This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (10)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Elizabeth Conlisk, PhD; Michael Siegel, MD; Eugene Lengerich, VMD; William Mac Kenzie, MD; Sally Malek, MPH; Michael Eriksen, ScD

JAMA. 1995;273(10):805-807.

Abstract
Objective.
—To determine the number and protectiveness of local smoking regulations adopted before the implementation of a preemptive statewide smoking control bill.

Method.
—Review of local smoking control regulations from all 100 counties and 85 municipalities with populations greater than 5000 in North Carolina.

Main Outcome Measures.
—Adoption of local smoking control regulations before and during the 3-month delay in enactment of the preemptive bill. Protectiveness of regulations was based on restrictions on smoking and requirements for separate ventilation systems at private work sites: none (smoking unrestricted); minimal (smoking restricted to designated areas); partial (smoking restricted to designated areas served by separate ventilation systems); and complete (smoking prohibited). Because some regulations would be phased in gradually over the next 5 years, we evaluated the requirements that will be in effect by January 1, 2000.

Results.
—Between July 15 and October 15,1993, the number of local smoking regulations in North Carolina increased from 16 to 105. By the year 2000, 59% of private employees still will not be guaranteed any protection from work site environmental tobacco smoke; 19% will have minimal protection, 22% will have partial protection, and none will have complete protection.

Conclusions.
—The 3-month delay in preemption created an unnatural time frame for communities to organize, debate, and adopt smoking restrictions. Despite the adoption of 89 new regulations, no private employees will be guaranteed complete protection from work site environmental tobacco smoke by the year 2000; new regulations can no longer be adopted. HB 957 has been a setback for public health in North Carolina.

(JAMA. 1995;273:805-807)

Author Affiliations
From the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Office of Epidemiology, Division of Adult Health Promotion, Raleigh (Drs Conlisk and Lengerich and Ms Malek); and the Division of Field Epidemiology, Epidemiology Program Office (Drs Conlisk and Mac Kenzie), Epidemic Intelligence Service (Drs Conlisk and Siegel), Office of Smoking and Health (Drs Siegel and Eriksen), and Office of Surveillance and Analysis (Dr Lengerich), National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga.

Footnotes
Reprint requests to North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Office of Epidemiology, Division of Adult Health Promotion, PO Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611-7687 (Dr Conlisk).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The North Carolina Youth Empowerment Study (NCYES): A Participatory Research Study Examining the Impact of Youth Empowerment for Tobacco Use Prevention
Ribisl et al.
Health Educ Behav 2004;31:597-614.
ABSTRACT  

Boards of Health as Venues for Clean Indoor Air Policy Making
Dearlove and Glantz
AJPH 2002;92:257-265.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

State laws on youth access to tobacco in the United States: measuring their extensiveness with a new rating system
Alciati et al.
Tobacco Control 1998;7:345-352.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Preemption in Tobacco Control: Review of an Emerging Public Health Problem
Siegel et al.
JAMA 1997;278:858-863.
ABSTRACT  

The Ledger of Tobacco Control: Is the Cup Half Empty or Half Full?
Davis
JAMA 1996;275:1281-1284.
ABSTRACT