Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Typologies of smokers and non-smokers: encouraging changes over time
  1. Graham Mecredy1,
  2. Joanna Cohen1,2,3,
  3. Roberta Ferrence1,2,3,
  4. Blake Poland2,
  5. Paul McDonald1,4,
  6. John Garcia1,4
  1. 1Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  2. 2Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  3. 3Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  4. 4Department of Health Studies and Gerontology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Graham Mecredy, Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, 33 Russell Street, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 2S1; graham_mecredy{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Previous research has classified smokers and non-smokers on the basis of their attitudes and behaviours towards smoking and smoking restrictions.1–3 Work by Poland et al,1 using data from 1996, concluded that Ontario smokers clustered into three groups: (1) ‘adamant’ smokers who believe smoking restrictions have gone too far and are unlikely to accommodate non-smokers; (2) ‘easy going’ smokers who support smoking restrictions and will not smoke around non-smokers; and, (3) ‘reluctant’ smokers who support smoking restrictions and are concerned that others know they smoke. Similarly, non-smokers clustered into: (1) ‘adamant’ non-smokers who do not tolerate smoking in their attitudes and their actions; (2) ‘unempowered’ non-smokers who oppose smoking but tend not to act on it; and, (3) …

View Full Text


  • Competing interests None.

  • Patient consent Obtained.

  • Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the Ontario Tobacco Survey, which provides the data for this study, has been granted ethics approval at the offices of research ethics at both the University of Toronto and the University of Waterloo.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.