Smoking bans are public policies, including criminal laws and occupational safety and health regulations, which prohibit tobacco smoking in workplaces and/or other public spaces. Legislation may also define smoking as more generally being the carrying or possessing of any lit tobacco product.[1]
The rationale for smoke-free laws is based on the fact that smoking is optional and breathing is not. Therefore, smoking bans exist to protect breathing people from the effects of second-hand smoke, which include an increased risk of heart disease, cancer, emphysema, and other diseases.[2][3] Laws implementing bans on indoor smoking have been introduced by many countries in various forms over the years, with some legislators citing scientific evidence that shows tobacco smoking is harmful to the smokers themselves and to those inhaling second-hand smoke.
In addition, such laws may lower health care costs in the short term (but may actually increase them in the long term, since smokers who die sooner no longer use health care),[4] improve work productivity, and lower the overall cost of labor in a community, thus making a community more attractive for employers. In Indiana, the state's economic development agency wrote into its 2006 plan for acceleration of economic growth an encouragement to cities and towns to adopt local smoke-free workplace laws as a means of promoting job growth in communities.
Additional rationales for smoking restrictions include reduced risk of fire in areas with explosive hazards; cleanliness in places where food, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, or precision instruments and machinery are produced; decreased legal liability; potentially reduced energy use via decreased ventilation needs; reduced quantities of litter; healthier environments; and giving smokers incentive to quit.[5]
The World Health Organization considers smoke-free laws to have an influence to reduce demand for tobacco by creating an environment where smoking becomes increasingly more difficult and to help shift social norms away from the acceptance of smoking in everyday life. Along with tax measures, cessation measures, and education, smoking ban policy is currently viewed as an important element in lowering smoking rates and promoting public health. When correctly and strictly implemented it is seen as one important policy agenda goal to change human behavior away from unhealthy behavior and towards a healthy lifestyle.[6]
Research has generated evidence that secondhand smoke causes the same problems as direct smoking, including lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, and lung ailments such as emphysema, bronchitis, and asthma.[7] Specifically, meta-analyses show that lifelong non-smokers with partners who smoke in the home have a 20–30% greater risk of lung cancer than non-smokers who live with non-smokers. Non-smokers exposed to cigarette smoke in the workplace have an increased lung cancer risk of 16–19%.[8]
A study issued in 2002 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization concluded that non-smokers are exposed to the same carcinogens as active smokers.[9] Sidestream smoke[10] contains 69 known carcinogens, particularly benzopyrene[11] and other polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and radioactive decay products, such as polonium 210. Several well-established carcinogens have been shown by the tobacco companies' own research to be present at higher concentrations in secondhand smoke than in mainstream smoke.[12]
Scientific organizations confirming the effects of secondhand smoke include the U.S. National Cancer Institute,[13] the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),[14] the U.S. National Institutes of Health,[15] the Surgeon General of the United States,[16] and the World Health Organization.[17]
Bans on smoking in bars and restaurants can substantially improve the air quality in such establishments. For example, one study listed on the website of the CDC states that New York's statewide law to eliminate smoking in enclosed workplaces and public places substantially reduced RSP (respirable suspended particles) levels in western New York hospitality venues. RSP levels were reduced in every venue that permitted smoking before the law was implemented, including venues in which only second-hand smoke from an adjacent room was observed at baseline.[18] The CDC concluded that their results were similar to other studies which also showed substantially improved indoor air quality after smoking bans.
A 2004 study showed New Jersey bars and restaurants had more than nine times the levels of indoor air pollution of neighboring New York City, which had enacted its ban.[19]
Research has also shown that improved air quality translates to decreased toxin exposure among employees.[20] For example, among employees of the Norwegian establishments that enacted smoking bans, tests showed improved (decreased) levels of nicotine in the urine of both smoking and non-smoking workers (as compared with measurements prior to the ban).[21]
In 2009, Public Health Law Research published an evidence brief summarizing the research assessing the effect of a specific law or policy on public health. They stated that "There is strong evidence supporting smoking bans and restrictions as effective public health interventions aimed at decreasing exposure to secondhand smoke." [22]
One of the world's earliest smoking bans was a 1575 Mexican ecclesiastical council ban that forbade the use of tobacco in any church in Mexico and Spanish colonies in the Caribbean, The Ottoman sultan Murad IV prohibited smoking in his empire in 1633. The Pope also banned smoking in the Church, Pope Urban VII in 1590 and Urban VIII in 1624. Pope Urban VII in particular threatened to excommunicate anyone who "took tobacco in the porchway of or inside a church, whether it be by chewing it, smoking it with a pipe or sniffing it in powdered form through the nose".[23] The earliest citywide European smoking bans were enacted shortly thereafter. Such bans were enacted in Bavaria, Kursachsen, and certain parts of Austria in the late 1600s. Smoking was banned in Berlin in 1723, in Königsberg in 1742, and in Stettin in 1744. These bans were repealed in the revolutions of 1848.[24] The first building in the world to have a smoke-free policy was the Old Government Building in Wellington, New Zealand in 1876. This was over concerns about the threat of fire, as it is the second largest wooden building in the world.[25] The first modern, nationwide tobacco ban was imposed by the Nazi Party in every German university, post office, military hospital, and Nazi Party office, under the auspices of Karl Astel's Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research, created in 1941 under orders from Adolf Hitler.[26] Major anti-tobacco campaigns were widely broadcast by the Nazis until the demise of the regime in 1945.[27]
In the latter part of the 20th century, as research on the risks of second-hand tobacco smoke became public, the tobacco industry launched "courtesy awareness" campaigns. Fearing reduced sales, the industry created a media and legislative program that focused on "accommodation". Tolerance and courtesy were encouraged as a way to ease heightened tensions between smokers and those around them, while avoiding smoking bans. In the USA, states were encouraged to pass laws providing separate smoking sections.[28]
In 1975, the US state of Minnesota enacted the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, making it the first state to ban smoking in most public spaces. At first, restaurants were required to have No Smoking sections, and bars were exempt from the Act.[29] As of 1 October 2007, Minnesota enacted a ban on smoking in all restaurants and bars statewide, called the Freedom to Breathe Act of 2007.[30]
In 1990, the city of San Luis Obispo, California, became the first city in the world to ban indoor smoking at all public places, including bars and restaurants.[31]
In America, the success of the ban enacted by the state of California in 1998 encouraged other states such as New York to implement bans. California's smoking ban included a controversial ban of smoking in bars, extending the statewide workplace smoking ban enacted in 1994. As of April 2009 there were 37 states with some form of smoking ban.[32] Some areas in California began making entire cities smoke-free, which would include every place except residential homes. More than 20 cities in California enacted park and beach smoking bans.
On 29 March 2004, the Republic of Ireland implemented a ban on smoking in the workplace. In Norway similar legislation was put into force on 1 June the same year. The whole of the United Kingdom became subject to a ban on smoking in enclosed public places in 2007, when England became the final region to have the legislation come into effect. The age limit for buying tobacco was also raised from 16 to 18 on 1 October 2007. On July 15, 2007 , Chandigarh became the first city in India to become 'smoke-free', however, the ban on smoking was implemented in rest of the country in mid 2009.
Smoking was banned in public indoor venues in Victoria, Australia on 1 July 2007. Nepal announced a ban on smoking in public places, as was as by those under age 16 in June 2010.[33]
In one part of the world, tobacco advertising and sponsorship of sporting events is prohibited. The ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship in the European Union in 2005 has prompted Formula One Management to look for venues that permit display of the livery of tobacco sponsors, and has led to some of the races on the calendar being canceled in favor of tobacco-friendly markets. As of 2008, only one Formula One team, Scuderia Ferrari, receives sponsorship from a tobacco company. Marlboro branding appears on its cars in two races; Monaco and China, as neither bans tobacco advertising.
MotoGP team Ducati Marlboro receives sponsorship from a Marlboro branding which appears at races in Qatar and China. On 1 July 2009 Ireland banned the advertising and display of tobacco products in all retail outlets. This means that shops will have to store cigarettes in closed containers out of sight of customers.
A 2007 Gallup poll found that 54% of Americans favored a complete ban inside of restaurants, 34% favored a ban in all hotel rooms, and 29% favored a ban inside of bars.[34]
Another Gallup poll, of over 26,500 Europeans, conducted in December 2008, found that "a majority of EU citizens support smoke-free public places, such as offices, restaurants and bars." The poll further found that "support for workplace smoking restrictions is slightly higher than support for such restrictions in restaurants (84% vs. 79%). Two-thirds support smoke-free bars, pubs and clubs." The support is highest in countries which have implemented strict smoking bans: "Citizens in Italy are the most prone to accept smoking restrictions in bars, pubs and clubs (93% – 87% “totally in favor”). Sweden and Ireland join Italy at the higher end of the scale with approximately eight out of 10 respondents supporting smoke-free bars, pubs and clubs (70% in both countries is totally in favor)."[35]
Enforcement of a ban can cause resentment among smokers, with potentially serious consequences. In July 2009 a Turkish restaurant owner was murdered by a customer after attempting to enforce the recently implemented smoking ban.[36] Resentment on the part of smokers over enforcement of a ban, or on the part of non-smokers over violation non-enforcement of a ban, is sometimes referred to as "smoke rage".
Several studies have documented health and economic benefits related to smoking bans. In the first 18 months after Pueblo, Colorado enacted a 2003 smoking ban, hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped by 27% while admissions in neighbouring towns without smoking bans showed no change. The decline in heart attacks was attributed to the smoking ban, which reduced exposure to secondhand smoke.[37] A similar study in Helena, Montana found a 40% reduction in heart attacks following the imposition of a smoking ban.[38] However, a larger and more recent study found that workplace bans in the USA are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases.[39]
Researchers at the University of Dundee found significant improvements in bar workers' lung function and inflammatory markers attributed to a smoking ban; the benefits were particularly pronounced for bar workers with asthma.[40] The Bar Workers' Health and Environment Tobacco Smoke Exposure (BHETSE) study found the percentage of all workers reporting respiratory symptoms, such as wheezing, shortness of breath, cough and phlegm production, fell from 69% to 57%.[41] A group of researchers from Turin, Italy found that a smoking ban had significantly reduced heart attacks in the city, and attributed most of the reduction to decreased secondhand-smoke exposure.[42] A comprehensive smoking ban in New York was found to have prevented 3,813 hospital admissions for heart attacks in 2004, and to have saved $56 million in health-care costs for the year.[43]
A study in England estimated a 2.4% reduction in heart attack emergency admissions to hospital (or 1,200 fewer admissions) in the 12 months following the ban.[44][45]
Smoking bans are generally acknowledged to reduce rates of smoking; workplace bans reduce smoking rates among workers,[46] and bans in public places reduce general smoking rates through a combination of stigamtization and reduction in the social cues for smoking.[47] However, reports in the popular press after smoking bans have been enacted often present conflicting evidence for the bans' effectiveness.
One report stated that cigarette sales in Ireland and Scotland increased after a smoking ban.[48] In contrast, another report states that in Ireland, cigarette sales fell by 16% in the six months after the ban's introduction.[49] In the UK, cigarette sales fell by 11% during July 2007, the first month of the smoking ban in England, compared with July 2006.[50]
A 1992 document from Phillip Morris summarized the tobacco industry's concern about the effects of a ban: "Total prohibition of smoking in the workplace strongly effects [sic] tobacco industry volume. Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11%–15% less than average and quit at a rate that is 84% higher than average."[51]
In the United States, the CDC reported a leveling off of smoking rates in recent years despite a large number of ever more severe smoking bans and large tax increases. It has also been suggested that a "backstop" of hardcore smokers has been reached: those unmotivated and increasingly defiant in the face of further legislation.[52]
In Sweden, use of snus, as an alternative to smoking, has risen steadily since the smoking ban.[53]
Smoking bans may make it easier for smokers to quit. A survey suggests 22% of UK smokers may quit in response to a smoking ban in enclosed public places.[54]
Restaurant smoking bans may help stop young people from becoming habitual smokers. A study of Massachusetts youths, found that those in towns with bans were 35 percent less likely to be habitual smokers.[55][56]
Many studies have been published in the health industry literature on the economic effect of smoke-free policies. The majority of these government and academic studies have found that there is no negative economic impact associated with bans and many findings that there may be a positive effect on local businesses.[57] A 2003 review of 97 such studies of the economic effects of a smoking ban on the hospitality industry found that the "best-designed" studies concluded that smoking bans did not harm businesses.[58]
Studies funded by the bar and restaurant associations often find that smoking legislation has a negative effect on restaurant and bar profits. Such associations have also criticized studies which found that such legislation had no impact.[59]
The following are some examples: the Dallas Restaurant Association funded a study that showed a $11.8 million decline in alcohol sales ranging from 9 to 50% in Denton, Texas. A 2004 study by Ridgewood Economic Associates LTD funded by the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association found a loss of 2000 jobs, $28.5 million dollar loss in wages, and a loss of $37 million in New York State product.[60] A 2004 study for the National Restaurant Association of the United States conducted by Deloitte and Touche found a significant negative impact. The restaurant Association of Maryland found sales tax receipts for establishments falling 11% in their study. Carroll and Associates found bars sales decreased by 18.7% to 24.3% in a number of Ontario markets following a bar smoking ban.[61] The Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association reported that liquor sales were down over $67 million dollars while sales for home consumption increased and asked for the bar smoking ban to be amended in Ohio.[62]
A government survey in Sydney found that the proportion of the population attending pubs and clubs rose after the introduction of a ban on smoking in enclosed places.[63] However, a ClubsNSW report in August 2008 blamed the smoking ban for New South Wales clubs suffering their worst fall in income ever, amounting to a decline of $385 million. Income for clubs was down 11% in New South Wales. Sydney CBD club income fell 21.7% and western Sydney clubs lost 15.5%.[64]
Smoking bans were introduced in German hotels, restaurants, and bars in 2008 and early 2009. The restaurant industry has claimed that many businesses in the states which introduced a smoking ban in late 2007 (Lower Saxony, Baden-Württemberg, and Hessen) witnessed lowered profits. The German Hotel and Restaurant Association (DEHOGA) claimed that the ban deterred people from going out for a drink or meal, stating that 15% of establishments that adopted a smoking ban in 2007 saw turnover fall by around 50%.[65]
In the Republic of Ireland, the main opposition was from publicans. Ireland was the world's first country to introduce a full workplace smoking ban. The Irish workplace ban was introduced with the intention of protecting workers from passive smoking ("second-hand smoke") and to discourage smoking in a nation with a high percentage of smokers. Many pubs introduced "outdoor" arrangements (generally heated areas with shelters). It was speculated by opponents that the ban would increase the amount of drinking and smoking in the home, but recent studies showed this was not the case.[66]
Ireland's Office of Tobacco Control website indicates that "an evaluation of the official hospitality sector data shows there has been no adverse economic effect from the introduction of this measure (the March 2004 national ban on smoking in bars, restaurants, etc). It has been claimed that the ban was a significant contributing factor to the closure of hundreds of small rural pubs, with almost 440 fewer licenses renewed in 2006 than in 2005.[67]
The ban came into effect in Scotland on 26 March 2006,[68] in Wales on 2 April 2007 and in England on 1 July 2007.[69] Six months after the ban's implementation in Wales, the Licensed Victuallers Association (LVA), which represents pub operators across Wales, claimed pubs had lost up to 20% of their trade. The LVA says some businesses were on the brink of closure, others had already closed down, and there was little optimism trade would eventually return to pre-ban levels.[70]
The British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA), which represents pubs and breweries across the UK claimed beer sales are at their lowest level since the 1930s. The BBPA sustained a fall in sales of 7% during 2007 to the smoking ban.[71]
According to a survey conducted by pub and bar trade magazine The Publican, the anticipated increase in sales of food following the smoking ban has not occurred. The trade magazine's survey of 303 pubs in the United Kingdom found the average customer spent £14.86 on food and drink at dinner in 2007, virtually identical to 2006.[72]
A survey conducted by BII (formerly British Institute of Innkeeping) and the Federation of Licensed Victuallers' Associations (FLVA) concluded that sales had decreased by 7.3% in the 5 months since the smoking ban's introduction on 1 July 2007. Of the 2,708 responses to the survey, 58% of licensees said they had seen smokers visiting less regularly, while 73% had seen their smoking customers spending less time at the pub.[73]
In the USA, smokers and hospitality businesses initially argued that businesses would suffer from smoking bans. However, a 2006 review by the U.S. Surgeon General found that smoking bans were unlikely to harm businesses in practice, and that many restaurants and bars might see increased business.[74][75]
In 2003, New York City amended its anti-smoking law to include all restaurants and bars, including those in private clubs, making it, along with the California ban, one of the toughest in the United States. The city's Department of Health found in a 2004 study that air pollution levels had decreased sixfold in bars and restaurants after the ban went into effect, and that New Yorkers had reported less second-hand smoke in the workplace. The study also found the city's restaurants and bars prospered despite the smoking ban, with increases in jobs, liquor licenses, and business tax payments. The President of the New York nightlife association stated that business had been harmed and that the Department of Health had included all restaurants in the figures, including "Starbucks and McDonald's".[76] A 2006 study by the New York State Department of Health found similar results: "(...) the CIAA has not had any significant negative financial effect on restaurants and bars in either the short or the long term."[77]
Bellows-driven instruments – such as the accordion, concertina, melodeon and Uilleann (or Irish) bagpipes – reportedly need less frequent cleaning and maintenance as a result of the Irish smoking ban.[78]
Some areas with a large tourism trade are concerned about the impact of a smoking ban on their tourism market. In Hawaii, for example, several tourism monitoring agencies reported that the ban may have had a significant negative impact on tourism, based on government numbers and industry feedback.[79] Overall tourism was down 6% and the key Japanese market was down 12% in Hawaii.[80]
Prisons have increasingly been banning tobacco smoking.[81] In the United States, some states with smoke-free prison policies only ban indoor smoking whereas others ban smoking on the entire prison grounds.[82] In July, 2004 the Federal Bureau of Prisons adopted a smoke-free policy for its facilities.[83] A 1993 Supreme Court ruling acknowledged that a prisoner's exposure to second-hand smoke could be regarded as cruel and unusual punishment (which would be in violation of the Eighth Amendment).[84] A 1997 ruling in Massachusetts established that prison smoking bans do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.[85] Many officials view prison smoking bans as a means of reducing health-care costs.[86]
Prison officials and guards are often concerned based on previous events in other prisons concerning riots, fostering a cigarette black market within the prison, and other problems resulting from a total prison smoking ban. Prisons have experienced riots when placing smoking bans into effect resulting in prisoners setting fires, destroying prison property, persons being assaulted, injured, and stabbed. One prison in Canada had some guards reporting breathing difficulties from the fumes of prisoners smoking artificial cigarettes made from nicotine patches lit by creating sparks from inserting metal objects into electrical outlets.[87][88] For example in 2008, the Orsainville Detention Centre near Quebec City, withdrew its smoking ban following a riot. But the feared increase in tension and violence expected in association with smoking bans has generally not been seen.[85]
The introduction of smoking bans produced protests[89] and predictions of widespread non-compliance, and media stories regarding the rise of clandestine smokeasies, including in New York City,[90] Ireland,[91][92] Germany,[93] Illinois,[94] the United Kingdom,[95] Utah,[96] and Washington, D.C.[97]
In reality, however, high levels of compliance with bans (in excess of 90 per cent) have been reported in most jurisdictions including New York,[98] Ireland,[99] Italy[100] and Scotland.[101] Poor compliance was reported in Kolkata.[102]
Smoking bans have been criticised on a number of grounds:
Critics of smoking bans, including comedian Dave Chappelle, musician Joe Jackson,[103] late actress Natasha Richardson, and essayist and political critic Christopher Hitchens,[104][105] have claimed that bans are misguided efforts of retrograde Puritans. Typically, this argument is based on John Stuart Mill's harm principle, interpreting smoking bans as ban on tobacco consumption instead of ban on harming other people.
Other critics emphasize the property rights of business owners, drawing a distinction between public places (such as government buildings) and privately-owned establishments (such as bars and restaurants). Citing economic efficiency, some economists suggest that the basic institutions of private property rights and contractual freedom are capable of resolving conflicts between the preferences of smokers and those who seek a smoke-free environment, without government intrusion.[106]
Businesses affected by smoking bans have filed lawsuits claiming that bans are unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. In the United States, some cite unequal protection under the law while others cite loss of business without compensation, as well as other types of challenges. Some localities where hospitality businesses filed lawsuits against the State or local government include, Nevada, Montana, Iowa, Colorado, Kentucky, New York, South Carolina, and Hawaii.[107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114] Such lawsuits have generally been unsuccessful.
Bans on smoking in offices and other enclosed public places often result in smokers going outside to smoke, frequently congregating outside doorways. Many jurisdictions that have banned smoking in enclosed public places have extended the ban to cover areas within a fixed distance of entrances to buildings.[115]
The former British Cabinet Member John Reid claimed that bans on smoking in public places may lead to more smoking at home.[116] However, both the House of Commons Health committee and the Royal College of Physicians disagreed, with the former finding no evidence to support Reid's claim after studying Ireland,[116] and the latter finding that smoke-free households increased from 22% to 37% between 1996 and 2003.[117]
In January 2010, the mayor of Boston, Massachusetts, Thomas Menino, proposed a smoking ban inside public housing apartments under the jurisdiction of the Boston Housing Authority.[118][119]
In May 2008, research published by Adams and Cotti in the Journal of Public Economics examined statistics of drunken-driving fatalities and accidents in areas where smoking bans in bars have been implemented and found that fatal drunken-driving accidents increased by about 13 percent, or about 2.5 such accidents per year for a typical county of 680,000. They speculate this could be caused by smokers driving farther away to jurisdictions without bans or where enforcement is lax. No evidence is presented for jurisdictions where smoking bans and enforcement are consistent.[120]
As in other areas of research, the effect of funding on research literature has been discussed with respect to smoking bans. Most commonly, studies which found few or no positive and/or negative effects of smoking bans and which were funded by tobacco companies have been delegitimized because they were seen as biased in favor of their funders.[121]
Professor of Economics at the California State Polytechnic University-San Luis Obispo, Michael L. Marlow, defended "tobacco-sponsored" studies arguing that all studies merited "scrutiny and a degree of skepticism," irrespective of their funding. He wished for the basic assumption that every author were "fair minded and trustworthy, and deserves being heard out" and for less attention to research funding when evaluating the results of a study. Marlow suggests that studies funded by tobacco companies are viewed and dismissed as "deceitful,"[122] i.e. as being driven by (conscious) bad intention.
During the debates over the Washington, DC smoking ban, city council member Carol Schwartz proposed legislation that would have enacted either a substantial tax credit for businesses that chose to ban smoking or a quadrupling of the annual business license fee for bars, restaurants and clubs that wished to allow smoking. Additionally, locations allowing smoking would have been required to install specified high-performance ventilation systems.[123]
Critics of bans suggest ventilation is a means of reducing the harmful effects of passive smoking. A study conducted by the School of Technology of the University of Glamorgan in Wales, United Kingdom, published in the Building Services Journal found that "ventilation is effective in controlling the level of contamination", though "ventilation can only dilute or partially displace contaminants and occupational exposure limits are based on the 'as low as reasonably practicable' principle".[124]
Many hospitality organizations claim that ventilation systems can bring venues into compliance with smoke-free restaurant ordinances. A study published by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers and funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found one establishment with lower air quality in the non-smoking section, due to improperly installed ventilation systems. They also determined that even properly functioning systems "are not substitutes for smoking bans in controlling environmental smoke exposure."[125]
The tobacco industry has focused on proposing ventilation as an alternative to smoking bans, though this approach has not been widely adopted in the U.S. because "in the end, it is simpler, cheaper, and healthier to end smoking."[126] The Italian smoking ban permits dedicated smoking rooms with automatic doors and smoke extractors. Nevertheless, few Italian establishments are creating smoking rooms due to the additional cost.[127]
A landmark report from the U.S. Surgeon General found that even the use of elaborate ventilation systems and smoking rooms fail to provide protection from the health hazards of secondhand smoke, since there is "no safe level of second hand smoke".[128]
A number of States in the United States have "preemption clauses" within State law which block local communities from passing smoking ban ordinances more strict than the State laws on the books. The rationale is to prevent local communities from passing smoking bans that are viewed as excessive by that State's legislature. Other States have "anti-preemption clauses" that allow local communities to pass smoking ban ordinances that their legislature found unacceptable.[129]
In Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, three restaurants received short-term exemptions from a local ban on smoking in restaurants when they managed to demonstrate financial suffering because of the ordinance.[130]