HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (5) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Tsoukalas, T. Articles by Glantz, S. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Tsoukalas, T. Articles by Glantz, S. A. Related Collections Community Health Other Tobacco Tobacco Control Secondhand Smoke

Theodore Tsoukalas, PhD and Stanton A. Glantz, PhD

The authors are with the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Stanton A. Glantz, PhD, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, Box 1390, 530 Parnassas Ave, San Francisco, CA 94143-1390 (e-mail: glantz{at}medicine.ucsf.edu).

Case study methodology was used to investigate the tobacco industry’s strategies to fight local tobacco control efforts in Duluth, Minn.

The industry opposed the clean indoor air ordinance indirectly through allies and front groups and directly in a referendum. Health groups failed to win a strong ordinance because they framed it as a youth issue rather than a workplace issue and failed to engage the industry’s economic claims. Opponents’ overexploitation of weaknesses in the ordinance allowed health advocates to construct a stronger version.

Health advocates should assume that the tobacco industry will oppose all local tobacco control measures indirectly, directly, or both. Clean indoor air ordinances should be framed as workplace safety issues.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. J. Tung, Y. H. Hendlin, and S. A. Glantz Competing Initiatives: A New Tobacco Industry Strategy to Oppose Statewide Clean Indoor Air Ballot Measures Am J Public Health, March 1, 2009; 99(3): 430 - 439. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. L. York and E. J. Hahn The Community Readiness Model: Evaluating Local Smoke-Free Policy Development Policy Politics Nursing Practice, August 1, 2007; 8(3): 184 - 200. [Abstract] [PDF]

				V. Cokkinides, P. Bandi, E. Ward, A. Jemal, and M. Thun Progress and opportunities in tobacco control. CA Cancer J Clin, May 1, 2006; 56(3): 135 - 142. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. W. Greathouse, E. J. Hahn, C. T. C. Okoli, T. A. Warnick, and C. A. Riker Passing a Smoke-Free Law in a Pro-Tobacco Culture: A Multiple Streams Approach Policy Politics Nursing Practice, August 1, 2005; 6(3): 211 - 220. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J K Ibrahim, T H Tsoukalas, and S A Glantz Public health foundations and the tobacco industry: lessons from Minnesota Tob. Control, September 1, 2004; 13(3): 228 - 236. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L L Mandel and S A Glantz Hedging their bets: tobacco and gambling industries work against smoke-free policies Tob. Control, September 1, 2004; 13(3): 268 - 276. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. K. Ong and S. A. Glantz Free Nicotine Replacement Therapy Programs vs Implementing Smoke-Free Workplaces: A Cost-Effectiveness Comparison Am J Public Health, June 1, 2005; 95(6): 969 - 975. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]