Changes in population attitudes about where smoking should not be allowed: California versus the rest of the USA

Tobacco Control

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 38-44

  Gilpin, E A ^a   Lee, L ^a   Pierce, J P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMBIENT AIR; ARTICLE; CATERING SERVICE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH SURVEY; HOSPITAL; HUMAN; PATIENT ATTITUDE; SMOKING; SMOKING CESSATION; SOCIAL ASPECT; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; ATTITUDE; CALIFORNIA; HUMANS; PUBLIC HEALTH; SMOKING; UNITED STATES;

EID: 7644230681     PISSN: 09644563     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/tc.2003.004739     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Centers for Disease Control. Best practices for comprehensive tobacco control programs - August 1999. Atlanta, Georgia: Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 1999.
2. st Century 2000-2003. Sacramento: California Department of Health Services, Tobacco Control Section, January, 2000.
3. Gilpin EA, Farkas AJ, Emery SL, et al. Clean indoor air: advances in California, 1990-1999. Am J Public Health 2002;92:785-91.
4. US Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The health consequences of smoking. A report of the Surgeon General, 1972. Washington, DC. National Clearinghouse for Smoking and Health, 1972. (DHEW Publication No (HSM) 72-7516).
5. US Department of Health and Human Services. The health consequences of involuntary smoking. A report of the Surgeon General, 1986. Rockville, Maryland: Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, 1986. (DHHS Publication No (CDC) 87-8398).
6. US Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory health effects of passive smoking: lung cancer and other disorders. Washington, DC: Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, 1992. (Publication No EPA/600/6-90/006F).
7. California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). Health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke: final report. Sacramento, California: Office of Environmentall Health Hazard Assessment, 1997.
8. National Cancer Institute. Health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke: the report of the California Environmental Protection Agency. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 10. Bethesda, Maryland: National Cancer institute, 1999. (NIH publication 99-4645).
9. Hansen RH. The Current Population Survey: design and methodology. Technical paper No.40. Washington DC: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1985.
10. US Department of Commerce. Current Population Survey. Design and methodology. Technical Paper 63. Washington DC: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 2000.
11. Westat. WesVar 4.0 user's guide. Rockville, Maryland: Westat, 2000.
12. US Department of Health and Human Services. Tobacco use in 1980. Methods & basic tabulations from adult use of tobacco survey. Bethesda, Maryland: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 1990.
13. Scollo M, Lal A, Hyland A, et al. Review of the quality of studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry. Tobacco Control 2003;12:13-20.
14. Pierce JP, Macaskill P, Hill D. Long-term effectiveness of mass media led antismoking campaigns in Australia. Am J Pub Health 1990;80:565-9.
15. Gilpin EA, Emery SL, Farkas AJ, et al. The California Tobacco Control Program: a decade of progress, results from the California Tobacco Surveys, 1990-1999. La Jolla, California: University of California, San Diego, 2001.