Register for email alerts and news feeds:
This journal | BMJ Group
rss
Tobacco Control 2006;15:398-404; doi:10.1136/tc.2006.015818
Copyright © 2006 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

RESEARCH PAPER

Smokers and non-smokers talk about regulatory options in tobacco control

Stacy M Carter1 and Simon Chapman2

1 Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, Central Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia
2 School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr Stacy M Carter
Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, Central Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia 2006; carters{at}med.usyd.edu.au

Objective: Community members are occasionally polled about tobacco control policies, but are rarely given opportunities to elaborate on their views. We examined laypeople’s conversations to understand how 11 regulatory options were supported or opposed in interactions.

Design: Qualitative design; purposive quota sampling; data collection via focus groups.

Setting: Three locations in Sydney, Australia.

Participants: 63 smokers and 75 non-smokers, men and women, from three age groups (18–24, 35–44, 55–64 years), recruited primarily via telephone.

Measurements: Semi-structured question route; data managed in NVivo; responses compared between groups.

Results: Laypeople rejected some regulatory proposals and certain arguments about taxation and the cost of cessation treatments. Protecting children and hypothecating tobacco excise for health education and care were highly acceptable. Plain packaging, banning retail displays and youth smoking prevention received qualified support. Bans on political donations from tobacco corporations were popular in principle but considered logistically fraught. Smokers asked for better cessation assistance and were curious about cigarette ingredients. Justice was an important evaluative principle. Support was often conditional and unresolved arguments frequent. We present both sides of these conflicts and the ways in which policies were legitimised or de-legitimised in conversation.

Conclusions: Simple measures of agreement used in polls may obscure the complexity of community responses to tobacco policy. Support was frequently present but contested; some arguments that seem self-evident to advocates were not so to participants. The detailed understanding of laypeople’s responses provided through qualitative methods may help frame proposals and arguments to meet concerns about justice, effectiveness and feasibility.

Abbreviations: ETS, environmental tobacco smoke; NRT, nicotine replacement therapy; SES, socioeconomic status

Keywords: public policy; qualitative research; evaluation; smoking; tobacco control


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Miller, C L, Sedivy, V (2009). Using a quitline plus low-cost nicotine replacement therapy to help disadvantaged smokers to quit. Tobacco Control 18: 144-149 [Abstract] [Full Text]  

This Article

Services
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Bookmark with

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.