Effects of Legislation on ETS Exposure in California
Creators: name: University Of California Office Of The President
Publisher: name: University of California Office of the President
publisherIdentifier: https://ror.org/00dmfq477
publisherIdentifierScheme: ROR
Year: 2024

description: In 1994 Califomia enacted a law (AB-13) to take effect 1 January 1995 that restricted smoking in all indoor workplaces, with the exception of bars, bar areas in restaurants, and gambling establishments. A preliminary evaluation of the effects of AB-13 by MacDonald and Glantz (1997) suggested that the preemption clause in this law actually hindered rather than advanced the goals of the tobacco control campaign in California. There was a significant decrease in the passage of local tobacco control ordinances after the passage of AB- 13 and preliminary survey results suggested that the passage of AB-13 slowed rather than accelerated the trend toward smokefree workplaces.In 1990, 1993, and 1996 California conducted large population-based tobacco surveys (CTS) and is planning to conducted another large survey in 1999. The legislature is currently debating whether to eliminate the exemptions granted by AB-13 to certain indoor workplaces. We plan to use the CTS data to evaluate the immediate and longer-temm impact of AB-13 on protecting nonsmoking indoor workers from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). The Califomia Health Department also conducts small annual populationbased California Adult Tobacco Surveys (CATS) as part of the Behavioral Risk Factors Surveys (BRFS). In contrast with the CTS, the CATS collects data on worksite smoking policies and exposure to ETS among outdoor as well as indoor workers. Since outdoor worksites are not covered by the mandate for smokefree worksites contained in AB-13, the trend in the percentage of outdoor workers covered by smokefree policies provides additional data to evaluate whether AB-13 has had a negative or positive impact. The CATS data will also allow us to compare the percentage of indoor and outdoor workplaces covered by smokefree policies, as well as the potentially differential effectiveness of smokefree worksite policies applied to indoor versus outdoor workers. Outdoor workers in California are more likely to be younger, less-educated, blue-collar, males from minority groups (i.e., those subgroups of the population at greater risk of smoking). Since smokefree worksite policies have been shown to reduce consumption as well as to encourage cessation among indoor workers, outdoor workers covered by a smokefree worksite policy may show similar outcomes.Finally, the National Cancer Institute has conducted two very large, national, population-based, tobacco surveys, one in 1992/1993 and another in 1995/1996, as part of the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey (CPS). Approximately 240,000 adults were surveyed as part of each CPS survey. In both surveys the CPS assessed the degree to which indoor workers in each state were covered by worksite smoking restrictions, and in the second survey the CPS also assessed whether indoor workers were exposured to ETS at work. As of January 1996, 17 states in addition to California had preempted local clean indoor air laws. We plan to compare the proportion of indoor workers covered by smokefree work policies in Califomia with the proportion of indoor workers covered by such policies in the remaining 17 states that have preempted local clean indoor air laws. We also plan to compare the rates of compliance with worksite smoking restrictions in Califomia and the remaining 17 preemption states. Previous research in Califomia has shown that nonsmokers report fairly high rates of compliance with smokefree policies as measured by a lack of exposure to workplace ETS during the previous 2 weeks. The 1993, 1996 and 1999 CTS, the 1993-1999 CATS, and the data available on the second CPS survey will allow us to assess whether the compliance rate has changed in California as a result of the passage of AB-13. The data available on the second CPS survey will also allow us to assess whether compliance differs in California when compared with that observed in the remaining preemption states.