Advertisement

A Population Survey on Legislative Measures to Restrict Smoking in Ontario: 2. Knowledge, Attitudes, and Predicted Behavior

      This paper is only available as a PDF. To read, Please Download here.
      From the results of a population survey (n = 1,383) in the province of Ontario on legislative measures to restrict cigarette smoking we conclude that more is known about the adverse effects of active smoking than about those of passive smoking. Most people supported some degree of restriction in 13 specified locations. A majority supported total bans on smoking in day care and health-related facilities. Most respondents thought municipal governments should be responsible for legislating such bans and owner/managers responsible for enforcing them. However, there were a variety of opinions on the effectiveness of legislation in helping people to quit smoking. Responses differed slightly according to the geographic locations of the respondents, with residents of urban areas with bylaws being more restrictive. We suggest that such opinions and attitudes be studied further before legislative measures are enacted, so that all segments of the population are satisfied and unnecessary conflicts can be avoided.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Pederson L.L.
        • Bull S.B.
        • Ashley M.J.
        • Lefcoe N.M.
        A population survey on legislative measures to restrict smoking in Ontario. I. Design, methodology and sample representativeness.
        Am J Prev Med. 1986; : 307-315
        • Cochran W.G.
        Sampling techniques. 3rd ed. John Wiley and Sons, Toronto1977
        • Hidiroglou M.A.
        • Fuller W.A.
        • Hickman R.D.
        Supercarp. 6th ed. Statistical Laboratory, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa1980
        • Nathan G.
        On the asymptotic power of tests for independence in contingency tables from stratified samples.
        J Am Stat Assoc. 1972; 67: 917-920
        • Haggstrom G.W.
        Logistic regression and discriminant analysis by ordinary least squares.
        J Bus Econ Stat. 1983; 1: 229-238
        • Anderson J.A.
        Separate sample logistic discrimination.
        Biometrika. 1972; 59: 119-135
        • US Public Health Service
        Smoking and health: a report of the surgeon general. US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, DC1979 (DHEW publication no. (PHS) 79-50066)
        • US Public Health Service
        The health consequences of smoking for women: a report of the surgeon general. US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC1980
        • US Public Health Service
        The health consequences of smoking: cancer. US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC1982 (DHHS publication no. (PHS) 82-50179)
        • US Public Health Service
        The health consequences of smoking: cardiovascular disease. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC1983 (DHHS publication no. (PHS) 84-50204)
        • US Public Health Service
        The health consequences of smoking: chronic obstructive lung disease. US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC1984 (DHHS publication no. (PHS) 84-50205)
        • Lefcoe N.M.
        • Ashley M.J.
        • Pederson L.L.
        • Keays J.J.
        The health risks of passive smoking: the growing case for control measures in enclosed environments.
        Chest. 1983; 84: 90-95
        • Fielding J.E.
        Smoking: health effects and control (first of two parts.
        N Engl J Med. 1985; 313: 493-498
        • Weiss S.T.
        • Tager I.B.
        • Schenker M.
        • Speizer F.E.
        State of the art: the health effects of involuntary smoking.
        Am Rev Resp Dis. 1983; 128: 933-942
      1. ETS—Environmental tobacco smoke: report from a workshop on effects and exposure levels.
        in: Rylander R. Peterson Y. Snella M-C. Eur J Respir Dis. 1984: 65
      2. The Gallup Poll. Smoking level declines as more perceive health hazard. August 31, 1981 (news release).

        • Gallup Opinion Index
        Smoking in America: public attitudes and behavior.
        Gallup Opinion Index. 1978; 155: 1-30
        • Bjartveit K.
        • Lochsen P.M.
        • Aaro L.E.
        Controlling the epidemic: legislation and restrictive measures.
        Can J Public Health. 1981; 72: 406-412
        • Brumback C.L.
        The politics of smoking prevention: a report from the field.
        J Public Health Policy. 1981; 2: 36-41
        • Donahue F.J.
        • Capshaw V.
        The great smoking survey.
        Am Lung Assoc Bull. 1977; : 2-5
        • Gottier P.L.
        No smoking in public places—the law is working.
        Am Lung Assoc Bull. 1979; : 10-13
        • National Clearinghouse for Smoking and Health
        Adult use of tobacco—1975.
        in: Wakefield J. Public education about cancer. Recent research and current programmes.26. 1977: 8-27 (UICC Technical Report Series)
        • Northcott H.C.
        • Jarvis G.K.
        Government influence, media influence and quitting smoking.
        Can J Public Health. 1981; 72: 447-450
        • Porter F.T.H.
        Assessing public reaction to an antismoking campaign.
        Ontario Med Review. 1969; 36: 217-224
        • Sanford M.
        • Geiser M.T.
        • Czesak K.
        Report on the impact of the Berkeley Smoking Ordinance Control Act of 1977. Wright Institute, Berkeley1978
        • Shephard R.J.
        • LaBarre R.
        Current attitudes toward smoking in Toronto.
        Can J Public Health. 1978; 69: 121-126
        • WHO Expert Committee on Smoking Control
        Controlling the smoking epidemic. Technical report, series 636. WHO, Geneva1979
        • Warner K.E.
        Cigarette taxation: doing good by doing well.
        J Public Health Policy. 1984; : 312-319
      3. Ontario Council of Health. Smoking and health in Ontario: a need for balance. Report of the Task Force on Smoking. Ontario Council of Health, 1982.

        • Royal College of Physicians of London
        Health or smoking? Follow-up report of the Royal College of Physicians of London. Pitman Publishing Ltd, London1983
        • US Public Health Service
        The health consequences of smoking. The changing cigarette: a report of the surgeon general. 1981; (DHHS publication no. (PHS) 81-50156)