Annals of Health Law
STRATEGY AGAINST SMOKING
successfully on promotional activities, print and billboard advertising. 55 In
reaction to the expanded restrictions on industry marketing and political
activity agreed upon in the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) of 1998
between forty-six states and the major tobacco companies, the tobacco
companies reallocated their efforts to the relatively unregulated retail sales
environment. 56 Nevertheless, the present restrictions on tobacco advertising
and promotion have, without doubt, contributed to repel the public presence
of smoking. It seems, however, that there are barely any measures with a
meaningful potential impact left to significantly improve the current
The fourth group of tobacco control strategies, the regulation of smoking
in public areas, constitutes a particularly important element in the process
of social denormalization of smoking. Banning smoking from worksites,
restaurants, public buildings, and even public parks57 not only led to direct
health benefits for non-smokers, but also imposed a deterring
inconvenience factor on the smoking population. 58 There is little room for
improvement in the United States today since the public sphere appears to
be almost smoke-free. Nonetheless, it remains a significant problem that
these smoke-free policies, if they do not result in smoking cessation, might
ultimately prompt people to only smoke at home—thereby exposing
children and non-smoking partners even more to secondhand smoke. 59 This
issue affects the privacy of one’s home, and any regulation would be
impossible or very difficult to enforce. 60 Therefore, these potential
consequences might have to be accepted.
Worth mentioning is also the restricted access to tobacco products for
minors, which, if rigorously enforced, is deemed to be an efficient
To provide for a comprehensive system of tobacco control measures, the
55. COMMITTEE ON REDUCING TOBACCO USE: STRATEGIES, BARRIERS, AND
CONSEQUENCES supra note 40, at 114.
56. COMMITTEE ON REDUCING TOBACCO USE: STRATEGIES, BARRIERS, AND
CONSEQUENCES supra note 40, at app. L, 122.
57. For instance in New York City, see Javier C. Hernandez, Smoking Ban for Beaches
and Parks is Approved, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 2, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/
2011/02/03/nyregion/ 03smoking.html?_r= 1&scp= 1&sq=&st=nyt.
58. Cf.COMMITTEE ONREDUCINGTOBACCOUSE,STRATEGIES,BARRIERS, AND
CONSEQUENCES supra note 41, at 191-93; Seth L. Emont et al., Clean Indoor Air Legislation,
Taxation, and Smoking Behaviour in the United States: An Ecological Analysis, in 2
TOBACCO CONTROL 13 passim (1992).
59. See Rabin supra note 37, at 1728.
60. Rabin supra note 37, at 1728-29.
61. See, e.g., Chaloupka & Warner, supra note 40, at 1597-1598; Frank J. Chaloupka &
Rosalie L. Pacula, Limiting Youth Access to Tobacco: The Early Impact of the Synar
Amendment on Youth Smoking, (Working Paper) (March 1998).