Home Duke University Press
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     
  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents


Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 1992 17(2):329-352; DOI:10.1215/03616878-17-2-329
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (15)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Samuels, B. E.
Right arrow Articles by Glantz, S. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Duke University Press

Philip Morris's Failed Experiment in Pittsburgh

Bruce E. Samuels
Michael Evans Begay
Anna Russo Hazan
Stanton A. Glantz
University of California, San Francisco

The campaign for passage and implementation of Pittsburgh's Smoking Control Ordinance in 1987 illustrates the role controversy plays in tobacco control. Proponents of the ordinance sought at first to keep it noncontroversial, while the tobacco industry tried to defeat the ordinance by generating controversy, claiming that severe economic and social disruption would occur. After the ordinance had been in force for a year, Philip Morris tried to take over its implementation, seeking to redefine the central issue as one of social accommodation rather than health. To succeed, Philip Morris's effort had to be widely accepted and noncontroversial. Proponents of the ordinance countered with controversy to undermine the campaign and expose the company's intentions. The controversy made the established health organizations uncomfortable, causing them to play only a marginal role. Surprisingly, the people who prevailed were the nonsmokers' rights activists, a small group with limited resources.







  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents


Copyright 1992 by Duke University Press