Eat, Breathe & Dine Smoke Free!
Ohio’s Smoke Free
Restaurant Campaign
1998 to 2001
Tracy Clopton, M. S. W.
Ohio Department of Health
Tobacco Risk Reduction Program
Special Thanks to the Ohio Department of Health and
Tobacco Free Ohio Staff Who Contributed
to This Project
•
Thallia Blight, TFO Project Assistant, media
kit development.
•
Theresa Campbell B.S., data entry.
•
Ellen Capwell, Ph.D. Professor, technical
assistance.
•
Wen Fang Chan, M. S., Epidemiologist, data
analysis.
•
Eric Green, M. A., Social Marketing
Consultant, media development.
•
Winnie Miller, data entry.
•
Patrick Harsch, Ph.D. Tobacco Program
Consultant, graphics and charts.
Learning Objectives
• Define Diffusion of Innovations Theory.
• Describe how theory components were
incorporated into the statewide campaign.
• Identify outcomes and lessons learned
from multi-component assessment.
• How can others apply this statewide model
to assist local communities, with little
experience, to promote a public health
issue.
1986 Surgeon General Report
Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking
• Involuntary smoking is a cause of disease, including lung
cancer, in healthy nonsmokers.
• The children of parents who smoke… have increased
frequency of respiratory infections, increased respiratory
symptoms…
• Simple separation of smokers and nonsmokers within
the same air space may reduce but does not eliminate
exposure…to environmental tobacco smoke.
Secondhand Smoke Causes…
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Heart Disease
Low Birth Weight
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)
Asthma
Bronchitis
Pneumonia
Nasal Sinus Cancer
Source: Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental
Health, Monograph 10, National Institutes of Health-NCI
Where Adults Will Tolerate Smoking in Indoor
Work Areas: Ohio, 1998
Not
Allowed
64.9
Some
Areas
28.9
All
Areas
0.9
0
20
40
Percent
60
80
Where Adults Will Tolerate Smoking in Indoor
Work Areas: Ohio, 2000
Not
Allowed
67.4
Some
Areas
30.1
All
Areas
2.5
0
20
40
Percent
60
80
Where Adults Will Tolerate Smoking in Indoor
Work Areas: Ohio, 2004
Not
Allowed
67.6
Some
Areas
26.3
All
Areas
4.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
Percent
Source: Ohio Adult
Tobacco Survey, 2004
60
70
80
Where Adults Will Tolerate Smoking in
Restaurants: Ohio, 1998
50
45
40
45.5
46.6
Some Areas
Not Allowed
Percent
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
2.3
0
All Areas
Where Adults Will Tolerate Smoking in
Restaurants: Ohio, 2000
50
45
40
48.4
45.5
48.1
46.6
Some Areas
Not Allowed
Percent
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
3.5
0
All Areas
Where Adults Will Tolerate Smoking in
Restaurants: Ohio, 2004
55
54.1
50
45
40
43.0
Percent
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
2.2
0
All Areas
Some Areas
Not Allowed
Source: Ohio Adult
Tobacco Survey, 2004
Where Adults Will Tolerate Smoking in Indoor
Work Areas by Smoking Status: Ohio, 1999
Percent
100
90
Some Areas
80
Not Allowed at All
70
74.5
65.4
60
50
40
63.8
54.6
43.2
33.7
30
35.3
25.4
20
10
0
Current
Smokers
Former
Smokers
Never
Smoked
All
Persons
Adults Tolerating Smoking in Some Indoor
Areas by Smoking Status: Ohio, 2004
100
90
80
80.3
Percent
70
60
50
40
69.3
68.2
57.7
42.3
30
31.8
20
30.7
19.7
10
0
Current
Smokers
Former
Smokers
Never
Smoked
All
Persons
Where Adults Will Tolerate Smoking in
Restaurants by Smoking Status: Ohio, 1999
100
90
Some Areas
80
Not Allowed at All
Percent
70
77.8
60
61.1
50
50.3
40
52.1
47.3
45.1
38.6
30
20
10
15.0
0
Current
Smokers
Former
Smokers
Never
Smoked
All
Persons
Adults Tolerating Smoking in Some Areas of
Restaurants by Smoking Status: Ohio, 2004
100
90
80
Percent
70
80.3
78.9
68.2
60
50
40
42.3
47.6
30
45
30.7
20
10
0
Current
Smokers
Former
Smokers
Never
Smoked
All
Persons
“No Smoking” Section ?
Theoretical Model
Diffusion Innovations Theory:
1.
How the development of new ideas, products,
and social practices can improve health
promotion interventions and strategies within
society.
2.
Program developers pay attention to social
norms, member networks and social structures,
in addition to the new intervention.
Two Applicable Concepts of Diffusion
Innovations Theory
• Relative Advantage
• Observability
• Seen as a better idea
or unique.
• Can produce tangible
results.
• Statewide restaurant
campaign new to
Ohio.
• Written feedback from
restaurant patrons
and managers.
Campaign Purpose
• Encourage restaurants to permanently
convert to smoke free.
• Local community education & assessment.
• Promote local coalition development.
• Participants use experience to address
greater challenges within tobacco
prevention.
Participant Recruitment Efforts
• Invitational letters to local health departments &
tobacco coalitions seven months prior to the
campaign date.
• Support materials free of charge.
• “Ready To Use” Media Kit.
• Participating restaurants recruited by health
depts. and tobacco coalitions in various ways.
• Patron Card data provided to restaurant
managers.
• Certificate of Appreciation and free advertisement
of their restaurant business.
Support Materials
(with restaurant campaign logo)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Buttons
Ink Pens
Testimonial Brochure
Manager Brochure
Tray-Liner/Placemat
Certificate of
Appreciation
• Poster Notices
• Patron Cards for
opinions.
• Media Tool Kit (Press
Release, Letter to
Editor, etc.)
• 3 Types of Stickers for
Restaurant Bills
• CDC’s Guide: “Making
Your Workplace
Smoke Free” (no
program logo)
MEDIA Campaign
“Eat, Breathe & Dine Smoke Free!”
Getting The Message Out
1.
Local News Papers: Participants made connections and
used the TFO Media Tool Kit.
2.
Created two complementary radio spots: Borrowed
California Dept. of Health’s TV Spot “Waitress”
3.
Tagged the spots with 800# for advocacy packet: 300+
calls for 30+ days in 2000 and 2001.
4.
Contracted with the Ohio Association of Broadcasters for
$50,000: 3 free for 1 buy, or approximately $150,000
worth of air time for 31+ days.
5.
CDC’s Media Campaign Resource Center’s movie slides,
transit, & billboards funded by TFO: Supportive
secondhand smoke spot “Secondhand Sound”
“Eat, Breathe & Dine Smoke Free!” Restaurant
Campaign Data Summary
1998-2001
• Local Participant Information
• Patron Responses
• Managers’ Evaluations
• Local Participants’ Evaluations
Number of Participating Agencies*
By Year in Ohio
25
24
20
21
18
15
10
12
5
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
*Most were city/county health departments followed by
voluntary non-profits or coalitions.
Strongest involvement came from counties in the
Northwest, Southwest, Northeast, then Southeast.
ASHTABULA
LAKE
LUCAS
FULTON
WILLIAMS
OTTAWA
GEAUGA
WOOD
HENRY
CUYAHOGA
DEFIANCE
TRUMBULL
LORAIN
SANDUSK
Y
ERIE
SUMMIT
SENECA
PAULDING
MEDINA
HANCOCK
1
PUTNAM
VAN WERT
HURON
ALLEN
ASHLAND
WYANDOT
WAYNE
CRAWFORD
RICHLAND
MAHONING
STARK
COLUMBIANA
HARDIN
MERCER
MARION
AUGLAIZE
LOGAN
COSHOCTON
DELAWARE
DARKE
CHAMPAIGN
LICKING
MAMI
GUERNSEY
BELMONT
MADISON
MONTGOMERY
2
FAIRFIELD
GREENE
WARREN
JEFFERSON
HARRISON
MUSKINGUM
FRANKLIN
CLARK
BUTLER
TUSCARAWA
S
KNOX
UNION
SHELBY
CARROLL
HOLMES
MORROW
PREBLE
3
P0RTAGE
FAYETTE
PICKAWAY
MORGAN
4
HOCKING
CLINTON
ROSS
VINTON
HAMILTON
HIGHLAND
CLERMONT
WASHINGTON
ATHENS
MEIGS
PIKE
JACKSON
BROWN
NOBLE
PERRY
ADAMS
GALLIA
SCIOTO
LAWRENCE
MONROE
Number of Restaurants Participating
Each Year in Ohio
160
140
142
120
124
100
80
114
93
60
40
20
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
Thirty or 6 percent of the restaurants converted to
smoke free between 1998 and 2001 based upon
participating in the campaign.
Patrons’ Response
Number of Restaurant Patrons Responding
Each Year in Ohio
4500
4000
4219
3500
3000
2500
2485
2000
2282
1830
1500
1000
500
0
1998
1999
2000
Ohio Restaurant Four-Year Campaign
2001
Smoking Status of Smoke-free Restaurant
Campaign Patrons, Ohio: 1998
100
90
93
80
Percent
70
74
60
50
52.1
45.1
40
30
25
20
10
0
Non Smokers
Smokers
Smoking Status of Smoke-free Restaurant
Campaign Patrons, Ohio: 1999
100
90
93
80
Percent
70
60
66
50
52.1
45.1
40
30
32
20
10
0
Non Smokers
Smokers
Smoking Status of Smoke-free Restaurant
Campaign Patrons, Ohio: 2000
100
90
93
80
Percent
70
73
60
50
52.1
45.1
40
30
27
20
10
0
Non Smokers
Smokers
Smoking Status of Smoke-free Restaurant
Campaign Patrons, Ohio: 2001
100
90
93
80
Percent
70
60
68
50
45.1
40
30
30
20
10
0
Non Smokers
Smokers
Smoking Patrons of Smoke-free Restaurant
Campaign Tobacco Use, Ohio: 1999
68
50
45
40
Percent
35
30
25
20
15
15
10
5
10
8
0
10 or less
cigarettes
per day
11 to 20
cigarettes
per day
21 or more
cigarettes
per day
No response
Smoking Patrons of Smoke-free Restaurant
Campaign Tobacco Use, Ohio: 2000
50
45
45
40
Percent
35
30
25
28
27
20
15
10
5
0
10 or less
cigarettes
per day
11 to 20
cigarettes
per day
21 or more
cigarettes
per day
Smoking Patrons of Smoke-free Restaurant
Campaign Tobacco Use, Ohio: 2001
50
45
45
40
Percent
35
30
32
25
20
23
15
10
5
0
10 or less
cigarettes
per day
11 to 20
cigarettes
per day
21 or more
cigarettes
per day
Patrons’ Response to: “I Try to Protect Myself,
Children or Grandchildren from Tobacco Smoke,”
Ohio: 1999
100
90
93
80
Percent
70
60
50
54
45.1
40
30
23
20
10
0
Always
Sometimes
Patrons’ Response to: “I Try to Protect Myself,
Children or Grandchildren from Tobacco Smoke,”
Ohio: 2000
100
90
93
80
Percent
70
60
66
50
45.1
40
30
22
20
10
0
Always
Sometimes
Patrons’ Response to: “I Try to Protect Myself,
Children or Grandchildren from Tobacco Smoke,”
Ohio: 2001
100
90
93
80
Percent
70
60
50
57
45.1
40
30
25
20
10
0
Always
Sometimes
Patrons’ Response to: “I Am Glad to See This Restaurant
Participate in a Smoke Free Campaign,” Ohio: 1998
100
90
45
80
70
78
60
50
40
30
20
19
10
0
Yes
No
Patrons’ Response to: “I Am Glad to See This Restaurant
Participate in a Smoke Free Campaign,” Ohio: 1999
100
90
80
70
60
66
50
40
30
25
20
10
8
0
Yes
Unsure
No
Patrons’ Response to: “I Am Glad to See This Restaurant
Participate in a Smoke Free Campaign,” Ohio: 2000
100
90
80
70
76
60
50
40
30
20
16
10
8
0
Yes
Unsure
No
Patrons’ Response to: “I Am Glad to See This Restaurant
Participate in a Smoke Free Campaign,” Ohio: 2001
100
90
80
70
72
60
50
40
30
20
17
10
10
0
Yes
Unsure
No
Patrons’ Response to: “If This Restaurant Became
Totally Smoke Free Everyday I:” Ohio, 1999
50
45
40
Percent
35
33
30
63.8
25
20
21
19
15
17
10
8
5
0
Return
more
often
Glad to see
this
Not like it
but would
return
Would not
dine here
again
Would not
care either
way
Patrons’ Response to: “If This Restaurant Became
Totally Smoke Free Everyday I:” Ohio, 2000
50
45
40
40
Percent
35
63.8
30
25
20
23
19
15
10
11
5
0
7
Return
more
often
Glad to see
this
Not like it
but would
return
Would not
dine here
again
Would not
care either
way
Patrons’ Response to: “If This Restaurant Became
Totally Smoke Free Everyday I:,” Ohio, 2001
50
45
40
Percent
35
35
63.8
30
25
20
23
16
15
14
10
9
5
0
Return
more
often
Glad to see
this
Not like it
but would
return
Would not
dine here
again
Would not
care either
way
Average of Patrons’ Response to: “If This Restaurant
Became Totally Smoke Free Everyday I:”
Ohio, 1999 - 2001
50
45
40
Percent
35
35
30
63.8
25
20
22
17
15
17
13
10
5
0
Return
more
often
Glad to see
this
Not like it
but would
return
Would not
dine here
again
Would not
care either
way
Patrons’ Response to: “I Am Aware That Exposure to Smoke
From Cigarettes and Cigars May Cause Health Problems for
Children/Employers:” Ohio, 1998
100
90
93
80
Percent
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
4
0
Yes
No
Patrons’ Response to: “I Am Aware That Exposure to Smoke
From Cigarettes and Cigars May Cause Health Problems for
Children/Employers:” Ohio, 1999
100
90
80
84
Percent
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
2
12
No
Do not agree
0
Yes
Patrons’ Response to: “I Am Aware That Exposure to Smoke
From Cigarettes and Cigars May Cause Health Problems for
Children/Employers:” Ohio, 2000
100
90
80
90
Percent
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
1
9
No
Do not agree
0
Yes
Patrons’ Response to: “I Am Aware That Exposure to Smoke
From Cigarettes and Cigars May Cause Health Problems for
Children/Employers:” Ohio, 2001
100
90
80
88
Percent
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
2
0
Yes
No
8
Do not agree
Gender of Patrons of a Smoke Free Restaurant
Campaign: Ohio, 1998
100
90
45
80
Percent
70
60
50
55
40
42
30
20
10
0
Female
Male
Gender of Patrons of a Smoke Free Restaurant
Campaign: Ohio, 1999
100
90
45
80
Percent
70
60
50
40
48
49
30
20
10
0
Female
Male
Gender of Patrons of a Smoke Free Restaurant
Campaign: Ohio, 2000
100
90
45
80
Percent
70
60
50
40
48
52
30
20
10
0
Female
Male
Gender of Patrons of a Smoke Free Restaurant
Campaign: Ohio, 2001
100
90
45
80
Percent
70
60
50
40
49
45
30
20
10
0
Female
Male
Managers’ Responses
Number of Restaurant Managers Responding
Each Year in Ohio
90
80
70
72
60
57
50
51
40
30
32
20
10
0
1998
1999
2000
Ohio Restaurant Four-Year Campaign
2001
Managers Who Believe The Smoke-free
Restaurant Campaign Was A Success: Ohio, 1998
50
45
40
41
Percent
35
30
25
20
15
22
19
10
5
0
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Managers Who Believe The Smoke-free
Restaurant Campaign Was A Success: Ohio, 1999
50
45
40
Percent
35
30
25
30
30
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
26
20
15
10
5
0
Strongly
Agree
Managers Who Believe The Smoke-free
Restaurant Campaign Was A Success: Ohio, 2000
50
45
40
Percent
35
35
30
29
25
20
15
10
12
5
0
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Managers Who Believe The Smoke-free
Restaurant Campaign Was A Success: Ohio, 2001
50
45
40
Percent
35
35
30
31
25
20
15
10
15
5
0
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Managers Knowledge Of ETS Effects On
Employee After Campaign: Ohio, 1998
100
90
80
Percent
70
63
60
50
52.1
45.1
40
30
31
20
10
0
Increased
Remained the Same
Managers Knowledge Of ETS Effects On
Employee After Campaign: Ohio, 1999
100
90
80
77
Percent
70
60
50
52.1
45.1
40
30
20
10
0
18
Increased
Remained the Same
Managers Knowledge Of ETS Effects On
Employee After Campaign: Ohio, 2000
100
90
80
Percent
70
60
55
50
45.1
40
30
20
52.1
29
10
0
Increased
Remained the Same
Managers Knowledge Of ETS Effects On
Employee After Campaign: Ohio, 2001
100
90
80
Percent
70
60
50
53 52.1
45.1
40
30
35
20
10
0
Increased
Remained the Same
Managers’ Initial Attitude About A
Smoke-Free Campaign: Ohio, 1998
50
47
45
40
44
74.5
Percent
35
63.8
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
9
0
0
Not Like
the Idea
OK, Only if
not negative
to business
Open to
trying
something
new
Needed to
get used to
the idea
No
Response
Managers’ Initial Attitude About A
Smoke-Free Campaign: Ohio, 1999
55
50
51
45
40
42
Percent
35
63.8
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2
Not Like
the Idea
OK, Only if
not negative
to business
Open to
trying
something
new
2
4
Needed to
get used to
the idea
No
Response
Managers’ Initial Attitude About A
Smoke-Free Campaign: Ohio, 2000
55
50
55
45
40
Percent
35
35
30
63.8
25
20
15
10
5
0
4
Not like
the Idea
4
OK, only if
not negative
to business
Open to
trying
something
new
Needed to
get used to
the idea
2
No
Response
Managers’ Initial Attitude About A
Smoke-Free Campaign: Ohio, 2001
50
45
40
42
42
Percent
35
63.8
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
8
Not Like
the Idea
1
OK, Only if
not negative
to business
Open to
trying
something
new
Needed to
get used to
the idea
7
No
Response
Influence of Health Representatives on Mangers’
Decision to Participate: Ohio, 1998
50
45
40
Percent
35
34
30
25
20
15
19
22
16
10
5
0
None
Very Little
or
Little
Some
Much or
Very Much
Influence of Health Representatives on Mangers’
Decision to Participate: Ohio, 1999
50
45
40
Percent
35
30
30
25
32
20
15
11
16
10
5
0
None
Very Little
or
Little
Some
Much or
Very Much
Influence of Health Representatives on Mangers’
Decision to Participate: Ohio, 2000
50
45
40
Percent
35
30
31
25
26
26
20
15
16
10
5
0
None
Very Little
or
Little
Some
Much or
Very Much
Influence of Health Representatives on Mangers’
Decision to Participate: Ohio, 2001
50
45
46
40
Percent
35
35
30
25
20
15
13
10
5
0
6
None
Very Little
or
Little
Some
Much or
Very Much
Managers’ Likely Behavior After Participating in a
Smoke-Free Campaign: Ohio, 1998
55
56
50
45
40
Percent
35
63.8
30
25
20
21
15
10
5
0
9
9
3
Will Never
go smoke
Free
Will not
participate in
another
campaign
Will
participate in
another
campaign
Will go or
strongly
consider
going smoke
free
No response
Managers’ Likely Behavior After Participating in a
Smoke-Free Campaign: Ohio, 1999
55
50
47
45
40
Percent
35
30
32
63.8
25
20
15
10
5
0
12
9
4
Will Never
go smoke
Free
Will not
participate in
another
campaign
Will
participate in
another
campaign
Will go or
strongly
consider
going smoke
free
No response
Managers’ Likely Behavior After Participating in a
Smoke-Free Campaign: Ohio, 2000
61
55
50
45
40
Percent
35
63.8
30
25
20
18
15
10
5
0
8
12
2
Will Never
go smoke
Free
Will not
participate in
another
campaign
Will
participate in
another
campaign
Will go or
strongly
consider
going smoke
free
No response
Managers’ Likely Behavior After Participating in a
Smoke-Free Campaign: Ohio, 2001
65
55
50
45
40
Percent
35
63.8
30
25
20
15
16
10
5
0
10
6
Will Never
go smoke
Free
4
Will not
participate in
another
campaign
Will
participate in
another
campaign
Will go or
strongly
consider
going smoke
free
No response
Managers’ Positions Who Participated
in A Smoke-Free Campaign: Ohio, 1998
50
45
40
Percent
35
30
63.8
31
28
25
25
20
15
13
10
5
0
3
Sole
owner
Owner in
partnership
Manager
Owner and
manager
No
Response
Managers’ Positions Who Participated
in A Smoke-Free Campaign: Ohio, 1999
50
45
47
40
Percent
35
63.8
30
25
20
23
15
14
10
12
5
0
4
Sole
owner
Owner in
partnership
Manager
Owner and
manager
No
Response
Managers’ Positions Who Participated
in A Smoke-Free Campaign: Ohio, 2000
50
45
40
Percent
35
63.8
30
25
27
27
20
25
18
15
10
5
0
2
Sole
owner
Owner in
partnership
Manager
Owner and
manager
No
Response
Managers’ Positions Who Participated
in A Smoke-Free Campaign: Ohio, 2001
50
45
40
Percent
35
30
25
29
20
19
18
15
63.8
32
10
5
0
1
Sole
owner
Owner in
partnership
Manager
Owner and
manager
No
Response
Managers’ Smoking Status: Ohio, 1998
81
50
45
40
Percent
35
30
25
20
15
16
10
3
5
0
Smoker
NonSmoker
No response
Managers Smoking Status, Ohio: 1999
74
50
45
40
Percent
35
30
25
20
21
15
10
5
5
0
Smoker
NonSmoker
No response
Managers’ Smoking Status: Ohio, 2000
76
50
45
40
Percent
35
30
25
20
15
16
10
8
5
0
Smoker
NonSmoker
No response
Managers’ Smoking Status: Ohio, 2001
67
50
45
40
Percent
35
30
32
25
20
15
10
5
1
0
Smoker
NonSmoker
No response
Smoking Bans Mangers’ Are Most In Favor Of:
Ohio, 2000
50
45
40
Percent
35
33
30
37
25
20
18
15
10
12
5
0
City or
county
State
No ban
No
response
Smoking Bans Mangers’ Are Most In Favor Of:
Ohio, 2001
50
50
45
40
38
Percent
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
10
City or
county
3
State
No ban
No
response
Local Participants’
Responses
Local Participants’ Average Response of Good to
Excellent to Campaign Support Materials, Ohio
100
100
90
87
80
72
20
10
Press
Releases
Tray liners/
Placemats
Manager
Brochures
TFO
Testimonial
Brochure
0
44.5
Year 1999
30
Years 2000 - 2001
40
Years 2000 - 2001
50
Years 2000 - 2001
60
Years 1998 - 1999
Percent
70
92
BillboardsMovie Slides
Local Participants’ Average Response of Good to
Excellent to Campaign Support Materials,
Ohio: 1998-2001
100
90
94
99.5
95
89
80
88
Percent
70
63.8
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
CDC’s
Guide
Patron
Survey
Buttons
Ink Pens
Certificates
Local Participants’ Average Response of Good to
Excellent to Campaign Support Materials,
Ohio: 1999-2001
100
90
88
80
80
Percent
70
60
63
69
63.8
50
40
36.4
30
20
10
0
Poster
Notices
Written
Support
Material
Radio Spots
Local Participants Who Agreed to Participate in
Another Campaign: Ohio, 1999-2001
100
100
90
90
80
Percent
70
77.7
71
60
50
40
52.1
47.3
45.1
38.6
30
20
10
0
1999
2000
2001
Lessons Learned
• Program Evaluation will help campaign evolve and become
more effective.
• Written feedback is beneficial and improves communication
between local participants and state program developers.
• Giving a voice to residents and restaurant managers is
important for local policy work.
• Much support and encouragement is needed for locals to try
new projects.
• Stress the importance of partnerships and coalition
development (incl. communities of color and “everyday
people”).
• Statewide media can work synergistically with local efforts.
Lessons Learned
• Time Frames are
needed for overall
project success.
• Logistical planning
is important.
• Have a strong
follow up plan.
Don’t be afraid to take risks…
We have more support than we believe
Local Ohio Clean Indoor Air Ordinances
As of 11/2005
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bexley
Bowling Green
Centerville
Columbus
Dublin
Fairfield
Grandview Heights
Granville
Health
Hilliard
Marble Cliff
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
New Albany
Newark
Powell
Toledo
Upper Arlington
Wauseon
Westerville
Worthington
Municipalities with Local 100 Percent Smoke-Free Laws
Cumulative Number, U.S., 1990-2005
Cumulative Number
Workplaces
Restaurants
Bars
Year
States with Comprehensive Smokefree
Workplace Laws
As of 11/2005
• Washington
• Massachusetts
• California
• Montana
• Connecticut
• New York
• Delaware
• Rhode Island
• Maine
• Ohio in 2006
• Vermont
SmokeFreeOhio.org
2006