Laws on Smoking


US tobacco fight: a timeline
1954: Industry faces first liability lawsuit by lung cancer victim alleging negligence and breach of warranty. Suit dropped 13 years later.
1964-1970: Surgeon General Luther Terry releases reports concluding smoking causes lung cancer. The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act requires surgeon general's warnings on cigarette packs. Government requires one antismoking advertisement for every three cigarette ads.
1971 -1980: Broadcast ads for cigarettes are banned. Officials rule all airlines must create nonsmoking sections. Insurers begin offering discounts on life insurance premiums to nonsmokers. Warnings strengthened on cigarette packages and ads. Nicotine-based chewing gum approved as quitting aid. San Francisco requires businesses to accommodate nonsmokers. Government bans smoking on short domestic airline flights. Surgeon general concludes nicotine is an addictive drug.
1990: Smoking banned on interstate buses and all domestic airline flights of six hours or less.
1992: Nicotine patches introduced.
1993: Vermont bans smoking in indoor public places.
1994: Executives of seven largest US tobacco companies swear in congressional testimony that nicotine isn't addictive and deny manipulating nicotine levels in cigarettes. Amtrak bans smoking on short and medium-distance trips. Brown and Williamson documents show tobacco executives discovered smoking's risks before the surgeon general did. Mississippi files first of 24 state lawsuits seeking to recoup millions from tobacco companies for smokers' Medicaid bills.
1996: Liggett Group, smallest of major tobacco companies, settles claims with five state attorneys general and promises to help them against other companies.
1997: Federal judge rules government can regulate tobacco as a drug. But industry is allowed to continue advertising. Landmark settlement, subject to congressional approval, calls for unprecedented restrictions on cigarettes and on tobacco makers' liability in lawsuits. Industry to spend $368bn over 25 years, mainly on anti-smoking campaigns, use bold health warning on packs, curb advertising and face fines if youth smoking doesn't drop enough. The first state to settle with tobacco, Mississippi agrees to $3.6bn deal with companies including Brown and Williamson, R.J. Reynolds, Philip Morris and Lorillard Tobacco. Florida reaches settlement reported to be $11.3bn.
1998: Texas settles with the tobacco industry for $15.3bn over 25 years. Tobacco executives testify before Congress that nicotine is addictive under current definitions of the word and smoking may cause cancer. Minnesota and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota reach a $6.6bn settlement with the tobacco industry. Despite pressure from President Clinton, Senate rejects a proposed $1.50-per-pack tax increase on cigarettes. After lengthy debate, the Senate effectively kills settlement bill that would have cost tobacco companies at least $516bn over 25 years.
In November, 46 states embrace a $206bn settlement with cigarette makers over health costs for treating sick smokers.
Cigarette prices expected to rise 35 cents to 40 cents a pack to fund settlement.
1999: Patricia Henley is awarded $51.5m in damages against Philip Morris Cos. A state judge later cuts the verdict to $26.5m. Philip Morris is appealing the award. A jury in Portland, Oregan, awards the family of Jesse Williams $79.5m against Philip Morris in punitive damages plus $821,485 in compensatory damages for medical costs and pain and suffering. The judge later reduces the punitive damages to $32 million. Philip Morris is appealing.
A Tennessee jury also clears three tobacco companies of liability in the deaths of three smokers. In July, in the first class-action lawsuit by smokers to go to trial, a Florida jury says five tobacco companies engaged in "extreme and outrageous conduct; in making a defective product that causes emphysema, lung cancer and other illnesses. Meanwhile, two tobacco companies are cleared of wrongdoing in the death of a smoker from lung cancer by a Louisiana jury.
In September, the Justice department sues the tobacco industry to recover billions of government dollars spent on smoking-related health care, accusing cigarette-makers of a "coordinated campaign of fraud and deceit."
March 2000: A San Francisco jury orders Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds, the two largest tobacco companies in the US, to pay $20m in punitive damages. This followed a $1.7m compensatory damage award on 20 March to Leslie Whiteley for medical costs and pain and suffering. Her husband, Leonard, is awarded $250,000 for lost of companionship. Both companies are appealing.
April 2000: In the second phase of the landmark Florida class-action trial, the jury awards two smokers $6.9m in compensatory damages. The jury awards a third smoker $5.8m, but determines that he cannot collect because the four-year statue of limitations had run out.
July 2000: A Mississippi jury rejects a $102m wrongful death suit Wednesday filed against RJ Reynolds tobacco by the widow of a longtime smoker who died of lung cancer.
July 2000: A jury ordered the tobacco industry Friday to pay $145bn in punitive damages to sick Florida smokers, a record-shattering verdict.(1)

Smoking in the Workplace: Still a Burning Issue
The main federal law covering threats to workplace safety is the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA). OSHA requires employers to provide a workplace that is free of dangers that could physically harm employees. OSHA rules apply to tobacco smoke only in rare and extreme circumstances, such as when contaminants created by a manufacturing process combine with tobacco smoke to create a dangerous workplace air supply that fails OSHA standards. Workplace air quality standards and measurement techniques are so technical that typically only OSHA agents or consultants who specialize in environmental testing are able to determine when the air quality falls below allowable limits.
But the torturous effects of tobacco smoke on human health have been clearly established and even certified by the government. A recent report by the Environmental Protection Agency, for example, estimated that secondhand tobacco smoke kills about 3,700 Americans per year. Many other estimates put the number at several times that amount. So people who smoke cigarettes, cigars or pipes at work increasingly find themselves to be an unwelcome minority--and many employers already take actions to control when and where smoking is allowed.
For example, a recent survey by Industry Week magazine found that nearly three-fourths of the 6,000 companies questioned either prohibited smoking in the workplace or restricted it to designated areas that nonsmokers can avoid. About 15% of the companies did not have a nonsmoking policy, but were considering adopting one.
Although no federal law directly controls smoking at work, a majority of states protect workers against unwanted smoke in the workplace. In addition, hundreds of city and county ordinances restrict smoking in the workplace, but only a few, including San Francisco, ban it outright. In contrast, about half the states make it illegal to discriminate against employees or potential employees because they smoke during nonworking hours.
So the ongoing legal battle in most workplaces boils down to a question of what is more important: one person's right to preserve health by avoiding co-workers' tobacco smoke, or another's unfettered right to smoke.
Protections for Nonsmokers
Because of the potentially higher costs of healthcare insurance, absenteeism, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation insurance associated with employees who smoke, some companies now refuse to hire anyone who admits to being a smoker on a job application or in pre-hiring interviews.
The sentiment against smoking in the workplace has grown so strong that many companies now increase their attractiveness to job seekers by mentioning in their Help Wanted advertising that they maintain a smoke-free workplace.
Except in the states that forbid work-related discrimination against smokers and the states where it is illegal for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of any legal activities outside of work, there is nothing to prevent employers from establishing a policy of hiring and employing only non-smokers.
State Legal Protections
While most states now protect workers from unwanted smoke on the job, they follow different approaches. In several states--including California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont--the laws limiting smoking are aimed specifically at workplaces. A large number of other states have smoking control laws that apply to everyone in public places and specified private places. In these states, nonsmoking employees are protected only if they happen to work in a place that is specifically covered by the statute. A few state laws are all-encompassing--limiting or banning smoking in both public places and workplaces.
Where smoking is limited, some states prohibit it except in a designated area within the workplace. Other states take the opposite approach, requiring employers to set aside pristine areas for the nonsmokers in the work crowd.
There are also common exceptions written into anti-smoking laws. Often, their protections do not apply to:
places where private social functions are typically held, such as rented banquet rooms in hotels; presumably, even the most sensitive nonsmokers must brave the smoke when they frequent these places
private offices occupied exclusively by smokers
inmates at correctional facilities and hospital patients, who usually must comply with the rules of the institution, and employers who can show that it would be financially or physically unreasonable to comply with the legal limitations.(2)

Smoking in Public Places
Legislative intent. – The use of tobacco for smoking purposes is being found to be increasingly dangerous, not only to the person smoking, but also to the non-smoking person who is required to breathe such contaminated air. The most pervasive intrusion of the non-smoker's right to unpolluted air space is the uncontrolled smoking in public places. The legislature intends, by the enactment of this chapter, to protect the health and atmospheric environment of the non-smoker by regulating smoking in certain public areas.
Smoking prohibited in certain public areas – Smoking sections in eating facilities.
(a) Smoking tobacco in any form is a public nuisance and dangerous to public health and shall not be permitted in any of the following places used by or open to the public: the state house, elevators, indoor movie theaters, libraries, art galleries, museums, concert halls, auditoriums, buses, primary, secondary or postsecondary school buildings, colleges and universities (including dormitories), and public hallways in court buildings, hallways of elderly housing complexes, supermarkets, medical offices, and hospitals. (b) The proprietor or other person in charge of a public area listed in subsection (a) shall make reasonable efforts to prevent smoking and shall post no smoking and warning signs conspicuously in these areas.
(c) Any person who violates this chapter shall be deemed to be contributing to the maintenance of a public nuisance in a public place and shall be subject to a fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50.00), nor more than five hundred dollars ($500), which shall be assessed and recovered in a civil action brought by the attorney general in any court of competent jurisdiction. Each day the violation is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as such. Any penalty assessed and recovered in an action brought under this subsection shall be paid over to the general treasurer and added to the general fund.
(d) This section does not prohibit smoking in the areas listed in subsection (a) if the smoking is confined to areas separated from those used by the general public and identified by signs as smoking areas.
(e) (1) Eating facilities with a seating capacity of fifty (50) or more persons shall have separate seating for nonsmokers and smokers. For purposes of this section, an "eating facility" shall mean any building, structure, room, or area maintained as, or held out to the public as, an enclosure where meals are served for consideration of payment; excluded, however, are bars, nightclubs, lounges, dance clubs, and privately sponsored social affairs. Appropriate arrangements shall be made to ask patrons their preference for the nonsmoking or smoking section prior to being seated.
(2) The proprietor or person in charge of the eating facility shall post signs as follows:
(A)At the entry stating that the establishment is required by law to have a no-smoking section; and (B) In the smoking sections identifying the area.
(3) The department of health is hereby authorized to adopt rules and regulations necessary for the implementation and enforcement of this subsection.
Severability. – If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this chapter is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Signs. – Signs required by this chapter may be provided by the state department of health at cost.(3)

Smoking Restrictions in Schools Act
Legislative findings. – (a) It has been determined that smoking is the leading cause of preventable death and disease in this country. More people die from cigarette smoking and related illnesses each year than die from alcohol, traffic accidents, cocaine and heroin, AIDS, murder, and suicide combined. Secondhand tobacco smoke alone causes up to fifty-three thousand (53,000) deaths per year in non-smokers. As reported by the center for disease control, secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of death in the United States today. Ninety percent (90%) of the people who smoke start by age nineteen (19), the average age being thirteen (13). Children exposed to tobacco smoke are at nearly twice the risk of being in poor or fair health as compared to children who are never exposed to tobacco smoke. Children exposed to tobacco smoke have an increased frequency of respiratory infections and decreased lung function. In Rhode Island, where the legal age to purchase tobacco products is eighteen (18), in 1988 the department of health reported the following smoking rates for Rhode Island students:
Legislative intent – Purpose. – As tobacco now kills over four hundred and thirty-four thousand (434,000) people in the United States each year, it is the intent of this health legislation to eliminate the exposure of children attending school, and other persons working in schools, to the school-site health hazard of tobacco smoke and other tobacco product usage. It is the intent of this health legislation to protect the health and welfare of children in school by eliminating the exposure of children in school to the significant, life-threatening health hazard of tobacco smoke. It is the intent of this health legislation to create a tobacco-free school environment in Rhode Island.
(a) The use of tobacco by Rhode Island children is a health and substance abuse problem of the utmost severity. The legislature finds that tobacco product usage by children in Rhode Island is rampant and increasing with over thirty percent (30%) of high school students smoking. The present law prohibiting the sale of tobacco to children is being ignored by many retailers. Rhode Island tobacco retailers illegally sell four million eight hundred thousand (4,800,000) packs, over eleven million dollars ($11,000,000 in tobacco product sales, to children annually. Tobacco industry advertising targets children as the replacement smokers for the one thousand one hundred forty-five (1,145) adults who die daily from tobacco product usage. Approximately seventy percent (70%) of the Rhode Island high school seniors who are smoking today will be the addicted adult smokers of tomorrow. According to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), smoking-related direct medical costs in Rhode Island in 1990 climbed to one hundred eighty-six million dollars ($186,000,000). This is an ongoing, escalating financial burden borne by every business, large and small, and every person, smoker and nonsmoker, in Rhode Island. This is a health and economic drain created by each new generation of children who begin using tobacco products and become addicted to nicotine. It is the intent of this legislation to preserve and protect the health of children by (1) stopping the illegal sale of tobacco to children, and (2) by severely punishing those who disregard the laws relating to the illegal sale of tobacco products to children(4)

Where smoking not regulated.
This chapter is not intended to regulate smoking in the following places and under the following conditions within the state:
(1) A private home which may serve as a workplace;
(2) Any office space leased or rented by a sole independent contractor for his or her own use;
(3) A private enclosed workplace occupied exclusively by smokers, even though this workplace is visited by nonsmokers, excepting places in which smoking is prohibited by the fire marshal or by other law, ordinance, or regulation.(5)

Sources for this page:

  1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/smoking/Story/0,2763,343669,00.html for time line... click here.

  2. http://www.courttv.com/legalcafe/health/smoking/smoking_background.html for still burning... click here.

  3. http://www.ritobaccocontrolnet.com/pubplace.htm for RI laws... click here.

  4. http://www.ritobaccocontrolnet.com/statlaws.htm for RI school laws... click here.

  5. http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE23/23-20-7/S00006.HTM for not regulated... click here.

Click to HOME page.