» Articles » PMID: 14985593

Changes in Population Attitudes About Where Smoking Should Not Be Allowed: California Versus the Rest of the USA

Overview
Journal Tob Control
Specialty Psychiatry
Date 2004 Feb 27
PMID 14985593
Citations 51
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The decade long California Tobacco Control Program is unique to the nation in its duration, emphasis, and level of funding. Programme emphasis is on changing social norms about smoking as a means to discourage smoking and thus reduce the harmful health effects of tobacco to the population.

Methods: Data from the 1992-93, 1995-96, and 1998-99 Tobacco Use Supplements to the national Current Population Survey (n > 175 000 each period) were used to examine changes in norms regarding where smoking should "not be allowed at all" in both California and in the rest of the USA. Venues queried were restaurants, hospitals, work areas, bars, indoor sports venues, and indoor shopping malls.

Results: There were substantial increases in the percentages of the adult population (18+ years) stating that smoking should not be allowed in the venues queried in California by 1998-99 compared to 1992-93; only modest increases were observed in the rest of the USA. In fact, for most venues, the percentages for the rest of the USA were lower in 1998-99 than in California in 1992-93. Further, the percentage increase over this period in respondents stating that smoking should not be allowed in four or more of the six venues was 30% in California and 23% in the rest of the USA. The most dramatic percentage increase in California occurred among current smokers (93%).

Conclusions: A strong, comprehensive tobacco control programme such as California's can influence population norms, including those of smokers, with respect to where smoking should not be allowed.

Citing Articles

Tobacco harm perceptions, regulatory attitudes, and cessation intentions before and after the COVID-19 lockdown in California.

Beylin N, Song A, Epperson A Health Psychol Open. 2024; 11:20551029241306095.

PMID: 39628923 PMC: 11613243. DOI: 10.1177/20551029241306095.


Effects of smoke-free government policy in Qingdao, China: Evidence from the path analysis.

Jiang N, Wang R, Duan H, Ma Z, Huo L, Jia X PLoS One. 2023; 18(8):e0289658.

PMID: 37535592 PMC: 10399730. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289658.


The Role of Ethnicity and Nativity in the Correspondence between Subjective and Objective Measures of In-Home Smoking.

Berardi V, Bostean G, Ong L, Wong B, Collins B, Hovell M J Immigr Minor Health. 2021; 24(5):1214-1223.

PMID: 34837590 PMC: 9793886. DOI: 10.1007/s10903-021-01307-3.


Effects of State Preemption of Local Smoke-Free Restrictions on US Adult Cigarette Smoking Prevalence, 1997 to 2017.

Yang Y, Stratmann T, Pillai D J Gen Intern Med. 2021; 37(10):2591-2593.

PMID: 34495465 PMC: 9360284. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-021-07115-7.


Estimating the impact of state cigarette tax rates on smoking behavior: Addressing endogeneity using a natural experiment.

Dunbar M, Nicosia N, Kilmer B Drug Alcohol Depend. 2021; 225:108807.

PMID: 34182370 PMC: 8354028. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.108807.


References
1.
Gilpin E, Farkas A, Emery S, Ake C, Pierce J . Clean indoor air: advances in California, 1990-1999. Am J Public Health. 2002; 92(5):785-91. PMC: 1447162. DOI: 10.2105/ajph.92.5.785. View

2.
Pierce J, Macaskill P, Hill D . Long-term effectiveness of mass media led antismoking campaigns in Australia. Am J Public Health. 1990; 80(5):565-9. PMC: 1404648. DOI: 10.2105/ajph.80.5.565. View

3.
Scollo M, Lal A, Hyland A, Glantz S . Review of the quality of studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry. Tob Control. 2003; 12(1):13-20. PMC: 1759095. DOI: 10.1136/tc.12.1.13. View