policy-driven tobacco control

by:YEROO     2019-11-02
Since the adoption of proposal 99, California\'s comprehensive tobacco control program has benefited from a localized policy adoption process that allows innovation and promotion of strong local tobacco control policies across the state.
Methods description of policy adoption continuum in California\'s smoke background
Free Workplace movement and the impact of policies
Tobacco control initiatives in social norms, behaviour and public health were reviewed.
Results smoke-
California freedom policy adoption continuum reflects a general approach to policy innovation and dissemination that establishes social acceptance and influence social norms, while minimizing unintended consequences and creating in tobacco control
Local smoke in California
The free workplace policy reduces exposure to second-hand smoke and supports changes in attitudes and behaviors.
The implementation of local policies led to the first smoking nationwide
Freedom of work.
Conclusion proposal 99 created an unprecedented tobacco control infrastructure to support local policy innovation and dissemination to influence social norms and behaviour.
The efforts of tobacco control policy should meet the challenges of the movement.
The influence of the tobacco industry.
Advocates must be careful to pursue statewide policy too early as this can lead to weakness and/or advance
Pre-emptive policies can hinder local policy efforts and extend the implementation time of statewide policies.
California tobacco control advocates have been using voluntary and legislative policy procedures as tools for long-term production for more than 20 years
Sustainable impact on the health of their communities.
In general, tobacco control policies can be divided into three categories according to intent :(1)
Educate individuals and behaviors that affect health ,(2)
Causing economic restraint or (3)
Manage the production, distribution or use of the product
The adoption of the 1 2 method continues the creation of the 99 proposal and the California Tobacco Control Plan (CTCP)
A statewide infrastructure was created to lay the foundation for a localized policy adoption process, which in turn allowed innovation, dissemination and refinement of tobacco control policies while minimizing unintended consequences.
3 4 Everett M Rogers defines the dissemination of innovation as \"the process of innovation spreading among members of the social system through specific channels over time, the adopters of innovation are divided into five categories: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards.
5 innovation and refinement of specific policies may occur in a range of policy types that have different impacts on social norms and public health.
The voluntary policy may be passed by any individual or entity and may only be authorized by a person who agrees to be governed by that entity.
For example, 6 people can limit smoking at home, business owners can voluntarily limit smoking, and owners of apartment complexes have the legal ability to voluntarily limit or prohibit smoking anywhere (
Including within the unit)
Their property.
Voluntary policies, however, are difficult to implement, generally limited in scope, are not easy to track and measure, and generally do not have legal effect.
8 despite these weaknesses, voluntary policy remains an important tool in the context of pre-enactment of legislative policies
Replaced by federal or state law, or not politically feasible at all.
Any government or committee authorized to make formal rules, such as the city, county, tribe, fair board, transit authority or housing authority, may make local resolutions and general resolutions or regulations.
6 The resolution reflects the formal written decision adopted by the governing body to encourage and promote specific actions or desired results.
As with the voluntary policy, resolutions are generally non-enforceable and have limited scope.
Local legislative regulations are laws that reflect the tasks or directives that a person in a particular jurisdiction must comply.
Legislative policies are relatively easy to track and measure, and violations are often subject to legal penalties such as fines, imprisonment or court orders.
Legislative policies are also affected by efforts by the tobacco industry to influence, weaken or veto policy adoption.
9-16 given the tobacco industry\'s lack of credibility in many communities, their efforts on the ground are often indirect, focusing on advocating individual rights and arguing about the science of \"garbage, and provide the wrong calculation of the economic impact on local enterprises.
13 17 18 the power of the policy and the power of the iterative policy depend on many factors, including: Restrictions, penalties, implementation, implementation, public support, compliance and lack of exemptions.
Strong policies will include all of these factors and provide guidance on who can enforce and in what capacity.
Compliance with specific policies will depend on knowledge, social acceptance and successful implementation of policies.
Using Rogers\'s model, innovation and dissemination of specific policies in different jurisdictions allows for improvements or modifications of policies.
This becomes an iterative process that can help society to accept, identify policy loopholes, and strengthen protection and enforceability.
While few communities fall within the category of innovators or early adop, the rate of diffusion (Policy adoption)
This will increase as jurisdictions become more confident in revising and adopting similar or stronger policies.
Other factors affecting policy intensity and innovation include community size and political environment, as well as social and geographic proximity to communities similar to other policies.
Across the state, the iterative process of policy adoption can occur at any government level, and the pursuit of statewide policy should reflect best practices and establish meaningful standards, these criteria do not negate or limit local policy efforts for future innovation.
2 3 at the national level, the tobacco industry is more likely to oppose, and doubts about the legal and economic impact of a policy have increased, as well as the previousemption (pre-
Emption is a state legislature (or Congress)
Deprived of the rights of smaller political branches to make laws in a certain policy area).
Without strong public support for a policy,
Pre-emptive policies may lead to low compliance, minimal impact on protection and behavior, and may stifle local policy innovation.
This paper describes policy adoption continuum in the context of California smoke
Free Workplace movement and examine the impact of policies
Promote tobacco control initiatives in social norms, behaviour and public health.
While the other 22 states have taken stronger smoke across the state
California population size (free policy)37 million), diversity (56% non-white)
Geographical distribution (20% rural)
, 23 and the number of local jurisdictions (537)
On the 24 th, it called for participation in the local strategic tobacco policy.
In addition, California reflects the broad political diversity that affects tobacco control policy efforts.
For example, the recent 2006 vote initiative raised the national cigarette tax by $2.
60 people per pack said 67% of voters in San Francisco supported, while only 25% in Glen County.
25 In addition, few countries have experienced the extent to which the tobacco industry has tried to influence local and state smoke --
Free legislation.
13 26 results smoke-
Free California: pre-approval policy for proposal 99city or county)smoke-
California\'s free workplace policy began in the 1970 s, when local
Smokers Rights Group 13 starts advocating specific designation of smoke
Free enclosed space including elevator, lobby, meeting room, public meeting and final public building.
The initial smoke
The free workplace policy follows a 1972 surgeon report that questions the health risks of secondhand smoke exposure, but before the first important study on secondhand smoke and lung cancer in 1981.
28 29 then, 5 years later, the report of the general manager of the 1986 surgeon concluded that second-hand smoke in the non-smokers.
Intensity of local smoke-
California\'s free policies and the rate of transmission of these policies reflect increasing scientific evidence of the impact of secondhand smoke exposure, as well as changes in public knowledge and attitudes towards smoking and secondhand smoke.
While the policies of the jurisdictions vary, protection measures have generally strengthened over time.
Smoke in California
At the time the CTCP was implemented in 1989, California\'s cities or counties had passed more than 250 workplace regulations.
27 while programme funding and smoke have increased --
Over 1990 years, the presence of the tobacco industry in local communities in California has increased.
From 1991 to 1992, the tobacco industry spent more than $2 on local policy efforts in California. 4 million.
31 in response to the public\'s negative attitude towards the tobacco industry, mainly through smokers rights groups, business organizations, and ultimately through public affairs groups and sports companies, the efforts of the local industry are coordinated.
The tobacco industry often targets well-known communities in California with a focus on denigrating science, potential economic impact, implementing costs and amendments to weaken policies.
In 1987, for example, the tobacco industry strongly opposed smoking.
By creating the Beverly Hills restaurant association, Beverly Hills free regulations.
Using the association, the industry was able to overturn the regulation six months after it passed it.
However, in the early 1990 s, local smoke
Free workplace regulations continue to spread and strengthen across the state.
In June 1990, the city of Lodi, California became the first city in the United States to pass a decree containing 100% smoke --
Free restaurant.
Two months later, San Luis Obispo, California, began its first smoking campaign in the country. free bar law.
28 due to local propaganda efforts and coordination of the statewide movement, more than 100 local residents in California smokefree (100%)
Restaurant policy before 1994.
28. from local to statewide policy, the first two attempts to adopt statewide workplace policy took place at the end of 1970, reflecting 1977 policies in Berkeley, California, which created smoking and non-smoking
Smoking in some restaurants.
After hundreds of local cigarettes were adopted
Free workplace policy and the adoption of proposal 99, the tobacco industry recognized
Taking pre-emptive policies across the state could reverse current local policies and curb the impact of local efforts.
The first industry
A bill supported by the Senate (SB)
376. once the media disclosed the extent to which the tobacco industry was involved, it failed in 1991.
13 motion of the conference (AB)
2667 put forward the first comprehensive pumping-
The free Work Act of 1992, but in the pre-
Will reduce the pre-emptive language of many protections established by local governments.
32 in the second year, when the bill was re-introduced as AB 13, it was divided by tobacco control advocates because of the previous
The pre-emptive language was not deleted.
AB 13 was also hit back by an industry --Act of support (AB 996)
If you meet the basic ventilation standards, you can smoke.
13 32 over 2-
At a one-year legislative session, AB 13 went through 11 am changes, and the tobacco industry has repeatedly tried to weaken the provisions and create exemptions.
Issued version 1995 of AB 13 provides for 100% smoke-
Free workplaces and restaurants but some exemptions are allowed including 2-
The bar and card room was suspended for one year and later extended to 3 years.
32 about including pre-
Use pre-emptive language in the bill.
Some people think the law
Withdraw from the implementation of AB 13 and the enactment of stronger regulations from local governments, while in fact
Pre-emptive language sets the minimum standards for protection, allowing stronger local smoke to be adopted and executedfree policies (so-
Known as \"front of the floor\"emption’).
33 adoption of local smoke-
After the passage of AB 13, the Liberal policy slowed sharply (figure 1).
While some believe this is due to the chilling effect caused by the new law, 22 this is more likely due to a programme shift in state and local tobacco control efforts to protect AB 13 and promote local implementation.
Future Innovation of local tobacco
Free policy designed to eliminate exemptions in AB 13 and create smoke
Free outdoor space.
Figure 1 proportion of local smoke-
Free regulations by time period.
Source: database of local tobacco control regulations in the United States, 1970-2008;
Second-hand smoke policy database of clean air program in California, 2004-2008;
Center for Tobacco policy organizations, 2004-2008.
Smoke in California-
Freedom movement provides a context for testing the development and impact of tobacco
Relevant policy efforts.
For the purposes of explanation, the discussion is organized by the following four concepts :(1)policy-
Tobacco Control ,(2)
Changes in social norms ,(3)
The policy is not typical ,(4)emerging smoke-
Free outdoor policy. Policy-
The Tobacco Control Center has funded local programs to transform the environment in which people start smoking and are able to quit smoking with the goal of \"banning\" tobacco use.
This work is carried out at the community level in four priority areas :(1)
Eliminate exposure to second-hand smoke ,(2)
To reveal and combat the impact of the tobacco industry ,(3)
Reduce tobacco products and (4)
Stop service is provided.
34 The paradigm of social norm change shows that
Through the adoption and implementation of policies, long-term changes will occur.
Changes in social norms often begin with public apathy and need to raise public awareness in order to achieve the social attention needed to solve problems.
3 34 a strong policy should be sustainable and hardly need to be maintained after implementation to enable programmes to pursue future tobacco --
Relevant policies.
Policy efforts should also be considered as policy refinement and promotion from local to state.
In reviewing the terms and exemptions in the local policies passed before 1994, state laws passed in California before 1994 may include additional exemptions (eg, bars)and/or pre-emption.
On the contrary, if there is more time to strengthen local policies and further increase the demand for smoking,
California\'s free space may have passed a stronger statewide policy with fewer exemptions.
More than 20 years after the adoption of proposal 99, the other 22 states have adopted stronger statewide integrated policies, but have not adopted as many local policies as possible in the first place as California 35 has;
However, the experience of local improvement and promotion in California provides information for policy processes in other states and reflects enhanced evidence about the health impact of secondhand smoke exposure.
After the 2006 Surgeon General report concluded that there was no level of safe exposure, the biggest barrier in 36 states remained weak and was in
Pre-emptive law across the state
If the intent of the policy is not clear or is affected by a competitive interest, the strength and impact of the policy may also be minimized.
This, in turn, could prevent future policy adoption.
For example, due to a statewide smoking exemption in California --
California\'s free workplace policy is excluded from smoking recognition
Free State of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The recent attempt to remove the exemption across the state failed.
In the AB 2007 1467 veto message, the governor did not agree to impose further restrictions on businesses and suggested that as an alternative strategy, \"increase smoking cessation services provided through an efficient California smokers help hotline \".
37 social norms change in the paradigm of social norms change, tobacco control policy is regarded as a measurable, short-termterm outcome.
3 9 whether the policy is for tobacco prices, exposure to second-hand smoke, tobacco acquisition, or for the tobacco industry, the results of successful implementation of the policy will eventually produce intermediate results, for example, comply with policies, reduce consumption and increase exit attempts.
In the case of smoking
Free workplace policies, improved policies and dissemination help reduce involuntary exposure to second-hand smoke.
Figure 2 shows the cumulative amount of local smoke-
Free policy to report smoking percentage-
Free workplace and non
Exposure in California
From 1990 to 2005, 2-
Workplace exposure dropped from 29% to 14% per week.
People in California report smoking.
Free indoor work room.
During the same period, the number of daily smokers dropped by 20% from 17. 3 to 13.
Eight cigarettes a day, and more smokers are reportedly considering and trying to quit smoking.
Since the launch of the CTCP, overall cigarette consumption in California has dropped by 60. 8%.
Download figure 2 in the new tabDownload powerpoint to accumulate local second-hand smoke.
Report on policy and secondhand smoke.
Source: California Adult Tobacco Survey and California tobacco survey;
Database of local tobacco control regulations, 1970-2008.
Spread of smoke-
Freedom policy is also related to changes in personal knowledge, attitudes and behaviour.
In addition to the increase in the proportion of smoking --
Free Workplace, smoking support
More and more free restaurants for smokers and non-smokers in Californiasmokers (figure 3).
In addition, between 1996 and 2005, the number of adults who reported smoking-
The number of free homes increased from 64% to 83% (figure 2).
Figure 3 percentage of smokers and non-smokers in California
Smokers who like smoking
Free restaurant, 1994-2007
Source: California Adult Tobacco Survey, 1994-2007.
Written by the California Department of Public Health, California Tobacco Control Program, 2009.
The adoption of atypical policy control policies at the national level was successful without first being implemented locally.
In California, this usually happens when a policy is only feasible through legislative action, or when a policy is only relevant to a particular level of government.
For example, in January 1, 2008, California became the third state in the country (
After Arkansas and Louis Anna
Play a cigarettefree car law.
After four attempts at the California State Legislature, a bill was re-introduced to restrict minors from smoking in cars (under 18)are present.
32. While the aim of this policy is to reduce involuntary exposure to second-hand smoke, regulation of car smoking at the local level is unrealistic and is likely to be unenforceable. Emerging smoke-
Free policy in California, smoking-
Free policy innovation and dissemination are taking place at the voluntary, local and national levels.
Given the knowledge and social needs of smoking
Free space, local jurisdictions have begun to adopt
Free policy designed to reduce exposure to second-hand smoke in outdoor public spaces and multiple public places
Unit housing complex.
Full smoke
Free outdoor policy secondhand smoke in an outdoor setting can cause nuisance and serious health hazards, with 41 specific locations such as entrance passages, outdoor dining areas and bus stops at greater risk of Involuntary Exposure.
In response, some cities have found that health risks are enough to force them to adopt a comprehensive outdoor policy.
Currently, full outdoor smoke
The free policy is defined as at least five of the seven major outdoor areas where smoking is prohibited: outdoor dining areas, entrance passages, public activities, entertainment areas, service areas, sidewalks and workplaces.
42 following the 2006 California Aviation Resources Committee (ARB)
Used smoke as a classification of toxic air pollutants, California 43 44 Calabassas became the first city to adopt and implement full outdoor smokefree policy.
By the end of 2008, the outdoor policy was fully implemented in 20 cities and counties in California. 42Multi-
Local advocates are also working to increase the number of voluntary and legislative policies that provide smoking
Free living space.
While the work is moving towards the protection of private spaces, it is perfectly legal to limit smoking in multiple spaces
Unit housing unit or building.
7 voluntary and local legislative policies are able to limit smoking in residential units, terraces/balconies, and in public areas both indoor and outdoor.
Legislative policies may also limit or limit the provisions of grandparents, classify secondhand smoke as nuisance and require disclosure of smoking policies to potential tenants or buyers.
As of October 2008, 22 California cities had passed local multi-unit housing regulations with cities such as Temecula, Belmonte, kalabassas, Novato and Loma Linda, including those requiring the manufacture of smokefree units.
SB 1598 was introduced in 2008, authorizing landlords to ban smoking in residential units.
32 The purpose of the act is to provide additional legal protection to landlords and to encourage them to adopt a local voluntary policy.
However, the Act proposes a grand provision that would significantly limit the adoption and implementation of future local voluntary policies.
After several amendments and objections were proposed by major voluntary health organizations, the bill was removed from consideration.
32. California protects Africa
Smokers in multi-unit housing continue to develop and public health officials and advocates continue to focus on increasing public awareness and acceptance of multi-unit housing
Unit housing policy to improve the quantity and quality of protection provided at the local level.
Future statewide laws should establish a minimum level of protection without pre-protection
Make it impossible for local jurisdictions to adopt stronger tobacco control policies to reduce secondhand smoke exposure in multiple countries
Unit housing complex.
Conclusion Proposition 99 established an unprecedented tobacco control infrastructure in California and provided funding for local advocacy programs across the state.
The success of the programme is partly due to the country\'s ability to publish a strategic vision, provide training and maintain local tobacco control infrastructure, requiring local health institutions and non-
Government organizations focusing on policies
Promote tobacco control. 34Local policy-
The drive has the capacity to innovate and disseminate policies that support a comprehensive country
Efforts to change social norms and achieve the goal of reducing tobacco
Related diseases and deaths
Improving policies at the local level helps to identify gaps in policies, minimize negative outcomes and increase social acceptance.
These efforts can help to achieve strong, non-pre-emptive state-
Policies to promote local innovation and diffusion.
Premature implementation of national policies could lead to economic weakness
Pre-emptive policies can hinder local policy efforts and extend the implementation time of statewide policies.
The quantity, type and intensity of tobacco at any given time
The relevant policies of various jurisdictions and states vary.
While multiple policies can be implemented simultaneously in a continuous process, state and local programmes must coordinate and prioritize their efforts to maximize the use of limited resources and maintain focus.
Tobacco control programmes and advocates should actively address the challenges of adopting and implementing policies and oppose them
Influence policy processes by exposing history and current practices in the tobacco industry to buy and respond to the impact of the tobacco industry.
46-48 the policy adoption continuum added in this article is proposed in the context of smoke in California
Free Workplace movement and examine the impact of policies
Promote tobacco control initiatives in social norms, behaviour and public health.
This paper discusses the inherent challenges associated with innovation and dissemination of strong tobacco control policies and discusses strategies for the tobacco industry
The dangers of pre-emptive, misunderstood and premature adoption of statewide policy.
With the growth of society\'s demand for smoking and knowledge
The authors discuss new policies aimed at reducing exposure to second-hand smoke in outdoor public spaces and multi-unit residential complexes.
Referee Aquino ML, Lao JB.
Methods of tobacco control: Evidence basis.
2004 Euros in education; 8(Suppl 4):11–17.
Openurlcrosspubmedisaacs SL, editor of Knickman JR series.
Road to \"tobacco control policy\": Robert Wood Johnson Health Policy Series, 2006.
Department of tobacco control, California Department of Health Services.
Changing patterns: experience in California Tobacco Control.
Sacramento, California: Department of Health Services, California, 1998. ↵Cummings KM. Community-
Extensive intervention in tobacco control.
Nicotine Res 1999; 1(Suppl_1):S113–16.
OpenUrlAbstract/free full Text Rogers EM.
Diffusion of innovation. 5th edn.
New York: Free News, 2003.
Excellent community in tobacco control, Module 2: conducting an excellent community needs assessment, 2006.
Institute of Public Health.
How does the landlord ban smoking in a rented house?
Legal Aid Center, 2006 (
Revised in June 2008).
Skinner B, mage C, etc.
Commercial policies affecting exposure to second-hand smoke. N C Med J 2008; 69:355–61.
Nixon ML, Mahmoud L, grants SA.
The tobacco industry action to stop local public health regulations: the industry often loses in court.
Control 2004; 13:65–73.
OpenUrlAbstract/free full Text package Givel MS, Glantz SA.
The political impact of tobacco lobbying on the 1990 s Congress
Control 2001; 10:124–34.
OpenUrlAbstract/free full Text dangerous goods.
Design an effective statewide tobacco control program in California. Cancer 1998; 83(12 Suppl):2717–21.
Openurlcrossrefpmed Henson R, Mai L, St Clair S, etc.
Indoor air cleaning: where, why, how.
Medical ethics of Law 2002; 30(3 Suppl):75–82.
The scientific OpenUrlPubMedWeb glglantz SA, Balbach ED.
Tobacco War: War within California.
Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 2000.
Marlon is heavy.
Corporate Philanthropy, lobbying and public health policies.
No. 2008 public health; 98:2123–33.
MP of OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb Science, goodtraynor, Begay I Glantz SA.
A new tobacco industry strategy to prevent local tobacco control. JAMA 1993; 270:479–86.
TE of OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb Science news Novotny, Geer MB.
California legend of tobacco controlHealth Aff (Millwood)1996; 15:58–72.
OpenUrlAbstract/free full Text mega Magzamen S, host country request 1, Glantz SA.
Print media reports on California\'s smoke-free bar Law.
Control 2001; 10:154–60.
OpenUrlAbstract/free full text EK ong EK, Glantz SA.
Tobacco, lawyers and public relations companies: building \"sound science\" and \"good epidemiology \".
No. 2001 public health; 91:1749–57.
The JF of OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb Science, working as a part-time meter Bronson remote control, etc.
Application of rating system in national Clean Indoor Air Law (USA).
Control 2002; 11:26–34.
OpenUrlAbstract/free full Text Rodgers EM, Pedersen JC.
Dissemination of clean indoor air regulations in southwestern United States.
Conduct of health education 2008; 35:683–97.
Nykyiuk CI, Eyles J, Campbell HS. Smoke-
Free space over time: a study on policy communication developed by the Alberta and Ontario Statutes of Canada.
2008 of the health care community; 16:64–74.
HR of OpenUrlPubMedWeb Science GmbH Macdonald, Glantz SA.
The political reality of smoking legislation across the state: the passage of California\'s parliament bill 13.
Control 1997; 6:41–54.
OpenUrlAbstract/free full Text archiu. S. Census Bureau.
US Community Survey, 2006-2008. (
Visit October 20, 2009).
California Treasury Department.
Population Estimates for Cities, counties and states. 2008–2009 (
Visit October 20, 2009).
California Secretary of State.
Voting statement, November 2006 general election-national voting measures, 2006. (
Visit October 2009).
Mormormorley CP, Cummings KM, Hyland A, etc.
The Tobacco Institute lobbied at 1990 national and local levels of government.
Control 2002; 11(Suppl_1):I102–9.
American science American Foundation for the rights of non-smokers.
Database of local tobacco control regulations of the American Foundation for the rights of non-smokers.
Berkeley, California: morning.
2008. rights of non-smokers. ↵U. S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
The impact of smoking on health: a surgeon\'s report. Washington: U. S.
Ministry of Health, Education and Welfare, 1972. ↵Hirayama T. Non-
A study from Japan shows that smoking wives in heavy smokers are at a higher risk of lung cancer. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)1981; 282:183–5.
OpenUrlAbstract/free full Text archiu. S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
Effects of involuntary smoking on health: a report by the surgeon.
Rockville, Maryland: United States of AmericaS.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of Smoking and Health, 1986.
To my delight, trenir M. , grants SA.
Tobacco industry, state politics and education in California.
No. 1993 public health; 83:1214–21.
OpenUrlPubMedWeb, California science and legislation consultant.
California Legislative Information(
Visit 09/2008).
Meringse of grafsk.
Introduction to the law on prevention of obesity.
No. 2009 public health; 99:1799–805.
A, Feighery E, Cruz tuberculosis, of OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb Science GmbH Roeseler.
Tobacco marketing in California and its impact on the future. Tob Control 19(Supp 1):21–30.
State restrictions on private smoking
Department site.
Restaurants and bars-USA, 2004 and 2007.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly stands for 2008; 57:549–52. ↵U. S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
Effects of Involuntary Exposure to tobacco smoke on health: a report by a surgeon.
Rockville, Maryland: United States of AmericaS.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Health Promotion Coordination, national centers for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Smoking and Health Office, 2006. ↵Anonymous.
The governor vetoed information 10/14/7. (
Visit December 16, 2008).
Department of tobacco control, California Department of Health Services.
California Tobacco Control Update 2006: social norms change approach in Sacramento, California: Department of tobacco control, Department of Health Services, California, 2006. ↵Al-
Dr. Bai MM, Trinidad, etc.
California Tobacco Control Program: can we keep going?
Results of the California Tobacco Survey, 1990-2005.
Sacramento, California: Department of Public Health, California, 2008.
Supervisory Committee on tobacco education and research.
Investment in tobacco is on the verge of extinction
Free California 20092011-Master Plan.
Sacramento, California: Supervisory Committee for tobacco education and research, 2009.
Woolklepeis NE, Ott WR, Swiss. Real-
Time measurement of outdoor tobacco smoke particles.
Assoc 2007 for Air waste management; 57:522–34.
Center for Science-Center for Tobacco policy and organization.
Comprehensive outdoor second-hand smoke regulations.
California Lung Association, August 2008.
California Aviation Resources Board.
California identified second-hand smoke as \"toxic air pollutants\" 2006, a press release.
California Aviation Resources Board.
It is recommended to identify environmental tobacco smoke as a toxic air pollutant.
California Environmental Protection Agency, ed. 2005.
There is no competitive interest.
Uncommissioned source and peer review;
Not reviewed by external peers.
Custom message
Chat Online 编辑模式下无法使用
Chat Online inputting...
Hi, Thank you for visiting our website. What product you are looking for? May I know your WhatsApp number and email ? our business manager will contact you soon.