Tobacco Control Network

Enforcement of Smoke-Free Ordinances – 4/7/06

Q: As you probably know, Colorado's smoke-free law will go into effect July 1, 2006. The state has a committee working on enforcement and they have compiled the following questions that they would like to ask to those states who have passed a smoke-free ordinance.

Did our law specifically state who was responsible for enforcing the law? If so, who was designated?
How did your state manage educating enforcement agencies on the law? Were local health agencies or tobacco programs involved at the community level in educating law enforcement?
What are the 3-5 most important things that were done regarding enforcement?
What were the greatest challenges you faced?
What would you do differently?
What specific tools and collateral materials did you provide to local health departments, law enforcement or other agencies? If you are able to share those materials, who would we contact?
Were there problems with interpretations of the law? Did any agency/authority provide an opinion on any of those issues? (For example, Colorado's law does not specifically include private clubs in the law or exempt it so we are receiving many questions on whether private clubs have to follow the law.)
Was there consistent enforcement across the state or did it vary in each community?

Delaware:
1. The DE law states that the Delaware Health And Social Services (DHSS) is responsible for enforcement violation is public places (restaurants, bars, casinos, stores) and the Department of Labor (DOL) is responsible for workplace violations. If a worker complains about smoking in the worksite, then DOL would respond. Enforcement depends on WHO reports the violation. If a patron complains about "Smokey Joe's Restaurant" then DHSS would investigate. If a worker complains, then DOL will investigate.
  
  The DE law is enforced on a "complaint driven" system. A toll free number was developed to report alleged violations.
2. The DHSS Health Systems Protection Section (HSP) is the agency responsible for enforcement. The health inspectors met with Tobacco Prevention staff and developed a database to track complaints and inspections. Since DE is a small state the enforcement is conducted at the state level.
3. 1) Development of regulations pertaining to the law, 2) Conducting workshops for businesses, 3) Social marketing campaign, 4) Establishing a toll free number to report violations, 5) Development of the CIAA database.
4. Vocal opposition from a minority of businesses; Lack of funds for enforcement. No new staff was added.
5. Not much really. Perhaps seek funds for enforcement.
6. The Tobacco prevention & Control Program, which is housed in DHSS teamed with DOL and conducted a series of workshops for businesses to help explain the law and offer advise. A package was developed which included a copy of the law, DHSS regulations that were developed as a result of the law, educational materials about secondhand smoke, FAQ, and window decals that stated that smoking was not allowed.
  
  A social marketing camping was developed and implemented using TV spots, newspaper ads, radio ads and billboards that informed the public about the new law.
  
  You may contact the DE Tobacco Prevention Program. Ask for Lisa McKenzie or Fred Gatto. 302-741-2900.
7. There were some problems with interpretation of the the private club" issue as well as what is considered an "indoor area". Re-writing the DHSS regulations helped.
8. DE law is enforced at the state level.
Massachusetts:
1. Yes - DPH and local boards of health
2. DPH and attorneys from trade associations (MAHB, MMA) provided regional trainings and individual technical assistance.
3. Provided fact sheets on website; printed tickets for local boards of health; established 1-800 complaint number and system to fax complaints to local boards of health; provided legal technical assistance to deal with complicated enforcement issues
4. Private clubs, small businesses where owner smokes, outside smoking areas in bars and restaurants, smoke migration back inside/buffer zones
5. Contact labor/hr attorneys before implementation of law - provide them with factsheets, resources to pass onto clients- most non-hospitality businesses turned to their attorneys for advice.
6. Contact Eileen Sullivan at Eileen.M.Sullivan@state.ma.us
7. Yes - DPH provided opinions and posted in factsheets. DPH passed regulations to clarify issues of private clubs and outdoor smoking
8. Vary by community
New York:
1. New York's law designated the Commissioner of Health and/or her designee as the enforcement authority. In some counties, the state DOH is the enforcement authority and in other counties the local DOH is the enforcement authority. These enforcement authorities do not have police powers.
2. The state and local enforcement agents were educated by the state DOH through guidance documents and trainings.
3. These are the things (in my opinion) that should have been done): 1) Prompt, official communication with every business - this is the law, this is how to comply with the law, this is what happens if you don't, who to call for more information; 2) Aggressive publicity to the public on how to file a complaint of smoking occurring in the work place; 3) Ongoing, unannounced spot checking during peak business hours for bars and entertainment venues
4. Demonstrating the success of the law. You need to be very pro-active in collecting evaluation and monitoring information to respond to negative publicity.
5. N/A
6. We have a tool kit on CD. Please contact Gail Dobkins at ged01@health.state.ny.us to request a copy of the CIAA Tool Kit be sent to you in the mail.
7. N/A
8. Enforcement varied across the state. Some counties ignored the law. Community and public vigilance is essential.
Rhode Island:
1. Enforcement is complaint driven. When a written and signed complaint is received by the Department of Health (DOH) a notice of violation is sent to the establishment requesting that they correct the situation. Upon receiving a second complaint for the same or continued violations by the same establishment, the complaint is forwarded to city or town solicitors for prosecution.
2. Notice of the law was distributed (mailed) to all applicants for a business license in the state of Rhode Island, to all law enforcement agencies, and to any business required to be registered with the secretary of state's office. No law enforcement involvement.
3. 1) Before the law went into effect, DOH mailed all businesses an informational packet, including a letter from the Director of Health, sample policies, mandatory signs, cessation resources, and tips to help businesses successfully go smoke-free. 2) Mandatory signs were developed and distributed to all businesses, which included the DOH's Hotline phone number to report violations. 3) A complaint form was developed which serves as a communication tool between the Department's Tobacco Control Program, the Office of Environmental Health, who is responsible for sending out the violation notices, and enforcement team members.
4. Enforcement activities are carried out by enforcement teams. The teams are made up of community partners who volunteered to perform compliance checks on noncompliant establishments. Prior to performing compliance checks, the team members received training, including an enforcement team packet with instructions, complaint forms, listing of noncompliant establishments, signs and a copy of the Rules and Regulations.
  
  No funding for enforcement. Without the interest of our community partners in assisting with enforcement to be sure the law they worked so hard to pass, there would be no enforcement.
5. Provide incentives to recruit and sustain enforcement team members.
6. See answer to #3 above. Materials are posted on our website.
7. Yes. Private clubs, IE. VFWs, were initially granted an extension to comply with the law. That exemption was later repealed due to an outcry from non-private establishments.
8. No, some enforcement teams are more active than others. We also have a limited number of teams, and the teams are spread thin across the state.
Utah:
1. Yes. The Utah Indoor Clean Air Act specifies that the state and local health departments are the enforcing agencies for the law and are authorized to impose the penalties specified in the statute. Section 26-38-9
2. Statewide training of local health department staff was conducted prior to the 1995 Utah Indoor Clean Air Act went into effect. Since proprietors of places where smoking is prohibited are required to ask violators to extinguish or leave the place if they refuse, law enforcement agencies were educated about the requirements of the law as well as the stipulation that health departments are designated as the enforcing agent for the UICAA. However, law enforcement was consulted regarding procedures to follow if a person violating the law refused to leave a place they were instructed to.
3. Most important things:
  1. Undertaking a major and extensive education campaign to make the public, businesses, government agencies, and other organizations aware of the changes in the law and where they could go for more information or to get questions answered.
  2. Statewide trainings were conducted with local health departments to update everyone about the changes in the law and to identify potential problems that might develop.
  3. Developing and disseminating educational materials in a manner and format that was clear and easily used by the primary audiences.
  4. Accepting a principal that education was going to be our main enforcement tool and that once those affected by the law knew what was required, they would comply with those requirements.
4. Greatest challenges:
  1. How to assure we were able to alert businesses, government agencies, and other organizations about the changes from the previous requirements and who to contact for further assistance.
  2. How to find out about possible violations in buildings where public access was limited but contained areas that were covered by the law. (Public education about what constituted a violation and how to make a complaint helped alleviate this potential problem).
  3. Smoking next to entryways, exits, air intakes, or open windows of buildings where smoking is prohibited.
5. N/A
6. Tools and collateral materials:
  1. General, simple brochure re: basic requirements of the Utah Indoor Clean Air Act
  2. Brochure on how to make a complaint and to whom it should go.
  3. Section on the Utah Tobacco Prevention and Control Program website related to the statute, rule, a business guide, etc., to provide 24/7 access to information about the law
  4. Signs and decals that were, and are still currently, distributed to businesses, government agencies, and other organizations upon request.
  5. Post cards and letters that were mailed to a large number of businesses affected by the changes in the law to remind them of the changes and the date they became effective.
  6. A limited number of business “packets” were developed and disseminated, primarily to the largest employers in the state.
  7. Statewide chamber of commerce presentations.
7. Interpretation issues were handled by state Attorney General’s office. If a question came up, it was passed through designated contacts for interpretation or reaffirmation. In the case of taverns and private clubs that were exempted in the 1995 UICAA the definition was contained in the statute so no further clarification was necessary.
8. Enforcement was, and is, fairly consistent across the state. Much enforcement is initiated by complaints from employees, customers, visitors, and vendors who lodge complaints about possible violations with state and local health departments. Complaints are then investigated by local health departments in the jurisdiction from which the complaints come.

Back to Table of Contents