• Home
• Data and Statistics
• Fact Sheets
• Secondhand Smoke

Fact Sheet

Smoke-Free Policies Receive High Levels of Public Support and Compliance

(June 2008)

• State and local smoke-free laws typically result in high levels of public support and compliance.¹

Public support

• The proportion of adults participating in the New York State Adult Tobacco Survey who said that they supported the state's smoke-free law increased from 64% in 2003 shortly before the law took effect to 80% after the law had been in effect for two years. The proportion of smokers supporting the law increased from 25% to 37% over this period, while the proportion of nonsmokers supporting the law increased from 74% to 86%.²
• A series of surveys of California bar patrons conducted three months after and then two-and-a-half years after that state's 1998 smoke-free bar law went into effect found that the proportion of patrons who approved of the law increased from 46% to 62%. The proportion of patrons stating that it was important to them to have a smoke-free environment inside bars increased from 47% to 61% during this period.³
• A study of California's smoke-free bar law found that 51% of bar owners and staff working in bars preferred to work in a smoke-free environment in 2002, compared with 17% in 1998, shortly after the law took effect.⁴
• A study from Ireland conducted in 2003–2005 found that almost a year after a national smoke-free law took effect 64% of adult smokers supported or strongly supported a total ban on smoking inside pubs in Ireland, and 83% stated that the law was a good thing or a very good thing. In addition, the proportion of smokers responding to the same survey who believed that smoking should not be allowed at all in workplaces, restaurants, and pubs increased from 43%, 45%, and 13%, respectively, shortly before the law was implemented to 67%, 77%, and 46% almost a year after the law was implemented.⁵

Compliance

• An observational study conducted in 2003 found that within one month of the New York state smoke-free law taking effect, the proportion of restaurants, bars, and bowling facilities statewide where no smoking was observed increased from 31% to 93%.²
• Inspections conducted from 2003 to 2004 to assess compliance with New York City's smoke-free law found that 97% of restaurants and bars had no smoking occurring, had removed ashtrays, and had posted "no smoking" signs.⁶
• From 1998 to 2002, patron compliance with California's smoke-free bar law increased from 46% to 76%.⁷
• A study from Ireland conducted between 2003 and 2005 found through a telephone survey that the proportion of adult smokers who reported observing smoking in workplaces, restaurants, and pubs decreased from 62%, 85%, and 98%, respectively, shortly before a comprehensive national smoke-free law took effect to 14%, 3%, and 5% almost a year later.⁵

References

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006 [cited 2006 Oct 23]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/sgr_2006/index.htm.
2. New York State Department of Health. Second Annual Independent Evaluation of New York’s Tobacco Control Program, 2005. (PDF–1.75MB) [cited 2006 Oct 23]. Available from: http://www.health.state.ny.us/prevention/tobacco_control/docs/2005-09_independent_evalutation.pdf.
3. Tang H, Cowling DW, Lloyd JC, Rogers T, Koumjian KL, Stevens CM, Bal DG. Changes of Attitudes and Patronage Behaviors in Response to a Smoke-Free Bar Law. American Journal of Public Health. 2003;93(4):611–617 [cited 2006 Oct 23].
4. Tang H, Cowling DW, Stevens CM, Lloyd JC. Changes of Knowledge, Attitudes, Beliefs, and Preference of Bar Owner and Staff in Response to a Smoke-Free Bar Law. Tobacco Control. 2004;13(1):87–89 [cited 2006 Oct 23].
5. Fong GT, Hyland A, Borland R, Hammond D, Hastings G, McNeill A, Anderson S, Cummings KM, Allwright S, Mulcahy M, Howell F, Clancy L, Thompson ME, Connolly G, Driezen P. Reductions in Tobacco Smoke Pollution and Increases in Support for Smoke-Free Public Places Following the Implementation of Comprehensive Smoke-Free Workplace Legislation in the Republic of Ireland: Findings from the ITC Ireland/UK Survey. Tobacco Control 2006;15(Suppl III):iii51–iii58 [cited 2008 Jun 27].
6. New York City Department of Finance, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York City Department of Small Business Services, New York City Economic Development Corporation. The State of Smoke-Free New York: A One-Year Review. New York, New York: New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. 2004 [cited 2006 Oct 23].
7. Weber MD, Bagwell DAS, Fielding JE, Glantz SA. Long Term Compliance with California’s Smoke-Free Workplace Law Among Bars and Restaurants in Los Angeles County. Tobacco Control. 2003;12(3):269–273 [cited 2006 Oct 23].

For Further Information

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
Office on Smoking and Health
E-mail: tobaccoinfo@cdc.gov
Phone: 1-800-CDC-INFO

Media Inquiries: Contact CDC's Office on Smoking and Health press line at 770-488-5493.

Additional Navigation for the CDC OSH Web Site

• CDC Home
• Policies and Regulations
• Disclaimer
• e-Government
• FOIA
• Contact Us