Introduction. Preemption is a legislative or judicial arrangement in which a higher level of government precludes lower levels of government from exercising authority over a topic. In the area of smoke-free policy, preemption typically takes the form of a state law that prevents communities from adopting local smoking restrictions. Background. A broad consensus exists among tobacco control practitioners that preemption adversely impacts tobacco control efforts. This paper examines the effect of state provisions preempting local smoking restrictions in enclosed public places and workplaces. Methods. Multiple data sources were used to assess the impact of state preemptive laws on the proportion of indoor workers covered by smoke-free workplace policies and public support for smoke-free policies. We controlled for potential confounding variables. Results. State preemptive laws were associated with fewer local ordinances restricting smoking, a reduced level of worker protection from secondhand smoke, and reduced support for smoke-free policies among current smokers. Discussion. State preemptive laws have several effects that could impede progress in secondhand smoke protections and broader tobacco control efforts. Conclusion. Practitioners and advocates working on other public health issues should familiarize themselves with the benefits of local policy making and the potential impact of preemption.

BackgroundSecondhand smoke (SHS) exposure causes premature death and disease. Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces is the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from SHS exposure, and also contributes to helping smokers quit smoking. Primary health care providers can play an important role in advising nonsmoking patients to avoid SHS exposure, cautioning current smokers against exposing others to SHS, and referring tobacco users to cessation programs.MethodsThe purpose of this paper is to examine primary care provider (obstetricians/gynecologists, pediatricians, and general practitioners) advice regarding SHS exposure and referral to cessation programs. Using data from the 2008 DocStyles survey (n = 1,454), we calculated the prevalence and adjusted odds ratios for offering patients advice regarding SHS exposure and referring adults who smoked or used other tobacco products to a cessation program.ResultsThe current study found that among a convenience sample of primary care providers, 94.9% encouraged parents to take steps to protect children from SHS exposure, 86.1% encouraged smokers to make their homes and cars smoke-free, and 77.4% encouraged nonsmokers to avoid SHS exposure. Approximately 44.0% of primary care providers usually or always referred patients who smoked or used tobacco products to cessation programs such as a quitline, a group cessation class, or one-on-one counseling.ConclusionFindings from a convenience sample of primary care providers who participated in a web-based survey, suggests that many primary care providers are advising parents to protect children from SHS exposure, encouraging patients who smoke to maintain smoke-free homes and cars, and advising smokers on ways to avoid exposing others to SHS. Healthcare providers are encouraged to advise patients to avoid SHS exposure and to refer patients who use tobacco products to cessation services.

The Tips campaign significantly increased calls to quitlines for almost all the states. These findings underscore the effectiveness of national tobacco media campaigns for reaching state audiences.

No abstract