Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Public Health. 2009 Jan 15;99(3):430–439. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.138461

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Advertisements from the Health Group and Pro-Tobacco Campaigns in 2006. A. Use of campaign sponsors by the Ohio health campaign to differentiate the competing initiatives. B. The pro-tobacco campaign in NV using confusion and portraying itself as the “real” tobacco control measure. C. The Arizona health group campaign highlighting campaign sponsors and illustrating that it is the comprehensive tobacco control measure. D. The Arizona pro-tobacco campaign portraying itself as a “reasonable” clean indoor air law. E. The Nevada health group campaign communicating that voters should vote “yes” for their initiative and “no” on the pro-tobacco initiative. F. The Arizona pro-tobacco campaign accusing the health group campaign of being extreme and a waste of tax money.