State Preemption and Local Tobacco Control: Constraints and Opportunities for Innovation in the US

Rishika Chakraborty, Micah L. Berman, Y. Tony Yang, Yan Li, Yan Wang, Debra Bernat, Sabrina Zhang and Carla J. Berg ()
Additional contact information
Rishika Chakraborty: Center for Health Policy and Media Engagement, School of Nursing, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA
Micah L. Berman: College of Public Health & Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
Y. Tony Yang: Center for Health Policy and Media Engagement, School of Nursing, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA
Yan Li: Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA
Yan Wang: George Washington Cancer Center, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA
Debra Bernat: George Washington Cancer Center, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA
Sabrina Zhang: Joint Program for Survey Methodology, School of Behavioral and Social Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA
Carla J. Berg: George Washington Cancer Center, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA

IJERPH, 2025, vol. 22, issue 6, 1-12

Abstract: State preemption of local laws may impede tobacco control, yet little research has examined local policy activity before, during, and after preemption. This study addresses this gap. We summarized state laws preempting local smoke-free workplace, youth access, and licensure laws (CDC’s STATE) and local legislative activity before, during, and after preemption (Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation) across 1999–2021. Preemption existed for smoke-free workplaces in 18 states, youth access in 21, and licensure in 13. Regarding smoke-free workplace laws, local laws were passed in 5 of 11 states with preemption throughout; among seven states with partial-period preemption, local laws were enacted before preemption or after repeal in three states but during preemption in two. Regarding youth access, localities adopted laws (e.g., addressing purchase/use/possession or e-cigarettes) in 11 of 18 states with preemption throughout; among the three states with partial-period preemption, localities passed laws before preemption in one state and during preemption in two. For licensure, localities passed laws (e.g., licensing requirements/penalties) in eight of nine states with preemption throughout and three of four states with partial-period preemption. Although state preemption reduced local activity, some localities advanced tobacco control during preemption, underscoring the need for localities to exercise autonomy permitted under preemption.

Keywords: tobacco control; tobacco policy; health policy; tobacco use; preemption (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/22/6/827/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/22/6/827/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:22:y:2025:i:6:p:827-:d:1663303

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().