Fact Sheet on Secondhand Smoke (cont.) |
| James. Repace, MSc., Physicist
Ichiro Kawachi, PhD, Associate Professor
Stanton Glantz, PhD., Professor
9/1/99 |
SHS Lessons from California
- It is possible to reduce tobacco use, and thus nonsmokers’ exposure to SHS rapidly through an
aggressive anti-tobacco advertising campaign combined with community-based programs that stress
changes in the social norms around tobacco, to create a smoke free society.
- A successful program is not simply directed at keeping children from smoking, but protecting
nonsmokers from secondhand smoke and creating environments that facilitate smokers' decisions to
cut down or quit.
- A successful campaign de-legitimizes both tobacco use and the tobacco industry. Industry
de-normalization is the foundation upon which a successful campaign is based.
- When the California program followed these principles, the rate of decline in tobacco
consumption tripled and the rate of decline in smoking prevalence increased significantly.
When the [Governor] Wilson Administration toned down and scaled back the program, including
shifting the focus to children, the progress slowed or stopped.
- The single most important target -- for both the tobacco industry and public health -- is young
adults.
- They are open to pro-health messages because they are having kids (and concerned about
secondhand smoke) and going to work in smoke free environments.
The SHS issue is of vital importance to the tobacco industry: In 1978, before the first research linking SHS and
lung cancer was published, a secret study (Roper, 1978) commissioned by the Tobacco Institute, the tobacco
industry’s lobbying and political arm in the United States, observed:
What the smoker does to himself may be his business, but what the smoker does to the non-smoker is quite a
different matter. . . .
This we see as the most dangerous development to viability of the tobacco industry that has yet occurred.7
[emphasis added]
Ten years later, in 1988, a secret marketing study conducted for Imperial Tobacco(1988) in Canada was even more
explicit about the dangers of the passive smoking issue:
The shift to social pressure has also moved to high gear. Passive smoking has moved from a fringe
issue, to by-laws, to the implementation of smoking restrictions in the work-place. Smoking restrictions have
moved from abstract discussion to practice. This increasing social isolation of the smoker will not only
increase his ill-ease with smoking, but will also have a measurable effect on daily usage ratesresulting
in overall industry losses.8
[emphasis in original]
The tobacco industry has tried very hard to obfuscate the facts presented in this report. It is hoped that this fact sheet will provide readers with the basic information needed to effect smoke-free workplaces in their countries.
Click a link below to continue reading the fact sheet:
[ Abstract ]
[ Introduction ]
[ Secondhand Smoke and Cardiovascular Disease ]
[ Secondhand Smoke Exposure ]
[ Smoke-Free Restaurant Laws ]
SHS Lessons from California
[ Conclusions ]
[ Technical Appendices ]
