tocacco plant Native American Tobaccoo flower, leaves, and buds

tocacco Tobacco is an annual or bi-annual growing 1-3 meters tall with large sticky leaves that contain nicotine. Native to the Americas, tobacco has a long history of use as a shamanic inebriant and stimulant. It is extremely popular and well-known for its addictive potential.

tocacco nicotina Nicotiana tabacum

tocacco Nicotiana rustica leaves. Nicotiana rustica leaves have a nicotine content as high as 9%, whereas Nicotiana tabacum (common tobacco) leaves contain about 1 to 3%

tocacco cigar A cigar is a tightly rolled bundle of dried and fermented tobacco which is ignited so that its smoke may be drawn into the mouth. Cigar tobacco is grown in significant quantities in Brazil, Cameroon, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Indonesia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Sumatra, Philippines, and the Eastern United States.

tocacco Tobacco is an agricultural product processed from the fresh leaves of plants in the genus Nicotiana. It can be consumed, used as an organic pesticide, and in the form of nicotine tartrate it is used in some medicines. In consumption it may be in the form of cigarettes smoking, snuffing, chewing, dipping tobacco, or snus.

Tobacco-Facts ads

State Preemption of Local Smoke-Free Laws in Government Work Sites

Smoke-free policies (i.e., policies that completely eliminate smoking in indoor workplaces and public places) result in health benefits, including preventing heart attacks. 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 is to eliminate state laws that preempt stronger local tobacco control laws. 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. 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. 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.

For this analysis, preemption was defined as a statute or judicial opinion that prevents local jurisdictions from enacting smoking restrictions that would be more stringent than, or different from, state law. CDC monitors state laws that preempt local smoking restrictions (Table) using the CDC State Tobacco Activities Tracking and Evaluation (STATE) system, an online electronic database that includes information on state tobacco-related legislation.* The system tracks state statutes and court rulings for preemption provisions affecting local smoking restrictions in government work sites, private work sites, and restaurants. Changes in states’ smoke-free preemptive status that took effect after December 31, 2009, were excluded for this report.

As of December 31, 2009, a total of 12 states had preemptive provisions in place for at least one of the three settings, an improvement from 19 states reported to have preemption in place as of December 31, 2004. The number of states with preemption in all three settings decreased from 15 to eight during the 5-year period. The number of states with preemptive provisions covering government work sites, private work sites, and restaurants decreased from 16 to nine, from 15 to nine, and from 18 to 12, respectively. During the study period, six states (Illinois, Iowa, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, and South Carolina) removed preemption in all three settings. Three other states (North Carolina, Louisiana, and Mississippi) rescinded preemption in one setting only (government work sites, restaurants, and government work sites, respectively). For Louisiana and Mississippi, this was the only setting where preemption was in place. In contrast, as the result of a state supreme court ruling, Washington went from having no preemption in any setting to having preemption in two settings (government work sites and restaurants).

States that rescinded preemptive provisions during 2005-2009 did so through three different mechanisms: legislation, ballot measure, and court rulings. Provisions preempting local smoking restrictions in at least one of the three settings were rescinded by legislative action in seven states. Six of these states (Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Oregon) rescinded preemption in conjunction with enactment of statewide legislation restricting smoking in some settings; Illinois rescinded preemption as a stand-alone action.

During the study period, two states had preemptive provisions take effect that included “sunset” clauses under which these provisions also expired during the study period. Preemption established as a part of Rhode Island’s 2004 smoke-free law expired on October 1, 2006. In Montana, preemption for all three settings was enacted in 2005 in conjunction with an exemption in a state smoke-free law for bars and casinos. Both the exemption and the preemptive provision expired on October 1, 2009.

State smoke-free laws enacted in 2006 in New Jersey and Louisiana included explicit nonpreemptive language that expressly enables communities to enact local smoke-free ordinances. In contrast, state smoke-free laws enacted in Oregon in 2007 and Iowa in 2008 removed preemptive language from previous statutes, thus rescinding preemption even in the absence of explicit enabling language. In Nevada, a 2006 ballot measure rescinded a preemption provision in conjunction with establishing state smoking restrictions, again without explicit enabling language.

Court rulings also played a role in determining the preemptive status of two states during the study period. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that state law preempted local smoking restrictions,† and the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that state law did not preempt such restrictions.

Reported by
S Babb, MPH, M Tynan, A MacNeil, MPH, Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • MyShare
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Simpy
  • Sphinn
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Blogosphere News
  • Mixx
  • Reddit
  • Propeller
  • MisterWong
  • LinkedIn

Related posts:

  1. Only 1% of Nigerians are protected by smoke-free laws Only one per cent of Nigeria’s over 140 million people...
  2. Government Stubs Out Car Smoking Ban Laws The news comes as a woman was convicted of smoking...
  3. Tobacco, texting, trans fats all subject to new state laws State capitols across the nation are in growing agreement about...
  4. Electronic cigarettes exempt from new smoking laws As smoking laws place more restrictions on when and where...
  5. Smoke-Free Policy Triggers Strange Debate The decision by a Tennessee hospital not to hire smokers...

Tobacco-Facts ads
discount cigarettes online

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word