Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Jun 4.
Published in final edited form as: J Drug Educ. 2012;42(3):315–326. doi: 10.2190/DE.42.3.d

Changes in Smoking-Related Norms in Bars Resulting from California’s Smoke-Free Workplace Act*

Travis D Satterlund 1, Juliet P Lee 2, Roland S Moore 3
PMCID: PMC3671496  NIHMSID: NIHMS461638  PMID: 23705511

Abstract

California’s Smoke-Free Workplace Act— CA Labor Code Sec. 6404.5(a)—was extended to bars in 1998. This paper analyzes changes in normative beliefs and behaviors related to bar smoking in the decade following the adoption of the Act. In a series of studies evaluating the smoke-free workplace law in bars, researchers conducted extensive observations and interviews with bar staff and patrons, health officials, and law enforcement personnel in three California counties. Smoking outside became a normal pause in the social environment and created a new type of bar socializing for outside smokers. Although some bar owners and staff reported initially resenting the responsibility to uphold the law, once norms regarding cigarettes and smoking began changing, bar workers experienced less conflict in upholding the law. Non-smoking behavior within bars also became the normative behavior for bar patrons. California’s Smoke-Free Workplace Act has both reflected and encouraged normative beliefs and behaviors related to smoking in bars. The findings indicate that such shifts are possible even in contexts where smoking behaviors and attitudes supporting smoking were deeply entrenched. Recommendations include attending to the synergistic effect of education and policy in effective tobacco control programs.

Keywords: Tobacco control policy, norm change, California, bars, qualitative

Introduction

Public awareness of the negative health effects of smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke, coupled with committed efforts of tobacco control advocates, have put increasing pressure on legislative bodies across the nation and around the globe to restrict and control tobacco access and use (Chapman, 2007). The first wave of smoking restrictions promoted by public health activists targeted public buildings and workplaces (Kiser & Boschert, 2001), but are expanding to address secondhand smoke exposure in outdoor areas, such as playgrounds and beaches, and in private settings, including multi-unit housing and automobiles.

In California, for example, where tobacco control programs are among the most comprehensive and most successful in the nation and world (Gilpin, Messer, White, & Pierce, 2006; Pierce, Gilpin, Emery, White, Rosbrook, & Berry, 1998; Roeseler & Burns, 2010), smoking has been found to be increasingly stigmatized (Stuber, Galea, & Link, 2008). California’s tobacco control program included passage of the Smoke-Free Workplace Act (CA Labor Code Sec. 6404.5(a)) in 1994, the nation’s first workplace tobacco control policy, which was framed and written in such a manner to protect employees from the dangers of secondhand smoke (Wingo, Kiser, Boschert, Hunting, Buffington, & Wellman-Bensen, 2001). The smoke-free workplace law extended to bars and taverns in 1998 (Claiborne 1998; Leeds 1998; Magzamen & Glantz, 2001). This extension was highly controversial at the time, as bars were considered to be the last bastion of places where smoking was socially acceptable and even perhaps expected, in part because of the strong association between tobacco and alcohol consumption (Room, 2004).

The Indoor Smoke-free Workplace Law, as it pertained to bars and taverns, granted local governments wide flexibility in selecting the manner in which to implement and enforce the law (CA Labor Code Sec. 6404.5(j)). Enforcement responsibilities were determined by the local city councils or board of supervisors, who then designated the actual enforcement to agents and agencies including local health departments, city code enforcement agencies, police and sheriff departments, fire departments, or district and city attorneys (Satterlund, Lee, Moore, & Antin, 2009b). Officials often described this system as “problematic” because county health personnel frequently were responsible for working with a diverse array of local enforcement entities in enforcing the law, dealing with an administrative maze of agencies and agents within their own jurisdiction. Such a bureaucratic system tended to tended to make enforcement less than clear and consistent (Satterlund et al., 2009b). Yet, slowly, through the combination of educational media campaigns (Francis, Abramsohn, & Park, 2010; Roeseler & Burns, 2010), highly-publicized enforcement campaigns, and the evolving norms related to smoking in bars, enforcement within bars also changed.

In a series of ethnographic studies of California bars conducted by researchers at the Prevention Research Center in Berkeley (Lee, Antin, & Moore, 2008; Moore, Lee, Antin, & Martin, 2006), smoking was found to be significantly related to patron ethnicity. This was most pronounced in San Francisco bars, where consistent smoking in bars was observed in the first waves of the studies in bars serving primarily Irish and Asian patrons. Alternatively, there was very little observed smoking in bars serving primarily Latino patrons (Moore et al., 2006). Nevertheless, over time, less smoking was observed, even among the bars considered most “smoky” in the early stages of these studies (Satterlund et al, 2009b).

Thus, although many establishments initially resisted the ban (Lee, Moore, & Martin, 2003; Nagami, 2001) and smoking continues in some drinking establishments (Antin, Lee, Moore, & Satterlund, 2010), most workplaces in California are now smoke-free, including the majority of bars and taverns (Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights, 2013; Weber, Bagwell, Fielding, & Glantz, 2003). Evidence suggests that fewer bar owners are willing to openly flout the ban (Satterlund, Antin, Lee, & Moore, 2009a; Weber, 2003).

Much of the success of the smoke-free workplace law can be attributed to the combination of media and education campaigns, increased vigilance in enforcing the law, and growing public support against tobacco use in public spaces (Francis, Abramsohn, & Park, 2010; Roeseler & Burns, 2010). This multi-faceted approach derives largely from the California Tobacco Control Program (CTCP). Primary to CTCP’s paradigm and strategy is social norm change, which targets community, rather than individual, change. Another critical aspect of CTCP’s success is due in part to the state’s strategic vision, which provides a framework for local jurisdictions to adopt and implement smoke-free policy. As such, policy adoption and implementation become the heart of the program’s social norm objective, as these laws may be said to both reflect and give shape to a general shift in the normative beliefs associated with smoking. These shifts have led to a re-negotiation of the contexts and behaviors related to smoking (Hargreaves, Amos, Highet, Martin, Platt, Ritchie, & White, 2010; Ritchie, Amos, & Martin, 2010). Combined, these forces have altered the social landscape of bars (Fichtenberg & Glantz, 2002; Gilpin et al., 2004; Warner, Mendez, & Alshanqeety, 2008).

The objective of this study is to examine the social landscape of the bars from the perspective of bar owners and staff, as well as patrons. Particular attention is paid to how smoking behaviors and attitudes toward smoking changed over time after the adoption and implementation of California’s indoor smoke-free law pertaining to bars and taverns.

Methods

The data for this paper come from three ethnographic studies of smoking in and around stand-alone bars in California, which included: (1) a brief survey to establish the universe of all stand-alone bars in two California counties (San Francisco in Study 1 and Alameda in Study 3), and a subset of those Los Angeles and San Francisco bars serving patrons of predominantly Asian, Irish and Latino ethnicity in Study 2; (2) a series of between three and four structured observations in a random sample of selected bars, as elaborated below; and (3) in-depth interviews with bartenders, managers and patrons from the sample bars and with enforcement officials. Data collection for Study 1 took place between 2001 and 2003, Study 2 between 2004 and 2006, and Study 3 from 2005 to 2007. These studies have focused on stand-alone bars, i.e. those not attached to a restaurant, hotel or entertainment facility, as public health officials had identified this type of establishment as the most resistant to upholding the smoke-free workplace law (Satterlund et al., 2009b).

Once the initial survey of all stand-alone bars in San Francisco County was completed, the first study focused on a random sample of 121 bars in that county, including four observations per bar and 47 interviews (with 21 bartenders, 11 owner/managers, and 15 patrons). Following up on findings in Study 1 related to differential policy compliance in bars catering to patrons of particular ethnicities, the second study focused on a random sample of 165 bars in San Francisco and Los Angeles that primarily served Asian, Latino, or Irish patrons, and included three observations per bar as well as 79 interviews (with 28 bartenders, 17 owner/managers, and 30 patrons). The third study collected four observations per bar and 81 interviews (with 31 bartenders, 20 owner/managers, and 34 patrons) from a random sample of 104 bars in Alameda County, which encompasses the city of Oakland and smaller cities, suburbs, and rural areas. In summary, 390 bars were visited on at least three occasions. In all, 242 interviews were conducted including those of bar personnel and patrons (N=207) from selected bars and anti-tobacco advocates and officials (N=35) charged with implementing and enforcing the law.

Interviewers used a semi-structured protocol guided the interviews, and were trained in interviewing techniques such as probes to help uncover unexpected themes. The semi-structured interview guide was designed to elicit detailed descriptions of the history of the bar and particularly of smoking in the bar; knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes about the smoke-free ordinance and smoking in general; and the implementation and enforcement history of this law in the bar. All interviews were confidential and digitally recorded for later transcription. Most were conducted in person, although some interviews with enforcement officials were conducted and recorded by telephone.

Data for this paper also include semi-structured narratives of bar observations recorded as fieldnotes by staff ethnographers. Observational fieldnotes and interview transcripts were uploaded to ATLAS.ti, a qualitative data software package, for data management and thematic coding. Both a priori codes—informed by existing literature on bar smoking, the research questions, and our previous research—as well as inductive codes—developed from early identification of emergent themes—were used to ensure a grounded approach to analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

Analysis of the interview and observation data consisted of coding passages from the interviews and narratives which referred to perceptions of bar behavior related to smoking, using an “open coding” method (Corbin & Strauss, 2008), whereby “similar events/actions/interactions are grouped together to form categories and subcategories.” Data were then examined for recurring themes and analyzed contextually. This quasi-inductive, pattern-level analysis considered the contextual factors of items across all observational and interview data (Denzin, 2003). After all the data were coded and analyzed, summary and analytical narratives were created. Finally, the results were compared with findings in existing literature (Patton, 2006).

Results

Smoke-free bars: “A breath of fresh air”

The majority of bar staff interviewed—both smokers and non-smokers—held positive attitudes toward the ban. After bars began enforcing the smoke-free workplace law, many bar staff said that they felt healthier. Many stated that they recognized how bad it was only after the change occurred and they could “breathe again.” One bartender summed up a recurring theme among the bar staff interviewed for this study—initial surprise that the law could ever be enforced, and then satisfaction with its concomitant results:

I’ll be honest, I thought, that’s never gonna work. There’s no way people are gonna come in here and just drink. ‘Cause it automatically comes together, cigarette and a drink. I thought it would never come through, and it did, and then I saw the difference. I just love it, ‘cause y’know, I’m not inhaling secondhand smoke.

Several bar staff stated that their bars had been in a constant “haze of smoke” prior to enforcement.

I hated it. I’ve never smoked a day in me life, and [I’d] come into work, and your eyes would be burning out of your head, you wake up in the morning, you’re stinking of smoke, and your hair and clothes. You’d find yourself coughing and spluttering, you felt like you’d smoked ten or twenty cigarettes, and I just didn’t like it at all.

In contrast the smoke-free environment was, as one patron put it, “a breath of fresh air.”

The majority of patrons—smokers and non-smokers alike—echoed the views of the bar staff. However, while second-hand smoke was perceived to be an important health issue for bar staff, patrons described their dislike of the stench of smoke in their hair and clothes associated with a visit to smoke-filled bars. The opportunity to visit a bar and not “reek of stale smoke” was brought up by many patrons in interviews.

Oh man, I find it great, I find it brilliant. That means you can go home after a night out having pints, and get up then the next day and you’re able to put on the same clothes again. So I actually think it’s great.

In some ways, the lack of the cigarette smoke smell was an unintended consequence not closely associated with public health. Yet it was supported by norm change since patrons almost universally enjoyed being free of the smell of cigarette smoke after patronizing drinking establishments.

Going out for a smoke: A new way of socializing

Once bars began to uphold the smoke-free ordinance, patrons who smoked went outside the establishment to smoke rather than smoking inside the confines of the bar. Although both bar patrons and staff reported that going outside to smoke sometimes interrupted social interactions, these same respondents described this activity as a new and increasingly normal habit, and by most accounts going outside to take a smoke break became “no big deal.” Taking a pause to step outside for a smoke created a new type of bar socializing whereby groups of patrons could congregate outside during “smoke breaks”—another unintended consequence of the smoke-free law (Moore, Annechino, & Lee, 2009). Respondents also noted that getting up to go outside for a smoke allowed for new social opportunities—patrons could have an excuse to circulate within the bar, to meet, greet and even flirt with other patrons and bar staff. One male patron—a smoker—made the following observation:

Going outside for a smoke-break isn’t a big deal. It’s actually nice to take a little break from drinking and getting some blood flowing. Sometimes it gives me a chance to see how buzzed I am. Plus, it’s usually a social affair, going outside to smoke. People usually go in groups, and, my friends and I have no problem calculating the timing of our smoke breaks when girls are outside smoking.

What was initially seen as a major annoyance for bar patrons—momentarily leaving the indoor space in order to smoke—became something much less than an annoyance for many patrons. On the contrary, socializing outside the premises—whether it be on the front sidewalk or in a back patio space—became a welcome diversion for patrons. Additionally, smoke breaks built camaraderie among the smokers (Ritchie et al., 2010). This unintended consequence created a new norm, one that also benefited bar owners and health officials responsible for on-the-ground implementation of the smoke-free law. As one health official noted:

From my position, I started seeing a difference in bars, and it may be a chicken and the egg thing. Smoking outdoors or outside bars has become normal, part of the bar culture, and once it got going, there seemed to be a domino effect—almost like how many people go outside their own homes to smoke now. So, for the bars, enforcement has become easier because most people do not necessarily think that a bar is a place to smoke.

Enforcement changes

In the years directly after the smoke-free law went into effect, bar staff noted that they recognized it was their responsibility to uphold the smoke-free law for the benefit of their customers. Yet several bar staff conceded that in the “early years” after the law was first enacted but rarely enforced they would oftentimes allow smoking, citing that they did not want to cause problems. Several bar staff stated something similar: “Other bars were allowing it, so it didn’t seem like a big deal.” Bar staff only took action when bar owners insisted that they do so; and many owners explicitly forbade staff from taking action.

A striking aspect of norms change was reflected in bar staff’s changing attitudes towards their responsibility to uphold the smoke-free law. Many bar owners and staff expressed initial frustration at having to enforce a law that put them at odds with their patrons, on whom they depended for income and with who, in many establishments, the management and staff had close social relationships. However, as norms regarding cigarettes and smoking among the general population shifted, the potential for opposition between staff and patrons over smoking was greatly reduced. As one bartender stated:

When the law first went into effect I found myself having to tell customers that smoking wasn’t allowed. I often apologized, and I hated to deal with it. I could see that the customers would be mad and all that. Sometimes they took off, probably looking for a place that would let them smoke. Lately, though, it’s different. As the years have gone by, we [bartenders] haven’t had to deal with it much. I think now it’s expected [that people do not smoke in the bar], and other customers would say something if someone even tried to smoke.

Changed expectancies regarding bars and smoking

Our data show that the social context related to smoking and bars has changed. Our earliest observations—just two years after the smoke-free law was enacted in California—found that many bars represented last bastions of resistance for smokers (Lee et al., 2003; Satterlund et al., 2009a). Respondents indicated that in these first years, they remained steadfast in their belief that “drinking and smoking go together” and that bars provided the perfect venue for this activity. The law and subsequent norm change, however, has altered these expectancies. The vast majority of those interviewed indicated that when one walks into a bar in California it is now generally expected that it will be smoke-free. Observations by study researchers also noted more public smoke-free health-related pamphlets and informational material posted in establishments as the years progressed, and observers additionally noted that bar conversations sometimes conveyed the idea of smoking in bars as something that was reminisced as if it happened decades ago. Respondents associated these changed expectations with population-level changes in smoking norms in general:

I’m looking at an old reel recently, it was Lee Harvey Oswald being brought into an elevator by two police officers that had him handcuffed to them and they were smoking cigarettes with their free hands, getting on an elevator. It seemed so ridiculous. That’s the way it’s going to seem with anybody smoking inside and that’s the way it seems to me right now. When I go to Vegas, it seems ridiculous that people are smoking and young kids are walking past them.

Another respondent made a similar point about changing norms:

Growing up, it was just normal. My parents smoked, in the house with the kids, in the car, everywhere. In those days it wasn’t seen as a bad thing like it is now. Nowadays you’re looked at almost like a negligent parent if you do that. Things have changed and I think we’re better for it.

Discussion

Although a large percentage of bars and taverns throughout the state of California became smoke-free after the indoor workplace smoke-free law pertaining to bars and taverns took effect, it was found that a large number of establishments also remained smoking in spite of the ban (Lee et al., 2003). However, in the years that followed, media and public education campaigns by anti-tobacco coalitions targeted recalcitrant bars, and enforcement of the law also became more consistent and publicized (Satterlund et al., 2009a). These campaigns and enforcement activity tended to increase adherence to the law (Wingo et al., 2001; Satterlund et al., 2009b). Perhaps more importantly, our findings show that as adherence increased, the “denormalization” process (Jacobson & Wasserman, 1997) gained momentum and smoking became less associated with bar behavior.

Findings from this and our other studies indicate that both normative beliefs and practices related to smoking in bars have been changed. These changes are not simply the results of the passage of the smoke-free workplace law. Rather, they occurred within the context of a larger shift regarding attitudes toward smoking in general (Gilpin et al., 2004; Alamar & Glantz, 2006) due in large part to the efforts of California’s comprehensive tobacco control program. The adoption and implementation of policy has been a key component of this program, with norms change as an overt goal.

Reduced bar smoking reflects a synergism of social forces—tobacco control advocacy, public health and media campaigns, enforcement of tobacco control laws, increased excise taxes on tobacco products, and research on the harmful effects of smoking and of secondhand smoke (Fichtenberg & Glantz, 2002; Gilpin et al., 2006; Warner et al., 2008). These forces have worked in conjunction with, and given shape to, increasing stigmatization of smoking and public sentiment favoring more stringent tobacco control policies (Gilpin et al., 2004; Koh, Joossens, & Connolly, 2007). We conclude that the combination of these forces and general norms changes have contributed to not only the largely-successful implementation of the smoke-free workplace law in bars, but also changes in social norms regarding smoking in bars, previously thought to be beyond the reach of tobacco control efforts.

Data resoundingly show that a change in normative beliefs and behavior related to smoking in bars has been established. This norm change and its concomitant positive reaction by the majority of bar workers and patrons we interviewed supports the idea that a smoke-free policy is effective for reducing harmful exposure to secondhand smoke, and for altering long held notions about smoking, smoking behavior and smoking contexts. It also demonstrates how law and policy developments interact with a larger social—movement via a comprehensive tobacco control campaign combined with the aforementioned tobacco control-related social forces—focusing on changes in normative behavior related to tobacco use and bars, as well as smoking in general. Such an interaction of advocacy and action may significantly alter long held existing norms, in effect creating new ones (Bonnie, 2001; Etzioni, 2000; Vago, 2000).

Implications of this research relate primarily to the many governmental bodies—municipalities, states and nations—considering and enacting smoke-free workplace policies, and particularly those authorities considering inclusion of bars and restaurants in these policies. Although initially strongly resisted by restaurant owner business associations and tobacco and alcohol industries as potential threats to income, the financial impacts of smoke-free policies have been shown to be negligible (Eriksen & Chaloupka, 2007). Our research shows that even in bars, where the close ties between smoking and drinking were thought to be deep and enduring, public sentiment and social behaviors in bars can shift. In some instances the shift can be an accommodation: the necessity of going out to smoke can become an addition to bar socializing, as we report here. In other instances, the ties can be loosened or even severed, as we report here regarding changed expectancies about smoking in bars.

One limitation of this study is that the findings are not necessarily generalizable since this research focused on just three of California’s 58 counties. Moreover, California itself is unique in that the California Tobacco Control Program (CTCP) funds local health departments in order to secure local smoke-free policy and also meet individual counties’ tobacco-related objectives. Nevertheless, the basic processes described in this paper were found to be effective in creating a norm change related to tobacco use in bars.

Recommendations derived from this research relate to the relationship between norms and policy evidenced in the case of California bars. Authorities considering smoke-free bar laws should recognize that changes in norms, particularly where those norms are deeply entrenched, will not occur overnight. California’s success in reducing bar smoking may be credited to the combined and ongoing efforts of public health officials and law enforcement, even in the face of substantial opposition. As our findings show, the enactment and enforcement of policies may not be enough to accomplish changes in health behaviors related to smoking. Enforcement officials may be overwhelmed by the many demands on their time (Satterlund et al., 2009b). Policy enactment must be accompanied by efforts to increase public awareness of the negative health effects of smoking and the impact of one’s smoking on the health of others—in addition to enforcement—in order to complete the cycle of norms and policy change that will result in effective tobacco control.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to all the individuals who agreed to be interviewed in this study.

Footnotes

*

Preparation of this manuscript was funded by the University of California Office of the President’s Tobacco Related Disease Research Program grants 10RT-0276 and 12RT0116, and by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health grant 1R01-CA100772.

Contributor Information

Dr. Travis D. Satterlund, Columbia College, Columbia MO.

Dr. Juliet P. Lee, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, Berkeley, CA.

Dr. Roland S. Moore, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, Berkeley, CA.

References

  1. Alamar B, Glantz S. Authors’ response to M R Pakko. Tobacco Control. 2006;15:69. [Google Scholar]
  2. Americans for Nonsmoker’s Rights. Going smoke-free. 2013 Retrieved from http://www.no-smoke.org/goingsmokefree.php?id=519.
  3. Antin TMJ, Lee JP, Moore RS, Satterlund TD. Law in practice: Obstacles to a smokefree workplace policy in bars serving Asian patrons. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health. 2010;12(2):221–227. doi: 10.1007/s10903-008-9174-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bonnie R. Tobacco and public health policy: A youth-centered approach. In: Slovic P, editor. Smoking: Risk, perception, and policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2001. pp. 277–300. [Google Scholar]
  5. Chapman S. Public health advocacy and tobacco control: Making smoking history. Oxford, UK: Blackwell; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  6. Claiborne W. Unfiltered defiance: With tobacco industry’s support, California taverns increasingly allow patrons to violate smoking ban. Washington Post; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  7. Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  8. Denzin NK. Performance ethnography: critical pedagogy and the politics of culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  9. Eriksen M, Chaloupka FJ. The economic impact of clean indoor air laws. Cancer. 2007;57:367–378. doi: 10.3322/CA.57.6.367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Etzioni A. Social norms: Internalization, persuasion and history. Law & Society Review. 2000;34:157–178. [Google Scholar]
  11. Fichtenberg CM, Glantz SA. Effect of smoke-free workplaces on smoking behaviour: Systematic review. British Medical Journal. 2002;325:188. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7357.188. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Francis JA, Abramsohn EM, Park HY. Policy-driven tobacco control. Tobacco Control. 2010;19:i16–i20. doi: 10.1136/tc.2009.030718. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative theory. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co; 1967. [Google Scholar]
  14. Gilpin EA, Lee L, Pierce JP. Changes in population attitudes about where smoking should not be allowed: California versus the rest of the USA. Tobacco Control. 2004;13:38–44. doi: 10.1136/tc.2003.004739. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gilpin EA, Messer K, White MA, Pierce JP. What contributed to the major decline in per capita cigarette consumption during California’s comprehensive tobacco control programme? Tobacco Control. 2006;15:308–316. doi: 10.1136/tc.2005.015370. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hargreaves K, Amos A, Highet G, Martin C, Platt S, Ritchie D, White M. The social context of change in tobacco consumption following the introduction of ‘smokefree’ England legislation: A qualitative, longitudinal study. Social Science & Medicine. 2010;71(3):459–466. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.04.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Jacobson PD, Wasserman J. Tobacco control laws: Implementation and enforcement. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation; 1977. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Kiser D, Boschert T. Eliminating smoking in bars, restaurants, and gaming clubs in California: BREATH, the California smoke-free bar program. Journal of Public Health Policy. 2001;22:81–87. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Koh HK, Joossens LX, Connolly GN. Making smoking history worldwide. New England Journal of Medicine. 2007;356:1496–1498. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp068279. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Lee JP, Moore RS, Martin SE. Unobtrusive observations of smoking in urban California bars. Journal of Drug Issues. 2003;33:983–1000. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lee JP, Antin TMJ, Moore RS. Social organization in bars: Implications for tobacco control policy. Contemporary Drug Problems. 2008;35(1):59–98. doi: 10.1177/009145090803500104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Leeds J. Bar patrons still smoke despite the ban. California: Los Angeles Times; 1998. p. B1. [Google Scholar]
  23. Magzamen S, Glantz S. The new battleground: California’s experience with smoke-free bars. American Journal of Public Health. 2001;91:245–252. doi: 10.2105/ajph.91.2.245. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Moore RS, Annechino R, Lee JP. Unintended consequences of smokefree bar policies for low-SES women in three California counties. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2009;37(2S):S138–S143. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.05.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Moore RS, Lee JP, Antin TM, Martin SE. Tobacco free workplace policies and low socioeconomic status female bartenders in San Francisco. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2006;60(suppl 2):51–56. doi: 10.1136/jech.2005.045591. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Nagami DK. Enforcement methods used in applying the California smoke-free workplace act to bars and taverns. Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy. 2001;7:159–173. [Google Scholar]
  27. Patton MQ. Qualitative research evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  28. Pierce JP, Gilpin EA, Emery SL, White MM, Rosbrook B, Berry CC. Has the California tobacco control program reduced smoking? JAMA. 1998;280:893–899. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.10.893. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Ritchie D, Amos A, Martin C. “But it just has that sort of feel about it, a leper”—Stigma, smoke-free legislation and public health. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2010;12:622–629. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntq058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Roeseler A, Burns D. The quarter that changed the world. Tobacco Control. 2010;19(Supp 1):3–15. doi: 10.1136/tc.2009.030809. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Room R. Smoking and drinking as complementary behaviours. Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy. 2004;58:111–115. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2003.12.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Satterlund TD, Antin TMJ, Lee JP, Moore RS. Cultural factors related to smoking in San Francisco’s Irish bars. Journal of Drug Education. 2009a;39(2):181–193. doi: 10.2190/DE.39.2.e. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Satterlund TD, Lee JP, Moore RL, Antin TMJ. Challenges to implementing and enforcing California’s Smoke-free Workplace Act in bars. Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy. 2009b;16(5):422–435. doi: 10.1080/09687630802302872. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Stuber J, Galea S, Link BG. Smoking and the emergence of a stigmatized social status. Social Science & Medicine. 2008;67:420–430. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.03.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Vago S. Law and society. 6. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  36. Warner KE, Mendez D, Alshanqeety O. Tobacco control success versus demographic destiny: Examining the causes of the low smoking prevalence in California. American Journal of Public Health. 2008;98:268–269. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.112318. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Weber MD, Bagwell DAS, Fielding JS, Glantz SA. Long term compliance with California’s Smoke-free Workplace Law among bars and restaurants in Los Angeles County. Tobacco Control. 2003;12:269–273. doi: 10.1136/tc.12.3.269. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Wingo C, Kiser D, Boschert T, Hunting P, Buffington T, Wellman-Bensen J. Eliminating smoking in bars, restaurants, and gaming clubs in California: The California Smoke-Free Workplace Act. Sacramento. California Department of Health Services, Tobacco Control Section; 2001. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES