Search

The objective of this study was to understand the reasons community-based public health organizations in the United States accept or refuse tobacco industry sponsorship. A formative pilot study involving 13 interviews with representatives of AIDS and Domestic Violence organizations in California or the Northeast was used. Semistructured interviews were conducted with leaders and fund-raisers working at AIDS and domestic violence organizations that either accepted grants from the tobacco industry or explicitly refused tobacco corporate support. Respondents that accepted grants did so because they believed that the tangible benefits of additional capacity to serve their constituents outweighed the minimal effect they believed refusing funds could have on tobacco control and prevention. Organizations that refused sponsorship either saw tobacco prevention as part of their mission of promoting overall health or social justice, or expressed concern about public association with the tobacco industry. Public health responses to this phenomenon are most effective when they are informed by the realities facing nonprofit leaders as they grapple with the question of whether to accept industry funds. Further research is needed to determine whether accepting sponsorship results in a change in public opinion about tobacco control. Possible interventions include creating positive publicity for organizations that refuse tobacco industry philanthropy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objectives of the study described in this article were to test whether community-level youth access ordinances reduce adolescents' perceived access to tobacco, purchase attempts, and tobacco use. A telephone survey was performed of a random sample of 3,831 Massachusetts adolescents linked to a database of all town-level youth access ordinances in the state. Respondents' perceived ease of access to tobacco, attempts to purchase tobacco, and tobacco use (ever smoking and current [past 30-day] smoking) were assessed. The association of these outcomes with the characteristics of youth access ordinances in the respondents' town of residence (n = 314) was tested in multilevel analyses that included town-level clustering, controlled for multiple individual and environmental characteristics, including a measure of community-level anti-smoking sentiment. Community-level youth access ordinances were not associated with adolescents' perceived access to tobacco, purchase attempts, or tobacco use, with two exceptions: (1) banning free-standing displays was associated with a 40% reduction in perceived access to tobacco (OR = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.9) and (2) a vending machine ban was associated a 30% higher report of perceived access to tobacco (OR = 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.5). This study found no consistent associations between community-level youth access ordinances and adolescents' perceived access to tobacco, purchase attempts, or smoking prevalence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this study was to assess compliance with Boston's 100% smoke-free bar regulation within the first 3 months of implementation. An observational survey was conducted of a random sample of 102 bars in Boston before and after the smoking ban went into effect. Forty bars were observed both pre- and postban, serving as a true comparison group; 62 additional bars were observed postban only. From preban to postban, highly significant decreases were found in the mean proportion of patrons smoking inside (22.5% to 0.19%, p < 0.0001), in the proportion of bars with smoking patrons (100% to 2.5%, p < 0.0001), and in the average number of ashtrays present in each bar (24 to 0, p < 0.0001). A highly significant increase was found in the average number of 'no smoking' signs posted in each bar (0 to 3.3, p < 0.0001). Within the 3 months immediately following the 100% smoke-free bar regulation in Boston, bars were highly compliant with the ban, including not allowing patrons and employees to smoke, removing ashtrays, and posting signs indicating that smoking is prohibited. Therefore, with proper time and preparation, public health practitioners can change social norms before a ban goes into effect and can implement smoke-free policies smoothly and with immediate compliance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]