’ Rights and Business Front Groups A 1982 study conducted for the

Tobacco Institute found that “overt industry opposition to proposed nonsmokers’ rights legislation actually increased support for the legislation”

(Samuels and Glantz, 1991). As one Tobacco Institute lobbyist noted, “I’ve

learned from experience that as soon as I’m identified as a representative of

the Tobacco Institute, I lose all credibility so I try to work behind the scenes

whenever I can” (Stumbo, 1986). In response, the tobacco industry has

sought out intermediary groups to carry its message (Merlo, 1993), funding

smokers’ rights and business front groups to oppose tobacco control ordinance development. 
49

Section I: The Role of Public Policy Change in Tobacco Control

The tobacco industry generally hires professional public affairs and

political consulting firms to conceal their involvement in local ordinance

campaigns (Brass, 1993; Ferris, 1991; Samuels and Glantz, 1991; Traynor et

al., 1993). Firms hired by the industry create other organizations that have

the appearance of independent business groups, using neutral names such

as Restaurants for a Sound Voluntary Policy (RSVP) or the California

Business and Restaurant Alliance (CBRA) (McAdam, 1991). Following the

release of internal documents in the Minnesota Medicaid lawsuit, the

Tobacco Institute was forced to acknowledge previously unreported funding

that it had provided to the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association,

an ostensibly independent trade association that had opposed local smokefree ordinances and promoted a state preemption bill in New York state

(Levy, 1998). 

In other cases, the industry identifies existing organizations that are

willing to accept industry support to oppose local ordinances. Internal documents outline the industry’s strategy to use groups like the California

Grocers Association and the Mexican American Grocers Association to “preempt future groundswell of severe local level point-of-sale restrictions, protect PM point-of-sale retain/marketing strategies, visibility and promotion.”

The action plan outlines how the industry would work within targeted

cities and counties and shows their intention to expand their association

relations to include the “Korean Grocers Association, Northern California

Grocers Association, local Chambers of Commerce and other organizations”

(Philip Morris, Inc., [1994]; Tansey, 1998).

In addition to business front groups, the tobacco industry also supports smokers’ rights groups (McAdam, 1991; Malmgren, 1992; Stone,

1996), which generally attempt to portray themselves as independent grassroots organizations (Figure 11). The most active such group is the National

Smokers Alliance (NSA), launched in 1993 with over $7 million in seed

money from Philip Morris (Levin, 1998). Internal industry documents show

that the NSA was formed for Philip Morris by the public relations firm

Burson-Marsteller, which also helped create the Tobacco Institute (Philip

Morris, Inc., n.d. & 1994a; Burson-Marsteller, [1986]). Although the NSA

promotes itself as a member-supported, grass-roots organization (Rosen,

1996; Harrold, 1998; Bell, 1998), Internal Revenue Service documents show

that in 1996, when total receipts were over $9 million, the NSA collected

just under $74,000 in membership dues (Levin, 1998).

Tobacco industry representatives have instructed smokers’ rights

groups to conceal any industry support they receive (Samuels and Glantz,

1991; ANR Foundation, 1999). Even when smokers’ rights groups don’t

receive direct financial support from the tobacco industry, they often

receive in-kind support in the form of access to public relations and political consultants, tobacco company mailing lists, and other materials

(brochures, reports, tee-shirts, stickers, etc.) (Dunsmore, 1995; Ferris, 1991;

Samuels and Glantz, 1991).
50

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Smokers’ rights and business front groups undertake a number of

activities in their efforts to undermine local clean indoor air efforts, including monitoring of ordinance campaigns (Traynor et al., 1993), meetings

with local businesses to generate opposition to a proposed law (Napoles,

1992; Ferris, 1991; Brass, 1993), ghost-writing letters from businesses claiming negative economic impact as a result of ordinances (Mazzocco, 1992;

Howard, 1992; Jacobs, 1992), and organizing referendum campaigns against

enacted ordinances (Traynor et al., 1993).

Promoting Ineffective Alternatives Clean Indoor Air—R. J. Reynolds, Philip

Morris, and the Tobacco Institute have all developed their own “clean

indoor air” programs and materials. These programs, often labeled

Accommodation or Red Light - Green Light, typically restrict smoking in public

places to designated smoking areas, then require businesses to post signs.

The industry, often working through its business allies, promotes these

alternative “clean indoor air” proposals to forestall the passage and implementation of clean indoor air ordinances (Merlo, 1994). An internal document summarizes the tobacco industry’s position that “Accommodation is a

better alternative to more legislation” (Philip Morris, Inc., 1994b).

Element 1

Point of Sale

Protection Program

Element 2

AB 13 Restaurant

Accommodation

Program

Element 3

California Tavern

Association

California Action Plan

Calif. Business

& Restaurant

Alliance

PM Direct

Communication

San Diego

Tavern &

Restaurant 

Assoc.

Northern Calif.

Tavern &

Restaurant

Assoc.

Dolphin Group, Inc.

PHILIP MORRIS, INC.

Source: [n.a.] "California action plan", Philip Morris (PM) Web Site: http://www.philipmorris.com, [1994].

Figure 11

Organizational Chart of Philip Morris, Inc. Front Groups in California
51

Section I: The Role of Public Policy Change in Tobacco Control

The first “accommodation program” was introduced in 1987 in

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania as part of Philip Morris’ strategy to derail the city’s

ordinance restricting smoking in restaurants (Samuels et al., 1992). Since

then, these types of proposals have been introduced to forestall proposed

clean indoor air ordinances in communities throughout the country, from

Montrose, CO to Niagara County, NY; Spokane, WA; and Monongalia

County, WV.

Youth Access and Youth Prevention—The tobacco industry has actively

promoted its own youth access and youth prevention materials. Philip

Morris, R.J. Reynolds, and the Tobacco Institute each sponsor programs

with the stated purpose of encouraging merchant compliance with laws

prohibiting the sale of tobacco to minors. Under various names, these programs involve the distribution of such things as window stickers, signs,

training materials, calendars indicating the birth date required for legal

tobacco sales, and other educational enhancements. Though often released

with great fanfare, these programs have been demonstrated to be ineffective

in curtailing youth’s ability to purchase tobacco (DiFranza et al., 1996). 

The tobacco industry has also developed educational materials for use

by youth, parents, and schools. Under such headings as Helping Youth Say

No and Right Decisions, Right Now, the programs are ostensibly designed to

discourage tobacco use among teens. The materials are offered free of

charge, and many financially strapped school districts utilize them. Key

themes running throughout the program are that peer pressure is a major

cause of teen smoking and that smoking is an adult decision. The peer pressure thesis is not only an oversimplication of research, but contains the

false subtext that smoking is the norm among teens. The theme about

smoking as an adult choice plays into the “forbidden fruit” motif common

to tobacco advertising (DiFranza and McAfee, 1992). 

Recently released tobacco industry documents suggest that the real

motives behind the industry’s youth access and youth prevention programs

are to deflect political pressure, avoid government regulation, and promote

a positive corporate image (Hanners, 1998a). For example, an internal

Philip Morris document reveals how that company used its relationship

with the California Grocer’s Association to promote weak point of sale

advertising restrictions in an effort to prevent a “future groundswell of

severe local level point of sale restrictions” (Philip Morris, [1994]). 

Legal Challenges To forestall pending ordinances, or repeal enacted ones, the

tobacco industry and its business allies often threaten legal action (Merlo,

1994; Fogel, 1994). Although these threats are generally not followed

through, and if filed, lose more often than not, the industry knows that

such lawsuits can have a chilling effect on other jurisdictions, many of

which will postpone ordinance development until any legal challenges are

resolved. In 1994, Puyallup, Washington repealed the state’s first local

smoke-free restaurant ordinance following a legal challenge filed by local

restaurant owners supported financially by R.J. Reynolds. Although city

officials believed the court would have upheld the ordinance, they did not
52

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

have the financial resources to match the industry’s “bottomless pockets”

(Suttle, 1994). To date, no other Washington state local jurisdiction has

enacted a smoke-free ordinance of any type.

Constitutional Challenges—With a few limited exceptions, recent legal

challenges against clean indoor air and youth access ordinances have failed.

This includes challenges brought under the Equal Protection Clause and the

Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Ordinances are most susceptible to these types of legal challenges when they don’t take adequate steps

to achieve their purpose of protecting nonsmokers from ETS. In Alford v.

City of Newport News (1979), a weak local law in Virginia restricting smoking

in restaurants was invalidated on the grounds that it failed to achieve its

express purpose of protecting nonsmokers.

Regulatory Authority Challenges—Local tobacco control regulations

adopted by local regulatory agencies, such as health boards and commissions, are somewhat more vulnerable to legal challenges. Although regulations adopted by health departments and boards of health in the states of

Massachusetts, West Virginia, and New York have been upheld, the authority of these agencies to adopt smoking restrictions varies from state to state.

Preemption Challenges—Having had relatively little success filing constitutional challenges, the industry more frequently has filed legal challenges claiming preemption under state law. In Corvallis, Oregon and

Marquette, Michigan, tobacco industry allies filed suits against the first

smoke-free restaurant ordinances in each respective state. In each case, the

state restaurant association argued that state law preempted stronger local

ordinances. Oregon courts upheld the local ordinance in Corvallis (Oregon

Restaurant Association v. City of Corvallis, Oregon Circuit Court Case No. 97-

10260), but a lower Michigan court overturned Marquette’s ordinance

(Michigan Restaurant Association v. City of Marquette, Michigan Court of

Appeals Docket No. 217232, Circuit Court Case No. 98-35362).

In several states, vending machine companies—often with financial

support from the tobacco industry—have sued communities over vending

machine ordinances under preemption claims (Levin, 1991). The bulk of

these lawsuits have failed; however, some suits claiming preemption of

vending machine restrictions under state tax law have been upheld

(Tapscott, 1993).

Enactment of Preemptive Legislation The tobacco industry has found its

opposition to local ordinance enactment relatively ineffective when compared to its power at the state and federal levels, and it considers local ordinances a significant threat (Malmgren, 1992). In 1986, a tobacco executive

was quoted in the U.S. Tobacco and Candy Journal as saying, “Our record in

defeating state smoking restrictions has been reasonably good. Unfortunately our record with respect to local measures...has been somewhat less

encouraging...Over time, we can lose the battle over smoking restrictions

just as decisively in bits and pieces—at the local level—as with state or federal measures” (Pritchard, 1986).
53

Section I: The Role of Public Policy Change in Tobacco Control

In the mid-1980s, faced with an increasing amount of local legislative

activity and recognizing its relative vulnerability at the local level, the

tobacco industry found an effective antidote to local tobacco control ordinances: preemption. 

Preemptive legislation is defined as legislation that includes a provision preventing local jurisdictions from enacting laws more stringent than,

or at a variance with, what the state (or federal) law mandates (CDC,

1999b). There are two broad categories of preemption—explicit (or express)

preemption, in which preemptive language is expressly written into the

law, and implicit preemption, which is implied rather than explicitly stated

in the law. Implicit preemption occurs when Congress or a state legislature

adopts comprehensive regulations on a subject that are later interpreted by

the courts to “occupy the field” being regulated and therefore preclude

inconsistent local (or state) regulation.

In 1985, the tobacco industry supported the passage of the first preemptive state tobacco control law in Florida; the law not only precluded

future local clean indoor air laws, it also wiped out a handful of clean

indoor air ordinances already enacted by local jurisdictions in the state. The

tobacco industry quickly recognized that preemption was the most effective

measure for countering local tobacco control ordinances, and the promotion of preemptive legislation at the state and federal level has now become

the tobacco industry’s chief strategy for eradicating local tobacco control

ordinances (Skolnick, 1995; Ellis et al., 1996). In 1989, the Tobacco Institute

identified preemption of local smoking and youth access restrictions as its

“proactive” legislative goal for the 1990 legislative session (Malmgren,

1989).

Numerous internal industry documents released as part of the state

Attorneys General Medicaid lawsuits confirm the industry’s commitment to

enacting preemption (Tobacco Institute, 1989; Malmgren, 1989; Donoho

and Morris, 1993; Malmgren, 1993). In 1994, the tobacco industry spent at

least $18.9 million in California to qualify and promote a state-wide ballot

measure, Proposition 188, which would have repealed all local tobacco control ordinances in the state, and wiped out local authority to enact new

ordinances (Siegel et al., 1997).

In consultation with two senior California state legislators, tobacco

executives developed a ‘sheep in wolves clothing’ preemption strategy

spelled out in a 1991 Smokeless Tobacco Council memo: tobacco-friendly

legislators introduce “a Comprehensive Tobacco Control Act along the lines

of the alcohol model attempt[ing] to make the Tobacco Control Act as close

as possible in “appearance” to the concepts that the anti-tobacco groups

were fostering. The concept behind the bill was to be that the tobacco companies appeared to be against the bill” (Kerrigan, 1991). To achieve preemption, the tobacco industry has influenced legitimate anti-tobacco bills to

insert preemption language (Feder, 1996) and hidden its activity behind

legitimate trade associations that publicly sponsor and promote preemption

bills with the support of their tobacco industry allies (Siegel et al., 1997;

Zimmerman, 1996).
54

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Figures 12a & 12b show how effective a strategy preemption has been

for the tobacco industry. In 1989, the Surgeon General’s report noted three

states with preemption legislation on the books (U.S. DHHS, 1989); by

1991, the number had increased to seven (NCI, 1991). By 1998, a total of

30 states had some form of preemption in tobacco control—14 preempt

some or all clean indoor air ordinances, 22 preempt some or all youth

access ordinances, and 17 preempt some or all tobacco advertising and promotion ordinances (ALA, 1998; CDC, 1999a & b). 

In some states, preemption is narrow in its coverage; Massachusetts,

for instance, preempts local ordinances restricting the sale of cigarette

papers. In others, such as Oklahoma, preemption eliminates local jurisdiction over all aspects of tobacco control, from smoking regulations, to youth

access measures to advertising and promotion restrictions (See Appendix to

Section II). Of all the states with preemption, only Maine has successfully

organized to overturn preemption in a state law, repealing in 1997 a provision preempting enactment of ordinances restricting tobacco displays.

Regardless of how they are worded, laws that preempt the ability of

local jurisdictions to pass tobacco control ordinances have a wide range of

negative effects on tobacco control efforts in general. These negative effects

include:

Elimination of local policy development—the level where tobacco industry opposition is least effective (Siegel et al., 1997; Ellis

et al., 1996; Conlisk et al., 1995);

Establishment of weak statewide public health standards which

cannot be strengthened at the local level (Siegel et al., 1997;

Conlisk et al., 1995); and

Division of tobacco control coalitions (Siegel et al., 1997;

Jacobson et al., 1993).

In light of these effects, the major public health organizations have

adopted formal positions opposing preemption in tobacco control legislation. These organizations include the three leading voluntary health agencies (the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, and the

American Lung Association); the American Public Health Association; the

Association of State and Territorial Health Officials; the Institute of

Medicine; and the American Medical Association. The U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, Healthy People 2000 Objectives, Midcourse

Review, 1995 calls for states to repeal laws which preempt stronger local

clean indoor air laws (U.S. DHHS, 1996). 

Since 1996, the number of preemption bills enacted by state legislatures has fallen off somewhat (CDC, 1999a)(Figures 12a & 12b). This was

the year an inter-agency team calling itself the “Preemption Strike-force”

was formed; members included the Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights, the

American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, the American

Heart Association, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. This ad hoc
55

Section I: The Role of Public Policy Change in Tobacco Control

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Cumulative Number of

Preemptive Provisions

Marketing

Smoke-free

Indoor Air

Minors'

Access

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Figure 12a

Cumulative Number of Local Tobacco-Control Ordinances Preempted by

State Laws by Year Preemptive Law Became Effective—United States, 1982-1998

Year

Number of Provisions

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Year

Number of States

Figure 12b

Cumulative Number of States with Preemptive Clauses—United States, 1982-1998

Source: Both figures above are from CDC,1999a
56

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

coalition provides technical assistance and support to state coalitions on

how to prevent enactment of preemption legislation. Nonetheless, by the

end of 1998, more than half of all states (30 states) have preemption provisions in their tobacco control laws. Six states have passed preemptive laws

since 1995.

Administrative Management Society. Ninth Annual

Smoking Policies Survey. Employee Relations

Weekly 7: 370, 1989.

Advocacy Institute. By hook or by crook, stealth lobbying: Tactics and counterstrategies. Washington,

D.C.: Advocacy Institute, August 1995.

Aguinaga, S., Glantz, S.A.. The use of public records

acts to interfere with tobacco control. Tobacco

Control 4:222-230, 1995.

American Lung Association. State Legislated Actions

on Tobacco Issues. Washington, D.C.: American

Lung Association, 1998.

American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation. The

Hidden War: Big Tobacco’s Stealth Strategy videodocumentary. Berkeley, CA, 1999.

American Public Transit Association. Americans in

Transit. New York, NY, 1999.

Bartosch, W., Pope, G. The economic effect of

smoke-free restaurant policies on restaurant business in Massachusetts. Journal of Public Health

Management and Practice 5(1):53-62, 1999.

Bell, D. ‘Big tobacco’ weighs in against Prop 200:

Virginia-based Smokers Alliance spends $5,000

in campaign. Today’s News Herald, September 3,

1998.

Bero, L.A., Glantz, S.A. Tobacco industry response to

a risk assessment of environmental tobacco

smoke. Tobacco Control 2:103-113, 1993.

Bierer, M., Rigotti, N. Public policy for the control

of tobacco-related disease. Medical Clinics of

North America 76(2):515-539, 1992.

Bolinder, G., Alfedsson, L., Englund, A., de Faire, U.

Smokeless tobacco use and increased cardiovascular mortality among Swedish construction

workers. American Journal of Public Health

84:399-404, 1994.

Boyd, G.M. et al. Use of smokeless tobacco among

children and adolescents in the United States.

Preventive Medicine 167:402-421, 1987

Boyd, G.M., Glover, E.D. Smokeless tobacco use by

youth in the U.S. Journal of School Health 59:189-

194, 1989.

Brandt, A.M. Recruiting women smokers: the engineering of consent. Journal of the American

Medical Women’s Association 51(1&2):63-66,

1996.

Brass, K. Tobacco industry tied to smoking ban

opposition. Los Angeles Times, August 5, 1993.

Brauer, M., Mannetje, A. Restaurant smoking restrictions and environmental tobacco smoke exposure. American Journal of Public Health

88(12):1834-1836, 1998.

Bureau of National Affairs (BNA). SHRM-BNA survey

no. 55: Smoking in the workplace: 1991.

Bulletin to Management, August 29, 1991.

Burson-Marsteller. Philip Morris and Burson-Marsteller:

A partnership. Burson-Marsteller internal document. Philip Morris (PM) Website

(www.pmdocs.com): BATES Number

2046875317. [August 1986].

California Department of Health Services. Tobacco

marketing in California. California Department of

Health Services, Tobacco Control Section, June

1996.

REFERENCES
Section I: The Role of Public Policy Change in Tobacco Control

57

Capreol, G. Memo to C. Alverson, Re: San Francisco

and California. Minnesota Tobacco Litigation.

BATES Number 2045891103. November 3, 1993.

Carol, J. It’s a good idea to criminalize purchase and

possession of tobacco by minors—NOT! Tobacco

Control 1:296-297, 1992.

Carol, J., Hobart R. Restrictions make sense: smokers have responsibility not to harm nonsmokers.

USA Today, June 15, 1998, p. 18A.

Cooper, M. Tempting teens with tobacco: critics say

tobacco companies lure kids to steal. CBS

Evening News, April 12, 1999.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Changes in the cigarette brand preferences of

adolescent smokers—United States, 1989-1993.

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 43:577-581,

1994.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Assessment of the impact of a 100% smoke-free

ordinance on restaurant sales. Morbidity and

Mortality Weekly Report 44:370-372, 1995.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Tobacco use and usual source of cigarettes

among high school students—United States,

1995. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report

45(No. 45):413-418, 1996a.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Projected smoking-related deaths among youth—

United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly

Report 45(No. 44):971-974, 1996b.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Youth

Risk Behavior Surveillance—United States, 1995.

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 45(No. SS4):1-86, 1996c.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigar

smoking among teenagers—United States,

Massachusetts and New York, 1996. Morbidity

and Mortality Weekly Report 46:433-440, 1997.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Incidence of initiation of cigarette smoking—

United States, 1965-1996. Morbidity and Mortality

Weekly Report 47:837-840, 1998a.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Tobacco use among high school students—

United States, 1997. Morbidity and Mortality

Weekly Report 47(12):229-233, 1998b.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Preemptive state tobacco-control laws—United

States, 1982-1998. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly

Report 48:1112-1114, 1999a.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. State

Laws on Tobacco Control—United States, 1998.

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 48(SS-3):21-

69, 1999b.

Chaloupka, F., Grossman, M. Price, tobacco control

policies and youth smoking. Cambridge, MA:

National Bureau of Economic Research Working

Paper 5740. September 1996.

Chwat, J. Memo to NLBA Government Affairs

Committee Re: CRS Report. Chwat & Company,

Inc., Washington, D.C., November 15, 1995.

Cismoski, J. Blinded by the light: the folly of tobacco possession laws against minors. Wisconsin

Medical Journal 93(11)591-598, 1994.

Conlisk, E., Siegel, M., Lengerich, V., MacKenzie, W.,

Malek, S., Eriksen, M. The status of local smoking regulations in North Carolina following a

state preemption bill. Journal of the American

Medical Association 273:805-807, 1995.

Consumer Reports. Self-serving surveys: The 30 percent

myth, in public interest pretenders: that group with

the do-good name may not be what it seems.

Consumer Reports 59(5):316-320, 1994.

Cummings, M.K. Economic Impact of the New York

City Smoke-Free Air Act. Roswell Park Cancer

Institute. 1997.

Davis, R.M. Current trends in cigarette advertising

and marketing. New England Journal of Medicine

316(12):725-732, 1987.

Davis, R.M., Jason, L.A. The distribution of free cigarette samples to minors. American Journal of

Preventive Medicine 4:21-26, 1988.

DiFranza, J.R., Carlson, R.R., Caisse, R.E.J. Reducing

youth access to tobacco. Tobacco Control 1:58,

1992.

DiFranza, J.R., McAfee, T. The Tobacco Institute:

helping youth say "yes" to tobacco. Journal of

Family Practice 34: 694-699, 1992.

DiFranza, J.R., Savageau, J.A., Aisquith, B.F. Youth

access to tobacco: The effects of age, gender,

vending machine locks, and "It’s the Law" programs. American Journal of Public Health

86(2):221-224, 1996.

Donoho, P., Morris, R. Memo To Member Company

Attendees. Re: Lobbyists’ meeting - preemption exercise. Minnesota Tobacco Litigation: ATX 09

0045377. August 30, 1993.

Dunsmore, P. Smoking gun? Tobacco company may

be linked to smoking fliers. Times Record News

88(349): p. 1A+, May 5, 1995.

Eisner, M.D., Smith, A.K., Blanc, P.D. Bartenders’

respiratory health after establishment of smokefree bars and taverns. Journal of the American

Medical Association 280(22):1909-1914, 1998.

Ellis, G.A., Hobart, R.L., Reed, D.F. Overcoming a

powerful tobacco lobby in enacting local smoking ordinances: the Contra Costa County experience. Journal of Public Health Policy 17(1):28-46,

1996.

Evans, N., Farkas, A., Gilpin, E., Berry, C., Pierce, J.

Influence of tobacco marketing and exposure to

smokers on adolescent susceptibility to smoking.

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

87(20):1538-1544, 1995.

Feder, B.J. Federal rule intensifies smoking fight in

states. New York Times, March 15, 1996.

Federal Trade Commission. Report to Congress for

1997, Pursuant to the Federal Cigarette Labeling and

Advertising Act. Federal Trade Commission, 1999.
Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

58

Feighery, E., Altman, D., Shaffer, G. The effects of

combining education and enforcement to reduce

tobacco sales to minors: a study of four Northern

California communities. Journal of the American

Medical Association 266(22):3163-3171, 1991.

Ferris, J. Smoke screen clouds tobacco industry

action. Contra Costa Times, June 23, 1991, sec.

1A+.

Fielding, J., Piserchia, P. Frequency of worksite

health promotion activities. American Journal of

Public Health 79(1):16-20, 1989.

Flinn, J. No tobacco laws have tobacco industry

fuming. San Francisco Examiner, May 12, 1991.

Fogel, B. Testimony before the New York City

Council. June 6, 1994. 

Forster, J., Hourigan, M.E., Kelder, S. Locking

devices on cigarette vending machines:

Evaluation of a city ordinance. American Journal

of Public Health 82:1217-1219, 1992.

Forster, J.L., Komro, K.A., Wolfson, M. Survey of city

ordinances and local enforcement regarding

commercial availability of tobacco to minors in

Minnesota, United States. Tobacco Control

5(1):46-51, 1996.

Forster, J.L., Murray, D.M., Wolfson, M., Blaine, T.M.,

Wagenaar, A.C., Hennrikus, D.J. The effects of

community policies to reduce youth access to

tobacco. American Journal of Public Health 88:

1193-1198, 1998.

Freedman, A.M., Cohen, L.P. Smoke and mirrors:

how cigarette makers keep health questions

‘open’ year after year. Wall Street Journal,

February 11, 1993.

Frodyma, F. Acting Director of Policy, Letter to I.

Sharenow. Department of Labor, Occupational

Safety and Health Administration. Washington,

D.C., February 27, 1998.

Garfinkle, L. Time trends in lung cancer mortality

among nonsmokers and a note on passive smoking. Journal of the National Cancer Institute

66(6):1061, June 1981.

Gerlach, K., Shopland, D., Hartman, A.., Gibson, J.,

Pechacek, T. Workplace smoking policies in the

United States: results from a national survey of

more than 100,000 workers. Tobacco Control

6(3):199-206, 1997. 

Glantz, S.A., Smith, L.R.A. The effect of ordinances

requiring smokefree restaurants on restaurant

sales. American Journal of Public Health

84(7):1081-1085, 1994.

Glantz, S.A. Preventing tobacco use: the youth

access trap. American Journal of Public Health

86(2):156-157. 1996

Glantz, S.A., Smith, L.R.A. The effect of ordinances

requiring smoke-free restaurants and bars on revenues: A follow-up. American Journal of Public

Health 87(10):1687-1693, 1997.

Glantz, S.A. Back to basics: getting smoke-free workplaces back on track. Tobacco Control 6:164-166,

1997.

Glantz, S.A., Charlesworth, A. The effect of smokefree restaurant ordinances on tourism. Journal of

the American Medical Association 281(20): 1911-

1918, 1999.

Goebel, K. Lesbians and gays face tobacco targeting.

Tobacco Control 3:65-67, 1994.

Goldstein, A.O., Sobel, R.A. Environmental tobacco

smoke regulations have not hurt restaurant sales

in North Carolina. North Carolina Medical Journal

59(5):284-287, 1998.

Hanners, D. Tobacco industry waged false battle

against youth smoking. St. Paul: Pioneer Press,

August 26, 1998a.

Hanners, D. Scientists were paid to write letters: tobacco industry sought to discredit EPA report. St. Paul

Pioneer Press, August 4, 1998b.

Hanauer, P., Barr, G., Glantz, S. Legislative Approaches

to a Smoke Free Society. Berkeley, CA: American

Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation. 1986.

Harris, T.C. Re: OOH - near school and bulletins. RJ

Reynolds Website (www.rjrtdocs.com): BATES

Numbers 511999051-9052. November 26,

1991a.

Harris, T.C. Re: OOH plan. RJ Reynolds Website

(www.rjrtdocs.com): BATES Numbers 511999046-

9048. December 4, 1991b.

Harrold, R. National group eyes proposed smoking

ban. Morning Sun, March 9, 1998.

He, J., Vupputuri, S., Allen, K., Prerost, M.R., Hughes,

J., Whelton, P.K. Passive smoking and the risk of

coronary heart disease—A meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies. New England Journal of

Medicine 340(12): 920-926, March 25, 1999.

Hinds, M.W. Impact of a local ordinance banning

tobacco sales to minors. Public Health Reports

107:356-358, 1992.

Hirayama, T. Non-smoking wives of heavy smokers

have a higher risk of lung cancer: A study from

Japan. British Medical Journal 282(6259):183-185,

1981.

Howard, S. Smoking battle ignites: Bellflower politicians join with tobacco giant Philip Morris to

fight a smoking ban in Loma Linda. San

Bernardino Sun, October 12, 1992.

Hyland, A., Cummings, K.M., Nauenberg, E.

Analysis of taxable sales receipts: was New York

City’s smoke-free air act bad for restaurant business? Journal of Public Health Management and

Practice 5(1):14-21, 1999.

InContext, Inc. Economic impact of smoking restrictions in Massachusetts. Conducted for the

Massachusetts Restaurant Association.

Washington, D.C.: InContext, Inc., September

30, 1996.

Institute of Medicine. The Future of Public Health.

Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press,

1988.

Institute of Medicine. Growing up Tobacco Free:

Preventing Nicotine Addiction in Children and

Youths. Washington, D.C.: National Academy

Press, 1994.
Section I: The Role of Public Policy Change in Tobacco Control

59

ISCOSH. Report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco

and Health: fifth report. London: HMSO, 1998

Jacobs, A.J. Sparks fly - bar’s letter just a smokescreen? Daily Ledger-Post Dispatch, July 11,

1992.

Jacobson, P.D., Wasserman, J., Raube, K. The politics

of antismoking legislation. Journal of Health

Politics, Policy and Law 18(4):787-819, 1993.

Jacobson, P., Wasserman, J. Tobacco Control Laws:

Implementation and Enforcement. Santa Monica,

CA: Rand. 1997.

Jalsevac, P. Second-hand smoke study misused, scientist says. Kitchener-Waterloo Record, February 8,

1996.

Jason, L.A., Ji, P.Y., Anes, M.D., Birkhead, S.H. Active

enforcement of cigarette control laws in the prevention of cigarette sales to minors. Journal of

the American Medical Association 266(22):3159-

3161, 1991

Johnston, L. Cigarette smoking continues to rise among

American teen-agers in 1996. University of

Michigan News and Information Services.

December 19, 1996.

Johnston, L. The Monitoring the Future Study: Data

Tables. The University of Michigan. University

of Michigan Website

(www.isr.umich.edu/src/mth/pr98cg1.html).

December 1998.

Johnston, L.D., O’Malley, P.M., Bachman, J.G.

National Trends in Drug Use and Related Factors

Among American High School Students and Young

Adults, 1975-1986. U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services, Public Health Service,

Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health

Administration, National Institute on Drug

Abuse, DHHS Publication No (ADM) 87-1535,

1987.

Kerrigan, M. Memo To SmokeLess Tobacco Council,

Committee of Counsel. Re: A proposed comprehensive tobacco control act in California. Washington,

D.C.: Smokeless Tobacco Council, Inc. June 28,

1991.

Klonoff, E., Fritz, J., Landrine, H., Riddle, R., TullyPayne, L. The problem and sociocultural context

of single-cigarette sales. Journal of the American

Medical Association. 271(8):618-620, 1994.

KPMG Peat Marwick. Effects of 1998 California smoking ban on bars, taverns and night clubs. American

Beverage Institute Website (www.abionline.org).

1998.

Laventhol & Horwath for Restaurants for a Sensible

Voluntary Policy. Preliminary analysis of the

impact of the proposed Los Angeles ban on smoking

in restaurants. Los Angeles: Laventhol &

Horwath, October 1990.

Law, M.R., Morris, J.K., Wald, N.J. Environmental

tobacco smoke exposure and ischaemic heart disease: an evaluation of the evidence. British

Medical Journal 315(7114)973-980, 1997.

Levin, M. Fighting laws with smoking proxies. Los

Angeles Times, August 5, 1991.

Levin, M. Smoker group’s thick wallet raises questions. Los Angeles Times, March 30, 1998.

Levy, C.J. Lobby admits to higher spending in

smoking-law fight. New York Times, December

12, 1998.

Macdonald, H.R., Glantz, S.A. Political realities of

statewide smoking legislation: the passage of

California’s Assembly Bill 13. Tobacco Control

6(1):41-54, 1997.

Malmgren, K. Memo to W.E Ainsworth, et al., Re:

1990 proactive legislative plans. Minnesota

Tobacco Litigation. October 2, 1989.

Malmgren, K. Memo to S.D Chilcote, Re: Expanded

local program. Philip Morris (PM) Website

(www.pmdocs.com): BATES Number

2023965875. November 30, 1992.

Malmgren, K. [no subject]. Philip Morris internal

memo. Tobacco Institute Website (www.tobaccoinstitute.com): BATES Number 2025660350.

December 3, 1993.

Maroney, N., Sherwood, D., Stubblebine, W.C. The

impact of tobacco control ordinances on restaurant

revenues in California. Claremont, CA: The

Claremont Institute for Economic Policy Studies,

January 1994.

Massachusetts Department of Public Health.

Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program: Tobacco

Control Provisions – A Survey. Massachusetts

Tobacco Control Program, 1996.

Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program.

Massachusetts Operation Storefront 1998: It’s Time

We Made Smoking History. Massachusetts

Department of Health, Tobacco Control

Program, 1998.

Mazzocco, M. Pro-tobacco group trying to block an

expanded ban. Contra Costa Times, January 14,

1992. 

McAdam, R.S. California local referenda program.

Tobacco Institute internal memo, November 27,

1991.

Merlo, E . Memo to Distribution [no subject]. Philip

Morris (PM) Website (www.pmdocs.com): BATES

Number 2021252097. February 19, 1993.

Merlo, E. Memo to G. Bible, Re: California initiative.

Philip Morris (PM) Website (www.pmdocs.com):

BATES Number 2022839335. January 12, 1994.

Moore, D.J., Williams, J.D., Qualls, W.J. Target marketing of tobacco and alcohol-related products to

ethnic minority groups in the United States.

Ethnicity & Disease 6:83-98, 1996.

Moore, S., Wolfe, S., Lindes, D., Douglas, C.

Epidemiology of failed tobacco control legislation. Journal of the American Medical Association

272(15):1171-1175, 1994.

Napoles, M. Bellflower councilwoman writing to all

cities, not just Chino Hills. Chino Hills

Champion, October, 23, 1992.
Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

60

National Cancer Institute. Strategies to Control

Tobacco Use in the United States: A Blueprint for

Public Health Action in the 1990’s. Smoking and

Tobacco Control Monograph No. 1. U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services,

Public Health Service, National Institute of

Health, National Cancer Institute. NIH

Publication No. 92-3316, 1991. 

National Cancer Institute. Smokeless Tobacco or

Health: An International Perspective. Smoking and

Tobacco Control Monograph No. 2. U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services,

Public Health Service, National Institutes of

Health, National Cancer Institute NIH

Publication No. 92-3461, 1992.

National Cancer Institute. Major Local Tobacco

Control Ordinances in the United States. Smoking

and Tobacco Control Monograph Monograph No. 3.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

Public Health Service, National Institutes of

Health, National Cancer Institute. NIH

Publication No. 93-3532, 1993a.

National Cancer Institute. Respiratory Health Effects

of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other

Disorders. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph

Number 4. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, Public Health Service, National

Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute.

NIH Publication No. 93-3605, 1993b.

National Cancer Institute. Cigars: Health effects and

trends. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph

No. 9. U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, Public Health Service, National

Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute.

NIH Publication No. 98-4302, 1998. 

National Research Council. Environmental Tobacco

Smoke: Measuring Exposures and Assessing Health

Effects. Washington, D.C.: National Academy

Press, 1986.

National Health and Medical Research Council. The

health effects of passive smoking: A Scientific

Information Paper. National Health and Medical

Research Council (Australia). November 1997.

Office of the Inspector General. Youth Access to

Cigarettes: A Report of the Office of the Inspector

General. Office of the Inspector General.

Publication No. OEI, 02-90-02310, May 1990. 

Office of the Inspector General. Youth Access to

Tobacco. Office of the Inspector General.

Publication No. OEI, 02-92-00880, December

1992.

Ohsfeldt, R., Boyle, R.G., Capilouto, E.I. Tobacco

taxes, smoking restrictions and tobacco use. NBER

Working Paper No. 6486. Cambridge: National

Bureau of Economic Research, March 1998.

O’Keefe A., Pollay R. Deadly targeting of women in

promoting cigarettes. Journal of the American

Medical Women’s Association. 51(1&2):67-69,

1996.

Pasternak, J. Town has just the ticket to fight teen

smoking. Los Angeles Times, October 1, 1997, p.

A1+.

Patten, C., Gilpin, E., Cavin, S., Pierce, J. Workplace

smoking policy and changes in smoking behavior in California: a suggested association.

Tobacco Control 4: 36-41, 1995a.

Patten, C., Pierce, J., Cavin, S., Berry, C., Kaplan, R.

Progress in protecting non-smokers from environmental tobacco smoke in California workplaces. Tobacco Control 4: 139-144, 1995b.

Perske, M. Are anti-smokers attempting to manipulate the public?: NSA members should judge for

themselves. NSA Voice, 3(4), p. 1+, 1996.

Pertman, A. Why U.S. future is virtually smokefree.

San Jose Mercury News, May 8, 1994, p. 2A. 

Pertschuk,, M., Siegel-Morse, N. Tobacco Advertising

and Promotion: A Guide to Developing Policy.

National Institutes of Health, National Cancer

Institute, ASSIST. November 1994.

Pertschuk, M., Shopland, D.R., (Editors). Major Local

Smoking Ordinances in the United States: A detailed

Matrix of the Provisions of Workplace, Restaurant,

and Public Places Smoking Control Ordinances. U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services,

Public Health Service, National Institutes of

Health, National Cancer Institute. NIH

Publication No. 90-479, 1989.

Philip Morris, Inc. Memo: Impact of workplace smoking

restrictions on consumption and incidence. Philip

Morris (PM) Website (www.pmdocs.com): BATES

Number 2045447779. January 21, 1992a.

Philip Morris, Inc. Memo: Progression of Workplace

Restrictions - POL Database. Philip Morris (PM)

Website (www.pmdocs.com): BATES Number

2023774761. February 26, 1992b.

Philip Morris, Inc. A smokers’ alliance (draft). Philip

Morris (PM) Website (www.pmdocs.com): BATES

Number 2025771934. July 1, 1993.

Philip Morris, Inc. California action plan. Philip

Morris (PM) Website (www.pmdocs.com): BATES

Number 2044325927. [1994]

Philip Morris, Inc. National smokers alliance: 1994

political action plan (draft 3). Philip Morris (PM)

Website (www.pmdocs.com): BATES Number

2047897334. February 3, 1994a.

Philip Morris, Inc. Philip Morris ETS project.

Minnesota Tobacco Litigation. BATES Number

2024137597. January 14, 1994b.

Philip Morris, Inc. NSA political plan outline. Philip

Morris (PM) Website (www.pmdocs.com): BATES

Number 20223203153. n.d.

Pierce, J., Gilpin, E., Burns, D., Whalen, E.,

Rosbrook, B., Shopland, D., Johnson, M. Does

tobacco advertising target young people to start

smoking? Evidence from California. Journal of

the American Medical Association 266(22):3154-

3158, 1991.
Section I: The Role of Public Policy Change in Tobacco Control

61

Pierce, J., Shanks, T., Pertschuk, M., Gilpin, E.,

Shopland, D., Johnson, M., Bal, D. Do smoking

ordinances protect non-smokers from environmental tobacco smoke at work? Tobacco Control

3:15-20, 1994.

Pierce, J., Lee, L., Gilpin, E. Smoking initiation by

adolescent girls, 1944 through 1988. An association with targeted advertising. Journal of the

American Medical Association 271:608-611, 1994.

Price Waterhouse. Potential economic effects of a

smoking ban in the state of California.

Conducted for the San Diego Tavern and

Restaurant Association. Price Waterhouse, May

1993.

Pritchard, R. Tobacco industry speaks with one

voice, once again. U.S. Tobacco and Candy

Journal July 17-August 6, 1986.

Quinn, M. Don’t aim that pack at us. Time

Magazine, January 29, 1990.

R.J. Reynolds. Pilferage presentation: core presentation.

RJ Reynolds internal document. R.J. Reynolds

Website (www.rjrtdocs.com): BATES Number

514348983, n.d.

Rigotti, N.A., Pashos, C.L. No-smoking laws in the

United States: An analysis of state and city

actions to limit smoking in public places and

workplaces. Journal of the American Medical

Association 266(22):3162-3167, 1991.

Rigotti, N.A., Bourne, D., Rosen, A., Locke, J.A.,

Schelling, T.C. Workplace compliance with a nosmoking law: a randomized community intervention trial. American Journal of Public Health

82(2):229-235, 1992.

Rigotti, N.A., Stoto, M.A., Schelling, T.C. Do businesses comply with a no-smoking law? Assessing

the self-enforcement approach. Preventive

Medicine 23:223-229, 1994. 

Rigotti, N.A., DiFranza, J.R., Chang, Y., Tisdale, T.,

Kemp, B., Singer, D. The effect of enforcing

tobacco-sales laws on adolescents’ access to

tobacco and smoking behavior. New England

Journal of Medicine 337:1044-1051, 1997. 

Robinson, R., Pertschuk, M., Sutton, C. Smoking

and African Americans: spotlighting the effects

of smoking and tobacco promotion in the

African American community. In: Improving the

Health of the Poor: Strategies for Prevention. Menlo

Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation,

May 1992.

Roper Organization. A Study of Public Attitudes

Toward Cigarette Smoking and the Tobacco

Industry in 1978, Volume 1. The Roper

Organization, Inc., 1978.

Rosen, J. Smokers’ alliance fuming: group says bans

infringe on liberty. The News & Observer, July 14,

1996.

Samuels, B., Glantz, S.A. The politics of local tobacco control. Journal of the American Medical

Association 266(15):2110-2117, 1991.

Samuels, B., Begay, M., Hazan, A., Glantz, S.A..

Philip Morris’s failed experiment in Pittsburgh.

Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law

17(2):329-351, 1992.

Sciacca, J.P., Ratliff, M.I. Prohibiting smoking in

restaurants: effects on restaurant sales. American

Journal of Health Promotion 12(3):176-184, 1998. 

Siegel, M. Involuntary smoking in the restaurant

workplace: a review of employee exposure and

health effects. Journal of the American Medical

Association 270(4):490-493, 1993.

Siegel, M., Carol, J., Jordan, J., Hobart, R.,

Schoenmarklin, S., DuMelle, F., Fisher, P.

Preemption in tobacco control: review of an

emerging public health problem. Journal of the

American Medical Association 278:858-863, 1997.

Skolnick, A. Cancer converts tobacco lobbyist: Victor

L. Crawford goes on the record. Journal of the

American Medical Association 274:199-202, 1995.

Smee, C. The effects of tobacco advertising on tobacco

consumption. Department of Health Economics,

Operational Research Division. London,

England: Department of Health Economics,

1993.

Steinfeld, J.L. The Public’s Responsibility: A bill of

rights for the non-smoker. Rhode Island Medical

Journal 55(4):124-126, 1972.

Stone, P.H. Blowing smoke at its critics. National

Journal. 884-887, 1996.

Stumbo, B. Where there’s smoke. Los Angeles Times,

August 24, 1986. p. 11+.

Suttle, G. Puyallup ban goes up in smoke after

tobacco-financed lawsuit. The News Tribune,

December 20, 1994.

Tansey, B. Document shows tobacco firm strategy

front frights proposed laws, officials say. San

Francisco Chronicle, October 24, 1998.

Tapscott, R. Maryland court reflects local laws limiting cigarette machines. The Washington Post,

September 18, 1993.

Thun, M.J., Day-Lally, C.A., Calle, E.E., Flanders,

W.D., Heath, C.W. Jr. Excess mortality among

cigarette smokers: Changes in a 20-year interval.

American Journal of Public Health 85(9):1223-

1230, 1995.

Thun, M.J., Myers, D.G., Day-Lally, C.A.,

Namboodiri, M.M., Calle, E.E., Flanders, W.D.,

Adams, S.L. Heath, C.W. Jr. Age and the exposure-response relationships between cigarette

smoking and premature death in Cancer

Prevention Study II. In: Changes in CigaretteRelated Disease Risks and Their Implication for

Prevention and Control. Smoking and Tobacco

Control Monograph No. 8. National Institutes of

Health, National Cancer Institute, NIH

Publication No. 97-4213, 1997. 

Tobacco Institute. Legislative Opportunities: Year-toDate Summary. Tobacco Institute Website

(www.tobaccoinstitute.com): BATES Number

TIMN 0015097. December 1, 1989.
Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

62

Tobacco Institute. Legislative Action Plans. Tobacco

Institute Website (www.tobaccoinstitute.com).

October 18, 1990.

Traynor, M., Begay, M.E., Glantz, S.A. New tobacco

industry strategy to prevent local tobacco control. Journal of the American Medical Association

270(4):479-486, 1993.

Trichopolos, D., Kalandidi, A., Sparros L.,

MacMahon, B. Lung cancer and passive smoking. International Journal of Cancer 27(1):1-4,

1981.

Tuckson, R.V. Race, sex, economics, and tobacco

advertising. Journal of National Medical

Association 81(11):1119-1124, 1989.

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

The Health Consequences of Smoking. A Report of

the Surgeon General: 1972. U.S. DHEW, Public

Health Service, Health Services and Mental

Health Administration. DHEW Publication No.

(HSM) 727516, 1972.

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

The Health Consequences of Smoking: 1975. U.S.

DHEW, and Welfare, Public Health Service,

Center for Disease Control. DHEW Publication

No. (CDC) 778704, 1977.

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

The Health Consequences of Smoking: a report of the

Surgeon General. U.S. DHEW, Public Health

Service, Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Health, Office on Smoking and Health. DHEW

Publication No (PHS) 79-50066, 1979.

U.S.Department of Health and Human Services. The

Health Consequences of Smoking: Cancer. A report of

the Surgeon General 1982. U.S. DHEW, Public

Health Service, Office of the Assistant Secretary

for Health, Office on Smoking and Health.

DHHS Publication No (PHS) 82-50179, 1982.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The

Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking. U.S.

DHHS, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease

Control, Center for Chronic Disease Prevention

and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and

Health. DHHS (CDC) Publication No. 87-8398,

1986.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking: 25

Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon

General. U.S. DHHS, Public Health Service,

Centers for Disease Control, Center for Chronic

Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office

on Smoking and Health. DHHS Publication No.

(CDC) 89-8411, 1989.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People: A

Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. DHHS, Public

Health Service, Centers for Disease Control.

DHHS Publication No. S/N 017-001-00491-0),

1994.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Healthy people 2000 review, 1997. U.S. DHHS,

Public Health Service, Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention. DHHS Publication No.

(PHS)98-1256, 1996.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Main

Findings 1996. U.S. DHHS, Substance Abuse and

Mental Health Administration, Office of Applied

Studies. DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 98-3200,

1998a. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Synar Regulation Implementation: Report to

Congress on FFY 1997 State Compliance. U.S.

DHHS, Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Services Administration. DHHS Publication No.

(SMA) 98-3185, 1998b. 

Warner, K.E., Goldenhar, L.M., McLaughlin, C.G.

Cigarette advertising and magazine coverage of

the hazards of smoking. A statistical analysis.

New England Journal of Medicine 326(5): 305-309,

1992.

Wasserman, J., Manning, W.G., Newhouse, J.P.,

Winkler, J.D. The effects of excise taxes and regulations on cigarette smoking. Journal of Health

Economics 10(1):43-64, 1991.

Weisskopf, M. Hill bid to curb youth tobacco sales

falters. The Washington Post, July 10, 1993.

Wolfson, M., Hourigan, M. Unintended consequences and professional ethics: criminalization

of alcohol and tobacco use by youth and young

adults. Addiction 92:1159-1164, 1997.

Woodruff, T., Rosbrook, B., Pierce, J., Glantz, S..

Lower levels of cigarette consumption found in

smoke-free workplaces in California. Archives of

Internal Medicine 153(12):1485-1493, 1993.

Working Group of State Attorneys General. No Sale:

youth, tobacco, and responsible retailing. Developing

responsible retail sales practices and legislation to

reduce illegal tobacco sales to minors: findings and

recommendations of a working group of state attorneys general. December 1994.

Zimmerman, L. Memo To J. Graff [no subject].

Englewood, CO: Russell, Karsh & Hagan.

February 2, 1996.
viii

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Anne M. Hartman, M.S.

Biostatistician/Coordinator

of the Tobacco Use

Supplements to the CPS

Risk Factor Monitoring and 

Methods Branch

Applied Research Program

National Cancer Institute

Bethesda, MD

Section IV Model Ordinances American Nonsmokers’

Rights Foundation

Berkeley, CA

Technical Assistance

Legal Center

Public Health Institute

Berkeley, CA

The editors acknowledge the contributions of the following staff

members of the ANR Foundation, who provided expertise on a wide

range of tobacco issues as well as technical, writing, and editorial assistance

in the preparation of this monograph:

Julia Carol

Co-Director

Jennifer Anderson-Moxley

Executive Assistant

Elva Yañez, M.S.

Associate Director
The editors also acknowledge the following individuals at the

Tobacco Control Policies Project, University of California San

Diego, San Diego, California, for their assistance with state population and

ordinance data:

Andres Abeyta

GIS Consultant

Sharon Buxton

Administrative Assistant

Robert W. Davignon, M.S.

Production Editor

Don F. Harrell

Administrative Assistant

Jacqueline M. Major, M.S.

Statistician

Kristina M. Webb

Project Assistant

The editors and the STCP staff members would like to further

acknowledge the contributions of the following staff members at KBM

Group, Inc., Silver Spring, Maryland, who provided technical and editorial

assistance in the preparation of this monograph:

Brian E. Steyskal

Editor/Graphic Designer

Cynthia M. DeLano

Assistant Editor

Ann L. Kreske

Editorial Assistant

And Finally, the editors would like to acknowledge the contributions of James T. Gibson of Information Management Services, Inc. in

Silver Spring, Maryland, who provides general data management and program support to the NCI for the Tobacco Use Supplements to the CPS; and

Ronald R. Tucker and his staff at the Current Population Survey Branch of

the Bureau of the Census, and the other divisions of the Bureau of the

Census responsible for the data collection and processing of the Tobacco

Use Supplements to the CPS.

ix

Acknowledgements
Section II: 

State Laws and Local Ordinances to

Reduce Tobacco Use

Leonard Casey, Holly Senn, Maggie Leighninger, 

Robin Hobart, Kathryn B. Gower, Cassandra E. Welch
This section presents five charts containing a wide range of state laws

and local ordinances designed to reduce tobacco use. There are also three

summary tables that present the total number of various types of local ordinances by state.

Clean Indoor Air Provisions Summary Table 1 (page 71) summarizes the local

clean indoor air provisions that appear in Charts 1 through 3.

Charts 1 through 3 cover the provisions of ordinances that restrict

smoking in enclosed public places and workplaces, including restaurants

and bars. To be included, an ordinance must have as its purpose the protection of nonsmokers from the health effects of secondhand smoke. Older

ordinances designed as fire-safety measures are not included. Also not

included are ordinances and administrative policies that limit smoking only

in government-owned and operated buildings. Because of their limited

impact on the public at large, these ordinances are not analyzed for inclusion in the ANR Foundation’s database.

Youth Access Provisions Summary Table 2 (page 139) summarizes the various

local youth access ordinances that appear in Chart 4.

Chart 4 covers the provisions of ordinances that restrict youth

access to tobacco products. These include provisions banning tobacco

vending machines, tobacco sampling, self-service displays, and single cigarette sales, as well as provisions licensing tobacco retailers and penalizing

youth for purchase, possession, and/or use.

Advertising Restrictions Summary Table 3 (page 167) summarizes the local

advertising restrictions appearing in Chart 5.

Chart 5 covers the provisions of ordinances that restrict tobacco

advertising and promotion. These include provisions restricting placement

of tobacco advertising by location (e.g., within 1,000 feet of schools) or

zones (e.g., only allowed in industrial or commercial zones), on public transit, and in tobacco retail locations. Also captured are provisions allowing

for so-called “tombstone exemptions,” which allow generic, text-only

tobacco advertisements in specified locations.

Also included in Charts 1 through 5 are maps prepared by the

Tobacco Control Policies Project at the University of California, San Diego.

These maps show the relationships between local ordinances and corresponding state level restrictions.

The data used to create the maps were obtained from two sources.

The state data were taken from State Legislated Actions on Tobacco Issues,

American Lung Association, 1997 (those data are current through Dec 31,

65

INTRODUCTION
1997). The local ordinance data were taken from the National Matrix of

Local Ordinances, Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights, 1998 (those data are

updated through June 30, 1998). 

The maps describe the tobacco control laws by presenting the laws

at different levels of restriction. The Restaurant and Workplace maps measure the degree to which any covered establishment is required to be smokefree. The Vending Machine and Self-service Display maps present areas

which prohibit vending machines or self-service displays by law. The

Licensing map indicates the type of licenses retailers are required to obtain

to sell tobacco products, ranked by the severity of punishment for tobacco

sales to minors. 

The darker colors on the maps represent stronger restrictions

required by law. The lightest color shows where there are no legal restrictions. The background color of each state (which will be the lightest color

for that state) is determined by the level of restriction required by state law.

Cities and counties that have more restrictive laws appear as darker colors

within each state.

Whereas the tables provide precise information about state laws and

local ordinances, the maps are designed to give a visual overview of certain

state laws and local ordinances. This overview allows for a direct comparison between states regarding the level of restrictions required by law.

Presenting the ordinances on a map also allows for the communities with

strong tobacco control laws to stand out, especially if the state has weak or

non-existent tobacco control laws. In Figure 1 (p. 72), for example, North

Carolina shows low levels of restriction at the state level, but at the local

level, the laws are more restrictive. 

APPENDIX TO SECTION II This appendix contains information on state tobacco

control laws. Appendix Table 1 covers state laws that restrict smoking in

public places; Appendix Table 2 covers age restrictions for the sale of tobacco products; Appendix Table 3 covers state laws that restrict tobacco sales

through vending machines; and Appendix Table 4 covers state restrictions

on the distribution of tobacco product samples.

66

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
List of Tables

Summary Local Clean Indoor Air Ordinances: 

Table 1 Total Numbers by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

Chart 1 State Laws and Local Ordinances: 

Summary of Clean Indoor Air Provisions . . . . . . . .73

Chart 2 State Laws and Local Ordinances: 

Workplace Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97

Chart 3 State Laws and Local Ordinances: 

Enclosed Public Place Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117

Summary Local Ordinances Restricting Youth Access 

Table 2 to Tobacco: Total Number by State . . . . . . . . . . . .139

Chart 4 State Laws and Local Ordinances to Reduce 

Youth Access to Tobacco Products . . . . . . . . . . . . .143

Summary Local Ordinances Restricting Tobacco Advertising: 

Table 3 Total Number by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .167

Chart 5 State Laws and Local Ordinances to Restrict 

Tobacco Advertising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .169

Appendix Tables

Appendix State Laws Restricting Smoking 

Table 1 in Public Places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .178

Appendix Age Restrictions for Sale of Tobacco 

Table 2 Products by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .180

Appendix Restrictions on Tobacco Sales through 

Table 3 Vending Machines by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .182

Appendix Restrictions on Distribution of Tobacco 

Table 4 Product Samples by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183

67

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES IN SECTION II
List of Figures

Figure 1 Smoking Laws in Restaurants: 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . .72

Figure 2 Smoking Restrictions in Workplaces: 1997 . . . . . . .96

Figure 3 Vending Machine Placement Laws: 1997 . . . . . . .140

Figure 4 Tobacco Retailer Licensing Laws: 1997 . . . . . . . . .141

Figure 5 Self-service Display Laws: 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142

68

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
SUMMARY TABLE 1 This table gives a tally of the local clean indoor air ordinances listed in Charts 1, 2, and 3. It also provides tallies for specific provisions within the clean indoor air ordinances.

Total: This column lists the total number of local communities with clean

indoor air ordinances. This includes laws covering workplaces, restaurants, bars, and enclosed public places.

Workplaces: This column lists the total number of local communities with

clean indoor air ordinances that have workplace provisions. 

Restaurants: This column lists the total number of local communities with

clean indoor air ordinances that have restaurant provisions.

Retail Stores: This column lists the total number of local communities with

clean indoor air ordinances that cover retail stores.

Enclosed Public Places: This column lists the total number of local communities with clean indoor air ordinances that have provisions for indoor

public places. Indoor public places include theater lobbies, bowling

centers, retail stores, food markets, public transportation, and bingo

parlors.

CHART 1 This is a quick reference to the major provisions of clean indoor air

ordinances in the United States. It presents state laws and major city and

county smoking ordinances. For each region covered, the table lists the

population, date of last amendment, and whether the law covers smoking

in workplaces, restaurants, bars, or enclosed public places. The agency

responsible for enforcing the ordinance is also listed. There are 846 local

clean indoor air ordinances included herein.

Last Amendment: This column indicates when a community enacted or last

amended an ordinance containing clean indoor air provisions (normally by a city council, county board of supervisors, or local health board).

In the case of ordinances that have been amended following original

adoption, the column reflects the date of last amendment. Those ordinances that have been amended following original adoption are indicated by an asterisk next to the date.

Population: This column gives the Census Bureau estimate of the population for July 1, 1996, for each state, county, and city. These data can be

found on the Census Bureau’s web page at http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro-city/scful96/sc96ful.zip. County smoking ordinances cover the unincorporated areas of the county. Thus, the population is only for the unincorporated area. We estimated unincorporated

areas by taking the balance of the county after subtracting out all city

69

CLEAN INDOOR AIR PROVISIONS

STATE LAWS AND LOCAL ORDINANCES:

SUMMARY
populations. Population numbers are in thousands, except for numbers

in (parentheses), which are exact figures for areas inhabited by less than

1000 people. The local (city and county) clean indoor air ordinances

cover a total population of approximately 87,899,000. 

Workplaces Covered: This column indicates whether an ordinance restricts

smoking in places of work. “Partial” indicates that smoking restrictions

exist, but smoking is still allowed in some areas or under some circumstances. “Total” indicates that smoking is entirely prohibited or allowed

only in enclosed, separately ventilated smoking lounges that workers

are not required to enter during the course of their work duties.

“Public” indicates that the ordinance’s workplace provisions apply only

to government workplaces and don’t affect private workplaces.

Restaurants: This column indicates whether restaurants are covered by the

ordinance. The minimum size for no-smoking sections is indicated

(“100%” means the restaurant is entirely smoke-free, “0%” means that

no minimum percentage is specified). Figure 1 presents a map of the

clean indoor air laws for restaurants in the United States, at the local

and state levels.

Bars: This column indicates whether the ordinance includes restrictions on

smoking in bars. “All” indicates that the ordinance contains restrictions

that cover bars attached to restaurants, as well as free-standing bars and

taverns (these restrictions may vary between restaurant/bar combinations and free-standing bars). “Restaurants” indicates that the restrictions apply only to bars attached to restaurants. 

Enclosed Public Places: This column indicates whether an ordinance restricts

smoking in enclosed public places. “All” indicates that the ordinance

contains general restrictions or a prohibition on smoking in all enclosed

public places. “Some” indicates that the ordinance contains restrictions

or a prohibition on smoking only in specified public places enumerated

in the ordinance.

Enforcement: This column summarizes the enforcement mechanism contained in the ordinance. If the ordinance designates several agencies as

responsible for enforcement, that which is of most practical significance

is listed. The options under this column are “Health Department”, “City

Manager”, “Board of Health”, “Police Department”, “Other Agency” or

“N/S” if no specific enforcement agency is designated in the ordinance.

Note: an entry of “—” in a field indicates that information is not available

for that provision. This is generally the result of adding new fields of

analysis to reflect a significant development in ordinance provisions;

database records for ordinances analyzed prior to the new field of analysis do not contain information for that provision.

70

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
71

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

State Total Workplaces Restaurants Bars Public Places

Alabama 19 18 17 0 18

Alaska 1 1 1 1 1

Arizona 16 15 13 1 16

Arkansas 3 1 0 0 3

California 286 266 274 81 272

Colorado 36 35 34 3 35

Delaware 2 2 2 0 2

District of Columbia 1 1 1 0 1

Georgia 16 11 16 0 12

Hawaii 3 2 1 0 3

Illinois 16 10 16 0 12

Indiana 3 1 3 0 3

Kansas 6 3 5 0 6

Louisiana 8 8 6 0 8

Maine 1 0 1 1 0

Maryland 9 8 7 2 8

Massachusetts 124 77 120 37 88

Michigan 29 5 3 0 28

Minnesota 1 0 0 0 0

Missouri 18 5 18 2 17

Nebraska 1 0 0 0 1

New Jersey 13 3 6 1 8

New Mexico 3 3 3 1 3

New York 11 11 11 3 11

North Carolina 38 29 33 1 34

Ohio 35 30 33 1 33

Oregon 3 3323

Pennsylvania 4 4404

Rhode Island 2 0 0 0 0

South Carolina 3 2 2 0 2

South Dakota 1 1 0 0 1

Tennessee 3 0 3 0 3

Texas 59 34 50 4 55

Vermont 1 1 1 0 1

Virginia 18 6 17 0 17

Washington 4 3 3 0 3

West Virginia 40 39 40 0 40

Wisconsin 7 2415

Wyoming 22 2 0 2

Totals 846 642 753 142 759

Summary Table 1

Local Clean Indoor Air Ordinances: Total Number by State
72

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Figure 1: Smoking Laws in Restaurants: 1997

Data Source: State Legislated Actions on Tobacco Issues, American Lung Association, 1997

National Matrix of Local Ordinances, American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation, 1998
73

Alabama None 4,273 None None None No None

Alexander City 1993 16 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Anniston 1993 26 Partial 0% None Some Health Dept.

Auburn 1992 38 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Birmingham 1995* 259 Public 0% None All Health Dept.

Cullman 1993 18 Public 0% None Some Police Dept.

Daphne 1993 15 Partial 50% None All Other Agency

Decatur 1993 54 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Dothan 1992 56 Partial 50% None All Health Dept.

Eufaula 1990 13 None 0% None Some Police Dept.

Homewood 1995 23 Partial 100% None All Other Agency

Huntsville 1993* 170 Partial 0% None Some Police Dept.

Jackson 1991 6 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Madison 1993* 24 Partial 25% None All Police Dept.

Mobile 1994* 203 Partial 75% None All Other Agency

Montgomery 1989 196 Partial 0% None Some Health Dept.

Prattville 1991 24 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Rainbow City 1995 8 Partial None None None Other Agency

Tuscaloosa 1990 82 Public None None Some Not Specified

Wetumpka 1992 6 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Alaska 1990* 607 Partial 0% None Some Other Agency

Bethel 1998 16 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Arizona 1978* 4,428 Public None None Some N/S

Chandler 1991* 143 Partial 0% None All N/S

Flagstaff 1991* 55 Partial 100% None All City Mgr.

Gilbert 1988 64 Partial 50% None All Police Dept.

Glendale 1987 182 Partial 0% None All N/S

Kingman 1988 17 Partial None None Some Police Dept.

Maricopa Co. 1988 182 Partial 40% None All N/S

Mesa 1996* 345 Total 100% All All Other Agency

Paradise Valley 1992* 14 None 25% None All N/S

Peoria 1991 76 Partial 0% None All City Mgr.

Phoenix 1986 1,159 Partial 0% None All N/S

Pima Co. 1992* 288 Partial None None All N/S

Prescott 1986 33 Partial 0% None All N/S

Scottsdale 1992* 179 Partial 0% None All N/S

Tempe 1994* 163 Total 0% None All N/S

Tucson 1988* 449 Partial None None All N/S

Yuma 1987 61 Partial 0% None Some N/S

Chart 1

State Laws and Local Ordinances: Summary of Clean Indoor Air Provisions

Last Popu- Work- Enclosed

State Amend- lation1 places Restau- Public

Community ment* (000) Covered rants Bars Places Enforcement

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances
74

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Arkansas 1985* 2,510 Public None None No N/S

Little Rock 1994* 176 None None None Some N/S

McGehee 1987 5 Partial None None All N/S

North Little Rock 1989 60 None None None Some N/S

California 1994* 31,878 Total 100% All All N/S

Agoura Hills 1993* 21 Partial 100% None All City Mgr.

Alameda 1987 76 Partial 50% None All City Mgr.

Alameda Co. 1986 124 Partial 40% None All Health Dept.

Albany 1992* 16 Total 100% None All Police Dept.

Alhambra 1989 84 Partial 50% None All N/S

Alpine Co. 1988 1 Total 50% None All Health Dept.

Anaheim 1986 289 Partial 0% None Some City Mgr.

Anderson 1993* 9 Total 100% All All Health Dept.

Antioch 1993* 76 Total 100% None All City Mgr.

Apple Valley 1991 55 None 60% None Some Health Dept.

Arcata 1997* 16 Total 100% None All Police Dept.

Atascadero 1991 24 None 0% None Some City Mgr.

Auburn 1991 12 Total 100% None All City Mgr.

Belmont 1993* 26 Total 100% None All City Mgr.

Belvedere 1993 2 Total 100% Rest. All Health Dept.

Benicia 1987 26 Partial 50% None All City Mgr.

Berkeley 1996* 103 Total 100% All All City Mgr.

Beverly Hills 1989* 32 None 60% None Some N/S

Big Bear Lake 1987 6 Public None None Some City Mgr.

Blue Lake 1987 1 Partial 25% None All City Mgr.

Brea 1986 35 Partial 25% None Some N/S

Brentwood 1985 13 Partial 40% None All City Mgr.

Buellton 1996 4 Public 100% Rest. Some Health Dept.

Burbank 1987 97 None None None Some N/S

Burlingame 1993* 28 Total 100% None All N/S

Butte Co. 1992* 103 Total 100% None All Health Dept.

Calabasas 1993 17 Partial 100% None All City Mgr.

Calistoga 1995 5 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Camarillo 1994* 57 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Campbell 1990* 38 Partial 50% None All N/S

Capitola 1994 10 Total 100% Rest. All Health Dept.

Carlsbad 1983 69 Partial 0% None Some N/S

Carpinteria 1995* 14 Public 100% Rest. Some Other Agency

Cathedral City 1982 36 None None None Some N/S

Ceres 1995* 31 Total 100% All All Other Agency

Chico 1992* 46 Total 100% All All Health Dept.

Chino Hills 1993 42 Total 100% None All City Mgr.

Chula Vista 1984 152 Partial 0% None Some N/S

Clayton 1993* 8 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Last Popu- Work- Enclosed

State Amend- lation1 places Restau- Public

Community ment* (000) Covered rants Bars Places Enforcement
75

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

California (cont.)

Cloverdale 1989 6 Partial 50% None All Police Dept.

Coachella 1988 22 Partial 25% None All N/S

Colfax 1991 1 Total 100% None All City Mgr.

Concord 1993* 115 Total 100% None All City Mgr.

Contra Costa Co. 1991* 170 Total 100% None All Health Dept.

Coronado 1984 26 Partial 0% None Some N/S

Corte Madera 1981 8 None 0% None Some City Mgr.

Costa Mesa 1998 101 None None None None Police Dept.

Cotati 1994* 6 Total 100% Rest. All N/S

Culver City 1987 39 Partial 66% None All City Mgr.

Cupertino 1994* 43 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Cypress 1987 47 Partial 25% None All City Mgr.

Dana Point 1993 34 None 100% None Some City Mgr.

Danville 1994* 38 Total 100% None All City Mgr.

Davis 1993* 52 Total 100% All All City Mgr.

Del Mar 1993* 5 Total 100% None All City Mgr.

Del Norte Co. 1988 20 Public None None None N/S

Desert Hot Springs 1986 15 Partial 25% None Some N/S

Dixon 1986 13 Partial 50% None All City Mgr.

Downey 1989 93 Partial 50% None All City Mgr.

Duarte 1995* 21 Total 100% None None Other Agency

Dublin 1994* 25 Total 100% All All City Mgr.

East Palo Alto 1992 25 Partial 67% None All City Mgr.

El Cajon 1994* 92 Partial 100% None All City Mgr.

El Centro 1993 37 Partial 50% None All N/S

El Cerrito 1995* 24 Total 100% None All City Mgr.

El Dorado Co. 1991 119 Total 100% None All Health Dept.

El Segundo 1989 16 Partial 50% None All N/S

Emeryville 1987 6 Partial 50% None All Other Agency

Encinitas 1987 58 Partial 0% None Some N/S

Escondido 1991* 116 Partial 50% None Some City Mgr.

Eureka 1985 26 Partial 25% None All City Mgr.

Fairfax 1994 7 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Fairfield 1987 86 Partial 50% None All City Mgr.

Folsom 1994 41 Total 100% None All Other Agency

Fontana 1986 104 Partial 50% None All N/S

Fort Bragg 1994 6 Total 100% Rest. All Health Dept.

Fortuna 1988 9 Partial 25% None Some City Mgr.

Foster City 1994 30 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Fremont 1993* 188 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Fresno 1994* 396 Partial 100% None All City Mgr.

Garden Grove 1990 149 Partial 25% None None N/S

Gardena 1977 53 None None None Some N/S

Last Popu- Work- Enclosed

State Amend- lation1 places Restau- Public

Community ment* (000) Covered rants Bars Places Enforcement
76

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

California (Cont.)

Gilroy 1995* 34 Partial 50% None None City Mgr.

Grand Terrace 1985 12 Partial 25% None Some N/S

Grass Valley 1990 10 Partial 100% None All City Mgr.

Gridley 1990* 4 Partial 50% None All Health Dept.

Hanford 1994 36 None 70% Rest. All City Mgr.

Hayward 1993* 122 Partial 50% None All City Mgr.

Healdsburg 1994* 10 Total 100% Rest. All Health Dept.

Hemet 1986 51 Partial 0% None Some N/S

Hercules 1992* 19 Total 100% None All City Mgr.

Hesperia 1992 61 Public 60% None Some Other Agency

Hollister 1994* 25 Partial 100% None All City Mgr.

Hughson 1993 3 Total 100% All All City Mgr.

Huntington Beach 1993* 191 Partial 100% None Some N/S

Huntington Park 1994 57 None 80% None None N/S

Imperial Beach 1985 28 Partial 0% None Some N/S

Imperial Co. 1994 35 Partial 100% None All N/S

Indian Wells 1990 3 Partial 77% None All City Mgr.

Indio 1985 44 Partial 50% None Some N/S

Irvine 1986 128 Partial 25% None Some N/S

La Canada 

Flintridge 1990 20 Partial 50% None All N/S

La Mesa 1991* 55 Partial 0% None Some N/S

La Mirada 1977* 44 None None None Some City Mgr.

La Quinta 1992 18 Partial 75% None All N/S

Lafayette 1992* 26 Total 40% None All City Mgr.

Laguna Beach 1992* 25 Partial 100% None Some N/S

Laguna Hills 1997* 29 Total 100% All All City Mgr.

Laguna Niguel 1989 52 Partial 20% None Some N/S

Lakewood 1988 75 Public 0% None Some N/S

Lancaster 1988 116 Partial 50% None All Other Agency

Larkspur 1993* 11 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Lathrop 1991 9 Total 100% None All City Mgr.

Lemon Grove 1994* 25 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Lindsay 1993 9 Total 85% None All Other Agency

Live Oak 1986 5 Partial 50% None All Health Dept.

Livermore 1993* 65 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Livingston 1987 10 Partial 50% None Some City Mgr.

Lodi 1990 55 Partial 100% None All Other Agency

Loma Linda 1992* 22 Partial 100% None All City Mgr.

Lompoc 1990 41 Partial 25% None All City Mgr.

Long Beach 1993* 422 Total 100% All All Health Dept.

Los Alamitos 1989 12 Public 40% None Some N/S

Los Altos 1979 28 Partial 25% None Some N/S

Last Popu- Work- Enclosed

State Amend- lation1 places Restau- Public

Community ment* (000) Covered rants Bars Places Enforcement
77

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

California (Cont.)

Los Angeles 1993* 3,554 Partial 100% None Some N/S

Los Angeles Co. 1992* 975 Public 0% None None N/S

Los Gatos 1991* 29 Total 100% Rest. All N/S

Madera 1993 36 Partial 0% None All Other Agency

Manhattan Beach 1987 33 Partial 0% None Some N/S

Marin Co. 1993* 65 Total 100% Rest. All Health Dept.

Martinez 1991* 33 Total 100% None All Health Dept.

Marysville 1986 12 Partial 50% None All Health Dept.

Mendocino Co. 1993 57 Total 100% Rest. All Health Dept.

Menlo Park 1993* 29 Partial 100% None All N/S

Merced 1994* 58 Total 75% None All N/S

Mill Valley 1992* 13 Total 100% Rest. All Other Agency

Millbrae 1995* 21 Total 100% All All N/S

Milpitas 1985 59 Partial 50% None Some N/S

Mission Viejo 1988 85 Partial 20% None Some Health Dept.

Modesto 1993* 179 Total 100% None All Health Dept.

Monterey 1987 28 Partial 0% None All N/S

Monterey Co. 1994* 90 Total 100% Rest. All Health Dept.

Moorpark 1993* 29 Total 100% Rest. All N/S

Moraga 1986 18 Partial 40% None All N/S

Moreno Valley 1990 141 Partial 50% None All City Mgr.

Morgan Hill 1985 29 Partial 0% None All City Mgr.

Morro Bay 1986 10 Partial 50% None Some City Mgr.

Mountain View 1994* 71 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Napa 1995* 65 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Napa Co. 1994 30 Total 100% Rest. All Health Dept.

National City 1984 51 Partial 0% None Some N/S

Nevada City 1993 3 Partial 80% None All City Mgr.

Nevada Co. 1992* 66 Partial 80% None All Other Agency

Newark 1993* 40 Partial 40% None All City Mgr.

Newport Beach 1985 70 Partial 25% None Some N/S

Novato 1997* 48 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Oakdale 1987 15 Partial 50% None Some City Mgr.

Oakland 1992* 367 Total 100% None All City Mgr.

Oceanside 1983 146 Partial 0% None Some N/S

Ojai 1993* 8 Total 100% All All City Mgr.

Ontario 1987 145 Partial 25% None Some N/S

Orange Co. 1993* 191 Partial 100% None All Health Dept.

Orinda 1992* 19 Total 80% None All City Mgr.

Orland 1993 6 None 0% None None Police Dept.

Oroville 1987 12 Partial 10% None All Health Dept.

Oxnard 1988 151 Partial 50% None All City Mgr.

Pacific Grove 1995* 15 None None None All City Mgr.

Last Popu- Work- Enclosed

State Ammend- lation1 places Restau- Public

Community ment* (000) Covered rants Bars Places Enforcement
78

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

California (Cont.)

Palm Desert 1986 28 Partial 25% None Some N/S

Palm Springs 1986 43 Partial 25% None Some N/S

Palmdale 1988 107 Partial 50% None All N/S

Palo Alto 1995* 58 Total 100% None All City Mgr.

Paradise 1991* 26 Total 100% None All City Mgr.

Pasadena 1993* 134 Total 100% Rest. All Health Dept.

Patterson 1993 10 Total 100% None All Police Dept.

Petaluma 1994* 48 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Piedmont 1988 11 Partial 50% None All Police Dept.

Pinole 1992* 19 Total 60% None All City Mgr.

Pittsburg 1995* 51 Total 100% All All City Mgr.

Placer Co. 1994* 95 Total 100% None All Health Dept.

Placerville 1992* 9 Total 100% None All Health Dept.

Pleasant Hill 1993* 32 Total 80% None All N/S

Pleasanton 1994* 57 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Port Hueneme 1989 20 Partial 50% None All City Mgr.

Poway 1992* 47 Partial 0% None All N/S

Rancho 

Cucamonga 1988 117 None 40% None Some City Mgr.

Rancho Mirage 1987 11 Partial 66% None All N/S

Rancho 

Palos Verdes 1993 42 None 100% All None City Mgr.

Redding 1993* 77 Total 100% All All Health Dept.

Redlands 1987 67 Partial 50% None All N/S

Redwood City 1988 71 Partial 50% None All N/S

Rialto 1990 82 Partial None None None City Mgr.

Richmond 1994* 91 Total 100% None All City Mgr.

Riverside 1985 255 Partial 25% None Some N/S

Riverside Co. 1985 412 Partial 25% None Some N/S

Rohnert Park 1993* 39 Partial 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Roseville 1991 63 Total 100% None All Other Agency

Ross 1989 2 None 100% None All Police Dept.

Sacramento 1990* 376 Total 100% None All Health Dept.

Sacramento Co. 1992* 683 Total 100% None All Health Dept.

Salinas 1995* 112 Total 100% All All Health Dept.

San Anselmo 1993 12 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

San Bernardino 1994* 183 Total 100% None All City Mgr.

San Bernardino 

Co. 1987 277 Partial 0% None All N/S

San Bruno 1987 40 Partial 50% None All N/S

San Carlos 1993* 28 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

San Clemente 1987 45 Partial 50% None Some N/S

San Diego 1994* 1,171 Total 80% None All City Mgr.

Last Popu- Work- Enclosed

State Amend- lation1 places Restau- Public

Community ment* (000) Covered rants Bars Places Enforcement
79

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

California (Cont.)

San Diego Co. 1991* 419 Partial 50% None Some N/S

San Francisco 1994* 735 Total 100% None Some Health Dept.

San Jose 1993* 839 Total 100% Rest. All Health Dept.

San Juan Bautista 1994 2 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

San Juan 

Capistrano 1994* 29 Partial 100% None Some City Mgr.

San Leandro 1988 70 Partial 40% None Some City Mgr.

San Luis Obispo 1995* 42 Total 100% All Some City Mgr.

San Marcos 1983 90 Partial 0% None Some City Mgr.

San Mateo 1993* 90 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

San Mateo Co. 1992* 61 Total 75% None All Health Dept.

San Pablo 1985 26 Partial 40% None All N/S

San Rafael 1993* 50 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

San Ramon 1994* 40 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Santa Ana 1994 302 Total 75% None Some N/S

Santa Barbara 1984 86 Partial 25% None Some N/S

Santa Barbara Co. 1994* 163 Total 100% All Some Health Dept.

Santa Clara 1994* 99 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Santa Clara Co. 1994* 108 Total 100% All All Other Agency

Santa Clarita 1994 125 Total None None All City Mgr.

Santa Cruz 1994* 51 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Santa Cruz Co. 1994* 134 Total 100% Rest. All Health Dept.

Santa Maria 1988 67 Partial 50% None All N/S

Santa Rosa 1993* 122 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Santee 1983 56 Partial 0% None Some N/S

Saratoga 1994* 29 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Sausalito 1994 7 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Scotts Valley 1994* 9 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Seaside 1992 31 Partial 25% None All City Mgr.

Sebastopol 1994* 7 Total 100% Rest. All Police Dept.

Shafter 1994 11 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Shasta Co. 1993* 67 Total 100% All All Health Dept.

Shasta Lake 1993* 9 Total 100% All All Health Dept.

Simi Valley 1987 107 None 50% None All N/S

Solana Beach 1992* 13 Total 100% None All City Mgr.

Solano Co. 1991* 20 Total 100% None All Health Dept.

Solvang 1988 5 Partial 50% None Some City Mgr.

Sonoma 1992* 9 Total 50% None All Police Dept.

Sonoma Co. 1994* 160 Total 100% Rest. All Health Dept.

South Lake Tahoe 1992 23 Total 50% None All Health Dept.

South Pasadena 1988 24 None 50% None Some City Mgr.

S. San Francisco 1993* 57 Public 0% None All City Mgr.

Stanislaus Co. 1993* 103 Total 100% None All Health Dept.

Last Popu- Work- Enclosed

State Amend- lation1 places Restau- Public

Community ment* (000) Covered rants Bars Places Enforcement
80

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

California (Cont.)

Stockton 1988 233 Partial 70% None All N/S

Sunnyvale 1986 125 Partial 60% None Some N/S

Susanville 1995 13 None None None None Police Dept.

Sutter Co. 1986 38 Partial 50% None All Health Dept.

Temecula 1985 39 Partial 25% None None N/S

Thousand Oaks 1993* 113 Partial 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Tiburon 1992* 8 Total 100% All All City Mgr.

Torrance 1987 136 Partial 50% None All City Mgr.

Tracy 1994* 45 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Truckee 1993 10 Partial 80% None Some City Mgr.

Tuolumne Co. 1994 48 Total 100% Rest. All N/S

Turlock 1993* 49 Total 50% None Some Health Dept.

Tustin 1994* 62 Partial 0% None All Other Agency

Ukiah 1993* 15 Total 100% Rest. All Health Dept.

Union City 1994* 58 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Vacaville 1992* 81 Partial 50% None All City Mgr.

Vallejo 1994* 110 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Ventura 1994* 97 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Ventura Co. 1993* 93 Total 100% Rest. All N/S

Victorville 1988 67 Partial 50% None Some City Mgr.

Visalia 1992 88 Total 100% None All Police Dept.

Vista 1992* 78 Partial 0% None Some Health Dept.

Walnut 1992* 31 Public 25% None Some N/S

Walnut Creek 1991* 63 Total 100% None All City Mgr.

Waterford 1991 7 Partial 50% None All Police Dept.

Watsonville 1994* 33 Total 100% Rest. All Health Dept.

West Hollywood 1993* 37 Partial 100% Rest. All N/S

West Sacramento 1991 30 Partial 50% None All Other Agency

Westlake Village 1993 8 Total 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Wheatland 1986 2 Partial 50% None All Health Dept.

Whittier 1991 79 Total 100% None All City Mgr.

Willows 1993 6 Public 100% None None Police Dept.

Woodside 1990 5 Partial 50% None All N/S

Yolo Co. 1988 21 Public None None None N/S

Yorba Linda 1985 58 Partial 33% None Some N/S

Yountville 1994* 3 Total 100% None All City Mgr.

Yuba City 1986 32 Partial 50% None All Health Dept.

Colorado 1998* 3,823 Public 0% None Some N/S

Arapahoe Co. 1988 134 Partial 0% None All Police Dept.

Arvada 1986 96 Partial 25% None All N/S

Aspen 1985 5 Partial 100% None All City Mgr.

Aurora 1986 252 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Last Popu- Work- Enclosed

State Amend- lation1 places Restau- Public

Community ment* (000) Covered rants Bars Places Enforcement
81

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

Colorado (Cont.)

Boulder 1995* 91 Total 100% All All N/S

Boulder Co. 1988 46 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Broomfield 1987 32 Partial 0% None Some Health Dept.

Canon City 1988 15 Partial 0% None Some N/S

Carbondale 1987 4 Partial None None Some City Mgr.

Colorado Springs 1987 345 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Denver 1993* 498 Partial 50% None All Board of Health

Englewood 1986 32 Partial 0% None All N/S

Fort Collins 1997* 104 Partial 0% None All N/S

Glenwood Springs 1988 8 Partial 50% None All N/S

Golden 1986 15 Partial 75% None All N/S

Grand Junction 1985 35 Partial 0% None All N/S

Greeley 1986 69 Partial 50% None All N/S

Greenwood Village 1988 13 Partial 0% None All Police Dept.

Jefferson Co. 1987 171 Partial 0% None All Police Dept.

Lakewood 1995* 135 Partial 50% None All Police Dept.

Larimer Co. 1994 63 Partial 50% Rest. All Police Dept.

Littleton 1987 40 Partial 0% None All N/S

Longmont 1985 58 Partial 0% None All N/S

Louisville 1986 18 None 0% None All City Mgr.

Loveland 1985 45 Partial 50% None All N/S

Parker 1989 12 Partial 0% None All N/S

Pitkin Co. 1995* 7 Partial 100% Rest. All Health Dept.

Pueblo 1985 99 Partial 0% None All N/S

Snowmass 

Village 1989 1 Partial 67% None All Other Agency

Telluride 1987 1 Partial 50% None All City Mgr.

Thornton 1986 67 Partial 0% None All Other Agency

Trinidad 1986 9 Partial 0% None All N/S

Vail 1990* 4 Partial 0% None Some N/S

Weld Co. 1988 37 Public None None None N/S

Westminster 1994* 93 Partial 0% None All Police Dept.

Wheat Ridge 1986 30 Partial 0% None All N/S

Connecticut 1993* 3,274 Partial 0% None Some N/S

Delaware 1994* 725 Partial 0% None Some N/S

Dover 1993 30 Partial 0% None All Other Agency

Wilmington 1989 69 Partial 0% None All Police Dept.

District of 

Columbia 1992* 543 Partial 25% None Some N/S

Last Popu- Work- Enclosed

State Amend- lation1 places Restau- Public

Community ment* (000) Covered rants Bars Places Enforcement
82

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Florida 1992* 14,400 Partial 35% None Some Other Agency

Georgia 1998* 7,353 None None None Some N/S

Albany 1995 79 Total 100% None All Other Agency

Athens/Clark Co. 1994 89 Partial 0% None All N/S

Augusta 1994* 66 None 75% None None Board of Health

Chatham Co. 1995 66 Partial 50% None All Other Agency

Cordele 1995 11 None 25% None None Other Agency

Dahlonega 1993 3 None 50% None Some City Mgr.

Decatur 1993 18 Partial 50% None All Police Dept.

DeKalb Co. 1992 503 Partial 50% None All Police Dept.

Fulton Co. 1993 202 Partial 50% None All Health Dept.

Gainesville 1991 19 Partial 75% None All Other Agency

Gwinnett Co. 1993 382 Partial 50% None All Health Dept.

Hall Co. 1993* 89 Partial 75% None All Other Agency

Richmond Co. 1994* 148 None 75% None None Board of Health

Roswell 1988 55 None 0% None None Health Dept.

Savannah 1994 136 Partial 50% None All Police Dept.

Snellville 1992 15 Partial 50% None All Police Dept.

Hawaii 1992* 1,184 Public 0% None Some N/S

Hawaii Co. 1986 138 None 0% None Some Other Agency

Honolulu 1997* 423 Total None None Some N/S

Maui Co. 1998 117 Public None None All Police Dept.

Idaho 1985* 1,189 Public 0% None All N/S

Illinois 1995* 11,847 Partial 0% None All N/S

Arlington Heights 1989 77 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Chicago 1993* 2,722 Partial 30% None All Health Dept.

DeKalb 1988 36 None 50% None Some City Mgr.

Des Plaines 1988 55 Partial 25% None All City Mgr.

Downers Grove 1979 50 None 10% None Some N/S

Elgin 1989 86 Partial 50% None All Other Agency

Evanston 1988 72 None 20% None None Health Dept.

Highland Park 1986 31 None 0% None All N/S

Hoffman Estates 1988 49 Partial 0% None None City Mgr.

Oak Park 1989 52 Partial 25% None All N/S

Orland Park 1988 46 Partial 0% None None N/S

Park Ridge 1989 37 None 0% None None N/S

Rockford 1988 144 Partial 0% None All N/S

Schaumburg 1986 74 None 0% None Some Police Dept.

Skokie 1987 59 Partial 0% None All City Mgr.

Wilmette 1988 26 Partial 0% None All N/S

Last Popu- Work- Enclosed

State Amend- lation1 places Restau- Public

Community ment* (000) Covered rants Bars Places Enforcement
83

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

Indiana 1998* 5,841 Public None None None Other Agency

Bloomington 1987 66 None 25% None Some N/S

Fort Wayne 1998* 185 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Monroe Co. 1995* 45 None 0% None All Board of Health

Iowa 1990* 2,852 Partial 0% None All N/S

Kansas 1994* 2,572 Public 0% None All N/S

Lawrence 1986 72 Partial 0% None All N/S

Overland Park 1994* 131 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Prairie Village 1986 24 None None None Some N/S

Roeland Park 1994 8 None 0% None All City Mgr.

Topeka 1986 120 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Wellington 1992 9 None 0% None All N/S

Kentucky 1993* 3,884 Public None None None N/S

Louisiana 1994* 4,351 Partial 0% None All N/S

Baton Rouge 1989 216 Partial None None Some N/S

Calcasieu Parish 1993 72 Partial 50% None All Police Dept.

Catahoula Parish 1993 8 Partial 70% None All Other Agency

E. Baton Rouge 

Parish 1989 157 Partial None None Some N/S

Jefferson Parish 1995 342 Partial 50% None All Other Agency

Lake Charles 1989 71 Partial 50% None All Other Agency

New Orleans 1988 477 Partial 50% None All Health Dept.

Sulphur 1993 21 Partial 50% None All Other Agency

Maine 1993* 1,243 Partial 0% None All N/S

Portland 1998 63 None 100% Rest. None Other Agency

Maryland 1994* 5,072 Total 60% Rest. All N/S

Anne Arundel Co. 1993 432 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Baltimore Co. 1993 718 Public None None All Health Dept.

Gaithersburg 1988 46 Public 50% None Some Health Dept.

Howard Co. 1993* 224 Partial 100% All All Police Dept.

Montgomery Co. 1991* 696 Partial 50% None All Health Dept.

Prince George’s 

Co. 1988 563 Public None None None N/S

Rockville 1987 46 None 50% None Some Health Dept.

Takoma Park 1990 12 Partial 50% None Some Health Dept.

Talbot Co. 1994 19 Total 100% All All Health Dept.

Massachusetts 1997* 6,092 Public 0% None Some N/S

Acton 1982 19 None 25% None None Board of Health

Acushnet 1995 10 Partial 100% Rest. All Board of Health

Agawam 1992* 27 Public 50% None All Board of Health

Amherst 1994* 35 Total 100% All All Health Dept.

Last Popu- Work- Enclosed

State Amend- lation1 places Restau- Public

Community ment* (000) Covered rants Bars Places Enforcement
84

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Massachusetts (Cont.)

Andover 1994 31 None 100% Rest. All Board of Health

Arlington 1995* 44 Total 100% All All Board of Health

Attleboro 1995* 39 Total 0% All All Health Dept.

Auburn 1986 15 None 50% None Some Board of Health

Bedford 1994 14 Partial 100% None All Board of Health

Bellingham 1997* 16 Partial 100% None None Board of Health

Belmont 1994* 24 Partial 100% All All Health Dept.

Beverly 1984 39 None 25% None None Board of Health

Billerica 1995 39 None 50% None All Board of Health

Boston 1998* 558 Partial 100% None None Board of Health

Boxborough 1995 4 None 100% None All Board of Health

Braintree 1984 35 None 25% None None Board of Health

Brewster 1989* 9 None 50% None None Board of Health

Brookline 1995* 54 Total 100% All All N/S

Burlington 1992 23 Partial 50% None All Board of Health

Cambridge 1987* 94 Partial 25% None All Health Dept.

Canton 1994* 20 Partial 50% None All Board of Health

Chatham 1986 7 None 25% None None Board of Health

Chelmsford 1991* 33 Partial 75% None Some Board of Health

Chicopee 1995* 55 None 100% Rest. None Board of Health

Clinton 1994 13 None 50% None All Board of Health

Cohasset 1991* 7 Partial 75% None All Board of Health

Concord 1989 18 Partial 50% None All Board of Health

Danvers 1986 24 None 25% None None Board of Health

Dedham 1994 24 None 50% None None Board of Health

Dennis 1985 14 None 0% None None Board of Health

Dover 1994 5 Partial 0% None All Board of Health

Dudley 1994 10 Partial 75% None All Board of Health

East Longmeadow 1994* 14 Public 100% Rest. None Board of Health

Easthampton 1994* 16 Total 100% All All Board of Health

Everett 1992 35 None 75% None None Board of Health

Falmouth 1993 30 Total 100% None All Health Dept.

Foxborough 1993* 16 Partial 100% None All Health Dept.

Framingham 1994* 65 None 25% None None Board of Health

Gardner 1996 20 Public 100% Rest. All Board of Health

Gloucester 1994 29 Partial 50% None All Board of Health

Granby 1995 6 None None None Some Board of Health

Great Barrington 1992 8 Partial 50% None All Board of Health

Greenfield 1994 19 Total 100% All All Board of Health

Harwich 1993 11 None 50% None None Board of Health

Haverhill 1995 54 Total 100% Rest. All Board of Health

Hingham 1993 20 Partial 75% None All Board of Health

Holden 1993* 15 Public 100% None All Board of Health

Last Popu- Work- Enclosed

State Amend- lation1 places Restau- Public

Community ment* (000) Covered rants Bars Places Enforcement
85

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

Massachusetts (Cont.)

Holyoke 1994* 41 Total 100% All All Board of Health

Hudson 1984 18 None 20% None None Board of Health

Hull 1992* 10 None 50% None None Board of Health

Lawrence 1994 69 Partial 75% None All Board of Health

Lee 1994* 6 Partial 100% Rest. All Board of Health

Lenox 1994* 5 Partial 100% Rest. All Board of Health

Leominster 1989* 39 Partial 100% Rest. All Board of Health

Lexington 1994* 29 Total 100% All All Board of Health

Longmeadow 1994* 15 None 75% None Some Board of Health

Lowell 1995 101 Public 75% None None Health Dept.

Lynnfield 1984 11 None 25% None None Board of Health

Malden 1993* 53 None 25% None Some N/S

Mansfield 1993 19 Partial 75% None All Board of Health

Marblehead 1994* 20 None 67% All All Board of Health

Marion 1994 5 Partial 50% None All Board of Health

Marlborough 1987 33 None 30% None None Board of Health

Mashpee 1995 9 Partial 50% None All Board of Health

Maynard 1988 10 None 50% None Some Board of Health

Medfield 1997* 11 Partial 100% All All Board of Health

Medford 1984 56 None 25% None None Board of Health

Methuen 1995 41 Partial 50% None All Board of Health

Middleton 1995 6 Partial 100% Rest. All Board of Health

Millis 1991 8 Partial 35% None All Board of Health

Milton 1994 26 Public 50% None None Board of Health

Montague 1995* 8 Total 100% Rest. All Board of Health

Nahant 1995* 4 Partial 50% None All Board of Health

Natick 1987* 31 Partial 25% None All Board of Health

Needham 1995* 28 Partial 100% None All Board of Health

Newton 1993* 80 Partial 100% None All Board of Health

North Andover 1995 24 Partial 50% None All Board of Health

North Attleboro 1995* 26 Partial 75% None All Health Dept.

Northampton 1994* 29 Total 100% Rest. All Board of Health

Norton 1995 16 Public None None None Board of Health

Norwell 1994* 10 Total 100% None All Board of Health

Norwood 1992* 29 None 50% None None Board of Health

Oak Bluffs 1993 3 Partial 100% None All Board of Health

Orange 1995* 8 Total 100% All All Board of Health

Pittsfield 1995 46 None 100% Rest. All Board of Health

Plainville 1993* 7 Partial 100% All All Board of Health

Plymouth 1993 48 Partial 0% None All Board of Health

Quincy 1988 86 None 25% None None Board of Health

Randolph 1984 31 None 25% None None Board of Health

Reading 1989* 23 None 25% None Some Board of Health

Last Popu- Work- Enclosed

State Amend- lation1 places Restau- Public

Community ment* (000) Covered rants Bars Places Enforcement
86

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Massachusetts (Cont.)

Revere 1992* 42 Partial 50% None All Board of Health

Salem 1988 38 None 25% None None Board of Health

Sandwich 1993* 18 Partial 50% None All Health Dept.

Saugus 1994 26 Total 60% None All Board of Health

Scituate 1987 17 None 50% None None Board of Health

Seekonk 1995 13 None 0% Rest. All Board of Health

Sharon 1998* 17 Partial 100% All All Board of Health

Somerville 1992* 74 Partial 100% Rest. All Board of Health

South Hadley 1994 17 None 100% Rest. All Board of Health

Southwick 1992 8 Partial 50% None All Board of Health

Sterling 1987 7 None 40% None All Board of Health

Stockbridge 1994* 2 Partial 100% Rest. All Board of Health

Stoneham 1990 22 None 25% None None Board of Health

Stoughton 1983 27 None 25% None None Board of Health

Sudbury 1988* 15 Partial 50% All All Board of Health

Swampscott 1994* 14 None 50% None All Board of Health

Tewksbury 1994* 29 None 100% None All Board of Health

Townsend 1987 9 Partial None None None Board of Health

Wakefield 1995 25 Total 100% All All Board of Health

Walpole 1995* 22 Partial 50% None Some Board of Health

Watertown 1991* 32 Partial 80% None None Board of Health

Wellesley 1990* 27 Partial 25% None None Board of Health

West Springfield 1994* 26 Partial 100% Rest. All Board of Health

Westborough 1998 15 Total 100% Rest. All Board of Health

Westfield 1995* 38 Public 100% All All Board of Health

Westford 1993* 19 Partial 75% None Some Board of Health

Westminster 1985 7 None 0% None None Board of Health

Westwood 1996 13 Partial 100% None All Board of Health

Weymouth 1994* 55 None 50% None All Board of Health

Wilbraham 1994 12 None 100% Rest. All Board of Health

Williamstown 1993* 8 Total 70% None Some Health Dept.

Winchester 1984 20 None 25% None None Board of Health

Winthrop 1994* 17 None 25% None None Board of Health

Wrentham 1995 10 None None None Some Board of Health

Michigan 1993* 9,594 Public 50% None Some N/S

Argentine 1993 5 None None None All Health Dept.

Atlas 1993 6 None None None All Health Dept.

Burton 1993 27 None None None All Health Dept.

Clio 1993 3 None None None All Health Dept.

Davison 1993 6 None None None All Health Dept.

Detroit 1992 1,000 Partial None None None Health Dept.

East Lansing 1995* 48 Partial 50% None All City Mgr.

Fenton 1993 10 None None None All Health Dept.

Last Popu- Work- Enclosed

State Amend- lation1 places Restau- Public

Community ment* (000) Covered rants Bars Places Enforcement
87

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

Michigan (Cont.)

Flint 1993 135 None None None All Health Dept.

Flushing 1993 8 None None None All Health Dept.

Genesee 1993 24 None None None All Health Dept.

Genesee Co. 1993 225 None None None All Health Dept.

Goodrich 1993 1 None None None All Health Dept.

Grand Blanc 1993 8 None None None All Health Dept.

Linden 1993 3 None None None All Health Dept.

Marquette 1997* 17 Total 100% None All City Mgr.

Marquette Co. 1987 36 Partial 60% None All City Mgr.

Montrose 1993 2 None None None All Health Dept.

Mundy 1993 13 None None None All Health Dept.

Otisville 1993 (722) None None None All Health Dept.

Pontiac 1998 71 Public None None Some Police Dept.

Swartz Creek 1993 5 None None None All Health Dept.

Thetford 1993 9 None None None All Health Dept.

Minnesota 1993* 4,658 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Farmington 1991 9 None None None None Police Dept.

Mississippi 1964 2,716 None None None Some N/S

Missouri 1993* 5,359 Partial 0% None All N/S

Brentwood 1990 13 Public 33% None All N/S

Chesterfield 1992* 45 None 50% None All Police Dept.

Clayton 1988 14 None 25% None Some City Mgr.

Columbia 1990* 77 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Crestwood 1993 12 None 70% None All N/S

Des Peres 1989 8 None 50% None Some N/S

Frontenac 1994 3 None 50% None All N/S

Independence 1986 110 Partial 0% None All Other Agency

Jefferson City 1989 36 Partial 0% None All Other Agency

Kansas City 1986 441 Partial 0% None Some Health Dept.

Ladue 1993 8 None 40% All None na

Oak Grove 1993 5 None 0% None All N/S

Pacific 1993 5 None 0% None All N/S

Pleasant Hill 1993 5 None 0% None All N/S

Rock Hill 1987 5 None 0% None Some N/S

Springfield 1991 143 None 0% None All Board of Health

St. Joseph 1993 70 None 0% None All Health Dept.

Webster Groves 1993 22 None 70% All All N/S

Montana 1993* 879 Partial 0% None Some N/S

Nebraska 1979 1,652 Private 0% None All N/S

Lincoln 1990 209 None None None Some na

Last Popu- Work- Enclosed

State Amend- lation1 places Restau- Public

Community ment* (000) Covered rants Bars Places Enforcement
88

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Nevada 1993* 1,603 Public 0% None Some Local Bd. 

Health

New Hampshire 1997* 1,162 Partial 0% None All N/S

New Jersey 1998* 7,988 Partial 0% None Some Loc. Bd. Health

Bayonne 1998 61 Public None None None Health Dept.

Glassboro 1998 7 None 100% None None Health Dept.

Highland Park 1996 13 Total None None All Board of Health

Hillsborough 

Twnshp. 1981 33 None 0% None Some N/S

Irvington 1994 58 None None None Some Health Dept.

Jefferson Twnshp. 1996 18 None None None None Police Dept.

Lawrence Twnshp. 1994 28 None 50% None All N/S

Marlboro 1997 3 None 50% Rest. All Health Dept.

Medford 1998 56 Public None None None Police Dept.

Pequannock 1995 14 None 50% None All Other Agency

Princeton Twnshp. 1998 14 None None None None na

Secaucus 1993 14 None 0% None All Health Dept.

Union Twnshp. 1992 50 None None None Some Other Agency

New Mexico 1994* 1,713 Public None None None N/S

Albuquerque 1988 420 Partial 67% None All N/S

Las Cruces 1997* 75 Partial 100% Rest. All City Mgr.

Los Alamos Co. 1994 18 Partial 67% None All Police Dept.

New York 1994* 18,185 Partial 70% None All Other Agency

Chautauqua Co. 1988 63 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Erie Co. 1996* 516 Total 100% None All Health Dept.

Livingston Co. 1998 40 Partial 100% Rest. All Board of Health

Monroe Co. 1997* 458 Total 100% None All Health Dept.

Nassau Co. 1996* 814 Partial 100% None All Health Dept.

New York City 1994* 7,381 Partial 100% None All Health Dept.

Niagara Co. 1998 221 Total 100% Rest. All Health Dept.

Ontario Co. 1987 62 Partial 0% None All N/S

Rockland Co. 1997* 171 Partial 75% None All N/S

Suffolk Co. 1994* 1,238 Partial 100% Rest. Some Health Dept.

Westchester Co. 1996* 254 Partial 100% None All Health Dept.

North Carolina 1993 7,123 Public None None None N/S

Boone 1993 14 Partial None None Some Other Agency

Buncombe Co. 1993 113 Total 50% None All Health Dept.

Burke Co. 1993 56 Total 50% None All Health Dept.

Burlington 1993 40 None 25% None Some City Mgr.

Caldwell Co. 1993 41 Partial 33% None All Health Dept.

Carrboro 1993 14 Partial 50% None All N/S

Catawba Co. 1993 74 Total 50% None All Health Dept.

Chapel Hill 1992* 44 Partial 25% None Some City Mgr.

Last Popu- Work- Enclosed

State Amend- lation1 places Restau- Public

Community ment* (000) Covered rants Bars Places Enforcement
89

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

North Carolina (Cont.)

Chatham Co. 1993 37 Total None None All Health Dept.

Cleveland Co. 1993 37 Partial 50% None Some Health Dept.

Craven Co. 1993 35 Total 50% None All Health Dept.

Cumberland Co. 1993 187 None 33% None Some Health Dept.

Davie Co. 1993 15 Public 0% None All Health Dept.

Durham 1993 150 None 50% None Some N/S

Durham Co. 1993 46 Partial 50% None Some Health Dept.

Forsyth Co. 1994 99 None None None Some Health Dept.

Gaston Co. 1993 86 Partial 80% None All Health Dept.

Graham Co. 1993 8† None None None All Health Dept.

Greensboro 1989* 195 None 25% None None N/S

Guilford Co. 1993 102 Partial 100% All All Health Dept.

Halifax Co. 1993 33 Partial 80% None All Board of Health

Haywood Co. 1993 36 Partial None None None Health Dept.

Henderson Co. 1993 66 Total 66% None All Health Dept.

High Point 1993 74 None 25% None None N/S

Lee Co. 1993 25 Partial 50% None Some Board of Health

Montreat 1993 (671) Total 50% None All Other Agency

New Hanover 1993* 144 Total 100% None All Health Dept.

New Hanover Co. 1993* 74 Total 100% None All Health Dept.

Northampton Co. 1993 15 Partial 33% None All Board of Health

Onslow Co. 1994* 71 Partial 80% None All Health Dept.

Orange Co. 1993 45 Total 50% None All Health Dept.

Raleigh 1993* 244 Partial 33% None Some N/S

Randolph Co. 1993 87 None 75% None None Board of Health

Rowan Co. 1993 73 None 0% None All Board of Health

Wake Co. 1993 159 Total 50% None All Health Dept.

Wilkes Co. 1993 55 Total 50% None All Health Dept.

Wilmington 1990 62 Partial 25% None Some Health Dept.

Wrightsville Beach 1993 3 Partial 25% None Some Health Dept.

North Dakota 1993* 644 Public 0% None Some N/S

Ohio 1994* 11,173 Public None None Some N/S

Akron 1995* 217 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Athens 1988 21 None 50% None All Health Dept.

Barberton 1988 27 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Beachwood 1989 11 Partial 50% None All Other Agency

Cincinnati 1985 346 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Cleveland 1986 498 Partial 40% None All Health Dept.

Cleveland Heights 1987 54 Partial 30% None All Health Dept.

Columbus 1993 657 Total 100% None All Health Dept.

Dayton 1971 173 None None None Some N/S

Last Popu- Work- Enclosed

State Amend- lation1 places Restau- Public

Community ment* (000) Covered rants Bars Places Enforcement
90

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Ohio (Cont.)

Delaware Co. 1997 83 Partial 60% None All Health Dept.

Eastlake 1988 21 Partial 0% None None Police Dept.

Euclid 1989 52 Partial 0% None Some N/S

Findlay 1993 37 Partial 50% None All Board of Health

Hancock Co. 1994 22 Partial 50% None Some Board of Health

Knox Co. 1994 31 Total 100% All All Health Dept.

Lakewood 1987 56 Partial 0% None Some Health Dept.

Licking Co. 1993 58 Partial 50% None All Health Dept.

Lorain 1992 70 Partial 50% None All Health Dept.

Mahoning Co. 1994 132 None 50% None Some Health Dept.

Maple Heights 1988 26 Partial 0% None All Other Agency

Mayfield Village 1986 3 Partial 10% None All Other Agency

Medina 1987 22 None 50% None All Health Dept.

Muskingum Co. 1993 85† Partial 60% None All Health Dept.

Newark 1992 49 Partial 50% None Some Health Dept.

Parma 1988 85 Partial 0% None All Other Agency

Parma Heights 1987 21 Partial 0% None All Other Agency

Shaker Heights 1988 29 Partial 50% None All Health Dept.

Stark Co. 1997 197 None None None Some Board of Health

Summit Co. 1988* 86 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Toledo 1987 318 Partial 20% None All Health Dept.

University Heights 1987 14 Partial 50% None All Other Agency

Warren 1987 48 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Warren City 1992 48 Partial 0% None Some Board of Health

Xenia 1985 23 Partial 0% None None N/S

Muskingum Co. 1993 85 Total 60% None All Health Dept.

Oklahoma 1994* 3,301 Public 0% None Some Other Agency

Oregon 1985* 3,204 Public 0% None All Loc. Bd. Health

Benton Co. 1997 20 Total 100% Rest. All N/S

Corvallis 1997 48 Total 100% All All N/S

Eugene 1980 124 Public 0% None Some N/S

Pennsylvania 1992* 12,056 Partial 0% None Some N/S

Erie 1988 105 Partial 20% None All N/S

Lower Merion 1988 57 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Pittsburgh 1987 350 Partial 20% None All Other Agency

State College 1987 39 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Rhode Island 1998* 990 Partial 0% None Some N/S

North Providence 1997 31 None None None None N/S

Portsmouth 1998 101 None None None None N/S

Last Popu- Work- Enclosed

State Amend- lation1 places Restau- Public

Community ment* (000) Covered rants Bars Places Enforcement
91

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

South Carolina 1996* 3,699 Public None None Some N/S

Greenville 1987 57 None 50% None Some N/S

Hampton Co. 1987 9 Public None None None N/S

Spartanburg 1993 42 Partial 50% None Some N/S

South Dakota 1994* 732 Public None None Some N/S

Sioux Falls 1980 113 Partial None None Some N/S

Tennessee 1995* 5,320 Public None None Some N/S

Collierville 1993 25 None 0% None Some N/S

Germantown 1989 32 None 0% None Some N/S

Memphis 1986 597 None 0% None Some Health Dept.

Texas 1987* 19,128 None None None Some N/S

Abilene 1987 108 Partial 0% None All N/S

Addison 1988 11 Partial 0% None Some N/S

Amarillo 1988 170 None 0% None All N/S

Arlington 1994* 295 Total 50% None All Health Dept.

Austin 1994* 541 Total 100% All All N/S

Baytown 1990* 68 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Bedford 1986 49 None 0% None Some N/S

Bellaire 1996 15 Public None None None N/S

Brownsville 1988 132 Partial 0% None Some Health Dept.

Bryan 1986 58 None 0% None Some N/S

Carrollton 1994 97 None 100% All Some N/S

College Station 1990 59 None 50% None All N/S

Colleyville 1989 19 Partial 0% None All N/S

Corpus Christi 1993* 280 Partial 70% None All Health Dept.

Dallas 1993* 1,053 Partial 0% None Some N/S

Del Rio 1987 34 None 0% None All N/S

Denton 1986 73 None 0% None Some N/S

Desoto 1989 35 Partial 75% None Some N/S

Duncanville 1989 36 None 0% None All N/S

Eagle Pass 1987 28 None 0% None All N/S

El Paso 1986 600 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Euless 1987 42 None None None Some N/S

Fort Worth 1993* 480 Partial 100% None Some Health Dept.

Galveston 1989 60 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Garland 1991 190 None 0% None Some N/S

Granbury City 1993* 5 None 50% None Some N/S

Grand Prairie 1986 109 None 0% None Some N/S

Greenville 1986 24 Partial 0% None All N/S

Haltom City 1986 36 None 0% None All N/S

Houston 1992* 1,744 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Huntsville 1987 29 None 30% None Some N/S

Hurst 1986 37 None 0% None Some N/S

Last Popu- Work- Enclosed

State Amend- lation1 places Restau- Public

Community ment* (000) Covered rants Bars Places Enforcement
92

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Texas (Cont.)

Irving 1979 177 None None None Some N/S

Keller 1998 20 Public None None None City Mgr.

Kerr Co. 1987 20 Public None None None N/S

Kerrville 1987 20 Partial 0% None All N/S

Lancaster 1988 23 None 0% None Some N/S

Leon Valley 1987 10 None 0% None All N/S

Longview 1987 75 None 0% None All N/S

Lubbock 1987 194 Partial 0% None All Other Agency

Mansfield 1987 21 None None None Some N/S

McAllen 1987 103 Partial 0% None Some N/S

Mesquite 1988 112 None 50% None All Health Dept.

Midland 1990 97 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

New Braunfels 1990 34 Public 0% None Some N/S

N. Richland Hills 1987 53 None 0% None All N/S

Plano 1994* 192 None 100% All All City Mgr.

Richardson 1988 81 Partial 0% None Some Health Dept.

Rockwall 1986 14 Public 0% None Some N/S

Round Rock 1994 52 Partial 51% None All City Mgr.

San Antonio 1992* 1,068 None 0% None All City Mgr.

Seguin 1988 21 Partial 0% None All N/S

Southlake 1992 14 Partial 0% None Some N/S

Sugar Land 1987 48 Public None None None N/S

Texarkana 1986 32 Public None None Some N/S

Travis Co. 1986 121 Partial 0% None All N/S

Tyler 1987 82 Partial None None All N/S

West Lake Hills 1993 3 Partial 100% None All N/S

Wichita Falls 1994* 100 Total 100% Rest. All Health Dept.

Utah 1997* 2,000 Partial 100% None Some Health Dept.

Vermont 1997* 589 Partial 100% All All N/S

Burlington 1987* 39 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Virginia 1996* 6,675 Public 0% None Some N/S

Albemarle Co. 1989 74 Partial 20% None Some Health Dept.

Alexandria 1988 118 None 25% None Some City Mgr.

Arlington 1987* 175 None 25% None Some N/S

Charlottesville 1988 41 Partial 20% None Some Health Dept.

Chesapeake 1988 192 Public 0% None Some Health Dept.

Fairfax 1986* 21 None 25% None Some Health Dept.

Fairfax Co. 1985 869 None 25% None Some Health Dept.

Falls Church 1990* 10 None 25% None Some N/S

Franklin 1988 9 None 0% None Some Health Dept.

Last Popu- Work- Enclosed

State Amend- lation1 places Restau- Public

Community ment* (000) Covered rants Bars Places Enforcement
93

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

Virginia (Cont.)

Hampton 1989 139 None 0% None Some Health Dept.

Lynchburg 1989 67 None 25% None Some Health Dept.

Newport News 1989 176 Public 0% None Some Health Dept.

Norfolk 1979 233 None 0% None Some Health Dept.

Portsmouth 1989* 101 None 0% None Some City Mgr.

Prince William Co. 1987* 243 Public 25% None Some N/S

Stafford Co. 1988 82 Public None None None Other Agency

Suffolk 1989 59 None 0% None All Health Dept.

Virginia Beach 1989 430 None 0% None Some Health Dept.

Washington 1994* 5,533 Total 0% None All N/S

Kennewick 1985 51 None 0% None All N/S

King Co. 1986 539 Public None None None N/S

Pierce Co. 1986* 657 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Seattle 1983 525 Partial 0% None Some Health Dept.

West Virginia 1987* 1,826 None None None None N/S

Belmont 1990 1 Partial 0% None All N/S

Bluefield 1991 12 None 0% None All City Mgr.

Boone Co. 1997 22 Partial 75% None All Health Dept.

Braxton Co. 1995 11 Partial 50% None All Health Dept.

Brooke Co. 1996 15 Total 50% None All Health Dept.

Cabell Co. 1995 42 Partial 75% None All Health Dept.

Calhoun Co. 1994 7 Partial 75% None All Health Dept.

Clay Co. 1995 10 Partial 50% None All Board of Health

Fairmont 1987 20 Partial 0% None All City Mgr.

Gilmer Co. 1997 7 Partial 100% None All Health Dept.

Grant Co. 1994* 8 Partial 75% None All Health Dept.

Greenbrier Co. 1995 36 Partial 75% None All Health Dept.

Hampshire Co. 1994* 16 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Jackson Co. 1996 20 Partial 50% None All Board of Health

Kanawha Co. 1995 99 Partial 50% None All Board of Health

Lincoln Co. 1995 21 Total 75% None All Health Dept.

Marshall Co. 1998 36 Partial 50% None All Health Dept.

McDowell Co. 1996 24 Partial 50% None All Health Dept.

Mercer Co. 1995 44 Partial 100% None All Health Dept.

Monongalia Co. 1992 45 Partial 50% None All Health Dept.

Monroe Co. 1996 12 Partial 50% None All Health Dept.

Morgan Co. 1997 12 Partial 100% None All Health Dept.

Morgantown 1997* 27 Partial 100% None All Health Dept.

Nicholas Co. 1998 22 Partial 50% None All Health Dept.

Pendleton Co. 1993 7 Partial 50% None All Health Dept.

Pleasants Co. 1994 4 Partial 75% None All Health Dept.

Princeton 1990 7 Partial 50% None All City Mgr.

Last Popu- Work- Enclosed

State Amend- lation1 places Restau- Public

Community ment* (000) Covered rants Bars Places Enforcement
94

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

West Virginia (Cont.)

Putnam Co. 1996 37 Partial 75% None All Board of Health

Raleigh Co. 1995 57 Partial 75% None All Health Dept.

Randolph Co. 1994 19 Partial 75% None All Health Dept.

Ritchie Co. 1994 6 Partial 75% None All Health Dept.

Roane Co. 1994 13 Partial 75% None All Health Dept.

Upshur Co. 1995 18 Partial 100% None All Health Dept.

Wayne Co. 1997 31 Partial 75% None All Health Dept.

Webster Co. 1997 10 Partial 50% None All Health Dept.

Ohio Co. 1996 50 Partial 50% None All Board of Health

Wirt Co. 1994 5 Partial 75% None All Health Dept.

Wood Co. 1994 40 Partial 75% None All Health Dept.

Wyoming Co. 1997 28 Total 75% None All Health Dept.

Wisconsin 1994* 5,160 Partial 0% Rest. Some Other Agency

Dane Co. 1998* 72 Public None None None N/S

Fitchburg 1991 18 None 0% None Some Other Agency

Madison 1992* 198 None 100% None Some Health Dept.

Middleton 1996 14 None 100% None None N/S

Oak Creek 1988 25 None None None Some N/S

Rice Lake 1983 8 Public None None Some N/S

Shorewood Hills 1994* 2 None 100% Rest. Some N/S

Wyoming 1989 481 Public None None None N/S

Casper 1988 49 Partial 0% None All Health Dept.

Laramie 1986 27 Partial 0% None All N/S

Last Popu- Work- Enclosed

State Amend- lation1 places Restau- Public

Community ment* (000) Covered rants Bars Places Enforcement

* There was an earlier enactment; this is the year of the most recent ammendment.

1 Populations are in thousands unless otherwise noted. Population numbers in (parentheses) are for

counties with less than 1000 residents; those numbers are exact population figures. County populations are for unincorporated areas only unless otherwise noted.

† Population includes incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county.
SUMMARY TABLE 2 This table gives a tally of the local ordinances listed in 

Chart 4 that restrict youth access to tobacco products. It also provides tallies for specific youth access ordinances.

Total: This column lists the total number of local communities with youth

access ordinances. This includes laws covering vending machines, free

or low-cost distribution of tobacco product samples, single cigarette

sales, and tobacco retailer licensing.

Vending Machines: This column lists the total number of local communities

with ordinances that place restrictions on vending machines. 

Tobacco Sampling: This column lists the total number of local communities

with ordinances that restrict free or low-cost promotional distribution

of tobacco products.

Licensing: This column lists the total number of local communities with

ordinances that require tobacco retailers to be licensed, and provide for

the suspension or revocation of that license if the retailer repeatedly

sells to minors.

Self-Service Displays: This column lists the total number of local communities with ordinances that prohibit stocking tobacco products in displays

accessible to the public without the intervention of a sales clerk.

Ordinances that exempt unbroken cartons of cigarettes are included.

Single Cigarette Sales: This column lists the total number of local communities with ordinances that prohibit the sale of single cigarettes.

Use/Possession/Purchase: This column lists the total number of local communities with ordinances that penalize minors for purchasing, possessing,

or using tobacco products.

CHART 4 This chart lists local ordinances designed to control youth access to

tobacco. In general, the majority of these provisions cover both smoking

and chewing tobacco products. There are 764 local youth access ordinances

listed herein. 

Figure 3 presents a map of the tobacco vending machine laws in the

United States at the local and state levels.

Figure 4 presents a map of the licensing laws for tobacco retailers in

the United States at the local and state levels.

Figure 5 presents a map of the self-service display laws in the United

States at the local and state levels.

Last Amendment: This column indicates when a community enacted or last

amended an ordinance with youth access provisions. In the case of

137

YOUTH ACCESS PROVISIONS
ordinances that have been amended following original adoption, the

column reflects the date of the latest amendment. Those ordinances

that have been amended following original adoption are indicated by

an asterisk next to the date.

Vending Machines: A “Total” in this column indicates that the ordinance

prohibits tobacco vending machines in all areas, without exception. A

“Partial” in this column indicates that the ordinance allows tobacco

vending machines under certain circumstances. Partial restrictions

include restricting vending machine placement to adult-only areas (e.g.,

bars, workplace cafeterias, etc.), a requirement that vending machines

be equipped with a mechanical locking device which prevents a sale

until activated by a sales clerk, a requirement that vending machines

operate on tokens which cannot be sold to minors, or a requirement

that vending machines be placed in areas under constant adult supervision. A “Partial” in this column indicates that the ordinance allows one

or more of these partial restrictions.

Sampling: A “Yes” in this column indicates that the ordinance limits or

bans free or low-cost distribution of tobacco product samples to minors

and adults. Ordinances that exempt private clubs or other adult-only

areas are included. Ordinances that prohibit providing tobacco product

samples to minors but permit distribution to adults are not included.

Licensing: A “Yes” in this column indicates that the ordinance requires

tobacco retailers to obtain a license to sell tobacco products and provides for suspension and/or revocation of the license if the merchant is

repeatedly caught selling tobacco to minors. Ordinances that require

merchants to obtain a license but do not provide for its suspension or

revocation are not included, as they are designed to raise revenue and

not to reduce youth access to tobacco.

Self-Service Displays: A “Yes” in this column indicates that the ordinance

prohibits stocking tobacco products in displays accessible to the public

without the intervention of a sales clerk (i.e., tobacco products must be

placed behind or above the counter and be accessible only to the sales

clerk). Ordinances that exempt unbroken cartons of cigarettes are

included.

Single Cigarette Sales: A “Yes” in this column indicates that the ordinance

prohibits selling single cigarettes, or cigarettes out of the original manufacturer’s sealed packaging which includes the health warning label.

Use/Possession/Purchase: A “Yes” in this column indicates that the ordinance

penalizes minors for purchasing, possessing, and/or using tobacco products.

Note: An entry of “—” in a field indicates that information is not available

for that provision. This is generally the result of adding new fields of

analysis to reflect a significant development in ordinance provisions;

database records for ordinances analyzed prior to the new field of analysis do not contain information for that provision.

138

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
139

Self- Single Use/

Vending Sam- Licen- Service Cigarette Possession/

State Total Machine pling sing Displays Sales Purchase

Alabama 2 2 0 0 0 0 0

Alaska 1 1 0 0 1 1 1

Arizona 6 6 0 1 1 0 0

California 156 152 38 2 57 24 3

Colorado 17 10 2 2 5 1 14

Connecticut 3 1 0 0 1 0 1

Delaware 1 0 0 0 0 1 0

District of 

Columbia 1 1 1 1 0 0 0

Florida 1 1 0 0 0 0 1

Georgia 2 1 1 0 0 0 0

Hawaii 2 0 2 0 0 0 0

Illinois 56 34 34 36 0 3 48

Indiana 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

Iowa 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

Kansas 4 3 1 1 1 2 3

Louisiana 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

Maine 3 1 1 1 2 0 0

Maryland 2 2 2 0 0 0 0

Massachusetts 109 104 94 75 60 68 3

Michigan 36 11 2 27 1 0 3

Minnesota 95 79 8 60 25 4 20

Missouri 6 3 3 2 1 2 4

Nebraska 3 0 1 1 0 1 2

New Hampshire 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

New Jersey 153 143 1 18 56 2 17

New Mexico 1 1 1 0 0 1 0

New York 11 8 3 2 2 1 0

North Carolina 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

North Dakota 12 12 0 7 4 0 8

Ohio 12 9 3 2 1 1 8

Oregon 3 0 0 2 3 0 0

Pennsylvania 12 11 0 0 1 1 0

Rhode Island 2 1 0 0 0 0 1

Texas 13 9 3 0 3 1 4

Utah 7 5 0 0 7 0 0

Washington 7 7 3 5 0 1 1

West Virginia 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

Wisconsin 17 5 4 5 1 6 12

Wyoming 2 1 0 0 0 0 2

Totals 764 628 208 252 233 121 156

Summary Table 2

Local Ordinances Restricting Youth Access to Tobacco: Total Number by State

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances
Figure 3: Vending Machine Placement Laws: 1997

140

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Data Source: State Legislated Actions on Tobacco Issues, American Lung Association, 1997

National Matrix of Local Ordinances, American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation, 1998
Figure 4: Tobacco Retailer Licensing Laws: 1997

141

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances Data Source: State Legislated Actions on Tobacco Issues, American Lung Association, 1997 National Matrix of Local Ordinances, American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation, 1998
Figure 5: Self-service Display Laws: 1997

No self-service displays allowed

Self-service displays allowed

Level of Restriction

142

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Data Source: State Legislated Actions on Tobacco Issues, American Lung Association, 1997

National Matrix of Local Ordinances, American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation, 1998
143

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

Alabama 1997 None No Yes No Yes Yes

Homewood 1995 Partial No No No No No

Mobile 1994 Partial No No No No No

Alaska 1995 Partial No Yes No No Yes

Anchorage 1997* Partial No No Yes Yes Yes

Buckeye 1994 Total No No No No No

Arizona 1978 None No No No No Yes

Cottonwood 1992 Partial No No — — —

Paradise Valley 1992 Partial No No — — —

Scottsdale 1993 Total No No — — —

Tempe 1993 Partial No No No No No

Tucson 1997* Partial No Yes Yes No No

Arkansas 1991 Partial No Yes No No No

California 1996* Partial Yes No No Yes Yes

Alameda Co. 1991 Partial No No No No No

Albany 1992 Partial Yes No — — —

Amador Co. 1991 Partial No No — — —

Anderson 1993 Total No No — — —

Antioch 1993 Partial Yes No No Yes No

Atascadero 1992 Total No No No No No

Avenal 1998 Partial No No Yes No No

Belmont 1996 Total No No Yes No No

Belvedere 1993 Total No No Yes No No

Berkeley 1991 Total Yes No No No No

Buellton 1996 Partial No — No Yes —

Burlingame 1993 Partial No No — — —

Calistoga 1995 Partial No No Yes No No

Camarillo 1994 Partial No No No No No

Capitola 1991 Partial No No No No No

Carpinteria 1995 Partial No No Yes Yes No

Chino Hills 1992 Total No No No No No

Chula Vista 1996 Partial No No Yes Yes Yes

Clayton 1992 Partial Yes No No No No

Concord 1993 Partial Yes No — — —

Contra Costa Co. 1998* Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Corcoran 1997 None No No Yes No No

Coronado 1996 Total No No Yes Yes Yes

Corte Madera 1995 Total No No Yes No No

Last Vending Self- Use/

State Amend- Mach- Sam- Licen- Serve Single Posses/

Community ment ines pling sing Disp Sales Purchase

Chart 4

State Laws and Local Ordinances to Reduce Youth Access to Tobacco Products
144

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

California (Cont.)

Cotati 1994 Partial No No Yes No No

Cupertino 1992 Partial No No No No No

Dana Point 1993 Total No No No No No

Danville 1994 Partial No No No No No

Davis 1992 Total No No No No No

Del Mar 1993 Total No No — — —

Dixon 1992 Partial No No No No No

Duarte 1995 Partial Yes No No No No

Dublin 1994 Total Yes No No No No

Dunsmuir 1992 Partial No No — — —

El Cajon 1997* Total No No Yes Yes No

El Cerrito 1991 Partial Yes No No Yes No

El Dorado Co. 1993 Total No No — — —

Escondido 1991 Partial No No — — —

Exeter 1997 Partial No — Yes No —

Fairfax 1994 Total No No Yes No No

Fairfield 1992 Partial No No — — —

Fort Bragg 1994 Partial No No Yes No No

Fremont 1993 Partial Yes No No No No

Hanford 1998 Partial No — Yes Yes —

Hayward 1993 Partial Yes No No No No

Healdsburg 1994 Partial No No Yes No No

Hercules 1992 Partial Yes No — — —

Hesperia 1992 Partial No No — — —

Hollister 1994 Partial No No No No No

Huntington Beach 1993 Total No No No No No

Imperial Beach 1996 Total No No Yes Yes No

Imperial Co. 1994 Total No No No No No

Lafayette 1992 Partial Yes No — — —

Laguna Beach 1992 Total No No — — —

Laguna Hills 1993 Total No No No No No

Larkspur 1993 Total No No Yes No No

Lathrop 1992 Partial No No No No No

Lemon Grove 1994 Total Yes No No Yes No

Livermore 1993 Total Yes No No No No

Loma Linda 1992 Partial No No — — —

Long Beach 1994* None Yes No No Yes No

Los Banos 1997 Partial No No Yes No No

Los Gatos 1991 Total No No No No No

Manteca 1976 Partial No No — — —

Marin Co. 1993 Total No No Yes No No

Mendocino Co. 1993 Partial No No Yes No No

Menlo Park 1993 Total No No — — —

Last Vending Self- Use/

State Amend- Mach- Sam- Licen- Serve Single Posses/

Community ment ines pling sing Disp Sales Purchase
145

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

California (Cont.)

Mill Valley 1992 Total No No Yes No No

Millbrae 1993 Partial No No No No No

Mission Viejo 1993 Total No No No No No

Monterey Co. 1994 Total No No Yes No No

Mount Shasta 1993 Partial No No No No No

Mountain View 1994 Partial No No No No No

Napa 1994 Total No No Yes No No

Napa Co. 1994 Total No No Yes No No

Novato 1997* Total No No Yes No No

Oakland 1995* Partial Yes No No No No

Oceanside 1998 Total No — Yes Yes —

Ojai 1993 Partial Yes No No Yes No

Orange Co. 1993 Total No No No No No

Orinda 1992 Partial Yes No — — —

Palo Alto 1991 Partial No No Yes No No

Paradise 1991 Partial No No — — —

Pasadena 1998 Total — — Yes — —

Petaluma 1994 Partial No No Yes No No

Pinole 1992 Partial Yes No — — —

Pittsburg 1995 Partial Yes No No Yes No

Placerville 1993 Total No No — — —

Pleasant Hill 1993 Partial No No — — —

Pleasanton 1991 Partial Yes No No No No

Plymouth 1992 Partial No No — — —

Poway 1995 Total No No Yes Yes No

Rancho Mirage 1990 Total No No — — —

Redding 1993 Total No No — — —

Redlands 1996* Total No No Yes No No

Richmond 1994 Total Yes No No Yes No

Riverside 1993 Total No No — — —

Rohnert Park 1992 Partial No No No No No

Sacramento 1991 Total No No — — —

Salinas 1995 Total No No Yes No No

San Anselmo 1993 Total No No Yes No No

San Bernardino 1994 Partial No No No No No

San Diego 1998* Total Yes No Yes No No

San Diego Co. 1994 Total No No No No No

San Francisco 1997* Total Yes No Yes No No

San Jose 1992 Partial No No — — —

San Luis Obispo 1997* Total No No Yes Yes No

San Luis 

Obispo Co. 1991 Total No No — — —

San Marcos 1977 Partial No No — — —

Last Vending Self- Use/

State Amend- Mach- Sam- Licen- Serve Single Posses/

Community ment ines pling sing Disp Sales Purchase
146

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

California (Cont.)

San Mateo 1995 Total No No Yes No No

San Mateo Co. 1998* Total Yes Yes Yes No No

San Rafael 1993 Total No No Yes — —

San Ramon 1994 Total Yes No No No No

Santa Ana 1994 Partial No No No No No

Santa Barbara 1996 Partial No No Yes Yes No

Santa Barbara Co. 1996* Partial No No No Yes No

Santa Clarita 1994 Total No No No No No

Santa Cruz 1991 Partial No No No No No

Santa Cruz Co. 1998* Partial No No Yes No No

Santa Monica 1991 Total No No No No No

Santa Rosa 1993 Partial No No Yes No No

Saratoga 1994 Total Yes No No No No

Sausalito 1994 Total No No Yes No No

Scotts Valley 1991 Total No No No No No

Seal Beach 1993 Partial Yes — — Yes —

Seaside 1992 Partial Yes No — — —

Sebastopol 1994* Partial Yes No Yes No No

Shafter 1994 Total No No Yes No No

Shasta Co. 1993 Total No No — — —

Shasta Lake 1993 Total No No No No No

Siskiyou Co. 1992 Partial No No — — —

Solana Beach 1992* Partial Yes No No No No

Solano Co. 1991 Total Yes No — — —

Sonoma 1994 Partial No No Yes No No

Sonoma Co. 1994 Partial No No Yes No No

South Lake Tahoe 1993 Total —————

Thousand Oaks 1995 Partial No No No No No

Tiburon 1992 Total No No Yes — —

Tracy 1994 Partial No No No No No

Ukiah 1993 Partial No No Yes — —

Union City 1994 Partial Yes No Yes No No

Vacaville 1992 Partial No No — — —

Vallejo 1994* Total Yes No Yes No No

Ventura 1994 — Yes No No Yes No

Vista 1996* Total No No Yes Yes Yes

Walnut Creek 1991 Partial Yes No — — —

Watsonville 1991 Total No No No No No

Weed 1995 Partial No No No No No

West Hollywood 1992 Partial No No — — —

West Sacramento 1991 Partial Yes No — — —

Whittier 1991 Partial No No — — —

Windsor 1995 Total No No Yes No No

Last Vending Self- Use/

State Amend- Mach- Sam- Licen- Serve Single Posses/

Community ment ines pling sing Disp Sales Purchase
147

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

California (Cont.)

Woodland 1995 Partial No No No No No

Yolo Co. 1998 None No — Yes Yes —

Yountville 1994 Total No No Yes No No

Yreka 1992 Partial —————

Colorado 1998* Partial No No No No Yes

Alamosa 1998 Partial No No Yes No Yes

Boulder 1996* Partial No No No No No

Colorado Springs 1995 Partial No No No No No

Denver 1998* Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Englewood 1996 None No No No No Yes

Estes Park 1996 Partial No No Yes No Yes

Federal Heights 1996 None No No No No Yes

Fort Collins 1997 Partial Yes No Yes No Yes

Monte Vista 1996 Partial No No Yes No Yes

Montrose 1996 None No No No No Yes

Northglenn 1995 None No No No No Yes

Olathe 1996 None No No No No Yes

Parker 1996 None No No No No Yes

Pueblo 1991 Partial No No No No No

Sterling 1990 Total No No No No Yes

Westminster 1988 None No No No No Yes

Woodland Park 1995 Partial No Yes No No Yes

Connecticut 1996 Partial Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Haddam 1998 None No No Yes No No

Orange 1998 Total No — No No —

Seymour 1998 None No No No No Yes

Delaware 1996 Partial No No No Yes Yes

Wilmington 1995 None No No No Yes No

District of Columbia 1991* Partial Yes Yes No No No

Florida 1998* Partial No No No No Yes

Jacksonville 1991 Partial No No No No Yes

Georgia 1998* Partial No No No No Yes

Atlanta 1986 — Yes No — — —

East Point 1994 Partial No No No No No

Hawaii 1998* Partial Yes No No Yes Yes

Honolulu 1998* None Yes No No No No

Maui Co. 1997 None Yes — No No —

Idaho 1998* Partial Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Last Vending Self- Use/

State Amend- Mach- Sam- Licen- Serve Single Posses/

Community ment ines pling sing Disp Sales Purchase
148

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Illinois 1995* Partial No No No No Yes

Addison 1989 Partial Yes Yes No No Yes

Alsip 1995 Partial Yes No No No Yes

Arlington Heights 1996 None No Yes No No Yes

Bensenville 1994 Partial Yes Yes No No Yes

Berwyn 1997 None No No No No Yes

Bloomington 1974 None No Yes No No No

Bolingbrook 1989 Partial Yes Yes No No Yes

Buffalo Grove 1997* Partial No Yes No No Yes

Charleston 1990 Partial Yes No — — —

Chicago 1991 Partial Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Chicago Ridge 1993 Partial Yes Yes No No Yes

Cook Co. 1997 Partial Yes Yes No Yes No

Crystal Lake 1996 None No No No Yes No

Danville 1996 Partial Yes Yes No No Yes

Darien 1994 None No No No No Yes

Downers Grove 1998* None No No No No Yes

Elk Grove Village 1991 Partial Yes Yes — — —

Elmhurst 1990 Partial Yes Yes — — —

Elmwood Park 1996 Partial Yes Yes No No Yes

Evanston 1996 Partial Yes Yes No No Yes

Evergreen Park 1995 Partial Yes No No No Yes

Glen Ellyn 1993 Partial Yes Yes No No Yes

Glenview 1990 Partial Yes Yes No No Yes

Hanover Park 1990 Partial Yes Yes No No Yes

Highland Park 1996 Partial Yes Yes No No Yes

La Grange 1993* None Yes Yes No No Yes

Lake in the Hills 1998 None No No No No Yes

Lake Zurich 1995 None Yes No No No Yes

Lemont 1993 Partial Yes Yes No No Yes

Libertyville 1994 None No No No No Yes

Lisle 1995* Partial Yes Yes No No Yes

Lockport 1997 Partial No Yes No No Yes

Melrose Park 1998 None No Yes No No No

Moline 1996 Partial Yes Yes No No Yes

Naperville 1992 None Yes Yes No No Yes

Niles 1995* Partial No Yes No No Yes

Normal 1996 None No No No No Yes

Northbrook 1997 None No No No No Yes

Orland Park 1995 Partial No Yes No No Yes

Park Ridge 1995 Partial Yes Yes No No Yes

Pleasant Plains 1997 None No No No No Yes

Quincy 1997 None Yes No No No Yes

Rochester 1997 None No No No No Yes

Last Vending Self- Use/

State Amend- Mach- Sam- Licen- Serve Single Posses/

Community ment ines pling sing Disp Sales Purchase
149

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

Illinois (Cont.)

Salem 1995 None No No No No Yes

Schaumburg 1989 Partial Yes Yes No No Yes

Streamwood 1995 Partial No Yes No No Yes

Wellington 1995 Partial Yes No No No Yes

Western Springs 1993 None Yes No No No Yes

Westmont 1993 Partial Yes Yes No No Yes

Wheeling 1996 None No Yes No No Yes

Willowbrook 1993 Partial Yes Yes No No Yes

Wilmette 1994 Total No No No No No

Winfield 1993 None Yes Yes No No Yes

Wood Dale 1995 Partial Yes Yes No No Yes

Woodridge 1989 Partial Yes Yes No No Yes

Woodstock 1992 None No No No No Yes

Indiana 1997* Partial No No No No Yes

Indianapolis 1991 — No Yes — — —

Iowa 1998* Partial No Yes Yes No Yes

Des Moines 1993 None No Yes No No No

Kansas 1996 Partial No No No No Yes

Emporia 1996 Partial No No No No Yes

Ottawa 1997 Total Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Overland Park 1996 None No No No No Yes

Wichita 1994 Partial No No No Yes No

Kentucky 1998* Partial No No No Yes Yes

Louisiana 1997 Partial No Yes No Yes Yes

Iowa 1990 Total No No — — —

Maine 1996* Partial No Yes No Yes Yes

Orono 1990 Total No No — — —

Portland 1998 None Yes No Yes No No

Westbrook 1995 None No Yes Yes No No

Maryland 1994 None No No No No No

Bowie 1991* Partial Yes No — — —

Takoma Park 1990 Partial Yes No — — —

Massachusetts 1996 None No No No Yes No

Acton 1993 Partial Yes Yes No No No

Acushnet 1995 Partial No Yes No No No

Amherst 1994* Total Yes Yes No Yes No

Andover 1994 Partial No No Yes Yes No

Arlington 1995 Total No Yes Yes Yes No

Ashland 1993 Partial Yes Yes No Yes No

Last Vending Self- Use/

State Amend- Mach- Sam- Licen- Serve Single Posses/

Community ment ines pling sing Disp Sales Purchase
150

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Massachusetts (Cont.)

Attleboro 1994 Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Barre 1991 Partial Yes Yes — — —

Bedford 1994 Total Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Bellingham 1994 Total Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Belmont 1994* Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Billerica 1995 Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Bolton 1995 Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Boston 1997* Partial Yes Yes No Yes No

Boxborough 1995 Partial No Yes Yes No No

Brockton 1994 Partial Yes Yes No No No

Brookline 1995 Total Yes Yes No No No

Burlington 1992 Partial Yes No No No No

Cambridge 1993 Partial No No No No No

Canton 1994 Partial Yes No Yes Yes No

Chelmsford 1991 Partial Yes No — — —

Chicopee 1995 Partial Yes Yes No No No

Clinton 1994 Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Cohasset 1993 — Yes No No No No

Concord 1991 Partial Yes Yes No No No

Dedham 1994 Partial No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Dennis 1991 Partial No No — — —

Dover 1994 Total Yes Yes Yes No No

Dudley 1994 Partial Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Easthampton 1994 Total Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Easton 1995 Total Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Falmouth 1993 — Yes No No Yes No

Fitchburg 1992 Partial Yes Yes No Yes No

Foxborough 1993 Partial Yes No No Yes No

Framingham 1995 Partial Yes Yes No No No

Gardner 1995 Partial Yes Yes No Yes No

Gloucester 1994 Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Granby 1995 Total Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Greenfield 1994 Total Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Haverhill 1995 Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Hingham 1993 Partial Yes No Yes Yes No

Holden 1993 Partial Yes No No Yes No

Holliston 1994 Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Holyoke 1994 Total Yes Yes Yes No No

Lancaster 1992 Partial Yes Yes — — —

Lawrence 1994 Partial Yes No Yes Yes No

Lee 1994 Total Yes No Yes No No

Lenox 1994 Total Yes No Yes No No

Leominster 1998* Total Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Last Vending Self- Use/

State Amend- Mach- Sam- Licen- Serve Single Posses/

Community ment ines pling sing Disp Sales Purchase
151

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

Massachusetts (Cont.)

Lexington 1994 Total Yes No Yes Yes No

Longmeadow 1994* Total Yes Yes No No No

Lowell 1995 Partial Yes Yes No Yes No

Malden 1993 Partial Yes No — — —

Mansfield 1993 Partial Yes No — — —

Marion 1994 Total No No Yes No No

Marlborough 1995* Partial Yes Yes No Yes —

Mashpee 1995 Total No Yes No No No

Medfield 1997* Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Medway 1994 Total No No No No No

Methuen 1995 Total Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Middleton 1995 Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Millis 1994* Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Milton 1994 Partial Yes No Yes Yes No

Montague 1995 Total Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Nahant 1995 Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Natick 1994 Partial Yes Yes No Yes No

Needham 1995* Total Yes Yes Yes No No

New Bedford 1989 — Yes No — — —

Newton 1993 Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes No

North Adams 1995* Total Yes Yes Yes Yes No

North Andover 1995 Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes No

North Attleboro 1995 Partial Yes Yes Yes No No

Northampton 1997* Total Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Norton 1995 Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Norwood 1995 Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Oak Bluffs 1993 Partial Yes No Yes Yes No

Orange 1997* Total Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Pittsfield 1994 Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Plainville 1993 Partial Yes No Yes Yes No

Plymouth 1993 Partial No No No Yes No

Provincetown 1992 Total No No — — —

Quincy 1994 Partial Yes Yes No No No

Revere 1994 Total No No No No No

Sandwich 1993* Total Yes No No Yes No

Saugus 1994 Partial Yes Yes No Yes No

Seekonk 1994 Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Sharon 1998* Total Yes Yes Yes No No

Shirley 1995 Partial Yes Yes No Yes No

Somerville 1992 Partial Yes Yes — — —

South Hadley 1994 Total Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Southwick 1992 Partial Yes No No Yes No

Stockbridge 1994 Total Yes No Yes No No

Last Vending Self- Use/

State Amend- Mach- Sam- Licen- Serve Single Posses/

Community ment ines pling sing Disp Sales Purchase
152

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Massachusetts (Cont.)

Tewksbury 1994 Total Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Uxbridge 1995 Partial Yes Yes No Yes No

Wakefield 1995 Partial Yes Yes No No No

Walpole 1995 Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Watertown 1997 Total Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Wellesley 1990 — Yes No — — —

West Springfield 1994* Total Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Westborough 1998 Total Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Westfield 1995* Total Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Westford 1993 Partial Yes No — — —

Westwood 1996 Total Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Weymouth 1994* Partial Yes Yes No No No

Wilbraham 1994 Total Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Williamstown 1993 Partial Yes No Yes Yes No

Winthrop 1994 Partial No No No No No

Worcester 1984 — Yes No — — —

Wrentham 1995 Partial No Yes No No No

Michigan 1992 Partial No No No Yes Yes

Ann Arbor 1990 Total No No — — —

Argentine 1993 — No Yes No No No

Atlas 1993 — No Yes No No No

Burton 1993 — No Yes No No No

Clayton 1993 — No Yes No No No

Clio 1993 — No Yes No No No

Davison 1993 — No Yes No No No

Dearborn 1981 None No No No No Yes

East Lansing 1991 Partial Yes Yes Yes No No

Fenton 1993 — No Yes No No No

Flint 1993 — No Yes No No No

Flushing 1993* Total No Yes No No No

Forest 1993 — No Yes No No No

Gaines 1993 — No Yes No No No

Genesee 1993 — No Yes No No No

Genesee Co. 1993 — No Yes No No No

Goodrich 1993 — No Yes No No No

Grand Blanc 1993 — No Yes No No No

Ingham Co. 1992 Partial Yes Yes — — —

Linden 1993 — No Yes No No No

Marquette 1995 None No No No No Yes

Marquette Co. 1990 Partial No Yes No No No

Montrose 1993 — No Yes No No No

Mount Morris 1993 — No Yes No No No

Last Vending Self- Use/

State Amend- Mach- Sam- Licen- Serve Single Posses/

Community ment ines pling sing Disp Sales Purchase
153

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

Mundy 1993 — No Yes No No No

Otisville 1993 — No Yes No No No

Richfield 1993 — No Yes No No No

Rochester Hills 1990 Partial No No — — —

Royal Oak 1994 Partial — — — — Yes

Sterling Heights 1991 Partial —————

Swartz Creek 1993 — No Yes No No No

Thetford 1993 — No Yes No No No

Troy 1995 Total No No No No No

Vienna 1993 — No Yes No No No

Warren 1992 Partial No No — — —

Zeeland 1991 Partial No No No No No

Minnesota 1997 Partial Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Albert Lea 1991 — Yes Yes — — —

Annandale 1968 None — Yes No No No

Anoka 1989 Partial No No — — —

Austin 1991 Partial No No — — —

Bayport 1980 None No Yes No No No

Bemidji 1996 Partial No Yes No No Yes

Big Lake 1990 Partial No No — — —

Blaine 1989 Partial Yes No — — —

Bloomington 1990 Total No No — — —

Brainerd 1985 None No Yes No No No

Brooklyn Center 1991 Total No Yes Yes — —

Brooklyn Park 1990* Total No Yes — — —

Burnsville 1994 Partial No No No No No

Cannon Falls 1990 Partial No No — — —

Champlin 1989 Partial No No — — —

Chanhassen 1991 Total No Yes — — —

Chaska 1995 Partial No Yes Yes No Yes

Chatfield 1991 Total No Yes No No No

Cokato 1990 Total No No No No No

Coon Rapids 1990 Total No Yes No No No

Cottage Grove 1983 Partial No No No No Yes

Crookston 1995 Total No Yes Yes No No

Deer River 1989 Partial Yes No — — —

Delano 1994* Total No Yes Yes No No

Duluth 1996* Total Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Eagan 1992 Partial No Yes No No No

Eden Prairie 1994 Total No Yes Yes No No

Edina 1990 Total No No No No No

Excelsior 1972 — No Yes — — —

Last Vending Self- Use/

State Amend- Mach- Sam- Licen- Serve Single Posses/

Community ment ines pling sing Disp Sales Purchase
154

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Minnesota (Cont.)

Eyota — None No Yes No No No

Falcon Heights 1994 Total No Yes Yes No No

Farmington 1995 Partial No Yes No No No

Fergus Falls 1995 Total No Yes Yes No No

Glencoe 1995 None No Yes No No No

Golden Valley 1996* Total No Yes Yes No No

Grand Rapids 1990 Partial No No No No No

Ham Lake 1991 Partial No No No No No

Hutchinson 1990 Total No No — — —

Jackson 1990 Partial No No — — —

Kasson 1983 — No Yes — — —

Kenyon 1990 Total No No — — —

Lake City 1981 None No Yes No No No

Lindstrom 1997 Total No Yes Yes No Yes

Litchfield 1995 Total No Yes Yes No No

Luverne 1990* Partial No No No No Yes

Maple Plain 1941 None No Yes No No No

Milaca 1990 Total No No — — —

Minneapolis 1995* Partial Yes Yes No Yes No

Minnetonka 1990 Total No Yes — — —

Montevideo 1995 Total No Yes Yes No Yes

Monticello 1994 Partial No Yes Yes No No

Moorhead 1996 Partial No Yes Yes No No

Mora 1990 Total No No — — —

Morris 1996 None No No Yes No Yes

Mound 1941 Partial No Yes No No No

Mounds View 1995 Partial No Yes No No No

New Brighton 1989 Partial No No — — —

New Hope 1990 Partial No No No No No

New Ulm 1996 Partial No Yes No Yes Yes

North Branch 1997 Partial Yes Yes Yes No Yes

North Oaks 1990 Total No No No No No

Northfield 1990 Total No No — — —

Orono 1993 Partial No No No No Yes

Owatonna 1990 Total No Yes — — —

Park Rapids 1994 None No Yes No No No

Preston 1988 Total No No No No No

Red Wing 1990 Partial No No — — —

Redwood Falls 1990 Partial Yes No — — —

Richfield 1990 Total No No — — —

Rochester 1991 Partial No Yes No No No

Rosemont 1971 None No Yes No No No

Roseville 1991 Total No Yes Yes — —

Last Vending Self- Use/

State Amend- Mach- Sam- Licen- Serve Single Posses/

Community ment ines pling sing Disp Sales Purchase
155

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

Minnesota (Cont.)

Saint Peter 1994 Total No Yes No No Yes

Sartell 1990 Total No Yes — — —

Savage 1995 Partial No Yes Yes No No

Shakopee 1995 Partial No Yes Yes No No

Shoreview 1994 Partial No Yes Yes No No

St Charles 1941 None No Yes No No No

St Francis 1990 Partial No Yes No No Yes

St. Cloud 1990 Total No Yes — — —

St. Joseph 1996 Partial No Yes No No No

St. Louis Park 1996* Total No Yes Yes No Yes

St. Paul 1990 Partial Yes No No No Yes

Stewartville 1996 Total No Yes Yes No No

Stillwater 1992 None No Yes No No Yes

Thief River Falls 1997* Partial No Yes No No Yes

Tracy 1957 None No Yes No No No

Waconia 1989 Total No No — — —

Waseca 1995 Total No Yes Yes No Yes

Washington Co. 1998 Partial No Yes Yes Yes Yes

West St. Paul 1990 Partial No No — — —

White Bear Lake 1989 Total — No — — —

Willmar 1990 Partial No Yes No No No

Woodbury 1998 Partial No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Worthington 1990 Partial —————

Mississippi 1997* Partial No No No Yes No

Missouri 1992 None No No No No No

Brentwood 1998 None No No No No Yes

Columbia 1990 Partial No No No No No

Springfield 1998 None Yes No Yes Yes Yes

St. Charles 1981 None No No No No Yes

St. Charles Co. 1997 Partial Yes Yes No No No

St. Louis Co. 1996 Partial Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Montana 1995 Partial No Yes No Yes No

Nebraska 1993* Partial Yes Yes No No Yes

Gothenburg 1997 None No No No No Yes

Lincoln 1990 — — — — — Yes

Omaha 1993 — Yes Yes No Yes No

Nevada 1995 Partial No No No Yes No

New Hampshire 1997 Partial Yes Yes No No Yes

Keene 1993 Partial No No — — —

Last Vending Self- Use/

State Amend- Mach- Sam- Licen- Serve Single Posses/

Community ment ines pling sing Disp Sales Purchase
156

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

New Jersey 1995 None No Yes No No No

Alexandria 

Township 1995 Total No No Yes No No

Avon By the Sea 1995 Total No No No No No

Barnegat Township 1996 Partial No No No No Yes

Belleville Township 1996 Partial No Yes Yes No No

Berkeley Township 1996 Total No Yes Yes No No

Bernards Township 1996 Total No No Yes No No

Bogota Borough 1996 Total No No Yes No No

Bordentown 

Township 1994 Total No No No No No

Carlstadt 1995 Total No No No No No

Cedar Grove 1995 Partial No No No No No

Cherry Hill 1993 Total No No No No No

Clark 1994 Partial —————

Clifton 1994 Partial No No No No No

Clinton Township 1995 Total No No Yes No No

Collingswood 

Borough 1996 Total No Yes No No No

Delaware Township 1996 Total No No No No No

Deptford 1997 Partial No No Yes No No

Dover Township 1994 Partial No No No No No

Downe Township 1996 Total No Yes Yes No No

East Brunswick 1990 Total No No No No No

East Greenwich 1996 Total No No Yes No No

East Hanover 

Township 1995 Partial No No No No No

East Rutherford 1997 None No No No No Yes

East Windsor 

Township 1994 Total No No No No No

Eatontown Borough 1997 Partial No No No No No

Edison 1994 Partial No No Yes No No

Emerson Township 1995 Total No No No No No

Evesham Township 1997* Total No No Yes No Yes

Ewing Township 1996 Total No No No No No

Fairfield Township 1996 Total No Yes Yes No No

Fairlawn 1994 Total No No No No No

Flemington 1995 Total No No No No Yes

Fort Lee 1994 Partial No No No No No

Franklin Township 1995 Total No Yes Yes No No

Freehold Township 1995 Total No No No No No

Galloway Township 1996 Partial No No Yes No No

Glassboro 1995 Total No No No No No

Last Vending Self- Use/

State Amend- Mach- Sam- Licen- Serve Single Posses/

Community ment ines pling sing Disp Sales Purchase
157

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

New Jersey (Cont.)

Gloucester City 1998 None No No No No Yes

Greenwich 

Township 1996 Total No No No No No

Hackensack 1995 Total No Yes Yes No No

Hackettstown 1997 Partial No No No No No

Haddon Township 1998 Partial No Yes No No Yes

Haddonfield 1995 Total No No No No No

Haledon 1994 Partial No No No No No

Hamilton Township 1996 None No No No No Yes

Hardyston 1994 Total No No No No No

Hardyston 

Township 1994 Total No No No — No

Hasbrouck Heights 1996 None No No No No Yes

Hazlet Township 1996 Total No Yes Yes No No

Highland Park 1995 Total No No Yes No No

Hightstown 1994 Total No No No No No

Hillsborough 

Township 1995 Total No No Yes No No

Hillsdale 1994 Total No No Yes No No

Hoboken 1998 Partial No No No No No

Hopewell Township 1998 Partial No No Yes No No

Howell Township 1996 Total No No Yes No No

Jefferson Township 1996 Partial No No Yes No Yes

Keyport 1995 Partial No No Yes No No

Kingwood Township 1996 Total No No No No No

Lambertville 1995 Total No No Yes No No

Lawrence 1994 Total —————

Lawrence Township 1997* Total Yes No Yes No Yes

Leonia Borough 1996 Total No No Yes No No

Little Egg Harbor 1996 Partial No No Yes No No

Livingston 

Township 1996 Total No Yes Yes No No

Long Hill Township 1995 Total No No No No No

Madison Borough 1996 Total No No Yes No No

Mahwah 1994 Total No No No No No

Manalapan 

Township 1996 Total No Yes No No No

Mannington 

Township 1997 Total No No No No No

Mansfield Township 1997 Total No No No No No

Manville 1996 Total No No Yes No No

Maplewood 1994 Partial No No No No No

Marlboro 1996 Total No No Yes No No

Last Vending Self- Use/

State Amend- Mach- Sam- Licen- Serve Single Posses/

Community ment ines pling sing Disp Sales Purchase
158

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

New Jersey (Cont.)

Maurice River 1996 Total No Yes Yes No No

Medford 1998 Total No No No No Yes

Metuchen 1994 Partial No No No No No

Middletown 1995 Total No No No No No

Milltown Borough 1994 — No No Yes No No

Monroe Township 1994 Total No No Yes No No

Montclair Township 1997 Total No No Yes No No

Montgomery 1995 Total No No No No No

Montgomery 

Township 1993 Total No No No No No

Montvale 1995 Total No Yes Yes No No

Morristown 1997 Total No No No No No

Mount Olive 

Township 1995 Total No No Yes No No

Mountain Lakes 1995 Total No No No No No

Mullica Towhship 1998 None No No No No Yes

Neptune Township 1996 Total No No No No No

New Brunswick 1996 Total No No No No No

New Milford 1994 Total No No Yes Yes No

North Arlington 1995 Total No No No No No

North Brunswick 1994 Partial No No No No No

North Plainfield 1996 Partial No Yes Yes No No

Nutley 1997 Partial No No No No No

Oakland 1998 Partial No — No No —

Ocean Township 1994 Partial No No No No No

Oceanport Borough 1996 Partial No No No No No

Old Bridge 1998 None No No No No Yes

Palisades Park 1995 Total No No Yes No No

Paramus 1994 Total No No No No No

Park Ridge 1994 Total No No Yes No No

Paterson 1995 Partial No No No No No

Pennington 1998* Total No No Yes No No

Pequannock 1995 Total No No Yes No No

Perth Amboy 1994 Partial No No No Yes No

Pine Beach 1994 Total No No Yes No No

Pitman 1994 Total No No No No No

Pitman Borough 1994 Total No No No No No

Plainsboro 1994 Total No No No No No

Plumsted Township 1997 Total No Yes Yes No No

Pompton Lakes 1998 None No No No No Yes

Princeton Borough 1993 Total — — Yes — —

Princeton Township 1993 Total — — Yes — —

Last Vending Self- Use/

State Amend- Mach- Sam- Licen- Serve Single Posses/

Community ment ines pling sing Disp Sales Purchase
159

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

New Jersey (Cont.)

Rahway 1995 Partial No No No No No

Randolph 1995 Total No No No No No

Raritan Township 1995 Total No No No No No

Readington 

Township 1995 Total No Yes Yes No No

Red Bank Borough 1996 Partial No No No No No

Ridgewood 1997* Partial No No No No Yes

Riverton 1998 None No No No No Yes

Runnemede 

Borough 1996 Partial No No No No No

Saddle Brook 1994 Total No No No No No

Saddle River 1995 Total No No No No No

Scotch Plains 1994 Total No No No No No

Secaucus 1994 Partial No No No No No

South Brunswick 1995* Total — — Yes — —

South Plainfield 1997 None No No Yes No No

Spring Lake 1996 Total No No No No No

Spring Lake Heights 1996 Total No No No No No

Stafford Township 1996 Partial No No Yes No No

Summit 1994 Total —————

Teaneck 1994 Total No No No No No

Tenafly Borough 1995 Total No Yes No No No

Tinton Falls 

Borough 1996 Total No No No No No

Union Township 1993 Partial No No No No No

Upper Pittsgrove 1996 Total No No No No No

Upper Saddle River 1995 Total No No Yes No No

Vineland 1997 Partial No Yes Yes No No

Waldwick 1995 Partial No No No No No

Wanaque Borough 1995 Partial No No No No No

Washington 

Township 1996 Total No No Yes No Yes

Watchung Borough 1996 Partial No No No No No

West Caldwell 1994 Total No No No No No

West Long Branch 1997 Partial No No No No No

West Orange 1995 Partial No No No No No

West Windsor 

Township 1998 Partial No No Yes No No

Westfield 1995 Total No No No No No

Westwood 1995 Total No No No No No

Woodbridge 

Township 1996 Partial No No No No No

Last Vending Self- Use/

State Amend- Mach- Sam- Licen- Serve Single Posses/

Community ment ines pling sing Disp Sales Purchase
160

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

New Jersey (Cont.)

Woodbury 1996 Total No No No No No

Woodbury Heights 1996 Total No No Yes No No

Woodstown 

Borough 1996 Total No No No No No

New Mexico 1993 Partial No No No Yes Yes

Albuquerque 1991 Partial Yes No No Yes —

New York 1994* Partial Yes Yes No Yes No

Albany 1997 — Yes ————

Albany Co. 1992 Partial No No No No No

Buffalo 1991 Partial —————

Chautauqua Co. 1996 Partial No No Yes No No

Dutchess Co. 1997 None No Yes No No No

Erie Co. 1991 None Yes No — — —

Great Neck Plaza 1991 Total Yes No — — —

Livingston Co. 1997 Partial No No Yes No No

Nassau Co. 1998* Partial No No No No No

New York City 1992* Partial No Yes No Yes No

Suffolk Co. 1995* Partial No No No No No

North Carolina 1997 Partial No No No Yes Yes

Raleigh 1995 Partial No No No No No

North Dakota 1991 None No No No No Yes

Bismarck 1996* Partial No No Yes No Yes

Devils Lake 1997* Partial No No Yes No Yes

Fargo 1992 Partial No No — — —

Grand Forks 1995 Partial No Yes No No Yes

Jamestown 1993* Partial No Yes — — —

Langdon 1996 Partial No No Yes No Yes

Mandan 1994* Partial No No No No Yes

Minot 1996* Partial No Yes No No No

Valley City 1994* Partial No Yes No No Yes

Wahpeton 1996 Partial No Yes Yes No Yes

West Fargo 1996 Partial No Yes No No No

Williston 1995 Partial No Yes No No Yes

Ohio 1991 Partial No No No No No

Akron 1995 Partial No No No No No

Anna 1996 None No No No No Yes

Blue Ash 1995 Partial No No No No Yes

Cincinnati 1988 — Yes No No No No

Cuyahoga Falls 1998 Partial No No No No Yes

Eastlake 1996 Partial No No No No Yes

Geneva 1997 Partial Yes Yes No No Yes

Girard 1997 Partial No No No No Yes

Last Vending Self- Use/

State Amend- Mach- Sam- Licen- Serve Single Posses/

Community ment ines pling sing Disp Sales Purchase
161

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

Ohio (Cont.)

Lakewood 1998 Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Medina 1996 Partial No No No No Yes

Parma 1996 None No No No No Yes

Strongsville 1997 Partial No No No No No

Oregon 1991 Partial No No No Yes Yes

Benton Co. 1997 None No Yes Yes No No

Corvallis 1997 None No Yes Yes No No

Silverton 1997 None No No Yes No No

Pennsylvania 1993 None No No No No No

Allentown 1990 Partial No No — — —

Bethlehem 1990 Partial No No — — —

Easttown 1991 Partial No No — — —

Haverford 1991 Total No No — — —

Philadelphia 1995 None No No Yes Yes No

Pittsburgh 1990 Partial No No — — —

Radnor 1991 Total No No — — —

Tredyffrin 1991 Total —————

Uwchlan Township 1991 Partial No No — — —

Warrington 

Township 1991 Total No No — — —

West Goshen 

Township 1991 Partial No No — — —

Westchester 1991 Partial No No No No No

Rhode Island 1996* Partial No Yes No Yes Yes

East Providence 1994 Partial No No No No No

West Warwick 1997 None No No No No Yes

South Carolina 1996 None No No No No No

South Dakota 1998* Partial No No No Yes Yes

Tennessee 1998* Partial No No No Yes Yes

Texas 1997 Partial No Yes No Yes Yes

Arlington 1994 Partial No No No No No

Austin 1996 Partial Yes No Yes No No

Carrollton 1994 Total No No No No No

Dallas 1993* Partial Yes No No No No

Euless 1994 Partial No No No No No

Fort Worth 1997 Partial No No Yes Yes Yes

Houston 1991 Partial No No — — —

Lubbock 1995 None No No No No Yes

Rockwall 1995 None No No No No Yes

Last Vending Self- Use/

State Amend- Mach- Sam- Licen- Serve Single Posses/

Community ment ines pling sing Disp Sales Purchase
162

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Texas (Cont.)

San Antonio 1992 Partial Yes No No No No

Temple 1995 Partial No No No No No

Victoria 1995 None No No No No Yes

Wichita Falls 1994 None No No Yes No No

Utah 1994* Partial Yes No No No Yes

Centerville 1998 None No No Yes No No

Enoch 1996 Total No No Yes No No

Midvale City 1996 Partial No No Yes No No

North Salt Lake 1998 Partial No No Yes No No

Pleasant Grove 1995 Total No No Yes No No

Riverton 1996 Total No No Yes No No

West Haven 1997 None No No Yes No No

Vermont 1997 Partial No Yes No No Yes

Virginia 1998* Partial No No No Yes Yes

Washington 1993 Partial No Yes No Yes Yes

Everett 1990 Partial No Yes — — —

King Co. 1992* Partial Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Lynnwood 1989 Partial —————

Mountlake Terrace 1991 Partial No Yes — — —

Seattle 1991 Partial Yes Yes — — —

Snohomish Co. 1991 Partial No Yes — — —

Vancouver 1989 Partial Yes No — — —

West Virginia 1998* None No No No No Yes

Boone Co. 1997 Partial No No No No No

Wisconsin 1998* Partial No Yes No Yes Yes

Bloomer 1992 Partial No No No No Yes

Chippewa Falls 1994 None No No No No Yes

Columbus 1995 None No No No No Yes

Cornell 1992 Partial No No No No Yes

Dane Co. 1996 Partial Yes Yes No Yes No

De Pere 1994 None Yes Yes No Yes No

DeForest Village 1994 Partial No Yes No Yes No

Fond du Lac 1993 — No No Yes Yes No

Green Bay 1993 — Yes No No Yes No

Howard 1989 None No Yes No No Yes

Mount Horeb 

Village 1993 None No No No No Yes

Neillsville 1992 None No No No No Yes

New Holstein 1995 None No No No No Yes

Last Vending Self- Use/

State Amend- Mach- Sam- Licen- Serve Single Posses/

Community ment ines pling sing Disp Sales Purchase
163

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

Wisconsin (Cont.)

Racine 1995 Partial Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Sawyer Co. 1994 None No No No No Yes

Sturtevant 1993 None No No No No Yes

Waterford 1993 None No No No No Yes

Wyoming 1991 Partial No No No No Yes

Gillette 1990 Partial No No No No Yes

Rock Springs 1963 None No No No No Yes

Last Vending Self- Use/

State Amend- Mach- Sam- Licen- Serve Single Posses/

Community ment ines pling sing Disp Sales Purchase
CHART 3 This chart summarizes the provisions of ordinances that address

smoking in enclosed public places. There are 759 local clean indoor air

ordinances with provisions covering enclosed public places.

In General: A “Yes” in this column indicates that the ordinance stipulates

that all enclosed places open to the general public must prohibit smoking unless otherwise exempted by the ordinance. A “Sections” in this

column indicates that the ordinance stipulates that all enclosed places

open to the general public must provide nonsmoking sections unless

otherwise exempted by the ordinance.

Food Markets: A “Yes” in this column indicates that the ordinance stipulates

that smoking is prohibited in food markets. A “Sections” in this column indicates that the ordinance stipulates that food markets must provide nonsmoking sections.

Retail Stores: A “Yes” in this column indicates that the ordinance stipulates

that smoking is prohibited in retail stores. A “Sections” in this column

indicates that the ordinance stipulates that retail stores must provide

nonsmoking sections.

Bingo Parlors: A “Yes” in this column indicates that the ordinance stipulates

that smoking is prohibited in bingo parlors. A “Sections” in this column indicates that the ordinance stipulates that bingo parlors must

provide nonsmoking sections.

Bowling Centers: A “Yes” in this column indicates that the ordinance stipulates that smoking is prohibited in bowling centers. A “Sections” in this

column indicates that the ordinance stipulates that bowling centers

must provide nonsmoking sections.

Public Transit: A “Yes” in this column indicates that the ordinance stipulates

that smoking is prohibited on public transportation (e.g., buses, taxis,

etc.). A “Sections” in this column indicates that the ordinance stipulates that public transportation vehicles must provide nonsmoking sections.

Multi-Unit Dwellings: A “Yes” in this column indicates that the ordinance

stipulates that smoking is prohibited in common areas (e.g., hallways,

lobby areas, laundry rooms, elevators) of multi-unit dwellings (e.g.,

apartments, retirement facilities, trailer parks). A “C/A” in this column

indicates that the ordinance stipulates that common areas must provide

nonsmoking sections.

115

CLEAN INDOOR AIR PROVISIONS

STATE LAWS AND LOCAL ORDINANCES:

ENCLOSED PUBLIC PLACE PROVISIONS
Note: An entry of “—” in a field indicates that information is not available

for that provision. This is generally the result of adding new fields of

analysis to reflect a significant development in ordinance provisions;

database records for ordinances analyzed prior to the new field of analysis do not contain information for that provision.

116

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
117

Alabama No No No No No No —

Alexander City Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Anniston No Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Auburn Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Birmingham Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Yes —

Cullman No No No No Yes No —

Daphne Sections Yes Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Decatur Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Yes —

Dothan Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Eufaula No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Homewood Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Huntsville No Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Jackson Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Madison Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Mobile Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Montgomery No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Prattville Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Tuscaloosa No No No No No Yes —

Wetumpka Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Alaska No Sections No No No Sections —

Bethel Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Arizona No No No No No Sections —

Chandler Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Flagstaff Yes Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes —

Gilbert Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Glendale Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Kingman No Yes No — — No —

Maricopa Co. Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Mesa Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Paradise Valley Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Peoria Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Phoenix Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Pima Co. Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Prescott Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Scottsdale Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Tempe Sections Sections Sections Sections No Sections —

Tucson Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Yuma No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Arkansas No No No No No No —

Little Rock No Yes No No No No —

State In Food Retail Bingo Bowling Public MultiCommunity General Markets Stores Parlors Centers Transit Units

Chart 3

State Laws and Local Ordinances: Enclosed Public Place Provisions

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances
118

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Arkansas (Cont.)

McGehee Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

North Little Rock No Yes No No No No —

California Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Agoura Hills Yes Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes —

Alameda Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Alameda Co. Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Albany Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Alhambra Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Alpine Co. Yes Yes Yes — — No —

Anaheim No Yes Yes — — No —

Anderson Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Antioch Yes Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes —

Apple Valley No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Arcata Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Atascadero No No No — — Yes —

Auburn Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Belmont Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Belvedere Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Benicia Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Berkeley Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes Yes —

Beverly Hills No Yes Yes — — No —

Big Bear Lake No Yes No — — No —

Blue Lake Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Brentwood Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Buellton No No No No No Yes Yes

Burlingame Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Butte Co. Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Calabasas Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes Yes —

Calistoga Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Camarillo Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Campbell Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Capitola Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Carlsbad No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Carpinteria No No No No No Yes —

Cathedral City No No No — — Yes —

Ceres Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes Yes —

Chico Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Chino Hills Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Chula Vista No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Clayton Yes Yes Yes No No Yes —

Cloverdale Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Coachella Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

State In Food Retail Bingo Bowling Public MultiCommunity General Markets Stores Parlors Centers Transit Units
119

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

California (Cont.)

Colfax Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Concord Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Contra Costa Co. Yes Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes Yes

Coronado No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Corte Madera No Yes Yes No No No —

Cotati Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Culver City Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Cupertino Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Cypress Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Dana Point No Yes Yes No No No —

Danville Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Davis Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Del Mar Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Desert Hot Springs No No Yes — — No —

Dixon Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Downey Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Dublin Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

East Palo Alto Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

El Cajon Yes Yes Yes No Sections Yes —

El Centro Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

El Cerrito Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes Yes —

El Dorado Co. Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

El Segundo Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Emeryville Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Encinitas No Yes Yes No No Yes —

Escondido No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Eureka Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Fairfax Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes Yes —

Fairfield Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Folsom Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Fontana Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Fort Bragg Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Fortuna No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Foster City Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Fremont Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Fresno Yes Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes —

Gardena No Yes No — — Yes —

Grand Terrace No No Yes — — No —

Grass Valley Yes Yes Yes — — No —

Gridley Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Hanford Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Hayward Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes Yes —

Healdsburg Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Hemet No Yes Yes — — Yes —

State In Food Retail Bingo Bowling Public MultiCommunity General Markets Stores Parlors Centers Transit Units
120

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

California (Cont.)

Hercules Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Hesperia No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Hollister Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Hughson Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Imperial Beach No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Imperial Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Indian Wells Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Indio No Yes Yes — — No —

Irvine No No No — — Yes —

La Canada 

Flintridge Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

La Mesa No Yes Yes — — Yes —

La Mirada No No No No No Yes —

La Quinta Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Lafayette Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Laguna Beach No No No — — Yes —

Laguna Hills Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Laguna Niguel No Yes Yes — — No —

Lakewood No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Lancaster Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Larkspur Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Lathrop Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Lemon Grove Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Lindsay Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes Yes —

Live Oak Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Livermore Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Livingston No Yes Yes — — No —

Lodi Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Loma Linda Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Lompoc Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Long Beach Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Los Alamitos No Yes Yes — — No —

Los Altos No No Yes — — No —

Los Angeles No Yes Yes No No Yes —

Los Gatos Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Madera Yes Yes Yes — No Yes —

Manhattan Beach No Yes No — — No —

Marin Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Martinez Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Marysville Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Mendocino Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Menlo Park Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Merced Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes Yes —

Mill Valley Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

State In Food Retail Bingo Bowling Public MultiCommunity General Markets Stores Parlors Centers Transit Units
121

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

California (Cont.)

Millbrae Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Milpitas No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Mission Viejo No Yes Yes — — No —

Modesto Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes Yes —

Monterey Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Monterey Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Moorpark Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Moraga Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Moreno Valley Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Morgan Hill Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Morro Bay No Yes No — — Yes —

Mountain View Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Napa Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes Yes —

Napa Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

National City No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Nevada City Yes Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes —

Nevada Co. Yes Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes —

Newark Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes —

Novato Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Oakdale No Yes Yes — — No —

Oakland Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Oceanside No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Ojai Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Orange Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No —

Orinda Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Oroville Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Oxnard Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Pacific Grove Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Palm Desert No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Palm Springs No No Yes — — No —

Palmdale Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Palo Alto Yes Yes Yes No No Yes —

Paradise Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Pasadena Yes Yes Yes No No No —

Patterson Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes Yes —

Petaluma Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Piedmont Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Pinole Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Pittsburg Yes Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes —

Placer Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Placerville Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Pleasant Hill Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Pleasanton Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Port Hueneme Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes Yes —

State In Food Retail Bingo Bowling Public MultiCommunity General Markets Stores Parlors Centers Transit Units
122

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

California (Cont.)

Poway Sections Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes —

Rancho 

Cucamonga No Yes Yes — — No —

Rancho Mirage Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Redding Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Redlands Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Redwood City Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Richmond Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Riverside No No Yes — — No —

Riverside Co. No No Yes — — No —

Rohnert Park Yes Yes Yes No No Yes —

Roseville Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Ross Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Sacramento Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Sacramento Co. Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Salinas Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

San Anselmo Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

San Bernardino Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

San Bernardino 

County Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

San Bruno Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

San Carlos Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes —

San Diego Yes Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes —

San Diego Co. No Yes Yes — — Yes —

San Francisco No Yes Yes No Yes No —

San Jose Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes Yes —

San Juan Bautista Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

San Juan 

Capistrano No Yes Yes No No Yes —

San Leandro No Yes Yes — — Yes —

San Luis Obispo No Yes Yes Yes Yes No —

San Marcos No Yes Yes — — Yes —

San Mateo Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

San Mateo Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

San Pablo Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

San Rafael Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

San Ramon Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Santa Ana No Yes Yes No No No —

Santa Barbara No Yes No — — Yes —

Santa Barbara 

County No Yes Yes No Yes Yes —

Santa Clara Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes Yes —

Santa Clara Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Santa Clarita Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

State In Food Retail Bingo Bowling Public MultiCommunity General Markets Stores Parlors Centers Transit Units
123

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

California (Cont.)

Santa Cruz Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Santa Cruz Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Santa Maria Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Santa Rosa Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Santee No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Saratoga Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No —

Sausalito Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Scotts Valley Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes Yes —

Seaside Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Sebastopol Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Shafter Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Shasta Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Shasta Lake Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Simi Valley Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Solana Beach Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Solano Co. Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Solvang No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Sonoma Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Sonoma Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

South Lake Tahoe Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

South Pasadena No Yes No — — No —

South San 

Francisco Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Stanislaus Co. Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Stockton Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Sunnyvale No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Sutter Co. Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Thousand Oaks Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes Yes —

Tiburon Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Torrance Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Tracy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Truckee No Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes —

Tuolumne Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Turlock No Yes Yes Sections Yes Yes —

Tustin Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Ukiah Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Union City Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Vacaville Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Vallejo Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes Yes —

Ventura Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Ventura Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Victorville No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Visalia Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Vista No Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes —

State In Food Retail Bingo Bowling Public MultiCommunity General Markets Stores Parlors Centers Transit Units
124

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

California (Cont.)

Walnut No No No — — Yes —

Walnut Creek Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Waterford Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Watsonville Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

West Hollywood Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

West Sacramento Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Westlake Village Yes Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes —

Wheatland Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Whittier Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Woodside Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Yorba Linda No No Yes — — No —

Yountville Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Yuba City Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Colorado No No No No No Sections —

Arapahoe Co. Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Arvada Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Aspen Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Aurora Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Boulder Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Boulder Co. Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Broomfield No Yes Yes — — No —

Canon City No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Carbondale No Yes No — — No —

Colorado Springs Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Denver Yes Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes —

Englewood Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Fort Collins Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Yes C/A

Glenwood Springs Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Golden Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Grand Junction Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Greeley Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Greenwood Village Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Jefferson Co. Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Lakewood Yes Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes —

Larimer Co. Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Littleton Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Longmont Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Louisville Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Loveland Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Parker Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Pitkin Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Pueblo Sections Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes —

Snowmass Village Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

State In Food Retail Bingo Bowling Public MultiCommunity General Markets Stores Parlors Centers Transit Units
125

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

Colorado (Cont.)

Telluride Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Thornton Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Trinidad Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Vail No Yes Yes No Yes No No

Westminster Sections Sections Yes Sections Sections Sections C/A

Wheat Ridge Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Connecticut No Sections No No No Sections —

Delaware No Yes No No No Yes —

Dover Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Wilmington Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Washington No Yes Yes No — Yes —

Florida No Sections Sections No Sections Yes —

Georgia No No No No No Yes —

Albany Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Athens/Clark Co. Yes Sections Sections Sections Sections Yes —

Chatham Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes —

Dahlonega No Yes Yes No No No —

Decatur Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

DeKalb Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes —

Fulton Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Gainesville Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Gwinnett Co. Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Hall Co. Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Yes —

Savannah Yes Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes —

Snellville Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Hawaii No No No No Yes No —

Hawaii Co. No Yes No — — No —

Honolulu No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Maui Co. Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes

Idaho Sections Sections Sections No No Sections —

Illinois Sections Sections Sections No No Sections —

Arlington Heights Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Chicago Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Yes —

DeKalb No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Des Plaines Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Elgin Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Highland Park Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Oak Park Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Rockford Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Schaumburg No No No No No Yes —

State In Food Retail Bingo Bowling Public MultiCommunity General Markets Stores Parlors Centers Transit Units
126

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Illinois (Cont.)

Skokie Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Wilmette Yes Yes Yes — — No —

Indiana No No No No No No —

Bloomington No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Fort Wayne Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No

Monroe Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Iowa Sections Sections Sections No No Sections —

Kansas Sections Sections Sections No Sections Yes —

Lawrence Yes Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes —

Overland Park Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Yes —

Prairie Village No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Roeland Park Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Yes —

Topeka Yes Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes —

Wellington Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Yes —

Louisiana Sections Sections Sections No Sections Sections —

Baton Rouge No No No No Sections No —

Calcasieu Parish Yes Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Catahoula Parish Yes Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes —

E. Baton Rouge 

Parish No No No No Sections No —

Jefferson Parish Yes Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes —

Lake Charles Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

New Orleans Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Sulphur Yes Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes —

Maine Sections Yes Yes No Sections No —

Maryland Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes —

Anne Arundel Co. Yes Yes Yes No No Yes —

Baltimore Co. Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Gaithersburg No Yes Yes No Sections Sections No

Howard Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Montgomery Co. Sections Yes Yes No Sections Sections —

Rockville No No Yes — — Yes —

Takoma Park No Yes Yes — — No —

Talbot Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes —

Massachusetts No Yes No No No Sections —

Acushnet Yes Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes —

Agawam Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Amherst Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Andover Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes Yes —

State In Food Retail Bingo Bowling Public MultiCommunity General Markets Stores Parlors Centers Transit Units
127

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

Massachusetts (Cont.)

Arlington Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Attleboro Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes —

Auburn No Yes No — — Yes —

Bedford Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Belmont Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Billerica Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Boxborough Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Brookline Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Burlington Yes Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes —

Cambridge Yes Yes Yes — — No —

Canton Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Chelmsford No Yes Yes — — No —

Clinton Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Cohasset Yes Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes —

Concord Sections Yes Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Dover Sections Yes Yes Sections Sections Sections C/A

Dudley Yes Yes Yes No Sections Yes —

Easthampton Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Falmouth Yes Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes —

Foxborough Yes Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes Yes

Gardner Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Gloucester Sections Sections Sections Yes Sections Sections —

Granby No Yes Yes No Yes Yes —

Great Barrington Yes Yes Yes — — No —

Greenfield Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Haverhill Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Hingham Yes Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes No

Holden Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes —

Holyoke Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Lawrence Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes Yes —

Lee Yes Yes Yes No Sections Yes —

Lenox Yes Yes Yes No Sections Yes —

Leominster Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No

Lexington Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Longmeadow No Yes Yes No No Yes —

Malden No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Mansfield Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Marblehead Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Marion Sections Yes Yes Sections Sections Sections —

Mashpee Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Maynard No Yes No — — No —

Medfield Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Methuen Yes Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes —

Middleton Yes Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes —

State In Food Retail Bingo Bowling Public MultiCommunity General Markets Stores Parlors Centers Transit Units
128

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Massachusetts (Cont.)

Millis Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Montague Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Nahant Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Natick Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Needham Yes Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes —

Newton Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

North Andover Yes Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes —

North Attleboro Yes Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes Yes

Northampton Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Norwell Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Oak Bluffs Yes Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes No

Orange Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Pittsfield Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes —

Plainville Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Plymouth Yes Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes —

Reading No Yes No — — No —

Revere Sections Yes Yes No No No —

Sandwich Sections Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes —

Saugus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Seekonk Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Sharon Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Somerville Yes Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes No

South Hadley Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Southwick Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Sterling Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Stockbridge Yes Yes Yes No Sections Yes —

Sudbury Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Swampscott Yes Yes No No No Yes —

Tewksbury Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Wakefield Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Walpole No No Yes No No No —

West Springfield Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Westborough Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Westfield Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Westford No Yes Yes — — No —

Westwood Yes Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes —

Weymouth Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Wilbraham Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Williamstown No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Wrentham No Yes No No No No —

Michigan No Sections No No No No —

Argentine Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

State In Food Retail Bingo Bowling Public MultiCommunity General Markets Stores Parlors Centers Transit Units
129

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

Michigan (Cont.)

Atlas Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Burton Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Clayton Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Clio Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Davison Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

East Lansing Yes Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes —

Fenton Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Flint Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Flushing Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Forest Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Gaines Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Genesee Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Genesee Co. Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Goodrich Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Grand Blanc Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Linden Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Marquette Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes Yes —

Marquette Co. Yes Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes —

Montrose Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Mount Morris Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Mundy Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Otisville Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Pontiac No No No No No Yes No

Richfield Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Swartz Creek Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Thetford Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Vienna Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Minnesota Sections Sections Sections No No Sections —

Mississippi No No No No No Yes —

Missouri Sections Sections Sections No No Sections —

Brentwood Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No

Chesterfield Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Clayton No Yes Yes — — No —

Columbia Sections Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Crestwood Sections Sections Sections Sections No Sections —

Des Peres No Yes Yes — — No —

Frontenac Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Independence Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Jefferson Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Kansas City No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Oak Grove Sections Sections Sections No No Sections —

Pacific Sections Sections Sections No No Sections —

State In Food Retail Bingo Bowling Public MultiCommunity General Markets Stores Parlors Centers Transit Units
130

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Missouri (Cont.)

Pleasant Hill Sections Sections Sections Sections No Sections —

Rock Hill No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Springfield Yes Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes —

St. Joseph Sections Sections Sections Sections No Sections —

Webster Groves Sections Sections Sections Sections No Sections —

Montana No No No No No No —

Nebraska Sections Sections Sections No No Sections —

Lincoln — — — — — Yes —

Nevada No Sections No No No Sections —

New Hampshire Sections Yes Sections No No Yes —

New Jersey No Yes Yes No No Yes —

Highland Park Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Hillsborough 

Township No Yes No — — No —

Lawrence 

Township Yes Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes —

Marlboro Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Pequannock Yes Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes —

Secaucus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Union Township No Yes Yes No No Yes —

New Mexico No No No No No No —

Albuquerque Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Las Cruces Yes Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes —

Los Alamos Yes Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes —

New York Sections Yes Sections Sections Sections Yes —

Chautauqua Co. Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Erie Co. Yes Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes —

Livingston Co. Yes Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes Yes

Monroe Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Nassau Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes Yes

New York City Yes Yes Yes No Sections Yes —

Niagara Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ontario Co. Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Rockland Co. Yes Yes Yes No Sections Yes No

Suffolk Co. No No No No Sections Yes No

Westchester Co. Yes Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes No

North Carolina No No No No No No —

Boone No Yes Yes No Yes Yes —

Buncombe Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Burke Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

State In Food Retail Bingo Bowling Public MultiCommunity General Markets Stores Parlors Centers Transit Units
131

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

North Carolina (Cont.)

Burlington No Yes Yes No Yes Yes —

Caldwell Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Sections —

Carrboro Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Catawba Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Chapel Hill No Yes Yes No Yes Yes —

Chatham Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Cleveland Co. No Yes Yes No No Yes —

Craven Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Cumberland Co. No No No No Yes Yes —

Davie Co. Sections No Yes No Yes Yes —

Durham No Yes Yes No No Yes —

Durham Co. No Yes Yes No No Yes —

Forsyth Co. No No No No No Yes —

Gaston Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Graham-Swain Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Guilford Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Halifax Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes —

Henderson Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Lee Co. No Yes Yes No No Yes —

Montreat Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

New Hanover Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

New Hanover Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Northampton Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Onslow Co. Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes —

Orange Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Raleigh No Sections Sections Sections Sections Yes —

Rowan Co. Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Wake Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Wilkes Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Wilmington No Yes Yes No No No —

Wrightsville Beach No Yes Yes No No No —

North Dakota No No No No No Sections —

Ohio No No No No No Sections —

Akron Yes Yes Yes No No Yes —

Athens Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Barberton Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Beachwood Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Cincinnati Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes —

Cleveland Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Cleveland Heights Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Columbus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Dayton No Sections Sections No No No No

State In Food Retail Bingo Bowling Public MultiCommunity General Markets Stores Parlors Centers Transit Units
132

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Ohio (Cont.)

Delaware Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Euclid No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Findlay Yes Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes —

Hancock Co. No Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes —

Knox Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Lakewood No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Licking Co. Yes Yes Yes Sections No Yes —

Lorain Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Mahoning Co. No Yes Sections Sections Sections Yes —

Maple Heights Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Mayfield Village Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Medina Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Muskingum Co. Yes Yes Yes Sections Yes Yes —

Newark No Yes Yes Sections No Yes —

Parma Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Parma Heights Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Shaker Heights Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Stark Co. No Yes Yes No Yes Yes —

Summit Co. Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Toledo Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

University Heights Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Warren Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Warren City No Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes —

Zanesville Sections Yes Yes Sections No Yes —

Oklahoma No No No No No Sections —

Oregon Sections Sections Sections No Sections Yes —

Benton Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Corvallis Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Eugene No Yes No — — Yes —

Pennsylvania No No No No No Yes —

Erie Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Lower Merion Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Pittsburgh Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

State College Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Rhode Island No Sections No No No Sections —

South Carolina No No No No No Yes —

Greenville No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Spartanburg No Sections Sections — Sections Sections —

South Dakota No No No No No Sections —

Sioux Falls No Yes Yes — — No —

State In Food Retail Bingo Bowling Public MultiCommunity General Markets Stores Parlors Centers Transit Units
133

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

Tennessee No No No No No No —

Collierville No Yes Yes No No Yes —

Germantown No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Memphis No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Texas No No No No No Sections —

Abilene Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Yes —

Addison No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Amarillo Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Arlington Yes Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes —

Austin Yes Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes —

Baytown Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Bedford No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Brownsville No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Bryan No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Carrollton No Yes Yes Yes No Yes —

College Station Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Colleyville Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Corpus Christi Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes —

Dallas No Yes Yes No No Yes —

Del Rio Yes Yes Yes — — No —

Denton No Yes Yes — — No —

Desoto No No Yes — — Yes —

Duncanville Yes Yes Yes — — No —

Eagle Pass Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

El Paso Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Euless No Yes Yes No No No —

Fort Worth No Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes Yes

Galveston Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Granbury City No Yes No No No Yes —

Grand Prairie No Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Greenville Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Haltom City Yes Yes Yes — — No —

Houston Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Huntsville No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Hurst No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Irving No No No — — Yes —

Kerrville Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Lancaster No Yes Yes — — No —

Leon Valley Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Longview Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Lubbock Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Mansfield No No No — — Yes —

McAllen No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Mesquite Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

State In Food Retail Bingo Bowling Public MultiCommunity General Markets Stores Parlors Centers Transit Units
134

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Texas (Cont.)

Midland Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

New Braunfels No Yes No — — Yes —

North Richland Hills Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Plano Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Richardson No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Round Rock Yes Yes Yes Sections Sections Yes —

San Antonio Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Seguin Yes Yes Yes — — No —

Southlake No Sections Sections No No No No

Travis Co. Yes Yes Yes — — No —

Tyler Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

West Lake Hills Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Wichita Falls Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Utah No Yes Yes No No Yes —

Vermont Yes Yes Yes No No Yes —

Burlington Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Virginia No No Sections No No No —

Albemarle Co. No Yes Yes — — No —

Alexandria No Yes Yes — — No —

Arlington No Yes Yes — — No —

Charlottesville No Yes No — — Yes —

Chesapeake No Yes Yes — — No —

Fairfax No Yes Yes — — No —

Fairfax Co. No Sections Sections No No No —

Falls Church No Yes Yes — — No —

Franklin No Yes Yes — — No —

Hampton No Yes Yes — — No —

Lynchburg No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Newport News No Yes Yes — — No —

Norfolk No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Portsmouth No Yes Yes — — No —

Prince William 

Co. No Yes Yes — — No —

Suffolk Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Yes —

Virginia Beach No Yes Yes — — Yes —

Washington Sections Sections Yes No No Yes —

Kennewick Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Pierce Co. Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Seattle No Yes Yes — — Yes —

West Virginia No No No No No No —

Belmont Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

State In Food Retail Bingo Bowling Public MultiCommunity General Markets Stores Parlors Centers Transit Units
135

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

West Virginia (Cont.)

Bluefield Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Boone Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Braxton Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Brooke Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Cabell Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Calhoun Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Clay Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Fairmont Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Gilmer Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Grant Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Greenbrier Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Greenbrier Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Hampshire Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Jackson Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Kanawha Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Lincoln Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Marshall Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

McDowell Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Mercer Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Monongalia Co. Yes Yes Yes — — Yes —

Monroe Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Morgan Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Morgantown Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Nicholas Co. Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes —

Pendleton Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Pleasants Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Princeton Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections Sections —

Putnam Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Raleigh Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Randolph Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Ritchie Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Roane Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Upshur Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Wayne Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Webster Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

WheelingOhio Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Wirt Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Wood Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes —

Wyoming Co. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Wisconsin No No Sections No No Sections —

Fitchburg No Yes Yes No No Yes —

State In Food Retail Bingo Bowling Public MultiCommunity General Markets Stores Parlors Centers Transit Units
136

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Wisconsin (Cont.)

Madison No Yes Yes No No Sections No

Oak Creek No No No No No Yes —

Rice Lake No No No No No Yes —

Shorewood Hills No No Sections No No Yes —

Wyoming No No No No No No —

Casper Yes Yes Yes — — No —

Laramie Yes Yes No — — No —

State In Food Retail Bingo Bowling Public MultiCommunity General Markets Stores Parlors Centers Transit Units
CHART 2 This chart summarizes the workplace provisions of the major local

clean indoor air ordinances in the United States. A total of 642 local ordinances with workplace smoking provisions are listed. Figure 2 presents a

map of the clean indoor air laws for workplaces in the United States, at the

local and state levels.

100% Smoke-free: A “Yes” in this column indicates that smoking is entirely

prohibited in enclosed workplaces, or allowed only in enclosed, separately ventilated smoking lounges that workers are not required to enter

during the course of their work duties.

Meeting Rooms: A “Yes in this column indicates that smoking is prohibited

in meeting rooms.

Designate Own Area: A “Yes” in this column indicates that employees are

allowed to designate their immediate work area as a nonsmoking area.

A “na” in this column indicates that the ordinance is 100% smoke-free

in the workplace, making this provision non-applicable.

Nonsmoker Preference: A “Yes” in this column indicates that the ordinance

contains a provision which states that in a dispute over smoking in the

workplace, if no resolution can be reached, the health needs of the nonsmoker will take precedence over the smoker’s desire to smoke in a

given area. A “na” in this column indicates that the ordinance is 100%

smoke-free in the workplace, making this provision non-applicable.

Nonretaliation: A “Yes” in this column indicates that the ordinance contains

a provision prohibiting retaliation against an employee who exercises

rights provided by the ordinance.

Common Work Areas: A “Yes” in this column indicates that smoking is prohibited in common work areas.

Separately Ventilated Rooms: A “Yes” in this column indicates that workplaces may establish a designated smoking lounge if, and only if, the

lounge is enclosed and separately ventilated, with air directly exhausted

outdoors so that it is not exchanged with the rest of the workplace.

Size Exemptions: A “None” in this column indicates that workplaces of any

size are covered by the ordinance. A numeric figure indicates that workplaces with that number of employees (or fewer) are exempt from workplace smoking provisions.

Note: An entry of “—” in a field indicates that information is not available

for that provision. This is generally the result of adding new fields of

analysis to reflect a significant development in ordinance provisions;

database records for ordinances analyzed prior to the new field of analysis do not contain information for that provision.

95

CLEAN INDOOR AIR PROVISIONS

STATE LAWS AND LOCAL ORDINANCES:

WORKPLACE PROVISIONS
Figure 2: Smoking Restrictions in Workplaces: 1997

96

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Data Source: State Legislated Actions on Tobacco Issues, American Lung Association, 1997

National Matrix of Local Ordinances, American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation, 1998
97

Alabama No No No No No No No None

Alexander City No No No No No No No None

Anniston No No No No No No No 4

Auburn No No No No No No — None

Birmingham Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

Cullman Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

Daphne No No No No No No No None

Decatur No No No Yes Yes No No None

Dothan No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes — None

Homewood No No Yes Yes No No Yes 2

Huntsville No No No Yes Yes No No None

Jackson No No No No No No — None

Madison No No No Yes Yes No No None

Mobile No No No No No No No None

Montgomery No No No No No No — None

Prattville No No No No No No — None

Rainbow City No No Yes Yes No Yes No None

Tuscaloosa No No No No No No No None

Wetumpka No No No No No No No None

Alaska No No No No No No No None

Bethel Yes Yes na na Yes Yes Yes None

Arizona No No No No No No Yes None

Chandler No No No Yes Yes No — None

Flagstaff No Yes No No Yes No — None

Gilbert No Yes No Yes Yes No — None

Glendale No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

Kingman No No No No Yes No — None

Maricopa Co. No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

Mesa Yes Yes na na Yes Yes Yes None

Peoria No No No Yes No No — None

Phoenix No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

Pima Co. No Yes Yes Yes No Yes — None

Prescott No No No No Yes No — None

Scottsdale No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

Tempe Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Tucson No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

Yuma No No No No Yes No — None

Arkansas No No No No No No No None

McGehee No No No Yes No No — None

100% Desig Non Comm Sep

State Smoke Mtg Own NS retali- Work Vent Size

Community free Rooms Area Pref ation Areas Rooms Exempt

Chart 2

State Laws and Local Ordinances: Workplace Provisions

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances
98

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

California Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes None

Agoura Hills No Yes No No No No No None

Alameda No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

Alameda Co. No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — 3

Albany Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — None

Alhambra No No Yes Yes No No — 5

Alpine Co. Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — None

Anaheim No Yes Yes Yes No No — 3

Anderson Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Antioch Yes Yes na na Yes Yes Yes None

Arcata Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes None

Auburn Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — None

Belmont Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Belvedere Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Benicia No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — 2

Berkeley Yes Yes na na Yes Yes Yes None

Big Bear Lake No No No No Yes No — None

Blue Lake No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

Brea No Yes No No No No — None

Brentwood No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — 3

Buellton Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

Burlingame Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — None

Butte Co. Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — None

Calabasas No Yes No No No No No None

Calistoga Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Camarillo Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No 1

Campbell No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

Capitola Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Carlsbad No Yes No No No No — None

Carpinteria Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

Ceres Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Chico Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Chino Hills Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — None

Chula Vista No Yes No No No No — None

Clayton Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Cloverdale No Yes Yes No Yes No — None

Coachella No No No Yes Yes No — None

Colfax Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — None

Concord Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — None

Contra Costa Co. Yes Yes na na Yes Yes Yes None

Coronado No Yes No No No No — None

Cotati Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Culver City No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — 3

100% Desig Non Comm Sep

State Smoke Mtg Own NS retali- Work Vent Size

Community free Rooms Area Pref ation Areas Rooms Exempt
99

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

California (Cont.)

Cupertino Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Cypress No No Yes No No No — None

Danville Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Davis Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Del Mar Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — None

Del Norte Co. No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

Desert Hot Springs No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

Dixon No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

Downey No Yes No Yes Yes No — None

Duarte Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes 5

Dublin Yes Yes na na Yes Yes Yes None

East Palo Alto No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

El Cajon No No No No Yes Yes No None

El Centro No Yes Yes No Yes Yes — None

El Cerrito Yes Yes na na Yes Yes Yes None

El Dorado Co. Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — None

El Segundo No No Yes Yes Yes No — 5

Emeryville No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

Encinitas No Yes No No No Yes No None

Escondido No Yes No No No Yes — None

Eureka No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

Fairfax Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Fairfield No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — 3

Folsom Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes None

Fontana No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — 3

Fort Bragg Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Fortuna No Yes Yes No Yes No — None

Foster City Yes Yes na na Yes Yes Yes None

Fremont Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Fresno No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No None

Garden Grove No No No No No No — 9

Gilroy No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No None

Grand Terrace No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

Grass Valley No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

Gridley No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

Hayward No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Healdsburg Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No 4

Hemet No No Yes No Yes No — None

Hercules Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — None

Hesperia Yes Yes na na No Yes — None

Hollister No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No None

Hughson Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

100% Desig Non Comm Sep

State Smoke Mtg Own NS retali- Work Vent Size

Community free Rooms Area Pref ation Areas Rooms Exempt
100

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

California (Cont.)

Huntington Beach No No Yes No No No — 3

Imperial Beach No Yes No No No No — None

Imperial Co. No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Indian Wells No Yes Yes No No Yes — None

Indio No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

Irvine No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

La Canada Flintridge No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes — None

La Mesa No Yes No No No No — None

La Quinta No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes — None

Lafayette Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — None

Laguna Beach No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

Laguna Hills Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

Laguna Niguel No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

Lakewood No No No No No No — None

Lancaster No No No No Yes No — None

Larkspur Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Lathrop Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Lemon Grove Yes Yes na na Yes Yes Yes None

Lindsay Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Live Oak No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

Livermore Yes Yes na na Yes Yes Yes None

Livingston No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

Lodi No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

Loma Linda No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes — None

Lompoc No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

Long Beach Yes Yes na na Yes Yes Yes None

Los Alamitos No Yes No No No Yes — None

Los Altos No No No No No No — None

Los Angeles No No No No Yes No No 4

Los Angeles Co. No No No No No No — None

Los Gatos Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes None

Madera No No No No Yes No No None

Manhattan Beach No No No Yes No No — None

Marin Co. Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Martinez Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — None

Marysville No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

Mendocino Co. Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Menlo Park No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

Merced Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Mill Valley Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No 1

Millbrae Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

Milpitas No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

Mission Viejo No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — 9

100% Desig Non Comm Sep

State Smoke Mtg Own NS retali- Work Vent Size

Community free Rooms Area Pref ation Areas Rooms Exempt
101

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

California (Cont.)

Modesto Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Monterey No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes — None

Monterey Co. Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Moorpark Yes Yes na na No Yes No 1

Moraga No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — 3

Moreno Valley No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Morgan Hill No Yes Yes Yes No No — 3

Morro Bay No No No Yes No No — None

Mountain View Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

Napa Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Napa Co. Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

National City No Yes No No No No — None

Nevada City No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No None

Nevada Co. No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No None

Newark No Yes Yes No Yes No No 3

Newport Beach No No Yes No No No — 3

Novato Yes Yes na na Yes Yes Yes None

Oakdale No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

Oakland Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — None

Oceanside No Yes No No No No — None

Ojai Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Ontario No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

Orange Co. No Yes — na Yes Yes No None

Orinda Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — None

Oroville No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — 4

Oxnard No Yes No No No No — None

Palm Desert No Yes No Yes Yes No — None

Palm Springs No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

Palmdale No No No No Yes No — None

Palo Alto Yes Yes na na Yes Yes Yes None

Paradise Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — None

Pasadena Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No 1

Patterson Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Petaluma Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Piedmont No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

Pinole Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — None

Pittsburg Yes Yes na na Yes Yes Yes 1

Placer Co. Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Placerville Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — None

Pleasant Hill Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — None

Pleasanton Yes Yes na na Yes Yes Yes None

Port Hueneme No Yes No Yes No No No None

Poway No No No No Yes Yes No None

100% Desig Non Comm Sep

State Smoke Mtg Own NS retali- Work Vent Size

Community free Rooms Area Pref ation Areas Rooms Exempt
102

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

California (Cont.)

Rancho Mirage No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

Redding Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Redlands No Yes Yes Yes No No — 3

Redwood City No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

Rialto No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — 24

Richmond Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Riverside No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

Riverside Co. No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

Rohnert Park No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 3

Roseville Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — None

Sacramento Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — None

Sacramento Co. Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — 1

Salinas Yes Yes na na Yes Yes Yes None

San Anselmo Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

San Bernardino Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

San Bernardino Co. No No No No Yes No — 9

San Bruno No No No Yes Yes No — None

San Carlos Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

San Clemente No No No No No No — 3

San Diego Yes Yes na na Yes Yes Yes None

San Diego Co. No Yes No No No Yes — None

San Francisco Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

San Jose Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

San Juan Bautista Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

San Juan Capistrano No Yes Yes Yes No No No 2

San Leandro No Yes No No Yes No — 4

San Luis Obispo Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes None

San Marcos No No No No No No — None

San Mateo Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

San Mateo Co. Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — None

San Pablo No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — 3

San Rafael Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

San Ramon Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Santa Ana Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

Santa Barbara No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

Santa Barbara Co. Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes 5

Santa Clara Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Santa Clara Co. Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Santa Clarita Yes Yes na na No Yes No 1

Santa Cruz Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Santa Cruz Co. Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Santa Maria No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

Santa Rosa Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

100% Desig Non Comm Sep

State Smoke Mtg Own NS retali- Work Vent Size

Community free Rooms Area Pref ation Areas Rooms Exempt
103

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

California (Cont.)

Santee No Yes No No No No — None

Saratoga Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

Sausalito Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Scotts Valley Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Seaside No No No Yes No No — None

Sebastopol Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Shafter Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No 2

Shasta Co. Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Shasta Lake Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Solana Beach Yes Yes na na Yes Yes Yes None

Solano Co. Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — None

Solvang No No No Yes No No — None

Sonoma Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — None

Sonoma Co. Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

South Lake Tahoe Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — 1

South San Francisco Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — None

Stanislaus Co. Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — None

Stockton No Yes Yes No Yes No — None

Sunnyvale No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — 3

Sutter Co. No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

Temecula No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

Thousand Oaks No No Yes No No No — 4

Tiburon Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Torrance No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

Tracy Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Truckee No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No None

Tuolumne Co. Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Turlock Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes None

Tustin No No No No No No No None

Ukiah Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Union City Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Vacaville No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — 3

Vallejo Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Ventura Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Ventura Co. Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

Victorville No No No No No No — None

Visalia Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — None

Vista No No No No Yes Yes No None

Walnut No Yes No No No Yes — None

Walnut Creek Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — 2

Waterford No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 3

Watsonville Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

West Hollywood No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

100% Desig Non Comm Sep

State Smoke Mtg Own NS retali- Work Vent Size

Community free Rooms Area Pref ation Areas Rooms Exempt
104

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

California (Cont.)

West Sacramento No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes — None

Westlake Village Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes None

Wheatland No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

Whittier Yes Yes na na Yes Yes — None

Willows No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes — None

Woodside No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes — None

Yolo Co. No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

Yorba Linda No Yes Yes Yes No No — 10

Yountville Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Yuba City No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

Colorado No No No No No No No None

Arapahoe Co. No No No No No No — None

Arvada No No No No No No — None

Aspen No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

Aurora No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

Boulder Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

Boulder Co. No No Yes Yes No No No None

Broomfield No No No No No No — None

Canon City No No No Yes No No — None

Carbondale No No Yes Yes No No — None

Colorado Springs No No Yes Yes Yes No — None

Denver No No Yes Yes Yes No No 4

Englewood No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

Fort Collins No Yes Yes Yes No No No None

Glenwood Springs No No Yes Yes No No No None

Golden No Yes No No No No — None

Grand Junction No Yes No No No No — 2

Greeley No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

Greenwood Village No No No No No No — 2

Jefferson Co. No No No Yes No No — None

Lakewood No No Yes Yes No No No None

Larimer Co. No No Yes Yes Yes No No None

Littleton No No No Yes Yes No — 2

Longmont No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

Loveland No Yes Yes No No No — None

Parker No No No Yes Yes No — 2

Pitkin Co. No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Pueblo No No No Yes No No No None

Snowmass Village No Yes No Yes Yes No — None

Telluride No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

Thornton No No No No Yes No — None

Trinidad No No No Yes No No — None

100% Desig Non Comm Sep

State Smoke Mtg Own NS retali- Work Vent Size

Community free Rooms Area Pref ation Areas Rooms Exempt
105

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

Colorado (Cont.)

Vail No Yes No Yes Yes No No None

Weld Co. Yes Yes na na No Yes — None

Westminster No No No No Yes No No None

Wheat Ridge No No No No Yes No — None

Connecticut No No No No No No No 20

Delaware No No No No No No No None

Dover No Yes No Yes Yes No No 24

Wilmington No Yes No Yes Yes No — 24

District of Columbia No No No No No No — None

Florida No No No No No No No None

Georgia No No No No No No No None

Albany Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes None

Athens/Clark Co. No Yes — na No Yes No None

Chatham Co. No Yes No No No Yes No None

Decatur No No No No No No No None

DeKalb Co. No Yes Yes No No Yes No None

Fulton Co. No No Yes Yes No No No None

Gainesville No No No No No No No None

Gwinnett Co. No No Yes Yes No No No None

Hall Co. No No No No No No No None

Savannah No Yes — na No Yes No None

Snellville No No No No No No — None

Hawaii No Yes No No No No No None

Honolulu Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

Maui Co. Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

Idaho Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

Illinois No No No No No No No None

Arlington Heights No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — 8

Chicago No No Yes Yes Yes No No None

Des Plaines No Yes Yes Yes No No — 9

Elgin No Yes No No No Yes — None

Hoffman Estates No Yes Yes Yes No No — 14

Oak Park No No No No No No — None

Orland Park No Yes Yes No No No — None

Rockford No No No No Yes No — None

Skokie No Yes Yes No No No — 8

Wilmette No No Yes Yes No No — None

100% Desig Non Comm Sep

State Smoke Mtg Own NS retali- Work Vent Size

Community free Rooms Area Pref ation Areas Rooms Exempt
106

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Indiana No No No No No No No None

Fort Wayne No Yes No No Yes Yes No None

Iowa No No No No No No No None

Kansas No No No No No No No None

Lawrence No Yes Yes No Yes No No None

Overland Park No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes None

Topeka No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Kentucky No No No No No No No None

Louisiana No No No No No No No 24

Baton Rouge No No No No No No No None

Calcasieu Parish No No Yes No Yes Yes No 15

Catahoula Parish No Yes No No No Yes No 1

E. Baton Rouge 

Parish No No No No No No No None

Jefferson Parish No No Yes No Yes Yes No 15

Lake Charles No Yes Yes No Yes No — 15

New Orleans No Yes Yes No Yes No — 15

Sulphur No Yes Yes No Yes No No 15

Maine No No No No No No No None

Maryland Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes None

Anne Arundel Co. No No No No No No No 49

Baltimore Co. Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

Gaithersburg No No No No No No No None

Howard Co. No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Montgomery Co. No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No 2

Prince George’s Co. No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

Takoma Park No No No No Yes Yes — None

Talbot Co. Yes Yes na na Yes Yes Yes None

Massachusetts No No No No No No No None

Acushnet No No No No No No Yes 1

Agawam No No No No No No No None

Amherst Yes Yes na na No Yes No 1

Arlington Yes Yes na na No Yes No 1

Attleboro Yes Yes na na Yes Yes Yes None

Bedford No No No No No No No 2

Bellingham No Yes No No No Yes Yes 1

Belmont No Yes No No No Yes No None

Boston No No No Yes Yes No No None

Brookline Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No 2

Burlington No No No No No No No 1

100% Desig Non Comm Sep

State Smoke Mtg Own NS retali- Work Vent Size

Community free Rooms Area Pref ation Areas Rooms Exempt
107

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

Massachusetts (Cont.)

Cambridge No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

Canton No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 4

Chelmsford No No No No No No — None

Cohasset No No No No No No No None

Concord No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No None

Dover No No No No No Yes No 1

Dudley No No No No No No No None

East Longmeadow Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

Easthampton Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes None

Falmouth Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes None

Foxborough No No — na No No No 1

Gardner Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Gloucester No Yes No No No No No 1

Great Barrington No Yes Yes No No No — None

Greenfield Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes None

Haverhill Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Hingham No No No No No Yes No 1

Holden Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

Holyoke Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes 1

Lawrence No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Lee No No No No No Yes No 1

Lenox No No No No No Yes No 1

Leominster No No No Yes No No No None

Lexington Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

Lowell Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

Mansfield No Yes No No No Yes — None

Marion No No No No No No No None

Mashpee No No No Yes No No No 2

Medfield No Yes No No No Yes Yes 1

Methuen No No Yes No Yes No No None

Middleton No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Millis No No No Yes No No — None

Milton Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Montague Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes None

Nahant No Yes No No Yes Yes No None

Natick No Yes No Yes No Yes No None

Needham No No No Yes No No No 1

Newton No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No None

North Andover No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No None

North Attleboro No No No No No Yes No 1

Northampton Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes None

Norton Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

Norwell Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes 2

100% Desig Non Comm Sep

State Smoke Mtg Own NS retali- Work Vent Size

Community free Rooms Area Pref ation Areas Rooms Exempt
108

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Massachusetts (Cont.)

Oak Bluffs No No No No No No Yes 1

Orange Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes None

Plainville No No No No No Yes No 1

Plymouth No No No No No No Yes 1

Revere No No No No No No No None

Sandwich No Yes No No No Yes No 1

Saugus Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Sharon No No No No Yes Yes No 1

Somerville No Yes Yes No No No No 1

Southwick No No No No No No No 1

Stockbridge No No No No No Yes No 1

Sudbury No Yes No Yes No No No None

Townsend No No No No No No — None

Wakefield Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Walpole No No No No Yes No No None

Watertown No No No No No No — None

Wellesley No No Yes Yes Yes No — None

West Springfield No No No Yes No No No 1

Westborough Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes 1

Westfield Yes Yes na na Yes Yes Yes None

Westford No No No No No No — None

Westwood No No No Yes Yes No No 1

Williamstown Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes 1

Michigan No No No No No No No None

Detroit No No Yes Yes No No No 1

East Lansing No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 1

Marquette Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Marquette Co. No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No None

Pontiac No Yes No Yes No Yes No None

Minnesota No No No No No No No None

Mississippi No No No No No No No None

Missouri No No No No No No No None

Brentwood Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

Columbia No Yes No No No Yes No None

Independence No Yes No No No No — None

Jefferson No No No No No No — 2

Kansas City No No No No No No — None

Montana No No No No No No No 1

100% Desig Non Comm Sep

State Smoke Mtg Own NS retali- Work Vent Size

Community free Rooms Area Pref ation Areas Rooms Exempt
109

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

Nebraska No No Yes No No No No None

Nevada No No No No No No No None

New Hampshire No No No No No No No 4

New Jersey No No No Yes No No No 49

Bayonne Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

Highland Park Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Medford Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

New Mexico No No No No No No No None

Albuquerque No Yes Yes No No No — None

Las Cruces No Yes No No No Yes No None

Los Alamos No Yes No No No Yes No None

New York No No No No No No No None

Chautauqua Co. No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

Erie Co. Yes Yes na na Yes Yes Yes None

Livingston Co. No Yes No No No Yes Yes None

Monroe Co. Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes None

Nassau Co. No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes None

New York City No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes None

Niagara Co. Yes Yes na na Yes Yes Yes None

Ontario Co. No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

Rockland Co. No No Yes Yes No No No None

Suffolk Co. No Yes Yes Yes No No No 50

Westchester Co. No No Yes No No Yes No None

North Carolina No No No No No No No None

Boone No No No No No No No None

Buncombe Co. Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes None

Burke Co. Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes None

Caldwell Co. No No No No No No No None

Carrboro No Yes — na No Yes Yes None

Catawba Co. Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes None

Chapel Hill No No No No Yes No No None

Chatham Co. Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes None

Cleveland Co. No No No No No No No None

Craven Co. Yes Yes na na Yes Yes Yes None

Davie Co. Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

Durham Co. No No No No No No No None

Gaston Co. No No No No No No No None

Guilford Co. No Yes No No Yes Yes No None

Halifax Co. No No No No No No No None

Haywood Co. No Yes No No No Yes No None

100% Desig Non Comm Sep

State Smoke Mtg Own NS retali- Work Vent Size

Community free Rooms Area Pref ation Areas Rooms Exempt
110

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

North Carolina (Cont.)

Henderson Co. Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes None

Lee Co. No No No No No No No None

Montreat Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

New Hanover Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes None

New Hanover Co. Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes None

Northampton Co. No No No No No No No None

Onslow Co. No Yes No No No Yes Yes None

Orange Co. Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes None

Raleigh No No No No No No No None

Wake Co. Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes None

Wilkes Co. Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes None

Wilmington No No No No No No No None

Wrightsville Beach No No No No No No No None

North Dakota No No No No No No No None

Ohio No No No No No No No None

Akron No No No Yes No No No 24

Barberton No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — 25

Beachwood No Yes Yes No No No — None

Cincinnati No Yes No Yes Yes No No None

Cleveland No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

Cleveland Heights No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

Columbus Yes Yes na na Yes Yes Yes None

Delaware No No No Yes Yes No No None

Eastlake No No No Yes No No No None

Euclid No No No Yes No No — None

Findlay No No Yes Yes Yes No No None

Hancock Co. No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No None

Knox Co. Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

Lakewood No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

Licking Co. No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Lorain No No Yes Yes Yes No — 24

Maple Heights No Yes Yes No Yes No — None

Mayfield Village No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

Muskingum Co. No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No None

Newark No Yes — No Yes Yes No None

Parma No Yes Yes No Yes No — None

Parma Heights No Yes No Yes Yes No — None

Shaker Heights No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

Summit Co. No No No Yes Yes No — 24

Toledo No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

University Heights No Yes Yes Yes No No — None

100% Desig Non Comm Sep

State Smoke Mtg Own NS retali- Work Vent Size

Community free Rooms Area Pref ation Areas Rooms Exempt
111

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

Ohio (Cont.)

Warren No No No No Yes No — 14

Warren City No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 14

Xenia No No No Yes No No — None

Zanesville Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Oklahoma No No No No No No No None

Oregon No Yes No No No No No None

Benton Co. Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Corvallis Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Eugene No No No No No No — None

Pennsylvania No No No No No No No None

Erie No Yes Yes No Yes No — None

Lower Merion No Yes No No No No — None

Pittsburgh No No Yes No No No — None

State College No No No No No No — None

Rhode Island No No No Yes No No Yes None

South Carolina No No No No No No No None

Hampton Co. No No No No No No — None

Spartanburg No No No No No No No None

South Dakota Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

Sioux Falls No No No No No No — None

Tennessee No No No No No No No None

Texas No No No No No No No None

Abilene No No No No No No No None

Addison No No No No Yes No — 10

Arlington Yes Yes na na Yes Yes Yes None

Austin Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes None

Baytown No No No No No No No None

Bellaire Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

Brownsville No Yes Yes No Yes No — 5

Colleyville No No No Yes No No — None

Corpus Christi No Yes Yes Yes No No No None

Dallas No No No Yes Yes No No 4

Desoto No Yes No No Yes Yes — 4

El Paso No No No No No No — None

Fort Worth No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes None

Galveston No No No Yes No No — None

Greenville No No No Yes No No — None

Houston No No No Yes No No — 19

Keller Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

Kerr Co. No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

100% Desig Non Comm Sep

State Smoke Mtg Own NS retali- Work Vent Size

Community free Rooms Area Pref ation Areas Rooms Exempt
112

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Texas (Cont.)

Kerrville No No No Yes No No — None

Lubbock No No No No No No No None

McAllen No No No No No No — None

Midland No No No No No No — 10

New Braunfels Yes Yes na na No Yes — None

Richardson No No No No Yes No — 4

Rockwall No No No No No No — None

Round Rock No No No Yes No No No None

Seguin No No No No No No — None

Southlake No No No No Yes No No 1

Sugar Land No No No No No No — None

Texarkana No Yes No No No No — None

Travis Co. No No No Yes No No — None

Tyler No No No No No No — None

West Lake Hills No No No Yes No No No None

Wichita Falls Yes Yes na na Yes Yes Yes None

Utah No No No No No No No None

Vermont No Yes No No No Yes No None

Burlington No No No No No No — None

Virginia No No No No No No No None

Albemarle Co. No No No No No Yes — 4

Charlottesville No No Yes No No No — 4

Chesapeake No No No No No No — None

Newport News No No No No No No — None

Prince William Co. No Yes No No No No — None

Stafford Co. No Yes Yes No No No — None

Washington Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes None

King Co. No Yes No No No No — None

Pierce Co. No Yes Yes Yes Yes No — None

Seattle No No No No No No — None

West Virginia No No No No No No No None

Belmont No No No Yes No No No None

Boone Co. No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No None

Braxton Co. No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Brooke Co. Yes Yes na na No Yes Yes None

Cabell Co. No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Calhoun Co. No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Clay Co. No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Fairmont No Yes No No No No — None

Gilmer Co. No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

100% Desig Non Comm Sep

State Smoke Mtg Own NS retali- Work Vent Size

Community free Rooms Area Pref ation Areas Rooms Exempt
113

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

West Virginia (Cont.)

Grant Co. No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Greenbrier No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Greenbrier Co. No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Hampshire Co. No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Jackson Co. No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Kanawha Co. No No Yes Yes Yes No No None

Lincoln Co. Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Marshall Co. No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

McDowell Co. No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Mercer Co. No No Yes Yes Yes No No None

Monongalia Co. No No Yes Yes Yes No — None

Monroe Co. No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Morgan Co. No No Yes Yes No Yes No None

Morgantown No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Nicholas Co. No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No 1

Pendleton Co. No No Yes Yes Yes No No None

Pleasants Co. No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Princeton No No No Yes No Yes No None

Putnam Co. No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Raleigh Co. No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Randolph Co. No No Yes Yes Yes No No None

Ritchie Co. No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Roane Co. No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Upshur Co. No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Wayne Co. No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Webster Co. No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

WheelingOhio Co. No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Wirt Co. No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Wood Co. No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No None

Wyoming Co. Yes Yes na na Yes Yes No None

Wisconsin No No No No No No No None

Dane Co. Yes Yes na na No Yes No None

Rice Lake No No No No No No No None

Wyoming No No No No No No Yes None

Casper No Yes No Yes No Yes — None

Laramie No No No No No No — None

100% Desig Non Comm Sep

State Smoke Mtg Own NS retali- Work Vent Size

Community free Rooms Area Pref ation Areas Rooms Exempt
SUMMARY TABLE 3 This table gives a tally of the various advertising restrictions

listed in Chart 5, giving state totals for location/zoning, public transit, and

retailer restrictions.

Total: This column lists the total number of local communities with at least

one kind of advertising restriction in place.

Location/Zoning: This column lists the total number of local communities

with ordinances that have location or zoning restrictions on tobacco

advertising.

Public Transit: This column lists the total number of local communities

with ordinances that restrict tobacco advertising on forms of public

transportation (e.g., buses, taxis).

Retailer Restrictions: This column lists the total number of local communities with ordinances that restrict the placement of tobacco advertising

in retail stores.

CHART 5 This chart lists local ordinances designed to restrict tobacco advertising. There are 68 local tobacco advertising ordinances listed herein.

Last Amendment: This column indicates when a community enacted or last

amended an ordinance with tobacco advertising restrictions. In the

case of ordinances that have been amended following original adoption, the column reflects the date of the latest amendment. Those ordinances that have been amended following original adoption are indicated by an asterisk next to the date. 

Location/Zoning Restrictions: A "Yes" in this column indicates that placement

of tobacco advertisements (e.g., billboards, storefront signs, placards) is

severely restricted in specified publicly visible locations (e.g., within

1,000 feet of school property) or allowed only within specified locations

(e.g., commercial or industrial zones, fronting interstate highways).

Public Transit: A "Yes" in this column indicates that placement of tobacco

advertising is restricted on forms of public transportation (e.g. buses,

taxis).

Retailer Restrictions: A "Yes" in this column indicates that placement of

tobacco advertising in tobacco retail stores is restricted (e.g., prohibiting

advertisements visible to the street, point-of-purchase restrictions).

Tombstone Exemption: A "Yes" in this column indicates that generic tobacco

advertisements providing factual information such as price and availability without adornment or other brand advertising are allowed in

areas where tobacco advertising is otherwise restricted.

165

ADVERTISING RESTRICTIONS
Note: An entry of “—” in a field indicates that information is not available

for that provision. This is generally the result of adding new fields of

analysis to reflect a significant development in ordinance provisions;

database records for ordinances analyzed prior to the new field of analysis do not contain information for that provision.

166

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
167

Location/ Public Retailer

State Total Zoning Transit Restrictions

California 14 14 4 6

Colorado 1 1 0 1

Connecticut 2201

Hawaii 1101

Illinois 1100

Maryland 1 1 0 0

Massachusetts 24 6 21 2

Michigan 2 2 0 0

Minnesota 1001

Missouri 1 1 0 1

New Jersey 4304

New York 6504

Ohio 2 2 1 1

Pennsylvania 1100

Texas 1100

Washington 5 5 1 2

Wisconsin 1 1 1 1

Totals 68 47 28 25

Summary Table 3

Local Ordinances Restricting Tobacco Advertising: Total Number by State

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances
169

California 1997* Yes No No No

Berkeley 1998 Yes No Yes Yes

Carson 1998 Yes No No No

Compton 1997 Yes No No Yes

Contra Costa Co. 1998 Yes Yes Yes Yes

Covina 1998 Yes No No No

Hanford 1998 Yes No No No

Hawthorne 1998 Yes No No No

Long Beach 1994* Yes No No No

Los Angeles 1998 Yes Yes Yes Yes

Los Angeles Co. 1998 Yes No No No

Oakland 1997 Yes No No Yes

San Diego 1998 Yes No Yes Yes

San Francisco 1998* Yes Yes Yes Yes

Santa Cruz Co. 1998 Yes Yes Yes Yes

Colorado None No No No No

Denver 1998 Yes No Yes No

Connecticut None No No No No

Orange 1998 Yes No Yes No

Seymour 1998 Yes No No No

District of Columbia 1998 No Yes No No

Hawaii None No No No No

Honolulu 1998 Yes No Yes No

Illinois 1987 No No No No

Chicago 1997 Yes No No Yes

Indiana 1997 Yes No No No

Kentucky 1992 Yes No No No

Maryland None No No No No

Baltimore 1994 Yes No No Yes

Massachusetts None No No No No

Amherst 1994* No Yes No No

Attleboro 1995* Yes Yes No No

Bellingham 1997* No Yes No No

Billerica 1995 No Yes No No

Brockton 1994 No Yes No No

Canton 1994 Yes No No No

Dover 1994 No Yes No No

Dudley 1994 Yes No No No

State Last Loc/ Public TombCommunity Amend Zone Transit Retailer stone

Chart 5

State Laws and Local Ordinances to Restrict Tobacco Advertising

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances
170

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Massachusetts (Cont.)

Easthampton 1994 No Yes No No

Foxborough 1993 No Yes No No

Hingham 1993 No Yes No No

Holliston 1994 Yes Yes Yes No

Holyoke 1994 Yes Yes No No

Marlborough 1995 No Yes No No

Medfield 1997* No Yes No No

Nahant 1995 No Yes No No

Natick 1994 No Yes No No

North Attleboro 1995 Yes No No No

Northampton 1997* No Yes No No

Oak Bluffs 1993 No Yes No No

Plainville 1993 No Yes No No

Saugus 1994 No Yes Yes No

Southwick 1992 No Yes No No

Tewksbury 1994 No Yes No No

Michigan None No No No No

Lansing 1997 Yes No No No

Warren 1998 Yes No No No

Minnesota None No No No No

Preston 1994 No No Yes Yes

Missouri None No No No No

Saint Louis 1999* Yes No Yes No

New Jersey None No No No No

Clifton 1997 Yes No Yes Yes

Deptford 1997 No No Yes No

Irvington 1997 Yes No Yes No

Paterson 1998 Yes No Yes Yes

New York None No No No No

Albany 1997 Yes No Yes Yes

Buffalo 1998 Yes No Yes No

New York City 1998* Yes No Yes Yes

Rochester 1998 Yes No Yes Yes

Suffolk Co. 1995 No No No No

Yonkers 1996 Yes No No No

Ohio None No No No No

Cincinnati 1994 Yes Yes Yes No

Cleveland 1998 Yes No No Yes

State Last Loc/ Public TombCommunity Amend Zone Transit Retailer stone
171

Section II: State Laws and Local Ordinances

Pennsylvania None No No No No

Allentown 1998 Yes No No Yes

Texas 1996 Yes No No No

Fort Worth 1997 Yes No No No

Utah 1998* No Yes No No

Washington None No No No No

Clark Co. 1998 Yes No No No

King Co. 1998* Yes Yes No Yes

Skamania Co. 1998 Yes No No No

Snohomish Co. 1998 Yes No Yes Yes

Tacoma-Pierce Co. 1996 Yes No Yes Yes

West Virginia 1987 No No No No

Wisconsin None No No No No

Milwaukee 1998 Yes Yes Yes Yes

State Last Loc/ Public TombCommunity Amend Zone Transit Retailer stone
Appendix to Section II:

Summary of State Tobacco

Control Laws
This appendix presents four tables summarizing information on

state tobacco control laws. The tables cover state laws that restrict smoking

in public places; age restrictions for the sale of tobacco products; state laws

that restrict tobacco sales through vending machines; and state restrictions

on the distribution of tobacco product samples. 

APPENDIX TABLE 1 This table is a quick reference to the state laws restricting

smoking in public places. There are 49 states, as well as the District of

Columbia, that restrict smoking in public places. There are 15 public places

listed in this table:

Each state will have an entry for each public place in the table as follows:

• Smoking is prohibited in this place.

V Smoking areas in this place must be enclosed and separately

ventilated. If this condition cannot be met, then smoking is

banned entirely.

X Smoking restrictions are required in this public place, but

smoking is not prohibited.

E Smoking restrictions are encouraged, but are not required by

law. 

Blank No smoking restrictions for this public place.

Cell

For two places listed in the table, Retail/Grocery Stores and Schools,

there is additional information given through footnotes.

There are two types of preemption listed in this table. The first type

preempts all local regulations; there are nine states with this type. The second preempts local regulations but grandfathers existing ordinances; there

are three states with this type. Both types are footnoted.

175

Arts/Cultural Facilities

Child Care Centers

Elevators

Government Buildings

Gymnasiums/Arenas

Health Facilities

Jury/Courtrooms

Public Meetings

Public Transit

Restaurants

Restrooms

Retail/Grocery Stores

Schools

Shopping Centers

Workplaces (Private Sector)

APPENDIX TO SECTION II
APPENDIX TABLE 2 This table is a summary of the state age restrictions for the

sale of tobacco products. All 50 states and the District of Columbia have

laws restricting the sale of tobacco to persons of at least 18 years of age. 

Minimum Age for Cigarettes—This column lists the minimum age allowed for

the purchase of cigarettes and cigarette products, such as cigarette

papers.

Minimum Age for Smokeless Tobacco—This column lists the minimum age

allowed for the purchase of smokeless tobacco, such as snuff and chewing tobacco.

Minimum Age for Cigars—This column lists the minimum age allowed for

the purchase of cigars.

APPENDIX TABLE 3 This table is a summary of the state restrictions on tobacco

vending machines. There are 44 states and the District of Columbia that

have tobacco vending machine restrictions listed here. Some states require

lockout devices; this information is footnoted for each state it applies to.

Fifteen states preempt localities from passing stronger vending machine

ordinances; these states are footnoted.

Sign Posting—This column indicates whether state law requires vending

machines to have a sign posted stating that is against the law to sell

tobacco to minors. Sign posting requirements other than this are footnoted.

Restrictions on Placement—This column indicates whether state law requires

restrictions on tobacco vending machine placement. Vending machines

are often restricted to areas where minors are not permitted by law,

such as bars and taverns. The law may require vending machines to be

at least a certain distance from exit doors or in the line of sight of

clerks.

APPENDIX TABLE 4 This table summarizes state laws regarding the distribution of

low-cost or free tobacco product samples. There are 44 states and the

District of Columbia that have tobacco sample laws listed here. 

Date Enacted—This column gives the date the tobacco sample law was

enacted.

Total Ban—A "Yes" in this column indicates that the distribution of free or

low-cost tobacco product samples is completely banned in the state.

Public Places Only—A "Yes" in this column indicates that the distribution of

free or low-cost tobacco product samples is banned in public places

only. Public places do not include places where minors are not allowed

by law, such as bars. A "Restrictions" in this column indicates that

tobacco sample distribution is allowed in public places, with some

restrictions.

176

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
Minors Only—A "Yes" in this column indicates that tobacco sample distribution is only prohibited for minors; adults may still obtain tobacco samples.

Smokeless Tobacco Only—A "Yes" in this column indicates that the tobacco

sample law applies only to smokeless tobacco, such as snuff and chewing tobacco.

177

Section II Appendix
178

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Appendix Table 1

State Laws Restricting Smoking in Public Places1

1E = restrictions encouraged; X = restrictions required; • = smoking prohibited; V = enclosed, separately ventilated areas required, or smoking is banned entirely; Blank cell = no smoking restrictions.

2Regulation governs only grocery stores.

3Does not apply to areas designated through collective bargaining agreements made prior to 8/14/90.

4Regulation includes school buses.

5Preempts local regulation.

6Designated smoking areas are permitted only in private schools, smoking is banned entirely in public

schools.

7Preempts local regulation but grandfathers existing ordinances.

Source: State Legislated Actions on Tobacco Issues, American Lung Association, 1998. Date First Enacted Arts/Cultural Facilities Child Care Centers Elevators Government Buildings Gymnasium/Arenas Health Facilities Jury/Courtrooms Public Meetings Public Transit Restaurants Restrooms Retail/Grocery Stores Schools

Shopping CentersWorkplaces (Private)

Alabama None

Alaska 1975 X • • XXXX X X2 •3 X

Arizona 1987 X X X X X

Arkansas 1977 • X X X

California 1976 V • • • X V • • V V V V

Colorado 1977 • • • X X X X E •4 E

Connecticut5 1973 X X X X X X X2 •4 X

Delaware5 1960 X • • XXXX • • X X2 X X

District of Columbia 1975 X • X X • • X X6 X

Florida5 1985 X • • XXXXX • X • X•4 X

Georgia 1975 • • •

Hawaii 1987 • • • X X X • X X X •4

Idaho 1925 • • X X X X X X X

Illinois7 1961 X • X X X X X X X • X

Indiana 1987 X X X X

Iowa5 1987 X • X X X X • X XXXX

Kansas 1987 X • • XXXX • XXX•4

Kentucky 1972 X X

Louisiana7 1992 X X • E X X X • X •4 E

Maine 1983 X X XXXXX X • XXXX

Maryland 1957 V • • V • X X • V

Massachusetts 1946 X X • X X X • • X •2 X

Michigan 1967 X • • X X X X X X X2 •

Minnesota 1975 • • X X X X X X •4 X

Mississippi 1964 •

Missouri 1992 X • XXXX XXXXX•4 X X

Montana 1979 • • • X X X X • X X X X
179

Section II Appendix

Appendix Table 1 (Continued)

1E = restrictions encouraged; X = restrictions required; • = smoking prohibited; V = enclosed, separately ventilated areas required, or smoking is banned entirely; Blank cell = no smoking restrictions.

2Regulation governs only grocery stores.

3Does not apply to areas designated through collective bargaining agreements made prior to 8/14/90.

4Regulation includes school buses.

5Preempts local regulation.

6Designated smoking areas are permitted only in private schools, smoking is banned entirely in public

schools.

7Preempts local regulation but grandfathers existing ordinances.

Source: State Legislated Actions on Tobacco Issues, American Lung Association, 1998. Date First Enacted Arts/Cultural Facilities Child Care Centers Elevators Government Buildings Gymnasium/Arenas Health Facilities Jury/Courtrooms Public Meetings Public Transit Restaurants Restrooms Retail/Grocery Stores Schools

Shopping CentersWorkplaces (Private)

Nebraska 1979 X X X X X X X X

Nevada5 1991 X • X X X X X2 X4

New Hampshire 1990 X • • X X X X • X X • X X

New Jersey5 1979 X X • X X • • E • X4 X

New Mexico 1985 X X •

New York 1989 X • • X X X • X X X •4 X

North Carolina 1993 X

North Dakota 1978 X • XXXX XX X

Ohio 1981 XVXXXX X X

Oklahoma5 1987 X • • X X X X E X

Oregon 1973 • XXXX • • X XX

Pennsylvania 1927 X X X X • X X4 X

Rhode Island 1977 X • X X X • X X2 •4 X

South Carolina5 1937 X • • X X X • X4

South Dakota 1974 XXXX XX X X

Tennessee 1990 X X E X •

Texas 1975 X X X X X

Utah5 1976 • • • • • X • • • • •X6 • X

Vermont7 1987 • • • X • X • • • • • • •X

Virginia 1990 X • X X X X X X4

Washington 1985 X V • V X X • • X X X • X V

West Virginia 1913 X

Wisconsin 1983 X • X X X X X X • X

Wyoming 1989 X
180

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Alabama 19 19 19

Alaska 19 19 19

Arizona 18 18 18

Arkansas 18 18 18

California 18 18 18

Colorado 18 18 18

Connecticut 18 18 18

Delaware 18 18 18

District of Columbia 18 18 18

Florida 18 18 18

Georgia 18 18 18

Hawaii 18 18 18

Idaho 18 18 18

Illinois 18 18 18

Indiana 18 18 18

Iowa 18 18 18

Kansas 18 18 18

Kentucky 18 18 18

Louisiana 18 18 18

Maine 18 18 18

Maryland 18 18 18

Massachusetts 18 18 18

Michigan 18 18 18

Minnesota 18 18 18

Mississippi 18 18 18

Missouri 18 18 18

Montana 18 18 18

Nebraska 18 18 18

Nevada 18 18 18

New Hampshire 18 18 18

New Jersey 18 18 18

New Mexico 18 18 18

New York 18 18 18

North Carolina 18 18 18

North Dakota 18 18 18

Ohio 18 18 18

Oklahoma 18 18 18

Oregon 18 18 18

Pennsylvania 21 18 18

Rhode Island 18 18 18

Minimum Age Minimum Age Minimum Age 

for Cigarettes for Smokeless Tobacco for Cigars

Appendix Table 2

Age Restrictions for Sale of Tobacco Products by State
181

Section II Appendix

South Carolina 18 18 18

South Dakota 18 18 18

Tennessee 18 18 18

Texas 18 18 18

Utah 19 19 19

Vermont 18 18 18

Virginia 18 18 18

Washington 18 18 18

West Virginia 18 18 18

Wisconsin 18 18 18

Wyoming 18 18 18

Source: State Legislated Actions on Tobacco Issues, American Lung Association, 1998.

Minimum Age Minimum Age Minimum Age 

for Cigarettes for Smokeless Tobacco for Cigars

Appendix Table 2 (Continued)
182

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Alaska Yes

Arkansas Yes Yes

California Yes

Colorado Yes Yes2

Connecticut Yes Yes

Delaware Yes3

District of Columbia Yes

Florida Yes2

Georgia Yes Yes

Hawaii Yes Yes

Idaho Yes6

Illinois Yes4 Yes

Indiana Yes Yes2

Iowa Yes3

Kansas Yes2

Kentucky Yes3

Louisiana Yes3 Yes3

Maine Yes Yes

Maryland Yes5

Massachusetts Yes5

Michigan Yes

Minnesota Yes Yes

Mississippi Yes3

Missouri Yes5

Montana Yes3

Nebraska Yes

Nevada Yes3

New Hampshire Yes Yes2

New Jersey Yes2

New Mexico Yes3 Yes3

New York Yes Yes

North Carolina Yes2

Ohio Yes

Oklahoma Yes2,3

Oregon Yes3

Rhode Island Yes Yes

South Dakota Yes Yes3

Tennessee Yes2,3

Texas Yes Yes

Utah Yes3

Vermont Yes Yes

Virginia Yes Yes

Washington Yes3

Wisconsin Yes3 Yes3

Wyoming Yes Yes

Appendix Table 3

Restrictions on Tobacco Sales through Vending

Machines by State1

Sign Placement

Posting Restrictions

1 There are no states that ban vending

machines completely.

2 Lock-out devices are required on machines

in areas accessible to youth. In

Tennessee and New Hampshire, a device

is only required if the machine is not

under continuous supervision.

3 Preempts power of localities to pass

stronger ordinances.

4 Mandates signs warning of the dangers of

cigarette smoking during pregnancy.

5 No restrictions on placement, but owners

or operators are made specifically liable

for sales to minors, except Maryland and

Missouri absolve owners of any liability if

they have the required warning sign posted on the machine.

6 Vending machines are prohibited in any

establishment where people under age 19

are permitted. After January 1, 2000,

tobacco vending machines will be banned.

Source: State Legislated Actions on

Tobacco Issues, American Lung

Association, 1998.
183

Section II Appendix

Arkansas 1991 — Restrictions Yes —

California 1991 — Yes Yes —

Connecticut 1996 — — Yes —

Delaware 1996 — — Yes —

District of Columbia 1991 — Yes Yes —

Florida 1997 — — Yes —

Georgia 1993 — Restrictions Yes —

Hawaii 1996 — — Yes —

Idaho 1998 Yes — — —

Illinois 1993 — — Yes —

Indiana 1988 — — Yes —

Iowa 1991 — Restrictions Yes —

Kansas 1996 — Restrictions Yes —

Kentucky 1996 — — Yes —

Louisiana 1988 — — Yes —

Maine 1996 — — Yes —

Maryland 1994 — — Yes —

Michigan 1988 — — Yes —

Minnesota 1987 Yes — — —

Mississippi 1994 — — Yes —

Missouri 1992 — — Yes —

Montana 1995 — — Yes —

Nebraska 1989 Yes — — Yes

Nevada 1995 — — Yes —

New Hampshire 1997 — Yes No —

New Jersey 1995 — — Yes —

New Mexico 1993 — — Yes —

New York 1992 — Yes Yes —

North Carolina 1995 — — Yes —

North Dakota 1973 — — Yes —

Public Smokeless

Date Total Places Minors Tobacco

Enacted Ban Only1 Only Only

Appendix Table 4

Restrictions on Distribution of Tobacco Product Samples by State
184

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Ohio 1991 — — Yes —

Oklahoma 1996 — Restrictions Yes —

Oregon 1991 — — Yes —

Pennsylvania 1990 — — Yes —

Rhode Island 1996 — Restrictions Yes —

South Carolina 1996 — — Yes —

South Dakota 1994 — Restrictions Yes —

Tennessee 1994 — Restrictions Yes —

Texas 1997 — — Yes —

Utah 1989 — Restrictions Yes —

Vermont 1991 — — Yes —

Washington 1996 — Restrictions Yes —

West Virginia 1987 — — Yes —

Wisconsin 1988 — Restrictions — —

1 Yes = Sampling is not allowed in any public place. Restrictions = Sampling is allowed in public

places, with some restrictions.

Source: State Legislated Actions on Tobacco Issues, American Lung Association, 1998.

Appendix Table 4 (Continued)

Public Smokeless

Date Total Places Minors Tobacco

Enacted Ban Only1 Only Only
Section III:

Workplace Smoking Restrictions, Rules

About Smoking in the Home, and

Attitudes Toward Smoking Restrictions

in Public Places. 

National and State-Specific Estimates

from the Current Population Survey

Kathryn B. Gower, David M. Burns, Thomas G. Shanks,

Jerry W. Vaughn, Christy M. Anderson, Donald R. Shopland,

Anne M. Hartman
INTRODUCTION The Current Population Survey (CPS) is a continuous monthly

survey that has been conducted by the Bureau of the Census since 1940,

focusing on labor force indicators for the civilian noninstitutionalized U.S.

population aged 15 years and older. In 1992, a 40-item Tobacco Use

Supplement was developed by NCI staff and pre-tested by trained Census

Bureau interviewers prior to full field implementation. Among other measures, questions on tobacco use practices, presence and characteristics of

workplace smoking policies, rules about smoking in the home, and attitudes toward smoking restrictions in public places were added to the CPS

for the September 1992, January 1993, and May 1993 surveys and repeated

in September 1995, January 1996, and May 1996. In the text and tables

that follow, these groupings are often referred to simply as 1992/93 and

1995/96. A third round of the Tobacco Use Supplement was recently conducted by the Census Bureau for the period September 1998, January 1999,

and May 1999. 

CPS METHODOLOGY The complete CPS methodology is published in detail elsewhere (Hansen, 1985). Briefly, the CPS sample is based on household

addresses. The three main sources are: households listed in the most recent

decennial census, updated building permits, and area sampling where no

address lists exist from the Bureau of the Census. 

Individuals eligible for CPS interview are the civilian noninstitutionalized population of the United States 15 years of age and older1. For the

purposes of this monograph, however, data are presented for adults ages 18

years or older at time of interview. All strata are defined within state boundaries, and the sample is allocated among the states to produce state, census

region and division, and national labor force estimates, keeping the total

sample size to a minimum. (Also included are demographic data for approximately 30,000 children 0-14 years old and between 450 and 550 Armed

Forces members living with civilians either on or off base within households). 

Normally for the CPS, interviews are conducted with a knowledgeable household respondent who responds for all eligible household members. Typically, slightly more than half of all interviews are self-respondents,

and the remainder are proxy (Marcus et al., 1989). For the NCI Tobacco Use

Supplement, however, an attempt was made to minimize the proportion of

proxy responses because answers to many questions of interest to the NCI

would only be known by the person to be interviewed. Thus, the 1992/93

Supplement questionnaire was administered “off document” on a form sep187

THE CURRENT POPULATION SURVEY

1 Due to a computer error, information for 15-year-old-only respondents is not available from

the January 1996 CPS.
arate from the standard labor force core questionnaire, so that data collection was not constrained by the 1-week limit for labor statistics collection.

This procedure reduced proxy responses to under 20 percent. For the purpose of this analysis, however, only self-responses were utilized. Starting in

1995, the Census Bureau began administering the CPS using a Computer

Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) technique wherein all responses to

questions are recorded directly into preprogrammed computer software. 

Sample size, primary sampling units (PSU), total number of interviews conducted (ages 15 and older), and number of eligible and interviewed households for the 1992/93 and 1995/96 CPS are provided in the

table below. 

Changes in Current Population Survey study design over time 

Households eligible Number visited

for interview but determined

Time Total # of # # not not eligible

period interviews* PSU’s interviewed interviewed

Sept 1992 111,964 729 57,400 2,600 11,800

Jan 1993 111,156 729 57,400 2,600 11,800

May 1993 110,789 729 57,400 2,600 11,800

Sept 1995 103,676 792 52,900 3,400 9,700

Jan 1996 92,405 754 46,800 3,200 9,000

May 1996 92,965 754 46,800 3,200 9,000

* Approximate number responding to the CPS core each month

Response rates to the CPS labor force core are typically around 95

percent, and the corresponding response rates for the Tobacco Use

Supplement of those responding to the CPS core range between 84 and 89

percent. Approximately 25 percent of all interviews were conducted in person and 75 percent by telephone, however, all initial household contacts

for the CPS are done in person. For Spanish-language interviews, a fully

translated Tobacco Use Supplement was utilized. In all cases where estimates for Whites and Blacks are presented, they are non-Hispanic. 

Determination of Smoking Status Questions for determining smoking status are

identical to those adopted in 1992 by the National Center for Health

Statistics and currently in use on other national surveys. All respondents

were asked “Have you smoked at least 100 cigarettes in your entire life?”

Those responding “no” were considered never-smokers; those responding

“yes” were asked “Do you now smoke cigarettes every day, some days, or

not at all?” Respondents answering either “every day” or “some days” were

considered current smokers; those responding “not at all” were considered

former smokers. 

Routine labor force questions from the CPS core were

used to determine each respondent’s employment status

(including those who were self-employed) and to categorize each worker

into a standard occupational group. In the CPS, there are 500 categories for

the employed, which the Census Bureau aggregates into 45 detailed groups.

188

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

Occupational and

Workplace Definitions
The classification uses a three digit system (000-905) developed from the

1980 Standard Occupational Classification (U.S. Bureau of the Census,

1993). 

Because NCI was primarily interested in measuring the extent of

official workplace smoking policies for indoor working environments, additional questions from the Tobacco Use Supplement were used to identify

eligible employees. To be included in the analysis, an individual must have

been (1) 18 years of age or older at the time of interview; (2) currently

employed outside the home but not self-employed; (3) not working outdoors or in a motor vehicle; (4) not traveling to different buildings or sites;

and (5) not working in someone else’s home. 

All eligible respondents were asked “Does your place of work have

an official policy that restricts smoking in any way?” Those who responded

“yes” were further asked “Which of these best describes your place of work’s

smoking policy for indoor public or common areas, such as lobbies, rest

rooms, and lunch rooms?” and “Which of these best describes your place of

work’s smoking policy for work areas?” Response choices for each were:

“Not allowed in ANY.....,” “Allowed in SOME......,” or “Allowed in ALL......” 

Based on this algorithm, the most restrictive policies were those in

which the worker reported an official workplace policy that did not allow

smoking in any public or common areas of the workplace nor in the work

areas of the workplace. In Tables 3 and 4, such a policy is labeled “Smokefree.” Beginning in 1995 the question “During the past 2 weeks has anyone

smoked in the area in which you work?” was asked of workers in an effort

to gauge the level of compliance with workplace smoking policies (see

Section I, Figure 7b). 

Rules About Smoking in the Home For the 1992/93 and 1995/96 CPS, only one

question was asked to determine the degree to which smoking is restricted

in the home. Respondents were asked “Which statement best describes the

rules about smoking in YOUR HOME?” If asked, “home” was defined as

where the respondent lived at the time of interview. Three response choices

were possible: “No one is allowed to smoke anywhere,” “Smoking is

allowed in some places or at some times,” and “Smoking is permitted anywhere.” 

The NCI was also interested in measuring the general public’s attitudes and beliefs about smoking

restrictions in various public settings. The question regarding attitudes

toward smoking in public places asked “In (read place) do you THINK that

smoking should be allowed in all areas, allowed in some areas, or not

allowed at all?” Six specific indoor settings were identified: restaurants, hospitals, indoor work areas, bars and cocktail lounges, indoor sporting events,

and indoor shopping malls.

DATA ORGANIZATION AND ANALYSIS This section contains a variety of statespecific and national estimates from NCI’s Tobacco Use Supplement to the

Current Population Survey (CPS) for the survey periods 1992/93 and

1995/96. The data are presented for various demographic subgroups and by

189

Section III, CPS and Analysis Methodology

Attitudes Toward Smoking

Restrictions in Public Places
state. Where appropriate, the data are also presented separately for current

smokers, former smokers, and never-smokers. Results from the 1992/93 and

1995/96 surveys are presented to show trends over time. Data are presented

in both tabular form and in 24 state maps designed to present shifting public opinion in a more visual and comprehensive format. 

Tables 1 through 4 present detailed data on workplace smoking

restrictions for the nation and for each of the 50 states and the District of

Columbia; Table 5 presents data on the national prevalence of smoking

restrictions in the home, while Table 6 presents this information by state.

Table 7 presents national data pertaining to smoking restrictions in the

home and their association with different levels of workplace smoking policies. Table 8 provides national estimates about public support for smoking

restrictions in various public settings such as restaurants, hospitals, work

areas, bars/cocktail lounges, indoor sporting events, and shopping malls;

and Table 9 provides this same information by state. 

The Tables Percentages from the tables that are used in the text are rounded to

the nearest whole number to simplify comparisons. The basic universe for

all tables includes only self-respondent adults (age 18 and older) whose

smoking status can be determined.

Table 1 Individuals included in this table must work indoors and be employed privately or by local, state, or federal government. They must respond that an

official workplace smoking policy exists.

Table 2 Individuals included in this table must work indoors and be employed privately or by local, state, or federal government. They must respond that an

official workplace smoking policy exists.

Table 3 Individuals included in this table must work indoors and be employed privately or by local, state, or federal government. They must know if an official workplace smoking policy exists or does not exist, and define that policy for both work and public areas (i.e., smoking is allowed in all areas,

allowed in some areas, or not allowed at all).

Table 4 Individuals included in this table must work indoors and be employed privately or by local, state, or federal government. They must know if an official workplace smoking policy exists or does not exist, and define that policy for both work and public areas (i.e., smoking is allowed in all areas,

allowed in some areas, or not allowed at all).

Table 5 This table reflects what individuals report about the smoking rules in their

homes. It does not show the rules for whole households, but rather the

rules as reported by each individual. To be included in the table, each individual must define the smoking rules for his or her home (i.e., smoking is

allowed in all areas, allowed in some places or at some times, or not

allowed at all). For the “homes with children” insert, only individuals who

live in a home where at least one child under the age of 13 also lives are

included. 

190

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
Table 6 This table reflects what individuals report about the smoking rules in their

home. It does not show the rules for households, but rather the rules as

reported by each individual. To be included in the table, each individual

must define the smoking rules for his or her home (i.e., smoking is allowed

in all areas, allowed in some places or at some times, or not allowed at all).

Table 7 Individuals included in this table must work indoors and be employed privately or by local, state, or federal government. They must know if an official workplace smoking policy exists or does not exist, and define that policy for both work and public areas (i.e., smoking is allowed in all areas,

allowed in some areas, or not allowed at all). Each individual must also

define the smoking rules for his or her home (i.e., smoking is allowed in all

areas, allowed in some places or at some times, or not allowed at all).

Table 8 To be included in the tables, individuals must give their opinion about

smoking in public places (i.e., smoking should be allowed in all areas,

allowed in some areas, or not allowed at all). This is required for each public place separately; if an individual does not give an opinion about one

public place, he or she will still be included in other public places for which

an opinion was given.

Table 9 To be included in the tables, individuals must give their opinion about

smoking in public places (i.e., smoking should be allowed in all areas,

allowed in some areas, or not allowed at all). This is required for each public place separately; if an individual does not give an opinion about one

public place, he or she will still be included in other public places for which

an opinion was given.

Variable Descriptions for Tables 1-4 Workplace smoking policies are characterized by the extent of the restriction in the workplace based on the answers

to two questions, one asking about restrictions on smoking in indoor public

or common areas in the workplace and the other asking about the policy

for work areas. These workplace smoking policies are then classified into

five categories, reflecting the relative strength of the policies.

Category Strength of Workplace Smoking Policies

1. Smoke-free Smoking is not allowed in either work or public areas

2. Strong Smoking is not allowed in work areas and is only allowed 

in some public areas

3. Moderate Smoking is not allowed in work areas but is allowed in all

public areas, or

Smoking is allowed in some work areas but not allowed

in public areas, or

Smoking is allowed in some work areas and some public 

areas

191

Section III, CPS and Analysis Methodology
4. Weak Smoking is allowed in some work areas and all public

areas, or

Smoking is allowed in all work areas but not allowed in

public areas, or

Smoking is allowed in all work areas and allowed in some

public areas

5. No Workplace does not have an official smoking policy, or 

Restrictions Smoking is allowed in all work and public areas

All analyses are limited to self-respondents over 18 years of age and are further restricted to indoor workers for the workplace policy tables.

Variable Descriptions for Tables 5-9 The three major variable categories used

in Tables 5 through 9—Smoking Status, Education Level, and

Race/Ethnicity—are defined as follows:

Smoking Status

Never Never smoked 100 cigarettes in lifetime

Current Smoked 100 cigarettes and smokes now

Former Smoked 100 cigarettes but does not smoke now

Maximum Level of Education

<12 years Up to and including 11th grade

12 years 12th grade, with or without diploma

13-15 years Some college without a degree or Associates

degree

16+ years Bachelor’s degree and higher

Race/Ethnicity

Non-Hispanic White White, no Hispanic origin

Hispanic All Hispanic origin

African-American Black, no Hispanic origin

Asian/Pacific Islander Asian or Pacific Island, no Hispanic origin

Native American American Indian or Aleut Eskimo, no Hispanic

origin

Other All others, no Hispanic origin

192

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
List of Tables

Table 1a Prevalence of Smoking Restrictions in the

Workplace for Public and Work Areas for the 

Nation by Smoking Status, Demographic 

Characteristics, and by State—1992/1993 . . . . . . .202

Table 1b Prevalence of Smoking Restrictions in the

Workplace for Public and Work Areas for the 

Nation by Smoking Status, Demographic 

Characteristics, and by State—1995/1996 . . . . . . .206

Table 2 National Prevalence of Smoking Restrictions in the 

Workplace for Public and Work Areas with Ageand Gender-Specific Rates for Each Race and 

Ethnic Group—1992/93 and 1995/96 . . . . . . . . . .212

Table 3 Strength of Workplace Smoking Policies

by Smoking Status and Demographic 

Characteristics for the Nation—1992/93 

and 1995/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .218

Table 4 Strength of Workplace Smoking Policies

by Smoking Status for Each State—1992/93 

and 1995/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222

Table 5 National Prevalence of Smoking Restrictions in 

the Home as Reported by Individuals with 

Different Smoking Status, with Children under 

Age 13 in the Home, and with Different 

Demographic Characteristics—1992/93 

and 1995/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .234

Table 6 State-specific Prevalence of Reported

Smoking Restrictions in the Home by Smoking

Status—1992/93 and 1995/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .241

Table 7a Prevalence of Reported Smoking 

Restrictions in the Home for Different 

Levels of Workplace Smoking Policies for 

the Nation—1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254

193

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES IN SECTION III
Table 7b Prevalence of Reported Smoking 

Restrictions in the Home for Different 

Levels of Workplace Smoking Policies for 

the Nation—1995/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .255

Table 8 National Attitudes About Smoking in

Indoor Places (Restaurants, Hospitals, Indoor Work

Areas, Bars and Cocktail Lounges, Indoor Sporting

Events, and Indoor Shopping Malls) by Smoking

Status and Demographic Characteristics—1992/93

and 1995/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .258

Table 9a State-Specific Attitudes about Smoking

in Indoor Public Places (Restaurants, Hospitals, 

Indoor Work Areas, Bars and Cocktail Lounges, 

Indoor Sporting Events, and Indoor Shopping 

Malls) by Smoking Status—1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . .289

Table 9b State-Specific Attitudes about Smoking

in Indoor Public Places (Restaurants, Hospitals, 

Indoor Work Areas, Bars and Cocktail Lounges, 

Indoor Sporting Events, and Indoor Shopping 

Malls) by Smoking Status—1995/96 . . . . . . . . . . .315

List of Figures

Figure 1 Workplace Smoking Restrictions: 1992/93 . . . . . .199

Figure 2 Workplace Smoking Restrictions: 1995/96 . . . . . .200

Figure 3 Change in Workplace Smoking Restrictions: 

1992/93 to 1995/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201

Figure 4 Smoking Rules in the Home: 1992/93 . . . . . . . . . .238

Figure 5 Smoking Rules in the Home: 1995/96 . . . . . . . . . .239

Figure 6 Change in Smoking Rules in the Home: 

1992/93 to 1995/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240

Figure 7 Attitudes Regarding Smoking in Restaurants: 

1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .271

Figure 8 Attitudes Regarding Smoking in Restaurants: 

1995/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .272

Figure 9 Change in Smoking in Restaurants: 

1992/93 to 1995/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .273

194

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
Figure 10 Attitudes Regarding Smoking in Hospitals: 

1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .274

Figure 11 Attitudes Regarding Smoking in Hospitals: 

1995/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .275

Figure 12 Change in Attitudes Regarding Smoking in 

Hospitals: 1992/93 to 1995/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .276

Figure 13 Attitudes Regarding Smoking in Indoor Work 

Areas: 1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .277

Figure 14 Attitudes Regarding Smoking in Indoor Work 

Areas: 1995/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .278

Figure 15 Change in Attitudes Regarding Smoking in 

Indoor Work Areas: 1992/93 to 1995/96 . . . . . . . .279

Figure 16 Attitudes Regarding Smoking in Bars and 

Cocktail Lounges: 1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .280

Figure 17 Attitudes Regarding Smoking in Bars and 

Cocktail Lounges: 1995/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281

Figure 18 Change in Attitude Regarding Smoking in Bars 

and Cocktail Lounges: 1992/93 to 1995/96 . . . . . .282

Figure 19 Attitudes Regarding Smoking During Indoor 

Sporting Events: 1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .283

Figure 20 Attitudes Regarding Smoking During Indoor 

Sporting Events: 1995/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .284

Figure 21 Change in Attitudes Regarding Smoking 

During Indoor Sporting Events: 

1992/93 to 1995/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .285

Figure 22 Attitudes Regarding Smoking in Indoor 

Shopping Malls: 1992/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .286

Figure 23 Attitudes Regarding Smoking in Indoor 

Shopping Malls: 1995/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .287

Figure 24 Change in Attitudes Regarding Smoking in 

Indoor Shopping Malls: 1992/93 to 1995/96 . . . .288

195

Section III, CPS and Analysis Methodology
TABLES 1A AND 1B Prevalence of Smoking Restrictions in the Workplace for Public

and Work Areas for the Nation by Smoking Status, Demographic

Characteristics, and by State

This table presents the level of workplace smoking restrictions

reported by indoor workers for the nation as a whole and for demographic

subgroups. The prevalence of restrictions in public areas and work areas of

the workplace are presented separately.

Overall—Restrictions on smoking in the workplace increased

between the 1992/93 CPS and 1995/96 CPS. In the 1995/96 CPS, 88 percent

of immediate work areas and 77 percent of public areas in the workplace

were reported to be smoke-free, compared to 82 percent of work areas and

62 percent of public areas in the 1992/93 CPS. While public areas in the

workplace were reported to be smoke-free less often than work areas, the

difference between the two decreased, from 20 percent in the 1992/93 CPS

to 11 percent in the 1995/96 CPS.

The increase in work areas reported to be smoke-free from the

1992/93 CPS to the 1995/96 CPS is presented by smoking status and for all

demographic groups: smoking status, gender, age, race/ethnicity, education

level, and income level. This supports the conclusion of a relatively uniform increase in the fraction of workers with smoke-free work areas.

Change for public areas was not as uniform. 

Smoking Status—Former smokers generally reported smoke-free public and work areas in their workplaces at about the national rate, while

never-smokers reported higher rates than former smokers, and current

smokers reported rates below the national average.

Demographic Subgroups—Females were more likely to report working

in a workplace with smoke-free work and public areas than were males. As

age increases, the fraction of workers reporting smoke-free work and public

areas increases. Similar trends hold for increasing education and income

levels. Asian/Pacific Islanders were more likely to report working in workplaces with smoke-free work and public areas than other racial/ethnic

groups, and Native Americans generally reported the lowest rates of working in workplaces with smoke-free work and public areas.

States—Coverage of workers by no-smoking regulations in the workplace varies from state to state; however, every state showed an increase for

both public and work areas between the 1992/93 CPS and 1995/96 CPS. In

the 1992/93 CPS, only 4 states reported smoke-free public areas at a rate of

at least 75 percent; that number increased to 32 in the 1995/96 CPS. The

percentage of people reporting smoke-free public areas ranges from 44 per197

RESULTS
cent (Kentucky) to 80 percent (Washington) in the 1992/93 CPS. For the

1995/96 CPS, the percentage of people reporting smoke-free public areas

ranges from 53 percent (Nevada) to 92 percent (Utah). The state with the

largest absolute change from the 1992/93 CPS to the 1995/96 CPS was

Rhode Island, with an increase of 25 percent, from 57 percent in the

1992/93 CPS to 82 percent in the 1995/96 CPS. North Carolina had the

largest relative change, with an increase of 50 percent, from 45 percent in

the 1992/93 CPS to 68 percent in the 1995/96 CPS.

The fraction of workers who reported smoke-free immediate work

areas for the individual states ranged from 72 to 90 percent in the 1992/93

CPS and from 77 to 96 percent in the 1995/96 CPS. Most states reported

smoke-free work areas in the 80-90 percent range for both years. Only 1

state reported at least 90 percent of the work areas to be smoke-free in the

1992/93 CPS, compared to 11 in the 1995/96 CPS. Utah reported the highest fraction of smoke-free work areas in both the 1992/93 CPS and the

1995/96 CPS, while Nevada reported the lowest fraction of smoke-free work

areas in both survey years. The state with the largest absolute change from

the 1992/93 CPS to the 1995/96 CPS was Kentucky, with an increase of 11

percent, from 73 percent in the 1992/93 CPS to 84 percent in the 1995/96

CPS. Kentucky also had the largest relative change, an increase of 16 percent, from 73 percent in the 1992/93 CPS to 84 percent in the 1995/96 CPS. 

Maps depicting the prevalence of smoke-free workplaces by state for

the 1992/93 CPS and 1995/96 CPS and for the change between survey years

are presented as Figures 1 through 3.

198

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
54.7 - 68.3

48.4 - 54.643.8 - 48.339.1 - 43.728.6 - 39.0

Percentage of people reportinga smoke-free worksite:

Data Source: 1992/93 Current Population SurveyNote: States categorized by quintiles

Figure 1: Workplace Smoking Restrictions: 1992/93

199

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results
70.0 - 83.7

64.9 - 69.961.1 - 64.855.5 - 61.040.5 - 55.4

Percentage of people reportinga smoke-free worksite:

Data Source: 1995/96 Current Population SurveyNote: States categorized by quintiles

Figure 2: Workplace Smoking Restrictions: 1995/96

200

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
20.3 - 30.3

17.8 - 20.215.6 - 17.713.1 - 15.5

4.9 - 13.0

Change in percentage of peoplereporting a smoke-free worksite:

Data Source: 1992/93 and 1995/96 Current Population SurveysNote: States categorized by quintiles

Figure 3: Change in Workplace Smoking Restrictions:

1992/93 to 1995/96

201

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results
202

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Nation Overall 61.5 0.4 35.4 0.4 2.7 0.1 0.5 0.1 81.7 0.3 16.6 0.3 1.4 0.1 0.3 0.0 Smoking Status Never 63.8 0.5 33.3 0.5 2.3 0.2 0.6 0.1 84.3 0.4 14.2 0.4 1.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 Current 53.6 0.9 42.5 0.9 3.7 0.3 0.3 0.1 75.8 0.7 22.0 0.7 2.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 Former 64.2 0.9 32.8 0.9 2.5 0.3 0.6 0.1 81.5 0.7 16.7 0.7 1.5 0.2 0.3 0.1 Gender Male 56.8 0.6 39.3 0.6 3.4 0.2 0.5 0.1 77.0 0.5 20.7 0.5 2.0 0.2 0.3 0.1

Female 65.4 0.5 32.1 0.5 2.0 0.2 0.5 0.1 85.6 0.4 13.1 0.4 1.0 0.1 0.3 0.1Age (Years)18–24 55.8 1.1 40.3 1.1 3.4 0.4 0.5 0.2 81.0 0.9 17.5 0.8 1.2 0.2 0.3 0.125–44 62.2 0.5 34.7 0.5 2.6 0.2 0.5 0.1 81.7 0.4 16.6 0.4 1.4 0.1 0.3 0.145–64 62.7 0.8 34.3 0.8 2.4 0.2 0.6 0.1 82.0 0.6 16.1 0.6 1.5 0.2 0.4 0.165+ 64.7 3.0 30.7 2.9 3.5 1.1 1.1 0.7 82.8 2.3 14.8 2.2 1.8 0.8 0.6 0.5Race/EthnicityWhite 62.2 0.5 34.7 0.5 2.6 0.2 0.5 0.1 81.3 0.4 16.9 0.4 1.5 0.1 0.3 0.0Hispanic 61.4 2.0 34.5 2.0 3.5 0.8 0.7 0.3 83.3 1.6 14.8 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.3African-American 55.8 1.3 41.4 1.3 2.1 0.4 0.7 0.2 81.7 1.0 16.6 1.0 1.3 0.3 0.4 0.2Asian/Pacific 

Islander 64.5 2.2 31.9 2.2 3.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 86.6 1.6 12.0 1.5 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.3

Native American 58.0 5.6 36.7 5.5 4.9 2.4 0.3 0.6 80.4 4.5 18.6 4.4 0.7 0.9 0.4 0.7Other 65.3 10.5 33.7 10.4 . . 1.0 2.2 80.4 8.8 18.2 8.5 1.4 2.6 . . 

Reported Workplace Smoking Rules

Public Areas

Work Areas

Not Allowed Allowed in Allowed in Not Allowed Allowed in Allowed in

at All Some Areas All Areas Don’t Know at All Some Areas All Areas Don’t Know

% CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI

Table 1aPrevalence of Smoking Restrictions in the Workplace for Public and Work Areas for the Nation by Smoking Status, DemographicCharacteristics, and by State* - 1992/93
203

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Education (Years)<12 46.0 1.6 48.6 1.6 4.7 0.7 0.7 0.3 76.3 1.3 20.5 1.3 2.5 0.5 0.7 0.312 54.0 0.7 42.0 0.7 3.5 0.3 0.5 0.1 78.9 0.6 19.0 0.6 1.8 0.2 0.3 0.113–15 63.1 0.8 34.1 0.7 2.4 0.2 0.4 0.1 81.8 0.6 16.6 0.6 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.116+ 71.4 0.7 26.5 0.7 1.6 0.2 0.6 0.1 85.7 0.5 13.1 0.5 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.1Household Income< $10,000 52.0 1.8 44.1 1.7 3.0 0.6 0.8 0.3 78.3 1.4 19.4 1.4 1.5 0.4 0.8 0.3$10,000–$19,999 54.6 1.2 41.3 1.1 3.5 0.4 0.7 0.2 80.4 0.9 17.3 0.9 1.8 0.3 0.5 0.2$20,000–$29,999 59.3 1.0 37.1 1.0 3.0 0.4 0.5 0.2 81.5 0.8 16.8 0.8 1.5 0.3 0.2 0.1$30,000–$49,999 60.8 0.8 35.9 0.7 2.8 0.3 0.5 0.1 81.3 0.6 17.0 0.6 1.5 0.2 0.3 0.1$50,000–$74,999 65.8 0.9 31.6 0.9 2.2 0.3 0.4 0.1 82.7 0.7 15.8 0.7 1.3 0.2 0.2 0.1$75,000 + 71.0 1.1 27.0 1.1 1.6 0.3 0.4 0.2 84.2 0.9 14.6 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.1Unknown 61.9 2.1 35.1 2.0 2.3 0.6 0.8 0.4 82.3 1.6 16.0 1.6 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.2By StateAlabama 53.2 4.0 42.2 4.0 3.8 1.6 0.8 0.7 80.9 3.2 16.4 3.0 2.3 1.2 0.3 0.4Alaska 74.5 2.9 24.2 2.9 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.4 82.6 2.5 16.9 2.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3Arizona 69.8 3.3 27.7 3.2 2.1 1.0 0.4 0.5 87.3 2.4 11.0 2.3 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.6Arkansas 47.7 4.2 47.4 4.2 4.3 1.7 0.5 0.6 79.3 3.4 18.5 3.2 1.8 1.1 0.4 0.5California 71.9 1.3 25.0 1.2 2.5 0.4 0.6 0.2 87.6 0.9 11.3 0.9 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.2Colorado 67.9 3.4 29.7 3.3 1.9 1.0 0.5 0.5 86.8 2.5 12.2 2.4 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.4Connecticut 62.8 3.6 35.3 3.5 1.5 0.9 0.4 0.5 80.3 2.9 18.2 2.9 1.2 0.8 0.3 0.4Delaware 64.6 3.5 32.0 3.4 2.9 1.2 0.5 0.5 82.2 2.8 16.7 2.7 1.0 0.7 0.1 0.2District of 

Columbia 61.2 3.7 34.7 3.6 3.1 1.3 1.0 0.7 83.3 2.8 15.8 2.7 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.3

Florida 70.1 1.7 27.0 1.6 2.4 0.6 0.6 0.3 85.3 1.3 13.1 1.2 1.2 0.4 0.4 0.2

Reported Workplace Smoking Rules

Public Areas Work Areas

Not Allowed Allowed in Allowed in Not Allowed Allowed in Allowed in

at All Some Areas All Areas Don’t Know at All Some Areas All Areas Don’t Know

% CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI

Table 1a (Continued)
204

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Georgia 63.0 3.4 34.3 3.4 2.3 1.1 0.4 0.4 85.1 2.5 13.5 2.4 1.4 0.8 . . Hawaii 57.7 3.5 38.7 3.5 3.3 1.3 0.3 0.4 82.0 2.7 16.5 2.6 1.2 0.8 0.3 0.4 Idaho 76.3 3.1 21.7 3.0 1.4 0.8 0.6 0.6 87.3 2.4 11.9 2.4 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.3 Illinois 54.1 1.9 42.9 1.8 2.4 0.6 0.7 0.3 78.5 1.5 20.1 1.5 1.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 Indiana 50.6 3.7 44.6 3.7 4.9 1.6 . . 76.0 3.1 22.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 . . Iowa 59.6 3.4 37.3 3.4 2.9 1.2 0.2 0.3 80.0 2.8 18.5 2.7 1.5 0.8 0.1 0.2 Kansas 62.6 3.3 35.1 3.2 1.8 0.9 0.5 0.5 82.4 2.6 15.9 2.5 1.2 0.7 0.4 0.4 Kentucky 43.6 4.2 50.8 4.2 4.7 1.8 0.8 0.7 72.9 3.7 25.0 3.6 1.8 1.1 0.4 0.5 Louisiana 60.2 4.5 35.0 4.4 4.2 1.9 0.5 0.7 80.0 3.7 16.8 3.4 2.5 1.4 0.8 0.8 Maine 69.1 3.3 29.7 3.3 1.2 0.8 . . 84.9 2.6 14.2 2.5 0.9 0.7 . . Maryland 65.1 3.3 31.7 3.2 2.7 1.1 0.5 0.5 86.4 2.4 13.0 2.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4

Massachusetts 62.2 1.7 35.3 1.7 2.1 0.5 0.4 0.2 82.2 1.4 16.5 1.3 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.1Michigan 54.2 1.8 42.7 1.8 2.9 0.6 0.3 0.2 76.1 1.6 21.5 1.5 2.3 0.5 0.2 0.1Minnesota 66.7 3.1 31.6 3.1 1.5 0.8 0.2 0.3 84.9 2.4 13.9 2.3 1.2 0.7 0.1 0.2Mississippi 56.3 4.2 40.6 4.1 2.5 1.3 0.6 0.6 83.6 3.1 14.5 3.0 1.4 1.0 0.4 0.6Missouri 53.4 3.8 42.4 3.7 4.0 1.5 0.2 0.3 75.9 3.2 20.6 3.0 3.4 1.4 0.2 0.4Montana 62.1 4.1 33.6 4.0 3.3 1.5 0.9 0.8 83.7 3.1 15.5 3.0 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.3Nebraska 60.0 3.3 37.0 3.3 2.4 1.0 0.7 0.5 82.6 2.6 16.5 2.5 0.9 0.6 0.1 0.3Nevada 47.7 3.6 42.6 3.6 9.1 2.1 0.5 0.5 71.5 3.2 26.6 3.2 1.5 0.9 0.4 0.4New Hampshire 66.3 3.6 31.5 3.5 1.7 1.0 0.5 0.5 86.4 2.6 12.7 2.5 0.9 0.7 . . New Jersey 61.9 1.8 35.1 1.7 2.4 0.6 0.5 0.3 82.8 1.4 15.6 1.3 1.4 0.4 0.2 0.2New Mexico 71.7 3.6 26.2 3.5 2.0 1.1 0.1 0.3 86.3 2.7 12.8 2.6 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.3New York 59.0 1.4 38.3 1.4 1.6 0.4 1.1 0.3 76.3 1.2 21.9 1.2 1.2 0.3 0.6 0.2North Carolina 45.3 1.8 50.0 1.8 4.2 0.7 0.4 0.2 77.6 1.5 19.8 1.5 2.2 0.5 0.4 0.2North Dakota 64.2 3.7 31.5 3.6 4.0 1.5 0.2 0.4 83.0 2.9 15.2 2.8 1.5 1.0 0.3 0.4

Reported Workplace Smoking Rules

Public Areas

Work Areas

Not Allowed Allowed in Allowed in Not Allowed Allowed in Allowed in

at All Some Areas All Areas Don’t Know at All Some Areas All Areas Don’t Know

% CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI

Table 1a (Continued)
205

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Ohio 52.8 1.8 43.4 1.8 3.4 0.7 0.3 0.2 77.0 1.5 20.5 1.5 2.2 0.5 0.3 0.2Oklahoma 57.7 3.7 38.4 3.7 3.6 1.4 0.3 0.4 75.4 3.2 23.3 3.2 1.1 0.8 0.2 0.3Oregon 75.3 3.3 22.7 3.2 1.9 1.0 0.2 0.3 86.7 2.6 11.6 2.5 1.3 0.9 0.4 0.5Pennsylvania 58.3 1.8 38.9 1.8 2.4 0.6 0.3 0.2 79.7 1.5 18.7 1.4 1.5 0.4 0.1 0.1Rhode Island 56.6 3.8 40.4 3.8 1.9 1.0 1.1 0.8 85.3 2.7 12.8 2.6 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.6South Carolina 52.8 3.3 45.2 3.3 1.9 0.9 0.1 0.2 79.7 2.7 18.8 2.6 1.2 0.7 0.3 0.3South Dakota 61.5 3.5 34.5 3.5 3.7 1.4 0.3 0.4 82.1 2.8 16.9 2.7 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.4Tennessee 50.7 3.7 45.9 3.7 2.9 1.2 0.5 0.5 81.5 2.9 16.0 2.7 1.9 1.0 0.7 0.6Texas 65.7 1.8 31.0 1.8 2.8 0.6 0.5 0.3 83.4 1.4 14.5 1.3 1.7 0.5 0.5 0.3Utah 75.9 2.8 23.4 2.8 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.3 89.9 2.0 9.3 1.9 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.3Vermont 71.3 3.3 26.2 3.2 2.1 1.1 0.4 0.5 85.8 2.6 12.2 2.4 1.9 1.0 0.2 0.3Virginia 59.2 3.0 37.5 3.0 2.4 0.9 1.0 0.6 77.5 2.6 19.9 2.5 2.1 0.9 0.6 0.5Washington 80.4 2.7 18.0 2.6 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.6 89.1 2.1 10.6 2.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4West Virginia 57.3 4.6 38.8 4.6 3.3 1.7 0.6 0.7 79.1 3.8 19.1 3.7 1.4 1.1 0.4 0.6Wisconsin 58.0 3.3 37.7 3.2 4.2 1.3 0.1 0.2 82.4 2.5 15.4 2.4 2.2 1.0 0.1 0.2Wyoming 66.4 4.3 31.7 4.2 2.0 1.3 . . 79.3 3.7 19.5 3.6 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.5

Reported Workplace Smoking Rules

Public Areas Work Areas

Not Allowed Allowed in Allowed in Not Allowed Allowed in Allowed in

at All Some Areas All Areas Don’t Know at All Some Areas All Areas Don’t Know

% CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI

Note: CI = 95% confidence interval; “.” = insufficient data.Source: 1992/93 Current Population Survey.*Universe: Individuals included in this table are self-respondent adults only (age 18 and older) whose smoking status can be determined.They must work indoors and be employed privately or by local, state, or federal government. They must respond that an official workplaceTable 1a (Continued)smoking policy exists.
206

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Nation Overall 77.0 0.4 20.5 0.3 2.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 87.8 0.3 10.1 0.3 1.9 0.1 0.1 0.0 Smoking Status Never 79.3 0.4 18.5 0.4 2.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 89.8 0.3 8.5 0.3 1.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 Current 70.0 0.8 27.1 0.8 2.9 0.3 0.1 0.0 82.9 0.7 14.7 0.6 2.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 Former 78.2 0.8 19.1 0.7 2.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 87.8 0.6 9.8 0.6 2.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 Gender Male 73.0 0.5 24.1 0.5 2.7 0.2 0.2 0.1 84.3 0.4 13.2 0.4 2.4 0.2 0.1 0.0

Female 80.4 0.5 17.5 0.4 2.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 90.9 0.3 7.5 0.3 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.0Age (Years)18–24 72.2 1.0 25.4 1.0 2.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 86.7 0.8 11.6 0.7 1.7 0.3 0.0 0.025–44 76.8 0.5 20.7 0.5 2.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 87.7 0.4 10.3 0.3 1.9 0.2 0.1 0.045–64 79.2 0.6 18.3 0.6 2.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 88.5 0.5 9.4 0.5 2.0 0.2 0.1 0.165+ 81.4 2.3 15.6 2.1 2.5 0.9 0.5 0.4 89.4 1.8 7.9 1.6 2.2 0.9 0.5 0.4Race/EthnicityWhite 77.4 0.4 20.2 0.4 2.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 87.9 0.3 10.2 0.3 1.9 0.1 0.1 0.0Hispanic 75.0 1.7 21.5 1.6 3.1 0.7 0.4 0.2 86.9 1.3 10.6 1.2 2.3 0.6 0.2 0.2African-American 74.9 1.1 22.8 1.0 2.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 88.0 0.8 10.0 0.7 1.9 0.3 0.1 0.1Asian/Pacific 

Islander 80.3 1.7 16.7 1.6 2.5 0.7 0.6 0.3 89.4 1.3 8.4 1.2 2.0 0.6 0.2 0.2

Native American 74.0 4.5 23.8 4.4 2.3 1.5 . . 84.7 3.7 12.9 3.5 2.4 1.6 . . 

Reported Workplace Smoking Rules

Public Areas

Work Areas

Not Allowed Allowed in Allowed in Not Allowed Allowed in Allowed in

at All Some Areas All Areas Don’t Know at All Some Areas All Areas Don’t Know

% CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI

Table 1bPrevalence of Smoking Restrictions in the Workplace for Public and Work Areas for the Nation by Smoking Status, DemographicCharacteristics, and by State* - 1995/96
207

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Education (Years)<12 63.7 1.5 33.0 1.5 2.9 0.5 0.4 0.2 81.9 1.2 15.4 1.1 2.5 0.5 0.2 0.112 70.9 0.7 26.3 0.7 2.7 0.2 0.2 0.1 84.4 0.5 13.1 0.5 2.4 0.2 0.1 0.013–15 77.8 0.6 19.7 0.6 2.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 88.3 0.5 9.9 0.4 1.8 0.2 0.1 0.016+ 85.1 0.5 13.0 0.5 1.7 0.2 0.2 0.1 92.1 0.4 6.4 0.4 1.4 0.2 0.1 0.0Household Income< $10,000 69.4 1.7 27.4 1.6 3.0 0.6 0.2 0.2 84.6 1.3 13.2 1.2 2.1 0.5 0.1 0.1$10,000–$19,999 70.3 1.2 26.7 1.1 2.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 85.4 0.9 12.4 0.8 2.0 0.4 0.2 0.1$20,000–$29,999 73.8 1.0 23.4 0.9 2.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 86.5 0.7 11.1 0.7 2.3 0.3 0.1 0.1$30,000–$49,999 75.9 0.7 21.6 0.7 2.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 87.4 0.5 10.6 0.5 2.0 0.2 0.1 0.0$50,000–$74,999 80.2 0.7 17.7 0.7 2.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 88.9 0.6 9.3 0.5 1.7 0.2 0.0 0.0$75,000 + 84.4 0.8 13.8 0.7 1.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 91.1 0.6 7.2 0.5 1.6 0.3 0.1 0.1Unknown 77.4 1.4 19.7 1.4 2.7 0.6 0.2 0.2 88.0 1.1 9.9 1.0 2.0 0.5 0.2 0.1StatesAlabama 68.9 3.3 28.3 3.2 2.6 1.2 0.2 0.3 83.6 2.7 14.1 2.5 2.2 1.1 0.1 0.2Alaska 84.4 2.5 14.4 2.4 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.2 88.7 2.2 10.1 2.1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.4Arizona 79.4 2.8 16.7 2.5 3.7 1.3 0.2 0.3 88.1 2.2 9.3 2.0 2.6 1.1 0.1 0.2Arkansas 63.4 3.4 33.9 3.4 2.6 1.1 0.1 0.2 81.4 2.8 15.1 2.6 3.4 1.3 . . California 86.4 1.0 11.4 0.9 1.9 0.4 0.3 0.2 92.9 0.7 5.1 0.6 1.8 0.4 0.2 0.1Colorado 81.9 2.5 15.5 2.4 2.1 0.9 0.6 0.5 92.5 1.7 6.1 1.6 1.1 0.7 0.2 0.3Connecticut 80.2 2.9 18.2 2.8 1.4 0.9 0.2 0.3 89.1 2.3 9.7 2.1 1.3 0.8 . . Delaware 79.1 2.9 17.1 2.7 3.7 1.4 0.1 0.2 88.3 2.3 8.5 2.0 3.2 1.3 . . District of 

Columbia 84.2 2.7 13.9 2.5 1.4 0.9 0.5 0.5 91.4 2.1 7.6 1.9 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.3

Florida 80.8 1.4 17.5 1.4 1.7 0.5 0.1 0.1 89.9 1.1 9.1 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.1

Reported Workplace Smoking Rules

Public Areas Work Areas

Not Allowed Allowed in Allowed in Not Allowed Allowed in Allowed in

at All Some Areas All Areas Don’t Know at All Some Areas All Areas Don’t Know

% CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI

Table 1b (Continued)
208

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Georgia 70.0 2.8 28.0 2.8 2.1 0.9 . . 86.9 2.1 11.7 2.0 1.4 0.7 . . Hawaii 70.8 3.4 25.4 3.3 3.7 1.4 0.2 0.3 86.0 2.6 12.3 2.5 1.6 0.9 0.2 0.3 Idaho 83.9 2.5 14.3 2.4 1.7 0.9 0.1 0.2 89.2 2.1 9.7 2.1 0.9 0.7 0.1 0.2 Illinois 72.7 1.7 25.1 1.6 2.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 86.0 1.3 12.2 1.2 1.9 0.5 . . Indiana 66.0 3.2 31.3 3.1 2.6 1.1 0.1 0.2 83.0 2.5 14.7 2.4 2.4 1.0 . . Iowa 75.8 2.9 21.6 2.8 2.2 1.0 0.4 0.4 88.1 2.2 9.9 2.0 1.6 0.8 0.4 0.4 Kansas 77.4 2.9 20.3 2.8 2.2 1.0 . . 85.9 2.4 12.1 2.3 1.9 1.0 . . Kentucky 64.6 3.6 31.8 3.5 3.4 1.4 0.1 0.2 84.3 2.7 12.9 2.5 2.7 1.2 0.1 0.2 Louisiana 74.3 3.3 21.7 3.1 3.9 1.5 0.1 0.2 86.0 2.6 12.5 2.5 1.4 0.9 . . Maine 83.1 2.7 15.0 2.6 1.9 1.0 . . 89.0 2.3 10.5 2.2 0.5 0.5 . . Maryland 88.8 2.0 9.7 1.9 1.4 0.7 0.1 0.2 93.4 1.6 5.0 1.4 1.5 0.8 0.2 0.3

Massachusetts 82.9 1.6 15.0 1.5 1.8 0.6 0.3 0.2 90.6 1.2 8.2 1.2 1.2 0.5 0.1 0.1Michigan 67.8 1.9 29.1 1.8 2.9 0.7 0.1 0.1 81.8 1.5 14.8 1.4 3.3 0.7 0.1 0.1Minnesota 79.8 2.6 18.8 2.5 1.3 0.7 0.1 0.2 89.3 2.0 9.9 1.9 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.2Mississippi 73.5 3.4 22.4 3.2 4.0 1.5 . . 87.4 2.5 9.8 2.3 2.8 1.3 . . Missouri 71.3 3.0 26.8 2.9 1.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 85.7 2.3 12.7 2.2 1.6 0.8 . . Montana 78.2 3.2 18.5 3.1 3.3 1.4 . . 88.6 2.5 10.3 2.4 1.1 0.8 . . Nebraska 78.4 2.7 19.8 2.6 1.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 87.1 2.2 11.6 2.1 1.2 0.7 0.1 0.2Nevada 52.5 3.4 38.1 3.3 9.1 2.0 0.2 0.3 77.3 2.9 20.9 2.8 1.8 0.9 . . New Hampshire 82.7 2.8 15.6 2.6 1.4 0.9 0.3 0.4 92.0 2.0 5.5 1.7 2.4 1.1 0.2 0.3New Jersey 81.5 1.5 15.9 1.4 2.4 0.6 0.3 0.2 89.0 1.2 9.0 1.1 1.7 0.5 0.3 0.2New Mexico 79.2 3.1 18.8 2.9 1.8 1.0 0.2 0.3 88.6 2.4 10.3 2.3 1.1 0.8 . . New York 79.0 1.2 18.4 1.2 2.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 86.9 1.0 11.0 0.9 1.9 0.4 0.2 0.1North Carolina 68.0 2.1 29.0 2.0 2.8 0.7 0.2 0.2 83.9 1.7 13.6 1.5 2.4 0.7 0.1 0.1North Dakota 81.4 3.0 15.3 2.8 3.2 1.4 0.1 0.2 88.4 2.5 10.1 2.3 1.5 0.9 . . 

Reported Workplace Smoking Rules

Public Areas

Work Areas

Not Allowed Allowed in Allowed in Not Allowed Allowed in Allowed in

at All Some Areas All Areas Don’t Know at All Some Areas All Areas Don’t Know

% CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI

Table 1b (Continued)
209

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Ohio 71.1 1.7 26.1 1.7 2.6 0.6 0.2 0.2 84.9 1.4 12.4 1.3 2.7 0.6 0.0 0.1Oklahoma 73.2 3.1 24.5 3.0 2.3 1.1 . . 83.2 2.6 14.2 2.5 2.7 1.1 . . Oregon 78.5 2.9 19.1 2.8 2.3 1.1 0.1 0.2 89.0 2.2 9.6 2.1 1.3 0.8 0.1 0.2Pennsylvania 74.2 1.7 23.5 1.6 2.1 0.5 0.3 0.2 85.5 1.3 12.3 1.2 2.2 0.5 0.1 0.1Rhode Island 81.5 2.8 14.9 2.6 3.5 1.3 0.1 0.2 90.1 2.2 7.2 1.9 2.7 1.2 . . South Carolina 70.8 3.1 27.0 3.0 2.1 1.0 0.1 0.2 87.8 2.2 10.3 2.0 1.8 0.9 0.1 0.2South Dakota 77.4 2.9 20.9 2.8 1.7 0.9 . . 87.6 2.3 10.9 2.1 1.6 0.8 . . Tennessee 68.3 3.2 28.4 3.1 3.1 1.2 0.1 0.2 85.5 2.4 11.5 2.2 2.9 1.2 . . Texas 78.5 1.5 18.6 1.4 2.7 0.6 0.2 0.2 88.2 1.2 9.2 1.0 2.5 0.6 0.1 0.1Utah 91.6 1.7 7.4 1.6 0.9 0.6 0.1 0.2 95.6 1.3 3.2 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.2Vermont 88.5 2.2 9.9 2.1 1.4 0.8 0.2 0.3 92.4 1.8 6.6 1.7 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.2Virginia 75.1 2.7 22.3 2.6 2.6 1.0 0.1 0.2 87.9 2.0 10.5 1.9 1.6 0.8 . . Washington 85.1 2.6 12.8 2.4 2.2 1.1 . . 91.5 2.0 6.4 1.8 2.0 1.0 0.1 0.3West Virginia 72.8 3.4 24.2 3.2 3.0 1.3 . . 84.4 2.7 12.5 2.5 3.0 1.3 . . Wisconsin 75.8 2.7 22.6 2.7 1.5 0.8 0.2 0.3 88.2 2.1 10.5 2.0 1.2 0.7 0.1 0.2Wyoming 78.1 3.3 20.3 3.2 1.5 1.0 0.1 0.3 85.6 2.8 12.7 2.7 1.6 1.0 0.1 0.3

Reported Workplace Smoking Rules

Public Areas Work Areas

Not Allowed Allowed in Allowed in Not Allowed Allowed in Allowed in

at All Some Areas All Areas Don’t Know at All Some Areas All Areas Don’t Know

Nation % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI

Note: CI = 95% confidence interval; “.” = insufficient data.Source: 1995/96 Current Population Survey.*Universe: Individuals included in this table are self-respondent adults only (age 18 and older) whose smoking status can be determined.They must work indoors and be employed privately or by local, state, or federal government. They must respond that an official workplaceTable 1b (Continued)smoking policy exists.
TABLE 2 National Prevalence of Smoking Restrictions in the Workplace for

Public and Work Areas with Age- and Gender-Specific Rates for Each Race

and Ethnic Group

This table presents age- and gender-specific prevalences of working

in workplaces with different levels of restriction in public areas and work

areas for the major race and ethnic groups for the 1992/93 and 1995/96

CPS. For all race/ethnic groups, the percentage of reported smoke-free work

areas was higher than the percentage of smoke-free public areas. Workers

reported greater percentages of smoke-free work and public areas in the

1995/96 CPS than in the 1992/93 CPS. Females generally had higher levels

of smoke-free work and public areas than males.

Non-Hispanic White—Non-Hispanic Whites reported increased protection for all groups, for both work and public areas between the 1992/93

and 1995/96 surveys. Generally, as age increases, the percentage of people

whose workplaces have smoke-free public areas increases, but the effect of

age on the likelihood of having a smoke-free work area is less pronounced.

This trend holds for both males and females in both survey years. Public

areas showed the greatest changes for males and females at the lowest age

level, 18-24 years. For this group, females increased 26 percent and males

increased 33 percent from the 1992/93 CPS to the 1995/96 CPS.

Hispanic—Hispanics workers, particularly younger Hispanic workers,

were more likely to work in workplaces with smoke-free work areas than

were non-Hispanic White workers. Perhaps because of the higher rates of

protection reported by younger Hispanic workers, the effect of increasing

protection with increasing age found for non-Hispanic White workers is less

evident. The percentage of Hispanic workers who reported smoke-free public areas and work areas actually decreased in the 1992/93 CPS with increasing age.

African-American—Of all the racial/ethnic groups, African-American

workers showed the most change in level of workplace smoking restrictions

between the 1992/93 CPS and 1995/96 CPS, particularly for restrictions in

public areas. Restrictions on smoking in public areas showed the greatest

changes for males and females at the lowest age level, 18-24 years, and the

level of protection generally increased with increasing age. Among the different age groups, there was little change from the 1992/93 CPS to the

1995/96 CPS in the percentage of African-American workers who reported

working in smoke-free work areas. For public areas, the percentage of people who reported smoke-free public areas was slightly lower among those in

the youngest age category, 18-24 years.

Asian/Pacific Islander—Asian/Pacific Islander workers report the

highest levels of protection among racial/ethnic groups. 

Native American—Native American workers show the lowest levels of

protection among the racial/ethnic groups. 

211

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results
212

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Non-Hispanic White 18-24 Not at all 76.2 1.6 50.6 1.9 83.2 1.3 60.4 1.7 83.4 1.5 67.3 1.9 88.3 1.2 75.9 1.6 Some areas 22.0 1.6 44.7 1.9 15.8 1.2 36.8 1.6 14.7 1.4 30.2 1.8 10.2 1.1 22.2 1.5 All areas 1.7 0.5 4.2 0.8 0.7 0.3 2.6 0.5 1.8 0.5 2.2 0.6 1.4 0.4 1.8 0.5 Don't know 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 25-44

Not at all 76.2 0.8 58.0 0.9 85.7 0.6 67.3 0.8 84.2 0.7 73.1 0.8 91.1 0.5 80.9 0.7Some areas 21.5 0.8 38.2 0.9 13.0 0.6 30.2 0.8 13.3 0.7 24.0 0.8 7.5 0.5 17.1 0.7All areas 2.0 0.3 3.3 0.3 1.1 0.2 2.0 0.2 2.5 0.3 2.7 0.3 1.3 0.2 1.9 0.2Don't know 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1

45-64

Not at all 76.4 1.1 59.3 1.3 86.3 0.8 66.6 1.1 84.2 0.9 75.6 1.1 92.1 0.6 82.8 0.9Some areas 21.1 1.1 37.6 1.3 12.3 0.8 30.9 1.1 13.0 0.9 21.6 1.1 6.5 0.6 15.1 0.8All areas 2.3 0.4 2.7 0.4 0.9 0.2 1.9 0.3 2.7 0.4 2.6 0.4 1.3 0.3 1.9 0.3Don't know 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

65+

Not at all 77.5 4.5 64.1 5.2 86.0 3.0 67.9 4.1 87.1 3.3 78.1 4.1 90.6 2.4 82.7 3.1Some areas 19.6 4.2 29.5 4.9 12.0 2.8 28.9 4.0 10.0 3.0 18.9 3.9 6.6 2.0 14.1 2.9All areas 2.7 1.7 5.1 2.4 1.2 0.9 2.1 1.3 2.6 1.6 2.7 1.6 2.1 1.2 2.5 1.3Don't know 0.2 0.5 1.2 1.2 0.8 0.8 1.1 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7

Age 1992/93 1995/96

In the Work- Male Female Male Femaleplace, Smoking Work Areas Public Areas Work Areas Public Areas Work Areas Public Areas Work Areas Public Areasis allowed % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI

Table 2National Prevalence of Smoking Restrictions in the Workplace for Public and Work Areas with Age- and Gender-Specific Rates for EachRace and Ethnic Group*—1992/93 and 1995/96
213

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Hispanic18-24

Not at all 82.5 4.5 54.0 5.9 87.4 4.5 67.2 6.4 86.0 4.2 68.0 5.6 91.2 3.8 78.6 5.5Some areas 15.9 4.3 36.7 5.7 11.7 4.4 30.1 6.3 . . 27.6 5.4 5.6 3.1 17.6 5.1All areas 1.2 1.3 8.0 3.2 0.9 1.3 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.6 4.1 2.4 2.9 2.2 3.3 2.4Don't know . . 1.3 1.4 — — 0.4 0.9 — — . . 0.3 0.7 0.5 1.0

25-44

Not at all 80.3 3.1 59.0 3.9 85.7 2.8 65.9 3.8 82.0 2.7 69.6 3.2 89.8 2.2 79.3 3.0Some areas 16.9 2.9 37.7 3.8 13.0 2.7 32.0 3.7 15.2 2.5 26.6 3.1 8.4 2.1 17.7 2.8All areas 2.2 1.1 3.0 1.3 1.1 0.8 1.6 1.0 2.5 1.1 3.3 1.2 1.5 0.9 2.6 1.2Don't know 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5

45-64

Not at all 79.9 5.2 55.7 6.5 85.8 4.7 65.8 6.4 85.5 4.4 77.8 5.3 91.8 3.4 80.3 4.9Some areas 17.6 5.0 38.5 6.3 12.5 4.4 29.6 6.1 . . 17.7 4.8 5.9 2.9 18.0 4.7All areas 2.1 1.9 4.9 2.8 0.7 1.1 3.0 2.3 4.5 2.6 4.3 2.6 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6Don't know . . 0.9 1.2 0.9 1.3 1.6 1.7 — — 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.1 0.5

65+

Not at all . . . . . . . . . . 96.1 12.4 . . 96.7 9.6Some areas . . . . . . . . . . . . — — . . All areas . . . . — — . . . . — — — — — — Don't know — — — — . . — — — — — — — — — — 

Age 1992/93 1995/96

In the Work- Male Female Male Femaleplace, Smoking Work Areas Public Areas Work Areas Public Areas Work Areas Public Areas Work Areas Public Areasis allowed % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI

Table 2 (Continued)
214

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 African-American 18-24 Not at all 80.8 4.2 41.4 5.2 83.2 3.5 56.0 4.6 85.7 3.8 66.5 5.1 90.9 2.6 74.7 4.0 Some areas 16.5 3.9 55.2 5.3 14.2 3.2 41.9 4.6 . . 31.4 5.0 . . 23.4 3.9 All areas . . 3.4 1.9 2.2 1.4 1.7 1.2 0.7 0.9 . . 1.8 1.2 1.6 1.1 Don't know . . — — 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.7 — — — — — — 0.3 0.5 25-44 Not at all 77.4 2.1 51.4 2.5 85.2 1.5 60.1 2.1 84.5 1.7 71.4 2.1 90.3 1.2 77.8 1.7

Some areas 21.0 2.1 45.1 2.5 13.6 1.5 37.8 2.1 12.8 1.6 26.5 2.1 7.8 1.1 20.1 1.7All areas 1.2 0.6 3.1 0.9 1.0 0.4 1.4 0.5 2.5 0.7 2.0 0.7 1.9 0.6 1.8 0.6Don't know 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2

45-64

Not at all 75.1 3.6 53.6 4.2 84.5 2.5 60.8 3.4 83.8 2.9 71.2 3.6 90.7 1.9 79.5 2.6Some areas 22.0 3.5 43.2 4.2 14.4 2.5 36.5 3.4 14.0 2.8 25.6 3.5 7.6 1.7 17.9 2.5All areas 2.4 1.3 2.0 1.2 0.7 0.6 1.7 0.9 1.7 1.0 2.6 1.3 1.7 0.8 2.2 1.0Don't know 0.6 0.6 1.2 0.9 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4

65+

Not at all . . . . 84.1 9.8 . . . . . . 95.1 7.1 85.1 11.9Some areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . All areas . . — — . . . . . . — — — — . . Don't know — — — — — — . . . . . . — — — — 

Age 1992/93 1995/96

In the Work- Male Female Male Female

place, Smoking Work Areas Public Areas Work Areas Public Areas Work Areas Public Areas Work Areas Public Areas

is allowed % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI

Table 2 (Continued)
215

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Asian/Pacific Islander18-24

Not at all 82.6 7.8 . . 89.1 6.2 69.6 9.2 . . 79.5 7.8 91.0 4.8 80.7 6.6Some areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . All areas . . . . . . . . — — — — . . . . Don't know — — . . . . — — — — . . — — — — 

25-44

Not at all 82.8 3.0 60.7 3.9 89.3 2.6 69.7 3.8 88.5 2.4 79.2 3.1 90.1 2.4 80.6 3.2Some areas 15.3 2.9 34.7 3.8 9.4 2.4 27.4 3.7 . . 17.8 2.9 7.1 2.1 16.4 3.0All areas 1.5 1.0 3.7 1.5 0.4 0.5 2.4 1.3 1.9 1.0 2.6 1.2 2.4 1.2 2.7 1.3Don't know 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 — — 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4

45-64

Not at all 86.0 4.5 64.2 6.3 91.6 3.7 67.9 6.3 89.4 3.8 82.2 4.7 90.7 3.5 81.7 4.7Some areas 13.0 4.4 32.4 6.1 7.7 3.6 28.5 6.1 7.9 3.3 14.3 4.3 7.7 3.2 15.9 4.4All areas . . 3.1 2.3 0.1 0.3 . . . . . . 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4Don't know . . 0.3 0.7 0.6 1.1 0.6 1.1 . . . . . . . . 

65+

Not at all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Some areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . All areas — — — — — — . . . . . . — — — — Don't know — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Age 1992/93 1995/96

In the Work- Male Female Male Femaleplace, Smoking Work Areas Public Areas Work Areas Public Areas Work Areas Public Areas Work Areas Public Areasis allowed % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI

Table 2 (Continued)
216

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Native American 18-24 Not at all 95.4 8.6 . . 85.8 13.6 . . . . . . 88.7 11.2 . . Some areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . All areas — — . . — — . . . . . . — — — — Don't know — — — — . . — — — — — — — — — — 25-44 Not at all 72.9 10.5 . . 76.8 8.0 62.2 9.2 86.3 7.3 75.6 9.1 86.8 5.9 77.0 7.3 Some areas . . . . . . 33.4 8.9 . . . . . . . . All areas . . . . — — . . . . 0.0 0.4 . . . . Don't know . . . . — — — — — — — — — — — — 

45-64

Not at all . . . . 85.6 9.2 67.3 12.2 . . . . 86.8 9.0 71.7 11.9Some areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . All areas — — . . . . . . . . . . — — . . Don't know — — — — — — — — — — — — 

65+

Not at all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Some areas . . . . — — . . . . — — — — — — All areas — — . . — — — — — — — — — — — — Don't know — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Age 1992/93 1995/96

In the Work- Male Female Male Female

place, Smoking Work Areas Public Areas Work Areas Public Areas Work Areas Public Areas Work Areas Public Areasis allowed % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI

Table 2 (Continued)

Note: CI = 95% confidence interval; "." = insufficient data; "—" = no data.Source: 1992/93 and 1995/96 Current Population Surveys.*Universe: Individuals included in this table are self-respondent adults only (age 18 and older) whose smoking status can be determined.They must work indoors and be employed privately or by local, state, or federal government. They must respond that an official workplacesmoking policy exists.
TABLE 3 Strength of Workplace Smoking Policies by Smoking Status and

Demographic Characteristics for the Nation

This table classifies workplaces by the strength of the reported

smoking restrictions. The national prevalence of working in workplaces

with each level of restriction is reported by smoking status and demographic subgroup.

Overall—The fraction of workers working in 100 percent smoke-free

workplaces (no smoking indoors at all) increased dramatically from the

1992/93 CPS to the 1995/96 CPS. Only 47 percent of indoor workers reported a smoke-free workplace in the 1992/93 CPS, while nearly 64 percent

report a smoke-free workplace in the 1995/96 CPS, an increase of 37 percent. The increase of 100 percent smoke-free workplaces is similar for each

smoking status, gender, age, education, and income. Racial/ethnic groups

also show comparable increases.

Smoking Status—More than 50 percent of current smokers report

working in smoke-free workplaces in the 1995/96 CPS, a lower percent than

for former and never-smokers. 

Race and Ethnicity—Asian/Pacific Islanders report the highest rates of

working in smoke-free workplaces, and Native Americans report the lowest

rates.

217

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results
218

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Overall 46.5 0.4 19.1 0.3 13.8 0.3 1.6 0.1 19.1 0.3 63.7 0.4 11.1 0.2 9.1 0.2 1.2 0.1 14.8 0.3 Smoking Status Never 49.9 0.5 19.1 0.4 12.2 0.3 1.2 0.1 17.6 0.4 67.2 0.5 10.5 0.3 7.8 0.3 1.0 0.1 13.6 0.4 Current 36.9 0.7 20.2 0.6 17.2 0.6 2.2 0.2 23.5 0.6 53.7 0.8 13.2 0.5 12.2 0.5 1.8 0.2 19.2 0.6 Former 49.2 0.8 17.5 0.6 14.0 0.6 1.7 0.2 17.6 0.6 66.0 0.8 10.4 0.5 9.1 0.5 1.3 0.2 13.1 0.6 Gender Male 40.6 0.5 19.2 0.4 16.5 0.4 2.1 0.2 21.6 0.5 58.2 0.6 11.9 0.4 11.3 0.4 1.8 0.1 16.8 0.4 Female 51.8 0.5 18.9 0.4 11.4 0.3 1.1 0.1 16.8 0.4 68.7 0.5 10.4 0.3 7.1 0.3 0.8 0.1 13.0 0.4

Age (Years)

18–24 39.3 0.9 20.9 0.8 14.0 0.7 1.4 0.2 24.4 0.8 55.5 1.0 13.1 0.7 9.6 0.6 1.0 0.2 20.7 0.825–44 47.4 0.5 18.7 0.4 13.9 0.4 1.6 0.1 18.3 0.4 64.1 0.5 11.3 0.3 9.3 0.3 1.3 0.1 14.0 0.445–64 48.9 0.7 18.9 0.6 13.7 0.5 1.6 0.2 17.0 0.6 67.2 0.7 10.0 0.4 8.6 0.4 1.2 0.2 13.0 0.565+ 46.3 2.7 15.4 2.0 12.1 1.8 1.0 0.6 25.5 2.4 63.5 2.6 8.3 1.5 6.8 1.3 1.1 0.5 20.4 2.1

Race/Ethnicity

White 46.8 0.4 18.5 0.3 13.9 0.3 1.7 0.1 19.0 0.3 64.0 0.4 11.0 0.3 9.1 0.3 1.3 0.1 14.7 0.3Hispanic 45.3 1.9 18.0 1.4 12.7 1.2 1.1 0.4 23.0 1.6 60.4 1.8 10.7 1.1 9.4 1.0 1.2 0.4 18.3 1.4AfricanAmerican 43.5 1.2 23.5 1.0 14.3 0.8 1.4 0.3 17.4 0.9 64.1 1.1 12.9 0.8 9.4 0.7 1.2 0.3 12.4 0.8Asian/Pacific 

Islander 52.9 2.1 19.3 1.7 11.4 1.4 0.9 0.4 15.4 1.5 67.0 1.9 8.6 1.1 7.5 1.1 1.1 0.4 15.7 1.5

Native 

American 42.1 5.0 19.2 4.0 15.9 3.7 1.8 1.3 21.0 4.1 57.2 4.6 10.2 2.8 10.6 2.9 1.5 1.1 20.5 3.8

Other† 50.9 10.0 14.5 7.0 14.0 6.9 1.1 2.1 19.5 7.9 . . . . . . . . . .

Extent of Workplace Smoking Restrictions

1992/93 1995/96

Smoke-free Strong Moderate Weak None Smoke-free Strong Moderate Weak None

Table 3Strength of Workplace Smoking Policies by Smoking Status and Demographic Characteristics for the Nation*—1992/93 and 1995/96

Nation % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
219

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Education (Years)

<12 30.5 1.2 22.3 1.1 15.5 1.0 1.9 0.4 29.9 1.2 45.9 1.4 15.3 1.0 12.1 0.9 1.6 0.3 25.1 1.2

12 38.3 0.6 21.4 0.5 14.9 0.5 2.0 0.2 23.4 0.6 55.4 0.7 13.1 0.5 11.1 0.4 1.7 0.2 18.8 0.513–15 48.1 0.7 18.3 0.5 13.9 0.5 1.6 0.2 18.2 0.5 65.3 0.7 10.8 0.4 8.9 0.4 1.2 0.2 13.8 0.516+ 59.5 0.7 16.1 0.5 11.9 0.5 1.0 0.1 11.6 0.5 76.1 0.6 8.2 0.4 6.2 0.3 0.7 0.1 8.8 0.4

Household Income

Unknown 45.7 1.9 18.1 1.5 13.1 1.3 1.3 0.4 21.9 1.6 62.8 1.5 10.2 1.0 8.7 0.9 1.0 0.3 17.3 1.2< $10,000 35.2 1.4 21.0 1.2 14.9 1.1 1.3 0.3 27.6 1.4 51.5 1.6 13.1 1.1 10.8 1.0 1.3 0.4 23.3 1.4$10,000–

$19,999 38.8 1.0 21.2 0.8 13.7 0.7 1.7 0.3 24.6 0.9 54.4 1.1 13.6 0.8 10.4 0.7 1.4 0.3 20.2 0.9

$20,000–

$29,999 43.4 0.9 19.7 0.8 13.5 0.6 1.6 0.2 21.8 0.8 59.1 1.0 12.3 0.7 9.4 0.6 1.6 0.2 17.6 0.8

$30,000–

$49,999 46.8 0.7 19.3 0.6 14.3 0.5 1.8 0.2 17.8 0.5 63.3 0.7 11.7 0.5 9.5 0.4 1.3 0.2 14.1 0.5

$50,000–

$74,999 52.0 0.9 18.0 0.7 13.5 0.6 1.6 0.2 14.9 0.6 68.8 0.8 10.0 0.5 8.6 0.5 1.1 0.2 11.5 0.6

$75,000 + 57.8 1.1 15.7 0.8 13.2 0.8 0.9 0.2 12.4 0.8 74.6 0.9 8.1 0.5 7.0 0.5 1.0 0.2 9.3 0.6

Note: CI = 95% confidence interval.Source: 1992/93 and 1995/96 Current Population Surveys.*Universe: Individuals included in this table are self-respondent adults only (age 18 and older) whose smoking status can be determined. Theymust work indoors and be employed privately or by local, state, or federal government. They must know if an official workplace smoking policyexists or does not exist, and define that policy for both work and public areas (i.e., smoking is allowed in all areas, allowed in some areas, or notallowed at all).†No data for 1995/96; all racial/ethnic groups were classified for this survey series. 

Extent of Workplace Smoking Restrictions

1992/93 1995/96

Smoke-free Strong Moderate Weak None Smoke-free Strong Moderate Weak None

Table 3 (Continued)

Nation % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
TABLE 4 Strength of Workplace Smoking Policies by Smoking Status for Each

State

This table classifies workplaces by the strength of their smoking

restrictions and presents the data by state and by smoking status for each

state.

Overall—The fraction of workers with a 100 percent smoke-free

workplace varies across the states, but all states had increases in the fraction

of workplaces reported to be smoke-free between the 1992/93 and 1995/96

CPS. North Carolina, which had the largest change, increased 76 percent,

from 31 percent in the 1992/93 CPS to 55 percent in the 1995/96 CPS. All

but three states report at least 50 percent of workplaces to be smoke-free in

the 1995/96 CPS. No state reported a rate of smoke-free workplaces of 70

percent or more in the 1992/93 CPS, but 13 states reached that level in the

1995/96 CPS. The percentage of protected workers ranges from 29 percent

(Kentucky) to 68 percent (Washington) in the 1992/93 CPS. For the

1995/96 CPS, the percentage of workers protected by a 100 percent smokefree workplace ranges from 41 percent (Nevada) to 84 percent (Utah). The

maps in Figures 1 and 2 show the fraction of indoor workers who reported

a smoke-free workplace for each survey year for each state. The map in

Figure 3 shows the absolute change in the fraction of workers who reported

smoke-free workplaces from the 1992/93 CPS to the 1995/96 CPS. 

221

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results
222

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Alabama Overall 39.0 3.5 24.0 3.1 12.8 2.4 2.1 1.0 22.1 3.0 55.4 3.3 14.3 2.3 12.8 2.2 1.7 0.9 15.8 2.4 Never 43.9 4.7 24.4 4.1 11.1 3.0 1.6 1.2 18.9 3.7 59.2 4.2 14.2 3.0 11.6 2.7 1.3 1.0 13.7 2.9 Current 24.4 6.2 28.0 6.5 17.2 5.5 2.3 2.2 28.1 6.5 45.4 6.8 16.3 5.1 14.9 4.9 2.5 2.2 20.9 5.6 Former 43.6 8.5 16.9 6.4 12.0 5.6 3.4 3.1 24.1 7.3 55.6 8.3 12.0 5.4 14.1 5.8 1.8 2.2 16.6 6.2 Alaska Overall 58.7 3.1 12.4 2.1 14.4 2.2 0.7 0.5 13.8 2.2 69.9 3.0 7.8 1.7 8.9 1.8 1.0 0.7 12.4 2.1 Never 64.4 4.4 12.1 3.0 12.8 3.1 0.3 0.5 10.3 2.8 74.5 3.9 7.5 2.4 5.8 2.1 1.4 1.1 10.8 2.8 Current 53.1 6.1 10.5 3.7 16.1 4.5 2.0 1.7 18.3 4.7 56.5 6.4 11.5 4.1 13.6 4.4 1.2 1.4 17.2 4.9 Former 54.3 5.9 14.6 4.2 15.6 4.3 0.2 0.5 15.4 4.3 73.9 5.9 4.6 2.8 10.7 4.1 . . 10.8 4.1

Arizona

Overall 56.8 3.3 17.6 2.6 10.3 2.1 1.1 0.7 14.2 2.4 65.1 3.0 8.6 1.8 8.9 1.8 0.8 0.6 16.6 2.4Never 57.2 4.4 20.1 3.6 8.1 2.4 0.8 0.8 13.7 3.1 68.4 3.9 7.5 2.2 7.7 2.2 1.1 0.9 15.3 3.0Current 52.8 6.7 12.5 4.4 15.8 4.9 2.4 2.0 16.6 5.0 59.4 6.1 11.0 3.9 10.9 3.9 0.3 0.7 18.4 4.8Former 61.7 7.9 16.6 6.0 9.7 4.8 . . 12.1 5.3 62.7 7.1 8.5 4.1 9.7 4.3 0.8 1.4 18.2 5.7

Arkansas

Overall 32.5 3.4 26.0 3.2 14.3 2.6 2.2 1.1 24.9 3.2 48.0 3.2 17.9 2.5 12.2 2.1 2.6 1.0 19.3 2.6Never 34.1 4.7 28.1 4.5 12.5 3.3 2.2 1.4 23.1 4.2 51.8 4.3 18.5 3.3 10.2 2.6 1.6 1.1 17.8 3.3Current 26.6 6.1 24.4 5.9 17.7 5.2 1.9 1.9 29.3 6.2 36.4 5.9 18.4 4.7 17.5 4.6 3.7 2.3 23.9 5.2Former 37.4 8.6 22.1 7.4 14.5 6.3 2.6 2.8 23.5 7.5 55.2 8.1 14.8 5.8 9.8 4.9 4.1 3.3 16.0 6.0

Extent of Workplace Smoking Restrictions

Table 4Strength of Workplace Smoking Policies by Smoking Status for Each State*—1992/93 and 1995/96

State/ 1992/93 1995/96Smoking Smoke-free Strong Moderate Weak None Smoke-free Strong Moderate Weak NoneStatus % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
223

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

California

Overall 58.4 1.3 14.4 0.9 10.4 0.8 0.9 0.2 15.8 0.9 76.1 1.1 6.8 0.7 4.9 0.6 0.7 0.2 11.6 0.8Never 59.4 1.6 14.3 1.2 9.8 1.0 0.8 0.3 15.7 1.2 76.9 1.4 6.5 0.8 4.4 0.7 0.5 0.2 11.6 1.1Current 51.5 3.0 15.7 2.2 13.4 2.0 1.5 0.7 18.0 2.3 70.2 2.9 7.5 1.7 7.2 1.6 1.3 0.7 13.7 2.2Former 62.0 2.8 13.5 2.0 9.5 1.7 0.7 0.5 14.3 2.0 78.7 2.5 6.8 1.5 4.5 1.2 0.7 0.5 9.3 1.7

Colorado

Overall 53.5 3.4 19.1 2.7 11.7 2.2 0.7 0.6 15.0 2.4 71.5 2.8 9.5 1.8 6.3 1.5 0.4 0.4 12.3 2.0Never 56.9 4.6 18.8 3.6 10.8 2.9 0.6 0.7 12.9 3.1 77.3 3.6 9.7 2.5 2.7 1.4 0.6 0.6 9.6 2.5Current 38.1 6.9 22.4 5.9 16.3 5.2 0.6 1.1 22.6 5.9 59.3 6.1 8.8 3.5 12.5 4.1 . . 19.4 4.9Former 60.7 6.8 16.7 5.2 9.1 4.0 1.2 1.5 12.4 4.6 71.0 6.0 9.8 3.9 7.9 3.5 0.6 1.0 10.7 4.1

Connecticut

Overall 48.3 3.4 18.9 2.7 15.4 2.5 1.5 0.8 15.9 2.5 67.3 3.2 10.7 2.1 8.5 1.9 0.7 0.6 12.8 2.3Never 50.3 4.7 21.2 3.8 13.1 3.2 1.5 1.1 14.0 3.3 71.5 4.1 9.9 2.7 8.2 2.5 0.9 0.8 9.6 2.7Current 38.7 6.8 15.7 5.1 23.5 5.9 3.0 2.4 19.1 5.5 56.1 7.4 13.7 5.1 10.5 4.6 . . 19.7 5.9Former 53.4 7.0 17.0 5.3 12.5 4.6 0.3 0.7 16.9 5.2 67.2 6.7 9.8 4.2 7.5 3.7 0.8 1.2 14.7 5.0

Delaware

Overall 50.3 3.3 17.3 2.5 14.5 2.3 0.8 0.6 17.1 2.5 66.0 3.2 8.5 1.9 8.3 1.9 0.9 0.6 16.3 2.5Never 50.7 4.6 18.8 3.6 13.7 3.1 0.2 0.5 16.6 3.4 72.0 4.2 7.7 2.5 5.1 2.1 1.0 0.9 14.1 3.3Current 41.0 6.8 16.8 5.2 20.8 5.6 2.5 2.1 18.9 5.4 55.9 6.3 10.5 3.9 11.3 4.0 0.9 1.2 21.4 5.2Former 58.5 6.7 14.6 4.8 10.2 4.1 0.3 0.8 16.4 5.0 64.7 7.1 7.7 4.0 12.2 4.9 0.5 1.0 14.9 5.3

District of Columbia

Overall 51.9 3.6 20.4 2.9 14.8 2.5 1.4 0.8 11.5 2.3 74.7 3.1 8.6 2.0 7.2 1.8 0.8 0.6 8.7 2.0Never 52.1 4.6 22.2 3.8 14.4 3.2 1.0 0.9 10.3 2.8 76.5 3.7 8.6 2.5 5.9 2.1 0.8 0.8 8.2 2.4Current 53.9 7.9 16.0 5.8 13.9 5.5 1.2 1.7 14.9 5.6 66.7 7.5 9.5 4.6 11.6 5.1 0.5 1.1 11.7 5.1Former 49.1 8.1 19.5 6.4 17.3 6.1 2.7 2.6 11.5 5.1 77.3 7.1 7.5 4.5 7.0 4.3 1.0 1.7 7.1 4.4

Extent of Workplace Smoking Restrictions

State/ 1992/93 1995/96Table 4 (Continued)Smoking Smoke-free Strong Moderate Weak None Smoke-free Strong Moderate Weak NoneStatus % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
224

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Florida Overall 53.6 1.6 14.4 1.2 11.0 1.0 1.1 0.3 19.9 1.3 66.5 1.6 9.1 1.0 8.0 0.9 0.8 0.3 15.6 1.2 Never 55.8 2.3 14.8 1.6 10.0 1.4 1.2 0.5 18.2 1.8 68.9 2.1 8.9 1.3 7.0 1.1 0.6 0.3 14.6 1.6 Current 45.9 3.1 14.6 2.2 13.0 2.1 0.9 0.6 25.5 2.7 58.4 3.4 11.0 2.2 10.7 2.1 1.0 0.7 18.8 2.7 Former 58.5 3.6 12.9 2.4 10.6 2.2 1.2 0.8 16.7 2.7 69.2 3.4 7.4 1.9 7.7 2.0 1.0 0.7 14.8 2.6 Georgia Overall 47.4 3.2 19.3 2.5 10.9 2.0 1.7 0.8 20.7 2.6 56.7 2.8 15.1 2.0 10.3 1.7 0.8 0.5 17.0 2.1 Never 47.9 4.2 20.4 3.4 9.5 2.5 1.3 1.0 20.9 3.4 58.9 3.5 15.7 2.6 9.4 2.1 0.8 0.6 15.2 2.6 Current 39.8 6.4 18.1 5.0 13.4 4.5 2.7 2.1 26.0 5.7 43.8 6.0 18.0 4.7 15.2 4.4 1.6 1.5 21.4 5.0 Former 55.5 7.4 17.5 5.6 12.3 4.9 1.4 1.7 13.3 5.1 65.2 6.6 9.5 4.1 7.5 3.6 . . 17.8 5.3 Hawaii Overall 47.1 3.3 21.4 2.7 15.6 2.4 1.0 0.7 14.8 2.4 61.3 3.5 15.2 2.6 12.2 2.3 1.0 0.7 10.3 2.2

Never 50.3 4.2 21.1 3.4 14.5 3.0 0.8 0.7 13.4 2.9 59.8 4.6 17.0 3.5 11.7 3.0 1.2 1.0 10.3 2.8Current 38.1 7.2 20.3 6.0 18.3 5.7 1.9 2.0 21.4 6.1 67.1 7.7 9.4 4.8 14.4 5.7 1.1 1.7 8.0 4.4Former 46.4 7.7 23.6 6.5 16.7 5.8 1.0 1.5 12.3 5.1 60.1 7.7 15.2 5.6 11.6 5.0 0.6 1.2 12.5 5.2

Idaho

Overall 59.5 3.3 12.3 2.2 9.9 2.0 0.9 0.6 17.4 2.5 70.9 2.9 5.9 1.5 8.9 1.8 0.8 0.6 13.5 2.2Never 63.2 4.3 11.6 2.9 7.5 2.4 1.0 0.9 16.8 3.3 75.2 3.6 4.9 1.8 7.3 2.1 0.4 0.5 12.2 2.7Current 47.6 6.8 15.5 4.9 15.9 5.0 0.8 1.2 20.2 5.5 57.5 7.0 9.6 4.2 13.5 4.8 0.9 1.3 18.5 5.5Former 63.4 7.2 10.5 4.6 9.4 4.3 0.9 1.4 15.8 5.4 71.8 6.9 5.2 3.4 8.8 4.3 2.0 2.2 12.1 5.0

Illinois

Overall 40.0 1.7 22.8 1.4 16.1 1.2 1.5 0.4 19.6 1.3 60.8 1.7 13.5 1.2 10.5 1.1 1.5 0.4 13.8 1.2Never 42.8 2.3 23.9 2.0 13.4 1.6 1.3 0.5 18.6 1.8 65.2 2.2 13.8 1.6 7.5 1.2 1.0 0.5 12.5 1.5Current 31.0 3.0 23.5 2.7 20.2 2.6 2.1 0.9 23.3 2.7 49.1 3.5 13.6 2.4 15.7 2.6 2.4 1.1 19.2 2.8Former 44.9 3.7 19.3 2.9 17.3 2.8 1.0 0.7 17.5 2.8 63.0 3.9 12.5 2.6 12.6 2.7 1.7 1.0 10.3 2.4

Extent of Workplace Smoking Restrictions

State/ 1992/93 1995/96

Table 4 (Continued)Smoking Smoke-free Strong Moderate Weak None Smoke-free Strong Moderate Weak NoneStatus % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
225

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Indiana

Overall 35.1 3.1 22.8 2.7 16.0 2.4 3.1 1.1 22.9 2.7 51.3 3.0 15.9 2.2 11.4 1.9 2.9 1.0 18.6 2.4Never 38.4 4.4 24.7 3.9 15.3 3.3 2.3 1.4 19.3 3.6 58.3 4.1 12.7 2.8 10.1 2.5 2.6 1.3 16.3 3.1Current 29.1 5.5 20.3 4.8 20.2 4.8 4.0 2.4 26.3 5.3 39.6 5.5 22.0 4.7 12.2 3.7 2.8 1.9 23.4 4.8Former 35.5 7.1 21.8 6.0 11.7 4.7 3.7 2.8 27.3 6.5 49.3 7.5 15.3 5.4 14.5 5.3 3.7 2.8 17.3 5.6

Iowa

Overall 45.1 3.1 19.4 2.5 14.6 2.2 1.8 0.8 19.2 2.5 62.2 3.1 12.2 2.1 8.8 1.8 1.2 0.7 15.6 2.3Never 50.8 4.2 18.0 3.3 12.5 2.8 1.6 1.1 17.1 3.2 66.8 4.0 12.0 2.8 7.2 2.2 0.8 0.8 13.1 2.9Current 32.6 5.9 23.5 5.3 18.9 4.9 2.1 1.8 22.9 5.3 47.3 6.3 14.7 4.4 13.7 4.3 2.1 1.8 22.3 5.2Former 44.8 7.1 17.9 5.4 14.9 5.1 1.7 1.9 20.7 5.8 68.5 6.7 9.4 4.2 6.9 3.7 1.1 1.5 14.1 5.0

Kansas

Overall 49.4 3.1 19.4 2.4 13.4 2.1 1.0 0.6 16.8 2.3 63.2 3.1 9.7 1.9 10.9 2.0 1.5 0.8 14.6 2.2Never 55.1 4.2 17.2 3.2 12.1 2.7 0.6 0.6 15.1 3.0 65.1 4.1 9.6 2.5 9.2 2.5 1.8 1.1 14.3 3.0Current 36.2 5.8 21.8 5.0 18.3 4.7 1.8 1.6 21.8 5.0 55.4 6.2 11.5 3.9 13.3 4.2 1.1 1.3 18.7 4.8Former 51.3 6.9 22.0 5.8 10.5 4.3 1.3 1.6 14.9 4.9 68.9 7.2 7.4 4.0 13.0 5.2 1.4 1.8 9.3 4.5

Kentucky

Overall 28.6 3.2 22.3 3.0 18.9 2.8 2.1 1.0 28.1 3.2 49.3 3.3 16.4 2.5 10.5 2.0 2.0 0.9 21.8 2.7Never 33.1 4.8 24.4 4.4 16.0 3.8 1.7 1.3 24.8 4.4 51.9 4.6 16.9 3.5 9.7 2.7 1.7 1.2 19.8 3.7Current 19.2 5.1 22.6 5.4 24.0 5.5 2.1 1.8 32.1 6.0 43.1 6.1 17.1 4.7 11.0 3.9 2.3 1.9 26.4 5.4Former 32.3 7.4 17.. 6.0 18.0 6.1 2.8 2.6 29.8 7.3 51.3 7.4 14.2 5.2 11.7 4.8 2.4 2.3 20.5 6.0

Louisiana

Overall 39.3 3.8 15.9 2.9 13.0 2.6 2.0 1.1 29.7 3.6 56.6 3.3 10.7 2.1 10.5 2.1 1.6 0.8 20.7 2.7Never 43.1 5.2 16.5 3.9 11.3 3.3 1.9 1.4 27.1 4.6 60.1 4.4 10.3 2.7 8.7 2.5 0.6 0.7 20.2 3.6Current 31.6 7.1 16.4 5.6 16.2 5.6 2.4 2.3 33.5 7.2 45.2 6.5 13.1 4.4 12.8 4.4 3.3 2.3 25.6 5.7Former 39.0 9.0 13.3 6.3 13.6 6.3 1.6 2.3 32.5 8.7 62.4 8.1 8.4 4.7 13.1 5.6 2.0 2.3 14.1 5.8

Extent of Workplace Smoking Restrictions

State/ 1992/93 1995/96

Table 4 (Continued)Smoking Smoke-free Strong Moderate Weak None Smoke-free Strong Moderate Weak NoneStatus % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
226

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Maine Overall 55.7 3.3 17.3 2.5 12.1 2.2 0.5 0.5 14.4 2.3 73.4 3.1 7.9 1.9 10.0 2.1 0.8 0.6 7.8 1.8 Never 63.5 4.7 14.0 3.4 9.3 2.8 . . 13.2 3.3 78.5 4.0 5.2 2.2 9.7 2.9 0.7 0.8 5.9 2.3 Current 41.7 6.0 24.2 5.2 14.9 4.4 1.3 1.4 17.9 4.7 60.8 6.7 14.0 4.8 13.5 4.7 . . 11.8 4.4 Former 58.2 6.9 14.9 5.0 14.1 4.9 0.5 1.0 12.4 4.6 76.3 6.0 7.1 3.6 7.2 3.6 2.1 2.0 7.4 3.6 Maryland Overall 52.9 3.2 19.4 2.5 11.6 2.1 0.9 0.6 15.2 2.3 83.2 2.3 5.7 1.4 5.0 1.3 0.4 0.4 5.7 1.4 Never 56.5 4.3 21.3 3.5 8.5 2.4 1.2 0.9 12.5 2.9 83.5 3.0 6.5 2.0 4.5 1.7 0.6 0.6 4.9 1.7 Current 44.1 6.5 19.5 5.2 14.9 4.6 0.9 1.2 20.6 5.3 79.2 5.6 4.2 2.8 7.8 3.7 . . 8.8 3.9 Former 53.8 7.1 14.2 5.0 16.1 5.2 . . 15.9 5.2 86.2 4.5 4.6 2.8 3.8 2.5 . . 5.1 2.9 Massachusetts Overall 48.7 1.6 19.8 1.3 14.2 1.1 1.4 0.4 15.9 1.2 71.1 1.8 8.3 1.1 7.6 1.1 0.6 0.3 12.4 1.3

Never 52.4 2.3 19.3 1.8 13.3 1.6 0.9 0.4 14.1 1.6 73.8 2.4 6.6 1.4 7.1 1.4 0.8 0.5 11.7 1.8Current 40.0 3.4 21.7 2.8 15.8 2.5 2.3 1.0 20.2 2.8 63.3 4.3 10.3 2.7 10.5 2.7 0.3 0.5 15.5 3.2Former 49.2 3.2 18.9 2.5 14.6 2.2 1.6 0.8 15.7 2.3 71.5 3.6 10.3 2.4 6.4 1.9 0.4 0.5 11.4 2.5

Michigan

Overall 39.6 1.6 21.8 1.4 17.0 1.3 2.7 0.5 18.9 1.3 53.1 1.8 14.0 1.3 12.4 1.2 2.3 0.5 18.0 1.4Never 44.8 2.4 22.4 2.0 15.7 1.7 1.6 0.6 15.5 1.7 58.4 2.5 13.1 1.7 11.3 1.6 1.6 0.6 15.7 1.8Current 29.4 2.9 22.2 2.6 19.9 2.5 4.1 1.2 24.5 2.7 43.6 3.4 15.8 2.5 14.2 2.4 3.4 1.2 23.1 3.2Former 41.0 3.5 19.9 2.8 16.3 2.6 3.3 1.3 19.5 2.8 52.9 3.9 14.0 2.7 12.8 2.6 2.9 1.3 17.3 3.0

Minnesota

Overall 54.5 3.1 18.1 2.4 11.5 2.0 1.5 0.8 14.4 2.2 67.9 2.8 11.0 1.9 8.6 1.7 0.6 0.5 12.0 2.0Never 60.1 4.2 15.4 3.1 10.8 2.6 1.3 1.0 12.4 2.8 72.6 3.7 10.5 2.5 5.9 1.9 0.4 0.5 10.7 2.6Current 40.0 5.9 25.0 5.2 14.5 4.2 1.5 1.5 19.0 4.7 55.7 6.1 12.2 4.0 13.1 4.2 1.2 1.4 17.7 4.7Former 59.0 6.6 16.0 4.9 9.5 4.0 2.0 1.9 13.5 4.6 69.6 5.8 10.8 3.9 10.1 3.8 0.6 1.0 9.0 3.6

Extent of Workplace Smoking Restrictions

State/ 1992/93 1995/96

Table 4 (Continued)Smoking Smoke-free Strong Moderate Weak None Smoke-free Strong Moderate Weak NoneStatus % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
227

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Mississippi

Overall 40.3 3.6 21.0 3.0 10.8 2.3 1.8 1.0 26.2 3.2 54.2 3.3 11.1 2.1 7.8 1.8 1.4 0.8 25.6 2.9Never 44.0 4.6 20.1 3.7 9.9 2.8 1.5 1.1 24.5 4.0 58.2 4.2 10.7 2.6 6.2 2.0 0.8 0.8 24.1 3.6Current 28.3 6.5 25.7 6.3 12.8 4.8 2.6 2.3 30.6 6.7 43.6 6.9 11.3 4.4 10.0 4.2 3.5 2.6 31.7 6.5Former 45.6 9.8 16.0 7.2 10.7 6.1 1.5 2.4 26.2 8.7 53.3 8.3 12.5 5.5 10.9 5.2 0.7 1.4 22.6 7.0

Missouri

Overall 39.1 3.4 22.4 2.9 16.9 2.6 3.3 1.2 18.3 2.7 58.5 3.0 15.1 2.2 10.8 1.9 1.2 0.7 14.4 2.2Never 45.4 4.7 24.5 4.1 11.7 3.0 3.0 1.6 15.3 3.4 65.5 4.0 12.9 2.8 8.9 2.4 0.6 0.7 12.1 2.8Current 27.5 5.9 20.2 5.3 23.8 5.6 5.0 2.9 23.4 5.6 45.5 5.9 19.3 4.7 13.2 4.0 3.1 2.1 18.9 4.6Former 38.0 7.4 20.0 6.1 21.1 6.3 2.0 2.1 19.0 6.0 57.6 6.8 14.9 4.9 12.5 4.6 0.4 0.8 14.6 4.9

Montana

Overall 43.7 3.6 17.3 2.7 11.6 2.3 1.5 0.9 26.0 3.2 58.8 3.4 9.5 2.1 8.6 2.0 1.6 0.9 21.5 2.9Never 46.6 4.9 18.5 3.8 9.7 2.9 1.4 1.2 23.8 4.2 63.0 4.7 9.8 2.9 6.5 2.4 1.5 1.2 19.2 3.8Current 36.2 6.9 14.0 5.0 17.7 5.5 1.0 1.5 31.0 6.7 48.8 6.9 10.1 4.2 10.0 4.1 2.5 2.1 28.5 6.2Former 45.1 7.8 18.1 6.1 8.9 4.5 2.2 2.3 25.7 6.9 60.5 7.3 8.2 4.1 11.7 4.8 1.0 1.5 18.7 5.9

Nebraska

Overall 44.4 3.0 20.9 2.5 13.2 2.1 1.3 0.7 20.2 2.4 63.6 2.9 9.7 1.8 10.4 1.9 0.8 0.5 15.5 2.2Never 47.8 4.0 19.6 3.2 12.0 2.6 0.7 0.7 19.9 3.2 66.6 3.7 8.4 2.2 9.3 2.3 0.6 0.6 15.1 2.8Current 33.6 5.9 25.9 5.4 17.9 4.8 2.6 2.0 20.1 5.0 55.4 6.2 10.1 3.8 14.0 4.3 0.6 0.9 20.0 5.0Former 47.6 7.0 18.7 5.4 11.2 4.4 1.6 1.7 21.0 5.7 64.3 6.9 13.3 4.9 9.6 4.3 1.8 1.9 11.1 4.5

Nevada

Overall 33.8 3.0 18.6 2.5 20.7 2.6 4.4 1.3 22.5 2.7 40.5 3.1 20.8 2.6 17.5 2.4 4.1 1.2 17.1 2.4Never 35.8 4.3 19.8 3.6 19.3 3.6 4.4 1.8 20.7 3.6 41.1 4.2 21.7 3.5 17.2 3.2 3.9 1.7 16.0 3.1

Current 23.6 4.9 18.2 4.5 25.9 5.1 5.5 2.7 26.8 5.1 33.3 5.7 23.3 5.1 17.4 4.6 5.2 2.7 20.9 4.9Former 44.7 7.2 15.8 5.3 16.2 5.4 2.9 2.4 20.3 5.8 49.7 7.5 14.4 5.3 18.5 5.9 2.8 2.5 14.5 5.3

Extent of Workplace Smoking Restrictions

State/ 1992/93 1995/96

Table 4 (Continued)Smoking Smoke-free Strong Moderate Weak None Smoke-free Strong Moderate Weak NoneStatus % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
228

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 New Hampshire Overall 53.3 3.5 18.3 2.7 10.7 2.1 1.0 0.7 16.7 2.6 72.9 3.1 9.6 2.0 5.3 1.6 1.4 0.8 10.8 2.2 Never 52.7 5.0 18.9 3.9 10.7 3.1 0.7 0.9 16.9 3.8 75.8 4.3 8.9 2.8 3.3 1.8 1.0 1.0 11.0 3.1 Current 49.4 7.0 22.1 5.8 10.4 4.3 0.5 1.0 17.6 5.3 64.0 6.3 13.6 4.5 9.7 3.9 1.9 1.8 10.9 4.1 Former 57.9 6.5 13.8 4.6 11.0 4.1 1.8 1.7 15.5 4.8 77.5 6.0 6.5 3.5 4.2 2.9 1.4 1.7 10.4 4.3 New Jersey Overall 46.3 1.6 18.2 1.3 13.0 1.1 1.1 0.3 21.4 1.3 68.0 1.7 8.4 1.0 8.2 1.0 1.0 0.4 14.5 1.3 Never 47.7 2.2 18.5 1.7 12.0 1.4 0.7 0.4 21.3 1.8 68.8 2.2 8.6 1.3 7.6 1.3 0.9 0.5 14.2 1.7 Current 39.9 3.4 19.5 2.8 15.1 2.5 1.9 1.0 23.5 3.0 61.2 3.9 9.8 2.4 10.5 2.5 1.0 0.8 17.5 3.0 Former 49.7 3.4 16.3 2.5 13.2 2.3 1.3 0.8 19.6 2.7 72.2 3.5 6.5 1.9 7.5 2.1 1.5 0.9 12.3 2.6 New Mexico Overall 55.3 3.5 13.9 2.5 10.7 2.2 1.2 0.8 19.0 2.8 65.5 3.3 10.2 2.1 9.5 2.1 0.9 0.6 13.9 2.4

Never 59.4 4.7 14.9 3.4 10.1 2.9 0.4 0.6 15.3 3.5 66.7 4.4 11.6 3.0 7.4 2.4 0.8 0.8 13.5 3.2Current 42.3 7.2 13.3 5.0 12.1 4.8 2.8 2.4 29.5 6.7 58.4 6.8 7.8 3.7 13.4 4.7 1.1 1.4 19.4 5.5Former 59.1 7.4 12.1 4.9 10.4 4.6 1.5 1.8 16.9 5.6 72.0 7.6 9.5 5.0 11.1 5.3 0.6 1.3 6.7 4.2

New York

Overall 42.7 1.3 19.9 1.0 18.4 1.0 0.9 0.2 18.2 1.0 64.6 1.3 9.3 0.8 10.0 0.8 1.0 0.3 15.2 1.0Never 44.5 1.8 19.6 1.4 16.3 1.3 0.7 0.3 18.8 1.4 66.5 1.7 8.4 1.0 9.3 1.1 0.9 0.4 14.9 1.3Current 37.7 2.6 20.4 2.2 21.3 2.2 1.1 0.6 19.6 2.1 58.2 2.9 10.8 1.9 11.6 1.9 1.0 0.6 18.3 2.3Former 43.7 2.7 19.9 2.2 20.1 2.2 1.0 0.5 15.2 2.0 65.9 2.9 10.2 1.8 10.3 1.9 0.9 0.6 12.8 2.0

North Carolina

Overall 31.0 1.5 25.7 1.4 15.7 1.2 2.1 0.5 25.5 1.4 54.7 2.1 15.4 1.5 12.1 1.4 1.7 0.5 16.1 1.5Never 34.8 2.1 26.4 1.9 14.4 1.5 1.4 0.5 23.1 1.9 59.1 2.7 14.0 1.9 11.5 1.8 1.5 0.7 13.9 1.9Current 22.4 2.5 26.8 2.6 18.3 2.3 3.2 1.0 29.2 2.7 42.3 4.1 18.6 3.2 16.4 3.1 2.6 1.3 20.2 3.3Former 33.6 3.4 22.3 3.0 15.3 2.6 2.3 1.1 26.5 3.2 58.4 4.9 15.7 3.6 7.7 2.6 1.0 1.0 17.3 3.7

Extent of Workplace Smoking Restrictions

State/ 1992/93 1995/96

Table 4 (Continued)Smoking Smoke-free Strong Moderate Weak None Smoke-free Strong Moderate Weak NoneStatus % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
229

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

North Dakota

Overall 47.5 3.4 15.4 2.5 12.1 2.2 2.1 1.0 22.9 2.9 61.0 3.3 7.1 1.7 8.8 1.9 1.4 0.8 21.8 2.8Never 50.9 4.6 15.0 3.3 11.1 2.9 1.5 1.1 21.6 3.8 64.7 4.4 6.8 2.3 6.3 2.2 0.8 0.8 21.5 3.8Current 39.6 6.5 16.7 5.0 13.5 4.6 3.7 2.5 26.6 5.9 50.8 6.7 9.5 3.9 13.0 4.5 1.5 1.6 25.2 5.8Former 48.6 7.6 14.8 5.4 13.3 5.2 1.6 1.9 21.8 6.3 64.0 7.5 4.5 3.2 10.5 4.8 2.8 2.6 18.1 6.0

Ohio

Overall 37.9 1.6 21.9 1.3 16.6 1.2 2.4 0.5 21.2 1.3 56.6 1.7 13.7 1.2 10.5 1.1 2.2 0.5 17.0 1.3Never 42.0 2.2 20.9 1.8 15.7 1.6 2.0 0.6 19.3 1.8 61.9 2.3 11.6 1.5 9.5 1.4 1.8 0.6 15.2 1.7Current 29.1 2.8 23.9 2.7 18.4 2.4 3.0 1.1 25.5 2.7 46.1 3.4 17.4 2.6 11.8 2.2 2.5 1.1 22.2 2.8Former 38.8 3.5 21.8 3.0 16.3 2.6 2.9 1.2 20.3 2.9 56.9 4.0 14.3 2.8 11.4 2.5 2.4 1.2 14.9 2.8

Oklahoma

Overall 41.5 3.3 16.8 2.5 19.4 2.7 1.6 0.8 20.7 2.7 58.0 3.2 10.8 2.0 12.7 2.2 1.5 0.8 17.0 2.4Never 47.2 4.5 17.6 3.4 16.1 3.3 1.3 1.0 17.8 3.4 63.5 4.1 8.6 2.4 11.3 2.7 1.1 0.9 15.4 3.1Current 29.3 6.0 16.8 5.0 23.9 5.7 2.9 2.2 27.2 5.9 48.6 6.3 15.4 4.5 14.9 4.5 2.4 1.9 18.8 4.9Former 41.4 7.8 14.3 5.6 23.0 6.7 0.7 1.3 20.6 6.4 53.8 8.1 11.0 5.1 13.9 5.6 1.5 2.0 19.7 6.4

Oregon

Overall 59.9 3.5 13.0 2.4 10.1 2.1 0.9 0.7 16.2 2.6 66.9 3.2 11.8 2.2 9.1 1.9 0.6 0.5 11.6 2.2Never 63.4 4.7 13.6 3.3 7.8 2.6 0.3 0.5 14.9 3.5 70.5 4.1 11.5 2.9 6.5 2.2 0.1 0.3 11.2 2.8Current 51.7 7.3 12.2 4.8 13.2 5.0 1.6 1.9 21.3 6.0 56.9 7.2 11.4 4.6 16.0 5.3 1.5 1.8 14.2 5.1Former 60.6 7.2 12.3 4.8 12.2 4.8 1.6 1.8 13.9 5.1 67.3 6.6 12.9 4.7 8.7 4.0 0.9 1.3 10.2 4.3

Pennsylvania

Overall 42.2 1.6 20.6 1.3 15.0 1.2 1.8 0.4 20.3 1.3 59.9 1.7 12.2 1.1 11.0 1.1 1.3 0.4 15.5 1.3Never 47.9 2.3 19.0 1.8 13.3 1.5 1.4 0.5 18.4 1.8 63.2 2.4 12.3 1.6 9.1 1.4 1.4 0.6 14.1 1.7Current 30.6 3.0 24.3 2.8 17.6 2.5 3.0 1.1 24.4 2.8 51.3 3.4 13.6 2.4 14.4 2.4 1.4 0.8 19.2 2.7Former 41.6 3.5 20.5 2.9 16.2 2.6 1.5 0.9 20.2 2.8 62.4 3.6 10.6 2.3 11.5 2.3 1.1 0.8 14.3 2.6

Extent of Workplace Smoking Restrictions

State/ 1992/93 1995/96

Table 4 (Continued)Smoking Smoke-free Strong Moderate Weak None Smoke-free Strong Moderate Weak NoneStatus % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
230

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Rhode Island Overall 44.9 3.5 24.6 3.0 11.2 2.2 0.9 0.7 18.5 2.7 69.6 3.1 7.8 1.8 6.3 1.7 1.1 0.7 15.2 2.4 Never 49.2 4.9 23.5 4.2 9.5 2.9 0.4 0.7 17.3 3.7 70.5 4.3 6.6 2.3 4.7 2.0 0.3 0.5 17.9 3.6 Current 34.3 6.8 25.5 6.2 15.4 5.2 1.3 1.6 23.4 6.1 66.8 6.3 11.1 4.2 5.2 3.0 2.1 1.9 14.8 4.7 Former 46.2 6.8 25.6 5.9 10.4 4.1 1.3 1.5 16.5 5.0 70.7 6.7 6.7 3.7 11.8 4.8 1.7 1.9 9.2 4.3 South Carolina Overall 37.7 2.8 23.9 2.5 14.8 2.1 1.6 0.7 22.0 2.4 58.8 3.1 16.0 2.3 9.7 1.8 1.1 0.6 14.5 2.2 Never 40.2 3.9 25.1 3.4 13.0 2.7 1.7 1.0 20.0 3.2 62.7 4.0 16.7 3.1 7.8 2.2 0.2 0.4 12.5 2.7 Current 30.7 5.2 22.5 4.7 18.5 4.4 0.8 1.0 27.5 5.1 49.2 5.9 18.1 4.6 11.4 3.8 2.8 2.0 18.4 4.6 Former 40.5 6.8 22.2 5.7 14.6 4.9 2.3 2.1 20.3 5.5 61.7 7.7 9.4 4.6 13.3 5.4 1.1 1.7 14.5 5.6 South Dakota Overall 43.8 3.2 18.2 2.5 13.2 2.2 1.3 0.7 23.5 2.7 62.3 3.0 10.7 1.9 9.5 1.8 0.8 0.6 16.7 2.3

Never 46.6 4.4 19.1 3.5 13.3 3.0 1.3 1.0 19.7 3.5 68.2 3.9 7.6 2.2 8.8 2.4 0.6 0.6 14.9 3.0Current 35.4 5.8 18.3 4.7 14.5 4.2 1.8 1.6 30.0 5.5 46.9 6.4 17.5 4.9 12.4 4.2 1.2 1.4 21.9 5.3Former 48.4 7.5 15.8 5.4 11.0 4.7 0.7 1.2 24.3 6.4 64.0 6.8 11.3 4.5 7.9 3.8 1.1 1.5 15.8 5.2

Tennessee

Overall 36.2 3.1 25.9 2.9 12.7 2.2 2.4 1.0 22.8 2.7 53.5 3.1 15.8 2.3 9.4 1.8 2.0 0.9 19.3 2.4Never 39.3 4.4 25.3 3.9 12.0 2.9 2.8 1.5 20.6 3.6 59.0 4.2 14.7 3.0 9.0 2.4 0.7 0.7 16.6 3.1Current 31.4 5.6 25.3 5.2 14.5 4.2 0.9 1.1 28.0 5.4 42.2 5.8 17.1 4.4 10.5 3.6 3.7 2.2 26.5 5.2Former 34.6 7.5 29.1 7.1 11.7 5.1 3.6 2.9 20.9 6.4 54.2 7.1 17.3 5.4 9.0 4.1 3.2 2.5 16.3 5.3

Texas

Overall 51.2 1.7 17.4 1.3 12.5 1.1 1.5 0.4 17.4 1.3 64.8 1.6 10.3 1.0 8.2 0.9 1.5 0.4 15.2 1.2Never 54.8 2.3 17.0 1.7 11.3 1.4 1.1 0.5 15.8 1.7 67.6 2.0 10.4 1.3 6.8 1.1 1.4 0.5 13.8 1.5Current 41.3 3.5 18.0 2.7 15.7 2.6 2.1 1.0 22.8 3.0 56.4 3.4 10.7 2.1 11.6 2.2 1.9 0.9 19.4 2.7

Former 52.5 4.1 17.7 3.1 12.3 2.7 2.2 1.2 15.2 2.9 67.2 3.9 9.5 2.4 8.0 2.3 1.2 0.9 14.1 2.9

Extent of Workplace Smoking Restrictions

State/ 1992/93 1995/96

Table 4 (Continued)Smoking Smoke-free Strong Moderate Weak None Smoke-free Strong Moderate Weak NoneStatus % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
231

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Utah

Overall 65.4 3.0 15.1 2.2 8.8 1.8 0.5 0.4 10.3 1.9 83.7 2.2 4.3 1.2 3.2 1.1 0.4 0.4 8.4 1.7Never 68.9 3.5 13.7 2.6 7.0 1.9 0.4 0.5 10.0 2.3 84.7 2.6 3.6 1.3 3.2 1.3 0.5 0.5 8.0 1.9Current 48.7 7.6 20.4 6.1 14.1 5.3 0.9 1.4 15.9 5.6 78.0 6.3 7.7 4.1 3.0 2.6 . . 11.3 4.8Former 68.4 7.4 15.2 5.7 10.8 4.9 0.5 1.1 5.1 3.5 85.3 6.1 3.9 3.4 2.9 2.9 0.7 1.5 7.2 4.5

Vermont

Overall 58.7 3.4 14.4 2.4 11.3 2.2 1.2 0.7 14.4 2.4 78.9 2.7 5.6 1.5 6.5 1.6 0.6 0.5 8.4 1.9Never 62.1 4.9 16.3 3.7 10.2 3.0 0.5 0.7 10.9 3.1 83.6 3.5 4.9 2.1 5.1 2.1 . . 6.4 2.3Current 46.3 6.7 15.0 4.8 15.0 4.8 2.3 2.0 21.5 5.5 72.7 6.1 7.7 3.6 7.5 3.6 1.5 1.6 10.6 4.2Former 64.8 6.3 10.7 4.1 9.6 3.9 1.4 1.6 13.5 4.5 75.8 5.5 5.1 2.8 8.1 3.5 0.9 1.2 10.1 3.9

Virginia

Overall 43.8 2.8 18.3 2.2 16.5 2.1 1.8 0.7 19.7 2.2 62.6 2.8 12.6 1.9 9.3 1.7 1.2 0.6 14.2 2.0Never 45.1 3.8 19.9 3.1 13.8 2.6 1.1 0.8 20.2 3.1 67.4 3.7 12.5 2.6 7.7 2.1 1.5 1.0 10.9 2.4Current 36.9 5.2 18.5 4.2 19.8 4.3 1.5 1.3 22.3 4.6 52.3 5.9 13.8 4.1 11.6 3.8 0.5 0.8 21.8 4.9Former 49.3 6.2 13.8 4.2 19.2 4.8 3.9 2.4 13.7 4.2 61.8 6.3 11.7 4.2 10.9 4.0 1.2 1.4 14.4 4.6

Washington

Overall 68.3 3.0 10.4 2.0 9.4 1.9 0.4 0.4 11.6 2.1 73.2 3.0 8.0 1.9 6.7 1.7 1.0 0.7 11.1 2.2Never 73.7 4.0 10.7 2.8 6.2 2.2 0.2 0.4 9.2 2.6 76.2 3.9 6.6 2.3 6.1 2.2 0.8 0.8 10.3 2.8Current 58.9 6.4 11.3 4.1 12.1 4.3 1.0 1.3 16.7 4.9 63.4 6.8 9.3 4.1 9.9 4.2 1.6 1.7 15.8 5.1Former 66.6 6.1 8.9 3.7 13.3 4.4 . . 11.3 4.1 76.2 6.4 10.3 4.6 4.7 3.2 1.0 1.5 7.7 4.0

West Virginia

Overall 38.6 3.9 18.8 3.1 14.1 2.8 1.7 1.1 26.8 3.6 58.9 3.4 12.7 2.3 11.2 2.2 1.3 0.8 15.9 2.6Never 43.0 5.5 20.4 4.5 13.3 3.8 0.8 1.0 22.5 4.6 63.9 4.5 12.8 3.1 8.4 2.6 1.0 0.9 13.9 3.3Current 28.3 6.4 17.2 5.4 13.2 4.8 2.8 2.3 38.6 6.9 48.7 6.9 13.0 4.6 15.8 5.0 2.1 2.0 20.3 5.5Former 44.9 10.1 16.5 7.5 18.3 7.8 2.8 3.3 17.6 7.7 58.1 7.8 12.4 5.2 12.8 5.3 1.0 1.6 15.7 5.8

Extent of Workplace Smoking Restrictions

State/ 1992/93 1995/96

Table 4 (Continued)Smoking Smoke-free Strong Moderate Weak None Smoke-free Strong Moderate Weak NoneStatus % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
232

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Wisconsin Overall 43.8 2.9 19.7 2.3 12.9 2.0 2.2 0.9 21.4 2.4 62.0 2.9 12.3 1.9 9.5 1.7 0.9 0.6 15.3 2.1 Never 49.3 4.2 18.0 3.2 11.3 2.7 1.7 1.1 19.7 3.3 63.7 3.9 11.6 2.6 8.2 2.2 0.5 0.6 16.0 3.0 Current 33.0 5.3 22.2 4.6 16.5 4.1 2.3 1.7 26.0 4.9 54.2 5.5 13.3 3.8 13.9 3.8 1.2 1.2 17.4 4.2 Former 45.1 6.1 20.1 4.9 12.0 4.0 3.1 2.1 19.7 4.8 68.7 6.1 12.8 4.4 6.5 3.3 1.4 1.5 10.6 4.1 Wyoming Overall 48.4 4.0 12.7 2.7 15.1 2.9 1.1 0.8 22.7 3.4 61.2 3.6 7.9 2.0 10.9 2.3 1.0 0.7 18.9 2.9 Never 50.7 5.6 13.8 3.8 13.6 3.8 1.0 1.1 20.9 4.5 67.8 4.6 5.6 2.3 7.6 2.6 0.3 0.5 18.7 3.8 Current 43.1 8.0 10.5 4.9 18.0 6.2 1.6 2.0 26.8 7.1 52.3 6.9 11.0 4.3 15.8 5.0 1.2 1.5 19.8 5.5 Former 48.8 8.5 12.7 5.6 15.2 6.1 0.8 1.6 22.5 7.1 54.9 8.7 10.4 5.4 13.5 6.0 3.0 3.0 18.2 6.8 Note: CI = 95% confidence interval; "." = insufficient data.

Source: 1992/93 and 1995/96 Current Population Surveys.*Universe: Individuals included in this table are self-respondent adults only (age 18 and older) whose smoking status can be determined. Theymust work indoors and be employed privately or by local, state, or federal government. They must know if an official workplace smoking policyexists or does not exist, and define that policy for both work and public areas (i.e., smoking is allowed in all areas, allowed in some areas, or notallowed at all).

Extent of Workplace Smoking Restrictions

State/ 1992/93 1995/96

Table 4 (Continued)Smoking Smoke-free Strong Moderate Weak None Smoke-free Strong Moderate Weak NoneStatus % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
TABLE 5 National Prevalence of Smoking Restrictions in the Home as

Reported by Individuals with Different Smoking Status, with Children

under Age 13 in the Home, and with Different Demographic Characteristics

This table presents national percentages of individuals reporting

smoking restrictions in the home nationally and by demographic subgroups.

Overall—The fraction of homes reported to be smoke-free increased

substantially between the two surveys. The percentage of smoke-free homes

rose from 43 percent in the 1992/93 CPS to 53 percent in the 1995/96 CPS,

an increase of nearly 25 percent. Similar increases were seen for all demographic subgroups. Seventeen percent of current smokers report smoke-free

homes in the 1995/96 CPS, an increase from 11 percent in the 1992/93

CPS. Individuals with at least one child under the age of 13 living in the

home report smoke-free homes at slightly higher rates than do those without. This difference related to a child under 13 years of age in the home is

present for current smokers, former smokers, and never-smokers. 

Smoking Status—Nationally, never-smokers report a higher prevalence of smoke-free homes than do former smokers. Current smokers report

smoke-free homes at about 20 to 25 percent of the rate for never-smokers.

Demographic Subgroups—For all survey years, males and females

report smoke-free homes at about the same rates. As education level increases, the fraction of smoke-free homes reported also increases. A similar relationship exists for level of income. Asian/Pacific Islanders report smoke-free

homes more often than any other racial/ethnic group, while Native

Americans report smoke-free homes least often. 

233

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results
234

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Overall 43.1 0.2 26.0 0.2 30.9 0.2 53.3 0.3 22.2 0.2 24.5 0.2 Smoking Status Never 57.3 0.3 24.9 0.3 17.9 0.3 68.0 0.3 19.2 0.3 12.8 0.2 Current 11.0 0.3 26.3 0.4 62.7 0.5 16.8 0.4 27.8 0.5 55.4 0.5 Former 45.0 0.5 28.2 0.5 26.8 0.5 56.2 0.5 23.6 0.5 20.2 0.4 In homes with a child <13 years of age 46.2 0.4 27.6 0.4 26.2 0.4 57.1 0.5 23.0 0.4 19.9 0.4

Smoking Status

Never 61.0 0.6 24.3 0.5 14.7 0.4 71.9 0.5 17.8 0.5 10.3 0.4Current 13.7 0.6 32.9 0.8 53.4 0.8 21.3 0.7 33.8 0.9 44.9 0.9Former 49.5 1.0 29.5 0.9 21.1 0.8 61.6 1.1 24.0 0.9 14.4 0.8

Gender

Male 42.7 0.4 24.8 0.3 32.4 0.3 52.6 0.4 21.4 0.3 26.0 0.3Female 43.4 0.3 27.0 0.3 29.6 0.3 53.9 0.4 23.0 0.3 23.1 0.3

Age (Years)

18–24 42.9 0.7 25.4 0.6 31.7 0.6 52.4 0.7 22.0 0.6 25.7 0.625–44 43.7 0.4 26.7 0.3 29.6 0.3 54.2 0.4 22.7 0.3 23.1 0.345–64 40.4 0.5 25.6 0.4 34.0 0.5 50.9 0.5 22.1 0.4 26.9 0.465+ 45.9 0.6 25.1 0.5 28.9 0.6 55.5 0.6 21.4 0.5 23.0 0.5

In the Home, Smoking Is Allowed

1992/93 1995/96

Some Some 

Nowhere Places/Times Anywhere Nowhere Places/Times Anywhere

% CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI

Table 5National Prevalence of Smoking Restrictions in the Home as Reported by Individuals with Different Smoking Status, withChildren under Age 13 in the Home, and with Different Demographic Characteristics*—1992/93 and 1995/96
235

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Race/Ethnicity

Non-Hispanic White 41.4 0.3 25.5 0.2 33.0 0.3 51.6 0.3 22.0 0.2 26.4 0.3Hispanic 56.4 1.1 25.1 1.0 18.5 0.9 66.2 1.1 19.5 0.9 14.2 0.8African-American 39.2 0.7 30.5 0.7 30.2 0.7 49.6 0.8 26.6 0.7 23.8 0.7Asian/Pacific Islander 62.0 1.4 23.7 1.3 14.4 1.0 71.0 1.3 19.0 1.1 10.0 0.9Native American 34.8 3.0 25.6 2.7 39.6 3.1 41.9 2.9 26.3 2.6 31.7 2.7Other† 60.8 6.9 23.1 6.0 16.2 5.2 . . . . . .

Maximum Level of Education

<12 Years 37.4 0.6 25.1 0.5 37.5 0.6 46.0 0.6 22.6 0.5 31.3 0.612 Years 36.4 0.4 26.8 0.4 36.7 0.4 46.5 0.4 23.7 0.4 29.8 0.413–15 Years 45.3 0.5 26.5 0.4 28.2 0.4 54.7 0.5 22.6 0.4 22.7 0.416+ Years 56.6 0.5 24.7 0.5 18.7 0.4 67.2 0.5 19.3 0.4 13.6 0.4

Household Income

< $10,000 36.9 0.6 25.5 0.6 37.6 0.7 45.8 0.8 22.8 0.6 31.4 0.7$10,000–$19,999 38.5 0.6 25.9 0.5 35.6 0.6 48.2 0.7 22.8 0.6 29.1 0.6$20,000–$29,999 40.8 0.6 25.9 0.5 33.3 0.6 49.1 0.7 23.2 0.6 27.7 0.6$30,000– $49,999 43.7 0.5 26.5 0.4 29.9 0.5 53.4 0.5 22.4 0.5 24.2 0.5$50,000–$74,999 48.5 0.7 26.6 0.6 24.9 0.6 57.7 0.7 22.4 0.6 19.8 0.5$75,000 + 55.0 0.8 25.2 0.7 19.8 0.7 66.3 0.7 19.7 0.6 14.0 0.5Unknown 46.2 1.1 25.3 1.0 28.5 1.0 54.4 0.9 21.4 0.8 24.3 0.8

Table 5 (Continued)

Note: CI = 95% confidence interval.Source: 1992/93 and 1995/96 Current Population Surveys.*Universe: This table reflects what individuals report about the smoking rules in their home. It does not show the rules for wholehouseholds, but rather the rules as reported by each individual. Individuals included in this table are self-respondent adults only(age 18 and older) whose smoking status can be determined. They must define the smoking rules for their home (i.e., smoking isallowed in all areas, allowed in some places or at some times, or not allowed at all). For the "homes with children" insert, only individuals who live in a home where at least one child under the age of 13 also lives are included. †No data for 1995/96; all racial/ethnic groups were classified for this survey series.

In the Home, Smoking Is Allowed

1992/93 1995/96

Some Some 

Nowhere Places/Times Anywhere Nowhere Places/Times Anywhere

% CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
TABLE 6 State-Specific Prevalence of Reported Smoking Restrictions in the

Home by Smoking Status

This table presents the percentage of individuals reporting different

levels of restrictions in their homes by state and by smoking status within

each state.

Overall—All states showed increases in the percentage of homes

reported to be smoke-free between the 1992/93 and 1995/96 CPS. This was

also true for each smoking status group, although some states (Mississippi

and Maine, for example) had very small increases for current smokers. Utah

had the highest fraction of homes reported to be smoke-free, while

Kentucky had the lowest fraction, for both survey years. Only one state

reported at least 60 percent of homes to be smoke-free in the 1992/93 CPS,

while 10 states could claim this rate in the 1995/96 CPS. The maps in

Figures 4 and 5 show the percentages of people from each state who reported smoke-free homes. The map in Figure 6 shows the absolute change in

percentages of people who reported smoke-free homes from the 1992/93

CPS to the 1995/96 CPS. Tennessee has the greatest change in reported

smoke-free homes, with an increase of 41 percent, from 32 percent in the

1992/93 CPS to 45 percent in the 1995/96 CPS. In the 1992/93 CPS, Utah

had a much higher percentage of smoke-free homes than any other state

(71 percent); California was the next highest state with 59 percent. For the

1995/96 CPS, this large gap had shrunk and the other states appear to be

catching up to Utah.

Current Smokers—While the current smokers in each state still report

low levels of smoke-free homes in the 1995/96 survey, they changed considerably toward increased smoking restrictions in the home from the 1992/93

survey. Most states showed increases of 50 percent or more among current

smokers; 7 states showed percentage increases of over 100 percent.

Washington, D.C. had the greatest change, an increase of 191 percent, from

6 percent in the 1992/93 CPS to 16 percent in the 1995/96 CPS. No state

reported smoke-free homes at a rate of at least 25 percent for current smokers in the 1992/93 CPS, but 6 states did in the 1995/96 CPS. California and

Arizona reported the highest percentages of smoke-free homes in the

1992/93 CPS and the 1995/96 CPS, respectively, and Kentucky reported the

lowest rates of smoke-free homes for both survey years.

237

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results
46.9 - 70.3

40.4* - 46.8

38.7 - 40.4*35.5 - 38.624.1 - 35.4

Percentage of people reporting,"No one is allowed to smoke anywhere":

Data Source: 1992/93 Current Population SurveyNote: States categorized by quintiles

* These quintiles divide at the 0.01 level

Figure 4: Smoking Rules in the Home: 1992/93

238

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
58.2 - 76.0

51.0 - 58.148.9 - 50.946.9 - 48.631.7 - 46.8

Percentage of people reporting,"No one is allowed to smoke anywhere":

Data Source: 1995/96 Current Population SurveyNote: States categorized by quintiles

Figure 5: Smoking Rules in the Home: 1995/96

239

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results
12.2 - 15.0

10.7 - 12.19.9 - 10.68.5 - 9.85.6 - 8.4

Change in percentage ofpeople reporting, "No one isallowed to smoke anywhere":

Data Source: 1992/93 and 1995/96 Current Population SurveysNote: States categorized by quintiles

Figure 6: Change in Smoking Rules in the Home:

1992/93 to 1995/96

240

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
241

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Alabama

Overall 39.1 2.2 22.4 1.9 38.5 2.2 51.8 2.1 19.9 1.7 28.2 1.9Never 51.0 3.1 23.9 2.7 25.2 2.7 64.8 2.7 18.1 2.2 17.2 2.2Current 8.5 2.5 18.6 3.5 72.9 4.0 17.1 3.3 22.5 3.7 60.4 4.3Former 47.3 4.9 23.2 4.1 29.5 4.5 56.5 4.8 22.0 4.0 21.6 3.9

Alaska

Overall 52.5 2.1 23.0 1.8 24.6 1.8 60.6 2.2 21.2 1.8 18.1 1.7Never 70.9 2.9 18.5 2.5 10.6 1.9 77.2 2.6 15.4 2.3 7.5 1.6Current 17.6 3.0 28.9 3.6 53.5 4.0 20.1 3.5 36.1 4.2 43.8 4.3Former 58.9 4.1 24.1 3.6 17.0 3.1 69.4 4.1 17.5 3.4 13.0 3.0

Arizona

Overall 55.8 2.1 19.7 1.6 24.5 1.8 66.1 2.0 16.5 1.5 17.3 1.6Never 71.9 2.6 16.8 2.1 11.3 1.8 80.5 2.2 11.8 1.8 7.7 1.5Current 18.7 3.4 25.1 3.7 56.2 4.3 30.0 3.9 27.0 3.8 43.0 4.2Former 56.2 4.2 20.8 3.4 23.0 3.5 69.8 4.0 16.8 3.2 13.4 2.9

Arkansas

Overall 32.5 2.1 25.3 2.0 42.2 2.2 41.4 2.1 23.3 1.8 35.4 2.0Never 46.4 3.2 28.2 2.9 25.4 2.8 55.9 2.9 21.7 2.4 22.4 2.5Current 6.8 2.1 19.9 3.4 73.2 3.8 10.8 2.5 23.8 3.5 65.4 3.9Former 34.0 4.7 25.7 4.3 40.3 4.8 44.6 4.8 26.7 4.2 28.7 4.3

In the Home, Smoking Is Allowed

1992/93 1995/96

Table 6State-Specific Prevalence of Reported Smoking Restrictions in the Home by Smoking Status*—1992/93 and 1995/96State/ Some Some Smoking Nowhere Places/Times Anywhere Nowhere Places/Times AnywhereStatus % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
242

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 California Overall 58.9 0.8 22.2 0.7 18.8 0.6 68.6 0.8 17.5 0.6 13.9 0.6 Never 71.4 0.9 19.1 0.8 9.5 0.6 79.9 0.9 13.5 0.8 6.6 0.5 Current 21.4 1.5 30.4 1.7 48.2 1.8 30.0 1.8 29.7 1.8 40.3 2.0 Former 59.4 1.7 23.3 1.4 17.3 1.3 69.9 1.7 18.1 1.4 12.1 1.2 Colorado Overall 49.4 2.3 23.5 1.9 27.1 2.0 60.0 2.1 18.3 1.7 21.7 1.8 Never 65.4 3.1 21.6 2.7 13.0 2.2 74.8 2.6 14.7 2.1 10.5 1.8 Current 12.3 3.0 26.2 4.0 61.4 4.5 21.7 3.7 27.2 4.0 51.1 4.5 Former 54.2 4.4 24.4 3.8 21.4 3.6 65.0 4.3 17.4 3.4 17.5 3.4

Connecticut

Overall 44.0 2.3 29.2 2.1 26.8 2.1 54.0 2.3 24.5 2.0 21.6 1.9Never 56.7 3.2 27.7 2.9 15.6 2.4 67.6 3.0 19.7 2.6 12.7 2.2Current 11.2 3.0 34.0 4.6 54.8 4.8 15.7 3.8 32.3 4.8 51.9 5.2Former 49.1 4.7 27.7 4.2 23.2 4.0 56.8 4.4 27.5 4.0 15.7 3.3

Delaware

Overall 40.6 2.2 28.7 2.0 30.8 2.1 50.3 2.3 22.8 1.9 27.0 2.0Never 54.7 3.2 26.9 2.8 18.4 2.5 65.4 3.1 20.0 2.6 14.6 2.3Current 11.6 3.0 27.3 4.1 61.1 4.5 14.3 3.1 27.5 4.0 58.2 4.4Former 40.4 4.4 33.4 4.2 26.2 3.9 57.9 4.6 23.3 3.9 18.8 3.6

District of Columbia

Overall 38.1 2.4 35.2 2.3 26.7 2.2 51.5 2.4 28.6 2.1 19.9 1.9Never 50.5 3.2 34.4 3.1 15.1 2.3 65.2 3.0 24.6 2.7 10.2 1.9Current 5.6 2.3 34.1 4.8 60.3 5.0 16.2 3.7 39.7 4.9 44.2 4.9Former 39.8 5.3 38.7 5.3 21.5 4.4 52.1 5.3 27.4 4.8 20.5 4.3

Table 6 (Continued)

In the Home, Smoking Is Allowed

1992/93 1995/96

State/ Some Some Smoking Nowhere Places/Times Anywhere Nowhere Places/Times AnywhereStatus % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
243

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Florida

Overall 49.2 1.0 22.9 0.8 27.9 0.9 60.5 1.0 17.9 0.8 21.6 0.9Never 64.1 1.4 21.2 1.2 14.7 1.0 75.5 1.3 14.3 1.0 10.1 0.9Current 14.0 1.4 25.7 1.8 60.3 2.0 20.9 1.8 25.7 1.9 53.4 2.2Former 54.0 2.0 23.5 1.7 22.5 1.7 65.4 2.0 18.1 1.6 16.4 1.6

Georgia

Overall 41.6 2.1 24.4 1.8 34.0 2.0 54.3 1.9 21.0 1.6 24.7 1.7Never 54.9 2.9 24.2 2.5 20.8 2.3 67.9 2.4 19.2 2.0 12.9 1.7Current 7.8 2.2 24.2 3.6 68.0 3.9 15.9 3.0 24.1 3.5 60.0 4.0Former 48.4 4.6 25.1 4.0 26.5 4.1 59.0 4.3 22.6 3.6 18.5 3.4

Hawaii

Overall 49.6 2.2 26.3 1.9 24.1 1.9 60.2 2.3 22.4 1.9 17.4 1.8Never 62.8 2.9 24.1 2.5 13.0 2.0 71.0 2.8 19.4 2.4 9.5 1.8Current 16.6 3.4 31.4 4.3 51.9 4.6 26.0 4.5 30.8 4.7 43.2 5.0Former 50.3 4.6 26.3 4.1 23.4 3.9 64.3 4.7 22.2 4.1 13.6 3.4

Idaho

Overall 51.4 2.1 20.1 1.7 28.5 1.9 62.9 2.0 17.5 1.6 19.6 1.7Never 68.6 2.6 17.4 2.2 14.0 2.0 78.8 2.3 13.2 1.9 8.0 1.5Current 13.2 2.9 23.6 3.6 63.2 4.1 20.8 3.7 25.4 3.9 53.8 4.5Former 51.8 4.3 22.7 3.6 25.5 3.8 64.0 4.2 20.4 3.5 15.6 3.2

Illinois

Overall 38.9 1.1 28.6 1.0 32.4 1.1 47.2 1.2 25.3 1.1 27.5 1.1Never 53.2 1.6 27.5 1.4 19.3 1.2 62.5 1.6 22.2 1.4 15.3 1.2Current 9.5 1.3 27.4 2.0 63.1 2.2 12.1 1.6 29.4 2.2 58.4 2.4Former 38.7 2.3 32.5 2.2 28.9 2.1 49.4 2.6 28.2 2.3 22.4 2.1

Table 6 (Continued)

In the Home, Smoking Is Allowed

1992/93 1995/96

State/ Some Some Smoking Nowhere Places/Times Anywhere Nowhere Places/Times AnywhereStatus % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
244

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Indiana Overall 32.8 2.1 29.7 2.0 37.5 2.1 43.4 2.1 22.6 1.8 34.0 2.0 Never 45.6 3.1 31.4 2.9 23.0 2.6 60.3 3.0 23.1 2.5 16.6 2.2 Current 9.3 2.4 26.1 3.7 64.6 4.0 12.1 2.6 19.7 3.1 68.2 3.7 Former 32.9 4.4 30.2 4.3 36.8 4.6 46.7 4.7 25.5 4.1 27.7 4.2 Iowa Overall 36.4 2.1 27.0 1.9 36.6 2.1 49.8 2.2 22.2 1.8 28.0 1.9 Never 49.9 2.9 27.9 2.6 22.2 2.4 63.7 2.8 20.3 2.3 16.0 2.1 Current 6.5 2.1 24.6 3.8 68.9 4.0 12.5 3.0 25.4 4.0 62.0 4.4 Former 36.3 4.4 27.5 4.1 36.2 4.4 53.1 4.6 23.6 3.9 23.3 3.9 Kansas

Overall 40.8 2.1 23.5 1.8 35.8 2.0 47.2 2.2 23.8 1.9 29.0 2.0Never 57.0 2.9 23.9 2.5 19.1 2.3 63.6 2.9 21.2 2.5 15.2 2.2Current 6.1 2.0 21.0 3.4 72.9 3.7 11.3 2.8 28.2 3.9 60.6 4.3Former 42.0 4.3 25.2 3.8 32.8 4.1 49.8 4.9 25.0 4.2 25.2 4.2

Kentucky

Overall 24.4 1.9 22.5 1.8 53.1 2.2 31.8 2.0 22.8 1.8 45.4 2.1Never 38.7 3.2 25.2 2.8 36.1 3.1 47.7 3.1 22.6 2.6 29.7 2.8Current 4.1 1.5 15.1 2.7 80.8 3.0 6.7 1.9 19.5 3.0 73.7 3.4Former 25.5 4.1 28.1 4.2 46.4 4.7 32.3 4.2 27.9 4.1 39.8 4.4

Louisiana

Overall 38.9 2.2 29.4 2.1 31.7 2.1 51.2 2.1 20.2 1.7 28.6 1.9Never 51.0 3.2 30.2 2.9 18.8 2.5 64.0 2.7 19.8 2.3 16.2 2.1Current 11.6 2.9 24.9 3.9 63.5 4.4 20.2 3.4 18.1 3.3 61.7 4.1Former 42.4 4.9 32.8 4.6 24.8 4.2 55.2 4.8 23.8 4.1 20.9 3.9

Table 6 (Continued)

In the Home, Smoking Is Allowed

1992/93 1995/96

State/ Some Some Smoking Nowhere Places/Times Anywhere Nowhere Places/Times AnywhereStatus % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
245

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Maine

Overall 39.4 2.1 26.7 1.9 33.8 2.0 46.9 2.2 26.1 2.0 27.0 2.0Never 57.8 3.3 23.6 2.8 18.6 2.6 66.7 3.1 20.4 2.7 12.9 2.2Current 9.1 2.3 27.1 3.5 63.8 3.8 9.3 2.5 33.2 4.1 57.6 4.3Former 44.0 4.1 31.2 3.8 24.8 3.6 50.9 4.2 28.4 3.8 20.7 3.4

Maryland

Overall 44.2 2.2 26.5 1.9 29.3 2.0 57.3 2.2 23.3 1.9 19.4 1.8Never 59.0 3.0 23.7 2.6 17.4 2.3 71.8 2.7 19.0 2.4 9.2 1.7Current 8.1 2.5 27.8 4.0 64.1 4.3 16.9 3.6 32.2 4.5 50.9 4.8Former 47.7 4.3 30.8 4.0 21.6 3.5 61.0 4.4 24.8 3.9 14.3 3.1

Massachusetts

Overall 40.0 1.1 29.6 1.0 30.5 1.0 50.1 1.4 27.7 1.2 22.3 1.2Never 52.5 1.6 27.8 1.4 19.6 1.3 63.7 1.9 23.9 1.7 12.4 1.3Current 11.5 1.5 31.4 2.2 57.0 2.3 14.6 2.1 34.1 2.9 51.3 3.0Former 41.0 2.0 31.0 1.9 28.0 1.8 52.0 2.6 29.7 2.4 18.4 2.0

Michigan

Overall 34.3 1.1 32.2 1.0 33.5 1.1 45.2 1.2 28.4 1.1 26.4 1.1Never 49.2 1.6 31.0 1.5 19.8 1.3 61.5 1.7 24.7 1.5 13.8 1.2Current 7.4 1.1 31.5 2.0 61.1 2.1 11.0 1.5 33.8 2.3 55.3 2.4Former 35.7 2.2 35.2 2.2 29.2 2.0 48.4 2.6 30.2 2.4 21.4 2.1

Minnesota

Overall 39.0 2.1 29.2 2.0 31.8 2.1 53.9 2.2 22.5 1.8 23.6 1.9Never 55.2 3.1 26.1 2.7 18.7 2.4 68.1 2.8 18.6 2.3 13.3 2.0Current 7.3 2.3 32.1 4.1 60.6 4.3 19.6 3.6 30.4 4.2 50.0 4.5Former 38.8 4.3 32.5 4.1 28.6 4.0 55.6 4.4 23.3 3.7 21.1 3.6

Table 6 (Continued)

In the Home, Smoking Is Allowed

1992/93 1995/96

State/ Some Some Smoking Nowhere Places/Times Anywhere Nowhere Places/Times AnywhereStatus % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
246

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Mississippi Overall 40.1 2.2 28.5 2.0 31.4 2.1 47.5 2.2 23.5 1.8 28.9 2.0 Never 52.3 3.0 30.4 2.8 17.3 2.3 61.6 2.8 23.5 2.4 14.9 2.0 Current 11.2 2.8 23.1 3.7 65.7 4.2 11.3 2.8 22.6 3.7 66.1 4.2 Former 44.7 5.3 30.4 4.9 24.9 4.6 49.5 5.0 24.9 4.3 25.7 4.4 Missouri Overall 33.6 2.1 24.4 1.9 42.0 2.2 40.6 2.1 26.9 1.9 32.6 2.0 Never 47.5 3.2 27.4 2.8 25.2 2.7 56.2 3.1 25.5 2.7 18.3 2.4 Current 7.9 2.3 15.2 3.1 76.9 3.7 9.3 2.5 26.0 3.7 64.6 4.1 Former 33.0 4.4 28.6 4.2 38.4 4.5 42.1 4.5 30.7 4.2 27.2 4.0 Montana

Overall 41.7 2.2 26.7 2.0 31.6 2.1 49.6 2.1 23.5 1.8 26.9 1.9Never 58.1 3.1 24.9 2.7 17.0 2.3 66.1 2.9 19.8 2.5 14.0 2.1Current 8.0 2.4 25.5 3.9 66.5 4.2 13.6 2.9 30.4 3.9 55.9 4.2Former 41.1 4.3 31.3 4.1 27.7 3.9 53.7 4.0 23.5 3.4 22.8 3.4

Nebraska

Overall 39.6 2.0 27.4 1.8 33.0 1.9 49.9 2.1 22.0 1.8 28.1 1.9Never 51.6 2.8 28.6 2.5 19.8 2.2 64.8 2.7 19.3 2.2 15.9 2.0Current 9.7 2.6 23.2 3.7 67.1 4.1 13.6 3.1 24.8 3.9 61.7 4.4Former 40.4 4.3 28.8 4.0 30.9 4.1 46.8 4.8 26.9 4.2 26.2 4.2

Nevada

Overall 43.6 2.1 21.3 1.7 35.1 2.0 53.5 2.1 20.6 1.7 25.9 1.9Never 59.6 2.9 20.8 2.4 19.6 2.4 70.3 2.7 19.3 2.4 10.4 1.8Current 9.9 2.3 21.5 3.1 68.6 3.6 16.9 3.0 24.0 3.5 59.1 4.0Former 53.2 4.3 21.9 3.6 24.8 3.7 61.0 4.5 19.5 3.6 19.5 3.6

Table 6 (Continued)

In the Home, Smoking Is Allowed

1992/93 1995/96

State/ Some Some Smoking Nowhere Places/Times Anywhere Nowhere Places/Times AnywhereStatus % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
247

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

New Hampshire

Overall 37.7 2.3 27.8 2.1 34.5 2.3 52.5 2.4 23.2 2.0 24.3 2.0Never 53.3 3.5 26.7 3.1 20.1 2.8 70.3 3.2 18.5 2.8 11.2 2.2Current 9.6 2.8 30.9 4.4 59.5 4.7 12.6 3.2 30.8 4.4 56.5 4.7Former 37.5 4.1 26.9 3.8 35.6 4.1 58.9 4.2 23.9 3.6 17.2 3.2

New Jersey

Overall 44.7 1.1 28.0 1.0 27.3 1.0 53.7 1.2 24.8 1.1 21.4 1.0Never 58.5 1.5 24.9 1.3 16.7 1.1 66.3 1.6 22.4 1.4 11.4 1.1Current 11.9 1.5 31.1 2.2 57.1 2.3 18.9 2.2 31.6 2.6 49.5 2.8Former 43.3 2.1 32.0 2.0 24.7 1.9 54.9 2.5 24.7 2.2 20.4 2.1

New Mexico

Overall 46.6 2.1 23.9 1.8 29.5 1.9 53.2 2.1 21.2 1.7 25.5 1.8Never 61.1 2.9 22.3 2.5 16.6 2.2 68.2 2.7 17.8 2.2 14.0 2.0Current 14.2 3.0 23.9 3.7 61.9 4.2 18.5 3.2 27.8 3.7 53.6 4.2Former 48.8 4.2 27.0 3.8 24.3 3.6 57.3 4.3 21.7 3.6 21.0 3.5

New York

Overall 40.6 0.8 31.4 0.8 28.0 0.7 51.1 0.9 26.1 0.8 22.8 0.8Never 53.7 1.1 29.4 1.0 16.9 0.8 65.2 1.2 23.0 1.0 11.8 0.8Current 9.1 1.0 33.8 1.7 57.2 1.7 15.0 1.4 33.3 1.8 51.7 1.9Former 40.4 1.7 33.8 1.6 25.8 1.5 51.5 1.9 26.6 1.7 21.9 1.6

North Carolina

Overall 34.0 1.0 25.0 0.9 41.1 1.0 44.1 1.4 24.2 1.2 31.7 1.3Never 46.2 1.5 26.7 1.3 27.0 1.3 57.3 1.9 23.5 1.7 19.2 1.5Current 9.3 1.2 20.2 1.6 70.5 1.8 12.6 1.8 25.3 2.4 62.1 2.7Former 37.1 2.2 26.8 2.0 36.0 2.1 50.7 3.2 24.5 2.7 24.8 2.7

Table 6 (Continued)

In the Home, Smoking Is Allowed

1992/93 1995/96

State/ Some Some Smoking Nowhere Places/Times Anywhere Nowhere Places/Times AnywhereStatus % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
248

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 North Dakota Overall 37.5 2.1 30.5 2.0 32.0 2.0 49.5 2.2 25.3 1.9 25.2 1.9 Never 50.8 3.0 29.3 2.7 19.8 2.4 63.2 2.9 23.5 2.6 13.2 2.0 Current 8.9 2.6 29.6 4.2 61.5 4.4 14.8 3.3 28.0 4.1 57.2 4.5 Former 34.9 4.2 33.7 4.2 31.4 4.1 52.7 4.7 26.6 4.1 20.7 3.8 Ohio Overall 35.4 1.0 28.1 1.0 36.5 1.0 44.1 1.2 24.2 1.0 31.7 1.1 Never 48.8 1.5 29.4 1.4 21.8 1.3 61.2 1.7 22.0 1.4 16.8 1.3 Current 7.4 1.1 24.3 1.8 68.3 2.0 10.3 1.4 25.1 2.0 64.5 2.3 Former 38.0 2.2 29.7 2.1 32.3 2.1 46.4 2.5 27.6 2.3 26.0 2.2 Oklahoma

Overall 40.5 2.1 20.9 1.8 38.5 2.1 46.9 2.1 22.1 1.8 31.0 2.0Never 56.2 3.0 22.0 2.5 21.8 2.5 61.7 2.8 20.5 2.3 17.8 2.2Current 6.3 2.0 18.2 3.2 75.5 3.6 13.2 2.8 24.1 3.6 62.7 4.0Former 46.4 4.5 21.9 3.8 31.7 4.2 50.3 4.7 24.1 4.0 25.6 4.1

Oregon

Overall 52.3 2.3 25.0 2.0 22.7 1.9 67.0 2.1 17.8 1.7 15.2 1.6Never 69.6 3.0 21.4 2.6 9.1 1.8 82.0 2.4 13.1 2.1 4.8 1.3Current 16.4 3.5 27.9 4.2 55.6 4.6 26.8 4.1 30.6 4.3 42.6 4.6Former 51.8 4.3 29.1 3.9 19.1 3.4 72.0 3.9 16.0 3.2 11.9 2.8

Pennsylvania

Overall 39.1 1.0 28.2 1.0 32.7 1.0 47.4 1.2 25.7 1.0 26.9 1.0Never 52.3 1.5 26.6 1.3 21.1 1.2 62.5 1.6 22.7 1.4 14.8 1.2Current 9.1 1.3 30.2 2.0 60.7 2.1 13.8 1.6 30.7 2.2 55.5 2.3Former 41.3 2.1 29.3 2.0 29.4 2.0 50.0 2.3 26.9 2.0 23.1 1.9

Table 6 (Continued)

In the Home, Smoking Is Allowed

1992/93 1995/96

State/ Some Some Smoking Nowhere Places/Times Anywhere Nowhere Places/Times AnywhereStatus % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
249

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Rhode Island

Overall 39.4 2.3 30.8 2.1 29.8 2.1 47.5 2.3 26.7 2.1 25.8 2.0Never 52.5 3.3 28.8 3.0 18.8 2.6 63.2 3.2 21.7 2.8 15.1 2.4Current 8.3 2.6 33.7 4.5 58.0 4.7 14.3 3.2 33.8 4.4 52.0 4.6Former 43.1 4.2 31.9 4.0 25.0 3.7 50.3 4.5 28.9 4.1 20.7 3.6

South Carolina

Overall 38.1 1.9 25.4 1.7 36.5 1.9 48.1 2.1 25.5 1.9 26.4 1.9Never 50.9 2.7 26.8 2.4 22.3 2.3 63.1 2.8 24.6 2.5 12.3 1.9Current 9.2 2.2 21.4 3.2 69.4 3.6 12.7 2.8 27.3 3.7 60.0 4.1Former 42.8 4.3 27.2 3.9 30.1 4.0 54.0 5.0 25.6 4.4 20.4 4.0

South Dakota

Overall 36.9 2.0 26.6 1.8 36.5 2.0 48.5 2.1 25.0 1.8 26.5 1.8Never 51.2 2.8 26.8 2.5 22.0 2.4 63.7 2.7 21.6 2.3 14.7 2.0Current 6.6 2.0 24.3 3.5 69.1 3.8 15.1 3.1 27.5 3.9 57.3 4.3Former 38.1 4.2 28.9 4.0 33.1 4.1 46.2 4.3 30.1 3.9 23.8 3.6

Tennessee

Overall 32.2 1.9 25.0 1.8 42.8 2.1 45.4 2.1 22.3 1.7 32.3 1.9Never 46.6 2.9 27.5 2.6 25.8 2.6 62.5 2.9 20.9 2.4 16.6 2.2Current 5.5 1.7 18.3 2.9 76.2 3.2 10.0 2.4 24.3 3.4 65.7 3.8Former 35.7 4.4 28.5 4.1 35.8 4.4 50.6 4.3 22.9 3.6 26.5 3.8

Texas

Overall 47.0 1.1 23.3 1.0 29.6 1.0 58.2 1.1 18.2 0.9 23.6 0.9Never 60.5 1.5 22.4 1.3 17.1 1.2 72.6 1.3 15.4 1.1 12.0 1.0Current 12.8 1.6 23.8 2.0 63.4 2.2 20.1 1.8 24.8 2.0 55.1 2.3Former 50.8 2.5 25.4 2.2 23.8 2.1 62.8 2.5 18.4 2.0 18.7 2.0

Table 6 (Continued)

In the Home, Smoking Is Allowed

1992/93 1995/96

State/ Some Some Smoking Nowhere Places/Times Anywhere Nowhere Places/Times AnywhereStatus % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
250

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Utah Overall 70.6 2.0 13.1 1.4 16.3 1.6 76.1 1.8 12.5 1.4 11.5 1.4 Never 85.6 1.9 9.2 1.5 5.2 1.2 88.2 1.6 8.2 1.4 3.5 0.9 Current 20.7 4.2 24.0 4.4 55.3 5.2 26.6 4.7 26.6 4.7 46.7 5.3 Former 63.2 4.9 16.8 3.8 20.0 4.1 71.5 5.0 17.4 4.2 11.1 3.4 Vermont Overall 38.1 2.3 28.3 2.1 33.6 2.2 50.1 2.3 24.5 2.0 25.4 2.0 Never 52.0 3.6 27.1 3.2 20.9 2.9 67.2 3.2 19.0 2.7 13.8 2.4 Current 8.7 2.5 30.3 4.1 60.9 4.3 16.9 3.4 31.0 4.3 52.1 4.6 Former 44.8 4.2 28.2 3.8 27.0 3.7 52.4 4.3 27.4 3.9 20.3 3.5 Virginia

Overall 38.9 1.9 26.8 1.7 34.3 1.8 49.3 2.0 22.6 1.7 28.1 1.8Never 54.1 2.7 24.5 2.4 21.5 2.3 63.5 2.7 19.6 2.2 16.9 2.1Current 9.8 2.3 25.1 3.3 65.1 3.6 14.8 2.9 27.9 3.7 57.3 4.0Former 39.4 3.9 33.4 3.7 27.2 3.5 54.4 4.1 23.5 3.5 22.1 3.4

Washington

Overall 55.2 2.1 20.5 1.7 24.3 1.8 63.9 2.2 19.4 1.8 16.7 1.7Never 74.4 2.7 16.1 2.3 9.5 1.8 79.2 2.6 14.0 2.2 6.8 1.6Current 17.5 3.2 25.6 3.7 56.9 4.2 28.1 4.1 31.6 4.3 40.3 4.5Former 56.4 3.9 23.1 3.3 20.4 3.2 67.0 4.2 18.8 3.5 14.2 3.1

West Virginia

Overall 28.8 2.0 20.8 1.8 50.4 2.2 37.2 1.9 23.0 1.7 39.9 2.0Never 41.5 3.2 23.0 2.7 35.5 3.1 51.8 2.9 24.0 2.5 24.2 2.5Current 5.0 1.7 15.9 2.9 79.1 3.2 9.6 2.3 21.1 3.1 69.3 3.5Former 35.4 4.7 23.2 4.1 41.4 4.8 40.1 4.0 23.2 3.4 36.7 3.9

Table 6 (Continued)

In the Home, Smoking Is Allowed

1992/93 1995/96

State/ Some Some Smoking Nowhere Places/Times Anywhere Nowhere Places/Times AnywhereStatus % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
251

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Wisconsin

Overall 35.5 2.0 31.1 1.9 33.3 2.0 47.0 2.2 26.7 1.9 26.3 1.9Never 48.4 3.0 32.1 2.8 19.5 2.4 62.2 3.0 23.9 2.6 13.9 2.1Current 8.0 2.2 28.2 3.7 63.8 3.9 13.5 2.9 30.7 3.9 55.9 4.2Former 39.3 4.0 32.3 3.9 28.4 3.7 51.0 4.4 28.2 4.0 20.8 3.6

Wyoming

Overall 38.7 2.4 26.3 2.2 34.9 2.4 48.6 2.3 22.4 1.9 29.0 2.1Never 55.4 3.5 26.5 3.1 18.1 2.7 68.0 3.0 18.4 2.5 13.6 2.2Current 7.9 2.7 25.2 4.3 66.8 4.6 10.1 2.7 25.6 4.0 64.3 4.4Former 37.8 4.8 27.2 4.4 35.0 4.8 47.5 4.8 27.7 4.3 24.8 4.1

Note: CI = 95% confidence interval.Source: 1992/93 and 1995/96 Current Population Surveys.*Universe: This table reflects what individuals report about the smoking rules in their home. It does not show the rules for households, but rather the rules as reported by each individual. Individuals included in this table are self-respondent adults only (age 18

Table 6 (Continued)

and older) whose smoking status can be determined. They must define the smoking rules for their home (i.e., smoking is allowedin all areas, allowed in some places or at some times, or not allowed at all).

In the Home, Smoking Is Allowed

1992/93 1995/96

State/ Some Some Smoking Nowhere Places/Times Anywhere Nowhere Places/Times AnywhereStatus % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
TABLES 7A AND 7B Prevalence of Reported Smoking Restrictions in the Home for

Different Levels of Workplace Smoking Policies for the Nation

This table presents the relationship between working in a workplace

that restricts smoking and the likelihood of restricting smoking at home.

There is an association between working in smoke-free workplaces

and the likelihood of reported smoking restrictions in the workers’ homes.

There does not appear to be a relationship between restrictions of less than

a smoke-free workplace and the likelihood of having restrictions on smoking in the home. For workers not at smoke-free workplaces, the fraction

who reported smoke-free homes is uniform across the various categories,

ranging from 34 to 39 percent in the 1992/93 CPS and from 41 to 46 percent in the 1995/96 CPS. Workers at smoke-free workplaces, however, report

much higher levels of smoke-free homes, at 51 percent in the 1992/93 CPS

and 60 percent in the 1995/96 CPS. Working in a smoke-free workplace

appears to increase the likelihood that individuals will restrict smoking at

home as well. This relationship holds for never-, current, and former smokers. 

253

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results
254

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 100% Smoke-Free Nowhere 51.1 0.6 63.7 0.7 14.8 0.9 50.7 1.2 Some Places/Times 25.0 0.5 22.7 0.6 28.8 1.1 27.7 1.1 Anywhere 23.9 0.5 13.7 0.5 56.4 1.3 21.6 1.0 Strong Restrictions Nowhere 39.1 0.9 52.6 1.2 10.0 1.0 40.9 2.0 Some Places/Times 28.4 0.8 27.8 1.1 27.1 1.5 31.9 1.9 Anywhere 32.5 0.8 19.6 0.9 62.9 1.6 27.2 1.8 Moderate Restrictions Nowhere 36.8 1.0 51.4 1.5 10.9 1.2 42.0 2.2 Some Places/Times 27.1 0.9 27.5 1.3 24.7 1.6 29.7 2.1 Anywhere 36.1 1.0 21.1 1.2 64.4 1.8 28.3 2.0

Weak Restrictions Nowhere 34.4 2.9 49.8 4.7 11.0 3.3 40.6 6.4

Some Places/Times 24.3 2.6 23.7 4.0 22.1 4.3 28.7 5.9Anywhere 41.4 3.0 26.4 4.1 66.8 4.9 30.7 6.0

No Restrictions Nowhere 36.1 0.8 51.0 1.2 10.4 1.0 38.5 2.0

Some Places/Times 25.6 0.8 25.5 1.1 23.8 1.3 28.9 1.8Anywhere 38.3 0.9 23.5 1.1 65.8 1.5 32.6 1.9

Never Current Former

Table 7aPrevalence of Reported Smoking Restrictions in the Home for Different Levels of Workplace SmokingPolicies for the Nation*—1992/93

Extent of Workplace In the Home, Nation Smokers Smokers SmokersSmoking Restrictions: Smoking is Allowed: % CI % CI % CI % CI

Note: CI = 95% confidence interval.Source: 1992/93 Current Population Survey.*Universe: Individuals included in this table are self-respondent adults only (age 18 and older) whose smoking status can be determined. They must work indoors and be employed privately or by local, state, or federal government. They must know if an official workplace smoking policy exists or does not exist, and define that policy forboth work and public areas (i.e., smoking is allowed in all areas, allowed in some areas, or not allowed at all).They must also define the smoking rules for their home (i.e., smoking is allowed in all areas, allowed in someplaces or at some times, or not allowed at all).
255

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

100% Smoke-Free Nowhere 59.6 0.5 72.4 0.6 19.5 0.9 61.5 1.1

Some Places/Times 21.1 0.4 17.4 0.5 30.0 1.0 23.0 0.9Anywhere 19.3 0.4 10.2 0.4 50.5 1.1 15.5 0.8

Strong Restrictions Nowhere 45.5 1.2 61.4 1.6 13.2 1.5 48.6 2.7

Some Places/Times 25.7 1.0 23.5 1.4 28.1 2.0 28.6 2.5Anywhere 28.8 1.1 15.1 1.2 58.7 2.2 22.8 2.3

Moderate Restrictions Nowhere 45.4 1.3 62.1 1.8 15.8 1.7 52.3 2.9

Some Places/Times 25.3 1.1 23.0 1.6 28.4 2.1 25.8 2.6Anywhere 29.3 1.2 14.9 1.3 55.8 2.3 21.9 2.4

Weak Restrictions Nowhere 41.0 3.5 55.6 5.2 17.6 4.6 47.6 7.8

Some Places/Times 24.9 3.0 22.3 4.3 27.1 5.4 . . 

Anywhere 34.1 3.3 22.1 4.3 55.3 6.0 25.5 6.8

No Restrictions Nowhere 45.6 1.0 60.9 1.4 16.8 1.4 51.3 2.4

Some Places/Times 22.4 0.9 20.8 1.2 24.3 1.6 23.9 2.1Anywhere 32.0 1.0 18.3 1.1 59.0 1.8 24.8 2.1

Never Current Former

Table 7bPrevalence of Reported Smoking Restrictions in the Home for Different Levels of Workplace SmokingPolicies for the Nation*—1995/96

Extent of Workplace In the Home, Nation Smokers Smokers SmokersSmoking Restrictions: Smoking is Allowed: % CI % CI % CI % CI

Note: CI = 95% confidence interval; “.” = insufficient data.Source: 1995/96 Current Population Survey.*Universe: Individuals included in this table are self-respondent adults only (age 18 and older) whose smoking status can be determined. They must work indoors and be employed privately or by local, state, or federal government. They must know if an official workplace smoking policy exists or does not exist, and define that policy forboth work and public areas (i.e., smoking is allowed in all areas, allowed in some areas, or not allowed at all).They must also define the smoking rules for their home (i.e., smoking is allowed in all areas, allowed in someplaces or at some times, or not allowed at all).
TABLE 8 National Attitudes About Smoking in Indoor Places (Restaurants,

Hospitals, Indoor Work Areas, Bars and Cocktail Lounges, Indoor Sporting

Events, and Indoor Shopping Malls) by Smoking Status and Demographic

Characteristics

This table presents national attitudes about restrictions on smoking

in various public places for the 1992/93 CPS and 1995/96 CPS by smoking

status and demographic characteristics.

Overall—The fraction of people who think indoor public places

should be smoke-free increased from the 1992/93 CPS to the 1995/96 CPS

for most indoor locations, and the fraction of people who think smoking

should be allowed in all places decreased over this same time period. Bars

and restaurants have the lowest percentage of people who think these public places should be smoke-free, and hospitals have the highest percentage.

For each of these public places—hospitals, indoor work areas, sporting

events and shopping malls—over one half of the population believes that

smoking should be banned, and 49 percent believe that smoking should be

banned in all restaurants. Within all smoking status, gender, age, race/ethnicity, education level, and income level groups, public opinion supporting

restrictions on smoking in public places increased between surveys.

Smoking Status—For each classification of indoor places, never-smokers are more likely to agree that "smoking should not be allowed at all,"

than former smokers, and both are much more likely to agree than current

smokers. In the 1992/93 CPS, nearly half of all current smokers thought

indoor sporting events should be smoke-free, over half thought hospitals

should be smoke-free, and these percentages increased in the 1995/96 CPS.

In the 1995/96 CPS, the percentage of never- and former smokers who

think that each indoor place should be smoke-free is very close to or above

50 percent, with one exception, all groups fall well below 50 percent for

bars and cocktail lounges.

Demographic Subgroups—More females think indoor public places

should be smoke-free than do males. For most locations, including bars and

cocktail lounges, as age increases so does the percentage of people who

think indoor public places should be smoke-free. The exception is restaurants, where there is little change with age in the opinion that restaurants

should be smoke-free. Hispanics and Asian/Pacific Islanders have the highest percentage of people who think indoor public places should be smokefree. Native Americans usually have the lowest support for smoking bans,

except for indoor sporting events, where African-Americans and nonHispanic Whites are the lowest. Support for banning smoking in hospitals,

indoor work areas, and indoor sporting events increases with increasing

level of education. Similar patterns are noted for increasing level of income.

257

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results
258

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Overall 45.2 0.2 51.7 0.2 3.2 0.1 48.8 0.3 47.7 0.3 3.5 0.1 Smoking Status Never 57.7 0.3 41.0 0.3 1.3 0.1 61.3 0.3 37.0 0.3 1.6 0.1 Current 16.7 0.4 76.4 0.4 7.0 0.3 19.5 0.4 72.8 0.5 7.7 0.3 Former 47.0 0.5 49.6 0.5 3.3 0.2 49.4 0.5 47.1 0.5 3.6 0.2 Gender Male 43.8 0.4 52.0 0.4 4.2 0.1 46.3 0.4 49.2 0.4 4.5 0.2 Female 46.4 0.3 51.3 0.3 2.2 0.1 51.0 0.4 46.4 0.4 2.5 0.1 Age (Years)

18–24 39.5 0.7 57.9 0.7 2.6 0.2 45.1 0.7 52.0 0.7 3.0 0.325–44 44.4 0.4 52.9 0.4 2.6 0.1 48.2 0.4 48.9 0.4 2.9 0.145–64 46.3 0.5 49.8 0.5 3.9 0.2 49.4 0.5 46.6 0.5 4.0 0.265+ 50.1 0.6 45.9 0.6 4.0 0.2 52.1 0.6 43.3 0.6 4.6 0.3

Race/Ethnicity

Non-Hispanic White 43.2 0.3 53.5 0.3 3.4 0.1 46.3 0.3 50.0 0.3 3.7 0.1Hispanic 58.4 1.1 39.3 1.1 2.3 0.3 64.5 1.1 33.2 1.1 2.3 0.3African-American 45.7 0.8 51.5 0.8 2.8 0.2 48.4 0.8 48.1 0.8 3.4 0.3Asian/Pacific Islander 55.7 1.5 42.3 1.5 2.0 0.4 63.9 1.4 34.4 1.4 1.7 0.4Native American 41.3 3.1 53.9 3.1 4.9 1.3 42.5 2.9 52.7 2.9 4.8 1.3Other† 60.1 6.9 38.5 6.9 1.4 1.7 . . . . . .

Education (Years)

<12 45.8 0.6 49.2 0.6 5.0 0.3 48.5 0.6 46.0 0.6 5.5 0.312 40.1 0.4 56.2 0.4 3.7 0.2 43.8 0.4 51.9 0.4 4.2 0.213–15 45.0 0.5 52.7 0.5 2.4 0.2 48.5 0.5 48.8 0.5 2.7 0.216+ 53.6 0.5 44.7 0.5 1.7 0.1 56.6 0.5 41.5 0.5 1.9 0.1

Smoking Should Be Allowed:

1992/93 1995/96

In Some In Some 

Not at All Areas Anywhere Not at All Areas Anywhere

Table 8National Attitudes About Smoking in Indoor Places (Restaurants, Hospitals, Indoor Work Areas, Bars and Cocktail Lounges,Indoor Sporting Events, and Indoor Shopping Malls) by Smoking Status and Demographic Characteristics*—1992/93 and 1995/96

Restaurants % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
259

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Household Income

< $10,000 43.0 0.7 52.5 0.7 4.5 0.3 47.5 0.8 47.3 0.8 5.3 0.3$10,000–$19,999 42.2 0.6 54.1 0.6 3.7 0.2 46.1 0.7 49.7 0.7 4.3 0.3$20,000–$29,999 42.7 0.6 54.0 0.6 3.3 0.2 45.0 0.7 51.2 0.7 3.7 0.3$30,000–$49,999 44.8 0.5 52.4 0.5 2.8 0.2 47.2 0.5 49.7 0.5 3.1 0.2$50,000–$74,999 48.6 0.7 49.2 0.7 2.2 0.2 51.1 0.7 46.5 0.7 2.4 0.2$75,000 + 54.8 0.8 43.5 0.8 1.7 0.2 57.4 0.7 40.8 0.7 1.8 0.2Unknown 45.9 1.1 50.0 1.1 4.2 0.4 50.3 0.9 44.9 0.9 4.7 0.4

Hospitals

Overall 74.8 0.2 24.2 0.2 1.0 0.0 78.5 0.2 20.4 0.2 1.1 0.1

Smoking Status

Never 84.0 0.3 15.6 0.3 0.4 0.0 86.1 0.2 13.3 0.2 0.6 0.1Current 54.6 0.5 43.2 0.5 2.3 0.1 60.7 0.5 36.9 0.5 2.4 0.2Former 75.6 0.4 23.4 0.4 1.0 0.1 78.8 0.4 20.1 0.4 1.1 0.1

Gender

Male 73.4 0.3 25.3 0.3 1.4 0.1 76.7 0.3 21.8 0.3 1.5 0.1Female 76.2 0.3 23.2 0.3 0.6 0.1 80.0 0.3 19.1 0.3 0.8 0.1

Age (Years)

18–24 79.3 0.5 20.1 0.5 0.6 0.1 83.9 0.5 15.3 0.5 0.7 0.125–44 73.9 0.3 25.4 0.3 0.8 0.1 78.2 0.3 20.8 0.3 1.0 0.145–64 72.3 0.4 26.4 0.4 1.3 0.1 75.6 0.4 23.0 0.4 1.4 0.165+ 77.8 0.5 20.9 0.5 1.3 0.1 79.8 0.5 18.8 0.5 1.4 0.2

Race/Ethnicity

Non-Hispanic White 73.0 0.3 26.0 0.2 1.0 0.1 76.8 0.3 22.1 0.2 1.2 0.1Hispanic 86.1 0.8 13.4 0.8 0.5 0.2 88.3 0.7 10.9 0.7 0.7 0.2African-American 76.0 0.6 23.0 0.6 1.0 0.1 78.8 0.6 19.9 0.6 1.3 0.2Asian/Pacific Islander 86.6 1.0 12.9 1.0 0.5 0.2 89.9 0.9 9.5 0.9 0.6 0.2Native American 70.6 2.9 27.4 2.8 1.9 0.9 70.8 2.7 26.9 2.6 2.3 0.9

Other† 88.2 4.6 11.8 4.6 . . . . . . . .

Smoking Should Be Allowed:

1992/93 1995/96

In Some In Some 

Not at All Areas Anywhere Not at All Areas Anywhere

Table 8 (Continued)

Restaurants (cont.) % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
260

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Education (Years) <12 72.9 0.5 25.4 0.5 1.7 0.2 76.3 0.5 21.7 0.5 2.0 0.2 12 71.9 0.4 27.0 0.4 1.1 0.1 75.8 0.4 23.0 0.4 1.3 0.1 13–15 75.7 0.4 23.6 0.4 0.7 0.1 79.1 0.4 20.0 0.4 0.9 0.1 16+ 80.3 0.4 19.2 0.4 0.5 0.1 83.3 0.4 16.1 0.4 0.6 0.1 Household Income <$10,000 72.1 0.6 26.3 0.6 1.6 0.2 76.7 0.6 21.7 0.6 1.6 0.2 $10,000–$19,999 72.9 0.5 26.0 0.5 1.2 0.1 76.7 0.6 21.8 0.5 1.5 0.2 $20,000–$29,999 73.5 0.5 25.5 0.5 1.0 0.1 76.9 0.6 21.9 0.6 1.2 0.1 $30,000–$49,999 74.8 0.4 24.4 0.4 0.8 0.1 77.9 0.5 21.1 0.4 0.9 0.1 $50,000–$74,999 77.5 0.6 21.9 0.5 0.6 0.1 80.4 0.5 18.8 0.5 0.7 0.1 $75,000 + 81.2 0.7 18.3 0.7 0.5 0.1 83.8 0.6 15.6 0.5 0.5 0.1 Unknown 75.3 1.0 23.5 0.9 1.2 0.2 77.4 0.8 21.0 0.8 1.7 0.2

Indoor Work Areas

Overall 58.1 0.2 39.6 0.2 2.3 0.1 62.6 0.3 35.1 0.2 2.3 0.1

Smoking Status

Never 70.3 0.3 28.8 0.3 0.9 0.1 74.1 0.3 24.9 0.3 1.0 0.1Current 30.8 0.5 64.0 0.5 5.3 0.2 35.6 0.5 59.0 0.5 5.4 0.2Former 59.6 0.5 38.1 0.5 2.3 0.2 63.2 0.5 34.6 0.5 2.1 0.2

Gender

Male 53.8 0.4 42.9 0.4 3.3 0.1 58.3 0.4 38.5 0.4 3.3 0.1Female 62.1 0.3 36.5 0.3 1.4 0.1 66.6 0.3 32.0 0.3 1.4 0.1

Age (Years)

18–24 55.0 0.7 43.1 0.7 1.8 0.2 61.2 0.7 36.9 0.7 1.9 0.225–44 56.9 0.4 41.1 0.4 2.0 0.1 62.2 0.4 35.8 0.4 2.0 0.145–64 58.8 0.5 38.4 0.5 2.8 0.2 62.7 0.5 34.7 0.5 2.6 0.265+ 63.0 0.6 34.3 0.6 2.8 0.2 64.7 0.6 32.5 0.6 2.8 0.2

Smoking Should Be Allowed:

1992/93 1995/96

In Some In Some 

Not at All Areas Anywhere Not at All Areas Anywhere

Table 8 (Continued)

Hospitals (cont.) % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
261

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Race/Ethnicity

Non-Hispanic White 56.1 0.3 41.4 0.3 2.5 0.1 60.3 0.3 37.2 0.3 2.4 0.1Hispanic 71.4 1.0 27.0 1.0 1.6 0.3 75.7 1.0 22.9 1.0 1.4 0.3African-American 57.8 0.7 40.2 0.7 2.0 0.2 62.9 0.8 34.8 0.7 2.4 0.2Asian/Pacific Islander 73.8 1.3 25.0 1.3 1.2 0.3 79.0 1.2 20.1 1.2 0.9 0.3Native American 51.3 3.1 45.2 3.1 3.6 1.2 54.4 2.9 41.6 2.9 4.0 1.2Other† 74.8 6.2 24.1 6.1 1.1 1.5 . . . . . .

Education (Years)

<12 54.8 0.6 41.4 0.6 3.8 0.2 58.2 0.6 38.0 0.6 3.8 0.212 52.7 0.4 44.5 0.4 2.8 0.1 56.8 0.4 40.3 0.4 2.9 0.213–15 59.5 0.5 38.8 0.5 1.7 0.1 63.9 0.5 34.5 0.5 1.7 0.116+ 68.5 0.5 30.4 0.5 1.1 0.1 73.0 0.5 25.9 0.5 1.1 0.1

Household Income

< $10,000" 54.2 0.7 42.5 0.7 3.3 0.2 58.9 0.8 37.9 0.7 3.2 0.3$10,000–$19,999 54.5 0.6 42.8 0.6 2.7 0.2 58.9 0.7 38.1 0.6 3.0 0.2$20,000–$29,999 55.7 0.6 41.8 0.6 2.5 0.2 58.6 0.7 38.9 0.7 2.5 0.2$30,000–$49,999 58.1 0.5 39.8 0.5 2.1 0.1 61.8 0.5 36.2 0.5 2.0 0.2$50,000–$74,999 62.5 0.6 35.9 0.6 1.6 0.2 66.7 0.6 31.7 0.6 1.6 0.2$75,000 + 69.2 0.8 29.7 0.8 1.2 0.2 72.8 0.7 26.1 0.7 1.1 0.2Unknown 58.6 1.1 38.6 1.1 2.8 0.4 62.2 0.9 34.7 0.9 3.1 0.3

Bars and Cocktail Lounges

Overall 24.1 0.2 44.2 0.2 31.7 0.2 26.8 0.2 43.1 0.3 30.1 0.2

Smoking Status

Never 32.7 0.3 44.8 0.3 22.4 0.3 35.8 0.3 43.7 0.4 20.5 0.3Current 5.3 0.2 41.7 0.5 53.0 0.5 6.9 0.3 40.3 0.5 52.8 0.5Former 24.8 0.4 45.3 0.5 29.9 0.5 26.1 0.5 44.6 0.5 29.3 0.5

Gender

Male 22.1 0.3 42.2 0.4 35.7 0.3 24.2 0.3 41.6 0.4 34.2 0.4Female 26.0 0.3 46.0 0.3 28.0 0.3 29.2 0.3 44.4 0.4 26.4 0.3

Smoking Should Be Allowed:

1992/93 1995/96

In Some In Some 

Table 8 (Continued)

Indoor Work Not at All Areas Anywhere Not at All Areas AnywhereAreas (cont.) % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
262

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Age (Years) 18–24 15.9 0.5 46.3 0.7 37.8 0.7 19.2 0.6 44.0 0.7 36.7 0.7 25–44 21.2 0.3 46.4 0.4 32.4 0.4 23.7 0.3 45.5 0.4 30.9 0.4 45–64 27.0 0.4 42.5 0.5 30.5 0.5 29.7 0.5 42.0 0.5 28.3 0.5 65+ 34.7 0.6 38.8 0.6 26.5 0.6 36.5 0.6 37.6 0.6 25.8 0.6 Race/Ethnicity Non-Hispanic White 22.9 0.2 44.5 0.3 32.6 0.3 24.7 0.3 43.6 0.3 31.6 0.3 Hispanic 31.1 1.1 39.4 1.1 29.5 1.0 36.4 1.1 36.8 1.1 26.8 1.0 African-American 25.7 0.7 45.3 0.8 29.0 0.7 30.1 0.7 44.7 0.8 25.2 0.7 Asian/Pacific Islander 31.0 1.4 46.8 1.5 22.2 1.2 36.6 1.4 44.0 1.5 19.4 1.2 Native American 20.9 2.6 37.1 3.0 42.0 3.1 21.0 2.4 38.5 2.9 40.5 2.9

Other† 39.7 6.9 38.0 6.9 22.3 5.9 . . . . . .

Education (Years)

<12 29.4 0.5 36.9 0.6 33.7 0.6 32.7 0.6 34.8 0.6 32.5 0.612 21.7 0.3 42.7 0.4 35.7 0.4 24.4 0.4 41.2 0.4 34.4 0.413–15 21.5 0.4 46.4 0.5 32.1 0.5 24.0 0.4 45.3 0.5 30.6 0.516+ 27.3 0.5 50.1 0.5 22.6 0.5 29.4 0.5 49.0 0.5 21.6 0.5

Household Income

< $10,000 25.5 0.6 38.7 0.7 35.8 0.6 29.1 0.7 37.5 0.7 33.3 0.7$10,000–$19,999 23.9 0.5 41.2 0.6 34.9 0.6 27.4 0.6 38.7 0.7 33.9 0.6$20,000–$29,999 22.6 0.5 43.8 0.6 33.7 0.6 24.3 0.6 42.0 0.7 33.7 0.6$30,000–$49,999 22.7 0.4 45.9 0.5 31.4 0.5 24.0 0.5 44.8 0.5 31.2 0.5$50,000–$74,999 24.1 0.6 47.8 0.7 28.0 0.6 25.1 0.6 48.1 0.7 26.8 0.6$75,000 + 27.6 0.8 50.4 0.9 22.0 0.7 30.2 0.7 48.4 0.8 21.4 0.6Unknown 27.5 1.0 42.3 1.1 30.2 1.0 32.8 0.9 39.3 0.9 27.9 0.8

Smoking Should Be Allowed:

1992/93 1995/96

In Some In Some 

Table 8 (Continued)

Bars and Not at All Areas Anywhere Not at All Areas AnywhereCocktail Lounges (cont.) % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
263

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Smoking Should Be Allowed:

1992/93 1995/96

In Some In Some 

Not at All Areas Anywhere Not at All Areas Anywhere

Table 8 (Continued)

Indoor Sporting Events % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
264

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Overall 66.9 0.2 28.6 0.2 4.4 0.1 68.6 0.2 27.5 0.2 3.9 0.1 Smoking Status Never 74.1 0.3 23.3 0.3 2.6 0.1 75.8 0.3 22.0 0.3 2.2 0.1 Current 48.7 0.5 42.4 0.5 8.9 0.3 49.5 0.5 42.2 0.5 8.3 0.3 Former 69.9 0.5 26.2 0.5 3.9 0.2 71.0 0.5 25.4 0.5 3.6 0.2 Gender Male 63.5 0.3 30.3 0.3 6.2 0.2 64.8 0.4 29.7 0.3 5.5 0.2 Female 70.1 0.3 27.2 0.3 2.8 0.1 72.0 0.3 25.5 0.3 2.5 0.1 Age (Years) 18–24 64.0 0.7 30.7 0.6 5.3 0.3 67.3 0.7 28.6 0.7 4.1 0.3 25–44 65.5 0.4 30.3 0.3 4.3 0.2 66.7 0.4 29.6 0.4 3.7 0.1 45–64 68.5 0.5 27.3 0.4 4.3 0.2 69.8 0.5 26.2 0.4 4.0 0.2

65+ 71.0 0.6 24.6 0.5 4.3 0.3 72.5 0.6 23.3 0.6 4.2 0.3

Race/Ethnicity

Non-Hispanic White 66.2 0.3 29.2 0.3 4.6 0.1 67.6 0.3 28.2 0.3 4.2 0.1Hispanic 72.7 1.0 23.4 1.0 3.9 0.4 76.7 1.0 20.4 0.9 2.9 0.4African-American 65.5 0.7 30.5 0.7 4.0 0.3 66.2 0.7 30.4 0.7 3.4 0.3Asian/Pacific Islander 74.2 1.3 23.1 1.3 2.7 0.5 77.1 1.2 21.0 1.2 1.9 0.4Native American 67.8 2.9 26.2 2.8 6.0 1.5 63.8 2.8 31.2 2.7 4.9 1.3Other† 75.2 6.1 21.3 5.8 3.5 2.6 . . . . . .

Education (Years)

<12 65.0 0.6 29.3 0.5 5.7 0.3 66.4 0.6 28.2 0.6 5.4 0.312 64.6 0.4 30.4 0.4 5.1 0.2 65.8 0.4 29.4 0.4 4.8 0.213–15 66.9 0.5 28.9 0.4 4.1 0.2 68.7 0.5 28.0 0.5 3.3 0.216+ 72.6 0.5 24.8 0.5 2.6 0.2 74.0 0.5 23.7 0.5 2.3 0.2

Household Income

< $10,000 64.3 0.6 30.2 0.6 5.5 0.3 66.3 0.7 28.6 0.7 5.1 0.3$10,000–$19,999 64.7 0.6 30.1 0.5 5.2 0.3 66.4 0.6 28.9 0.6 4.7 0.3$20,000–$29,999 65.6 0.6 29.8 0.6 4.6 0.3 66.4 0.6 29.3 0.6 4.3 0.3$30,000–$49,999 67.1 0.5 28.7 0.5 4.2 0.2 67.7 0.5 28.6 0.5 3.6 0.2

Smoking Should Be Allowed:

1992/93 1995/96

In Some In Some 

Table 8 (Continued)

Indoor Sporting Not at All Areas Anywhere Not at All Areas Anywhere

Events (cont.) % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
265

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

$50,000–$74,999 69.9 0.6 26.7 0.6 3.4 0.2 71.0 0.6 25.7 0.6 3.2 0.2$75,000 + 73.6 0.8 23.6 0.7 2.8 0.3 75.1 0.7 22.7 0.6 2.2 0.2Unknown 66.2 1.1 28.7 1.0 5.1 0.5 67.7 0.9 27.4 0.8 4.8 0.4

Indoor Shopping Malls

Overall 54.7 0.2 40.5 0.2 4.9 0.1 62.4 0.3 34.0 0.2 3.6 0.1

Smoking Status

Never 64.7 0.3 32.4 0.3 3.0 0.1 71.7 0.3 26.3 0.3 2.0 0.1Current 31.9 0.5 58.9 0.5 9.1 0.3 40.4 0.5 52.3 0.5 7.3 0.3Former 56.1 0.5 39.2 0.5 4.6 0.2 63.1 0.5 33.3 0.5 3.6 0.2

Gender

Male 51.7 0.4 41.7 0.4 6.5 0.2 58.9 0.4 36.1 0.4 4.9 0.2Female 57.3 0.3 39.3 0.3 3.3 0.1 65.5 0.3 32.1 0.3 2.4 0.1

Note: CI = 95% confidence interval; “.” = insufficient data.Source: 1992/93 and 1995/96 Current Population Surveys.*Universe: Individuals included in this table are self-respondent adults only (age 18 and older) whose smoking status can be determined. They must give their opinion about smoking in public places (i.e., smoking should be allowed in all areas, allowed in someareas, or not allowed at all). This is required for each public place separately; if an individual does not give his opinion about onepublic place, he will be included in other public places for which he did give his opinion.†No data for 1995/96: all racial/ethnic groups were classified for this survey series. 

Smoking Should Be Allowed:

1992/93 1995/96

In Some In Some 

Table 8 (Continued)

Indoor Shopping Not at All Areas Anywhere Not at All Areas AnywhereMalls (cont.) % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
Age (Years)

18–24 50.1 0.7 43.9 0.7 6.0 0.3 62.3 0.7 34.2 0.7 3.6 0.325–44 52.4 0.4 43.1 0.4 4.5 0.2 60.6 0.4 36.2 0.4 3.2 0.145–64 55.9 0.5 39.2 0.5 4.9 0.2 62.6 0.5 33.5 0.5 3.8 0.265+ 62.6 0.6 32.5 0.6 4.9 0.3 66.8 0.6 28.8 0.6 4.4 0.3

Race/Ethnicity

Non-Hispanic White 52.8 0.3 42.1 0.3 5.1 0.1 60.6 0.3 35.6 0.3 3.8 0.1Hispanic 67.2 1.1 29.1 1.0 3.7 0.4 74.7 1.0 22.8 1.0 2.5 0.4African-American 55.0 0.8 40.4 0.7 4.6 0.3 61.1 0.8 35.6 0.8 3.3 0.3Asian/Pacific Islander 64.2 1.4 32.6 1.4 3.2 0.5 74.5 1.3 23.7 1.2 1.8 0.4Native American 51.6 3.1 41.4 3.1 7.0 1.6 58.6 2.9 36.2 2.8 5.3 1.3Other† 67.8 6.6 29.1 6.4 3.0 2.4 . . . . . .

Education (Years)

<12 57.9 0.6 36.1 0.6 5.9 0.3 63.5 0.6 31.5 0.6 5.0 0.312 51.7 0.4 42.8 0.4 5.5 0.2 59.0 0.4 36.7 0.4 4.3 0.213–15 53.1 0.5 42.4 0.5 4.5 0.2 61.8 0.5 35.2 0.5 3.0 0.216+ 58.9 0.5 37.8 0.5 3.3 0.2 67.4 0.5 30.4 0.5 2.2 0.2

Household Income

< $10,000 55.6 0.7 38.7 0.7 5.8 0.3 61.8 0.7 33.8 0.7 4.4 0.3$10,000–$19,999 53.7 0.6 40.9 0.6 5.4 0.3 61.0 0.6 34.5 0.6 4.4 0.3$20,000–$29,999 53.1 0.6 41.8 0.6 5.1 0.3 59.7 0.7 36.4 0.6 3.9 0.3$30,000–$49,999 53.5 0.5 42.0 0.5 4.6 0.2 61.0 0.5 35.9 0.5 3.2 0.2$50,000–$74,999 55.1 0.7 40.9 0.7 4.0 0.3 64.1 0.6 33.0 0.6 2.9 0.2$75,000 + 60.5 0.8 36.2 0.8 3.4 0.3 68.7 0.7 29.0 0.7 2.3 0.2Unknown 55.1 1.1 38.9 1.1 6.0 0.5 62.2 0.9 32.9 0.9 4.9 0.4

266

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No.
TABLES 9A AND 9B State-Specific Attitudes About Smoking in Indoor Public Places

(Restaurants, Hospitals, Indoor Work Areas, Bars and Cocktail Lounges,

Indoor Sporting Events, and Indoor Shopping Malls) by Smoking Status

This table presents state-specific attitudes about restrictions on

smoking in various indoor locations.

Restaurants—In the 1992/93 CPS, five states reported percentages of

at least 50 percent of their population supporting smoke-free restaurants;

this number increased to 19 states in the 1995/96 CPS. California and Utah

had the highest percentages of people who think restaurants should be

smoke-free in both the 1992/93 CPS and the 1995/96 CPS. The state with

the lowest percentage was Kentucky, at 29 percent in the 1992/93 CPS and

30 percent in the 1995/96 CPS. Figures 7 through 9 present maps which

show percentages of the population by state who think restaurants should

be smoke-free for each survey year, and the change in that percentage

between the 1992/93 and 1995/96 surveys. Utah had the largest change,

with an increase from 53 percent in the 1992/93 CPS to 68 percent in the

1995/96 CPS. In general, states in the tobacco growing areas of the

Southeast and Nevada have lower levels of support for smoke-free restaurants, and states in the West have higher level of support. 

Among current smokers, support for smoke-free restaurants declined

in 10 states and increased in all the remaining states. California, where a

statewide ban on smoking in restaurants was in place at the time of the

1995/96 CPS, had dramatically higher support for smoke-free restaurants

among current smokers at 42 percent (up from 25 percent in the 1992/93

CPS), with Utah being the next highest for current smokers at 27 percent.

This suggests that bans gain in acceptance as smokers experience their actual implementation.

Hospitals—Public opinion supporting smoke-free hospitals is high.

In the 1992/93 CPS, 4 states reported percentages of at least 80 percent for

smoke-free hospitals; this number increased to 21 states in the 1995/96

CPS. California had the highest percentage of people who think hospitals

should be smoke-free in both the 1992/93 CPS and the 1995/96 CPS, at 85

percent and 89 percent, respectively. The states with the lowest percentages

for the 1992/93 CPS and the 1995/96 CPS were West Virginia and Kentucky,

at 56 percent and 60 percent, respectively. The maps in Figures 10 and 11

show the percentages of people who think hospitals should be smoke-free,

for each state. The map in Figure 12 shows the absolute change in the percentage of people who think hospitals should be smoke-free, from the

1992/93 CPS to the 1995/96 CPS.

The opinions of current smokers about smoke-free hospitals

changed more than former and never-smokers. The percentage of West

Virginian current smokers favoring smoke-free hospitals increased 43 percent between the 1992/93 CPS and the 1995/96 CPS, but the fraction of

current smokers in South Carolina favoring smoke-free hospitals decreased

by 10 percent. California had the highest percentages of current smokers,

former smokers, and never-smokers supporting smoke-free hospitals for

268

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results
both survey years. West Virginia and Kentucky had the lowest percentages

for the 1992/93 CPS and the 1995/96 CPS, respectively.

Indoor Work Areas—Public opinion in most states favors smoke-free

indoor work areas. In the 1992/93 CPS, 15 states reported percentages of at

least 60 percent of the population who support smoke-free indoor work

areas; this number increased to 31 states in the 1995/96 CPS. California had

the highest percentage of people who think indoor work areas should be

smoke-free in the 1992/93 CPS and the 1995/96 CPS, at 71 percent and 78

percent, respectively. The state with the lowest percentage of the population

supporting smoke-free indoor work areas was Kentucky, at 41 percent in the

1992/93 CPS and 43 percent in the 1995/96 CPS. The maps in Figures 13

and 14 show the percentages of people for each state who think indoor

work areas should be smoke-free. Washington, D.C. had the largest change

of opinion favoring smoke-free workplaces, with an increase of 22 percent,

from 56 percent in the 1992/93 CPS to 68 percent in the 1995/96 CPS. The

map in Figure 15 shows the absolute change in the percentage of people

who think indoor work areas should be smoke-free, from the 1992/93 CPS

to the 1995/96 CPS.

Current smokers showed more change between the 1992/93 CPS

and 1995/96 CPS in their support for smoke-free work areas than did neveror former smokers. For current smokers, the percent favoring smoke-free

work areas in Washington, D.C. increased by 52 percent and Connecticut

decreased by 9 percent. In the 1995/96 CPS, Kentucky and West Virginia

have the lowest percentage of current smokers, former smokers, and neversmokers favoring smoke-free indoor work areas; California has the highest

percentages.

Bars and Cocktail Lounges—The percentage of people who think bars

and cocktail lounges should be smoke-free is lower than for other locations.

In the 1992/93 CPS, only 2 states reported percentages of 30 percent or

greater supporting smoke-free bars and cocktail lounges; this number

increased to 11 states for the 1995/96 CPS. Mississippi had the highest percentage of people who think bars and cocktail lounges should be smokefree in both the 1992/93 and 1995/96 CPS, at 31 percent and 35 percent,

respectively. The states with the lowest percentages supporting smoke-free

bars and cocktail lounges for the 1992/93 CPS and the 1995/96 CPS were

Utah and Nevada, at 15 percent and 16 percent, respectively. Figures 16 and

17 present maps which show the percentages of people who think bars and

cocktail lounges should be smoke-free, for each state. Figure 18 is a map

showing the absolute change in the percentage of people who think bars

and cocktail lounges should be smoke-free, from the 1992/93 CPS to the

1995/96 CPS. Maine had the largest change, with an increase of 38 percent,

from 23 percent in the 1992/93 CPS to 32 percent in the 1995/96 CPS. In

nine states, the percentage of people who think bars and cocktail lounges

should be smoke-free declined between surveys. Utah usually has a high

percentage of people who think the various indoor public places should be

smoke-free. For bars and cocktail lounges, however, Utah is one of the lowest states. Similarly, Mississippi is not near the top for any of the other

269

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
smoke-free indoor public places, but leads the states for smoke-free bars and

cocktail lounges.

Between the 1992/93 CPS and 1995/96 CPS, the fraction of current

smokers in Iowa favoring smoke-free bars and cocktail lounges dropped 38

percent, and the percentage of Vermont’s current smokers favoring smokefree bars and cocktail lounges increased 139 percent. Maine, Nevada, and

Rhode Island also had increases in support greater than 100 percent among

current smokers. Never-smokers showed less change; the percentage of

never-smokers in Arizona favoring smoke-free bars and cocktail lounges

increased by 37 percent and decreased 15 percent in Hawaii. However, support for smoke-free bars remains higher among never-smokers than among

current smokers.

Indoor Sporting Events—Most people think indoor sporting events

should be smoke-free. The percentage of people favoring smoke-free indoor

sporting events was 75 percent or higher for 10 states in the 1992/93 CPS

and was 75 percent or higher for 14 states in the 1995/96 CPS. Montana

and Utah had the highest percentages of people who think indoor sporting

events should be smoke-free in the 1992/93 CPS and the 1995/96 CPS, at 78

percent and 82 percent, respectively. The states with the lowest percentages

favoring smoke-free indoor sporting events for the 1992/93 CPS and the

1995/96 CPS were Kentucky and North Carolina, at 53 percent and 54 percent, respectively. The maps in Figures 19 and 20 show the percentages of

people who think indoor sporting events should be smoke-free for each

state. The map in Figure 21 shows the absolute change between the

1992/93 CPS and the 1995/96 CPS in the percentage of people who think

indoor sporting events should be smoke-free. Washington, D.C. had the

largest change of opinion supporting smoke-free indoor sporting events,

with an increase of 14 percent, from 59 percent in the 1992/93 CPS to 67

percent in the 1995/96 CPS.

Indoor Shopping Malls—There was an increase in support for smokefree indoor shopping malls between the 1992/93 CPS and the 1995/96 CPS.

In the 1992/93 CPS, only one state reported 70 percent or more of the population supporting smoke-free indoor shopping malls; this number

increased to eight states in the 1995/96 CPS. Utah had the highest percentage of people who think indoor shopping malls should be smoke-free in

both the 1992/93 and 1995/96 CPS, at 70 percent and 82 percent, respectively. The state with the lowest percentage for the 1992/93 and 1995/96

CPS was Kentucky, at 37 percent and 42 percent, respectively. The maps in

Figures 22 and 23 show the percentages for each state of people who think

indoor shopping malls should be smoke-free. The map in Figure 24 shows

the absolute change between the 1992/93 CPS and the 1995/96 CPS in the

percentage of people who think indoor shopping malls should be smokefree. Delaware had the largest change, with an increase of 28 percent, from

45 percent in the 1992/93 CPS to 58 percent in the 1995/96 CPS.

270

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results
South Carolina is the only state that consistently declined in percentage of the population who think various indoor public places should be

smoke-free. This state was at the bottom of the list for change for all six

public places asked about in the survey. 

South Carolina: Change in attitudes about smoking in indoor public places

Absolute Relative

Area Change Change

Bars and Cocktail Lounges -3% -11%

Indoor Shopping Malls -2% -4%

Indoor Work Areas -1% -1%

Indoor Sporting Events -6% -9%

Restaurants -6% -13%

Hospitals -4% -5%

271

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
47.6* - 55.9

45.6 - 47.6*42.5 - 45.539.2 - 42.428.8 - 39.1

Percentage of people who thinksmoking should not be allowed at all:

Data Source: 1992/93 Current Population SurveyNote: States categorized by quintiles

* These quintiles divide at the 0.01 level

Figure 7: Attitudes Regarding Smoking in Restaurants: 1992/93

272

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results
51.2 - 67.8

48.7 - 51.145.0 - 48.642.3 - 44.930.3 - 42.2

Percentage of people who thinksmoking should not be allowed at all:

Data Source: 1995/96 Current Population SurveyNote: States categorized by quintiles

Figure 8: Attitudes Regarding Smoking in Restaurants: 1995/96

273

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
5.5 - 14.9

3.5 - 5.42.0 - 3.40.9 - 1.9

 ̄5.6 - 0.8

Change in percentage of peoplewho think smoking should notbe allowed at all:

Data Source: 1992/93 and 1995/96 Current Population SurveysNote: States categorized by quintiles

Figure 9: Change in Attitudes Regarding Smoking in Restaurants:

1992/93 to 1995/96

274

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results
77.4 - 84.7

75.1* - 77.3

73.1 - 75.1*70.7 - 73.056.4 - 70.6

Percentage of people who thinksmoking should not be allowed at all:

Data Source: 1992/93 Current Population SurveyNote: States categorized by quintiles

* These quintiles divide at the 0.01 level

Figure 10: Attitudes Regarding Smoking in Hospitals: 1992/93

275

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
81.6 - 89.0

79.3 - 81.577.4 - 79.272.2 - 77.360.1 - 72.1

Percentage of people who thinksmoking should not be allowed at all:

Data Source: 1995/96 Current Population SurveyNote: States categorized by quintiles

Figure 11: Attitudes Regarding Smoking in Hospitals: 1995/96

276

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results
4.9 - 10.0

4.1* - 4.83.4* - 4.1*

1.8 - 3.4*

 ̄3.9 - 1.7

Change in percentage of peoplewho think smoking should notbe allowed at all:

Data Source: 1992/93 and 1995/96 Current Population SurveysNote: States categorized by quintiles

* These quintiles divide at the 0.01 level

Figure 12: Change in Attitudes Regarding Smoking in

Hospitals: 1992/93 to 1995/96

277

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
61.3 - 71.1

57.8 - 61.255.3 - 57.7

52.8* - 55.2

40.7 - 52.8*

Percentage of people who thinksmoking should not be allowed at all:

Data Source: 1992/93 Current Population SurveyNote: States categorized by quintiles

* These quintiles divide at the 0.01 level

Figure 13: Attitudes Regarding Smoking in Indoor

Work Areas: 1992/93

278

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results
66.0 - 78.3

62.5 - 65.959.8 - 62.455.0 - 59.742.6 - 54.9

Percentage of people who thinksmoking should not be allowed at all:

Data Source: 1995/96 Current Population SurveyNote: States categorized by quintiles

Figure 14: Attitudes Regarding Smoking in Indoor

Work Areas: 1995/96

279

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
6.6* - 9.6

4.9 - 6.6*3.4 - 4.8

1.9* - 3.3

 ̄0.8 - 1.9*

Change in percentage of peoplewho think smoking should notbe allowed at all:

Data Source: 1992/93 and 1995/96 Current Population SurveysNote: States categorized by quintiles

* These quintiles divide at the 0.01 level

Figure 15: Change in Attitudes Regarding Smoking in

Indoor Work Areas: 1992/93 to 1995/96

280

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results
26.4 - 30.5

23.7 - 26.3

22.4* - 23.6

20.1 - 22.4*14.9 - 20.0

Percentage of people who thinksmoking should not be allowed at all:

Data Source: 1992/93 Current Population SurveyNote: States categorized by quintiles

* These quintiles divide at the 0.01 level

Figure 16: Attitudes Regarding Smoking in Bars and

Cocktail Lounges: 1992/93

281

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
29.6 - 35.3

25.4* - 29.523.8* - 25.4*21.4* - 23.8*

16.1 - 21.4*

Percentage of people who thinksmoking should not be allowed at all:

Data Source: 1995/96 Current Population SurveyNote: States categorized by quintiles

* These quintiles divide at the 0.01 level

Figure 17: Attitudes Regarding Smoking in Bars and

Cocktail Lounges: 1995/96

282

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results
4.5 - 8.9

2.6 - 4.40.9 - 2.50.0 - 0.8

 ̄3.0 -  ̄0.1

Change in percentage of peoplewho think smoking should notbe allowed at all:

Data Source: 1992/93 and 1995/96 Current Population SurveysNote: States categorized by quintiles

Figure 18: Change in Attitudes Regarding Smoking in Bars

and Cocktail Lounges: 1992/93 to 1995/96

283

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
74.3 - 78.2

69.1 - 74.2

66.9* - 69.0

64.3 - 66.9*53.3 - 64.2

Percentage of people who thinksmoking should not be allowed at all:

Data Source: 1992/93 Current Population SurveyNote: States categorized by quintiles

Figure 19: Attitudes Regarding Smoking During Indoor

* These quintiles divide at the 0.01 level

Sporting Events: 1992/93

284

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results
77.0 - 82.5

71.0 - 76.967.3 - 70.964.2* - 67.230.3 - 64.2*

Percentage of people who thinksmoking should not be allowed at all:

Data Source: 1995/96 Current Population SurveyNote: States categorized by quintiles

Figure 20: Attitudes Regarding Smoking During Indoor

* These quintiles divide at the 0.01 level

Sporting Events: 1995/96

285

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
4.1 - 7.4

1.8* - 4.0

0.2 - 1.8*

 ̄1.0 - 0.1 ̄6.0 -  ̄1.1

Change in percentage of peoplewho think smoking should notbe allowed at all:

Data Source: 1992/93 and 1995/96 Current Population SurveysNote: States categorized by quintiles

* These quintiles divide at the 0.01 level

Figure 21: Change in Attitudes Regarding Smoking During

Indoor Sporting Events: 1992/93 to 1995/96

286

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results
58.1 - 70.0

54.4* - 58.0

52.8 - 54.4*48.5 - 52.736.5 - 48.4

Percentage of people who thinksmoking should not be allowed at all:

Data Source: 1992/93 Current Population SurveyNote: States categorized by quintiles

* These quintiles divide at the 0.001 level

Figure 22: Attitudes Regarding Smoking in Indoor

Shopping Malls: 1992/93

287

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
67.5 - 82.0

63.9 - 67.459.3 - 63.857.1 - 59.241.9 - 57.0

Percentage of people who thinksmoking should not be allowed at all:

Data Source: 1995/96 Current Population SurveyNote: States categorized by quintiles

Figure 23: Attitudes Regarding Smoking in Indoor

Shopping Malls: 1995/96

288

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results
11.8* - 16.5

9.1 - 11.8*6.9 - 9.0

5.2* - 6.8

 ̄2.2 - 5.2*

Change in percentage of peoplewho think smoking should notbe allowed at all:

Data Source: 1992/93 and 1995/96 Current Population SurveysNote: States categorized by quintiles

* These quintiles divide at the 0.01 level

Figure 24: Change in Attitudes Regarding Smoking in

Indoor Shopping Malls: 1992/93 to 1995/96

289

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
290

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Alabama Overall Not allowed at all 47.8 2.3 71.7 2.0 59.9 2.2 29.9 2.1 67.0 2.1 55.3 2.3

Allowed in some areas 48.8 2.3 26.7 2.0 37.4 2.2 38.0 2.2 27.9 2.0 39.5 2.2Allowed in all areas 3.4 0.8 1.5 0.6 2.8 0.7 32.1 2.1 5.0 1.0 5.2 1.0

Never Not allowed at all 59.5 3.1 80.8 2.5 72.2 2.8 39.1 3.1 76.1 2.7 65.7 3.0

Allowed in some areas 38.9 3.1 18.7 2.4 26.7 2.8 37.9 3.1 21.7 2.6 31.9 2.9Allowed in all areas 1.6 0.8 0.5 0.4 1.1 0.7 23.0 2.6 2.2 0.9 2.4 1.0

Current Not allowed at all 20.1 3.6 50.1 4.4 33.8 4.2 9.1 2.6 47.3 4.4 32.9 4.2

Allowed in some areas 72.8 4.0 45.7 4.4 60.1 4.4 39.7 4.4 41.9 4.4 55.9 4.4Allowed in all areas 7.1 2.3 4.1 1.8 6.1 2.1 51.2 4.4 10.8 2.8 11.2 2.8

Former Not allowed at all 52.8 4.9 75.8 4.2 61.2 4.8 32.5 4.6 69.0 4.5 57.1 4.8

Allowed in some areas 43.7 4.8 23.2 4.1 36.1 4.7 36.3 4.7 26.2 4.3 38.2 4.7Allowed in all areas 3.5 1.8 1.0 1.0 2.7 1.6 31.2 4.6 4.9 2.1 4.7 2.1

Alaska Overall Not allowed at all 47.2 2.1 75.9 1.8 59.8 2.1 22.4 1.8 72.1 1.9 57.8 2.1

Allowed in some areas 49.7 2.1 22.8 1.8 37.8 2.1 48.6 2.1 24.9 1.8 38.5 2.1Allowed in all areas 3.0 0.7 1.3 0.5 2.4 0.7 29.0 1.9 2.9 0.7 3.7 0.8

Never Not allowed at all 61.8 3.1 86.2 2.2 73.7 2.8 34.0 3.0 79.3 2.6 68.1 2.9

Allowed in some areas 37.1 3.0 13.7 2.2 26.1 2.8 49.6 3.2 19.9 2.5 30.0 2.9Allowed in all areas 1.0 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 16.4 2.3 0.8 0.6 1.9 0.9

Current Not allowed at all 21.3 3.3 56.1 3.9 34.4 3.8 4.7 1.7 58.9 3.9 38.8 3.9

Allowed in some areas 72.7 3.5 40.3 3.9 59.8 3.9 43.8 3.9 35.0 3.8 54.5 4.0Allowed in all areas 6.0 1.9 3.6 1.5 5.9 1.9 51.5 4.0 6.1 1.9 6.7 2.0

Former Not allowed at all 50.3 4.2 79.7 3.4 63.4 4.0 21.7 3.4 74.3 3.7 60.9 4.1

Allowed in some areas 46.4 4.2 19.4 3.3 34.2 4.0 52.1 4.2 22.6 3.5 35.7 4.0Allowed in all areas 3.3 1.5 0.9 0.8 2.4 1.3 26.2 3.7 3.1 1.5 3.4 1.5

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9aState-Specific Attitudes about Smoking in Indoor Public Places (Restaurants, Hospitals, Indoor Work Areas, Bars and Cocktail Loun

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI

ges,

Indoor Sporting Events, and Indoor Shopping Malls) by Smoking Status*—1992/93
291

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Arizona Overall Not allowed at all 48.9 2.1 78.4 1.7 65.2 2.0 19.5 1.7 68.0 1.9 58.0 2.1 Allowed in some areas 48.7 2.1 21.1 1.7 33.1 2.0 46.0 2.1 28.1 1.9 38.1 2.0 Allowed in all areas 2.4 0.6 0.5 0.3 1.7 0.5 34.5 2.0 3.9 0.8 4.0 0.8 Never Not allowed at all 62.6 2.8 86.2 2.0 77.5 2.4 26.8 2.6 74.6 2.5 68.7 2.7 Allowed in some areas 36.9 2.8 13.7 2.0 21.9 2.4 48.6 2.9 23.4 2.4 28.8 2.6 Allowed in all areas 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.5 24.6 2.5 2.0 0.8 2.5 0.9 Current Not allowed at all 18.6 3.4 59.9 4.2 37.4 4.2 3.8 1.7 49.6 4.3 35.9 4.1 Allowed in some areas 76.1 3.7 39.2 4.2 59.4 4.3 41.2 4.3 42.7 4.3 58.5 4.3 Allowed in all areas 5.3 1.9 0.9 0.8 3.2 1.5 55.0 4.3 7.7 2.3 5.6 2.0 Former Not allowed at all 47.9 4.2 79.1 3.4 64.8 4.0 18.7 3.3 71.1 3.8 56.0 4.2 Allowed in some areas 48.4 4.2 19.7 3.3 32.4 4.0 45.2 4.2 24.4 3.6 38.6 4.1

Allowed in all areas 3.6 1.6 1.2 0.9 2.7 1.4 36.1 4.1 4.5 1.7 5.5 1.9

Arkansas Overall Not allowed at all 41.1 2.2 68.3 2.1 52.8 2.3 23.8 2.0 66.0 2.2 53.8 2.3

Allowed in some areas 54.4 2.3 30.1 2.1 44.0 2.3 35.9 2.2 29.1 2.1 39.5 2.2Allowed in all areas 4.4 0.9 1.6 0.6 3.2 0.8 40.3 2.3 4.9 1.0 6.7 1.1

Never Not allowed at all 55.3 3.2 80.5 2.5 67.9 3.0 34.0 3.1 75.0 2.8 67.1 3.0

Allowed in some areas 42.4 3.2 18.6 2.5 30.8 3.0 35.4 3.1 23.1 2.7 29.6 2.9Allowed in all areas 2.2 0.9 0.9 0.6 1.3 0.7 30.6 3.0 1.9 0.9 3.3 1.1

Current Not allowed at all 13.8 2.9 45.3 4.2 23.9 3.6 4.8 1.8 47.2 4.3 30.1 3.9

Allowed in some areas 78.5 3.5 52.7 4.2 70.6 3.9 37.8 4.2 43.5 4.2 58.2 4.2Allowed in all areas 7.7 2.3 2.0 1.2 5.5 1.9 57.3 4.2 9.3 2.5 11.7 2.7

Former Not allowed at all 44.2 4.9 70.4 4.5 56.2 4.9 25.2 4.3 70.1 4.5 54.2 4.9

Allowed in some areas 50.5 4.9 27.2 4.4 39.3 4.8 34.4 4.7 23.8 4.2 37.9 4.8Allowed in all areas 5.4 2.2 2.5 1.5 4.6 2.1 40.5 4.9 6.1 2.4 7.9 2.7

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9a (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
292

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

California Overall Not allowed at all 55.9 0.8 84.7 0.6 71.1 0.7 27.2 0.7 71.4 0.7 63.4 0.8

Allowed in some areas 41.5 0.8 14.6 0.6 27.2 0.7 42.5 0.8 23.9 0.7 31.6 0.7Allowed in all areas 2.6 0.3 0.7 0.1 1.8 0.2 30.3 0.7 4.6 0.3 5.0 0.4

Never Not allowed at all 66.5 1.0 90.2 0.6 79.6 0.8 34.5 1.0 76.9 0.9 70.9 1.0

Allowed in some areas 32.3 1.0 9.6 0.6 19.6 0.8 43.7 1.0 20.3 0.8 25.9 0.9Allowed in all areas 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.2 21.8 0.9 2.9 0.3 3.2 0.4

Current Not allowed at all 25.4 1.6 70.0 1.7 47.1 1.8 7.0 0.9 54.2 1.8 42.7 1.8

Allowed in some areas 67.7 1.7 28.1 1.6 48.6 1.8 37.4 1.8 35.7 1.7 46.9 1.8Allowed in all areas 6.9 0.9 1.9 0.5 4.4 0.7 55.6 1.8 10.1 1.1 10.4 1.1

Former Not allowed at all 54.8 1.7 83.2 1.3 69.7 1.6 26.1 1.5 72.4 1.5 61.9 1.7

Allowed in some areas 42.6 1.7 16.1 1.3 28.4 1.5 43.8 1.7 23.0 1.4 32.9 1.6Allowed in all areas 2.5 0.5 0.8 0.3 1.9 0.5 30.1 1.6 4.6 0.7 5.2 0.8

Colorado Overall Not allowed at all 46.1 2.3 75.2 2.0 60.2 2.2 21.4 1.9 69.8 2.1 55.2 2.3

Allowed in some areas 51.4 2.3 24.4 2.0 38.4 2.2 48.3 2.3 26.0 2.0 41.8 2.2Allowed in all areas 2.4 0.7 0.4 0.3 1.4 0.5 30.3 2.1 4.1 0.9 3.0 0.8

Never Not allowed at all 59.5 3.2 82.8 2.4 71.5 2.9 29.5 3.0 74.0 2.8 64.2 3.1

Allowed in some areas 39.4 3.2 17.2 2.4 28.2 2.9 50.5 3.3 23.2 2.7 33.6 3.1Allowed in all areas 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 20.0 2.6 2.7 1.1 2.3 1.0

Current Not allowed at all 17.5 3.5 59.0 4.5 34.3 4.4 3.7 1.7 56.0 4.6 35.1 4.4

Allowed in some areas 77.9 3.8 40.3 4.5 62.0 4.5 43.9 4.6 35.7 4.4 59.8 4.5Allowed in all areas 4.6 1.9 0.7 0.8 3.7 1.7 52.4 4.6 8.2 2.5 5.1 2.0

Former Not allowed at all 47.6 4.4 76.2 3.8 63.0 4.3 22.7 3.7 74.8 3.9 57.2 4.4

Allowed in some areas 49.5 4.4 23.1 3.7 35.6 4.3 48.2 4.5 22.2 3.7 40.5 4.4Allowed in all areas 2.9 1.5 0.8 0.8 1.4 1.0 29.1 4.1 3.0 1.5 2.3 1.3

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9a (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
293

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Connecticut Overall Not allowed at all 50.3 2.3 81.5 1.8 61.8 2.3 28.2 2.1 72.0 2.1 59.7 2.3 Allowed in some areas 48.1 2.3 18.1 1.8 37.2 2.3 47.7 2.3 25.7 2.0 37.1 2.3 Allowed in all areas 1.6 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.5 24.1 2.0 2.3 0.7 3.2 0.8 Never Not allowed at all 62.9 3.2 89.6 2.0 72.7 2.9 37.2 3.2 76.8 2.8 68.9 3.0 Allowed in some areas 36.6 3.2 89.6 2.0 27.2 2.9 45.9 3.3 21.9 2.7 29.0 3.0 Allowed in all areas 0.4 0.4 10.4 2.0 0.1 0.2 17.0 2.5 1.3 0.8 2.2 1.0 Current Not allowed at all 21.4 4.0 64.4 4.6 38.4 4.7 7.7 2.6 59.4 4.7 40.9 4.7 Allowed in some areas 74.8 4.2 34.9 4.6 59.5 4.7 51.5 4.8 36.3 4.6 54.5 4.8 Allowed in all areas 3.7 1.8 0.7 0.8 2.1 1.4 40.8 4.7 4.3 2.0 4.6 2.0 Former Not allowed at all 51.6 4.7 81.0 3.7 61.7 4.6 29.0 4.2 74.1 4.1 58.7 4.6 Allowed in some areas 46.3 4.7 18.3 3.6 36.7 4.5 48.1 4.7 23.6 4.0 37.2 4.5

Allowed in all areas 2.1 1.4 0.7 0.8 1.6 1.2 22.9 3.9 2.2 1.4 4.1 1.9

Delaware Overall Not allowed at all 39.1 2.2 71.2 2.1 52.8 2.3 22.5 1.9 58.7 2.2 45.3 2.3

Allowed in some areas 57.6 2.2 27.3 2.0 44.3 2.3 48.0 2.3 36.5 2.2 49.6 2.3Allowed in all areas 3.3 0.8 1.5 0.5 2.9 0.8 29.4 2.1 4.8 1.0 5.1 1.0

Never Not allowed at all 50.7 3.2 79.6 2.6 63.6 3.1 32.0 3.0 67.5 3.0 57.5 3.2

Allowed in some areas 47.4 3.2 19.1 2.5 34.6 3.1 47.1 3.2 28.8 2.9 38.6 3.1Allowed in all areas 1.9 0.9 1.3 0.7 1.8 0.9 20.9 2.6 3.8 1.2 3.9 1.2

Current Not allowed at all 14.8 3.3 50.7 4.6 26.3 4.1 4.7 2.0 37.1 4.5 20.9 3.8

Allowed in some areas 79.5 3.7 46.9 4.6 68.4 4.3 48.5 4.6 56.0 4.6 70.3 4.2Allowed in all areas 5.7 2.1 2.4 1.4 5.3 2.1 46.9 4.6 6.9 2.3 8.8 2.6

Former Not allowed at all 39.2 4.4 74.1 3.9 56.3 4.5 21.0 3.7 61.7 4.4 44.3 4.4

Allowed in some areas 57.1 4.4 24.9 3.9 41.2 4.4 49.4 4.5 33.3 4.2 51.7 4.5Allowed in all areas 3.7 1.7 1.1 0.9 2.6 1.4 29.5 4.1 5.0 1.9 4.0 1.8

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9a (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
294

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

District of 

Columbia Overall Not allowed at all 41.1 2.4 78.1 2.0 55.9 2.4 23.5 2.1 58.7 2.4 46.5 2.4

Allowed in some areas 56.6 2.4 21.1 2.0 42.2 2.4 57.9 2.4 37.7 2.4 49.6 2.4Allowed in all areas 2.3 0.7 0.7 0.4 1.9 0.7 18.6 1.9 3.6 0.9 3.9 0.9

Never Not allowed at all 48.5 3.2 83.3 2.4 63.1 3.1 27.7 2.9 63.4 3.1 53.0 3.2

Allowed in some areas 50.3 3.2 16.3 2.4 36.0 3.1 58.6 3.2 34.7 3.1 44.3 3.2Allowed in all areas 1.2 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.6 13.7 2.2 1.8 0.9 2.6 1.0

Current Not allowed at all 17.9 3.9 64.9 4.9 30.4 4.7 7.2 2.6 43.3 5.1 27.0 4.5

Allowed in some areas 76.2 4.3 33.5 4.8 65.0 4.9 60.1 5.0 48.4 5.1 65.7 4.9Allowed in all areas 5.8 2.4 1.5 1.3 4.6 2.1 32.7 4.8 8.4 2.8 7.3 2.7

Former Not allowed at all 46.2 5.4 78.5 4.4 64.1 5.2 30.1 5.0 62.9 5.2 50.0 5.4

Allowed in some areas 52.2 5.4 20.8 4.4 34.2 5.2 53.2 5.4 33.9 5.1 46.5 5.4Allowed in all areas 1.6 1.4 0.7 0.9 1.7 1.4 16.6 4.0 3.2 1.9 3.5 2.0

Florida Overall Not allowed at all 46.8 1.0 76.2 0.9 61.2 1.0 27.1 0.9 65.1 1.0 54.1 1.0

Allowed in some areas 49.7 1.0 22.8 0.8 36.3 1.0 42.2 1.0 29.3 0.9 39.9 1.0Allowed in all areas 3.5 0.4 1.0 0.2 2.5 0.3 30.7 0.9 5.6 0.5 6.0 0.5

Never Not allowed at all 61.4 1.4 85.2 1.0 73.0 1.3 37.5 1.4 72.9 1.3 65.4 1.3

Allowed in some areas 37.1 1.4 14.5 1.0 25.9 1.2 42.2 1.4 23.6 1.2 31.1 1.3Allowed in all areas 1.5 0.3 0.4 0.2 1.1 0.3 20.3 1.1 3.6 0.5 3.5 0.5

Current Not allowed at all 16.8 1.5 57.3 2.0 35.2 1.9 6.0 1.0 46.6 2.0 29.0 1.8

Allowed in some areas 76.2 1.7 40.5 2.0 59.6 2.0 40.2 2.0 43.2 2.0 59.4 2.0Allowed in all areas 7.0 1.0 2.2 0.6 5.2 0.9 53.8 2.0 10.2 1.2 11.6 1.3

Former Not allowed at all 47.1 2.0 76.9 1.7 63.2 1.9 27.3 1.8 67.6 1.9 55.9 2.0

Allowed in some areas 48.9 2.0 22.0 1.6 34.2 1.9 43.9 2.0 27.3 1.8 38.4 1.9Allowed in all areas 4.0 0.8 1.1 0.4 2.6 0.6 28.8 1.8 5.2 0.9 5.7 0.9

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9a (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
295

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Georgia Overall Not allowed at all 47.1 2.1 73.9 1.9 58.3 2.1 29.5 1.9 65.1 2.0 53.7 2.1 Allowed in some areas 50.3 2.1 25.0 1.8 39.6 2.1 42.7 2.1 29.9 1.9 40.4 2.1 Allowed in all areas 2.6 0.7 1.1 0.4 2.2 0.6 27.8 1.9 4.9 0.9 6.0 1.0 Never Not allowed at all 59.3 2.8 83.6 2.1 69.4 2.7 39.0 2.8 74.0 2.5 63.5 2.8 Allowed in some areas 40.0 2.8 15.9 2.1 29.7 2.6 41.0 2.8 23.6 2.5 32.5 2.7 Allowed in all areas 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.6 20.0 2.3 2.4 0.9 4.0 1.1 Current Not allowed at all 17.9 3.2 52.7 4.2 30.5 3.9 8.1 2.3 44.1 4.2 29.3 3.8 Allowed in some areas 74.9 3.6 44.7 4.2 64.3 4.0 44.6 4.2 44.2 4.2 59.4 4.1 Allowed in all areas 7.3 2.2 2.5 1.3 5.1 1.9 47.3 4.2 11.7 2.7 11.3 2.7 Former Not allowed at all 50.9 4.6 74.7 4.0 63.1 4.5 30.8 4.3 67.9 4.3 57.7 4.6 Allowed in some areas 47.1 4.6 24.5 4.0 35.2 4.4 44.9 4.6 28.8 4.2 37.7 4.5

Allowed in all areas 2.0 1.3 0.7 0.8 1.7 1.2 24.4 4.0 3.4 1.7 4.6 1.9

Hawaii Overall Not allowed at all 47.1 2.2 81.8 1.7 67.0 2.1 24.4 1.9 69.0 2.0 56.9 2.2

Allowed in some areas 50.3 2.2 17.8 1.7 31.7 2.0 46.6 2.2 26.9 1.9 39.3 2.1Allowed in all areas 2.6 0.7 0.4 0.3 1.3 0.5 29.0 2.0 4.1 0.9 3.9 0.8

Never Not allowed at all 56.8 2.9 86.3 2.0 74.8 2.6 33.0 2.8 72.6 2.6 62.9 2.9

Allowed in some areas 42.7 2.9 13.6 2.0 24.8 2.6 49.8 3.0 24.6 2.6 34.9 2.8Allowed in all areas 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 17.2 2.2 2.8 1.0 2.2 0.9

Current Not allowed at all 23.7 3.9 69.4 4.3 44.3 4.6 6.8 2.3 55.9 4.6 40.9 4.5

Allowed in some areas 68.9 4.3 29.5 4.2 52.0 4.6 35.0 4.4 35.9 4.4 50.4 4.6Allowed in all areas 7.4 2.4 1.1 1.0 3.8 1.8 58.2 4.6 8.2 2.5 8.7 2.6

Former Not allowed at all 47.2 4.6 83.2 3.5 71.0 4.2 21.0 3.8 73.6 4.1 58.2 4.6

Allowed in some areas 49.9 4.6 16.0 3.4 27.8 4.2 50.4 4.6 23.2 3.9 38.6 4.5Allowed in all areas 2.9 1.5 0.7 0.8 1.2 1.0 28.5 4.2 3.3 1.7 3.1 1.6

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9a (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
296

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Idaho Overall Not allowed at all 47.9 2.1 76.0 1.8 62.1 2.0 22.9 1.7 76.6 1.8 65.3 2.0

Allowed in some areas 49.3 2.1 23.2 1.8 35.5 2.0 36.7 2.0 20.1 1.7 31.5 1.9Allowed in all areas 2.8 0.7 0.8 0.4 2.3 0.6 40.4 2.0 3.3 0.7 3.2 0.7

Never Not allowed at all 62.3 2.8 84.5 2.1 73.6 2.5 31.2 2.7 82.6 2.2 74.6 2.5

Allowed in some areas 36.8 2.8 84.5 2.1 25.9 2.5 39.0 2.8 16.0 2.1 24.1 2.4Allowed in all areas 0.9 0.5 15.5 2.1 0.5 0.4 29.8 2.6 1.4 0.7 1.2 0.6

Current Not allowed at all 16.2 3.1 56.9 4.2 33.8 4.0 3.6 1.6 61.4 4.1 43.2 4.2

Allowed in some areas 77.7 3.5 41.1 4.1 60.5 4.1 29.7 3.9 31.5 3.9 49.7 4.2Allowed in all areas 6.1 2.0 2.0 1.2 5.7 2.0 66.7 4.0 7.1 2.2 7.1 2.2

Former Not allowed at all 48.4 4.3 76.6 3.7 65.6 4.1 24.2 3.7 78.7 3.6 67.2 4.1

Allowed in some areas 48.1 4.3 22.0 3.6 31.5 4.0 38.9 4.2 17.7 3.3 29.2 4.0Allowed in all areas 3.5 1.6 1.4 1.0 3.0 1.5 36.9 4.2 3.6 1.6 3.6 1.6

Illinois Overall Not allowed at all 43.5 1.1 73.5 1.0 55.2 1.1 22.6 1.0 65.3 1.1 52.9 1.1

Allowed in some areas 52.7 1.1 25.2 1.0 42.3 1.1 43.4 1.1 29.7 1.0 42.6 1.1Allowed in all areas 3.8 0.4 1.3 0.3 2.5 0.4 34.0 1.1 5.0 0.5 4.4 0.5

Never Not allowed at all 56.0 1.6 84.3 1.2 68.2 1.5 30.9 1.5 72.5 1.4 63.2 1.5

Allowed in some areas 42.3 1.6 15.0 1.1 30.9 1.5 45.0 1.6 24.6 1.4 34.0 1.5Allowed in all areas 1.7 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.9 0.3 24.1 1.4 2.9 0.5 2.9 0.5

Current Not allowed at all 15.0 1.6 51.0 2.3 27.2 2.0 4.5 0.9 46.2 2.3 30.4 2.1

Allowed in some areas 77.2 1.9 46.5 2.3 67.0 2.1 39.0 2.2 43.5 2.3 61.1 2.2Allowed in all areas 7.9 1.2 2.5 0.7 5.8 1.1 56.5 2.3 10.4 1.4 8.5 1.3

Former Not allowed at all 46.6 2.4 73.9 2.1 56.4 2.4 23.8 2.0 69.8 2.2 54.4 2.4

Allowed in some areas 49.4 2.4 24.9 2.1 41.2 2.3 44.4 2.4 26.0 2.1 42.2 2.3Allowed in all areas 4.0 0.9 1.2 0.5 2.4 0.7 31.7 2.2 4.1 0.9 3.4 0.9

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9a (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
297

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Indiana Overall Not allowed at all 38.0 2.1 67.5 2.1 50.3 2.2 20.6 1.8 68.1 2.0 48.4 2.2 Allowed in some areas 58.0 2.2 31.1 2.0 46.5 2.2 44.0 2.2 27.9 2.0 46.3 2.2 Allowed in all areas 4.0 0.9 1.3 0.5 3.2 0.8 35.4 2.1 4.0 0.9 5.3 1.0 Never Not allowed at all 52.7 3.1 80.7 2.4 65.5 2.9 29.9 2.8 77.4 2.6 61.0 3.0 Allowed in some areas 45.9 3.1 18.8 2.4 33.2 2.9 44.5 3.1 20.9 2.5 36.5 3.0 Allowed in all areas 1.4 0.7 0.5 0.4 1.3 0.7 25.7 2.7 1.8 0.8 2.4 1.0 Current Not allowed at all 11.9 2.7 42.5 4.1 21.7 3.4 3.7 1.6 48.5 4.2 24.2 3.6 Allowed in some areas 79.8 3.4 54.5 4.2 71.6 3.8 42.2 4.1 42.4 4.1 65.5 4.0 Allowed in all areas 8.3 2.3 3.0 1.4 6.7 2.1 54.2 4.2 9.1 2.4 10.4 2.5 Former Not allowed at all 37.1 4.6 68.9 4.4 51.3 4.7 20.9 3.9 71.7 4.3 49.9 4.7 Allowed in some areas 58.4 4.7 30.0 4.3 45.6 4.7 45.1 4.7 25.7 4.1 44.7 4.7

Allowed in all areas 4.4 1.9 1.1 1.0 3.1 1.6 34.0 4.5 2.6 1.5 5.5 2.1

Iowa Overall Not allowed at all 42.5 2.1 72.9 1.9 56.2 2.1 21.9 1.8 74.2 1.9 52.2 2.1

Allowed in some areas 54.4 2.1 26.3 1.9 41.4 2.1 43.5 2.1 22.9 1.8 44.2 2.1Allowed in all areas 3.1 0.7 0.8 0.4 2.4 0.7 34.6 2.0 2.9 0.7 3.5 0.8

Never Not allowed at all 56.0 2.9 82.9 2.2 70.7 2.7 30.2 2.7 79.6 2.4 63.1 2.8

Allowed in some areas 42.8 2.9 16.9 2.2 28.6 2.6 47.1 2.9 18.2 2.3 34.9 2.8Allowed in all areas 1.2 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.5 22.8 2.5 2.2 0.9 2.0 0.8

Current Not allowed at all 12.8 2.9 51.3 4.4 24.8 3.8 3.7 1.7 58.4 4.3 25.8 3.8

Allowed in some areas 80.6 3.4 46.8 4.3 69.1 4.0 36.0 4.2 36.8 4.2 67.4 4.1Allowed in all areas 6.6 2.2 1.9 1.2 6.1 2.1 60.2 4.3 4.8 1.9 6.8 2.2

Former Not allowed at all 42.4 4.5 72.3 4.1 55.5 4.5 21.6 3.7 78.5 3.7 54.7 4.5

Allowed in some areas 54.1 4.5 27.0 4.0 42.0 4.5 43.2 4.5 18.9 3.6 41.5 4.5Allowed in all areas 3.6 1.7 0.8 0.8 2.5 1.4 35.3 4.4 2.6 1.4 3.8 1.7

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9a (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
298

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Kansas Overall Not allowed at all 43.6 2.1 72.5 1.9 55.7 2.1 22.8 1.8 68.9 2.0 53.0 2.1

Allowed in some areas 53.7 2.1 26.9 1.9 41.9 2.1 41.5 2.1 27.0 1.9 43.3 2.1Allowed in all areas 2.8 0.7 0.6 0.3 2.4 0.6 35.6 2.0 4.1 0.8 3.7 0.8

Never Not allowed at all 58.2 2.9 84.1 2.2 70.3 2.7 32.1 2.7 77.6 2.5 65.2 2.8

Allowed in some areas 40.9 2.9 15.6 2.1 29.0 2.7 42.1 2.9 20.2 2.4 32.6 2.8Allowed in all areas 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.5 25.8 2.6 2.2 0.9 2.2 0.9

Current Not allowed at all 12.3 2.8 48.0 4.2 24.5 3.6 3.3 1.5 47.9 4.2 25.6 3.7

Allowed in some areas 81.7 3.3 50.9 4.2 69.8 3.9 40.9 4.1 43.3 4.2 67.6 3.9Allowed in all areas 6.0 2.0 1.1 0.9 5.7 2.0 55.8 4.2 8.8 2.4 6.8 2.1

Former Not allowed at all 44.9 4.3 73.2 3.8 56.9 4.3 23.3 3.7 72.3 3.9 55.4 4.3

Allowed in some areas 51.9 4.3 26.1 3.8 40.5 4.3 41.0 4.3 24.4 3.7 40.8 4.3Allowed in all areas 3.3 1.5 0.7 0.7 2.5 1.4 35.7 4.2 3.3 1.6 3.8 1.7

Kentucky Overall Not allowed at all 28.8 2.0 59.4 2.2 40.7 2.2 16.8 1.7 53.3 2.2 36.5 2.1

Allowed in some areas 64.1 2.1 37.9 2.1 54.1 2.2 43.8 2.2 39.8 2.2 53.9 2.2Allowed in all areas 7.0 1.1 2.7 0.7 5.2 1.0 39.4 2.2 6.8 1.1 9.5 1.3

Never Not allowed at all 40.5 3.2 72.0 2.9 54.7 3.3 23.7 2.8 61.9 3.2 45.3 3.3

Allowed in some areas 56.3 3.2 27.1 2.9 43.8 3.3 44.9 3.3 34.1 3.1 48.1 3.3Allowed in all areas 3.2 1.1 1.0 0.6 1.5 0.8 31.5 3.1 4.0 1.3 6.6 1.6

Current Not allowed at all 7.8 2.1 36.9 3.7 17.0 2.9 4.3 1.6 38.3 3.7 21.5 3.1

Allowed in some areas 79.2 3.1 57.7 3.8 72.0 3.4 41.8 3.8 50.3 3.8 63.8 3.7Allowed in all areas 13.0 2.6 5.4 1.7 11.0 2.4 53.9 3.8 11.4 2.4 14.7 2.7

Former Not allowed at all 36.4 4.5 67.3 4.4 47.4 4.7 21.9 3.9 58.4 4.6 41.2 4.6

Allowed in some areas 57.6 4.6 30.3 4.3 48.8 4.7 44.5 4.7 35.8 4.5 51.0 4.7Allowed in all areas 6.0 2.2 2.4 1.4 3.8 1.8 33.6 4.4 5.8 2.2 7.7 2.5

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9a (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
299

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Louisiana Overall Not allowed at all 46.0 2.3 73.3 2.0 57.1 2.3 25.7 2.0 64.8 2.2 48.0 2.3 Allowed in some areas 50.1 2.3 25.5 2.0 39.7 2.3 33.5 2.2 28.4 2.1 44.3 2.3 Allowed in all areas 3.9 0.9 1.3 0.5 3.2 0.8 40.8 2.3 6.8 1.2 7.7 1.2 Never Not allowed at all 55.4 3.2 82.0 2.5 68.1 3.0 32.4 3.0 71.6 2.9 55.1 3.2 Allowed in some areas 43.0 3.2 17.5 2.4 30.9 3.0 34.6 3.1 24.2 2.7 40.3 3.1 Allowed in all areas 1.6 0.8 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.6 33.0 3.0 4.2 1.3 4.5 1.3 Current Not allowed at all 21.8 3.7 55.3 4.5 31.8 4.2 7.5 2.4 48.6 4.5 29.8 4.1 Allowed in some areas 72.0 4.1 42.2 4.5 60.7 4.4 32.7 4.3 38.5 4.4 56.8 4.5 Allowed in all areas 6.2 2.2 2.5 1.4 7.5 2.4 59.7 4.5 12.9 3.0 13.3 3.1 Former Not allowed at all 52.5 4.9 73.8 4.3 60.9 4.8 31.3 4.6 67.8 4.6 52.7 4.9 Allowed in some areas 41.1 4.8 24.5 4.2 35.7 4.7 31.8 4.6 26.4 4.3 38.9 4.8

Allowed in all areas 6.4 2.4 1.8 1.3 3.4 1.8 36.9 4.7 5.7 2.3 8.4 2.7

Maine Overall Not allowed at all 43.3 2.1 73.0 1.9 55.8 2.1 23.4 1.8 74.8 1.9 61.0 2.1

Allowed in some areas 53.9 2.2 26.3 1.9 42.3 2.1 50.3 2.2 22.8 1.8 36.8 2.1Allowed in all areas 2.9 0.7 0.7 0.4 2.0 0.6 26.2 1.9 2.5 0.7 2.2 0.6

Never Not allowed at all 58.5 3.3 84.5 2.4 71.0 3.0 34.2 3.1 82.1 2.5 70.6 3.0

Allowed in some areas 40.5 3.2 15.4 2.4 28.1 3.0 50.1 3.3 16.8 2.5 28.3 3.0Allowed in all areas 1.0 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.9 0.6 15.7 2.4 1.1 0.7 1.1 0.7

Current Not allowed at all 17.7 3.0 53.3 3.9 30.2 3.6 4.2 1.6 59.8 3.9 43.3 3.9

Allowed in some areas 76.2 3.4 45.4 3.9 65.8 3.7 52.2 4.0 35.6 3.8 53.2 3.9Allowed in all areas 6.1 1.9 1.3 0.9 4.0 1.5 43.5 3.9 4.6 1.7 3.5 1.5

Former Not allowed at all 47.4 4.1 76.6 3.5 60.1 4.0 27.6 3.7 79.6 3.3 65.3 3.9

Allowed in some areas 50.3 4.1 22.5 3.4 38.4 4.0 48.6 4.1 18.2 3.2 32.2 3.9Allowed in all areas 2.3 1.2 1.0 0.8 1.5 1.0 23.7 3.5 2.2 1.2 2.5 1.3

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9a (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
300

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Maryland Overall Not allowed at all 47.6 2.2 79.0 1.8 60.0 2.1 26.8 1.9 64.8 2.1 52.5 2.2

Allowed in some areas 49.4 2.2 20.2 1.8 37.7 2.1 46.2 2.2 30.1 2.0 41.5 2.1Allowed in all areas 3.0 0.7 0.8 0.4 2.2 0.6 27.0 1.9 5.2 1.0 5.9 1.0

Never Not allowed at all 59.0 3.0 86.3 2.1 71.7 2.8 35.7 2.9 71.9 2.7 62.2 3.0

Allowed in some areas 39.9 3.0 13.3 2.1 27.4 2.7 46.7 3.1 24.8 2.6 34.0 2.9Allowed in all areas 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.6 17.6 2.3 3.3 1.1 3.9 1.2

Current Not allowed at all 18.0 3.5 63.4 4.3 31.8 4.2 4.6 1.9 45.5 4.5 28.7 4.1

Allowed in some areas 73.7 4.0 34.4 4.3 62.6 4.4 46.4 4.5 44.4 4.5 59.8 4.4Allowed in all areas 8.3 2.5 2.2 1.3 5.5 2.1 49.0 4.5 10.2 2.7 11.4 2.9

Former Not allowed at all 51.9 4.3 78.6 3.5 62.3 4.2 29.3 3.9 68.1 4.0 55.0 4.3

Allowed in some areas 46.1 4.3 20.9 3.5 35.8 4.1 45.3 4.3 27.5 3.9 39.9 4.2Allowed in all areas 2.0 1.2 0.4 0.6 1.9 1.2 25.4 3.8 4.4 1.8 5.1 1.9

Massachusetts Overall Not allowed at all 44.4 1.1 76.4 0.9 56.8 1.1 23.9 0.9 68.2 1.0 53.8 1.1

Allowed in some areas 52.7 1.1 22.7 0.9 41.3 1.1 52.8 1.1 28.0 1.0 42.2 1.1Allowed in all areas 2.9 0.4 0.9 0.2 2.0 0.3 23.2 0.9 3.8 0.4 4.0 0.4

Never Not allowed at all 56.3 1.6 83.6 1.2 67.5 1.5 32.8 1.5 73.8 1.4 63.2 1.5

Allowed in some areas 42.5 1.6 16.0 1.2 31.6 1.5 51.3 1.6 23.8 1.4 34.4 1.5Allowed in all areas 1.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.3 15.9 1.2 2.3 0.5 2.4 0.5

Current Not allowed at all 16.7 1.8 58.6 2.3 31.3 2.2 5.1 1.0 53.3 2.3 31.1 2.2

Allowed in some areas 76.4 2.0 39.0 2.3 63.9 2.3 51.0 2.4 38.4 2.3 60.4 2.3Allowed in all areas 6.9 1.2 2.4 0.7 4.8 1.0 44.0 2.3 8.3 1.3 8.4 1.3

Former Not allowed at all 45.8 2.0 78.0 1.7 58.6 2.0 23.7 1.7 70.2 1.9 55.5 2.0

Allowed in some areas 51.6 2.0 21.2 1.7 39.8 2.0 56.7 2.0 27.0 1.8 41.2 2.0Allowed in all areas 2.6 0.6 0.7 0.3 1.6 0.5 19.6 1.6 2.8 0.7 3.3 0.7

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9a (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
301

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Michigan Overall Not allowed at all 41.8 1.1 71.0 1.0 50.5 1.1 21.1 0.9 63.5 1.1 52.3 1.1 Allowed in some areas 55.6 1.1 28.2 1.0 47.2 1.1 48.3 1.1 33.3 1.1 44.3 1.1 Allowed in all areas 2.6 0.4 0.7 0.2 2.3 0.3 30.6 1.0 3.2 0.4 3.4 0.4 Never Not allowed at all 55.1 1.6 81.7 1.3 64.3 1.6 30.3 1.5 72.5 1.5 63.5 1.6 Allowed in some areas 43.8 1.6 18.0 1.3 34.7 1.6 49.9 1.6 25.6 1.4 34.2 1.5 Allowed in all areas 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.0 0.3 19.8 1.3 1.8 0.4 2.2 0.5 Current Not allowed at all 14.7 1.5 50.2 2.1 23.4 1.8 3.6 0.8 44.3 2.1 30.8 2.0 Allowed in some areas 80.4 1.7 48.2 2.1 72.1 1.9 45.7 2.1 50.1 2.1 63.8 2.1 Allowed in all areas 4.9 0.9 1.6 0.5 4.5 0.9 50.7 2.1 5.6 1.0 5.4 1.0 Former Not allowed at all 46.7 2.3 73.8 2.0 54.3 2.3 23.0 1.9 67.5 2.1 54.8 2.2 Allowed in some areas 50.4 2.3 25.6 2.0 43.5 2.2 48.4 2.3 29.5 2.1 41.7 2.2

Allowed in all areas 2.8 0.8 0.6 0.4 2.2 0.7 28.6 2.0 3.0 0.8 3.5 0.8

Minnesota Overall Not allowed at all 39.9 2.2 72.4 2.0 57.1 2.2 17.9 1.7 70.9 2.0 52.7 2.2

Allowed in some areas 58.1 2.2 27.0 2.0 41.9 2.2 52.4 2.2 27.7 2.0 45.8 2.2Allowed in all areas 2.0 0.6 0.6 0.3 1.0 0.4 29.7 2.0 1.4 0.5 1.5 0.5

Never Not allowed at all 51.9 3.1 82.2 2.4 70.8 2.8 23.8 2.7 77.6 2.6 63.5 3.0

Allowed in some areas 47.4 3.1 17.6 2.4 28.8 2.8 53.6 3.1 21.6 2.6 35.6 3.0Allowed in all areas 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 22.5 2.6 0.8 0.6 0.9 0.6

Current Not allowed at all 9.9 2.6 48.8 4.4 26.7 3.9 2.1 1.3 52.3 4.4 27.3 3.9

Allowed in some areas 85.5 3.1 50.4 4.4 71.2 4.0 48.4 4.4 44.9 4.3 70.3 4.0Allowed in all areas 4.5 1.8 0.7 0.8 2.1 1.3 49.5 4.4 2.8 1.4 2.4 1.3

Former Not allowed at all 46.5 4.4 76.9 3.7 60.8 4.3 22.3 3.7 76.4 3.8 57.2 4.4

Allowed in some areas 51.3 4.4 22.1 3.7 38.0 4.3 54.1 4.4 22.3 3.7 41.1 4.4Allowed in all areas 2.2 1.3 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.0 23.7 3.8 1.3 1.0 1.8 1.2

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9a (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
302

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Mississippi Overall Not allowed at all 47.0 2.3 73.8 2.0 60.1 2.2 30.5 2.1 69.8 2.1 57.6 2.2

Allowed in some areas 49.8 2.3 25.2 2.0 37.6 2.2 31.8 2.1 25.9 2.0 37.6 2.2Allowed in all areas 3.2 0.8 1.0 0.4 2.2 0.7 37.6 2.2 4.2 0.9 4.8 1.0

Never Not allowed at all 57.5 3.0 82.5 2.3 72.2 2.7 38.8 3.0 78.0 2.5 66.5 2.9

Allowed in some areas 41.7 3.0 17.2 2.3 27.0 2.7 31.9 2.8 20.2 2.4 31.6 2.8Allowed in all areas 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.5 29.3 2.8 1.8 0.8 1.9 0.8

Current Not allowed at all 20.7 3.6 55.1 4.4 31.3 4.1 10.4 2.7 49.7 4.4 34.8 4.2

Allowed in some areas 70.5 4.0 42.7 4.4 63.2 4.3 32.3 4.2 40.5 4.4 53.9 4.4Allowed in all areas 8.9 2.5 2.2 1.3 5.5 2.0 57.3 4.4 9.8 2.6 11.2 2.8

Former Not allowed at all 52.8 5.3 74.0 4.7 64.8 5.1 34.3 5.1 74.0 4.7 63.1 5.2

Allowed in some areas 44.6 5.3 24.7 4.6 33.2 5.1 30.9 5.0 22.4 4.5 32.4 5.0Allowed in all areas 2.5 1.7 1.4 1.3 2.0 1.5 34.8 5.1 3.6 2.0 4.4 2.2

Missouri Overall Not allowed at all 38.5 2.2 66.6 2.1 49.2 2.2 21.2 1.8 62.4 2.2 48.3 2.2

Allowed in some areas 57.6 2.2 32.1 2.1 47.7 2.2 36.3 2.2 31.3 2.1 45.4 2.2Allowed in all areas 4.0 0.9 1.3 0.5 3.1 0.8 42.5 2.2 6.3 1.1 6.2 1.1

Never Not allowed at all 52.4 3.1 78.2 2.6 64.2 3.0 30.8 2.9 69.9 2.9 59.4 3.1

Allowed in some areas 45.8 3.1 21.4 2.6 34.8 3.0 38.7 3.1 26.8 2.8 36.7 3.0Allowed in all areas 1.8 0.8 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.6 30.5 2.9 3.3 1.1 3.8 1.2

Current Not allowed at all 12.0 2.8 42.6 4.3 21.4 3.6 3.2 1.5 45.7 4.3 27.9 3.9

Allowed in some areas 80.0 3.5 54.3 4.3 72.1 3.9 31.9 4.1 41.5 4.3 61.5 4.2Allowed in all areas 7.9 2.4 3.1 1.5 6.5 2.2 64.8 4.2 12.8 2.9 10.7 2.7

Former Not allowed at all 38.4 4.5 68.6 4.3 48.4 4.7 20.7 3.8 65.0 4.4 47.5 4.7

Allowed in some areas 57.6 4.6 30.0 4.3 47.7 4.7 36.1 4.5 29.5 4.2 46.1 4.6Allowed in all areas 4.0 1.8 1.4 1.1 3.9 1.8 43.2 4.6 5.5 2.1 6.4 2.3

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9a (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
303

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Montana Overall Not allowed at all 42.6 2.2 75.5 1.9 57.7 2.2 20.0 1.8 78.2 1.8 55.5 2.2 Allowed in some areas 54.5 2.2 23.6 1.9 39.7 2.2 40.3 2.2 19.1 1.7 40.9 2.2 Allowed in all areas 2.9 0.7 0.9 0.4 2.6 0.7 39.6 2.2 2.7 0.7 3.7 0.8 Never Not allowed at all 55.2 3.1 86.0 2.2 70.0 2.9 28.0 2.8 84.7 2.2 66.8 2.9 Allowed in some areas 43.8 3.1 13.8 2.1 29.1 2.8 43.9 3.1 13.7 2.1 30.7 2.9 Allowed in all areas 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.6 28.1 2.8 1.6 0.8 2.4 1.0 Current Not allowed at all 15.7 3.3 53.3 4.5 29.2 4.1 2.9 1.5 62.9 4.4 33.6 4.2 Allowed in some areas 77.2 3.8 44.8 4.5 64.9 4.3 32.7 4.2 31.7 4.2 61.0 4.4 Allowed in all areas 7.1 2.3 1.9 1.2 5.9 2.1 64.5 4.3 5.4 2.0 5.4 2.0 Former Not allowed at all 42.9 4.3 75.7 3.8 60.4 4.3 20.5 3.6 79.8 3.5 53.7 4.4 Allowed in some areas 54.1 4.4 23.0 3.7 36.9 4.2 40.7 4.3 17.8 3.4 41.8 4.3

Allowed in all areas 3.0 1.5 1.4 1.0 2.7 1.4 38.8 4.3 2.4 1.3 4.4 1.8

Nebraska Overall Not allowed at all 41.3 2.0 71.7 1.9 56.0 2.1 20.2 1.7 71.9 1.9 52.9 2.1

Allowed in some areas 55.2 2.1 27.0 1.8 41.6 2.0 44.0 2.1 24.7 1.8 43.3 2.0Allowed in all areas 3.5 0.8 1.3 0.5 2.4 0.6 35.9 2.0 3.3 0.7 3.8 0.8

Never Not allowed at all 54.1 2.8 82.6 2.1 68.3 2.6 26.4 2.4 78.3 2.3 61.4 2.7

Allowed in some areas 44.2 2.8 16.8 2.1 30.5 2.6 45.4 2.8 19.4 2.2 36.2 2.7Allowed in all areas 1.7 0.7 0.5 0.4 1.3 0.6 28.2 2.5 2.3 0.8 2.4 0.8

Current Not allowed at all 10.3 2.6 43.9 4.3 25.6 3.8 3.6 1.6 52.0 4.3 29.4 4.0

Allowed in some areas 83.2 3.2 53.4 4.3 69.8 4.0 42.4 4.3 41.9 4.3 63.9 4.2Allowed in all areas 6.5 2.1 2.7 1.4 4.6 1.8 54.0 4.3 6.1 2.1 6.7 2.2

Former Not allowed at all 40.8 4.3 72.6 3.9 56.5 4.4 21.5 3.6 76.5 3.7 55.7 4.4

Allowed in some areas 54.1 4.4 25.4 3.8 40.6 4.3 42.1 4.4 20.5 3.6 39.8 4.3Allowed in all areas 5.2 2.0 1.9 1.2 2.9 1.5 36.4 4.2 3.0 1.5 4.4 1.8

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9a (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
304

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Nevada Overall Not allowed at all 39.1 2.0 76.1 1.8 49.9 2.1 15.4 1.5 55.4 2.1 44.0 2.1

Allowed in some areas 56.5 2.1 22.7 1.7 47.2 2.1 41.6 2.0 37.3 2.0 49.2 2.1Allowed in all areas 4.5 0.9 1.2 0.5 3.0 0.7 43.0 2.0 7.3 1.1 6.8 1.0

Never Not allowed at all 52.1 3.0 86.9 2.0 62.5 2.9 20.8 2.4 64.0 2.9 54.1 3.0

Allowed in some areas 46.3 3.0 12.8 2.0 36.8 2.9 45.1 3.0 32.0 2.8 42.0 3.0Allowed in all areas 1.6 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.5 34.1 2.8 4.0 1.2 3.9 1.2

Current Not allowed at all 11.1 2.4 57.6 3.8 23.4 3.3 1.7 1.0 34.9 3.7 21.2 3.1

Allowed in some areas 79.6 3.1 39.9 3.8 69.1 3.6 33.8 3.6 51.1 3.8 66.1 3.6Allowed in all areas 9.3 2.2 2.5 1.2 7.5 2.0 64.5 3.7 14.0 2.7 12.8 2.6

Former Not allowed at all 47.4 4.3 77.1 3.6 57.1 4.3 21.6 3.5 63.4 4.2 51.8 4.3

Allowed in some areas 48.1 4.3 21.5 3.5 41.0 4.3 44.3 4.3 30.6 4.0 43.0 4.3Allowed in all areas 4.5 1.8 1.4 1.0 2.0 1.2 34.1 4.1 6.0 2.1 5.2 1.9

New Hampshire Overall Not allowed at all 42.4 2.3 74.5 2.1 52.9 2.4 23.6 2.0 71.5 2.1 54.4 2.4

Allowed in some areas 54.9 2.4 24.6 2.0 45.2 2.4 49.8 2.4 25.4 2.1 42.3 2.3Allowed in all areas 2.7 0.8 0.9 0.4 1.9 0.6 26.6 2.1 3.1 0.8 3.3 0.9

Never Not allowed at all 58.1 3.5 84.2 2.6 67.2 3.3 34.6 3.4 77.6 3.0 64.8 3.4

Allowed in some areas 41.0 3.5 15.4 2.6 32.1 3.3 49.0 3.6 20.6 2.9 33.6 3.4Allowed in all areas 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.6 16.3 2.6 1.9 1.0 1.6 0.9

Current Not allowed at all 16.7 3.6 57.3 4.7 28.4 4.3 5.2 2.1 60.9 4.7 36.6 4.6

Allowed in some areas 77.5 4.0 41.1 4.7 67.6 4.5 48.6 4.8 33.4 4.5 58.3 4.7Allowed in all areas 5.8 2.2 1.6 1.2 4.0 1.9 46.2 4.8 5.7 2.2 5.1 2.1

Former Not allowed at all 39.9 4.2 74.2 3.7 51.6 4.3 22.3 3.6 71.2 3.9 53.4 4.3

Allowed in some areas 57.2 4.3 24.9 3.7 46.5 4.3 51.9 4.3 26.0 3.8 42.1 4.2Allowed in all areas 3.0 1.5 0.9 0.8 1.9 1.2 25.8 3.8 2.8 1.4 4.4 1.8

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9a (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
305

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 New Jersey Overall Not allowed at all 47.0 1.1 81.4 0.8 61.3 1.1 27.0 1.0 67.2 1.0 57.3 1.1 Allowed in some areas 49.9 1.1 17.9 0.8 36.6 1.0 46.0 1.1 27.5 1.0 37.2 1.0 Allowed in all areas 3.1 0.4 0.7 0.2 2.1 0.3 27.0 1.0 5.4 0.5 5.5 0.5 Never Not allowed at all 58.2 1.5 87.8 1.0 71.6 1.3 36.0 1.4 73.5 1.3 66.8 1.4 Allowed in some areas 40.6 1.4 11.9 1.0 27.6 1.3 47.1 1.5 23.5 1.3 30.2 1.4 Allowed in all areas 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.3 16.9 1.1 3.0 0.5 3.0 0.5 Current Not allowed at all 17.5 1.8 65.2 2.2 34.3 2.2 5.8 1.1 49.9 2.3 33.2 2.2 Allowed in some areas 75.3 2.0 33.0 2.2 60.0 2.3 41.6 2.3 38.2 2.3 55.4 2.3 Allowed in all areas 7.2 1.2 1.8 0.6 5.7 1.1 52.6 2.3 11.8 1.5 11.5 1.5 Former Not allowed at all 48.4 2.1 81.7 1.7 62.2 2.1 26.0 1.9 68.4 2.0 57.9 2.1 Allowed in some areas 48.0 2.1 17.8 1.6 35.7 2.1 47.5 2.2 26.7 1.9 36.4 2.1

Allowed in all areas 3.6 0.8 0.5 0.3 2.1 0.6 26.6 1.9 4.8 0.9 5.7 1.0

New Mexico Overall Not allowed at all 48.9 2.1 79.0 1.7 62.2 2.1 23.5 1.8 76.1 1.8 59.0 2.1

Allowed in some areas 48.2 2.1 19.8 1.7 35.7 2.0 42.2 2.1 20.8 1.7 37.5 2.1Allowed in all areas 2.9 0.7 1.2 0.5 2.1 0.6 34.3 2.0 3.2 0.8 3.5 0.8

Never Not allowed at all 61.5 2.9 87.5 2.0 72.9 2.7 32.2 2.8 81.7 2.3 68.2 2.8

Allowed in some areas 37.2 2.9 11.9 1.9 26.2 2.6 43.1 3.0 16.5 2.2 29.7 2.7Allowed in all areas 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.5 1.0 0.6 24.7 2.6 1.8 0.8 2.2 0.9

Current Not allowed at all 22.5 3.6 62.4 4.2 38.8 4.2 5.8 2.0 62.8 4.2 40.7 4.3

Allowed in some areas 71.6 3.9 35.2 4.1 56.2 4.3 41.0 4.3 31.6 4.0 54.4 4.3Allowed in all areas 5.8 2.0 2.4 1.3 5.1 1.9 53.2 4.3 5.6 2.0 4.9 1.9

Former Not allowed at all 48.8 4.2 78.1 3.5 63.2 4.1 23.4 3.6 77.6 3.5 58.3 4.2

Allowed in some areas 47.8 4.2 20.8 3.4 35.3 4.0 41.5 4.2 18.9 3.3 37.0 4.1Allowed in all areas 3.4 1.5 1.1 0.9 1.5 1.0 35.1 4.1 3.5 1.6 4.7 1.8

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9a (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
306

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

New York Overall Not allowed at all 46.8 0.8 77.2 0.7 58.0 0.8 26.8 0.7 65.6 0.8 61.7 0.8

Allowed in some areas 50.0 0.8 21.9 0.7 39.8 0.8 49.2 0.8 30.3 0.8 34.4 0.8Allowed in all areas 3.2 0.3 0.8 0.1 2.2 0.2 24.0 0.7 4.1 0.3 3.8 0.3

Never Not allowed at all 58.7 1.1 85.3 0.8 69.2 1.0 36.2 1.1 72.5 1.0 69.4 1.0

Allowed in some areas 39.9 1.1 14.4 0.8 29.7 1.0 47.4 1.1 24.8 1.0 27.8 1.0Allowed in all areas 1.4 0.3 0.4 0.1 1.1 0.2 16.4 0.8 2.7 0.4 2.8 0.4

Current Not allowed at all 19.4 1.4 59.6 1.7 31.7 1.6 6.4 0.9 47.4 1.8 41.5 1.7

Allowed in some areas 72.9 1.6 38.2 1.7 63.0 1.7 49.6 1.8 44.2 1.7 51.4 1.8Allowed in all areas 7.7 0.9 2.1 0.5 5.3 0.8 44.0 1.7 8.3 1.0 7.1 0.9

Former Not allowed at all 45.6 1.7 75.5 1.5 57.2 1.7 24.4 1.5 67.1 1.6 63.3 1.6

Allowed in some areas 51.6 1.7 23.9 1.5 41.0 1.7 53.1 1.7 29.5 1.6 33.6 1.6Allowed in all areas 2.8 0.6 0.7 0.3 1.8 0.4 22.5 1.4 3.4 0.6 3.1 0.6

North Carolina Overall Not allowed at all 34.8 1.0 66.3 1.0 47.1 1.1 21.8 0.9 59.9 1.0 45.4 1.1

Allowed in some areas 60.8 1.0 32.4 1.0 50.0 1.1 45.9 1.1 35.1 1.0 48.2 1.1Allowed in all areas 4.5 0.4 1.3 0.2 2.9 0.4 32.3 1.0 5.0 0.5 6.4 0.5

Never Not allowed at all 45.8 1.5 75.8 1.3 58.8 1.5 29.9 1.4 67.5 1.4 55.9 1.5

Allowed in some areas 51.7 1.5 23.7 1.3 39.6 1.5 46.9 1.5 29.5 1.4 40.3 1.5Allowed in all areas 2.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 1.6 0.4 23.2 1.3 3.0 0.5 3.8 0.6

Current Not allowed at all 12.2 1.3 47.2 2.0 23.1 1.7 5.3 0.9 42.9 2.0 25.0 1.7

Allowed in some areas 79.9 1.6 50.2 2.0 71.5 1.8 45.7 2.0 48.1 2.0 63.9 1.9Allowed in all areas 8.0 1.1 2.6 0.6 5.3 0.9 49.0 2.0 9.0 1.2 11.1 1.3

Former Not allowed at all 38.1 2.2 68.8 2.1 50.4 2.2 24.0 1.9 63.6 2.1 47.0 2.2

Allowed in some areas 57.4 2.2 29.8 2.0 46.6 2.2 44.0 2.2 31.6 2.1 46.5 2.2Allowed in all areas 4.5 0.9 1.3 0.5 2.9 0.8 31.9 2.1 4.7 0.9 6.5 1.1

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9a (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
307

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 North Dakota Overall Not allowed at all 40.0 2.1 73.9 1.9 55.8 2.2 19.9 1.7 75.9 1.9 52.9 2.2 Allowed in some areas 57.0 2.1 25.3 1.9 42.3 2.1 47.0 2.2 22.0 1.8 43.9 2.1 Allowed in all areas 3.0 0.7 0.7 0.4 1.9 0.6 33.0 2.0 2.0 0.6 3.1 0.8 Never Not allowed at all 52.7 3.0 83.7 2.2 66.7 2.8 26.9 2.6 81.4 2.3 63.3 2.9 Allowed in some areas 46.2 3.0 15.9 2.2 32.8 2.8 51.0 3.0 17.5 2.2 35.1 2.8 Allowed in all areas 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 22.1 2.5 1.1 0.6 1.5 0.7 Current Not allowed at all 9.8 2.7 49.6 4.5 29.6 4.1 2.6 1.5 60.7 4.4 28.3 4.1 Allowed in some areas 83.3 3.4 48.5 4.5 65.3 4.3 39.9 4.5 34.7 4.3 64.7 4.3 Allowed in all areas 6.9 2.3 1.9 1.3 5.1 2.0 57.5 4.5 4.6 1.9 7.0 2.3 Former Not allowed at all 40.2 4.3 75.1 3.8 56.2 4.4 20.7 3.6 78.2 3.7 53.0 4.4 Allowed in some areas 56.1 4.4 24.3 3.8 41.8 4.4 45.0 4.4 20.2 3.6 43.9 4.4

Allowed in all areas 3.7 1.7 0.5 0.6 2.0 1.2 34.3 4.2 1.6 1.1 3.1 1.5

Ohio Overall Not allowed at all 38.4 1.1 66.7 1.0 49.3 1.1 21.1 0.9 62.2 1.1 47.4 1.1

Allowed in some areas 58.3 1.1 32.2 1.0 48.0 1.1 43.6 1.1 33.2 1.0 47.6 1.1Allowed in all areas 3.3 0.4 1.1 0.2 2.7 0.4 35.3 1.0 4.6 0.5 5.0 0.5

Never Not allowed at all 51.5 1.5 77.8 1.3 62.9 1.5 30.1 1.4 70.4 1.4 58.5 1.5

Allowed in some areas 47.2 1.5 21.7 1.3 36.0 1.5 44.3 1.5 27.0 1.4 38.3 1.5Allowed in all areas 1.2 0.3 0.5 0.2 1.0 0.3 25.7 1.3 2.6 0.5 3.2 0.5

Current Not allowed at all 11.3 1.3 43.9 2.1 21.2 1.7 3.7 0.8 42.8 2.1 23.6 1.8

Allowed in some areas 81.8 1.6 53.9 2.1 73.2 1.9 40.7 2.1 48.3 2.1 67.8 2.0Allowed in all areas 6.9 1.1 2.2 0.6 5.6 1.0 55.6 2.1 8.9 1.2 8.6 1.2

Former Not allowed at all 40.5 2.2 68.3 2.1 51.5 2.3 21.3 1.9 66.3 2.1 50.0 2.3

Allowed in some areas 55.7 2.2 30.5 2.1 45.6 2.3 45.3 2.3 29.8 2.1 44.9 2.2Allowed in all areas 3.8 0.9 1.2 0.5 2.9 0.8 33.4 2.1 3.9 0.9 5.0 1.0

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9a (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
308

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Oklahoma Overall Not allowed at all 44.4 2.2 70.8 2.0 54.9 2.2 26.3 1.9 66.9 2.0 51.9 2.2

Allowed in some areas 51.6 2.2 27.7 1.9 42.1 2.1 35.5 2.1 28.4 2.0 41.8 2.1Allowed in all areas 4.0 0.8 1.5 0.5 3.0 0.7 38.2 2.1 4.7 0.9 6.3 1.0

Never Not allowed at all 58.7 3.0 84.6 2.2 70.1 2.8 36.0 2.9 77.6 2.5 64.9 2.9

Allowed in some areas 40.0 3.0 14.9 2.2 28.8 2.8 34.8 2.9 20.2 2.4 31.7 2.8Allowed in all areas 1.3 0.7 0.5 0.4 1.1 0.6 29.2 2.8 2.3 0.9 3.3 1.1

Current Not allowed at all 13.9 2.9 43.3 4.2 23.7 3.6 5.6 1.9 43.4 4.1 23.1 3.5

Allowed in some areas 77.3 3.5 53.2 4.2 68.8 3.9 36.7 4.0 46.3 4.2 64.8 4.0Allowed in all areas 8.8 2.4 3.5 1.5 7.5 2.2 57.7 4.1 10.3 2.5 12.0 2.7

Former Not allowed at all 49.0 4.5 72.4 4.1 57.7 4.5 29.4 4.2 71.0 4.1 57.1 4.5

Allowed in some areas 46.9 4.5 26.1 4.0 40.3 4.5 35.7 4.4 25.6 4.0 37.0 4.4Allowed in all areas 4.2 1.8 1.5 1.1 2.0 1.3 34.9 4.4 3.4 1.6 5.9 2.1

Oregon Overall Not allowed at all 52.1 2.3 75.1 2.0 64.6 2.2 24.4 1.9 76.8 1.9 62.1 2.2

Allowed in some areas 45.8 2.3 24.3 1.9 34.4 2.2 43.7 2.2 21.0 1.8 35.8 2.2Allowed in all areas 2.1 0.7 0.6 0.3 1.0 0.5 31.9 2.1 2.2 0.7 2.1 0.6

Never Not allowed at all 66.1 3.1 85.2 2.3 77.0 2.7 34.1 3.1 84.1 2.4 73.5 2.8

Allowed in some areas 33.1 3.0 14.6 2.3 22.6 2.7 45.0 3.2 14.4 2.3 25.2 2.8Allowed in all areas 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 20.9 2.6 1.4 0.8 1.3 0.7

Current Not allowed at all 19.0 3.7 52.9 4.7 36.0 4.5 4.9 2.0 60.7 4.6 36.5 4.5

Allowed in some areas 75.5 4.0 45.7 4.7 61.7 4.5 37.6 4.5 34.6 4.5 59.3 4.6Allowed in all areas 5.5 2.1 1.4 1.1 2.3 1.4 57.5 4.6 4.7 2.0 4.3 1.9

Former Not allowed at all 55.1 4.3 75.8 3.7 66.8 4.1 23.7 3.7 77.4 3.6 63.7 4.2

Allowed in some areas 43.2 4.3 23.4 3.7 32.3 4.1 46.7 4.3 21.0 3.5 34.6 4.1Allowed in all areas 1.7 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.8 29.6 4.0 1.6 1.1 1.8 1.1

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9a (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
309

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Pennsylvania Overall Not allowed at all 42.0 1.1 74.7 0.9 53.5 1.1 22.7 0.9 66.0 1.0 49.5 1.1 Allowed in some areas 55.0 1.1 24.4 0.9 44.4 1.1 46.9 1.1 29.8 1.0 44.9 1.1 Allowed in all areas 3.0 0.4 1.0 0.2 2.2 0.3 30.4 1.0 4.2 0.4 5.6 0.5 Never Not allowed at all 53.7 1.5 83.7 1.1 64.8 1.4 30.8 1.4 72.3 1.3 59.3 1.5 Allowed in some areas 45.3 1.5 16.0 1.1 34.5 1.4 48.1 1.5 25.3 1.3 37.7 1.4 Allowed in all areas 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.3 21.0 1.2 2.4 0.5 2.9 0.5 Current Not allowed at all 15.0 1.6 54.5 2.2 27.3 2.0 4.4 0.9 50.4 2.2 27.2 1.9 Allowed in some areas 78.6 1.8 43.3 2.2 68.0 2.0 45.3 2.2 42.0 2.2 62.2 2.1 Allowed in all areas 6.4 1.1 2.2 0.6 4.7 0.9 50.2 2.2 7.5 1.2 10.7 1.3 Former Not allowed at all 43.9 2.1 75.5 1.9 55.4 2.2 23.7 1.8 68.0 2.0 51.0 2.2 Allowed in some areas 52.3 2.2 23.3 1.8 41.8 2.1 45.9 2.2 27.3 1.9 42.8 2.1

Allowed in all areas 3.8 0.8 1.2 0.5 2.8 0.7 30.5 2.0 4.7 0.9 6.2 1.0

Rhode Island Overall Not allowed at all 45.5 2.3 78.5 1.9 58.3 2.3 25.8 2.0 69.0 2.1 54.4 2.3

Allowed in some areas 51.7 2.3 20.6 1.9 39.6 2.3 46.8 2.3 27.9 2.1 42.5 2.3Allowed in all areas 2.8 0.8 0.9 0.4 2.1 0.7 27.4 2.1 3.1 0.8 3.0 0.8

Never Not allowed at all 58.9 3.3 85.9 2.3 70.0 3.1 36.4 3.2 74.7 2.9 63.6 3.2

Allowed in some areas 40.0 3.3 14.0 2.3 29.6 3.1 46.8 3.4 24.4 2.9 34.9 3.2Allowed in all areas 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 16.8 2.5 0.9 0.6 1.4 0.8

Current Not allowed at all 14.8 3.4 59.9 4.7 31.2 4.4 4.2 1.9 52.0 4.8 34.4 4.5

Allowed in some areas 79.5 3.8 37.3 4.6 63.0 4.6 46.4 4.8 41.4 4.7 59.9 4.7Allowed in all areas 5.7 2.2 2.8 1.6 5.8 2.2 49.4 4.8 6.7 2.4 5.7 2.2

Former Not allowed at all 48.3 4.3 81.3 3.3 60.7 4.2 25.9 3.8 73.4 3.8 55.4 4.3

Allowed in some areas 48.5 4.3 18.0 3.3 37.1 4.1 47.2 4.3 22.8 3.6 41.0 4.2Allowed in all areas 3.2 1.5 0.7 0.7 2.2 1.2 26.9 3.8 3.8 1.6 3.6 1.6

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9a (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
310

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

South Carolina Overall Not allowed at all 42.9 2.0 73.5 1.8 54.3 2.0 27.4 1.8 65.5 1.9 54.0 2.0

Allowed in some areas 53.8 2.0 25.3 1.7 43.0 2.0 37.0 1.9 29.7 1.8 40.8 2.0Allowed in all areas 3.3 0.7 1.2 0.4 2.7 0.6 35.6 1.9 4.8 0.8 5.2 0.9

Never Not allowed at all 55.2 2.7 81.6 2.1 67.1 2.6 38.2 2.7 72.8 2.4 65.2 2.6

Allowed in some areas 43.5 2.7 17.9 2.1 31.8 2.6 36.0 2.6 24.5 2.4 31.7 2.6Allowed in all areas 1.3 0.6 0.5 0.4 1.1 0.6 25.8 2.4 2.7 0.9 3.1 0.9

Current Not allowed at all 17.4 2.9 58.2 3.8 28.3 3.5 7.0 2.0 48.4 3.9 33.0 3.6

Allowed in some areas 75.3 3.3 39.1 3.8 65.9 3.7 36.7 3.7 42.3 3.8 57.5 3.8Allowed in all areas 7.2 2.0 2.7 1.2 5.8 1.8 56.3 3.8 9.3 2.2 9.4 2.3

Former Not allowed at all 44.6 4.3 72.6 3.9 54.9 4.3 26.3 3.8 69.0 4.0 52.4 4.4

Allowed in some areas 52.0 4.4 26.3 3.8 42.3 4.3 40.0 4.3 26.9 3.9 42.3 4.3Allowed in all areas 3.4 1.6 1.1 0.9 2.7 1.4 33.7 4.1 4.2 1.7 5.3 2.0

South Dakota Overall Not allowed at all 38.6 2.0 77.4 1.7 54.8 2.1 19.2 1.6 77.1 1.7 52.7 2.1

Allowed in some areas 58.2 2.0 21.9 1.7 43.1 2.0 42.7 2.0 20.3 1.7 42.5 2.0Allowed in all areas 3.3 0.7 0.7 0.3 2.1 0.6 38.1 2.0 2.5 0.6 4.7 0.9

Never Not allowed at all 52.6 2.8 87.9 1.9 67.9 2.7 27.2 2.5 83.3 2.1 63.9 2.7

Allowed in some areas 46.1 2.8 11.9 1.8 31.3 2.6 44.7 2.8 15.3 2.0 33.0 2.7Allowed in all areas 1.3 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.5 28.1 2.6 1.4 0.7 3.1 1.0

Current Not allowed at all 11.3 2.6 54.4 4.1 27.5 3.6 2.0 1.1 60.9 4.0 27.7 3.6

Allowed in some areas 81.9 3.1 44.5 4.0 68.0 3.8 37.0 3.9 33.5 3.8 63.4 3.9Allowed in all areas 6.8 2.1 1.2 0.9 4.4 1.7 61.0 4.0 5.6 1.9 8.8 2.3

Former Not allowed at all 37.0 4.2 79.2 3.5 55.2 4.3 20.2 3.5 81.2 3.4 55.2 4.3

Allowed in some areas 59.3 4.3 19.6 3.5 42.4 4.3 44.4 4.4 17.0 3.3 41.0 4.3Allowed in all areas 3.7 1.7 1.1 0.9 2.4 1.3 35.4 4.2 1.8 1.2 3.8 1.7

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9a (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
311

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Tennessee Overall Not allowed at all 37.2 2.0 68.7 1.9 52.8 2.1 22.4 1.7 60.5 2.0 50.8 2.1 Allowed in some areas 59.1 2.0 29.9 1.9 44.2 2.1 43.4 2.1 35.2 2.0 42.4 2.0 Allowed in all areas 3.7 0.8 1.4 0.5 3.0 0.7 34.2 2.0 4.3 0.8 6.8 1.0 Never Not allowed at all 49.1 2.9 78.8 2.4 66.9 2.8 30.1 2.7 69.3 2.7 62.2 2.8 Allowed in some areas 49.4 2.9 20.6 2.4 32.3 2.8 44.5 2.9 28.9 2.7 34.0 2.8 Allowed in all areas 1.5 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.5 25.4 2.6 1.9 0.8 3.9 1.1 Current Not allowed at all 13.5 2.6 50.4 3.8 26.3 3.4 5.8 1.8 41.9 3.8 30.4 3.5 Allowed in some areas 79.2 3.1 46.6 3.8 67.0 3.6 43.6 3.8 49.2 3.8 57.3 3.8 Allowed in all areas 7.3 2.0 3.0 1.3 6.7 1.9 50.6 3.8 9.0 2.2 12.3 2.5 Former Not allowed at all 42.5 4.5 70.8 4.1 56.7 4.5 27.6 4.1 66.2 4.3 52.5 4.6 Allowed in some areas 53.6 4.5 28.2 4.1 40.3 4.5 40.2 4.5 30.4 4.2 41.6 4.5

Allowed in all areas 3.9 1.8 1.0 0.9 3.0 1.6 32.1 4.3 3.5 1.7 5.9 2.2

Texas Overall Not allowed at all 47.6 1.1 75.1 1.0 60.9 1.1 24.7 1.0 67.0 1.1 55.1 1.1

Allowed in some areas 49.6 1.1 24.1 1.0 37.0 1.1 40.2 1.1 28.5 1.0 40.5 1.1Allowed in all areas 2.8 0.4 0.9 0.2 2.1 0.3 35.1 1.1 4.5 0.5 4.4 0.5

Never Not allowed at all 58.8 1.5 83.5 1.1 72.3 1.4 32.6 1.4 74.6 1.3 64.9 1.5

Allowed in some areas 39.8 1.5 16.0 1.1 26.7 1.4 41.1 1.5 22.3 1.3 32.2 1.4Allowed in all areas 1.4 0.4 0.5 0.2 1.0 0.3 26.3 1.4 3.1 0.5 2.9 0.5

Current Not allowed at all 18.9 1.8 54.5 2.3 33.1 2.2 6.2 1.1 46.8 2.3 31.5 2.2

Allowed in some areas 75.1 2.0 43.5 2.3 62.3 2.3 36.5 2.2 44.5 2.3 60.3 2.3Allowed in all areas 6.1 1.1 2.0 0.6 4.6 1.0 57.3 2.3 8.7 1.3 8.1 1.3

Former Not allowed at all 50.8 2.5 76.4 2.1 62.8 2.4 25.1 2.2 70.2 2.3 56.2 2.5

Allowed in some areas 46.4 2.5 22.9 2.1 35.0 2.4 42.0 2.5 26.4 2.2 39.8 2.5Allowed in all areas 2.8 0.8 0.7 0.4 2.2 0.7 33.0 2.4 3.3 0.9 4.0 1.0

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9a (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
312

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Utah Overall Not allowed at all 52.8 2.1 77.3 1.8 67.5 2.0 14.9 1.5 75.1 1.9 69.9 2.0

Allowed in some areas 45.5 2.1 22.2 1.8 31.3 2.0 38.4 2.1 22.3 1.8 27.4 1.9Allowed in all areas 1.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 1.2 0.5 46.7 2.1 2.6 0.7 2.7 0.7

Never Not allowed at all 64.8 2.5 85.2 1.9 76.9 2.2 18.4 2.1 82.0 2.0 78.1 2.2

Allowed in some areas 34.6 2.5 14.6 1.9 22.7 2.2 41.8 2.6 16.6 2.0 20.3 2.1Allowed in all areas 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 39.7 2.6 1.4 0.6 1.6 0.7

Current Not allowed at all 13.7 3.6 52.4 5.2 36.4 5.0 2.4 1.6 50.6 5.2 44.3 5.2

Allowed in some areas 80.8 4.1 45.5 5.2 59.1 5.1 25.5 4.5 42.0 5.1 49.1 5.2Allowed in all areas 5.5 2.4 2.1 1.5 4.4 2.1 72.2 4.7 7.5 2.7 6.6 2.6

Former Not allowed at all 46.2 5.1 72.2 4.6 62.3 4.9 14.3 3.6 73.1 4.5 64.5 4.9

Allowed in some areas 51.8 5.1 72.2 4.6 36.3 4.9 38.3 5.0 24.7 4.4 32.6 4.8Allowed in all areas 2.0 1.4 27.8 4.6 1.4 1.2 47.4 5.1 2.3 1.5 2.9 1.7

Vermont Overall Not allowed at all 42.9 2.3 73.9 2.0 57.1 2.3 24.2 2.0 76.9 2.0 58.6 2.3

Allowed in some areas 53.8 2.3 25.5 2.0 41.2 2.3 51.5 2.3 20.6 1.9 38.6 2.3Allowed in all areas 3.3 0.8 0.6 0.3 1.8 0.6 24.3 2.0 2.5 0.7 2.8 0.8

Never Not allowed at all 55.3 3.5 80.8 2.8 67.9 3.3 33.8 3.4 79.3 2.9 66.5 3.4

Allowed in some areas 43.8 3.5 18.9 2.8 31.5 3.3 50.2 3.6 19.0 2.8 31.9 3.3Allowed in all areas 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 16.0 2.6 1.7 0.9 1.6 0.9

Current Not allowed at all 18.0 3.4 58.4 4.4 35.9 4.3 4.9 1.9 68.1 4.1 42.9 4.4

Allowed in some areas 74.3 3.9 40.9 4.4 60.4 4.4 51.0 4.5 26.9 3.9 52.3 4.5Allowed in all areas 7.7 2.4 0.6 0.7 3.8 1.7 44.1 4.4 4.9 1.9 4.7 1.9

Former Not allowed at all 47.9 4.2 78.2 3.5 60.8 4.1 28.1 3.8 81.4 3.3 61.6 4.1

Allowed in some areas 49.3 4.2 20.9 3.4 37.5 4.1 53.8 4.2 17.0 3.2 35.9 4.1Allowed in all areas 2.8 1.4 0.9 0.8 1.7 1.1 18.0 3.3 1.6 1.1 2.6 1.3

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9a (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
313

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Virginia Overall Not allowed at all 39.3 1.9 70.6 1.8 53.5 1.9 20.7 1.6 64.2 1.9 46.6 1.9 Allowed in some areas 57.7 1.9 28.5 1.8 44.1 1.9 50.9 2.0 31.6 1.8 48.0 1.9 Allowed in all areas 3.1 0.7 0.9 0.4 2.3 0.6 28.4 1.8 4.1 0.8 5.3 0.9 Never Not allowed at all 51.6 2.8 80.4 2.2 66.9 2.6 27.4 2.5 71.4 2.5 57.6 2.7 Allowed in some areas 46.8 2.7 19.0 2.2 32.0 2.6 52.4 2.8 26.4 2.4 38.6 2.7 Allowed in all areas 1.7 0.7 0.6 0.4 1.2 0.6 20.2 2.2 2.2 0.8 3.7 1.0 Current Not allowed at all 13.4 2.6 49.9 3.8 27.1 3.4 5.0 1.7 47.5 3.8 22.7 3.2 Allowed in some areas 81.3 3.0 48.4 3.8 68.7 3.5 49.2 3.8 44.2 3.8 68.5 3.5 Allowed in all areas 5.4 1.7 1.6 1.0 4.2 1.5 45.8 3.8 8.4 2.1 8.8 2.2 Former Not allowed at all 42.2 3.9 72.9 3.5 54.7 3.9 24.1 3.4 67.7 3.7 50.0 3.9 Allowed in some areas 54.4 3.9 26.3 3.5 42.6 3.9 49.8 4.0 28.8 3.6 45.1 3.9

Allowed in all areas 3.4 1.4 0.7 0.7 2.7 1.3 26.1 3.5 3.5 1.5 4.9 1.7

Washington Overall Not allowed at all 51.1 2.1 78.9 1.7 68.0 2.0 24.1 1.8 77.4 1.8 67.1 2.0

Allowed in some areas 46.5 2.1 20.4 1.7 30.8 2.0 50.3 2.1 20.3 1.7 31.0 2.0Allowed in all areas 2.4 0.6 0.6 0.3 1.2 0.5 25.6 1.9 2.3 0.6 1.8 0.6

Never Not allowed at all 65.8 3.0 88.4 2.0 80.7 2.5 34.4 3.0 84.5 2.3 75.9 2.7

Allowed in some areas 33.3 2.9 11.5 2.0 19.0 2.4 52.2 3.1 14.6 2.2 23.1 2.6Allowed in all areas 0.9 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 13.4 2.1 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.6

Current Not allowed at all 20.4 3.5 62.9 4.1 44.6 4.3 4.0 1.7 64.1 4.1 49.4 4.3

Allowed in some areas 74.4 3.7 35.4 4.1 52.8 4.3 44.8 4.3 31.6 4.0 47.5 4.3Allowed in all areas 5.1 1.9 1.7 1.1 2.6 1.4 51.2 4.3 4.3 1.7 3.1 1.5

Former Not allowed at all 53.4 3.9 77.3 3.3 67.4 3.7 24.7 3.4 77.3 3.3 68.1 3.7

Allowed in some areas 44.2 3.9 22.0 3.3 31.3 3.7 52.1 4.0 19.9 3.2 29.8 3.6Allowed in all areas 2.4 1.2 0.7 0.6 1.3 0.9 23.3 3.3 2.8 1.3 2.1 1.1

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9a (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
314

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

West Virginia Overall Not allowed at all 33.9 2.1 56.4 2.2 44.2 2.2 22.6 1.9 58.6 2.2 41.8 2.2

Allowed in some areas 60.7 2.2 40.9 2.2 51.8 2.2 39.5 2.2 36.0 2.1 51.2 2.2Allowed in all areas 5.4 1.0 2.7 0.7 4.0 0.9 38.0 2.2 5.4 1.0 7.0 1.1

Never Not allowed at all 46.6 3.2 70.1 2.9 59.7 3.2 33.7 3.1 67.6 3.0 53.9 3.2

Allowed in some areas 51.5 3.2 29.3 2.9 39.2 3.1 38.3 3.1 30.5 3.0 42.9 3.2Allowed in all areas 1.9 0.9 0.6 0.5 1.1 0.7 28.0 2.9 1.9 0.9 3.2 1.1

Current Not allowed at all 10.8 2.5 32.1 3.7 17.0 3.0 3.7 1.5 40.4 3.9 19.2 3.1

Allowed in some areas 78.0 3.3 61.5 3.9 73.4 3.5 42.8 3.9 47.9 4.0 66.9 3.7Allowed in all areas 11.2 2.5 6.4 2.0 9.7 2.4 53.5 4.0 11.6 2.5 13.9 2.8

Former Not allowed at all 39.4 4.8 61.4 4.8 49.7 4.9 25.4 4.3 65.5 4.7 48.0 4.9

Allowed in some areas 55.8 4.9 36.6 4.7 48.0 4.9 37.1 4.7 30.5 4.5 46.8 4.9Allowed in all areas 4.8 2.1 2.0 1.4 2.3 1.5 37.6 4.8 4.0 1.9 5.1 2.2

Wisconsin Overall Not allowed at all 40.1 2.0 72.5 1.9 55.1 2.1 20.0 1.7 66.9 2.0 52.7 2.1

Allowed in some areas 55.6 2.1 26.2 1.8 41.0 2.0 44.9 2.1 27.7 1.9 42.2 2.1Allowed in all areas 4.3 0.8 1.3 0.5 3.9 0.8 35.2 2.0 5.4 0.9 5.1 0.9

Never Not allowed at all 52.6 3.0 84.2 2.2 67.7 2.8 27.9 2.7 74.7 2.6 63.2 2.9

Allowed in some areas 45.5 3.0 15.4 2.2 30.8 2.8 49.6 3.0 22.5 2.5 34.1 2.8Allowed in all areas 1.9 0.8 0.4 0.4 1.6 0.7 22.4 2.5 2.8 1.0 2.7 1.0

Current Not allowed at all 12.0 2.6 49.7 4.1 27.1 3.6 2.7 1.3 47.0 4.1 30.7 3.8

Allowed in some areas 79.1 3.3 46.7 4.1 63.7 3.9 37.5 3.9 41.9 4.0 58.8 4.0Allowed in all areas 8.9 2.3 3.6 1.5 9.2 2.3 59.7 4.0 11.1 2.6 10.6 2.5

Former Not allowed at all 45.0 4.1 73.7 3.6 60.0 4.0 22.5 3.5 72.4 3.7 55.2 4.1

Allowed in some areas 50.8 4.1 25.7 3.6 37.0 4.0 43.4 4.1 23.1 3.5 40.7 4.1Allowed in all areas 4.2 1.7 0.7 0.7 3.0 1.4 34.1 3.9 4.5 1.7 4.1 1.6

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9a (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
315

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Wyoming Overall Not allowed at all 39.4 2.4 70.6 2.3 52.9 2.5 18.1 1.9 74.2 2.2 52.4 2.5 Allowed in some areas 57.7 2.5 28.5 2.3 45.0 2.5 42.9 2.5 23.0 2.1 44.4 2.5 Allowed in all areas 2.9 0.8 0.9 0.5 2.2 0.7 39.0 2.4 2.8 0.8 3.2 0.9 Never Not allowed at all 51.0 3.6 80.9 2.8 65.5 3.4 24.7 3.1 80.2 2.8 62.7 3.4 Allowed in some areas 47.7 3.6 18.2 2.8 33.4 3.4 47.0 3.6 17.8 2.7 35.6 3.4 Allowed in all areas 1.3 0.8 0.9 0.7 1.1 0.7 28.3 3.2 1.9 1.0 1.7 0.9 Current Not allowed at all 13.5 3.4 48.2 4.9 26.0 4.3 3.6 1.8 60.3 4.8 33.7 4.7 Allowed in some areas 81.5 3.8 50.5 4.9 70.5 4.5 37.7 4.8 35.8 4.7 61.8 4.8 Allowed in all areas 5.0 2.1 1.3 1.1 3.5 1.8 58.6 4.9 4.0 1.9 4.5 2.1 Former Not allowed at all 43.2 4.9 73.5 4.4 55.6 5.0 20.0 4.0 76.7 4.2 51.3 5.0 Allowed in some areas 53.0 5.0 26.2 4.4 41.5 4.9 40.2 4.9 20.2 4.0 43.8 5.0

Allowed in all areas 3.7 1.9 0.3 0.6 2.9 1.7 39.8 4.9 3.1 1.7 4.9 2.2

Note: CI = 95% confidence interval.Source: 1992/93 Current Population Survey.*Universe: Individuals included in this table are self-respondent adults only (age 18 and older) whose smoking status can be determined. They mustgive their opinion about smoking in public places (i.e., smoking should be allowed in all areas, allowed in some areas, or not allowed at all). This isrequired for each public place separately; if an individual does not give his opinion about one public place, he will be included in other public placesfor which he did give his opinion.

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9a (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
316

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Alabama Overall Not allowed at all 46.5 2.1 72.9 1.9 59.3 2.1 30.1 2.0 67.2 2.0 57.9 2.1

Allowed in some areas 50.0 2.2 25.6 1.9 38.2 2.1 38.2 2.1 29.1 2.0 38.5 2.1Allowed in all areas 3.4 0.8 1.5 0.5 2.5 0.7 31.7 2.0 3.7 0.8 3.5 0.8

Never Not allowed at all 57.4 2.8 80.6 2.3 70.1 2.6 38.9 2.8 74.4 2.5 68.2 2.7

Allowed in some areas 40.8 2.8 19.0 2.2 28.9 2.6 38.1 2.8 23.9 2.4 30.1 2.6Allowed in all areas 1.8 0.8 0.5 0.4 1.0 0.6 23.0 2.4 1.7 0.7 1.7 0.7

Current Not allowed at all 21.2 3.6 53.9 4.4 35.1 4.2 9.8 2.6 51.2 4.4 35.0 4.2

Allowed in some areas 71.1 4.0 42.1 4.4 58.7 4.4 37.3 4.3 39.3 4.3 57.2 4.4Allowed in all areas 7.7 2.4 4.0 1.7 6.2 2.1 52.9 4.4 9.5 2.6 7.8 2.4

Former Not allowed at all 46.0 4.8 73.7 4.2 57.7 4.8 29.8 4.5 65.9 4.6 56.2 4.8

Allowed in some areas 51.2 4.8 24.8 4.1 40.0 4.7 39.7 4.8 31.5 4.5 40.3 4.7Allowed in all areas 2.9 1.6 1.5 1.2 2.3 1.4 30.5 4.5 2.6 1.5 3.6 1.8

Alaska Overall Not allowed at all 50.3 2.2 77.8 1.8 63.5 2.1 25.4 1.9 72.0 2.0 67.6 2.1

Allowed in some areas 46.7 2.2 21.5 1.8 35.1 2.1 48.7 2.2 25.6 1.9 29.9 2.0Allowed in all areas 3.0 0.8 0.7 0.4 1.4 0.5 25.9 2.0 2.4 0.7 2.5 0.7

Never Not allowed at all 63.3 3.0 85.0 2.2 73.6 2.8 33.8 3.0 77.2 2.6 75.0 2.7

Allowed in some areas 35.2 3.0 14.3 2.2 25.9 2.7 49.2 3.2 21.2 2.6 23.7 2.7Allowed in all areas 1.4 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 17.0 2.4 1.6 0.8 1.3 0.7

Current Not allowed at all 22.5 3.6 64.2 4.2 43.4 4.3 6.9 2.2 60.6 4.3 53.7 4.4

Allowed in some areas 71.8 3.9 35.6 4.2 53.4 4.4 47.2 4.4 35.4 4.2 40.9 4.3Allowed in all areas 5.7 2.0 0.2 0.4 3.2 1.5 45.9 4.4 4.1 1.7 5.4 2.0

Former Not allowed at all 52.6 4.5 77.1 3.7 63.7 4.3 27.9 4.0 73.3 3.9 67.0 4.2

Allowed in some areas 44.0 4.4 21.5 3.7 35.1 4.3 49.2 4.5 24.3 3.8 31.1 4.1Allowed in all areas 3.4 1.6 1.4 1.0 1.2 1.0 22.9 3.8 2.3 1.3 1.9 1.2

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9bState-Specific Attitudes about Smoking in Indoor Public Places (Restaurants, Hospitals, Indoor Work Areas, Bars and Cocktail Loun

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI

ges,

Indoor Sporting Events, and Indoor Shopping Malls) by Smoking Status*—1995/96
317

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Arizona Overall Not allowed at all 53.2 2.1 82.0 1.6 68.3 1.9 26.8 1.9 72.2 1.9 67.7 1.9 Allowed in some areas 43.4 2.1 16.8 1.6 29.7 1.9 40.3 2.1 23.3 1.8 28.9 1.9 Allowed in all areas 3.4 0.8 1.2 0.5 2.0 0.6 33.0 2.0 4.5 0.9 3.4 0.8 Never Not allowed at all 67.1 2.7 89.3 1.8 79.0 2.3 36.7 2.8 79.7 2.3 77.1 2.4 Allowed in some areas 31.2 2.6 9.8 1.7 19.7 2.3 40.3 2.8 17.5 2.2 20.5 2.3 Allowed in all areas 1.7 0.7 1.0 0.6 1.4 0.7 23.0 2.4 2.8 0.9 2.4 0.9 Current Not allowed at all 21.7 3.5 66.4 4.0 42.8 4.3 6.5 2.1 52.8 4.3 45.9 4.3 Allowed in some areas 71.3 3.9 31.9 4.0 53.3 4.3 37.9 4.2 38.7 4.2 47.9 4.3 Allowed in all areas 7.0 2.2 1.7 1.1 3.8 1.7 55.6 4.3 8.5 2.4 6.2 2.1 Former Not allowed at all 53.2 4.3 81.2 3.4 69.5 4.0 24.8 3.7 74.8 3.8 68.0 4.0 Allowed in some areas 43.1 4.3 17.5 3.3 28.9 3.9 42.6 4.3 21.1 3.5 29.0 3.9

Allowed in all areas 3.7 1.6 1.3 1.0 1.6 1.1 32.7 4.1 4.1 1.7 3.0 1.5

Arkansas Overall Not allowed at all 43.8 2.1 72.1 1.9 55.0 2.1 26.9 1.9 66.5 2.0 59.1 2.1

Allowed in some areas 52.4 2.1 26.3 1.9 42.0 2.1 37.5 2.1 29.1 2.0 36.8 2.1Allowed in all areas 3.8 0.8 1.6 0.5 3.0 0.7 35.6 2.1 4.5 0.9 4.1 0.9

Never Not allowed at all 55.6 2.9 80.6 2.3 67.7 2.8 35.8 2.9 72.3 2.7 68.8 2.7

Allowed in some areas 42.7 2.9 18.7 2.3 31.2 2.7 38.2 2.9 24.9 2.6 29.4 2.7Allowed in all areas 1.7 0.8 0.7 0.5 1.1 0.6 26.1 2.6 2.8 1.0 1.8 0.8

Current Not allowed at all 16.3 3.0 53.8 4.1 27.8 3.7 8.3 2.3 51.2 4.1 37.2 4.0

Allowed in some areas 75.5 3.5 43.0 4.1 65.0 3.9 37.4 4.0 41.4 4.1 55.2 4.1Allowed in all areas 8.2 2.3 3.2 1.4 7.2 2.1 54.3 4.2 7.4 2.2 7.6 2.2

Former Not allowed at all 50.0 4.8 74.2 4.2 58.8 4.7 29.1 4.5 72.0 4.3 63.2 4.7

Allowed in some areas 46.3 4.8 23.7 4.1 38.9 4.7 35.7 4.7 23.3 4.1 31.3 4.5Allowed in all areas 3.8 1.8 2.1 1.4 2.3 1.4 35.2 4.7 4.8 2.0 5.5 2.2

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9b (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
318

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

California Overall Not allowed at all 67.1 0.8 89.0 0.5 78.3 0.7 33.7 0.8 78.1 0.7 76.3 0.7

Allowed in some areas 30.7 0.8 10.4 0.5 20.3 0.7 39.0 0.8 19.1 0.7 21.2 0.7Allowed in all areas 2.1 0.2 0.6 0.1 1.4 0.2 27.3 0.8 2.9 0.3 2.5 0.3

Never Not allowed at all 75.6 1.0 92.3 0.6 84.8 0.8 42.1 1.1 82.6 0.8 81.4 0.9

Allowed in some areas 23.3 0.9 7.3 0.6 14.7 0.8 39.7 1.1 15.7 0.8 17.0 0.8Allowed in all areas 1.2 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.6 0.2 18.2 0.9 1.7 0.3 1.6 0.3

Current Not allowed at all 41.8 2.0 80.0 1.6 59.6 2.0 11.1 1.3 61.9 2.0 61.3 2.0

Allowed in some areas 53.0 2.0 18.5 1.6 36.4 1.9 35.0 1.9 31.5 1.9 33.5 1.9Allowed in all areas 5.1 0.9 1.5 0.5 4.1 0.8 53.8 2.0 6.6 1.0 5.3 0.9

Former Not allowed at all 65.2 1.7 87.4 1.2 76.3 1.6 29.9 1.7 79.2 1.5 74.8 1.6

Allowed in some areas 32.5 1.7 12.0 1.2 22.5 1.5 40.4 1.8 17.9 1.4 22.6 1.5Allowed in all areas 2.3 0.5 0.6 0.3 1.3 0.4 29.8 1.7 2.9 0.6 2.7 0.6

Colorado Overall Not allowed at all 45.9 2.2 79.6 1.8 65.5 2.1 20.3 1.8 69.1 2.0 62.6 2.1

Allowed in some areas 51.2 2.2 19.5 1.7 32.7 2.0 50.2 2.2 27.4 1.9 34.5 2.1Allowed in all areas 3.0 0.7 0.9 0.4 1.9 0.6 29.5 2.0 3.5 0.8 2.9 0.7

Never Not allowed at all 59.5 2.9 86.4 2.0 77.3 2.5 27.5 2.7 76.4 2.5 71.2 2.7

Allowed in some areas 38.9 2.9 13.1 2.0 21.5 2.5 53.0 3.0 21.7 2.5 26.5 2.6Allowed in all areas 1.6 0.7 0.5 0.4 1.3 0.7 19.4 2.4 1.9 0.8 2.3 0.9

Current Not allowed at all 16.4 3.3 66.0 4.3 41.1 4.4 5.5 2.1 52.1 4.5 43.5 4.5

Allowed in some areas 77.1 3.8 31.8 4.2 54.9 4.5 41.5 4.4 40.1 4.4 51.4 4.5Allowed in all areas 6.5 2.2 2.1 1.3 4.0 1.8 53.0 4.5 7.9 2.4 5.1 2.0

Former Not allowed at all 44.3 4.4 77.8 3.7 63.0 4.3 18.7 3.5 69.7 4.1 62.2 4.3

Allowed in some areas 53.0 4.5 21.7 3.7 35.8 4.3 52.8 4.5 27.5 4.0 35.9 4.3Allowed in all areas 2.7 1.4 0.5 0.7 1.2 1.0 28.5 4.1 2.8 1.5 1.9 1.2

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9b (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
319

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Connecticut Overall Not allowed at all 51.1 2.3 81.6 1.8 63.6 2.3 32.4 2.2 70.4 2.1 66.1 2.2 Allowed in some areas 46.1 2.3 17.6 1.8 34.2 2.2 46.8 2.3 25.9 2.1 30.8 2.2 Allowed in all areas 2.8 0.8 0.8 0.4 2.3 0.7 20.8 1.9 3.6 0.9 3.1 0.8 Never Not allowed at all 62.8 3.1 87.0 2.2 73.5 2.9 43.1 3.2 77.5 2.7 75.3 2.8 Allowed in some areas 35.6 3.1 12.4 2.1 25.4 2.8 43.4 3.2 20.6 2.6 23.3 2.7 Allowed in all areas 1.6 0.8 0.6 0.5 1.1 0.7 13.4 2.2 1.9 0.9 1.4 0.8 Current Not allowed at all 21.1 4.2 66.1 4.9 34.9 4.9 8.9 3.0 52.4 5.2 44.8 5.1 Allowed in some areas 73.2 4.6 32.5 4.8 59.7 5.1 50.9 5.2 39.9 5.1 47.8 5.2 Allowed in all areas 5.7 2.4 1.4 1.2 5.4 2.3 40.2 5.1 7.7 2.8 7.5 2.7 Former Not allowed at all 51.2 4.5 83.0 3.4 66.1 4.3 29.6 4.1 70.4 4.1 64.6 4.3 Allowed in some areas 45.7 4.5 16.5 3.3 31.8 4.2 50.0 4.5 25.7 3.9 32.3 4.2

Allowed in all areas 3.1 1.6 0.5 0.7 2.1 1.3 20.3 3.6 3.9 1.7 3.1 1.6

Delaware Overall Not allowed at all 41.8 2.2 75.9 1.9 58.0 2.3 25.4 2.0 63.3 2.2 58.1 2.2

Allowed in some areas 52.9 2.3 23.1 1.9 39.4 2.2 43.6 2.3 32.3 2.1 37.2 2.2Allowed in all areas 5.3 1.0 1.0 0.5 2.5 0.7 31.0 2.1 4.5 0.9 4.8 1.0

Never Not allowed at all 54.9 3.2 83.4 2.4 70.7 2.9 36.5 3.2 70.4 3.0 67.0 3.0

Allowed in some areas 42.9 3.2 16.1 2.4 27.8 2.9 43.0 3.2 27.1 2.9 30.4 3.0Allowed in all areas 2.2 1.0 0.6 0.5 1.5 0.8 20.5 2.6 2.5 1.0 2.5 1.0

Current Not allowed at all 17.0 3.3 61.0 4.4 35.2 4.3 5.2 2.0 46.2 4.4 37.6 4.3

Allowed in some areas 74.1 3.9 37.8 4.3 60.2 4.4 43.3 4.4 46.1 4.4 53.2 4.5Allowed in all areas 9.0 2.5 1.3 1.0 4.6 1.9 51.5 4.5 7.7 2.4 9.2 2.6

Former Not allowed at all 41.9 4.5 76.6 3.9 56.7 4.6 24.7 4.0 67.2 4.3 61.8 4.5

Allowed in some areas 50.4 4.6 21.8 3.8 40.9 4.5 45.1 4.6 27.8 4.1 33.7 4.4Allowed in all areas 7.7 2.5 1.6 1.2 2.4 1.4 30.2 4.3 5.0 2.0 4.5 1.9

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9b (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
320

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

District of 

Columbia Overall Not allowed at all 50.1 2.4 83.5 1.8 68.0 2.2 26.7 2.1 67.0 2.3 59.1 2.3

Allowed in some areas 47.0 2.4 15.6 1.7 30.2 2.2 51.6 2.4 30.3 2.2 38.1 2.3Allowed in all areas 2.9 0.8 0.9 0.5 1.8 0.6 21.7 2.0 2.7 0.8 2.8 0.8

Never Not allowed at all 58.9 3.1 87.4 2.1 76.6 2.7 33.1 3.0 72.3 2.8 66.1 3.0

Allowed in some areas 39.7 3.1 11.9 2.0 22.4 2.6 51.4 3.2 26.1 2.8 32.2 2.9Allowed in all areas 1.4 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.9 0.6 15.5 2.3 1.5 0.8 1.7 0.8

Current Not allowed at all 26.0 4.4 72.7 4.4 46.2 5.0 8.6 2.8 52.6 5.0 41.4 4.9

Allowed in some areas 66.6 4.7 25.5 4.4 49.3 5.0 51.5 5.0 41.7 5.0 53.3 5.0Allowed in all areas 7.4 2.6 1.9 1.3 4.6 2.1 39.9 4.9 5.7 2.3 5.3 2.2

Former Not allowed at all 52.3 5.4 84.1 3.9 68.0 5.0 28.9 4.9 67.8 5.0 59.1 5.3

Allowed in some areas 45.7 5.3 15.3 3.9 30.8 5.0 52.2 5.4 29.6 4.9 37.8 5.2Allowed in all areas 2.0 1.5 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.2 18.9 4.2 2.6 1.7 3.1 1.9

Florida Overall Not allowed at all 50.2 1.1 80.7 0.8 67.3 1.0 31.9 1.0 68.3 1.0 63.8 1.0

Allowed in some areas 46.3 1.1 18.2 0.8 30.4 1.0 38.6 1.0 27.5 0.9 32.3 1.0Allowed in all areas 3.5 0.4 1.1 0.2 2.3 0.3 29.5 1.0 4.2 0.4 3.9 0.4

Never Not allowed at all 63.1 1.4 88.5 0.9 78.5 1.2 42.4 1.5 76.2 1.2 73.7 1.3

Allowed in some areas 35.1 1.4 11.1 0.9 20.5 1.2 37.7 1.4 21.4 1.2 24.1 1.2Allowed in all areas 1.8 0.4 0.5 0.2 1.1 0.3 19.9 1.2 2.4 0.4 2.2 0.4

Current Not allowed at all 19.0 1.7 62.1 2.1 40.3 2.2 9.0 1.3 45.5 2.2 39.4 2.2

Allowed in some areas 73.8 1.9 35.2 2.1 54.6 2.2 39.0 2.2 45.6 2.2 53.3 2.2Allowed in all areas 7.2 1.1 2.6 0.7 5.2 1.0 52.0 2.2 8.8 1.3 7.3 1.1

Former Not allowed at all 51.9 2.1 81.6 1.6 68.7 2.0 31.1 2.0 72.5 1.9 65.5 2.0

Allowed in some areas 44.4 2.1 17.4 1.6 29.1 1.9 40.1 2.1 23.6 1.8 30.3 1.9Allowed in all areas 3.7 0.8 1.0 0.4 2.2 0.6 28.8 1.9 3.9 0.8 4.2 0.8

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9b (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
321

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Georgia Overall Not allowed at all 48.9 2.0 77.3 1.6 61.4 1.9 29.5 1.8 66.0 1.9 59.3 1.9 Allowed in some areas 47.0 2.0 21.0 1.6 35.7 1.9 44.1 2.0 29.5 1.8 36.2 1.9 Allowed in all areas 4.1 0.8 1.7 0.5 2.9 0.7 26.4 1.7 4.5 0.8 4.5 0.8 Never Not allowed at all 60.6 2.5 85.6 1.8 72.3 2.3 38.3 2.5 75.5 2.2 69.0 2.4 Allowed in some areas 37.9 2.5 13.7 1.8 26.8 2.3 45.0 2.6 22.7 2.2 29.4 2.4 Allowed in all areas 1.5 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.9 0.5 16.7 2.0 1.7 0.7 1.6 0.7 Current Not allowed at all 16.9 3.1 57.7 4.1 31.1 3.8 6.2 2.0 42.4 4.1 34.8 3.9 Allowed in some areas 72.0 3.7 37.5 4.0 60.0 4.0 44.9 4.1 46.3 4.1 54.2 4.1 Allowed in all areas 11.1 2.6 4.7 1.7 8.9 2.3 48.9 4.1 11.3 2.6 11.0 2.6 Former Not allowed at all 51.4 4.4 75.7 3.7 64.3 4.2 31.2 4.1 65.4 4.2 59.2 4.3 Allowed in some areas 44.9 4.3 22.8 3.7 33.6 4.1 40.8 4.4 29.8 4.0 35.6 4.2

Allowed in all areas 3.6 1.6 1.5 1.1 2.1 1.3 27.9 4.0 4.8 1.9 5.2 1.9

Hawaii Overall Not allowed at all 52.4 2.3 85.2 1.7 75.7 2.0 23.9 2.0 73.8 2.1 70.2 2.1

Allowed in some areas 45.5 2.3 14.3 1.6 22.9 2.0 49.8 2.3 23.1 2.0 26.6 2.1Allowed in all areas 2.2 0.7 0.6 0.4 1.4 0.5 26.4 2.1 3.2 0.8 3.2 0.8

Never Not allowed at all 61.6 3.0 88.4 2.0 82.5 2.3 28.2 2.8 78.3 2.6 75.2 2.7

Allowed in some areas 37.2 3.0 11.0 1.9 16.4 2.3 53.1 3.1 19.1 2.4 21.8 2.6

Allowed in all areas 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.5 1.0 0.6 18.7 2.4 2.5 1.0 3.0 1.1

Current Not allowed at all 26.4 4.5 76.5 4.3 58.8 5.0 8.3 2.8 59.5 5.0 59.4 5.0

Allowed in some areas 69.3 4.7 22.9 4.3 38.7 5.0 41.9 5.0 35.3 4.9 37.0 4.9Allowed in all areas 4.4 2.1 0.6 0.8 2.4 1.6 49.7 5.1 5.2 2.3 3.6 1.9

Former Not allowed at all 53.3 4.9 85.0 3.5 74.0 4.3 27.6 4.4 75.5 4.2 67.6 4.6

Allowed in some areas 44.0 4.9 14.5 3.5 24.6 4.3 48.8 4.9 21.8 4.1 29.1 4.5Allowed in all areas 2.7 1.6 0.5 0.7 1.3 1.1 23.6 4.2 2.8 1.6 3.3 1.8

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9b (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
322

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Idaho Overall Not allowed at all 55.0 2.1 79.6 1.7 68.3 2.0 24.1 1.8 78.7 1.7 74.1 1.8

Allowed in some areas 42.1 2.1 19.2 1.7 29.7 1.9 36.6 2.0 18.1 1.6 23.0 1.8Allowed in all areas 2.9 0.7 1.1 0.4 2.0 0.6 39.3 2.1 3.2 0.7 2.8 0.7

Never Not allowed at all 69.6 2.6 87.7 1.8 79.8 2.3 32.7 2.7 86.0 2.0 83.1 2.1

Allowed in some areas 29.3 2.6 12.1 1.8 20.1 2.3 38.9 2.8 13.0 1.9 15.9 2.1Allowed in all areas 1.1 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 28.4 2.6 1.0 0.6 0.9 0.5

Current Not allowed at all 20.4 3.7 60.2 4.4 41.8 4.5 5.2 2.0 63.8 4.4 55.2 4.5

Allowed in some areas 72.6 4.0 36.6 4.3 52.4 4.5 29.7 4.1 29.0 4.1 37.9 4.4Allowed in all areas 7.0 2.3 3.2 1.6 5.8 2.1 65.0 4.3 7.2 2.3 6.9 2.3

Former Not allowed at all 51.7 4.4 78.3 3.6 65.3 4.2 21.5 3.6 74.9 3.8 70.1 4.0

Allowed in some areas 44.7 4.4 20.4 3.5 31.6 4.1 37.5 4.3 20.3 3.5 26.2 3.9Allowed in all areas 3.6 1.6 1.4 1.0 3.0 1.5 41.0 4.3 4.8 1.9 3.6 1.6

Illinois Overall Not allowed at all 45.3 1.2 77.6 1.0 59.5 1.2 24.8 1.1 65.4 1.2 58.1 1.2

Allowed in some areas 50.7 1.2 21.0 1.0 38.2 1.2 43.5 1.2 30.4 1.1 38.0 1.2Allowed in all areas 4.0 0.5 1.4 0.3 2.3 0.4 31.8 1.1 4.2 0.5 3.8 0.5

Never Not allowed at all 58.2 1.6 85.4 1.2 71.4 1.5 34.1 1.6 72.5 1.5 67.6 1.6

Allowed in some areas 40.1 1.6 13.7 1.1 27.4 1.5 44.6 1.7 25.2 1.4 30.4 1.5Allowed in all areas 1.6 0.4 0.9 0.3 1.3 0.4 21.3 1.4 2.3 0.5 2.0 0.5

Current Not allowed at all 15.4 1.8 57.2 2.4 30.8 2.3 5.5 1.1 45.2 2.4 35.8 2.3

Allowed in some areas 75.4 2.1 40.1 2.4 64.6 2.3 38.2 2.4 45.9 2.4 56.9 2.4Allowed in all areas 9.2 1.4 2.7 0.8 4.6 1.0 56.3 2.4 8.8 1.4 7.3 1.3

Former Not allowed at all 47.2 2.6 81.3 2.0 62.6 2.5 23.7 2.2 70.6 2.3 60.0 2.5

Allowed in some areas 49.0 2.6 17.5 1.9 35.1 2.4 46.6 2.6 25.5 2.2 35.6 2.5Allowed in all areas 3.7 1.0 1.2 0.6 2.3 0.8 29.7 2.4 3.9 1.0 4.4 1.0

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9b (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
323

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Indiana Overall Not allowed at all 38.8 2.1 71.7 1.9 52.0 2.1 21.4 1.8 68.2 2.0 56.3 2.1 Allowed in some areas 56.4 2.1 26.0 1.9 44.2 2.1 37.4 2.1 27.1 1.9 38.8 2.1 Allowed in all areas 4.8 0.9 2.4 0.6 3.9 0.8 41.3 2.1 4.8 0.9 4.9 0.9 Never Not allowed at all 53.4 3.0 83.3 2.2 66.7 2.8 29.6 2.8 77.5 2.5 68.4 2.8 Allowed in some areas 45.5 3.0 16.0 2.2 32.4 2.8 41.6 3.0 20.5 2.4 29.4 2.8 Allowed in all areas 1.2 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.9 0.6 28.8 2.8 2.0 0.9 2.1 0.9 Current Not allowed at all 10.4 2.4 48.8 4.0 23.3 3.4 5.1 1.8 48.5 4.0 31.7 3.7 Allowed in some areas 79.0 3.2 46.0 4.0 68.3 3.7 32.5 3.7 41.9 3.9 58.7 3.9 Allowed in all areas 10.6 2.4 5.2 1.8 8.5 2.2 62.4 3.9 9.6 2.3 9.6 2.3 Former Not allowed at all 43.3 4.7 75.6 4.1 56.4 4.7 25.0 4.2 73.2 4.2 61.4 4.6 Allowed in some areas 51.2 4.7 22.0 3.9 39.0 4.6 34.1 4.6 22.2 3.9 33.4 4.5

Allowed in all areas 5.5 2.2 2.4 1.5 4.5 2.0 40.9 4.7 4.6 2.0 5.2 2.1

Iowa Overall Not allowed at all 47.2 2.2 78.8 1.8 61.9 2.1 21.8 1.8 75.8 1.9 63.8 2.1

Allowed in some areas 49.7 2.2 20.6 1.8 36.3 2.1 43.1 2.2 21.7 1.8 33.9 2.1Allowed in all areas 3.2 0.8 0.7 0.4 1.7 0.6 35.1 2.1 2.5 0.7 2.3 0.7

Never Not allowed at all 60.1 2.9 87.4 1.9 74.2 2.6 29.2 2.7 81.0 2.3 72.2 2.6

Allowed in some areas 38.5 2.8 12.3 1.9 25.4 2.5 46.6 2.9 17.8 2.2 26.4 2.6Allowed in all areas 1.4 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 24.2 2.5 1.2 0.6 1.4 0.7

Current Not allowed at all 13.7 3.1 57.3 4.5 28.1 4.1 2.3 1.4 58.0 4.5 39.2 4.5

Allowed in some areas 78.4 3.8 40.8 4.5 66.9 4.3 36.1 4.4 35.8 4.4 56.2 4.5Allowed in all areas 7.9 2.5 1.9 1.2 5.0 2.0 61.6 4.5 6.2 2.2 4.6 1.9

Former Not allowed at all 49.2 4.7 79.1 3.8 65.7 4.4 23.3 4.0 81.1 3.7 67.8 4.4

Allowed in some areas 48.2 4.7 20.5 3.8 32.6 4.4 41.8 4.6 17.1 3.5 30.1 4.3Allowed in all areas 2.6 1.5 0.4 0.6 1.7 1.2 34.9 4.5 1.8 1.2 2.2 1.4

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9b (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
324

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Kansas Overall Not allowed at all 44.9 2.2 76.0 1.9 59.7 2.2 21.4 1.9 70.1 2.0 60.5 2.2

Allowed in some areas 51.6 2.2 22.7 1.9 37.5 2.2 43.2 2.2 25.3 1.9 35.5 2.1Allowed in all areas 3.5 0.8 1.3 0.5 2.8 0.7 35.4 2.2 4.6 0.9 4.0 0.9

Never Not allowed at all 57.7 3.0 85.7 2.1 71.6 2.8 28.6 2.8 76.6 2.6 70.4 2.8

Allowed in some areas 40.5 3.0 13.9 2.1 27.4 2.7 47.8 3.1 21.0 2.5 27.8 2.7Allowed in all areas 1.8 0.8 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.6 23.6 2.6 2.4 0.9 1.8 0.8

Current Not allowed at all 16.0 3.2 55.8 4.4 33.2 4.2 5.1 2.0 52.3 4.4 38.3 4.3

Allowed in some areas 77.2 3.7 41.2 4.3 59.9 4.3 34.5 4.2 39.5 4.3 53.7 4.4Allowed in all areas 6.8 2.2 3.0 1.5 6.9 2.2 60.4 4.3 8.2 2.4 8.0 2.4

Former Not allowed at all 47.5 4.9 75.8 4.2 62.0 4.8 23.1 4.2 75.2 4.2 62.5 4.7

Allowed in some areas 48.4 4.9 22.8 4.1 35.6 4.7 42.5 4.9 19.1 3.9 33.0 4.6Allowed in all areas 4.1 1.9 1.4 1.1 2.4 1.5 34.4 4.7 5.7 2.3 4.5 2.0

Kentucky Overall Not allowed at all 30.3 2.0 60.1 2.1 42.6 2.1 19.5 1.7 54.8 2.1 41.9 2.1

Allowed in some areas 63.6 2.0 38.0 2.1 53.7 2.1 47.2 2.2 39.8 2.1 52.9 2.1Allowed in all areas 6.1 1.0 1.9 0.6 3.7 0.8 33.3 2.1 5.4 1.0 5.2 0.9

Never Not allowed at all 41.1 3.0 71.2 2.8 56.0 3.1 28.5 2.9 63.2 3.0 51.3 3.1

Allowed in some areas 55.9 3.1 27.7 2.8 41.9 3.1 48.8 3.2 33.0 2.9 44.4 3.1Allowed in all areas 3.1 1.1 1.1 0.6 2.1 0.9 22.6 2.7 3.9 1.2 4.3 1.3

Current Not allowed at all 11.6 2.5 42.9 3.8 21.8 3.2 6.1 1.9 41.4 3.8 27.0 3.4

Allowed in some areas 77.9 3.2 54.1 3.8 72.2 3.4 47.2 3.9 50.3 3.8 65.6 3.6Allowed in all areas 10.5 2.3 3.0 1.3 6.1 1.8 46.7 3.9 8.3 2.1 7.4 2.0

Former Not allowed at all 33.1 4.3 60.6 4.4 42.7 4.5 19.5 3.7 55.6 4.5 42.9 4.5

Allowed in some areas 60.2 4.5 37.3 4.4 53.2 4.5 43.7 4.7 39.7 4.5 53.2 4.5Allowed in all areas 6.6 2.3 2.1 1.3 4.1 1.8 36.8 4.5 4.7 1.9 4.0 1.8

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9b (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
325

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Louisiana Overall Not allowed at all 47.1 2.1 75.7 1.8 61.1 2.1 30.1 2.0 63.5 2.1 57.0 2.1 Allowed in some areas 47.8 2.1 21.8 1.8 35.0 2.0 32.9 2.0 30.0 2.0 37.0 2.1 Allowed in all areas 5.2 0.9 2.5 0.7 3.9 0.8 37.0 2.1 6.5 1.1 5.9 1.0 Never Not allowed at all 59.0 2.8 83.3 2.1 73.3 2.5 39.0 2.8 71.7 2.6 67.1 2.7 Allowed in some areas 38.9 2.8 15.1 2.0 24.9 2.5 34.2 2.7 25.2 2.5 30.1 2.6 Allowed in all areas 2.1 0.8 1.6 0.7 1.8 0.8 26.8 2.6 3.1 1.0 2.8 0.9 Current Not allowed at all 18.1 3.3 56.9 4.2 31.6 3.9 7.1 2.2 41.4 4.2 32.6 4.0 Allowed in some areas 70.5 3.9 37.7 4.1 59.4 4.2 31.4 4.0 43.5 4.2 54.4 4.2 Allowed in all areas 11.4 2.7 5.4 1.9 9.1 2.4 61.5 4.2 15.2 3.1 13.0 2.9 Former Not allowed at all 50.6 4.8 78.2 3.9 64.7 4.6 34.8 4.6 68.4 4.5 59.9 4.7 Allowed in some areas 43.5 4.7 20.2 3.8 32.0 4.5 31.0 4.5 26.4 4.2 34.3 4.5

Allowed in all areas 5.9 2.3 1.6 1.2 3.2 1.7 34.2 4.6 5.2 2.1 5.8 2.2

Maine Overall Not allowed at all 53.0 2.2 81.6 1.7 64.8 2.1 32.3 2.1 78.8 1.8 72.8 2.0

Allowed in some areas 44.0 2.2 17.7 1.7 33.1 2.1 43.9 2.2 19.1 1.8 25.2 1.9Allowed in all areas 3.0 0.8 0.8 0.4 2.1 0.6 23.8 1.9 2.2 0.7 2.0 0.6

Never Not allowed at all 68.4 3.1 90.2 2.0 79.5 2.7 46.4 3.4 84.9 2.4 82.2 2.6

Allowed in some areas 30.7 3.1 9.4 1.9 19.9 2.7 41.0 3.3 14.0 2.3 17.3 2.5Allowed in all areas 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 12.6 2.2 1.2 0.7 0.5 0.5

Current Not allowed at all 23.7 3.7 66.4 4.1 38.5 4.2 9.9 2.6 66.4 4.1 56.5 4.3

Allowed in some areas 69.2 4.0 31.7 4.0 56.4 4.3 45.0 4.4 29.6 4.0 38.6 4.2Allowed in all areas 7.1 2.2 1.9 1.2 5.1 1.9 45.1 4.4 4.0 1.7 4.9 1.9

Former Not allowed at all 55.9 4.2 81.8 3.2 66.0 4.0 31.2 3.9 80.7 3.3 72.8 3.7

Allowed in some areas 41.7 4.1 17.7 3.2 32.5 3.9 47.3 4.2 17.3 3.2 25.3 3.6Allowed in all areas 2.4 1.3 0.4 0.5 1.5 1.0 21.5 3.5 2.0 1.2 1.9 1.1

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9b (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
326

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Maryland Overall Not allowed at all 50.7 2.2 82.5 1.7 67.3 2.1 27.3 2.0 69.4 2.1 64.8 2.1

Allowed in some areas 46.8 2.2 16.7 1.7 31.0 2.1 47.8 2.2 27.0 2.0 32.4 2.1Allowed in all areas 2.5 0.7 0.8 0.4 1.7 0.6 24.8 1.9 3.6 0.8 2.8 0.7

Never Not allowed at all 63.8 2.9 89.2 1.9 78.1 2.5 37.1 2.9 77.5 2.5 74.6 2.6

Allowed in some areas 34.8 2.9 10.3 1.8 21.2 2.5 47.0 3.0 20.5 2.4 24.0 2.6Allowed in all areas 1.4 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.5 15.9 2.2 2.1 0.9 1.4 0.7

Current Not allowed at all 18.9 3.8 64.4 4.6 38.6 4.7 4.0 1.9 50.0 4.8 39.8 4.7

Allowed in some areas 75.8 4.1 34.3 4.5 57.3 4.8 45.4 4.8 42.8 4.8 54.5 4.8Allowed in all areas 5.3 2.2 1.2 1.1 4.2 1.9 50.5 4.8 7.2 2.5 5.8 2.2

Former Not allowed at all 49.9 4.5 83.6 3.3 68.4 4.2 26.4 4.0 68.7 4.2 65.1 4.3

Allowed in some areas 47.5 4.5 15.5 3.2 29.9 4.1 51.7 4.5 27.5 4.0 31.4 4.2Allowed in all areas 2.6 1.4 1.0 0.9 1.7 1.1 21.9 3.7 3.8 1.7 3.5 1.6

Massachusetts Overall Not allowed at all 49.6 1.4 81.1 1.1 63.4 1.3 30.5 1.3 70.9 1.3 65.5 1.3

Allowed in some areas 47.5 1.4 18.1 1.1 35.0 1.3 50.4 1.4 26.4 1.2 31.8 1.3Allowed in all areas 2.9 0.5 0.8 0.2 1.6 0.4 19.1 1.1 2.7 0.4 2.7 0.5

Never Not allowed at all 61.2 1.9 87.1 1.3 74.8 1.7 41.2 1.9 77.1 1.7 74.1 1.7

Allowed in some areas 37.0 1.9 12.2 1.3 24.3 1.7 47.7 2.0 21.2 1.6 24.2 1.7Allowed in all areas 1.8 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.9 0.4 11.1 1.2 1.7 0.5 1.7 0.5

Current Not allowed at all 20.6 2.5 64.3 2.9 35.6 2.9 7.1 1.6 52.7 3.1 42.5 3.0

Allowed in some areas 72.3 2.7 33.8 2.9 60.0 3.0 52.6 3.0 40.9 3.0 51.0 3.0Allowed in all areas 7.1 1.6 1.9 0.8 4.4 1.2 40.3 3.0 6.4 1.5 6.5 1.5

Former Not allowed at all 50.5 2.6 82.9 1.9 63.6 2.5 29.2 2.4 73.4 2.3 67.4 2.4

Allowed in some areas 47.8 2.6 16.8 1.9 35.5 2.5 53.4 2.6 25.0 2.2 31.0 2.4Allowed in all areas 1.6 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.5 17.5 2.0 1.6 0.6 1.6 0.7

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9b (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
327

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Michigan Overall Not allowed at all 44.7 1.3 74.8 1.1 54.6 1.3 22.6 1.1 64.2 1.2 57.6 1.2 Allowed in some areas 52.9 1.3 24.4 1.1 43.5 1.2 50.0 1.3 32.9 1.2 40.0 1.2 Allowed in all areas 2.4 0.4 0.7 0.2 1.9 0.3 27.3 1.1 2.9 0.4 2.4 0.4 Never Not allowed at all 58.6 1.7 84.7 1.3 68.3 1.7 31.2 1.7 72.3 1.6 68.1 1.7 Allowed in some areas 40.4 1.7 15.1 1.3 30.9 1.6 51.6 1.8 26.3 1.6 30.4 1.6 Allowed in all areas 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.3 17.1 1.4 1.4 0.4 1.4 0.4 Current Not allowed at all 14.2 1.7 53.7 2.4 26.2 2.2 5.7 1.1 43.4 2.4 34.1 2.3 Allowed in some areas 80.8 1.9 44.5 2.4 69.3 2.3 45.8 2.5 50.4 2.5 61.4 2.4 Allowed in all areas 5.0 1.1 1.8 0.6 4.6 1.0 48.5 2.5 6.1 1.2 4.5 1.0 Former Not allowed at all 48.7 2.6 77.3 2.2 56.6 2.6 23.4 2.2 69.8 2.4 61.2 2.5 Allowed in some areas 48.8 2.6 22.1 2.1 42.0 2.6 51.4 2.6 27.8 2.3 36.7 2.5

Allowed in all areas 2.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.4 0.6 25.2 2.3 2.5 0.8 2.1 0.7

Minnesota Overall Not allowed at all 48.0 2.2 79.7 1.8 65.9 2.1 20.4 1.8 77.1 1.8 67.4 2.0

Allowed in some areas 49.6 2.2 19.7 1.7 32.7 2.1 47.2 2.2 21.1 1.8 31.3 2.0Allowed in all areas 2.4 0.7 0.6 0.3 1.4 0.5 32.4 2.1 1.9 0.6 1.3 0.5

Never Not allowed at all 61.4 2.9 88.8 1.9 77.6 2.5 28.1 2.7 84.0 2.2 76.2 2.6

Allowed in some areas 37.3 2.9 10.6 1.9 21.6 2.5 50.3 3.0 14.9 2.1 22.8 2.5Allowed in all areas 1.2 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.5 21.6 2.5 1.1 0.6 1.0 0.6

Current Not allowed at all 16.5 3.4 60.0 4.5 36.6 4.4 2.1 1.3 61.1 4.5 47.0 4.6

Allowed in some areas 78.9 3.7 39.1 4.5 60.6 4.5 37.6 4.4 35.1 4.4 50.9 4.6Allowed in all areas 4.6 1.9 0.9 0.8 2.8 1.5 60.3 4.5 3.8 1.7 2.1 1.3

Former Not allowed at all 48.6 4.4 78.5 3.6 68.3 4.1 21.2 3.6 77.2 3.7 67.6 4.1

Allowed in some areas 48.5 4.4 21.0 3.6 30.4 4.1 49.7 4.5 21.2 3.6 31.2 4.1Allowed in all areas 2.8 1.5 0.5 0.6 1.4 1.0 29.1 4.1 1.6 1.1 1.2 1.0

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9b (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
328

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Mississippi Overall Not allowed at all 48.6 2.2 71.3 2.0 61.3 2.1 35.3 2.1 64.3 2.1 58.2 2.1

Allowed in some areas 46.9 2.2 26.2 1.9 35.5 2.1 36.5 2.1 30.1 2.0 36.6 2.1Allowed in all areas 4.6 0.9 2.6 0.7 3.2 0.8 28.2 2.0 5.6 1.0 5.2 1.0

Never Not allowed at all 60.6 2.8 80.2 2.3 73.0 2.5 46.1 2.9 73.5 2.5 67.8 2.7

Allowed in some areas 37.6 2.8 18.9 2.2 25.9 2.5 34.4 2.7 23.6 2.4 29.8 2.6Allowed in all areas 1.8 0.8 0.9 0.5 1.1 0.6 19.5 2.3 2.9 1.0 2.4 0.9

Current Not allowed at all 18.7 3.5 51.0 4.5 32.0 4.2 8.8 2.6 44.0 4.5 34.3 4.3

Allowed in some areas 70.8 4.1 42.4 4.4 59.7 4.4 44.7 4.5 45.6 4.5 54.6 4.5Allowed in all areas 10.5 2.7 6.6 2.2 8.2 2.5 46.5 4.5 10.3 2.7 11.1 2.8

Former Not allowed at all 48.7 5.0 69.0 4.7 61.6 4.9 35.0 4.9 61.3 4.9 58.4 5.0

Allowed in some areas 45.4 5.0 28.3 4.5 34.8 4.8 32.7 4.8 30.9 4.7 35.0 4.8Allowed in all areas 5.9 2.4 2.8 1.6 3.6 1.9 32.2 4.8 7.9 2.7 6.6 2.5

Missouri Overall Not allowed at all 40.1 2.1 70.4 2.0 53.7 2.2 21.7 1.8 61.0 2.1 49.8 2.2

Allowed in some areas 55.2 2.2 28.6 2.0 43.8 2.2 42.2 2.2 34.4 2.1 46.6 2.2Allowed in all areas 4.7 0.9 1.0 0.4 2.5 0.7 36.1 2.1 4.6 0.9 3.6 0.8

Never Not allowed at all 55.1 3.1 79.5 2.5 66.8 2.9 29.9 2.9 69.9 2.8 61.2 3.0

Allowed in some areas 42.7 3.1 19.9 2.5 32.0 2.9 45.6 3.1 27.9 2.8 37.2 3.0Allowed in all areas 2.2 0.9 0.6 0.5 1.2 0.7 24.5 2.7 2.2 0.9 1.6 0.8

Current Not allowed at all 12.0 2.8 51.5 4.3 27.4 3.8 4.3 1.7 41.6 4.2 26.9 3.8

Allowed in some areas 78.7 3.5 46.7 4.3 67.2 4.0 37.2 4.1 48.2 4.3 66.1 4.0Allowed in all areas 9.3 2.5 1.8 1.1 5.4 1.9 58.5 4.2 10.2 2.6 7.0 2.2

Former Not allowed at all 39.4 4.4 72.0 4.1 55.1 4.5 24.1 3.9 63.4 4.4 50.9 4.5

Allowed in some areas 55.6 4.5 27.1 4.0 42.9 4.5 40.8 4.5 32.9 4.3 44.9 4.5Allowed in all areas 4.9 2.0 1.0 0.9 2.0 1.3 35.1 4.4 3.7 1.7 4.2 1.8

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9b (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
329

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Montana Overall Not allowed at all 44.0 2.1 78.6 1.7 58.4 2.1 20.1 1.7 78.6 1.7 64.2 2.0 Allowed in some areas 52.6 2.1 20.6 1.7 39.3 2.1 40.1 2.1 18.8 1.7 32.7 2.0 Allowed in all areas 3.4 0.8 0.8 0.4 2.4 0.6 39.8 2.1 2.5 0.7 3.1 0.7 Never Not allowed at all 57.6 3.1 88.1 2.0 71.5 2.8 28.2 2.8 84.0 2.3 73.1 2.7 Allowed in some areas 41.1 3.0 11.6 2.0 27.5 2.8 43.2 3.1 14.5 2.2 24.8 2.7 Allowed in all areas 1.3 0.7 0.3 0.3 1.0 0.6 28.6 2.8 1.6 0.8 2.0 0.9 Current Not allowed at all 16.3 3.1 59.8 4.2 33.3 4.0 3.2 1.5 65.2 4.1 46.5 4.3 Allowed in some areas 76.7 3.6 39.1 4.2 62.3 4.1 35.0 4.1 30.9 4.0 48.6 4.3 Allowed in all areas 7.0 2.2 1.1 0.9 4.3 1.7 61.8 4.2 3.9 1.7 5.0 1.9 Former Not allowed at all 45.6 4.0 79.4 3.3 58.2 4.0 21.9 3.4 81.6 3.1 64.9 3.9 Allowed in some areas 50.5 4.0 19.2 3.2 38.9 3.9 39.5 4.0 15.5 2.9 31.9 3.8

Allowed in all areas 3.8 1.5 1.4 0.9 2.9 1.3 38.6 4.0 2.9 1.4 3.3 1.4

Nebraska Overall Not allowed at all 47.1 2.1 79.7 1.7 62.6 2.1 24.5 1.9 74.5 1.9 62.5 2.1

Allowed in some areas 49.8 2.1 19.5 1.7 35.6 2.0 43.6 2.1 22.7 1.8 34.8 2.0Allowed in all areas 3.1 0.7 0.8 0.4 1.8 0.6 31.9 2.0 2.8 0.7 2.7 0.7

Never Not allowed at all 59.6 2.8 88.8 1.8 74.1 2.5 32.4 2.7 82.8 2.1 72.2 2.5

Allowed in some areas 38.6 2.7 10.8 1.7 25.3 2.4 44.5 2.8 15.5 2.0 26.0 2.5

Allowed in all areas 1.9 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.4 23.1 2.4 1.6 0.7 1.8 0.8

Current Not allowed at all 16.8 3.4 58.7 4.5 32.5 4.3 5.7 2.1 53.8 4.5 39.7 4.4

Allowed in some areas 76.0 3.9 39.1 4.4 63.2 4.4 41.0 4.5 39.7 4.5 54.8 4.5Allowed in all areas 7.2 2.4 2.2 1.3 4.4 1.9 53.2 4.5 6.5 2.2 5.5 2.1

Former Not allowed at all 44.3 4.8 76.4 4.0 62.7 4.6 22.9 4.0 73.5 4.2 59.8 4.7

Allowed in some areas 53.5 4.8 23.1 4.0 34.8 4.6 43.6 4.8 24.5 4.1 38.3 4.6Allowed in all areas 2.1 1.4 0.5 0.7 2.5 1.5 33.5 4.5 2.0 1.3 1.9 1.3

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9b (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
330

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Nevada Overall Not allowed at all 37.7 2.1 77.2 1.8 51.5 2.1 16.1 1.6 55.3 2.1 44.1 2.1

Allowed in some areas 56.8 2.1 21.9 1.8 45.8 2.1 45.8 2.2 37.3 2.1 46.8 2.1Allowed in all areas 5.5 1.0 0.8 0.4 2.7 0.7 38.1 2.1 7.4 1.1 9.1 1.2

Never Not allowed at all 49.2 3.0 85.5 2.1 61.4 2.9 21.7 2.5 61.1 2.9 51.3 3.0

Allowed in some areas 48.7 3.0 14.1 2.1 37.0 2.9 52.2 3.0 35.0 2.9 41.2 3.0Allowed in all areas 2.1 0.9 0.4 0.4 1.6 0.8 26.1 2.7 3.8 1.2 7.5 1.6

Current Not allowed at all 14.2 2.8 61.7 4.0 30.1 3.8 3.7 1.6 39.8 4.0 28.2 3.7

Allowed in some areas 74.2 3.6 36.8 3.9 64.5 3.9 33.4 3.9 44.6 4.1 57.5 4.0Allowed in all areas 11.6 2.6 1.5 1.0 5.4 1.9 62.9 4.0 15.5 3.0 14.3 2.8

Former Not allowed at all 40.8 4.5 77.9 3.8 55.6 4.6 18.9 3.6 61.5 4.5 47.9 4.6

Allowed in some areas 53.6 4.6 21.0 3.8 42.8 4.6 46.7 4.6 33.1 4.4 45.9 4.6Allowed in all areas 5.6 2.1 1.1 1.0 1.7 1.2 34.4 4.4 5.4 2.1 6.1 2.2

New Hampshire Overall Not allowed at all 49.9 2.4 78.8 1.9 62.4 2.3 27.6 2.1 73.9 2.1 66.2 2.2

Allowed in some areas 48.0 2.4 20.7 1.9 36.3 2.3 47.9 2.4 24.0 2.0 31.7 2.2Allowed in all areas 2.2 0.7 0.5 0.3 1.3 0.5 24.5 2.1 2.1 0.7 2.0 0.7

Never Not allowed at all 66.4 3.4 87.1 2.4 75.8 3.0 38.5 3.5 80.9 2.8 75.9 3.0

Allowed in some areas 32.7 3.3 12.4 2.3 23.4 3.0 47.3 3.6 17.9 2.7 22.8 3.0Allowed in all areas 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.6 14.2 2.5 1.1 0.8 1.3 0.8

Current Not allowed at all 15.6 3.5 61.1 4.7 38.3 4.7 6.7 2.4 57.1 4.8 46.8 4.8

Allowed in some areas 80.3 3.8 38.3 4.6 59.7 4.7 49.1 4.8 38.7 4.7 50.0 4.8Allowed in all areas 4.1 1.9 0.6 0.8 2.0 1.4 44.2 4.8 4.2 1.9 3.2 1.7

Former Not allowed at all 53.4 4.3 81.0 3.4 62.3 4.2 28.8 3.9 77.1 3.6 67.7 4.0

Allowed in some areas 44.2 4.2 18.6 3.3 36.3 4.1 47.7 4.3 21.0 3.5 30.1 3.9Allowed in all areas 2.4 1.3 0.4 0.5 1.4 1.0 23.5 3.7 1.9 1.2 2.2 1.3

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9b (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
331

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 New Jersey Overall Not allowed at all 48.2 1.3 81.0 1.0 63.2 1.2 28.2 1.1 63.9 1.2 60.7 1.2 Allowed in some areas 48.2 1.3 17.9 1.0 34.6 1.2 47.8 1.3 31.4 1.2 35.1 1.2 Allowed in all areas 3.6 0.5 1.1 0.3 2.2 0.4 23.9 1.1 4.7 0.5 4.2 0.5 Never Not allowed at all 59.9 1.7 87.6 1.1 74.3 1.5 37.1 1.6 70.9 1.5 69.5 1.6 Allowed in some areas 38.8 1.6 11.7 1.1 24.8 1.5 47.9 1.7 26.5 1.5 28.2 1.5 Allowed in all areas 1.4 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.9 0.3 15.0 1.2 2.6 0.5 2.3 0.5 Current Not allowed at all 20.8 2.2 65.4 2.6 34.9 2.6 7.6 1.5 42.5 2.7 36.5 2.7 Allowed in some areas 70.3 2.5 33.0 2.6 59.5 2.7 43.7 2.8 46.4 2.8 53.8 2.8 Allowed in all areas 8.9 1.6 1.6 0.7 5.6 1.3 48.7 2.8 11.1 1.7 9.7 1.6 Former Not allowed at all 45.0 2.5 78.9 2.1 61.6 2.5 25.6 2.2 66.0 2.4 61.1 2.5 Allowed in some areas 50.8 2.5 19.4 2.0 36.0 2.4 51.1 2.6 29.8 2.3 34.9 2.4

Allowed in all areas 4.2 1.0 1.6 0.6 2.4 0.8 23.3 2.2 4.2 1.0 4.0 1.0

New Mexico Overall Not allowed at all 49.0 2.1 81.5 1.6 65.4 2.0 23.8 1.8 75.0 1.8 65.4 2.0

Allowed in some areas 47.6 2.1 17.5 1.6 32.5 2.0 41.8 2.1 21.9 1.7 31.2 1.9Allowed in all areas 3.4 0.8 1.1 0.4 2.1 0.6 34.4 2.0 3.1 0.7 3.3 0.7

Never Not allowed at all 60.7 2.8 87.7 1.9 75.4 2.5 32.9 2.8 79.9 2.3 73.2 2.6

Allowed in some areas 37.8 2.8 11.9 1.9 24.0 2.5 43.8 2.9 18.5 2.3 25.1 2.5Allowed in all areas 1.6 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 23.3 2.5 1.6 0.7 1.7 0.7

Current Not allowed at all 22.6 3.5 70.9 3.8 46.6 4.2 6.8 2.1 64.6 4.0 49.5 4.2

Allowed in some areas 71.1 3.8 27.2 3.7 49.6 4.2 36.5 4.1 30.0 3.8 45.2 4.2Allowed in all areas 6.3 2.0 2.0 1.2 3.8 1.6 56.7 4.2 5.5 1.9 5.3 1.9

Former Not allowed at all 51.4 4.4 79.1 3.5 63.4 4.2 21.8 3.6 75.2 3.8 65.3 4.1

Allowed in some areas 44.0 4.3 19.3 3.4 33.2 4.1 43.4 4.4 20.9 3.5 29.8 4.0Allowed in all areas 4.6 1.8 1.6 1.1 3.4 1.6 34.8 4.2 3.9 1.7 4.8 1.9

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9b (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
332

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

New York Overall Not allowed at all 49.9 0.9 80.1 0.7 62.2 0.9 32.2 0.8 67.4 0.9 66.6 0.9

Allowed in some areas 46.4 0.9 19.1 0.7 35.9 0.9 48.1 0.9 29.1 0.8 30.5 0.8Allowed in all areas 3.6 0.3 0.8 0.2 1.9 0.2 19.7 0.7 3.5 0.3 2.8 0.3

Never Not allowed at all 62.2 1.2 86.7 0.8 73.3 1.1 42.5 1.2 74.4 1.1 74.4 1.1

Allowed in some areas 35.9 1.2 12.9 0.8 25.9 1.1 45.0 1.2 23.6 1.0 23.9 1.0Allowed in all areas 1.9 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.9 0.2 12.5 0.8 2.0 0.3 1.7 0.3

Current Not allowed at all 21.4 1.6 64.9 1.8 35.5 1.9 11.0 1.2 49.9 1.9 48.6 1.9

Allowed in some areas 70.9 1.8 33.4 1.8 60.5 1.9 52.4 1.9 43.2 1.9 46.3 1.9Allowed in all areas 7.7 1.0 1.7 0.5 4.0 0.8 36.7 1.9 6.9 1.0 5.1 0.9

Former Not allowed at all 47.2 1.9 78.6 1.6 60.7 1.9 27.5 1.7 67.0 1.8 65.0 1.8

Allowed in some areas 48.8 1.9 20.4 1.5 37.1 1.8 51.8 1.9 29.1 1.7 31.5 1.8Allowed in all areas 4.0 0.7 0.9 0.4 2.2 0.6 20.8 1.5 3.9 0.7 3.5 0.7

North Carolina Overall Not allowed at all 33.5 1.3 68.5 1.3 48.1 1.4 21.5 1.2 54.4 1.4 47.0 1.4

Allowed in some areas 61.3 1.4 29.7 1.3 48.3 1.4 47.3 1.5 39.9 1.4 46.8 1.4Allowed in all areas 5.2 0.6 1.8 0.4 3.6 0.5 31.3 1.3 5.7 0.7 6.2 0.7

Never Not allowed at all 42.9 1.9 76.1 1.7 59.0 1.9 28.7 1.8 60.7 1.9 55.7 2.0

Allowed in some areas 54.4 2.0 22.7 1.6 38.9 1.9 47.9 2.0 35.6 1.9 40.8 1.9Allowed in all areas 2.7 0.6 1.2 0.4 2.1 0.6 23.4 1.7 3.7 0.7 3.5 0.7

Current Not allowed at all 12.0 1.8 51.1 2.8 23.9 2.4 5.6 1.3 38.2 2.7 26.9 2.5

Allowed in some areas 78.4 2.3 45.3 2.8 69.0 2.6 47.2 2.8 51.2 2.8 60.9 2.7Allowed in all areas 9.6 1.6 3.6 1.0 7.1 1.4 47.1 2.8 10.6 1.7 12.2 1.8

Former Not allowed at all 37.2 3.1 71.3 2.9 51.3 3.2 23.8 2.7 59.0 3.1 50.6 3.2

Allowed in some areas 56.8 3.1 27.4 2.8 45.7 3.1 45.7 3.2 36.3 3.0 44.1 3.1Allowed in all areas 6.0 1.5 1.3 0.7 3.0 1.1 30.5 3.0 4.6 1.3 5.3 1.4

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9b (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
333

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 North Dakota Overall Not allowed at all 43.6 2.2 78.9 1.8 61.9 2.2 22.5 1.9 77.8 1.9 63.7 2.1 Allowed in some areas 52.9 2.2 20.0 1.8 35.8 2.1 46.2 2.2 20.2 1.8 34.0 2.1 Allowed in all areas 3.5 0.8 1.0 0.5 2.3 0.7 31.3 2.1 2.0 0.6 2.3 0.7 Never Not allowed at all 55.8 3.0 88.0 2.0 74.4 2.6 30.3 2.8 84.2 2.2 72.3 2.7 Allowed in some areas 43.4 3.0 11.6 1.9 24.6 2.6 47.0 3.1 14.7 2.1 26.3 2.7 Allowed in all areas 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.6 22.7 2.6 1.0 0.6 1.4 0.7 Current Not allowed at all 14.0 3.2 57.9 4.6 30.1 4.2 4.2 1.9 59.7 4.5 41.0 4.5 Allowed in some areas 76.9 3.9 40.0 4.5 64.3 4.4 42.3 4.6 35.9 4.4 54.7 4.6 Allowed in all areas 9.0 2.6 2.1 1.3 5.6 2.1 53.5 4.6 4.4 1.9 4.3 1.9 Former Not allowed at all 44.6 4.6 78.9 3.8 64.5 4.5 23.0 4.0 81.1 3.7 66.6 4.4 Allowed in some areas 50.9 4.7 19.6 3.7 33.3 4.4 48.3 4.7 17.1 3.5 31.0 4.3

Allowed in all areas 4.4 1.9 1.5 1.1 2.1 1.4 28.7 4.3 1.8 1.2 2.5 1.4

Ohio Overall Not allowed at all 39.0 1.2 70.3 1.1 51.7 1.2 20.7 1.0 61.5 1.2 51.9 1.2

Allowed in some areas 56.6 1.2 28.1 1.1 44.9 1.2 42.0 1.2 33.2 1.2 43.2 1.2Allowed in all areas 4.4 0.5 1.6 0.3 3.4 0.4 37.3 1.2 5.3 0.6 5.0 0.5

Never Not allowed at all 53.5 1.7 80.8 1.4 66.4 1.6 29.4 1.6 71.5 1.6 64.7 1.7

Allowed in some areas 44.6 1.7 18.4 1.3 32.1 1.6 44.5 1.7 25.7 1.5 32.7 1.6Allowed in all areas 1.8 0.5 0.8 0.3 1.5 0.4 26.1 1.5 2.8 0.6 2.6 0.6

Current Not allowed at all 11.9 1.5 49.6 2.4 23.3 2.0 5.1 1.0 40.6 2.3 28.7 2.1

Allowed in some areas 78.7 1.9 47.3 2.4 69.4 2.2 34.6 2.3 48.1 2.4 61.3 2.3Allowed in all areas 9.4 1.4 3.1 0.8 7.3 1.2 60.4 2.3 11.3 1.5 10.0 1.4

Former Not allowed at all 39.3 2.5 71.6 2.3 52.7 2.5 20.3 2.1 64.3 2.4 51.2 2.5

Allowed in some areas 56.6 2.5 26.7 2.2 44.1 2.5 45.3 2.6 31.8 2.4 44.7 2.5Allowed in all areas 4.1 1.0 1.7 0.7 3.2 0.9 34.4 2.4 3.9 1.0 4.1 1.0

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9b (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
334

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Oklahoma Overall Not allowed at all 43.8 2.1 72.4 1.9 54.9 2.1 23.9 1.8 64.6 2.0 57.2 2.1

Allowed in some areas 52.0 2.1 25.7 1.9 42.4 2.1 37.1 2.1 30.7 2.0 37.7 2.1Allowed in all areas 4.2 0.9 1.9 0.6 2.7 0.7 39.1 2.1 4.7 0.9 5.1 0.9

Never Not allowed at all 56.1 2.9 81.8 2.2 66.3 2.7 32.6 2.7 71.7 2.6 66.4 2.7

Allowed in some areas 42.4 2.9 17.2 2.2 32.8 2.7 36.7 2.8 25.7 2.5 31.7 2.7Allowed in all areas 1.5 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.5 30.7 2.7 2.6 0.9 1.9 0.8

Current Not allowed at all 15.6 3.0 52.2 4.2 28.3 3.8 5.1 1.9 45.8 4.2 35.3 4.0

Allowed in some areas 74.5 3.6 43.6 4.1 65.2 4.0 37.8 4.1 44.6 4.2 53.4 4.2Allowed in all areas 9.9 2.5 4.2 1.7 6.5 2.1 57.1 4.2 9.6 2.5 11.3 2.7

Former Not allowed at all 47.0 4.7 73.0 4.2 58.2 4.7 24.5 4.1 69.2 4.4 60.2 4.6

Allowed in some areas 48.7 4.7 25.5 4.1 39.0 4.6 37.0 4.6 26.5 4.2 34.2 4.5Allowed in all areas 4.3 1.9 1.5 1.2 2.8 1.6 38.5 4.7 4.3 1.9 5.6 2.2

Oregon Overall Not allowed at all 57.5 2.2 81.9 1.7 70.4 2.0 24.7 1.9 78.4 1.8 70.9 2.0

Allowed in some areas 40.6 2.2 17.5 1.7 28.3 2.0 43.5 2.2 19.6 1.8 27.0 2.0Allowed in all areas 1.9 0.6 0.6 0.4 1.3 0.5 31.8 2.1 2.0 0.6 2.1 0.6

Never Not allowed at all 72.5 2.7 89.5 1.9 82.9 2.3 33.7 2.9 83.7 2.3 80.7 2.4

Allowed in some areas 26.2 2.7 9.9 1.8 16.4 2.3 46.2 3.1 15.0 2.2 18.0 2.4Allowed in all areas 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.5 20.1 2.5 1.4 0.7 1.3 0.7

Current Not allowed at all 20.6 3.8 66.3 4.4 45.8 4.7 5.0 2.0 65.0 4.5 50.1 4.7

Allowed in some areas 75.7 4.0 32.9 4.4 51.4 4.7 39.2 4.6 32.1 4.4 46.8 4.6Allowed in all areas 3.7 1.7 0.8 0.8 2.8 1.5 55.8 4.6 2.9 1.6 3.1 1.6

Former Not allowed at all 59.5 4.3 80.1 3.5 66.6 4.1 24.0 3.8 79.5 3.6 69.7 4.0

Allowed in some areas 38.7 4.3 19.3 3.5 32.0 4.1 41.8 4.3 17.9 3.4 27.5 3.9Allowed in all areas 1.8 1.2 0.6 0.7 1.4 1.0 34.2 4.2 2.6 1.4 2.9 1.5

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9b (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
335

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Pennsylvania Overall Not allowed at all 44.0 1.2 77.5 1.0 57.1 1.2 24.3 1.0 65.9 1.1 57.1 1.1 Allowed in some areas 52.3 1.2 21.6 1.0 40.5 1.1 45.4 1.2 29.9 1.1 38.6 1.1 Allowed in all areas 3.7 0.4 1.0 0.2 2.4 0.4 30.3 1.1 4.3 0.5 4.3 0.5 Never Not allowed at all 56.6 1.6 85.8 1.1 69.6 1.5 33.9 1.6 73.5 1.5 68.2 1.5 Allowed in some areas 41.5 1.6 13.6 1.1 29.4 1.5 45.8 1.7 24.4 1.4 29.5 1.5 Allowed in all areas 1.9 0.4 0.6 0.2 1.1 0.3 20.3 1.3 2.1 0.5 2.3 0.5 Current Not allowed at all 16.9 1.8 60.2 2.3 31.0 2.2 5.4 1.1 48.6 2.3 34.1 2.2 Allowed in some areas 76.2 2.0 38.3 2.3 64.4 2.2 42.5 2.3 43.5 2.3 58.1 2.3 Allowed in all areas 6.9 1.2 1.5 0.6 4.6 1.0 52.1 2.4 8.0 1.3 7.8 1.3 Former Not allowed at all 45.5 2.3 77.8 1.9 57.9 2.3 24.1 2.0 67.6 2.2 57.8 2.3 Allowed in some areas 50.4 2.3 20.9 1.9 39.2 2.2 47.5 2.3 27.6 2.1 37.4 2.2

Allowed in all areas 4.2 0.9 1.3 0.5 2.9 0.8 28.4 2.1 4.8 1.0 4.8 1.0

Rhode Island Overall Not allowed at all 50.2 2.3 79.2 1.9 60.7 2.3 29.4 2.1 69.0 2.2 61.6 2.3

Allowed in some areas 46.3 2.3 18.9 1.8 36.7 2.3 46.7 2.4 26.8 2.1 34.9 2.2Allowed in all areas 3.5 0.9 2.0 0.6 2.6 0.8 23.9 2.0 4.2 0.9 3.5 0.9

Never Not allowed at all 63.4 3.2 84.9 2.4 71.7 3.0 41.4 3.3 76.3 2.9 70.7 3.1

Allowed in some areas 33.8 3.2 13.2 2.3 26.2 3.0 45.0 3.4 20.7 2.7 26.5 3.0Allowed in all areas 2.8 1.1 1.9 0.9 2.1 1.0 13.6 2.3 3.0 1.1 2.8 1.1

Current Not allowed at all 24.6 4.0 66.9 4.4 37.1 4.5 9.2 2.7 52.8 4.7 43.6 4.7

Allowed in some areas 70.6 4.3 31.8 4.3 59.5 4.6 46.9 4.7 40.6 4.6 51.0 4.7Allowed in all areas 4.8 2.0 1.3 1.0 3.5 1.7 44.0 4.7 6.7 2.4 5.5 2.1

Former Not allowed at all 50.5 4.5 80.3 3.6 62.6 4.4 26.6 4.0 70.6 4.1 62.0 4.4

Allowed in some areas 46.0 4.5 17.0 3.4 34.5 4.3 49.6 4.6 25.2 4.0 34.9 4.3Allowed in all areas 3.5 1.7 2.8 1.5 2.8 1.5 23.7 3.9 4.1 1.8 3.1 1.6

Bars and Indoor Outdoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9b (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
336

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

South Carolina Overall Not allowed at all 37.3 2.1 69.7 2.0 53.5 2.1 24.4 1.9 59.5 2.1 51.8 2.2

Allowed in some areas 56.8 2.1 28.8 1.9 42.9 2.1 41.8 2.1 35.5 2.1 43.3 2.1Allowed in all areas 5.9 1.0 1.5 0.5 3.6 0.8 33.8 2.1 5.0 0.9 4.9 0.9

Never Not allowed at all 48.6 2.9 77.1 2.4 65.0 2.8 33.2 2.8 66.8 2.7 62.0 2.8

Allowed in some areas 47.9 2.9 22.1 2.4 34.0 2.7 44.0 2.9 31.1 2.7 35.7 2.8Allowed in all areas 3.4 1.1 0.8 0.5 1.1 0.6 22.8 2.5 2.1 0.8 2.3 0.9

Current Not allowed at all 10.9 2.6 52.2 4.2 28.7 3.8 6.3 2.0 39.3 4.1 28.7 3.8

Allowed in some areas 78.5 3.4 45.0 4.2 62.6 4.1 37.8 4.1 49.1 4.2 61.4 4.1Allowed in all areas 10.5 2.6 2.7 1.4 8.7 2.4 55.9 4.2 11.6 2.7 9.9 2.5

Former Not allowed at all 41.0 4.9 72.4 4.4 54.4 5.0 24.3 4.3 66.3 4.7 54.5 5.0

Allowed in some areas 52.4 5.0 25.6 4.3 41.8 4.9 40.9 5.0 29.2 4.5 40.0 4.9Allowed in all areas 6.5 2.5 1.9 1.4 3.8 1.9 34.8 4.8 4.5 2.1 5.5 2.3

South Dakota Overall Not allowed at all 44.9 2.1 78.0 1.7 61.7 2.0 22.0 1.8 77.9 1.7 66.6 2.0

Allowed in some areas 51.9 2.1 21.1 1.7 36.1 2.0 40.6 2.1 19.9 1.7 30.8 1.9Allowed in all areas 3.2 0.7 0.8 0.4 2.2 0.6 37.3 2.0 2.2 0.6 2.6 0.7

Never Not allowed at all 57.1 2.8 87.9 1.9 74.2 2.5 30.4 2.7 85.0 2.0 77.2 2.4

Allowed in some areas 42.2 2.8 11.8 1.8 25.2 2.5 42.8 2.9 13.7 2.0 21.3 2.3Allowed in all areas 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.5 26.7 2.6 1.3 0.6 1.5 0.7

Current Not allowed at all 13.4 3.0 57.0 4.3 31.0 4.1 4.0 1.7 59.0 4.3 41.1 4.3

Allowed in some areas 77.6 3.6 40.4 4.3 62.8 4.2 33.8 4.2 36.0 4.2 52.6 4.4Allowed in all areas 8.9 2.5 2.5 1.4 6.2 2.1 62.2 4.3 5.0 1.9 6.3 2.1

Former Not allowed at all 47.7 4.3 75.9 3.7 63.0 4.1 20.9 3.5 80.0 3.4 67.0 4.0

Allowed in some areas 49.1 4.3 23.5 3.6 35.3 4.1 42.3 4.3 18.4 3.3 31.3 4.0Allowed in all areas 3.1 1.5 0.6 0.7 1.7 1.1 36.8 4.2 1.6 1.1 1.8 1.1

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9b (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
337

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Tennessee Overall Not allowed at all 42.2 2.1 71.5 1.9 55.6 2.1 25.5 1.9 64.2 2.0 56.1 2.1 Allowed in some areas 52.8 2.1 26.8 1.8 40.7 2.0 40.6 2.1 31.3 1.9 39.8 2.0 Allowed in all areas 4.9 0.9 1.7 0.5 3.7 0.8 33.9 2.0 4.5 0.9 4.1 0.8 Never Not allowed at all 57.6 2.9 82.3 2.3 69.5 2.7 35.5 2.9 73.1 2.6 67.5 2.8 Allowed in some areas 40.2 2.9 17.2 2.2 29.4 2.7 41.6 3.0 24.6 2.6 30.6 2.7 Allowed in all areas 2.2 0.9 0.6 0.4 1.1 0.6 22.9 2.6 2.3 0.9 1.9 0.8 Current Not allowed at all 14.1 2.8 49.9 4.0 25.6 3.5 6.6 2.0 45.3 4.0 32.5 3.7 Allowed in some areas 76.2 3.4 46.3 4.0 65.8 3.8 39.0 3.9 45.7 4.0 59.0 3.9 Allowed in all areas 9.8 2.4 3.7 1.5 8.6 2.2 54.4 4.0 9.0 2.3 8.5 2.2 Former Not allowed at all 42.9 4.3 74.1 3.7 61.4 4.2 27.3 3.9 67.6 4.0 59.8 4.2 Allowed in some areas 52.1 4.3 24.3 3.7 35.2 4.1 40.5 4.3 28.8 3.9 36.6 4.1

Allowed in all areas 5.0 1.9 1.7 1.1 3.4 1.5 32.2 4.1 3.6 1.6 3.6 1.6

Texas Overall Not allowed at all 51.8 1.1 81.2 0.9 67.4 1.1 27.2 1.0 69.8 1.0 64.8 1.1

Allowed in some areas 45.3 1.1 17.9 0.9 30.6 1.0 39.1 1.1 26.2 1.0 32.0 1.0Allowed in all areas 2.9 0.4 1.0 0.2 2.0 0.3 33.7 1.1 4.0 0.4 3.2 0.4

Never Not allowed at all 63.7 1.4 88.1 1.0 78.3 1.2 35.2 1.4 77.0 1.3 73.8 1.3

Allowed in some areas 34.9 1.4 11.3 0.9 20.8 1.2 40.5 1.5 20.6 1.2 24.3 1.3Allowed in all areas 1.4 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.9 0.3 24.3 1.3 2.4 0.5 1.9 0.4

Current Not allowed at all 22.3 1.9 65.3 2.2 41.4 2.3 7.9 1.2 49.9 2.3 42.6 2.3

Allowed in some areas 71.1 2.1 32.5 2.2 53.3 2.3 34.6 2.2 41.3 2.3 50.6 2.3Allowed in all areas 6.6 1.1 2.2 0.7 5.3 1.0 57.5 2.3 8.8 1.3 6.8 1.2

Former Not allowed at all 52.9 2.6 80.1 2.0 67.1 2.4 27.5 2.3 72.7 2.3 65.6 2.4

Allowed in some areas 44.4 2.5 19.1 2.0 31.7 2.4 40.7 2.6 24.2 2.2 31.7 2.4Allowed in all areas 2.7 0.8 0.8 0.5 1.1 0.5 31.8 2.4 3.1 0.9 2.8 0.8

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9b (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
338

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

Utah Overall Not allowed at all 67.8 2.0 87.3 1.4 76.9 1.8 19.6 1.7 82.5 1.6 82.0 1.6

Allowed in some areas 31.3 2.0 12.4 1.4 22.5 1.8 33.8 2.1 16.3 1.6 17.0 1.6Allowed in all areas 1.0 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.3 46.6 2.2 1.3 0.5 1.0 0.4

Never Not allowed at all 77.7 2.1 92.3 1.4 84.4 1.8 22.9 2.2 87.0 1.7 86.6 1.7

Allowed in some areas 21.8 2.1 7.6 1.3 15.1 1.8 36.4 2.5 12.3 1.7 12.7 1.7Allowed in all areas 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 40.6 2.6 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.4

Current Not allowed at all 27.3 4.8 68.2 5.0 46.4 5.4 4.1 2.1 61.6 5.3 61.9 5.2

Allowed in some areas 70.4 4.9 31.0 5.0 52.3 5.4 26.5 4.8 34.9 5.1 36.7 5.2Allowed in all areas 2.3 1.6 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.2 69.4 5.0 3.5 2.0 1.4 1.3

Former Not allowed at all 63.5 5.3 84.0 4.0 74.0 4.8 21.2 4.6 83.4 4.1 81.4 4.3

Allowed in some areas 34.6 5.3 15.6 4.0 25.4 4.8 29.5 5.1 15.3 4.0 16.2 4.1Allowed in all areas 1.8 1.5 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.9 49.3 5.6 1.3 1.2 2.4 1.7

Vermont Overall Not allowed at all 52.0 2.3 81.8 1.8 65.7 2.2 30.7 2.2 81.4 1.8 75.1 2.0

Allowed in some areas 45.3 2.3 17.4 1.8 32.7 2.2 47.6 2.3 16.4 1.7 22.7 1.9Allowed in all areas 2.8 0.8 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.6 21.7 1.9 2.2 0.7 2.2 0.7

Never Not allowed at all 65.0 3.3 88.4 2.2 77.1 2.9 40.4 3.4 85.2 2.4 82.0 2.6

Allowed in some areas 33.6 3.3 11.3 2.2 22.1 2.9 48.1 3.5 13.4 2.4 16.2 2.5Allowed in all areas 1.4 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.6 11.6 2.2 1.4 0.8 1.7 0.9

Current Not allowed at all 26.3 4.1 69.8 4.2 44.6 4.6 11.7 3.0 70.7 4.2 63.7 4.4

Allowed in some areas 68.3 4.3 28.4 4.2 52.5 4.6 47.7 4.6 25.3 4.0 32.9 4.3Allowed in all areas 5.3 2.1 1.7 1.2 2.9 1.5 40.6 4.6 3.9 1.8 3.4 1.7

Former Not allowed at all 54.0 4.3 82.0 3.3 66.5 4.1 32.3 4.1 84.7 3.1 74.3 3.8

Allowed in some areas 43.3 4.3 17.2 3.3 31.9 4.0 46.7 4.3 13.2 2.9 23.7 3.7Allowed in all areas 2.7 1.4 0.8 0.8 1.6 1.1 21.0 3.5 2.1 1.3 1.9 1.2

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9b (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
339

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11 Virginia Overall Not allowed at all 42.7 2.0 75.1 1.8 58.3 2.0 23.2 1.7 66.0 1.9 58.0 2.0 Allowed in some areas 52.9 2.0 23.7 1.7 38.9 2.0 49.8 2.0 29.0 1.8 36.9 2.0 Allowed in all areas 4.3 0.8 1.2 0.4 2.8 0.7 27.0 1.8 4.9 0.9 5.0 0.9 Never Not allowed at all 54.5 2.8 82.4 2.1 71.0 2.6 30.7 2.6 73.3 2.5 68.6 2.6 Allowed in some areas 43.9 2.8 17.2 2.1 27.9 2.5 51.9 2.8 23.3 2.4 28.8 2.6 Allowed in all areas 1.6 0.7 0.4 0.4 1.1 0.6 17.4 2.2 3.4 1.0 2.7 0.9 Current Not allowed at all 16.6 3.0 56.5 4.1 29.8 3.7 6.5 2.0 46.5 4.1 33.4 3.8 Allowed in some areas 73.3 3.6 40.6 4.0 63.5 3.9 45.2 4.1 43.7 4.1 56.5 4.0 Allowed in all areas 10.1 2.5 3.0 1.4 6.7 2.0 48.3 4.1 9.8 2.4 10.0 2.5 Former Not allowed at all 44.3 4.1 78.6 3.4 60.2 4.1 24.4 3.6 70.5 3.8 60.7 4.1 Allowed in some areas 51.4 4.2 20.6 3.4 37.4 4.0 49.9 4.2 26.1 3.7 34.4 4.0

Allowed in all areas 4.2 1.7 0.8 0.7 2.3 1.3 25.7 3.7 3.4 1.5 4.9 1.8

Washington Overall Not allowed at all 53.9 2.2 83.1 1.7 70.3 2.1 23.8 1.9 76.9 1.9 73.1 2.0

Allowed in some areas 43.5 2.2 15.9 1.6 27.9 2.0 45.0 2.3 20.6 1.8 24.5 1.9Allowed in all areas 2.6 0.7 1.1 0.5 1.8 0.6 31.3 2.1 2.5 0.7 2.4 0.7

Never Not allowed at all 67.7 3.0 88.5 2.0 81.3 2.5 33.5 3.0 81.7 2.4 79.0 2.6

Allowed in some areas 30.7 2.9 10.6 1.9 17.6 2.4 47.2 3.2 16.6 2.4 19.2 2.5Allowed in all areas 1.6 0.8 0.9 0.6 1.1 0.6 19.3 2.5 1.7 0.8 1.8 0.8

Current Not allowed at all 24.0 3.9 72.7 4.1 49.6 4.6 4.3 1.9 64.8 4.4 63.1 4.5

Allowed in some areas 70.1 4.2 25.8 4.0 46.5 4.6 39.0 4.5 30.4 4.3 32.8 4.3Allowed in all areas 5.9 2.2 1.5 1.1 3.9 1.8 56.7 4.6 4.8 2.0 4.2 1.8

Former Not allowed at all 54.5 4.5 81.8 3.5 67.8 4.2 23.2 3.8 78.9 3.7 70.5 4.1

Allowed in some areas 43.9 4.5 17.2 3.4 30.8 4.1 46.3 4.5 19.3 3.5 27.3 4.0Allowed in all areas 1.5 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.4 1.0 30.5 4.2 1.8 1.2 2.1 1.3

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9b (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
340

Section III, CPS Data Analysis Results

West Virginia Overall Not allowed at all 35.8 1.9 64.9 1.9 47.6 2.0 22.0 1.7 65.2 1.9 49.5 2.0

Allowed in some areas 59.0 2.0 33.4 1.9 48.3 2.0 36.7 2.0 30.5 1.9 45.2 2.0Allowed in all areas 5.2 0.9 1.7 0.5 4.0 0.8 41.3 2.0 4.3 0.8 5.2 0.9

Never Not allowed at all 50.3 2.9 77.0 2.5 61.4 2.9 31.6 2.8 74.9 2.5 61.5 2.8

Allowed in some areas 46.3 2.9 21.8 2.4 36.0 2.8 34.6 2.9 22.1 2.4 34.8 2.8Allowed in all areas 3.4 1.1 1.2 0.6 2.6 0.9 33.8 2.8 3.0 1.0 3.7 1.1

Current Not allowed at all 11.8 2.5 45.9 3.8 22.4 3.2 5.6 1.8 47.6 3.8 27.4 3.4

Allowed in some areas 79.8 3.1 51.5 3.8 70.2 3.5 38.2 3.8 45.6 3.8 63.5 3.7Allowed in all areas 8.4 2.1 2.6 1.2 7.4 2.0 56.2 3.8 6.8 1.9 9.2 2.2

Former Not allowed at all 35.0 3.9 63.0 4.0 49.8 4.1 22.7 3.5 66.3 3.9 51.7 4.1

Allowed in some areas 59.8 4.0 35.2 3.9 47.4 4.1 38.9 4.1 29.5 3.8 44.6 4.1Allowed in all areas 5.2 1.8 1.8 1.1 2.8 1.4 38.4 4.1 4.1 1.6 3.6 1.5

Wisconsin Overall Not allowed at all 42.8 2.1 77.4 1.8 60.4 2.1 20.4 1.8 71.4 2.0 62.2 2.1

Allowed in some areas 54.1 2.2 21.8 1.8 37.3 2.1 43.4 2.2 24.8 1.9 34.4 2.1Allowed in all areas 3.1 0.8 0.8 0.4 2.4 0.7 36.2 2.1 3.8 0.8 3.4 0.8

Never Not allowed at all 56.5 3.0 85.9 2.1 72.1 2.7 28.0 2.8 79.4 2.5 72.7 2.7

Allowed in some areas 42.1 3.0 13.7 2.1 26.6 2.7 45.9 3.1 18.5 2.4 25.8 2.7Allowed in all areas 1.4 0.7 0.4 0.4 1.3 0.7 26.1 2.7 2.1 0.9 1.5 0.7

Current Not allowed at all 15.9 3.1 59.9 4.2 35.9 4.1 4.3 1.7 53.6 4.3 42.0 4.2

Allowed in some areas 77.1 3.6 38.6 4.2 59.4 4.2 36.3 4.1 39.6 4.2 51.1 4.3Allowed in all areas 6.9 2.2 1.5 1.1 4.7 1.8 59.4 4.2 6.8 2.2 6.9 2.2

Former Not allowed at all 42.8 4.4 78.2 3.6 61.9 4.3 21.8 3.7 73.7 3.9 62.1 4.3

Allowed in some areas 54.6 4.4 20.8 3.6 36.0 4.3 45.9 4.4 22.2 3.7 34.5 4.2Allowed in all areas 2.6 1.4 1.0 0.9 2.1 1.3 32.2 4.1 4.2 1.8 3.4 1.6

Bars and Indoor Indoor

Overall/ Indoor Cocktail Sporting ShoppingSmoking Restaurants Hospitals Work Areas Lounges Events Malls

Table 9b (Continued)

State Status Smoking Should be: % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI % CI
Section IV:

Model Tobacco Control

Ordinances

The model ordinances in this section were developed based on Americans

for Nonsmokers' Rights' (ANR) 20+ years of experience helping communities enact

and implement local tobacco-control ordinances. The provisions and language

have been adopted by literally hundreds of communities across the country and

have proven themselves over the test of time and implementation. Carefully

review the model ordinance(s) and determine what, if any, modifications to make

based on the needs and practices of your community. 

ANR strongly encourages you to contact them for assistance as you develop your draft ordinance; their staff can review drafts and provide extensive background materials. You can reach ANR at (510) 841-3032 or visit their web site at 

http://www.no-smoke.org for updated versions of these model ordinances, as well

as other useful resources.
343

Section IV: Model Ordinances

MODEL ORDINANCE ELIMINATING SMOKING IN WORKPLACES AND

ENCLOSED PUBLIC PLACES (100% SMOKE-FREE)*

Revised May 14, 1999

Sec. 1000. Title

This article shall be known as the Smoking Pollution Control Ordinance.

Sec. 1001. Findings and Purpose

The City Council [or Board of Supervisors] does hereby find that:

Numerous studies have found that tobacco smoke is a major contributor to

indoor air pollution, and that breathing secondhand smoke is a cause of

disease, including lung cancer, in nonsmokers. At special risk are children,

elderly people, individuals with cardiovascular disease, and individuals with

impaired respiratory function, including asthmatics and those with obstructive airway disease; and

Health hazards induced by breathing secondhand smoke include lung cancer, heart disease, respiratory infection, and decreased respiratory function,

including bronchoconstriction and bronchospasm.

Accordingly, the City Council [or Board of Supervisors] finds and declares

that the purposes of this ordinance are (1) to protect the public health and

welfare by prohibiting smoking in public places and places of employment;

and (2) to guarantee the right of nonsmokers to breathe smoke-free air, and

to recognize that the need to breathe smoke-free air shall have priority over

the desire to smoke.

Sec. 1002. Definitions

The following words and phrases, whenever used in this article, shall be

construed as defined in this section:

1. “Bar” means an area which is devoted to the serving of alcoholic beverages for consumption by guests on the premises and in which the serving

of food is only incidental to the consumption of such beverages. A “bar”

for the purposes of this ordinance shall not include any area where full

meals are served, but may include the service of appetizers and snacks.

2. “Business” means any sole proprietorship, partnership, joint venture, corporation or other business entity formed for profit-making purposes,

including retail establishments where goods or services are sold as well as

professional corporations and other entities where legal, medical, dental,

engineering, architectural, or other professional services are delivered.

* Developed by the American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation: 2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite J,

Berkeley, California 94702, Phone (510) 841-3032 Fax (510) 841-3071.
3. “Employee” means any person who is employed by any employer in the

consideration for direct or indirect monetary wages or profit, and any person who volunteers his or her services for a non-profit entity.

4. “Employer” means any person, partnership, corporation, including a

municipal corporation, or non-profit entity, who employs the services of

one or more individual persons.

5. “Enclosed Area” means all space between a floor and ceiling which is

enclosed on all sides by solid walls or windows (exclusive of door or passage

ways) which extend from the floor to the ceiling, including all space therein screened by partitions which do not extend to the ceiling or are not

solid, “office landscaping” or similar structures.

6. “Place of Employment” means any enclosed area under the control of a

public or private employer which employees normally frequent during the

course of employment, including, but not limited to, work areas, employee

lounges and restrooms, conference and class rooms, employee cafeterias

and hallways. A private residence is not a “place of employment” unless it

is used as a child care, adult day care, or health care facility.

7. “Public Place” means any enclosed area to which the public is invited or

in which the public is permitted, including but not limited to, banks, educational facilities, health facilities, Laundromats, public transportation facilities, reception areas, restaurants, retail food production and marketing

establishments, retail service establishments, retail stores, theaters, and

waiting rooms. A private residence is not a “public place.”

8. “Restaurant” means any coffee shop, cafeteria, sandwich stand, private

and public school cafeteria, and any other eating establishment which gives

or offers for sale food to the public, guests, or employees, as well as kitchens

in which food is prepared on the premises for serving elsewhere, including

catering facilities, except that the term “restaurant” shall not include a

cocktail lounge or tavern if said cocktail lounge or tavern is a “bar” as

defined in Section 1002 (1).

9. “Retail Tobacco Store” means a retail store utilized primarily for the sale

of tobacco products and accessories and in which the sale of other products

is merely incidental.

10. “Service Line” means any indoor line at which one (1) or more persons

are waiting for or receiving service of any kind, whether or not such service

involves the exchange of money.

11. “Smoking” means inhaling, exhaling, burning or carrying any lighted

cigar, cigarette, pipe, weed, plant, or other combustible substance in any

manner or in any form.

12. “Sports Arena” means sports pavilions, gymnasiums, health spas, boxing arenas, swimming pools, roller and ice rinks, bowling alleys, and other

similar places where members of the general public assemble either to

engage in physical exercise, participate in athletic competition, or witness

sports events.

344

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
Sec. 1003. Application of Article to City-Owned [County-Owned]

Facilities

All enclosed facilities owned by the City [County] of __________ shall be

subject to the provisions of this article.

Sec. 1004. Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places

A. Smoking shall be prohibited in all enclosed public places within the City

[County] of __________, including, but not limited to, the following places:

1. Elevators.

2. Restrooms, lobbies, reception areas, hallways and any other commonuse areas.

3. Buses, taxicabs, and other means of public transit under the authority

of the City [County] of __________, and ticket, boarding, and waiting

areas of public transit depots.

4. Service lines. 

5. Retail stores.

6. All areas available to and customarily used by the general public in

all businesses and non-profit entities patronized by the public, including but not limited to, attorneys’ offices and other offices, banks,

Laundromats, hotels and motels.

7. Restaurants and restaurant bar areas.

8. Bars.

9. Public areas of aquariums, galleries, libraries, and museums when

open to the public.

10. Any facility which is primarily used for exhibiting any motion picture, stage, drama, lecture, musical recital or other similar performance,

except performers when smoking is part of a stage production.

11. Sports arenas and convention halls, including bowling facilities.

12. Every room, chamber, place of meeting or public assembly, including school buildings under the control of any board, council, commission, committee, including joint committees, or agencies of the City

[County] or any political subdivision of the State during such time as a

public meeting is in progress, to the extent such place is subject to the

jurisdiction of the City [County].

13. Waiting rooms, hallways, wards and semiprivate rooms of health

facilities, including, but not limited to, hospitals, clinics, physical therapy facilities, doctors’ offices, and dentists’ offices.

14. Lobbies, hallways, and other common areas in apartment buildings,

condominiums, trailer parks, retirement facilities, nursing homes, and

other multiple-unit residential facilities.

345

Section IV: Model Ordinances
346

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

15. Polling places.

16. Bingo games.

B. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any owner, operator, manager, or other person who controls any establishment or facility

may declare that entire establishment or facility as a nonsmoking establishment.

Sec. 1005. Prohibition of Smoking in Places of Employment

A. It shall be the responsibility of employers to provide a smoke-free workplace for all employees, but employers are not required to incur any

expense to make structural or other physical modifications.

B. Within 90 days of the effective date of this article, each employer having

an enclosed place of employment located within the City [County] shall

adopt, implement, make known and maintain a written smoking policy

which shall contain the following requirements:

Smoking shall be prohibited in all enclosed facilities within a place of

employment without exception. This includes common work areas, auditoriums, classrooms, conference and meeting rooms, private offices, elevators,

hallways, medical facilities, cafeterias, employee lounges, stairs, restrooms,

vehicles, and all other enclosed facilities.

C. The smoking policy shall be communicated to all employees within

three (3) weeks of its adoption.

D. All employers shall supply a written copy of the smoking policy upon

request to any existing or prospective employee.

Sec. 1006. Reasonable Distance

Smoking shall occur at a reasonable distance outside any enclosed area

where smoking is prohibited to ensure that tobacco smoke does not enter

the area through entrances, windows, ventilation systems or any other

means.

Sec. 1007. Where Smoking Not Regulated

A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this article to the contrary, the

following areas shall not be subject to the smoking restrictions of this article: 

1. Private residences, except when used as a child care, adult day care,

or health care facility.

2. Twenty-five percent (25%) of hotel and motel rooms rented to guests.

3. Retail tobacco stores.

B. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any owner, operator, manager, or other person who controls any establishment described in

this section may declare that entire establishment as a nonsmoking establishment.
347

Section IV: Model Ordinances

Sec. 1008. Posting of Signs

A. “No Smoking” signs or the international “No Smoking” symbol (consisting of a pictorial representation of a burning cigarette enclosed in a red circle with a red bar across it) shall be clearly, sufficiently and conspicuously

posted in every building or other area where smoking is prohibited by this

article, by the owner, operator, manager or other person having control of

such building or other area.

B. Every public place where smoking is prohibited by this article shall have

posted at every entrance a conspicuous sign clearly stating that smoking is

prohibited.

C. All ashtrays and other smoking paraphernalia shall be removed from any

area where smoking is prohibited by this article by the owner, operator,

manager, or other person having control of such area.

Sec. 1009. Enforcement

A. Enforcement of this article shall be implemented by the Department of

Health [or City Manager], or his or her designee.

B. Notice of the provisions set forth in this article shall be given to all applicants for a business license in the City [County] of __________.

C. Any citizen who desires to register a complaint under this chapter may

initiate enforcement with the Department of Health [or City Manager].

D. The Health Department or the Fire Department shall require, while an

establishment is undergoing otherwise mandated inspections, a “self-certification” from the owner, manager, operator, or other person having control

of such establishment that all requirements of this article have been complied with.

E. Any owner, manager, operator, or employee of any establishment regulated by this article may inform persons violating this article of the appropriate provisions thereof.

F. Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, a private citizen may

bring legal action to enforce this article.

Sec. 1010. Nonretaliation

No person or employer shall discharge, refuse to hire, or in any manner

retaliate against any employee, applicant for employment, or customer

because such employee, applicant, or customer exercises any right to a

smoke-free environment afforded by this article.

Sec. 1011. Violations and Penalties

A. It shall be unlawful for any person who owns, manages, operates or otherwise controls the use of any premises subject to regulation under this article to fail to comply with any of its provisions.
B. It shall be unlawful for any person to smoke in any area where smoking

is prohibited by the provisions of this article.

C. Any person who violates any provision of this article shall be guilty of

an infraction, punishable by:

1. A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100) for a first violation.

2. A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200) for a second violation of this article within one (1) year.

3. A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500) for each additional

violation of this article within one (1) year.

D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, an employee or private citizen may bring legal action to enforce this article.

Sec. 1012. Public Education

The Department of Health [or City Manager] shall engage in a continuing

program to explain and clarify the purposes and requirements of this ordinance to citizens affected by it, and to guide owners, operators and managers in their compliance with it. Such program may include publication of

a brochure for affected businesses and individuals explaining the provisions

of this ordinance.

Sec. 1013. Other Applicable Laws

This article shall not be interpreted or construed to permit smoking where

it is otherwise restricted by other applicable laws.

Sec. 1014. Severability

If any provision, clause, sentence, or paragraph of this article or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be held invalid, such

invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this article which can be

given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end

the provisions of this article are declared to be severable.

Sec. 1015. Effective Date

This article shall be effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its

adoption.

348

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
349

Section IV: Model Ordinances

MODEL ORDINANCE ELIMINATING SMOKING IN CITY FACILITIES*

Revised October 15, 1998

Sec. 1000. Title

This article shall be known as the Smoking Pollution Control Ordinance.

Sec. 1001. Findings and Purpose

The City Council does hereby find that:

Numerous studies have found that tobacco smoke is a major contributor to

indoor air pollution, and that breathing secondhand smoke is a cause of

disease, including lung cancer, in nonsmokers. At special risk are children,

elderly people, individuals with cardiovascular disease, and individuals with

impaired respiratory function, including asthmatics and those with obstructive airway disease; and

Health hazards induced by breathing secondhand smoke include lung cancer, heart disease, respiratory infection, and decreased respiratory function,

including bronchoconstriction and bronchospasm.

Accordingly, the City Council [or Board of Supervisors] finds and declares

that the purposes of this ordinance are (1) to protect the public health and

welfare by prohibiting smoking in city [or county] facilities; and (2) to guarantee the right of nonsmokers to breathe smoke-free air, and to recognize

that the need to breathe smoke-free air shall have priority over the desire to

smoke.

Sec. 1002. Definitions

The following words and phrases, whenever used in this article, shall be

construed as defined in this section:

1. “Dining Area” means any enclosed area containing a counter or tables

upon which food or snacks are served.

2. “Enclosed Area” means all space between a floor and ceiling which is

enclosed on all sides by solid walls or windows (exclusive of door or passage

ways) which extend from the floor to the ceiling, including all space therein screened by partitions which do not extend to the ceiling or are not

solid, “office landscaping” or similar structures.

3. “Smoking” means inhaling, exhaling, burning or carrying any lighted

cigar, cigarette, pipe, weed, plant, or other combustible substance in any

manner or in any form.

* Developed by the American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation: 2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite J,

Berkeley, California 94702, Phone (510) 841-3032 Fax (510) 841-3071.
350

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

4. “Sports Arena” means sports pavilions, gymnasiums, health spas, boxing

arenas, swimming pools, roller and ice rinks, bowling alleys, and other similar places where members of the general public assemble either to engage in

physical exercise, participate in athletic competition, or witness sports

events.

Sec. 1003. Prohibition of Smoking in Public Facilities

A. Smoking shall be prohibited:

1. Within any structure owned by the City [or County] of __________,

except private residences leased from the City [or County];

2. Within any structure leased by the City [or County] of __________,

providing that this prohibition shall apply only to those areas of the

structure actually being leased by the City [or County];

3. Within buses, taxicabs, and other means of public transit under the

authority of the City [or County] of __________;

4. Within sports arenas and convention halls owned or leased by the

City [or County] of __________;

5. Every room, chamber, place of meeting or public assembly, including

school buildings under the control of any board, council, commission,

committee, including joint committees, or agencies of the City [or

County] or any political subdivision of the State during such time as a

public meeting is in progress, to the extent such place is subject to the

jurisdiction of the City [or County]; and

6. Polling places.

B. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any owner, operator, manager, or other person who controls any establishment or facility

may declare that entire establishment or facility as a nonsmoking establishment.

Sec. 1004. Reasonable Distance

Smoking shall occur at a reasonable distance outside any enclosed area

where smoking is prohibited to ensure that tobacco smoke does not enter

the area through entrances, windows ventilation systems, or any other

means.

Sec. 1005. Posting of Signs

A. “No Smoking” signs or the international “No Smoking” symbol (consisting of a pictorial representation of a burning cigarette enclosed in a red circle with a red bar across it) shall be clearly, sufficiently, and conspicuously

posted in every building or other place where smoking is regulated by this

article, by the owner, operator, manager, or other person having control of

such building or other place.
351

Section IV: Model Ordinances

B. Every dining area within a facility owned or leased by the City [or

County] of __________ shall have posted at every entrance a conspicuous

sign clearly stating that smoking is prohibited.

C. All ashtrays and other smoking paraphernalia shall be removed from any

area where smoking is prohibited by this article by the owner, operator,

manager, or other person having control of the area.

Sec. 1006. Enforcement

A. Enforcement of this article shall be implemented by the Department of

Health [or the City Manager].

B. Any citizen who desires to register a complaint under this chapter may

initiate enforcement with the Department of Health [or the City Manager].

C. Any owner, manager, operator, or employee of any establishment regulated by this article may inform persons violating this article of the appropriate provisions thereof.

D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, a private citizen

may bring legal action to enforce this article.

Sec. 1007. Violations and Penalties

A. It shall be unlawful for any person who owns, manages, operates, or otherwise controls the use of any premises subject to regulation under this article to fail to comply with any of its provisions.

B. It shall be unlawful for any person to smoke in any area where smoking

is prohibited by the provisions of this article.

C. Any person who violates any provision of this article shall be guilty of

an infraction, punishable by:

1. A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100) for a first violation.

2. A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200) for a second violation of this article within one (1) year.

3. A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500) for each additional

violation of this article within one (1) year.

Sec. 1008. Nonretaliation

No person or employer shall discharge, refuse to hire, or in any manner

retaliate against any employee or applicant for employment because such

employee or applicant exercises any right to a smoke-free environment

afforded by this article.

Sec. 1009. Other Applicable Laws

This article shall not be interpreted or construed to permit smoking where

it is otherwise restricted by other applicable laws.
Sec. 1010. Severability

If any provision, clause, sentence, or paragraph of this article or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be held invalid, such

invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this article which can be

given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end

the provisions of this article are declared to be severable.

Sec. 1011. Effective Date

This article shall be effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its

adoption.

352

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
353

Section IV: Model Ordinances

MODEL SALE OF TOBACCO TO MINORS ORDINANCE*

Revised April 29, 1996

Section 1000. Title

This ordinance shall be known as the Sale of Tobacco to Minors Ordinance.

Section 1001. Findings and Purpose

The City Council [or Board of Supervisors] finds that youth addiction to

tobacco products is a public health problem with grave health consequences. More than half of all smokers begin smoking before the age of 14,

and 90% begin by the age of 19. The average age of first use of tobacco

products is now 11 to 15 years of age. In recognition of the Surgeon

General's conclusion that nicotine is as addictive as cocaine or heroin,

action is needed to curtail the easy access of minors to cigarettes and other

tobacco products. Therefore, the purpose of this ordinance is to implement

a strict and enforceable system to prevent the illegal sale of cigarettes and

other tobacco products to minors.

Section 1002. Definitions

1. “License” means a license issued by the City [or County] of ________ for

the retail sale of tobacco products.

2. “Licensee” means the holder of a valid license for the retail sale of tobacco products.

3. “Minor” means any person under 18 years of age.

4. “Public Place” means any area to which the public is invited or in which

the public is permitted, including, but not limited to, any right-of-way, mall

or shopping center, park, playground, and any other property owned by the

city, and any school district, or any park district.

5. “Retail Tobacco Store” means a retail store utilized primarily for the sale

of tobacco products and accessories and in which the sale of other products

is merely incidental.

6. “Self-Service Displays” means open displays of tobacco products and

point-of-sale tobacco promotional products that the public has access to

without the intervention of a store employee.

7. “Tobacco Product” means any tobacco cigarette, cigar, pipe tobacco,

smokeless tobacco, or any other form of tobacco or tobacco papers which

may be utilized for smoking, chewing, inhalation, or other means of ingestion.

* Developed by the American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation: 2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite J,

Berkeley, California 94702, Phone (510) 841-3032 Fax (510) 841-3071.
354

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11

8. “Tobacco Vending Machine” means any machine or device designated

for or used for the vending of cigarettes, cigars, tobacco, or tobacco products upon the insertion of coins, trade checks, or slugs.

9. “Vendor-assisted” means only a store employee has access to the tobacco

product and assists the customer by supplying the product. The customer

does not take possession of the product until after it is purchased.

Section 1003. Identification Required

No retailer shall sell or permit to be sold cigarettes or other tobacco products to an individual without requesting and examining photographic identification establishing the purchaser's age as eighteen (18) years or greater.

Section 1004. License Required

After [specify date], it shall be unlawful for a retailer to sell cigarettes or

other tobacco products unless that retailer holds and maintains a valid

license from the City [or County] for each location in which tobacco products are sold. All such licenses shall be renewed annually.

Section 1005. Fee

The fee for the license shall be established by the City Manager [or

Department of Health], and shall be sufficient to fund the administration,

implementation, and enforcement of this ordinance. The fee for renewing

tobacco licenses shall be determined by the City Manager [or Department

of Health], and shall be sufficient to fund the administration, implementation, and enforcement of this ordinance.

Section 1006. Non-transferability

A tobacco retail license is non-transferable, except a new license will be

issued to a tobacco retailer who changes location.

Section 1007. Vending Machines

After [specify date], tobacco vending machines or any other devices for the

sale or distribution of tobacco products are prohibited.

Section 1008. Out-of-Package Sales Prohibited

It is unlawful to sell cigarettes out of the manufacturer's package with

required health warnings. It is unlawful to sell cigarettes in packages of

fewer than twenty (20) cigarettes per package.

Section 1009. Tobacco Samples Prohibited

No person shall knowingly distribute or furnish without charge or at nominal charge, or cause to be furnished or distributed without charge or at

nominal charge, cigarettes or other tobacco products, or coupons for cigarettes or other tobacco products, in any public place or at any event open

to the public, except in retail tobacco stores.
355

Section IV: Model Ordinances

Section 1010. Vendor-Assisted Sales

It shall be unlawful for any person, business, or tobacco retailer to sell, permit to be sold, or offer for sale any tobacco product by means of self-service

displays or any other means other than vendor-assisted sales.

Section 1011. Revocation of License

A. Any license holder who violates any provision of this ordinance shall

have their license suspended after notice and opportunity to be heard as

follows:

1. In the case of a first violation, the licensee shall be fined two hundred dollars ($200) and shall be notified in writing of penalties levied

for further violations.

2. In the case of a second violation in a two (2) year period, the licensee

shall be fined five hundred dollars ($500) and the license shall be suspended for not less than thirty (30) consecutive business days nor more

than three (3) months. Tobacco retailers must remove all tobacco merchandise from all areas accessible to the public while the license is suspended.

3. In the case of three or more violations within a two (2) year period,

the licensee shall be fined one thousand dollars ($1,000) and the license

shall be revoked not less than six (6) months nor more than eighteen

(18) months from the date of revocation. Tobacco retailers must

remove all tobacco merchandise from all areas accessible to the public

while the license is suspended.

B. The City Manager [or City Attorney, or Health Department] shall initiate

enforcement against license holders who violate any provision of this ordinance, and shall conduct hearings upon the license-holder's request.

Rulings made by the City Manager [or City Attorney, or Health

Department] regarding violations of this ordinance, after adequate hearing,

shall be final.

Section 1012. Enforcement

Violations of Sections 1004, 1007, and 1009 of this ordinance are subject to

a fine of $1,000 per day for each violation. The City Attorney, City

Manager [or Department of Health], and the Police Department shall have

the authority to enforce this ordinance.

Section 1013. Nonretaliation

No person or employer shall discharge, refuse to hire, or in any manner

retaliate against any employee, applicant for employment, or customer

because such employee, applicant, or customer reported violations of any

provisions of this ordinance.
Section 1014. Severability

If any provision, clause, sentence, or paragraph of this ordinance or the

application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held to be

invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the provisions of this article which

can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this

end the provisions are declared to be severable.

Section 1015. Effective Date

This chapter shall take effect on [specify date].

356

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
357

Section IV: Model Ordinances

MODEL ORDINANCE REGULATING 

TOBACCO ADVERTISING (WITH VARIATIONS)

Revised July 1998

This model ordinance was produced by the Technical Assistance Legal

Center (TALC)*, a project of the Public Health Institute, to provide guidance

to California cities and counties wishing to regulate the advertising of

tobacco products.1 Because the ordinance was drafted based on California

law, communities in other states should seek legal advice prior to adoption.

Everyone, including the tobacco industry, agrees that children should not

use tobacco products. This model ordinance is based on the assumption

that a local movement has decided that it wishes to adopt advertising (and

perhaps other) controls as a child-protection measure. Its focus is on the

regulation of outdoor advertising placed on billboards, signs, building

facades, store windows, and other locations likely to be seen regularly by

children.2

This version of the ordinance contains only the suggested ordinance text,

with alternate provisions offered at various points. Italicized text requires

you to make a choice or insert information. Another version of the ordinance is available with extensive annotation for each provision of the

model ordinance. We strongly recommend that you review the annotated

version of the ordinance prior to drafting your own local ordinance. To

receive a copy of the annotated version, please contact TALC at (510) 540-

8585.

*Technical Assistance Legal Center, Public Health Institute, 2001 Addison St., 2nd Floor,

Berkeley, CA 94704-1103, Phone: (510) 540-8585, Fax: (510) 649-7894, 

Email: talc@publichealth.org

The Technical Assistance Legal Center is a project of the Public Health Institute.

This ordinance was produced with funds received from the Tobacco Tax Health Protection Act

of 1988–Proposition 99–under grant #94-20982 with the California Department of Health

Services, Tobacco Control Section.

1 This ordinance originally appeared as part of a larger publication: Regulating Tobacco

Advertising: A Guide for Cities and Counties. For copies of this publication, or questions

about the ordinance please contact TALC at (510) 540-8585 or by email: talc@publichealth.org

2 This ordinance does not address the regulation of alcohol advertising. A model ordinance regulating alcohol is available from the Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other

Drug Problems in San Rafael, CA (415) 456-5692.
MODEL ORDINANCE

Ordinance Number __________

An Ordinance Restricting the Advertising and Promotion of

Tobacco Products to Minors

The City Council of the City of ______/The Board of Supervisors of the

County of __________ does ordain as follows:

Section ________ of the ________ Code is amended by adding ________ to

read as follows: 

RESTRICTING THE ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS TO MINORS

1. Purpose

The purpose of this ordinance is to promote the welfare of minors by discouraging the commercial exploitation of potential underage tobacco users

and by discouraging actions that promote the unlawful sale of tobacco

products to minors as well as the unlawful purchase or possession of tobacco products by minors.

2. Findings

[Insert findings here. A local ordinance based on “child protection “ goals

should contain findings about the problem of youth smoking; the desirability of reducing youth smoking; the scope of tobacco advertising; the connection between advertising and youth smoking; and the likelihood that

restricting the advertising of tobacco products will help contribute to the

reduction of youth smoking. It will probably also help to have findings

that relate to why the various exemptions are allowed—both those that tailor the restrictions to places where youths congregate and any other exemptions that are granted. Extensive suggested findings can be found in the

annotated version of the model ordinance.]

3. Definitions

“Advertising” means printed matter that calls the public's attention to

things for sale.

“Advertising display” means any sign, billboard, signboard, poster, placard,

pennant, banner, graphic display, mural, or similar device that is used to

advertise or promote a product.

“Area which minors frequent” means any public or private kindergarten,

elementary, middle, junior high, or high school; licensed child-care facility

or preschool, but not including family day-care; playground; youth center;

recreational facility; arcade; park; or library.

“Person” means any individual, firm, partnership, cooperative association,

private corporation, personal representative, receiver, trustee, assignee, or

other legal entity.

358

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
“Promotion” means a display of any logo, brand name, character, graphic,

artwork, colors, scenes, or designs that are a recognized image of a particular product brand that calls the public's attention to the product brand.

“Publicly visible location” means any outdoor location that is visible from

any street, sidewalk, or other public thoroughfare, or any location inside a

commercial establishment that is in or adjacent to a window or doorway

and is visible from any street, sidewalk, or other public thoroughfare.

“Tobacco product” means any substance containing any tobacco leaf,

including but not limited to cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, snuff, chewing

tobacco, and smokeless tobacco.

4. Restrictions on Tobacco Advertising

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this [chapter/section], no person shall

place or maintain, or cause or allow to be placed or maintained, any advertising or promotion of tobacco products on any advertising display in a

publicly visible location.

(b) No part of this ordinance shall be construed to permit any advertising

display that is otherwise restricted or prohibited by law. Nor shall it be

construed to permit an otherwise restricted or prohibited advertising display because it is combined with a permitted public service message.

(c) No part of this ordinance shall be construed to regulate messages that do

not propose a commercial transaction.

5. Exceptions

This ordinance shall not apply to any advertising display:

(a) that is located in a nonresidential zone, provided it is more than

________ [insert number] feet in any direction (measured in a straight line

from parcel boundary to parcel boundary) from any area which minors frequent; or

[OPTIONAL EXCEPTIONS: The following italicized exceptions are optional.

Exceptions (d) and (e) require you to choose which approach to take.]

(b) that is located within 660 feet from the edge of the right-of-way of, and the

copy on which is visible from, an interstate highway; or

(c) that exists at the time of the introduction of this ordinance, contains the name

or slogan of a business that sells tobacco products, and is on the premises of the

business; or

(d)(1) that contains a generic description of tobacco products; or

(d)(2) that is located on the premises of a commercial establishment if the advertising display provides notice that the establishment sells tobacco products, as

long as the display does not promote any brand of tobacco product or otherwise

constitute a “promotion” as defined by this [chapter/section]; or

(d)(3) that is no larger than six square feet and contains only black text, in any

359

Section IV: Model Ordinances
language, not exceeding eight inches in height on a white background stating

“Tobacco Products Sold Here” located within ten feet of an entrance to the premises where tobacco products are sold or offered for sale; or

(d)(4) that contains only black text, in any language, on a white background and

states a tobacco product brand name, or a tobacco product brand name and its

price, or indicates that tobacco products are sold on the premises, and is located

within ten feet of an entrance to the premises where tobacco products are sold or

offered for sale, provided that any such premises shall not have more than one

such sign; or

(e)(1) that is located on a commercial vehicle used for transporting tobacco products, and/or

(e)(2) that is located on a taxicab, and/or

(e)(3) that is located on a municipal transit vehicle, or

(e)(4) that is located on any vehicle, except a vehicle that is used primarily to

advertise or promote tobacco products; or

(f) that is located on tobacco product packaging; or

(g) that is located at (on, in) a (designated) sports facility; or

(h) that is worn as clothing by an individual.

6. Enforcement; Penalties; Civil Actions

(a) Causing, permitting, aiding, abetting, or concealing a violation of any

provision of this ordinance shall constitute a violation. After notification,

it shall be a separate offense for each day such violation shall continue.

[Choose one of four options provided in section (b), below]

(b) Violations of this ordinance shall be prosecuted

(1) as infractions, pursuant to section ________ of this code; or

(2) as misdemeanors, pursuant to section ________ of this code; or

(3) as infractions, pursuant to section ________ of this code, for the first

and second violations in a twelve (12) month period, and thereafter

as misdemeanors, pursuant to section ________ of this code; or

(4) as misdemeanors, pursuant to section ________ of this code [as long

as there is a “wobbler” provision in the existing code].

(c) This ordinance shall be administered and enforced by the ________.

(d) Violations of this ordinance are hereby declared to be public nuisances.

(e) In addition to other remedies provided by this [chapter/section], any

violation of this ordinance may be enforced by a civil action brought by the

[City Attorney/County Counsel], including but not limited to administrative or judicial nuisance abatement proceedings, civil or criminal code

enforcement proceedings, and suits for injunctive relief. The remedies provided by this [chapter/section] are cumulative and in addition to any other

remedies available at law or in equity.

360

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11
361

Section IV: Model Ordinances

(f) An action for injunction may be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction by any aggrieved person, or any person or entity that will fairly and

adequately represent the interests of the protected class.

7. Effective Date and Legal Nonconforming Uses

(a) The effective date of this ordinance shall be thirty (30) days from the

date of its enactment.

(b) On the effective date of this ordinance, advertising displays that were in

place at the time of the introduction of this ordinance may remain in place

for no more than sixty (60) additional days, unless an extension of time is

granted pursuant to this [chapter/section].

(c) Owners of advertising displays in place on ________ [the date the ordinance adopting this chapter/section was introduced] may, by ________ [the

sixtieth day after the effective date of the ordinance adopting this

chapter/section], apply for an extension of time for compliance and provide

written documentation to the [Planning Director/Zoning Administrator]

that demonstrates that the owner had a right or an obligation under a written lease or contract executed prior to ________ [the date the ordinance

adopting this chapter/section was introduced] to maintain an advertising

display in violation of this [chapter/section] for a period extending beyond

________ [the sixtieth day after the effective date of the ordinance adopting

this chapter/section]. On timely receipt of sufficient documentation, the

[Planning Director/Zoning Administrator] shall grant an extension of time

to remove the advertising display for the period required or authorized by

the lease or contract or for a period of one year, whichever is shorter.

Renewal rights present in the lease or contract shall not affect the determination of the period required or authorized by the lease or contract.

(d) Owners of advertising displays in place on ________ [the date the ordinance adopting this chapter/section was introduced] may, by ________ [the

sixtieth day after the effective date of the ordinance adopting this

chapter/section], apply for an extension of time for compliance and provide

written documentation to the [Planning Commission/Zoning

Administrator] that demonstrates that timely compliance would cause

unreasonable financial hardship and that granting the extension of time

would not confer a special privilege on the owner. On timely receipt of sufficient documentation, the [Planning Commission/Zoning Administrator]

shall conduct a hearing pursuant to section ________ of this code [the hearing provision of the zoning ordinance applicable to a variance or conditional use permit] and determine whether, and on what conditions, the extension of time ought to be granted.

(e) Whether or not an extension of time to remove a preexisting advertising

display is granted pursuant to subdivision 7(c) or subdivision 7(d) of this

[section/chapter], advertising displays that are prohibited by this ordinance

shall not be legal nonconforming uses.
8. Severability

(a) If any provision of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is declared invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent

jurisdiction, this ordinance, to the extent it can be given effect, or the

application of this ordinance to persons other than the person to whom it

is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby, and to this end, the provisions

of this ordinance are severable.

362

Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 11