Tobacco.org

• State Preemption of Local Smoke-Free Laws in Government Work Sites, Private Work Sites, and Restaurants --- United States, 2005--2009 

Preemptive legislation at the state level prohibits localities from enacting laws that vary from state law or are more stringent. A Healthy People 2010 objective (27-19) is to eliminate state laws that preempt stronger local tobacco control laws (4). A 2005 CDC review found that little progress was being made toward reducing the number of state laws preempting local smoking restrictions in three indoor settings: government work sites, private-sector work sites, and restaurants (5). These three settings were selected for analysis because they are settings that often are addressed by state and local smoking restrictions and because they are major settings where nonsmoking workers and patrons are exposed to secondhand smoke (1). This report updates the previous analysis and summarizes changes that occurred from December 31, 2004, to December 31, 2009, in state laws that preempt local smoke-free laws for the same three settings. During that period, the number of states preempting local smoking restrictions in at least one of these three settings decreased from 19 to 12. In contrast with the 2005 findings, this decrease indicates progress toward achieving the goal of eliminating state laws preempting local smoking restrictions. Further progress could result in additional reductions in secondhand smoke exposure. . . .

The reduction in state preemption laws described in this report means that, in contrast with previous trends (5), states made substantial progress toward achieving the Healthy People 2010 objective of eliminating state laws preempting such restrictions, and localities in the affected states can now adopt and enforce local ordinances that are stricter than state law. This progress is important because the most comprehensive smoking restrictions often originate at the local level (1,6); many states have enacted comprehensive statewide smoke-free laws only after numerous communities have adopted such laws (1). . . .

Two factors contributed to the reduction in the number of states with laws preempting local smoking restrictions during the study period. First, fewer states enacted new laws containing preemptive provisions; only two states, Rhode Island and Montana, had such provisions take effect during this period (the Rhode Island law had been enacted in 2004). However, in both cases, the statutes called for preemption to expire on a specified date in conjunction with phasing out exemptions in state smoke-free laws. Instead of preempting local action, recently enacted smoke-free laws often include antipreemption language explicitly enabling local jurisdictions to enact more comprehensive smoking restrictions. Second, several states rescinded preemptive provisions. In 2002, Delaware became the first state to rescind preemption of local smoking restrictions through the legislative process,¶ and other states subsequently took similar action.

Jump to full article »