Smokefree ordinances for small communities – 8/5/09

Q: Oklahoma has several grantees with a number of incorporated towns that:

• have a very limited municipal government
• don't usually pass any ordinances,
• have no public places or businesses, or
• have no businesses that sell tobacco products. 

What are the benefits of requiring these kinds of small communities to pass clean indoor air or youth access ordinances?  What are some of the immediate tangible benefits for the community?  What are the strategies that have been used to pass ordinances in these types of smaller communities? What strategies other than ordinances have been used (e.g., county government resolutions or policy)? Do clean indoor air and youth access indicators fit those communities and portions of our state that are highly rural? If so, how?

A:

1. South Carolina - South Carolina has had great success in the last three years, passing and implementing smoke-free ordinances at the local level. To date, we have 27 municipalities that have adopted smoke-free workplace ordinances.
    
   Our strategy continues at the local level because a comprehensive smoke-free state law is not an option at this time. Our goal is to reach at least 50% of the population being protected by smoke-free ordinances at the local level so that we may use this as a persuasive point and justification for a comprehensive state-wide law without preemption.
    
   Previously, we had been hindered by preemption, however, we tested the law when two municipalities - Sullivan's Island (June 2006) and the City of Greenville (January 2007) - passed smoke-free ordinances and were legally challenged by opponents. Ultimately the SC Supreme Court ruled on March 31, 2008, in favor of both municipalities having local control and the right to pass local smoke-free ordinances stronger than the existing state Clean Indoor Air Act.
    
   These successes are a collaborative effort in SC. We and our partners at the local, state and national level work to educate the public and raise awareness about the issue, recruit community champions and identify and advocate with key-decision makers to create smoke-free policy change.
    
   Specifics:
    
   What are the benefits of requiring these kinds of small communities to pass clean indoor air or youth access ordinances?
   We don't require, but work with identified community champions or key decision-makers on councils to help educate, advocate and pass smoke-free ordinances. We provide the science, data, reports, communications for media, FAQ, etc. and even help refer individuals from the community who may want to speak at public hearings.
    
   What are some of the immediate tangible benefits for the community?
   A decrease in exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace, a causal effect on quitting, and possible trickledown effect to families, the home and vehicles. We always promote smoke-free ordinances as a preventable health issue. For businesses with fifty or more employees, insurance premiums may be reduced/decreased for non-smoking employees and/or smoke-free worksite; national reports have shown a direct correlation between smoke-free workplace policies and increased productivity.
    
   What are the strategies that have been used to pass ordinances in these types of smaller communities?
   Local champions and key decision-makers are the key; providing technical assistance from our program and partners helps keep them informed of the issue, and provides them with vital information to discuss and persuade other leaders to adopt smoke-free ordinances.
    
   What strategies other than ordinances have been used (e.g., county government resolutions or policy)?
   If an ordinance is not possible at the current time, you can work in surrounding or adjacent settings to change policy in hopes of building support for an overall municipality workplace ordinance - i.e., 100% model policies for healthcare facilities, recreational facilities, faith-based organizations, schools, and worksites.
    
   Do clean indoor air and youth access indicators fit those communities and portions of our state that are highly rural? If so, how?
   As best practices, they fit with both rural and urban settings.
    
2. Texas - Our state has a number of smoke free cities that are both large and small (See our web-based database of municipal ordinances in Texas. You can search by size and should be able to access the actual ordinances).
    
   The town of Leander, Texas passed a smoke free ordinance several years ago before having any major businesses were in the town. (Their ordinance covered bars before the city had their first bar.) The position that the council took was that they put the rules into place prior to any thing coming into town so that when growth did come the rules would already be in place and since they only had a few Mom-n-Pop businesses the opposition wasn’t that great.
    
   Contact Sylvia Barron, the regional tobacco coordinator in Temple, for more information. Sylvia was our program’s coordinator when Leander passed their ordinance and has assisted many cities in her region (which has a good mix or urban and rural).
    
   Also, you can contact Becky Zima, our coordinator in El Paso. Her region is predominantly rural and frontier and she has also had success in seeing ordinances passed in smaller communities.
    
3. West Virginia - “Think globally, act locally.” A significant and active grassroots base of support is our most potent weapon to counter the relentless and well-funded opposition (from the tobacco industry, hospitality industry, gaming industry, etc).  Tobacco control advocates have the expertise to draft sound smokefree policies based on successes and lessons learned from other clean indoor air campaigns across the country, while policymakers often lack tobacco control knowledge or expertise.
    
   While smokefree air advocates seek to protect as many people as possible from the dangers of secondhand smoke exposure, there are considerations in terms of local smokefree policies versus state laws of which advocates should be aware.
    
   Local grassroots ordinance campaigns educate and mobilize local advocates, empower concerned citizens, and help change community attitudes regarding smoking in enclosed public places. The community education component in local campaigns is likely to intersect with a greater percentage of the public than state law efforts. Win or lose, the action serves as a health intervention to educate citizens regarding the health risks of secondhand smoke exposure.
    
   Statewide laws are much more difficult to pass due to the level of scrutiny and ‘politics’ involved, and much easier for the lobbyists to derail.
    
   Additional thoughts:
    
   1) Look into Communities of Excellence Plus training (from the Tobacco technical Assistance Consortium).
    
   A Community of Excellence is a community in which no tobacco use is the norm. Communities of Excellence Plus (CX Plus) is a comprehensive three phase program designed to maximize the strength of resources available within a state by focusing on the local level. CX Plus provides local tobacco control advocates with the tools, techniques, and support to:
    
   • Articulate the components of a local level comprehensive tobacco control program
   • Discuss the basics of effective programming at the local level
   • Describe the necessary elements of a comprehensive tobacco control approach
   • Assess their local tobacco control efforts in relation to a Community of Excellence
   • Develop an action plan to strengthen local tobacco control efforts.
    
   2) I would strongly advise a technical consultation with Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights.

Back to Table of Contents