Forty-one states and the District of Columbia have laws restricting smoking in state government worksites, but only 13 of these states meet the nation s Healthy People 2010 objective. California requires either a no smoking area or separate ventilation for smoking areas. An additional benefit of clean indoor air regulations may contribute to a reduction in smoking prevalence among workers and the general public. Studies have found that moderate or extensive laws for clean indoor air are associated with a lower smoking prevalence and higher quit rates. The majority of smokers support smoke-free hospitals.
Employers are likely to save money by implementing policies for smoke-free workplaces.
Savings include costs associated with such things as fire risk, damage to property and furnishings, cleaning, workers compensation, disability, retirement, injuries, and life insurance. To fight the establishment of such policies, the tobacco industry tries to shift the focus from the science-based evidence on the health hazards of ETS to the controversial social issue of personal freedom. The industry has lobbied extensively against legislation to restrict smoking, and has supported the passage of state laws that preempt stronger local ordinances. A case study conducted in six states found that the existence of an organized smoking prevention coalition among local citizens was a key determinant in successfully enacting clean indoor air legislation. Smokefree environments are the most effective method for reducing ETS exposure.