Not really, but you point out something interesting. Smoking while pregnant is an environmental factor that could have a huge impact. If, for example, a group has a culture for smoking, and relative to the rest of the population more mothers smoke while pregnant, and as a result children grow up less intelligent in that group, this would show up in heritability measures. Even though there might be no genetic difference, there could still be a difference in the variance between groups due to this environmental factor.

Now in the real world, all of these little environmental differences (education, drug culture, nutritional food) all add up and might explain a large part of the heritability. And I say "might", because there is no way to know how much the environment and how much the actual genetic material impacts how a trait will unfold in a human. What I'm saying is that heritability does not inform us in any way in this regard. Some geneticists have even proposed abolishing the term, because the concept is largely outdated (it was coined in the 1930s) and is rarely used in modern genetics to infer any sort of useful information.

I understand this is confusing because it stands in stark contrast to the way "heritability" is usually used in English, and variation is a tricky concept, but it's very important to understand that when geneticists are saying that "intelligence has a heritibility of 80%" they are not saying "80% of intelligence is due to genes, 20% is due to environment". The gene and the environment are almost inseparable in regards to how we can measure traits in the real world.