Hotel smoking policies and their implementation: a survey of California hotel managers.

BACKGROUND: Most states in the U.S. permit hotels to allow smoking in some guest rooms, and only five (Indiana, Michigan, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wisconsin) require that all hotel and motel rooms be 100% smoke-free (State and local 100% smokefree hotel and motel guest room laws enacted as of July 3, 2017). Little is known, however, about how hotels' smoking policies have been implemented. This study examined hotels' smoking policies and their implementation. METHODS: A telephone survey of a random sample of 383 California hotel managers was conducted. RESULTS: Overall, 60.6% of hotels reported that smoking was prohibited in all guest rooms, and 4.7% reported that smoking was prohibited everywhere on their property. While California law permitted smoking in up to 65% of guest rooms, only 6.9% of rooms were reported as smoking-permitted. Over 90% of hotels had smoking rooms scattered among nonsmoking rooms, and about half of the smoking hotels reported that guests requesting either smoking or nonsmoking rooms were sometimes assigned to the other room type. When guests smoked in nonsmoking rooms fees could be substantial, but were often uncollected. CONCLUSIONS: Hotel smoking policies and their implementation fall short of protecting nonsmoking guests and workers from exposure to secondhand and thirdhand smoke. Complete indoor smoking bans for all hotels are needed to close existing loopholes. Nonsmokers who wish to protect themselves from exposure to tobacco smoke should avoid hotels that permit smoking and instead stay in completely smoke-free hotels.

Thirdhand smoke and exposure in California hotels: non-smoking rooms fail to protect non-smoking hotel guests from tobacco smoke exposure.

INTRODUCTION: This study examined tobacco smoke pollution (also known as thirdhand smoke, THS) in hotels with and without complete smoking bans and investigated whether non-smoking guests staying overnight in these hotels were exposed to tobacco smoke pollutants. METHODS: A stratified random sample of hotels with (n=10) and without (n=30) complete smoking bans was examined. Surfaces and air were analysed for tobacco smoke pollutants (ie, nicotine and 3-ethynylpyridine, 3EP). Non-smoking confederates who stayed overnight in guestrooms provided urine and finger wipe samples to determine exposure to nicotine and the tobacco-specific carcinogen 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone as measured by their metabolites cotinine and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL), respectively. FINDINGS: Compared with hotels with complete smoking bans, surface nicotine and air 3EP were elevated in non-smoking and smoking rooms of hotels that allowed smoking. Air nicotine levels in smoking rooms were significantly higher than those in non-smoking rooms of hotels with and without complete smoking bans. Hallway surfaces outside of smoking rooms also showed higher levels of nicotine than those outside of non-smoking rooms. Non-smoking confederates staying in hotels without complete smoking bans showed higher levels of finger nicotine and urine cotinine than those staying in hotels with complete smoking bans. Confederates showed significant elevations in urinary NNAL after staying in the 10 most polluted rooms. CONCLUSIONS: Partial smoking bans in hotels do not protect non-smoking guests from exposure to tobacco smoke and tobacco-specific carcinogens. Non-smokers are advised to stay in hotels with complete smoking bans. Existing policies exempting hotels from complete smoking bans are ineffective.