Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Apr;19 Suppl 1(Suppl_1):i16-20.
doi: 10.1136/tc.2009.030718.

Policy-driven tobacco control

Affiliations

Policy-driven tobacco control

John A Francis et al. Tob Control. 2010 Apr.

Abstract

Background: Since the passage of Proposition 99, California's comprehensive tobacco control programme has benefited from a localised policy adoption process that allows for the innovation and diffusion of strong local tobacco control policies throughout the state.

Methods: The policy adoption continuum is described in the context of California's smoke-free workplace movement, and the influence of policy-driven tobacco control initiatives on social norms, behaviour and the public's health was examined.

Results: The Smoke-free California policy adoption continuum reflects a general approach for policy innovation and diffusion that builds social acceptance and influences social norms, while minimising unintended consequences and creating best practices in tobacco control. California's local smoke-free workplace policies have reduced secondhand smoke exposure and supported attitude and behaviour changes. The effects of local policy adoption led to the nation's first statewide smoke-free workplace law.

Conclusions: Proposition 99 created an unprecedented tobacco control infrastructure that supported local policy innovation and diffusion to influence social norms and behaviours. Tobacco control policy efforts should address campaign challenges, oppose pre-emption and confront tobacco industry influence. Advocates must be cautious of pursuing a statewide policy prematurely, as it may result in a weak and/or pre-emptive policy that can stymie local policy efforts and prolong the adoption of a meaningful statewide policy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Proportion of local smoke-free ordinances by time period. Sources: Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights Local Tobacco Control Ordinance Database, 1970–2008; California's Clean Air Project Secondhand Smoke Policy Database, 2004–2008; The Center for Tobacco Policy and Organizing, 2004–2008.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Cumulative local secondhand smoke. Policies and secondhand smoke reporting. Sources: California adult tobacco survey and California Tobacco Survey; Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights Local Tobacco Control Ordinance Database, 1970–2008.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Percentage of California smokers and non-smokers that prefer smoke-free restaurants, 1994–2007. Source: California adult tobacco survey, 1994–2007. Prepared by California Department of Public Health, California Tobacco Control Program, 2009.

References

    1. Aquilino ML, Lowe JB. Approaches to tobacco control: the evidence base. Eur J Dent Educ 2004;8(Suppl 4):11–17 - PubMed
    1. Isaacs SL, Knickman JR, Series Editor . A Pathway to “Tobacco Control Policy”: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Series on Health Policy, 2006
    1. California Department of Health Services, Tobacco control section A model for change: the california experience in tobacco control. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Health Services, 1998
    1. Cummings KM. Community-wide interventions for tobacco control. Nicotine Tob Res 1999;1(Suppl_1):S113–16 - PubMed
    1. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th edn New York, NY: Free Press, 2003

MeSH terms

Substances

LinkOut - more resources