text:
A Survey of Voter Attitudes Toward the Dade County Smoking Ordinance A Post-Election Study 790500
Date: May 1979
Length: 130 pages
Jump To Images
Length: 130 pages
Jump To Images
- Type
- Area
- Site
- Request
- Rs-002
- Named Person
- Katosh, J.P.
- Kingwell, D.J.
- Tarrance, V.L., J.R.
- Traugott, M.
- Vanlohuizen, J.
- Recipient (Organization)
- Steele Hector
- Date Loaded
- 09 May 2000
- Named Organization
- Aapor
- Steele Hector
- V Lance Tarrance + Associates
- Litigation
- Thom/Produced
- Author (Organization)
- V Lance Tarrance + Associates
- Characteristic
- Master ID
- 03633844/5003
- 03633845
- 03633846 and Local 19026, Miame, Fl Herald 810114
- 03633847
- 03633848-3856 Campaign Treasurer's Report
- 03633857-3859 810116 Tobacco Institute Meeting on Political Coalitions
- 03633860 State Activities Meeting on 810000 Political Coalitions Efforts and Opportunities 10:00 Am Friday, 810116 Washington, D.C.
- 03633862 Gasp Activities in Dade County
- 03633863
- 03633864
- 03633865
- 03633866-3869 Dade County Campaign
- 03633871
- 03633874-3875
- 03633876-3899 Campaign Treasurer's Report
- 03633900
- 03633901-3902
- 03633903
- 03633904 Anti-Smoking Initiative Results California - Dade County
- 03633905-3907 Floridians Against Increased Regulation Election Day Victory Statement Election Standby Defeat Statement
- 03633909
- 03633911-3916
- 03633917
- 03633918
- 03633922-3923 Post-Election Programs
- 03633924
- 03633925-3927 Post-Election Programs
- 03633928-3929 Post Election Programs
- 03633930-3931 California - No on Prop 10 Dade County, Fla - Punch 240
- 03633932-3933
- 03633934
- 03633935-3936 Fair Black Radio
- 03633937
- 03633938-3949 Campaign Treasurer's Report
- 03633950-4266 A Perliminary Report of Dade County Voter Attitudes Toward the Smoking Ordinance
- 03634267-4422 A Survey of Dade County Voter Attitudes Toward the Smoking Ordinance A Tracking Study 790419 - 790507
- 03634553-4571 Dade County Tracking the First Four Days
- 03634554 Dade County Verbatims
- 03634556 Untitled Document 03634556
- 03634572-4696 A Survey of Voter Attitudes Towards Smoking Prohibition in Dade County
- 03634696A-4739 California's Proposition 5 - a Post Election Analysis
- 03634747 Hillsborough (Nj) Township Board of Health
- 03634748-4751 Jurisdiction of Hillsboro Board of Health
- 03634752-4755 Formal Opinion No. 27 - 1979
- 03634756-4757 New Jersey - Herman Bills
- 03634759-4863 Public Hearing Before Assembly Judiciary, Law, Public Safety & Defense Committee on A-17222 Through A-1729 (Smoking Regulations)
- 03634763-4766 Assembly, No. 1722 State of New Jersey An Act Controlling Smoking in Certain Indoor Public Places and Supplementing Chapter 33 of Title 2c of the New Jersey Statutes
- 03634767-4768 Assembly, No.1723 State of New Jersey An Act Prohibiting Smoking in Polling Places and Supplementing Chapter 33 of Title 2c of the New Jersey Statutes
- 03634769-4770 Assembly, No.1724 State of New Jersey An Act Prohibiting Smoking in Elevators and Supplementing Chapter 33 of Title 2c of the New Jersey Statutes
- 03634771-4776 Assembly, No.1725 State of New Jersey An Act Controlling Smoking in Health Care Facilities and in the Waiting Rooms of Offices of Persons Licensed to Practice the Healing Arts and Supplementing Chapter 33 of Title 2c of the New Jersey Statutes
- 03634776A-4776B Assembly, No.1726 State of New Jersey An Act Controlling Smoking in Institutions Providing Education or Training and Supplementing Chapter 33 of Title 2c of the Revised Statutes
- 03634777-4779 Assembly, No.1727 State of New Jersey An Act Controlling Smoking in Certain Restaurants and Supplementing Chapter 33 of Title 2c of the New Jersey Statutes
- 03634780-4782 Assembly, No.1728 State of New Jersey An Act Controlling Smoking in Places of Employment and Supplementing Chapter 33 of Title 2c of the New Jersey Statutes.
- 03634783-4786 Assembly, No.1729 State of New Jersey An Act Controlling Smoking in Government Buildings and Supplementing Chapter 33 of Title 2c of the New Jersey Statutes
- 03634864-4867 References
- 03634868-4873 A Critique of Aronow's Study, 'effect of Passive Smoking on Angina Pectoris'
- 03634876-4911 Curriculum Vitae
- 03634917-4929 Statement of George E. Schafer
- 03634930-4940 Statement of Walker Merryman
- 03634941-4947 Statement of Duncan Hutcheon
- 03634957 Assemblyman Herman Bills A-1722 Through A-1729
- 03634984 New Jersey Restrictive Legislation
- 03634985-4986 Bills on Smoking Unveiled
- 03634987-4988 Legislative Bulletin
- 03634989-4990 Senate Bill 1322 in New Jersey
- 03634991 Clash on Smoking Ban Erupts in Legislature
- 03634992 Senate Weakens Butt Bann
- 03634993
- 03634994 Pro-Smoking Counterattack
- 03634995 Smoking Rule Not Government Duty
- 03635000
Related Documents:
Document Images
Page 1: mso13c00
Page 2: mso13c00
TAB'LE.OF CONTENTS ( PAGES SURVEY OVERVIEW 1 A SUMMARY GUIDE TO AGGREGATES AND CROSS-TABULATIONS 6 INTERVIEW SCHEDULE IN'FiELD ORD'ER 7' SUMMARY OF CRUCIAL FIND'INGS,, DADE COUNTY POST-ELECTION 25' CHAPTER'I THE DADE COUNiTY CAMPAIGN, AGAINST'THE SMOKINGORDINANCE: A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 26 CHAPTER.II WHAT HAPPENED? THE BALLOT SITUATION IN DADE COUNTY 30 CHAPTER,I'II DISCREPANC'IES IN, CREDIBILITY'AND VOTE INCENTIVES' 51 CHAPTER IV' THE REGULATION OF SMOKING IN1DA'DE COUNTY IN THE' FUTURE 80~ AGGREGATES~ Fodlow page 87BAR CHART& Follow Aggregates CR05S'-TABULATIONS Follow Bar Charts E
Page 3: mso13c00
V Lance Tarrance &Associates A SURVEY OF VOTER ATTI'TJDES TC'rlARD THE. DADE COL'Ni,t SMOKING ORDINANCE A POST-ELECTIONISTUDY MAY,. 1979, Q O A Confidential Report Prepared for ~ W STEELE., HECTOR AND DAVIS A ATTORNE'rS AT LAW' W Lakeview.BuildinglSuite 160y400 FM 1960 West Houston, Texas 77090/Phone 713'-444-9011©
Page 4: mso13c00
Page 5: mso13c00
-5- In Tab1'e B, there is only one set of percentage figures (the "Row" per- centages). Regardless of the number of columns, the percentage figures for each cell in a given row~add to one hu.ndP-ed percent. In all cases where cross-tabulation cells show only one percentage figure (except where specified otherwise), that figure is the Row percent. [
Page 6: mso13c00
-6- ASUMM'ARY GUIDE TO AGGREGATES AND CROSS-TABULATI'ONS. Pages Aggregates Follow, analysis Geographical Recodes 69!-92' Type Work of Head of Household/C 93'-123 How you Usually Vote/C 124 147 Involvement in Politics and Government/C 148-171 A'ge/Lifestyle 172-195 Educati on 196-219 Smoking History 220-24:3 Religious Preference/C 244-267 Type of Housing F68=291 Race/National Origini 292-315 Sex 316-339 Jewish Condo Vote 340-363' Turnout Probability 364-387 Pre-ETectian vs. Post-Election 388-398'. Special Tables 399'-516'.
Page 7: mso13c00
-4- Tl've Cross-Tabulations: Row and Column Percentaaes Oecasionall',y it i'.s instructive to supply both the "Row" and "'ColumnP' per- centages on:a single cross-tabulation (see Table A). By using both sets of percentages on a single table, it is possible to observe the profiles of two categorical variabl'es each in terms of the other, without referring to additional tables. TABLE A Sex: Males Females A'cer Under 40 20 30 40.0 60.0 33.3 75.0 40 and,over 40' 10 80'1.0 20.0 66.7 0 25.0 According to the distribution in Table A, within the "under 40+' category, 40" of the respondents are men, while 60e are women., (,These figures are referred t&ass the "Row" percentage figures..) The inclusion of the column percentage in each cell enables the observer to determine the age diistrilbu- ti'on of either sex. For example,.33.3a of the men in this. example are under the age of 40, as are 75a of the women. (These figures are referredd to as,"Column" percentages figures.): The column percentages in Table A provide the same information as would a cross-tabulation arranged as fodlows: TABLE 3 Acer Under 10' 1,0' and over Sex: i4'al es~ 20 40 33.3 66 . 7' -~ 100.0 O W. 09 Femal'es 30 70 W 75.0 25.0 ~---~ 1100..0 ~ .A~ N. CD~
Page 8: mso13c00
Question 5 Continued I 07. NOT A PROBLEM TO ME 08. I SMOKE 09. AGAINST ORDINANCE 10'. OTHER Ll. DON' T KNOW -10- Track Post img Elec! Study Stu ~d~ Now I would like to readiyou some of the things that other people have told u.s and.ask you for each one whether you agree or disagree -- 6. "I think that the.whole issue in the election was exaggeratedL" Agree strongly................ .1 I IF ANSWERED, THEN'ASK:) Do you. Agree ....................... 2 feell strongly about that? Neutral (DO NOT READ)....... 3 Disagree ....................14 Disagree strongly........... 5 Don't.know.................. .6 "The smoking issue did not really concern me personalily." IF ANSWERED~, THEN, ASK:: I Do you feel stronglly about that?' 8. "All the attention in the media and'the noi'se made by both campaigns really turned me off." IF ANSWERED, THEN A6K:. I Do you feel strongly aboutthat?. Agree strongly ..............1 Agree......................... 2 Neutral (,DO NOT READ)....... 3 Disagree .................... 4 Disagree.strongty........... 5 Don't know .................. 6 Agree strongly ..............1 Agree .......................2 Neutral (DO NOT RE;AD)....... 3 Disagree.................... .4 Disagree strongly........... 5 Don't know ..................6 4% 7% 7% 1.% 2% 4% 5% 3% 9 0 35% 20w'l 12a. 160~ 15% 2% 29% 2'2a 4°; 16% 30% *o C 24% W. 20% ~ 1'1 `6 W. 2 2 % ~ ~ 2 2 % ~ %,
Page 9: mso13c00
Page 10: mso13c00
-24- Track Post RP30 Involvement in Politics and~ Government/C ing. ELec Study Stud . low......................... , T. 16% Vote regul.arl'y .............. 2' 55°4 Hi,qh........................ ..3 29% R97. Ballot Changing Stay for..................... .1 33"'> Switch for ...................2 Undecided to For ............ .3' Undecided to Anti............ .4 Switch Anti...., ..............5 So a ~ o 5% Stay anti.................... 6 47% .
Page 11: mso13c00
-1118- Question 18 Continued I Track Post ing - E7ect Study Study 116. GENERAL AGREEMENT WITH ADS *% 17. TO OPPOS.E THE ORDINANCE 5% 18., DISREGARDED'ADS' 3a 19. OTHER 2°' 20. DON'T KNOW 9a 19 , "People that were caught.smoking in the wrong,places could be arrested and fined $500." (DO YOU BELIEVE THIiS IS TRUE OR NOT2) t In most election campaigns both sides usually try to have strong arguments to try to convi'nce the voters to vote for their side. Now I willll read you somee of the statements made during the election campaign and have you tell me whether you thought iit was true or not. Here is the first one -- Believe ..................... 1 SDn, Don't believe ...............2 40% Not sure (DOINOT READ)~...... 3 l0% 20. "Breathingiin other people's smoke canibe bad for the health of the nonsmoker.," elieve..................... .1 Don't believe............... .2 Not sure (DO' NOT REaD);...... .3 21. "Theordi'nance wouTd!have cost $8 miillilon to private businesses and taxpayers." Believe..................... .1 Don't believe............... .2 Not sure (D0 NOT READ.)...... ,3 22. "'The,big tobacco firms spent a O miil!1 i;on dol llars to defeat the ~ ~ ordinance in the election." Bel.ieve..................... 1 Don't beliieve ................2 Not.sure (DO NOT READ)....... 3 .A 73% 19% 8% 43a 36% 20a 77°'0 8% 150
Page 12: mso13c00
Page 13: mso13c00
-7- C E INTERVIEWER' S'tudy # 1230 PERSONAL/CONFIDENTIAL Time started V. LANCE TARRANCE & ASSOCIATES Time ended Finance Hello:, I'm of V. Lance Tarrance &'. Associates, a national research firm locate6in Hbusston. May I speak with As you may reca~ll, some time ago we spoke with you about,your opinions con- cerning the electiion on the Dade County Ordinance to limit smoking that was hel!d Tuesday of last week. I'd.like to ask you a few more questions and'. liisten to your opinions as of today. l. In talki'ng to peoplle about the election, we find that a llot of Post people were not abl'e to vote.Electior What about you -- diid you or Stud~ didn't you vo.te in the,election?' "1/ Yes (G0,T0'Q.lIO THRU 13) ....1 68%. No ('GO TO Q.2 THRU 9)',....... 2 31 % No answer/refused (DO NOT READ-GO TO Q..14) .............3 *e 2.. In any election many people are unable to vote for different reasons:. What was the most,important reason why you did not vote in the election on the smoking ordinance? (PROBE: CAN, YpU. TELL ME A LITTLE MORE ABOUT THAT?.) 09. WORKING - I was working/had to work. Uate/had.a lot of work to do/ 22'0 tied up at the offilce/'I was working, and could not get:off work/ work schedule wouldh"t permit/ 02. ILLNESS/HEALTH REASONS - I was i.ll/had to go to the doctor and had! 15% minor surgery/was sick'and could not get'out to vote/taking care of sick grandson/my seven week old baby girl was sick/I was pregnant/' 03. OUT OF TOWN - I was gone/out'of town at the time/I. was called out 10% of town/was in Fort Mpyer/I was away on business/ 04. UNCONCERNED WITH ISSUE - I' didn't care enough'about it,to bother 13`I voting/I wasn't interested/I could care less which way the eiiection goes/T didn't think it.really'was that important/D felt the issue was unimportant/apathy - didn't care/I didn't want to/ 05. NO TIME - I got home late/didn"t have time tolvote/time ran out/' 6% we had,a wedding. going on and didn't have time/it was too late p when I go.t there/time - the time segment prohibited my voting/ W 0? W ~ * = Less than 1% »~ G7 W'
Page 14: mso13c00
F Question: 11 Contiinued { d 07. 08. 09. 110. 11. 12. 13. 14. C 1'S. -12- PROTECTI'ON OF CHILDREN - I have five children and I'm nat aismoker, I was a college athlete - money, offensive, health -- that's the three deterrents I telll my students/ CLEAN!A'IR - I prefer clean air/people have a right to c eaT n air/D want clean air/i'm tired of people polluting the air I breathe/ TOBACCO INDUSTRY MENTIONS - I was annoyed at the money spent, it really ticked me off/I resented that,the tobacco companies.spent so much money/T.was upset with the cigarette industry for spending a million to try to convince me to vote against it/it bothers me that the tobacco companies spent so much money on the issue and'the other side hardly any - I sort of voted for the underdog/ DISLIKE AGAINST ADS - I believe some of the tobacco industry arg,uments are farces/the arguments against the ordinance were inflammatory/ SMOKE FREE RESTAURANTS - I don't like restaurants the,way they are so poll'uted'with smoke/prohibiting, smoking in restaurants' is especially good, smoke can ruin a person"s appetite/people have a right to cl'ean aiir when eating/ APPROVE OF ORD'INA'NCE AGAINST ALL SMO'KING OTHER DON'T KNOW IF "AGAINST"' IN'QU'ESTDON 10, ASK: 12. And what are one or two reasons why you were against the ordiinance? ('PROBE: CAN YOU TELL ME A LITTLE'MORE ABOUT THAT?) Track Post ing Elect Study Study 1°6 2% 4" 80 3a 6a 20 2°S 11~' 2 a~ S°" ,o °y 5 4% % 3°> 1°0 3% 01. FREEDOM OF CHOICE - too much freedom is being taken away/ 43% . 39% invasion of rights/people have the right 'Mdo what they choose/ 02. MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL - too much regulation by the govern- ~.18% 17a ment/there is sufficient regulation iniDade County/too many w laws/I don't think.government has the right to regulate our O) . lives/I'm ti~red of regulation - I'm just anti-regulation at ~' this time/ a Q.7'~ on
Page 15: mso13c00
THE CdIM'PUTER PR'INTOUT Aggregates, The aggregate tables present the results of the entire survey; together with computer-generated variables combining or collapsing some of the other questions. Each tabulation'.presents the number and percentages of respond'ents giving each answer. The question numbers (andianswer numbers), used here are exactly the same as those,presented~in the inter- view schedule which foll'ows this survey overview- the wordings in the printou.t are abbreviated, these shortened wordings also being used in the cross-tabulations.. The Cross-Tabul ati ons U The cross-tabudations present the raw numbers and percentages of one~ variable broken down by the responses to another variable, or other variables. The dependent variablie, for which, the percentages,are pre- sented is printed across the top of each table. The independent variable is printed down the left side of the table. For each value of the inde- pendent variable a set of percentages on the dependent variable is calculated and'printed in the body of the table. In add5ti'om, a number of statistics is presented that indicates the significance and strength of relationships between the two variables in the table. First, the Chi-square,statistic is presented. This measure indicates the statistical si'gnifi'cance of the relationship i'n the table. It is jased an the differenca ~etrNeen the numbers =ound i'n each cell of the table and the,number that would be exoected on the basis of the assumption that there is no rel',ationship between the vari- ables. If this difference is sufficiently large, indicated by high valiues of Chi-square, then one can re.fect the assumption, that there is no relationsfiip,. Whether Chi-square is sufficiently large can be answered by the probability value printed with the measure., The smaller the prcobability value, the higher the likeli'hood that the table reflects a real' correlation in the data, rather than a chance occurrence. The
Page 16: mso13c00
- ll- 4URVEY OVERVIEW V. Lance Tarrance & Associates is pleased,to present the results of this survey to Steele,, Hector and Davis. This section outl',ines the research techniques usedin gathering,the information presented in this report. The p:roject director for thisstudy was V. Lance Tarrance, Jr.; with design and analytical support from Jan van Lohuizen; with,data processing support from Jan van Lohuiizen. Donna J. Kingwell acted as the internall project coordinator. This report contains the results of a telephone survey of 750 registered voters throughout Dade County,Responses,to this county-widle survey were gathered during the period of May 14-17, 1979. All respondents interviewed inithis study were reinterviewees fromithe Dade County Tracking study. The confidence interval associated~with a. sample of this type is such. that: 90% of the time resul'.ts wil''1ll be within: ± 3.1a of the "true vallues"; 95a,of the time results will be within ± 3.6% of the "true val'ues";. 99% of the time results will bewithin ± 4.7% of the "true values"; where "true values"' refer to the results obtained if it were possible to interview every 1976 voter in the county. Interviewing was conducted by V. Lance Tarrance & Associates' instructed personnel. working from the company's own telephone bank in Houston Texas. The interviews lasted'approximately 15-18',minutes. Ediiting, coding, and computer processing of the d'ata was done at V. Lance Tarrance & Associates' headquarters. The computer tabulations were produced by a private statis- tical analysis program.
Page 17: mso13c00
-3- stze,of the Chil-square statistic depends on a rather large number of factors, incTuding sample size and the number of celils in a particular table. It cannot be compared across tables, andcannot be used to make inferences about the:strength ofa relationship. Several other measures are printed to indicate strength of relationship. The first of these is, Phi, which is simply the square root of'Chi-square/N, where N'.is the number of respondents,in the table,. It is comparabl'e for different sample sizes but not for tables with unequal numbers of cells. A comparable measure is the contingency coefficient, which is Chi-square based like Phi, but has a lower upper bound. A third Chi-square based measure,is Cramer's V, which always is bounded! by C and' 1, independent. of the number of rows and columns in.the table. It is therefore ccmpa- rabl.e across different size tables and different samolle si'zes. Finally, the likeliho:odl ratio. test is a test based an uncertainty reduc- tiion on the basis of dependencies in the data. It is very ccmparablle to Chi-square iitself, but not as sensitive to.sampte size.. Unfortunately no hard and fast rul,es of interpretation are availabie. A number of measures is presented because different analysts have different prer"erences,, and no agreed upon measures exist. As a rule, statisti'cs, should be treated with caution. Mat!iematilcal statistics is an aid in decision making~and should not be substituted for the decision making process itself. The knowledge and intuition of the analyst can be just as important as a statistic. Moreover, statistical significance is,not the same as, practicalsi'gnificance. Tables without a significant Chi- square can be the most re1eealling ones. As a ruUe of thumb, only thosee tables with~a arobability value smaller than .05 should be considerea statistically significant. In some cases,, the printout will contain a message that the table is soarse, asa result of cells,with very few respondents in them. In these cases., Poi'ah Chi-square values should,be treated with caution.
Page 18: mso13c00
Question 17 Continued ~ -16- 12. DICTATORIAL.- it reminded me of the movie "1984" with big brother there/it was to tell people how to live their lives/ 13. ANTI TOBACCO INDUSTRY - that the tobacco companies were against it, and they were putting up a lot of money for i't/trying, to tell us that the tobacco companies just want.to sell more cigarettes/ 14. JUST'GIV'ING THEIR SIDE - they were.just trying'to.counter- act ads from the other side/just saying their piece/ 15. T& FAV'OR,THE ORDINANCE 16. DISREGARDED1ADS 17. OTHER 18. DON'T KNOW 18. And what about the ads against the ordinance, what in your own, words do you feel'' the ads were trying to tell: you? 01'. INDIVIDUAL R'IGHTS/FREEDOM'OF CHOICE - we have a right as Americans to do what we please/the ordinance was another example of taking away rights/you lose some of your civiil rights,if you vote for it/that we will lose our freedbm of choice/trying to get people to stand up for theiir rights/ a uiol.ation of constituti'onality/ 02. SMOKERS' RIGHTS - infringing on our rights as smokers/you have the right to smoke ilf you want.to/we should have the riight to smoke/the decision i's up to me whether toismoke or not/the smoker has more rights than the nonsmoker/ 03. GOV'ERNMENT'INffERVENTION/T00 M'ANY LAWS - they were trying to push~too much government d'ominance of people's private lives/government rulling us iniour personal libes/too much red tape and regulations for indivi!duaiTs/too many laws and ordinances/itr's.liike commundsm/enough laws to limit people/don't let.it happen here/they dbn't need a law/ be aware of "big brother"/ 04I. COST HEAVY/TAKPAYfR'PA'FS - the cost was too high/there would be a great expense/waste of the taxpayers' money/ ressured!the fact of the cost of putting the ordinance p Track Post ing Elect Study Study 20 1% 5% 4%. 2a, 9°. 27? 10% 8% O W 10% PD, ~ in effect/the high cost to the taxpayers/ ~
Page 19: mso13c00
-8- question2 Continued 06. FORGOT - frankly, I forgot/I forgot about it until it'was too late/ 07. BAD' WEATH'ER,- rarfni!ng/it was a~ real bad flood here/the weather, it was kind of bad out here/ 08. LACKED TRAN'SPORTATION'- no transportation/my car broke down/ I''m elderly and.I couldn't get a riide out to the polis/ 09. WAS UNDECIDED - I coul!dm't decide on which side to vote/couldn't make up my mind/didn't,have a strong decision one way or the other/ 10. MOVING - I, was moving to another house/we moved and.I never got reregistered/changed address/ 11. APPOI'NTM'ENTS/OTHER'.DUTIES - I had an appointment/had to take care of baby/ 12. DISLIKED CAMPAIGN - I feeTl it was ridiculous to spend all that money/it was one-siided and it was carried too far - extreme/ 1'.3. OTHER 14. DON!' T KNOW 3. If you would have had the chance to,vote, how do you think you would have voted on the ordinance, for or against prohibiting smoking in, certain public places? - J IFANSWERED "'fOR" IN QUESTION 3' ASK: For.......................... 1 Against..................... ..2 Not sure (D0. NOT READ) ...... 3 4. And what'are one or two reasons why you were for the ordinance? (PROBE: CAN YOU TELL ME A LITTLE MORE ABOUT THAT?) 01. HEALTH - it is bad for the health and my husband died from ~ cancer/I am allergic and it i's bad for the health/it's no W g;oodlto the human body/I have sinus trouble/ M W ~ 02. PASSIVE SMOKE/GENERAL - I just d'on't like smoke in my face Q. I don't like smoke - it burns my eyes/smokinqis offensive, ~ at times/I don't like the smell/ Post Electio.n Study 5% 4%. 3% 2%. 5%' 1% 4%, Track Postt ing, Elect Study Study 37'I 37% 51% 54% 13 %' 9% 17% 24% 20% 21 °m
Page 20: mso13c00
C e Question 4 Continued I 03. SMOKERS ARE INCONSIDERATE - people who smoke are,rude andlget imsultedlif you tell them to quit/people shouldn't smoke i'f'it offends o.thers/ 04. CONTROL SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES - I think people should only smoke in certain places/I think they should keep smokers and nonsmokers separatedlin public places/I don"t like smoking next t&me in restaurants/ 05. NONSMOKERS' RIGHTS - I'm a nonsmoker, iit annoys me/' 06. CLEAN AdR'- people have the right to breathe fresh air/ smoking is a pol'lutant/ 07'. AGAINST ALL SMOKING 08. . OTHER 09'. DONI' T KNOW IF ANSWERED "AGAINST" IN' QUESTION 3, ASK: 1 5. And what are one or two reasons why you were against the ordinance? (PROBE: CAN YOU TELL ME A LITTLE MORE ABOUT THAT?) 01. FREEDOM OF CHOICE - if you want to smoke you should be able to/I don't thiink it's right to prohibit something like that iin America/everyone should be free and everyone should do what they want/it'was infringing upon my rights/ 02'. MORE'GOVERNM'ENTCONTROL - we would start getting ordinances against everythi',ng and soon we wouldn't have~any rights./it' like communism/don't think tFiere,should~ be more government control/ 03. TOO EXTREME/UNENffORCEABLE - it wouldn't be possible to con- trol where and when people,smoke/create too many problems, Track Post ing, Elect Stud Study 3'°,a, 6% 13% 14% 1fi% 15% 40 6%, 530 3% 4% 5% 1% 7 0 43% 39% 18% 9% G Cj 0a W ~5°S 7% W fines/I don't think it shouidbe done by forcing,people/ 0 04''.. COST TOi BUSINESS/TA;(PAYEnS - I don"t tPoink people could afford 8°0 1I09o to divi'de bustnesses into sections/it would cause additional costs iln court cases/ 05. SOME RESTRICTION ACCEPTABLE - I am for permitting restrictions 3% 4% in certain situations/ 06. POORLY WRITTEN - because of the wording of the ordinance/I am 2°b 5% not sure I care for laws like that I am not too fond of the way it was worded/
Page 21: mso13c00
Question 17 Continued I Track Post ing Elect Study Study 02., CLEAN AIR RIGHT - everyone has,airight to clean air/ 9% people in an enclosed area.have the right to breathe cllean air/people who do not smoke have at right to breathe cllean ailr/they warntedd the air pure by this no smoking dead/ 03. SEGREGATED' AREAS/PUBLIC RESTRICTION - a person should 6% have a place not to be subjected to smoke/to not smoke i'nipublic places/that smoki'ng and nonsmoking should be segregated/people are going to have to give up smoking in public places/the smoking situation is in need.of regulating/ 04. SMOKE'ANNOYING - smoking would bother older people/ 5a nonsmokers don't like the smell of smoke and that it bothers people/they didh't like peoplie to smoke where they ate/nonsmokers should not be bothered.witfi such~ a filthy habit/offensive to other people - they really hammered at.that/ 05. NONSMOKERS" RIGHTS - tell'the truth about the rights of 10% nonsmokers/certain people have the right not toibe sub- jected to smoking/yauihave the right to do anything you! want/don't infringe on the other i'ndividuali"s rights/ basically that nonsmokers' rights are infringed upon too/ 06. ELIM'INATE.SM'OKING COMPLETELY' - there should be no smoking at.alll,/they tell me not.to smoke/they wanted us to qpit smoking/that.people shouldn't smoke at all/' 07.. SMOKERS LACK COURTESY/CONSI,DER NONSMOKERS - we shouldn't be subjected to. the inconsiderations of the smokers/respect nonsmokers/people shouild just be considerate/we should bear with people wholdon't smoke/ 08. ANTI SMOKER:- they don't want smokers/the people object to smokers/expou.ndti.ng their attitudes towards. smokers/ they were disgusted with smokers/they wanted to pass the ordinance and put the smokers i~n their place/ 09. MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION/THINK - trying to, get to the peopTe to give them something~to think about/gave both sides of the problem and left it up to you/ 10. EXTREME/BRAINWASHING - both sides went to extremes/all the ads were used to brainwash you into a decision/the adver- tisements were meant to influence you/trying to put some- thing over on the people/ 11. SILLY' - they were appealing to the apparent stupidity'of people/they were underhanded and stupid/they were silllly/ they were pathetic/ 4% 20w 2m 2% 3% p ~ ~ ~ 2% ~y
Page 22: mso13c00
-34- The margin by which they voted in favor was relatively small, however; although they were not on the against side of the issue, these voters did not vote as a bloc for the ordinace and the attempts to~neutralize this group may therefore be considered successful.. One of the crucial. groups where turnout cost the campaign substarntiall numbers of votes were the former smokers,. The former smokers that voted were in balance for the ordinance. The former smokers that did not vote were in balance against the ordinance. Had they turned out in larger numbers,, then the election woulid not have been this close. A simple overview of where the differences in turnout did the most damage is presented in Table.4. This table shows that in addition to the young adults only one group turned out significantly favoring the 'against' side, the smokers. (The shift among, nonworking women is too small to be considered signiilficant'.)
Page 23: mso13c00
-3g- TABLE 41 THE VANISHING FORI/AGA'INST MIIRGIN Nbnvoters Voters Aggregates 17 1,2 Region Northeas.t 16 6 Northwest, 17 16 Southeast. 22 8 Southwest 16 1.2 Vote, Behavior Republicans 29I 22 Tilcket-Splitters 21 6 Democrats 12 10 A'ge/Li festyl e Young adu.lts 12' 20 Family adults 19 13 Older adults 20 5 Education Less than high,school 16 5 Hilgh,school graduate 20 20 Some college 19 13 College graduate 12 4 Smoking History Smoker 62 73 Former smoker 8 -9 Nonsmoker -7 -25 Sex Mal e 23' 1' S Female/home 6 8 Female/works 18' 8 Jewish/Cando Jewish and Condo 0 -8 Jewish or Condo 21 13 Others 17 12
Page 24: mso13c00
-14- 141. In any e7ection both supporters and Track Post opponents usually try to reach the ing Elect voters through adivertising. Can you Study Study remember having seen or heard any ads on the smokiing ordi.nance?. IF~ Y~ES~, ASKr. And' whi'ch ads~ can you remember seeing, those that were "for"' the ordinance or those that were "against"' the ordinance? No .............,.............1 17n. 13~ Both ...................,.,....2 28% 50% "For" omly ..................3 6a 30 "Against" only.............. .4 49a 33°a Don't know. ..................5 1°a IF "2", "3"' . OR "4" INI QUESTIiON 14, ASK: I In eliection campai'gnss there are many different ways of getting in touch with the voters, such as newspapers, radio, TU,billboards, and through the use of direct mail. Where would you say'you 1',earned the most about the smoking ordinance as far as advertisi'ng is concerned -- and where did you learn the next most? (DO NOT READ, JUST RECORD) Q. 15 q- 16 +Tracking Study ' Newspaper ads 199'+ 20°;++ 40~;++ Television ads 61d62°o 24°p ++Post El ti ec on Radio,ads 7M 890 11°1 Study Di:rect mai 1 iinq 1% 2°b 2°0 Bil:lboard~s 2°02,°o 4ti Telephone callls 2.":' *% 2°~ Posters, handouts,. etc. 1°b 3°S Other (specify)~ 2~i 1 ~b 5'6 I Don't.know 2% 2% 11°S C I IF "BOTH" OR "FOR" IN QUESTION 114, ASK: ~ 17. And about the ads in favor of the ordlinance, in your owniwords, what do you feel that,the ads were trying to tell you? 01. HEAIiTH HAZARDS OF SritOKING, - health of people is what they were probably concerned with/smoking and inhaling smoke is bad for health/they're trying to;save my life, andl everybody's/passing of the ordinance would be better for your health/save your ownilife/people get sick from smoke/ 30"
Page 25: mso13c00
-21- ~ Question 27'Continued I I i 10. BUSINESSES DO OWN REGULATING - companies could designate ~ smoking and nonsmoking/the store owners - it's up~to. ~ them if they want restrictions/enterprises can control it, not llegrislature/voluntary restrilctions/ 11. IMPROVE VENTILATION - requirement of public enclosed. places to purify the air/certain places where there is no ventilatiiom/proper ventilation in public places would hel;p/ 12.REGULATE'THEATERS/ffIRE HAZARD PLACES - theater nonsmoking/ banned from theaters/smoking in movie houses - it's not safe/not smoking because of a fire hazard/ 113. REGULATE HOSPITALS/DOCTORS' OFFICES - get it in hospitalls/ no smoking in hospitals/some public places should be re- stricted such as doctors" offices/ 14., REGULATE STORES - grocery stores should be restricted/ department s:tores/iin clothina and.department stores/ 15. FINES NECESSARY - signs and fines/anyone who disobeys sign should be fined so they learn a lesson/fines - a small fine/ 16. ORDINANCE HARSH/EDUCATE PEOPLE - they shoul!dn't have a penalty/follow ups were a.little too steep/not such a high fiine/edbcate people about it/more,education about the health haza.rds/ 17. REGULATE OFFICES - smoking regulations in offices because nonsmokers who work with smokers have no defense/in offices they need separate places/ 18. OTHER Track Post ing Elect Study Study 6q 1% 4% 1CZ 2% . 1P 1a 19, DONI' T KNOW 5%
Page 26: mso13c00
-23- COMPUTER GENERATED VA'RIABLES' RP4. Reasons For/C RP5':. Reasons Agai'nst/C RPlil. Reasons For/C RP12. Reasons Against/C RP2B. Type Work,of Head of H'ouseholid/C RP29. How'You Usually Vote/C Track Post ing Elect Study Study Hpalth....................... 1 27% 24% Passive smoking/general..... 2 20% 21% Control' public smoki'ng...... 3 13% 14p Nonsmokers" riights.......... ,.4 16% 15% Other/don't know............ 5 240. 26% Freedom choice .............. 1 430 39a M'ore government controll..... 2 1K 9% . Other campaign themes....... 3 19q~ 17% . Other/don't know............4 21; 34% Heal',th........................ .1 27`a 19~ Passiive smoking/g,eneral..... .2 20% 170 Control putiliic smoking...... .3 13% 8a NQnsmokers' ri'ghts.......... 4 1fi°a 129.' Other/don't know............ 5 24% 43'a Freedom.choice............... 1 43% 39% More government control.....2 18% 17°{, Other campaign themes ....... 3 19°i 21% Other/don't know............4 21% 23% Self-emplioyed............... ,.1 Large business.............. ,.2 Small.business............... .,3 Government worker........... ,4 Not in labor force.......... 5 Other/no response........... ,6 Republican., ................,.1 Democrat .............,...,....3 17% 27% 130 15% . 22°" 6% 19% . 25% 56%~
Page 27: mso13c00
-35- TABLE 1 TURNOVER RATES ON BALLOT Jade County Voters Pre Post For Aoains.t Refused', For 85 11 4 Not Sure 39' 34 23 Against 10 87 3 Nonvoters For Against Refused u m r .o « io For 80 14 6 Not Sure 33 50 17 Against 8 84 8 California For A ag inst Refused w a ~ o w it For 81 16 3 Undecided 36 55 10 Against 13 85 2
Page 28: mso13c00
-25- SUMMARY OF CRUCIAL FINDINGS, DADE COUNTY POST-ELECTION A. Differential Turnout: Among the people that voted', "'pro+" voters were.more numerous than,"con" voters. This may have caused a shift in the balance of the vote of as mu&as 5%. B. In a small part this is due not to last minute changi.ng,of sides, but to undecideds turnin aag inst us. Undecideds that did not vote were for us by 33 to 50, undecid'eds that voted were against. us by 39~ to 34. C. Late Deciders: Of the people that made up their minds on electiorn ~~aay, two decided to vote "pro"''for every one that decided to vote "con.," In California this was an almost an even split. D., Media Penetration in Dade County was high, at the same llevel as in Cali,fornia. Dade County was slightly'more newspaper and.TU oriented and less radio oriented than California. E. Attitude Structure differed'on the "against" side in Dade County. Seventeen percent of the voters mentioned government control comparedito 9% of the nonvoters.. Apparently this argu- ment is a stronger motivator, especially when looking at Cali;fornia (37% mentions). F. Substantial evidence of lower involvement and "caring" leading to lower turnout was found on the 'against:' side. G. Credibility: The two.campaign themes tested (5500 fine and $8 million, cost), did not have,nearly the same credibility as the other side's themes (secondary health and tobacco spending). H. As i.n Caliifornia,, voters,in Dade County sti'll want some kind of regulation of smoking imipubl!iic places.
Page 29: mso13c00
-22- And now a few last questions for statistical' purposes only -- Track Post 28. Of the following types of work:, ing Elect which one describes what the Study Study h d f ' ea o the housetiol .dl does? (READ LIiST)~ Self-employed............... 1 Large business ..............2 Small business............... .3 Gb~vernment worker............ :.4 Not in the labor force (student, housewife, retired)................. ,.,5 Uhemployed.................. ,.6 Other (specify) 7 No response................. 8 17m 27a 130% 15/ 220 o 1%2%' 29. Which of these statements best describes how you usuallTy vote? (READ LIST). Mostly Republican........... 1 A'few more Republicans than Democrats............ 2 The man (DO NOT READ)~....... .3 A few more Democrats than Republicans.......... 4 Mbstl'y Democrat :............5 Don't know ..................6 ~ Some people have the time to particilpate in local and state politics and govern- ment, while others cannot for personali reasons. I"m now going to read you a list of how much some people get invoTved in politics and government -- please teTl me the number which best reflects your level of activity. ('.REA'D LIST BY NUMBER) Q., 30' 1) Never get.invo:lved 2) Occasional'l voting in elections 3) Vote.regullarly in just,about all electi;ons 4) Also have written l'ettersto elected officialls C 5) Also have contributed money to a. W candidate's campailgn cT) W G), Also have worked for candidate in local ~ and other elections ~ mph 7) No response aD o~ fu. 6a, 22% 12% 44% 3% . 9%,
Page 30: mso13c00
-13- Track: Post ing Elect uestion 12 Continued./ Study Study C 03. TOO EXTREME/IINENFORCEABLE - they've gone too far with the 500 fine and the threatening t&get arrestedi/ ordfnance went too far/it would be too hard to enforce/ 04. COST TO BUSSNESS/TAXPAY'ERS - the.economic impact of puttingiup partiti~ons between smoking and nonsmoking areas/it would.have cost business a small fortune/ it's a wasteful issue of taxpayers' money/ 05'.. RIDICULiOUS/UNNECESSARY - if you're going to spend all that'much money on an ordinance, I think i!t would be. better orn crime rather than policing people's smoking/ I dorr.'t feel i.t's a legislative type of thing/the eUec- tion was a dumb idea/they have too:many silly laws like that aliread'y/ 06. SOME RESTRICTION ACCEPTABLE - I don't feel that people s.howld be separated - separate sections maybe,.but.not walls/ 07.. POORLY 4lRITTEN - I didn't like the way it was worded,: too many areas set aside/it wasn't alfair type of ordinance/ I didn't think it was very clear/ 08. DETRIMENTAL TO BUSINESS - I'm in the,restaurant business, I've been in it for years, I smoke myself/I feel they are trying, to:o prohibiit smoking in businesses too much/ 09., I SMOKE 10. AGAINST ORDINANCE 1'.1. OTHER 12. DON'T KNOW 1.3. And concerning your vote on the smoking ordinance, do you remember when you decided how to vote -- on election.day', in the first week of May,:, the last two,weeks of April, the first two weeks of Aprili, in March, or before March? Election day ................1 First week of M'ay........... 2 Last two weeks of Apri'1..... .3 First two weeks of April.... 4 March....................... .5 Before March ................ 6 Don't know..................... 7 5°0 9% 8% 6% 7~ 7% 3`S T% 2"6 5w 20 2°6 7% 8%. 1= 1°G 4ea 2 m. 3/ 4% 7v C G9 6%. Qa f~? 67a7a ~ 120 A a. 56,e GJ 8e
Page 31: mso13c00
Frormthe open-ended responses very few inferences could be made about differences in intensity'for one side or the other. Finally, although this was mostly based on interpretation than on hard~numbers, approxi!- mate estimates'of the behavior of undecideds were made. About one-third to one-half'of the.undecideds were assumed not to vote. For the undecideds that would.go and.vote, the assumption was made that.they woul,d split approximately evenly between the for and the against sides. The election offered substantial surprises. Turnout was low as expected. The ballot was much c]oser than anticipated, however. The margin by which the ordinance was defeated at the:poll'.s was razor thin. The object of the analysis of this post-election survey ils to find out why the margin was smaller than anticipated. The findings will, concen- trate on the following topilcs.. In the first place a descriptive presen- tation of exactly'what happened,will take place. Subsequently,, llookingi both at voters and nonvoters, some of the reasons will be presented. Finally, some attention wil.l be.devoted to the future of the smoking question in Dade County and!elsewhere.
Page 32: mso13c00
-28- Dade County March 1979, Dade County April/May 1979 Govt. intrusion/ personal rights 45% Govt., controls 169a Smokers rights 17Y Freedom of choice 45`m Some restriction okay 2% 20 Too extreme/unenforceable 6% 5m. Courtesy 596 Waste money 5% . Unnecessary law. 30% 6a' Discrilminatibn 2% ProbT~ems.for business 7% 2% Worse problems 20 Cost to MusiIness/ taxpayers 7"' Poor9y written I am a smoker 1n 7°~ A't that time the opinion was offered that some of the apparent erosion found in the tracking might be due to this change in the percepti;ons and responses. The sugg,estion was made that the perception of the right to smoke was not as strong an argument as the government intrusion argument that had been found earlier. The right to smoke argument can be countered or neutralizedi by the right to clean air or the freedom from smoke argument. The big brother theme is hard to match,in a similar way. At:least in the current political spectrum the call for more government iinvolvement is not heard very often. Another concern expressed during the tracking study was that of di'fferentiall turnout. Irr, the tracking there was no reliable way of assessing which types. of voters would turn out and which ones wou!ld not. Respondents' 0 G7 self-reports are notoriously unreliable iln this respect and the most M GJI reliatble turnout indicators available (crude as they are) are incapable ~ of predicting which respondents will turn out in some electi'ons, but not, CAin others. Consequently, Tt was extremely hard to predict whether voters for one side would turn out in higher numbers than voters for the other side.
Page 33: mso13c00
r Questi'on 18 Ccntiinued I -17- Track Post, ing Elect Study Study 05. EXPENSE TO BUSINESS/INCONVENIENCE - that it would,cost 5; business too much.moniey/unfair to restaurants and busi- nesses/they didn't want,to build partitions in restaurants/ bad for business/it would hurt:touriism/ 06. TOBACCO COMPANIES' SELF INTEREST - the tobacco people want 5% to keep on selling cilgarettes/trying to tell, you that the tobacco industry was afraidiit would cut their business sales/the ci'igarette companies were in it for the wrong purpose/' 07. ',JHAT'NEXT?/fURTHER RESTRICTI-0NS' - what would tie next.as 1'a far as constitutional rights are concerned/it will get to where they regulate if you can drink or wear blue eye shad'ow and white heels/this could lead to other things/this was the beginning of something more harsh/ 08.EXAGGERATED/SCARE TACTICS - scare tactics/they came on 5% too strong/it was saying something that wasn't really true/it was a false story/it was very exaggerated,and not so very truthful/went to extremes/ 09. SILLY/RIDICULOUS - they were silly/they were ridiculous/ 19b didn:'t make sense/stupid ads/ 10. BRAINWASHING - they were trying to sway your mind/all 1%' advertising,was a brainwashing techniique/trying to put something over on the peoplie/ 11., EXPLAINED ORDINANCE/POORLY WRITTEN - facts and!fig,ures/ 1% g7ving.one facts about the ordi'nance/they pointed out some of the things in the ordinance that are unfair/ the ordi;nance was poorly written/ 12. CONSEQUENCES IF PASSED - if someone accidentally pulled out 3% a,cigarette, they could be fined/you`d be fined and arrested! if the ordinance was passed/I was going to have to be, separated/what.kind of probl'ems it would create if passed/ the cops were going to be chasing smokers insteadlof criminals/ C 13. MAKE YOUR'OWN DECISION - trying to give the views of both sides of it and.let the voter decide/two sides to~all issues/ a W Or 14. PRO SM'OKING/TSN'T HARMFUL - they were pushing for cigarette tj 1°asmokino/that:it wasn't as bad as everybody thought smoking ~ was/not quit smoking/they haven't proved it hurts you/ p, ej 15. JUST GIVING THEIR,SIDE - they were looking out for their 1° interests - that's democracy/they were,stressing the opposites,. trying' to give reasons for smoking in publilc/
Page 34: mso13c00
-2'6- Overview i One of the most important points that was stressed a number of'times imthe earlier stages of the campaign was the number of stri~ki,ng simi- larities.in the situation as it was found i;n Dade County, compared.tod early stages of the Proposition 5 campaign. Since the situation was q,uite different by the day of the election it is good to keep these early comparisons. in mind'and to review them,here. The situations in January of 1978 YniCalifornia and in January of 1979 in Dade County as far as the initial preference towards regul,ation of smoking in publi'cc places is concerned are quite comparable. California January 1978 Dade County January 1979 Favor 68% 650 N~ot, Sure 53`m 9% Oppose 3M 2490 The findi',ngs on the attitudes that.supported the positiion of the respon- dents (the reasons why they felt the way they did) also showed that these attitudes were quite similar to the situation found in California. In the January analysis the estimate of the net shift possible in the campaign was put at between 15% and 20%. As in California, the correlati',ons of these attitudes wiith.the characteristics of the respondents were quite low.. For these reasons the,reasonable assumption was made that a campaign similar to the one in Californila.would be effective in Dade County too,, in spite of the many demograptiic.differences betweemthe two. The diiffier- ences in the campaign were maiinly seen in terms of the special problems of low turnout im special elections and the role that bVocks of high turn- out voters might play'in such.situations, specifically focusing on the J'ewish condominium voters in Northeast Dade County. The crucial parts of the campaign would then consist of the devellopment. and propagation of thematics that would take the voters away from their preference for the smokiing ordinance.. The goal was to give the voters a
Page 35: mso13c00
-36- TABLE 2' DECISION TIMDNG Dade County For A a9 iinst. -, o q, Election Day 65 26 (N 34) ( 70%) First week of May 42 58 (N=31) ( 6' W) Last two.weeks of April 37 57 (N=30) ( 6m). First two weeks of Apri1 31 56 (N=36) ('7a). March 48 48 (N=59) (~12m) Before M'arch, 40 56 (N=282) (559~). Cadiformia For A ag i'nst a o Election Day 46 54 (, 6°0). Last two weeks 43 57 ('14a) Last few months 38 62 (13;a) Al l aliong 40 60 (,66; ), C
Page 36: mso13c00
-31- Reported Vote: For 41 q Against 53°0 Not,sure/ refused 6 0 Here a substantial underreporting of the for vote took place, coupled with a fairly high refusal. rate. Again,. two trends may account for the discrepancies between these results and the real vote. In the first pllace,, some of the same reasons that account for the overreporting of the vote may be at work.here. Some of the respondents that reported that they voted but in fact diid'no:t vote may have contributed to the refusal rate. In the second place, the overreporting of the vote probably contributed to a slight overestimate of'the against vote and an underestimate of the. for vote. As will be shown later,, the differential turnout caused a shiift in the real vote toward.the for side of the issue. If the vote is over- reported, then the di'fference,between the two votes will be overestimated too. The second major trend in effect here is probably a dandlwagon effect.People doni't liike to. be identified with the losingisi',de of an election. In any post-election survey the victory margin for the winning side is usually overestimated for that'reasoni. An analysis,of what happened with the voter's decision how to vote should perhaps start with one thing that diid'not happen. There is. no evidence in the survey of a great deal of last minute vote shifting from the against to the for side. In other words,, the edge the against side had did not disappear because a substantial number of against voters decided to vote for the ordinance,. As the turnover rates on the ballots show, only rela- tively small proportions of the,respond'ents that said that they votedl changed their minds in the course of the campaign. M'oreover, the numbers of switchers in both directions, fromi'for' to 'agai'nst" and the other way around, appear to be appro.ximatelly equally large,. canceiliing each: C) other out. ~' Another possibility can be dispelled here too. There is no eui'dence in~ these data that the undecided voters disproportionately favored the a:gains side or the for siide.. Although the undecideds did report slightly in favor
Page 37: mso13c00
-19- 23'. Andlgenerally speaking,, now that the elections are over, wouldi you say that you approve or di'sapprove of the way both sides of the issue conducted,the campaign? Track Post ing Elect Study Study Approve strongly............. .1 21% ~ IF ANSWERED, ASK: , Do.you feel Approve ..................... 2' 30% strongly about that? Disapprove .................. 3 12% Di'sapprove strongly...........4 240 Dan"t knowr ...................5. 14% IF ANSWEREDlQUESTION 23, ASK: 24. And'whi'ch side was most on your mind when you said that -- the "for" or the "against" side?' 25., What about the financial contributions of the tobacco industry?' Do you.approve or disapprove of the tobacco ilndustry's financiall contributions tolthe campaign agaiinst the ordinance? For ......................,.....1 19% Against .....................2 4 1 % % Both equally (',DO NOT READ)..3 37% Don't know ..............,....4 20~ l 1 A rov stron 22% IF ANSWERED ASKc Do you feel pp g y............ . e , strongly about that? Approve........, .............. 25%. Disapprove ..................3 10% Diisapprove strong,ly......... 4 29% Don't know .....:.............5 13% 4 26. On the whole, now that the ordinance has been defeated, and disregarding the specifics of the ordinance, do you fee1l that some sort of regulation orfP smokiing in public places is needed, or db you feel that there should be no restrictions? No restrictions .............1 Some regulation .............2 Don't.know ..................,3 3 3a 660 2a
Page 38: mso13c00
-30- Overview One goal of the post-election survey was to identify the voters and nonvoters from our tracking study respondents and to see where both types ofvoters stood on the election issue. Some simillarities and diifferences,between the groups will be explored here., The first point that showld be commented!om, however, is on the reported rates of voting and nonvoting. Reported Vote: 68°S Real Vote: 2795 As i;s abundantlly clear, a substantial amount of overreporting of the: vote took place. Two reasons for the overreporting phenomenon can be brought tolbear on these numbers. Dn the first place, there is a strong tendpncyfor respondents to say that they did vote, for purely normative reasons. Voting is the accepted norm and only relatively few,people like to admit,that they do not vote.. Overreporting is a substantial problem~ im,most surveywork and has been commented an elsewhere (see for imstance:. Michael Traugott and John P. Katosh, "Assessing Response Validityin National Surveys of Voting Behavior," paper read at the 1979 'AAPOR meet- ing.) A second,reasorr for the overreporting is probably the fact that the post- election,study was a panel design and all respondents in the post-electiorc survey had been interviewed inthe tracking study before the election. Because of the previous:interview respondents had been sensitized.to the issues and' paid more attention to the issues and probably turned out to ~. vote in larger numbers than.the regular electorate. This i.s a well known W' T. disadvantage of panel designs. On the other hand the panel allows us to tj ~ gather other i'nformation: about the behavior of the voters which is quite ~ val uabl!e. ~ Somewhat similar problems occurred in the reported voting behavior, although the problem is not nearly of the same magnitude.
Page 39: mso13c00
-42- Question 4 Contiiawed Smoking Type of Age Education, Behavior Reliigion Housing Area 65 &. Some Former Roman Single North- over college smoker Catholic family east "It should not even have been a ballot vote....should have been done through better public relations with store owners."' Hiigh school Former Single South- 25-34 graduate smoker Lutheran family west "I was a.smoker and quit... I think that some people would quit if they were sort of forced.into it.,..and I don't.li'ke the smell." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some Yes/ Roman Single North- 18-24 colllege smoke Catholic family east "Smoking and inhaling smoke is bad for you and I didn't like the big,fi'ght the tobacco industry put. up." High school Yes/ North- 25-34 graduate smoke Baptist: Other east "I'm a smoker and!I'm~having problems wi'th bronchitis..I feel that I know how much troubl,e it was and don't want anybody else going through it." Colllege Episco- Single North- 25-34 graduate Nonsmoker palian family east "'I really took time to think about it...at first,I felt:smokers had the right to smoke...after taiking, to you I thought and realized the people for the ordinance dlildn't have a.chance to put their ideas to the publ!ic...I think it will, pass next time." -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 40: mso13c00
-33- is to look at the distribution of the reported vote among those that did not. vote and the distribution of answers to the question asking the non- voters how they would'have voted. By comparingithese two publics it is clear that the low turnout in the election caused a shift,in the margin of difference between the.'for' and 'against' vote of about five percent. One of the more remarkable aspects of this finding is that it is consis- tent for almost all of the subgroups in the,survey. With very few excep- tions the edge that the 'against' side had over the "for' side is larger among the peopl.e in all subgroups that did not vote than the people that did vote. A d'emographic analysis of the ballot reveals relatively few interesting findiings_, As in. Cali;fornia,, and.in the several pre-election surveys the differences between. the traditi~ona.l demographic groups i!n the voting population are relatively small. The strongest against vote came out of the Northwest part of Dade County. The weakest area was the Southeastern part of the county. Republicans were more often against the ordinance than Democrats. Ticket- spli1tters, were by far the weakest group. Educationally, the patterns of the pre-election surveys were repeated. The strongest groups on thee against side were the middle education groups,those respondents with ai high school, education or with some college. As far as age was concerned some interesting differences appeared. Although traditionally the middlie age group (respondents between 35 and 55) had been most often on the against side, in the post-election survey the youngest age.group~appeared to have the strongest margiiln against the ordinance. Older adults tended to be the weakest age category. The youngest age group is also one of the few groups that 11ad.they turned out in larger numbers would have been iin favor of the ordinance in larger numbers.. One of the groups that had.been identified early in the campaign as a strategic group in low turnout elections was the group of Jlewish,condo- mintum owners.: This,group was in fact one of the few groups that in 0. the post-electionsurvey voted in balance in favor,of the ordinance. ~ W ~ ~ ~
Page 41: mso13c00
-20- IF'"SOME REGULATION" IN QUESTION 26, ASK: 1 27., And could you:tePl me one or two. things which you miight favor in terms of rules and regulations concerning public smoking?' (PROBE: CANIYOU TELL ME A.LITTLE MORE ABOUT THAT?), Track Post ing. Elect Study Study 01. SEPARATE',AREAS - airplanes, department stores, andisome 22% restaurants that could afford to divide should have sections for both/place for smokers/should have a smoking section/have separate areas toismoke and' not to smoke/ designated place for nonsmokers in every public place/ nonsmokers and smokers should be separated in alli public places/should have segregated area - just informal, no force/ r 02. 03. 04. 05. [ 06. f 07., 08., 09. REGULATE ENCLOSED PLA'CES- closed in stores/smalll areas 12" wYlere more than three people are gathered/anypiace that's enclosed/elevators/no smoking in elevators and in stores/ only in tight quarters that would make some people.sick/ ALREADY HAVE RESi1RICTIONS/ENFORCE THEM - we have this in 6% elevators, department stores and in some restaurants/ already have some., elevators, buses, trains/they have it restricted where it should be/enforcing no smoking in grocery stores more/ COURTESYyCONSIDERATION CALLED FOR'- if people are asked 6% to put out their cigarettes, they should/common courtesy, that would be the best thing in the world/not disturbb no.nsmokers/courtesy for older people/ REGULATE RESTAURANTS'- should be in restaurants/they 14% shouldl have.no smoking iin restaurants/restaurants should set aside 50% for nonsmokers/restrict smoking in restaurants/ restaurants - I object to it there more than anywhere else/' PUT UP SIGNS,- just have a sign, ''no smoking,' that'slalll/ 3% we need signs/jiust put up signs/ RESTRICTI'ONS NECESSARY - I think it's helpful to have re- 4% strictions/1i db. bellieve iit should,be regulated/regulations in public areas/anything that wouild enable a nonsmoker to get away from smoke/ LAW NECESSARY - everything on the,ordi.nance should be enforced/ 4% by law/I wouldllike to.see a law passed/something like the ordinance is the only thing that will be.good/have another election because it was close and a small voter turnout/ C ~ BAN. PUBLIC SMOKING - no smoking in public places at all/' ~ 4% prohi'bited iin aiil public businesses - wherever the public 4i is congregated/' ~ Q9
Page 42: mso13c00
9.. "Because the election was so close I wish I would have had' a chance to vote and have' my vote make,a difference." I feel strongly about that? IiF ANSWERED, ASK: I Do you Track Post ing Elect Study Study Agree strongly.............. .,1 46% Agree....................... 2 16% Neutral (DO NOT READ)....... 3 9% Disagree .................... 4 17% Disagree strongly............ 5 110. NOW GO TO LUESTION 14 C 10. And in the election, how~did you vote on the ordinance -- for or against prohiibiti.ngi smok.i.ngiin certai'n publi,c places?' For .......................... 1 37e 41w. Against...................... .2 5190~ 53%, Not sure (DO NOT READ) ...... 3 13!~ 1% Refused (DO1NOT READ.)........ 4 5% IF "FOR"' IN' QUESTION 10, ASK: 11. And what are one or two reasons why you were for the ordinance? (PROBf: CAN YOU TELL ME A LIiTTLE MORE ABOUT THAT?), C 01. 02. 03. 04. I 05. 06.. HEALTH - smoking is hazardous to your health/for health 17% 1'.3% reasons/I' am allergic t&smoke/ PASSIVE SMOKE/HEALTH - smoking is dangerous to your heaPth 9°m 6% it harms nonsmokers/people who smoke can siit in separate areas because it is harmful to the health of nonsmokers/ PASSIiVE SMOKE/GENERAL - I can't stand smoke blown in my 20% 17°6 face/they shouldn't smoke because it burns my eyes/ SMOKERS ARE INCONSIDERATE - Iwanted more attention to 3% 3% the problem:because not all people.pu.t out cigarettes when you ask them to/I find that people who smoke don't care what you think/ CONTROL SMOKINGIN PUBLIC' - tobacc&smoke in enclosed areas 13°b 8% bothers me/I'm bothered by people who smoke in enclosed - places/prohifiiting smoking in restauramts is especially W' good/' ~' W NONSMOKERS' RIGHTS - a balance of rights - I have a right ~ 16% 12a too~as a nonsmoker/It's my right to have my own area where I can get away from smoke/I'm a nonsmoker/nonsmokers have Cj F ri':ghts that shouldb't be ignored/
Page 43: mso13c00
-40- TABLE 6 Nonvoters - Reasons,against. Voters -ReasonsAqainst (N=5b) Cell Freedom SizeChoice. - (N=I2). More Gov'^_. Ccntro7 (N=22) Other Campaign Themes (N=44) Other/ 9.:<, Cell Size Freedom Choice (N-47) More Gov~"t Cantrol Other Campaign Themes. Otherl 7:.;<. ~- - - - Aagregates. 39 9 17 34 39 17 21 23 Reqion .lortheast. (28), 36. 14 21 29 29 14 25 32 Northwest. 45 6 16 33 40 18 20 22 9outlieast. (31)~ 32. 13 ?9 35 37 18 23 23 Southwest. Vote 8ehavior (20)1 40 5 10 45 (35) 51 20 14 14 .2epuol'ican; (27)33 11 19 37 25' 27 19 29 Ticket-SpTittar(31)'. 53 . 10 13 .9 45 18 17 20 ilemocrat 33 9 19 40 41, 13' 23 23 Age/L'festyler.. Toung.acuit (40): 40 7 22 30 28 22 31 19 F il d 46 33 I7 11 39 37 20 21 22 am y adu t ( ): OlGer adult (42) 45 2. 19 33 46 12 15 Z7 Education Less than high school ,22): 50 5 9 36 (ZI) 40 '-0 25 25 High school, graduate(4'3) +0' 14 ,. 15 30, 39 12 21 27 Same college (27). 37 0 :9 a4 48. 18 12 22 College graduate(34)'. 32. 15 24 24 32 23 26 ;:9 Smakiha.4istary 'les/smaker35 'S 20 317 31 21, 22 26 Farmersmoker(28)I 39. 4 25 32. 30 12 21 `lansmoker(45): 44. 7 9 u0 3!li 15 23 21 C Sex 4a i e -2 20 322 i4 :9 21 25 Femalelhome(25iul 20 23: 14 18 15 24 'emale/wores (43), 33 2 12. 43 '.3 25 D8 :awisnLCOnpo Jewisn 's _oncb.. ~ 4), 25 ?5 50 i-'?+ 50 - '_5 Jewisn or 6ondo ;22)' 50 :4. 32. 37 ?q _0 20 n Cthers 37 _8 34. ?8 :6 -- 24 3an additional information see.cages.'2'... 79,. '2'',. 13:~ti, 175, 132, 199,..?06, 223,. ?'s0 ., 319, 325 ,. 343, and 350 of `-hecross-taoulations_
Page 44: mso13c00
-37- TABLE 3'. Nonvoters Voters Cell. Size For A aginst (N=20) Not Sure (Nk30)', Cell Not Sure/ Size For A~~a9 i.nst Refused a 37 11 % Agoreaates 37 54 9 41 53 6 Region Northeast 38 54 8 43 49' 8 Northwest 37 54 9 40 56 4 Southeast 35 57 7 42 50 7 Southwest Vote Behavior (38)~ 37 53I 11 40' 52' 7 ReDuaiican (45) 31 60 9 37 59 4 Ti'cket-Splitter 34 55 11 41 47 12 Democrat Age%11i festyl e 40 52 7 43 53' 4 Young adult 42 54, 4 37 57' 6 Fami 1'v adul ti. 34 53 13 40 53 7 Older adult Education 36 56 8 45 50 4 Less than high school (42). 36 52 12 (40) 45 50 5 High school graduatz, 36 56 8 35. 55: 10 Some coliege (47) 38 57 4 41 54 4 College graduate Smokinq History 39' 51 10 46 50 4 Yes/smoker 17 79 4 11 84 5 Former smoker 40', 48' 12 52 43 5 C Nonsmoker Sex 49: 42' 9 59 34 7 Male, 33I 56 11 41 56 4 Female/home (,49'), 45' 51 4 42 50 8 Female/works 37' 55 8 42 50 C W 8 Jewish/Condo. 0'p W. A Jewish and Condo 8) 50 50 0 (25) 54 46 0 Jewish or Condo (38)3758' 5 40. 53 ~ 7 Others 37' 54: 10 41 53 Ut 6 For additionall information see pages 70, 77 ', 125, 132, 173, 180, 197' 204,. 221, 228, 317, 324, 341, and 348 ofi the cross-tabulations.
Page 45: mso13c00
-45- Question 11 Co:ntinued. Smoking Type of Age Education Be.havibr Religion Housi'ng Area 65 & College Roman SingTe South- over graduate Nonsmoker Catholic fami'l!y east "'I wasn"t too.sure, but my sister is bothered.by ilt in her office...:the reason the ordinance didn't pass is because many people misinterpreted the word 'agaimst'.y many people of low intelligence or those who are ill,.iterate thought that it (against) meant against.public.smoking, not against the ordinance itself." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- High school Former Presby- Single North- 35-44 graduate smoker terian family west "The mini series on TV on the ordinance.:..it showed a.woma:niI tlelieve who worked in Miami in a closed in office area, and the ordinance passed so~she finally quit smoking...I figured if this helped one person quit, the ordinance was worth voting for...,bef©re this show; I was going to vote against it." -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 46: mso13c00
-43- SELECTED VERBATIM RESPONSES Question,. fll: And what are one or two: reasons why you were for the ordinance? (Asked of those respondents who voted "for" the ordi,nance.)'. Smoking Type of Age Education Behavior Reliqion Housing Areai College Former Other Single North- 35-44 graduate smoker Protestant family east "I thought the arguments against the ordinance were inflammatory." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- College Former Single North- 55-64 graduate smoker Other family east "I love to have a nonsmoking section in restaurants.~..I don't.like to smelll smoke or breathe it in restaurants....thi!s is the main reason I was for it.," ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some Roman Single North- 25-34 college Nonsmoker Catholic famiPy east~ "Last time you caT,lediI said I was.agaiimst the.ordinance...but I believe some of the tobacco industry's arguments are farces." ---------------------------------------°------------------------------------ 65 & Some Former Single North- over college smoker Baptist family east "I don't smoke and detest the fact that the tobacco industry poured $1 millioni dollars into our county to change our mmnds'about the ordinance." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 65'& Some Condo- North- over college Nonsmoker Jewish minium east "I don't like smoking in public pllaces...it bothers me that.the tobacco. com- panies spent so much money on this issue and the other side hardly any...I Tiked that, I sort of voted for the underdog.." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coll'ege Yes/ Other Single North- 45-54 graduate smoke Protestant family east "I feel that people are entitled to breathe fresh,air...I just had the feeling p that'smokers~didn't care too much about the nonsmokers' feelingis." ~ ------------------- -------------------------------------------- --- W. Xb ~ F+
Page 47: mso13c00
Page 48: mso13c00
-27- reason to vote agains.t the ordinance in spite of the fact that they wanted some kind of regulation of smoking iln public places. The second target of the campaign was to identify high.turnout voters and aim special conversion and reinforcement messages at them. The development,of these attitudes inithe course of late,rtinter and Spring was comparable to the situation in California. Again it was found that respondents could be 'softened up' and moved to the against side of the issue in the necessary numbers to defeat the is:sue... In the Brushfire/Panel, study of March~, for instance, the data showed that although the against side was still behind, the electorate could be swayed across the break even point to!vote against the ordinance. The thematics appeared to be on track here, although unlike in California it proved to be next to.impossible toishow exactly which:campaign message appeared to be the stronger one. During the tracki,ng study the ballot question showed that the against. vote had taken the lead.As in Californila,hits were taken and there were considerable ups and downs in the situation. However, the situation appeared to be substantialiy more fluid than in Cadifornia. In the course of the tracking studies, the changes in the overall percentages were hiding larger changes in the electorate's subgroups, Specific su!bgroups.appeared to be swaying mack and forth from one four day sectio.n to. the next one,i;n patterns that defied reasonable interpretation., xlso, the overall ballot appeared to be more fluid. Blessed with hindsight and with the benefit of the current study, it appears that the campaign's grip on the electorate was not quite as strong as it had been in California,. Same of these points will be substantiated later on. Another point of seri~ous concern during the tracking study was a remark- able change in the reasons given for the choice to. vo:te against the ordinance between the M'arch.study andl the early trackingistudies, and even in the course of the tracking studies. The government.intrusion/ O Q.7 big brother argument.fiound strongly in the early parts of the campaign had been replaced by the freedom of choice and right to smoke arguments. W ,A C!4 4h
Page 49: mso13c00
-32- t of the for side, the margin is onl.y five percent, which combined with allower turnout rate among,the undecideds is numerically not a very signifi;cant.margin. On the other hand it is noteworthy that among the nonvoters many more undecideds said that they would have voted against the ordinance. SiimiTarly, in the California post-electiion survey the proportion of undecideds.that decided to vote agai'nst Prop- osition 5 was much higher than in Dade County., Another difference with the results from the California post-election study appears when examining the pattern of timing of the voting decision. Ailthough the responses about when respondents make up their minds always fiave,dubious quality, some interesting trends appear here. The results of the question when voters made up their mind on how to,vote have to be taken in a relative sense. The responses to the absolute dates are dubiious at best. Fifty-fiive percent of the voters, for instance, re- ported that they had made up their minds before March, ilncl,uding a sub- s:tantial, proportion of against voters, at which time the against side was still substantially behind.. The important poi'nt here, however, is that of those voters that said that they decided on election day;, sixty- filve percent decided to vote "for" compared to 26`a that decided to vote against the ordinance. Although in Caliifornia too there was a trend for the more recent decilders to be sliightly more in favor of' the ordinance, there was no comparable landslide among the people that decided on e7ec- tion day in favor of the ordinance. Although this very Tate surge in the 'for' side's strength und'oubtedly contributed,to the closeness of the election, the numbers are again quite small and cannot exp1ain the closeness of the election completely. The final and probably the most important factor in this respect i's the dififer- enti,al turnout that has been mentioned earlier.. It appears:that the voters were not entirely representative of the entire voting public in that they were more in favor of the ordinance than the nonvoters were. In other words, if the enti're voting pub]ilc would have turned out and cast a vote, ~ then the outcome of the election would not have been quite this close. There are a number of ways to illustrate this point, but the simplest one 00 O
Page 50: mso13c00
-50- Question 12 Cont'inued Smoking Type of Age Education Behavior Heligion Housing, Area Cotlege Former SingJe North- 35-44 graduate smoker Lutheran family east "This is a, change from what I told you on the previ'ous:survey...I'm against the principle of smoking and the ordinance didn't do anything amout convinciing people not to smoke, just where they can smoke...so I guess we just need to teach i~t in education." -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 51: mso13c00
-46- SELECTED VERBATIM RESPONSES Question ; 5:: And what are one or two reasons why you,were a ag inst the ordinance? (Asked of those respondents indicating they would have voted "against" the ordinance if they had voted.) Smokingi Type of Age Edu!catiion Behavior Religion Hbusi'n i Area Some Former Don't Single North- 45-54 college smoker know family west. "It was too dhastilc and not thorough...it was not written to lielp both the nonsmokers andlsmokers." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- High school Yes/ Other Single "lorth- 55-64 graduate smoke Protestant family east "It was alread'y limited enough and.there are more serious crimes that police need to deal with.." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- High school Yes/ Roman Single N'orth- 18-24 graduate smoke Catholic family east "I don't think people could afford.to divide bwsinesses into two sections."' 65'& Less than Former Condo- North- over highi school smoker Jewish miinium east "It wouldn't be possible to control where and when people smoke...can't con- trol a person's life.." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some Yes/ . Single North- 35-44 colT,ege smoke Baptist family west "I am a smoker and I can respect other people's wishes, but I don't think it should be done by forcing people." High school Y'es/ Roman Single North- 25-34 graduate smoke Catholic family east "That's pretty ridiculous when the government determines when and where you can smoke...I would call it sociadist."
Page 52: mso13c00
-39- TABLE 5 Aqgreqates Reqian Nbrtheast Ybrthwest Southeast Southwest Yote Behavior 38.) depuolicam. (14:). Ticket-soTitter(19). Oemocrat ;gelLifesty.le Youna adult -amilyadullt. Older aault. Eduoation (31) . (29'), (27). Less tnan hign school: 11iQh school' graduate (15). (23) SaMA college(18) Col'ege graduate (25) Smokinpiistort 'eeis:noKer (.2) Former sifloker (23) L ,lonsmoker Sex PTI e (36) Fwnale/home(22; FemaleJworks' (29') Ronvoters.- Reasons For (N+18). (4e12)PBssive. Control (4=23) Smoking. Public 3eai*-hGaneral 9mokiha Ceil Sire . 38 ) d '-6Z'_ 5 Voters - Reasons For (1=37) (lr-+.7) (;1=26 ). Passive Control Yon-(N=40), Sinoking Public smoKers Nealth3eneradi Smoking 4iants. 19~ 17 3~ 12~ 16: '3 '3 25 ?g :9 24 21 :4 30 15 1.0 38 24 2 0 11'3214 36 0 7 '_6 7 21i 21 21 30 17 13 19 19 19 24' 21 7 30, 22 15 20: 13 7 32'.. 29, 11 22' 22 17 19 ~~ 15I i9l a' a' 26I 17. 2? 15. 19 36 21 25 (49). 12. 22. 6~~ 16' 6 24~ - 9' 11. 21 (48). 17~ 10'~ 3' 15~. 14 (27). :9' 22'. 7~ 4'~. (37) :1. 11. 11. 3. 11 2: 1:' 3~ 1'1 19 20: 21 9: 14~ 10~ 19 (42) 19: 10~ 10 9: 10~. 11 i5~. 20. 6 15 27~ ;181 39 22 111 5 4 '.7~ '.9. 3 13 11. '.6. 23. 10 16 23' 18 S: '.'-3) 6~. :4 17 20 i D 12 20 _9 14 ?. 21 :ewisni' oncoo ` S1 dewisn 3 anool Jewisn ar rcnao("1) athers Fo.radddtional fnformation, see.oages 71, .3, '.. :25.,133, :l. :21, 198,. 205, 222'.. 229. 313, 325, 342, and :44 ofthecross-.aouiacions. 14 13 12
Page 53: mso13c00
-58- TABLE 7 PRE AND POST BALLOTS Nonvoters Voters a o Ballot on Tracking For 34 38 Not Sure 15 11 Against 50 51 Postellection For 37 41 Not Sure (Refused) 9 6 Against 54 53
Page 54: mso13c00
-52- C the Proposition 5 campaign there were no other elections providing the voters with incenti'ves to go and cast their votes.. While iincenti'ves to vote in addition to the conversion are one problem the campaign has to deal with, the basic strategy outlined here presents a closely related problem that actually works agai'.nst turnout. Although thiss is extremely hard to prove quantitatively, and no "hard" proofs are attempted!here, crosscutting may have: constiturted!a second cause of the lower turnout. Crosscuttiing is psychological jargon for a very simple phenomenon. Essentially crosscutting is the conflict presented by the pressures created~by two opposing affiliatilons or preferences.. In the case of smoking elections the,probl!em is very clear. Substantial numbers of respondents both wantedl regulation of smoking in pub7!ic places and were at the same time opposed to the specifics of the ordinance presented to them. They wanted regulation in general but not the specific regulation in front of' them. Although the literature' in psychology offers a number of ways in which this "confl!i,ct"' of attitudes can be resolved, the most important one here is withdrawal. Peoplie can deal with their confllict in preferences simply by disregarding it andlnot voting. Especially since to many, the issue had a.relatively liow.salience anyway, this. may have been a fairly obvious solution. In other words, the less sure or firm people were about theiir choiee,, the less lilkely they are to.turn out and vote. Although this i's a separate argument from the one made earlier, the two are obviously related. The stronger the arguments given to the voters to vote against the ordinance, the stronger both the.incentives to.voteo and the stronger people will feel'. about their choice to vote against the, ordinance. Evidence for these arguments can be found in a number of piaces. Earlier surveys had indicated that high probability voters were slightly less often on our siide,than other types of voters. The post-electiion survey supports this finding, but shows that in addition independent of the prior probability that a respondent will vote, turnout for the "for" side was'hi'gher thanifor the "against" side. Although low turnout
Page 55: mso13c00
-60- TABLE 9 MOTIVATION FACTORS' (NONVOTERS)* For A ag inst Not Sure Issue Was Exaggeratedl Agree strongly 28 68 4. Agree 33 61 7 Nbutral! 36 39 25. Disagree 53 37 11 Disagree strongly 50 44 6 Issue Did Not Concern Me Personally Agree stronigly 31 60 9 Agree 31 61 8 Nputrall 11! 67 22 Dilsagree. 43 54 3. Disagree strongly 48, 44 9 Attentiion and Noise Turned Me Off Agree strongly 34 52 14 Agree 48 48 4' Neutrall 27 62 12 Di',sagree 35 59 6. Disagree strongly 37 58 6. Wi,sh I Would Have HadlaiChance to Vote Agree strongly 53 43 4 Agree 32 61 8 Nputrall 27 59 14'. Disagree 24 68 7' Dilsagree strongly 4 68 28' *A substantial number of the percentages in this table is based on less than 50 respondents..
Page 56: mso13c00
-47- Question 5: Continued Smoking Type of Age Education Behavior Relliaion Housing Area High school Presby- Single North- 45-54 graduate Nonsmoker terian family east "I felt it would have led to many other things...li~ke thiis was just the,be- ginning of rights being taken. away."' Some Former Single North- 55-64 college smoker Jewish family east "People don't have the rilght to tell what.youi can and can"t do...if someone asks you very nicely not to smoke:, any intellligent person would put out their cigarette and not blow it in their face or sit on them." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- College Roman North- 25-34 graduate Nonsmoker Catholic Apartment west "I think it's a private thing whether you want to smoke or not...lik:e if restaurants want to have separate,areas, that's fine,...otherwise, it's in- fringing on personal rights." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Higih school Former Single North- 35-44 graduate smoker Mormon family east "'Smoking is like having babies;..you can't stop them unless you quit making them." Some Yes/ North- 25-34 college smoke. Other Duplex east "'I smoke and I like to smoke...there ils no such thing as clean air anyway."
Page 57: mso13c00
-51- Overview i The central task of this chapter is to set out some of the reasons why the discrepancy i'n!turnout came about. The results of this,study indi- cate,that three causes may have contributed to the different proportions of'respondents "for"'and "against" the ordinance that turned out to vote. A's a preface to these findings it shouldlbe pointed out that the campaign did achieve its purpose. In spite of the iarge underlying sentiment in favor of regulating smoking in public places, the large i'nitiall edge that supporters of the ordinance had, and!in spite of the low turnout the ordinance was defeated. At no poilnt was a landslide victory expected. The shifts caused by the various factors mentioned here were very small. The analysis here is significant only because a large victory appears to be unlikely under any circumstances:, and consequently the smalllest shifts can take on a major importance. The data.gathered in:this post-electionsurvey indicate three,reasons that may have affected the narrow margin of victory. In the first place simple motivational factors affected the turnout on both si'des of the issue. Secondly it may be the case that psychological cross- pressuring caused lower turnout among the "against" voters. Finally it appears that the campaign was simply not as effective as it optimally could have been in. converting the voters to the "against" side,., The best vantage point for the analysis iis probably a step back to examine the strategic goals of the campai'gn. The initial, attitudes of the electorate were originally in favor of the ordinance. The task of the campaign was to convert the voters to the against side. To,achieve thd's however, the voters thinking hadi to be diverted away from the regulation of smoking to,some other frame of mind more amenable to the "against" side., This approach,andtlie,themes actually used are relatively familiar so they do not need to be repeated.here. In Dade County the additional problem posedlwas that. not,only did the voters have to be neutralilzed''and won over to the "against"' side they also,needed to be motivated enough withh an emotiionaT incentive to go out and vote. Unlike
Page 58: mso13c00
-64- TABLE 13 CAMPAIGN THEME CREDIBIIiITY Voters Nonvoters Not Sure¢ Not Sure/ For Aag inst Refused. For A ag inst Refused % °~ a a o % Arrested and fined $500 Bplieve 33 61 6 32' 62 7 Don't believe 53 42 5 45 44 10 Secondary Smoke Believe 52 42 6 42' 49 10 Don'tr beliieve 5 88' 6 23 71 7 Cost of 0rdhnance. 58 Million. Bel iieve 21 73 6 28 65 7 Don't.believe 67 29 4 56. 34 10 Tobacco Industry Spent $1 Mill,ion ~ Believe 45 49 6 40 51 91 Uon't believe 3& 70, 0 30 60, 10
Page 59: mso13c00
-59- TABLE 8 TURNOUT AND VOTE SHIFTS Nonvoters Voters For Aag inst For A ainst `o o a % Turnout. Probabilit.y High 30. 59 46 49 M'edilum 41 50 38' 57 Low 36: 57' 45 45 Political', Involvement High 38 51 46 50 Vote Regularly 40, 50' 39 56 Low 31' 64' 43 43'. C r
Page 60: mso13c00
-61- TABLE 10 ATTITUDE CONSISTENCY AND CAMPAIGN EFFECTIVENESS Dade County Voters Attitude on Regulatiion For Aag inst Not Sure/Refused No Restrictions w ,o 12 oi n 81 w o 7 Some Regulations 55: 39 5 Dade County Nonvoters For A a9 iinst Not Sure/Refused cr ,o w ~a n ie No Restrictions. 23' 68. 9. Some.Reg,ulation 44 48. 8 Callifornia Voters For A ainst Not Sure/Refused ~ i ~ No Restrictions 91 86 5 Some Regulations 51 46 3'
Page 61: mso13c00
-44- Question 1'1 Continued Smokiing, Type of Age Educationi Behavior Religion Hlousing Area College Former Roman, Single North- 55-64 graduate smoker Catfioliic family west "I have five children and', I'm not a smo.ker...I was a college athlete.... money, offensi~ve,, health...the three deterrents to smoking that I tell my students." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 65 & Less than Former pon't. Single North- over high school, smoker know family east "'I believe,everyone has a right as long as someone doesn't have to suffer for it." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hilgh school Yes/ Roman North- 45-54 graduate smoke Catholic Apartment east "I'm a smoker, but if there were less places to smoke I would probably quiit." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some Single. North- 45-54 college Nonsmoker Other family east "'I wanted to get more attention to the problem because not all people put cigarettes out when.you ask them to.." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- College Former Don't Single North- 25-34 graduate smoker know family east "People are so ilnconsi'derate..,.you can't ask them to put out their cigarette because they'l'.l probabl~y pull a knife on you." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Co1leg,e Former Condo- South- 35-44 graduate smoker Lutheran minium west "I used to smoke,mysel'.f...even when I smoked I couldn't stand.to go~into aa place with a smoke fog and now that I quit I evenithink that more." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 55 & Less than Single North- over high school Nonsmoker Methodist family west "They real'.ly s.hould'n't have to tell someone not to smoke...he.ought to know it"s bad for his health." p ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- w caa W ~ ~ ~ lw
Page 62: mso13c00
-41- SEllECTED VERBATIM RESPONSES Question -44: And what are one or two. reasons why you were for the ordi'nance? (Asked of those respondents indioatiing they would have voted "for" the ordinance if'tbey had'ivoted.) Smoking Type of Age Education Behavior Religion Housing Area College Former South- 35-44 graduate smoker Other Apartment east "I was.kind of undecided...there should'be separate sections, not fancy partitibns...smoking.is hazardous,to your health...it bothers me that tobacco.companies spent money to fight.the ordinance because i't's bad for your health." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- High school Yes/ Roman Single North- 25-34 graduate smoke Catholic family east "I think that.there are a 1!ot of people that smoke and they aren't realily aware of where they light a cigarette... there is a lot of people that justt dbn"t tolerate smoki'ng:amd they should have the option to not have it if they don't want it." -------------------------------------------°-------------------------------- High school Former Roman Single North- 45-54 graduate smoker Catholilc famfly east "I think everyone shouTd.have eqpal rights...like I have a re:llative with emphysema andihe has the ri'ght to breathe clean air." 65 &: High school Former Condo- North- over graduate smoker Jewish minium east "People,who smoke are rude, and get insulted i'f you tell them to quit...they should have separate places for health reasons." High school Former Roman Single North- 25-34' graduate smoker Catholic famil.y east "Sometimes you get in the doctor's office and are sick and feeling really bad and then someone by you starts smoking, and it really drives you,out of your mind." O ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- 65 & College Former Don't Single North- ~ over graduate smoker know family east ~ ~ "If a person wants to smoke he should do so in the privacy of his own pl,ace ...he should not have to inflict his exhaled smoke onithe entire populace." cD
Page 63: mso13c00
-65- TABLE 14 REASONS OPPOSED TO THE ORD'dNANCE Voters in Dade Co. Nonvoters in Dade Co., Cal'.iforniia 0 6 4 Freedom of choice 39 39 (~Smokers' 17 More government control 17 9 rights) 37 Extreme/unenforceable 9 7 8 Cost tolbusilness/taxpayer 6 10 7 Ridiculous/unnecessary 7 5'. Some restrictions acceptable 1 4 2' Poorly written 5 5 3'. Detrimental to busi'ness 2 3'. Noproblem to me 41 I smoke 8 7 Against ordinance 1 2 (i1=270)~ (,N=128)'. (Courtesy,Common Sense) (More Important Issues) 2 (Discrimination), 2.
Page 64: mso13c00
-53- C usually wiill be to the disadvantage of the "against"'siide, in this case the motivation to,vote "for" was,stronger, causing alsomewhat larger shift in favor of the "for" si'de. A number of questions in the questionnnaire asked the people that.had not voted some.iltems which indicate,the strength,of'moti.vation of the respondents. Iniaddi!ti'on respondents were asked.what the most important reason was why they did'not vote. Althoughithhe open-ended question yielded mostly responses reflecting the normative nature of voting there was some slight evidence that people simply did not care enough about the issue itself'to~go and vote. Most responses concentrated onisome factor outside of the respondents that caused,them not to turn out. Bad weather, busy schedules, ilPness,, and similar reasons were most. often mentioned. Thirteen percent of the respondents, however, simply said that they did not care enough about the issue to go and vote. Of this,13,a two-thirds said.that they would have voted agai~nst the ord'nnance. Although the total numbers are very'smail, there are other very definite indications th.at.the "against" vote was hamstrung to a certain extent by a lack of caring and involvement. Other items measured!th,e extent to which,the nonvoters were uninvolved with the,election. Fifty-four percent of the nonvoters for instance agreed wi,th the statement that "the whole issue was exaggerated". Fifty percent of the nonvoters~saiid that they were not personally concerned with the issue and forty-three percent agreed with the state- ment that all the.attention and noise generated by the election turned them off. M'ore that 62a.of the respondents that did not go and vote, on the other hand, agreed that.in view of the close outcome of'the election they wished that they would have voted. Although~these overall, numbers indicate that there was a.considerable amount of low involvement' among the nonvoters, the real lesson is in the cross-tabulations of these questions with the ballot question. In three out of four cases, the cross-tabulations show that the respondents that cared lless would have voted more often against the ordinance.
Page 65: mso13c00
-62- TABLE 1.1 MEDIA PENETRATION Advertisement Recall Dade County California M. ~ No 13 Both 50 51 "For" only 3 2. "A'gainst° only 33 35 Media Source Dade County Califtornia First Second First Second oF 0 o a, a Newspaper 20 39 12 30' Television 62 23 55 24 Radio 8 11 17 19~ Direct,mai'li'ng 2 2 3 4' Billboards 2' 4 1 3 Telepfione'* 5 2 Poster(Handout* T 3 Voter pamphl!et** 7 4 * Dade County only ** Californiia only
Page 66: mso13c00
-54- Among respondents that agreed strongly with.the statement that the whole issue was exaggerated for instance 68% woul'd have voted:against, while only 44% would.have voted against among those that disagreed strongly. Equally telling are the differences among the respondents that felt that the issue did not concern them personally. Strong agreers here would have voted 31% "for" and 61% "against". Strong disagreers would have voted 48% "for"' and 44% "against". And similarly people that strongly fel,t that they wished they had had a chance to vote would have voted 53% "for" and 43%."against", compared.to 4% "for" and 68%'"against" among those that strongly disag,reed.. Whereas these figures clarify the lack of motivation on the "against" side relative to the "for" side, the actuall withdrawal because of con- fllicting attitudes is somewhat harder to prove. However, one would expect that those.people that want regulation but not the ordinance that was on the ballot,would vote less often that the people that both wanted regulation and favored the ordinance.Simiillarly those people that do not want regulatilon and oppose the ordinance should turn out more often than those who do not want regulation of smoking but did.faNor the ordinance, the latter group being an odd one indeed. This does turn out to be the case: Voter Nonvoter For regulation and for the ordinance 74% 26'0 For regulation but anti ordinance 64°m 36% Anti regulation and anti ordinance 72°0 28`0 Anti regulation but far ordinance 53% 47°b This discrepancy might account for the fact that smokers were one of the very few groups where turnout in balance fiavored the against side. Smokers are more llikely to both oppose any regulationlof smoking andd the ordinance specifically. Nonsmokers and former smokers on the other hand were more likely to be one of those,people that,would favor one but not the other, or to favor both. Consequently among nonsmokers somewhat fewer respondents were' likely to come out and vote against the ordinance, if they opposed it.
Page 67: mso13c00
-55- Finadly there is some reason to believe that the campaign simply was not as effective as iit should have been. Independent of the lack of motivation amongst the against voters the data indicate,that the campaign did not.convert quite as many voters to the against side as the Proposi- tion 5 campaign did. A.simple way of showing this is by looking at data very similar to the numbers used earlier., Again the task of the campaign was to convert.a sufficient number of people from a posi,tion favoring the regulation of smoking iin general to opposition to the ordinance specifically. The post-election survey for the Proposition 5 campaign showed that 86% of the voters opposed to regulation also voted against the Proposition. In Dade County the:comparabl'e figure among the people that voted is 81%. More important, however,ils the compariison for the percentage of people favoring some kind of regulation but voting against. In California 46iof the voters favoring regullati'on voted against Propo- sition 5. In Dade County the comparable figure was 39% :among those people that voted. t f. Extending the analysis one step further, the question must be asked what it was about the campaign that caused these several elements contributing to the differential turnout. The crosspressuring of the attitudes de- scribed earlier is a consequence of the strategic premises that the campaign had to~deall with and cannot be avoided. In other words, this effect will take place in any campaign against.smoki~ng regwlation. On the other handl, the lower motivation and the lower effectiveness of the, campaign can be scrutinized a bit,closer. One point that'should be made at the outset is that the campaign did not suffer for lack of'effort. The media coverage in Dad'e County was as extensive as in Californi!a. The same number of people had:seen the advertisements,as in:CaTi!fornia and familiarity withthe ordinance on the ballot wasalso extremely highi. In spite of the.somewhat shorter campaigrn, the extent or "reach," of the campaigniwas as good!as in California. Also, the type of ined!ialreported in this post-election survey was quite similar to,the findings from the Proposition 5 post- election survey. The only notabl'e difference here is that respondlents reported radio!as a media source less often in Dade County than they
Page 68: mso13c00
-63- TABLE T2 Can you remember having;seen or heardany ads on the smoking ordinance? (DF YES, ASK:) And which ads can y= remember seeing, those that were "'for" the ordinance or those that were "'againet" the ordinance? No Both (N=26) "For" Only "Against" Only (N=5) Don't Know ~ p ~ % O % 0 Aggregates 13 50 3, 33 1 Re ion Northeast 118. 49, 3 29 1 Northwest 13 50, 4 32 1 Southeast 10 48 3 37 1 Southwest 7 57 2 34 0 Vote Behavior Repubilican 13 52 3' 32 0 Ticket-Sp3iitter 14 48 4I 34 1 Oemocrat. 12 51 4 33 1 Age/Lifestylle Young adult 6 45 4' 44 1. Family adult 9 55 3. 33 1 OT,der adul t 20 50 3I 25 1 Education Less than high school 38 37 4 21 1 High school graduate 13 52' 5 30 0 Some college 8 54 4 33 P College graduate 8 51 2, 39 0 Smoking History Yes/smoker 11 58 3 28 1 Former smoker 12 50. 3 34 1 Nonsmoker 14 44 4 37 0' C Sex Maie 13 5& 3 34 1 FemaTe/home 16 53 3 28 0 Femal.e/works 10 48 5 35 1 Jewish/Condo Jewish and Condb (N=34) 15 50 3 32 0 Jewish o.r Condo~ 15 48 4' 33 0 Others 12 51 3 33 1 Turnout Yes 10 53' 2 34 D Yo. 19 44' 6 30 D For additional informatiion, see pages 81., 136, 184, 208, 232, 328, 352, and 31 ofthe cross-tabulations.
Page 69: mso13c00
-57- A.second,. and more controllable, cause is the content of the themes presented,to the electorate by the against voters. Here the basic problem is that the arguments used in the advertising, and'ithe arguments as re- flected in the reasons why "against"' voters opposed the ordinance were too reflective of'the right to! smoke. The dominant theme in the..P'ropo- sition 5 campai'grn.was the "bigibrother" theme, concentrating on the intrusion of governmental regulation in the private sphere of the voter. This same theme was also present in the Brushfire/Panel study of March in Dade County. By the time tracking was started!, however, in late April, government intrusion had been replaced by the right to smoke andd the freedbm of choice argument as the dominant reason for voting against the ordinance.. That the government intrusion argument is a stronger argument than the freedom,of choice is easily established. Looking at the reasons for opposing, given,by both the voters and the nonvoters, it'is apparent_ that government,ilntrusion was mentioned almost twice as often by those respondents that had voted than by those that had not.voted.(17o vs. 9%). Another theme that appeared among the voters, but not.among the nonvoters, was the ridiculous unnecessary argument, which was mentioned slightly more often in Dade County than in California. Although,the right to choose and the right of the smokers may not have been targeted as the central issue,in the adverti;sing, these did come out as very important elements:in the ads. When the respondents were asked what the ads were trying to tell them, these two themes were men- tioned most often.. The government intrusion and cost arguments were mentiioned by a number of respondents,, but not as often. These figures should be interpreted with some care,, because respond'ents tend to recall what they wanted to recaT.l. In other words a certainiamoumt o.f projec- tion of'what,the respondent himself is most concerned'with can be expected to take place. On the other hand',, the relative numbers still bear out the main argument here that the advertisements were interpreted to speak out for freedom of choice and the rig,ht to smoke far more often than agai'nst'government intrusion.
Page 70: mso13c00
-49- Question 12' Continued Smoking Type,of Age Education Behavior Religion Housing Area Some Former Rbman North- 45-54 college smoker EathoTic Apartment east "I don't smoke....I used to:...I think it"s unfair to punish them like criminals because they have a bad habit.,..a.lot of my friends want to quit...i't'sun- fair to,punish a good,citizen for a bad habit...self education, dbn't try to push~and make people change." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Colllege Yes/ Don't Single South- Refused graduate smoke know, ffamily west "II am against llegisiating more:...I think that it's everybody's privilege to smoke or not smoke....they shou7dibe regulated in some other way...I can sympathize for the nonsmokers ... they can't even keep pot under control!" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Col',lege Yes/ Presby- Single North- 35-44 graduate smoke terian family west "I don't think,we should get into, legisliating moral behavilor." 65 & High school Yes/ Roman Single Nbrth- over graduate smoke Catholic family west. People have rights...what wi'.11 come next?...a lot of people didn't vote be- cause they thought everyone would vote against it and their vote wouldn't count..it costs solmuch for these special elections." -----------------------------------------------°---------------------------- 65. & High school Former Presby- Single North- over graduate smoker terian famiTy east "A person should be allowed'to smoke when they'want to,.andlas:far air pollu- tion is concerned -- it"s worse outside." Col'l!ege Yes/ Other Single South- 55-64' graduate smoke Protestant family east "It's.an infringement on my riights....the ord5nance is. badly conceived and badly drawn...it would cost business owners quite a lot of money." 65 &. Some Yes/ Siingle North- overcollege smoke Jewish family' west "Civil, rights mainly...I just feeli that it''s against our constitutional rigHts. ...I think that the business establishment should,,on our own, designatee smoking and nonsmoking, but,don't ask the pu6li.c to make up the business person's minds." -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 71: mso13c00
-56- did in California. Low recall of the advertisements was located in some of the subgroups. Respondents with less than high scliool,, for instance, could remember the ads less often than other types of respon- dents. Similarly older peo:ple and the respondents located in Northeast Dade County, where many of the.older respondents are located, tendedl to have a slightly lower recall of the advertisements. Since the problem did not appear to be in reaching the voters, it is most likely that the problem was in what the campaign said. Here two possibilities ari'se, one more avoidable than the other. For o.ne th,ing! the problem with some of the campailgn's themes appears,to be low credil- bility. Four items on the questiionnaire asked,peoplle for two arguments on the "for" side and for two arguments. on the "against" side and whether they believed them.or not. The results clearly indicate that the credibility of the "for" side's arguments is much higher than that for our side., Seventy-three percent,of the respondents believed., for instance, that breathingiin other people's smoke can be,detriimentall to the health of the nonsmoker. Seventy-seven percent believed that the tobacco ind'ustry had contributed $1 million to the campaign against the ordinance. In comparison only 50% believed that violators of the ordi- nance could be arrested and filned $500, and 43% believed that enforcing, the ordinance woulidlcost.$8 million.. Unfortunately no comparable data from the Proposition 5 campaign are available. Clearly, however, the discrepancy between the credibility of the opposi~ng sides is a problem for the campaign.. To a certaiin extent these discrepancies are to be expected, however. B'oth.arguments on the for side were not contested by the against side. The $I1 million figure was reported i,n the press and.probably simply taken as fact. The "'against" arguments on the.other hand may have been seen much more as information suppiied1by the campaign and therefore taken as biased, at least by ainumber of people. From a campaign point of view the problem was basically that voters against the ordiinance believed'the arguments of the "for" side much more often than voters for the ordinance believed the "against" argpments. To what extent this credibility gap is avoidable, however, is an open question.
Page 72: mso13c00
-69- TABLE 18 "The ordinance would have cost:$8 million to private businesses and taxpayers." Do you believe this is true or not? Believe Don't Be.lieve NotSure A'goregates 43 36 20 Region Northeast 41 4'1 18 Northwest 45. 35. 20 Southeast 43 34 23 Southwest 43 36 21 Vote Behavior Repuolican 51 35 14 Ticket-Splitter 38. 39, 22 Democrat 43 36 21 Age/Li!fest;!T e Young,adult 51 32' 18 Family adult. 42' 37' 22 Older aduTt. 40 40' 20 Educationi Less *.han,rtigh school 50 26 2'4 High school gr3duate 46' 33 21 Some college 40 36 24 College graduate 41 43, 116 Smoki.ng 4istory Yes/smoker 56 21 23 Former smoker 39 43 17 t Nonsmoker 36 44 20 Sex Ma iie 42' 39 20 Female/home 41 39: 20. Femal~e/works 49: M 21 Jewish/Candb O W Jewish and Condo,(N=34) 44 38 18 Jewish or Condo 38 43 19 G] ~ Others 45 35. 21 ~ Turnout co ~ Yes 42 39 19. No 47 30 23 For additional informatiion, see pages 86,, 141, 189, 213, 237, 333,. 357, and 36 of the cross-tabulations.
Page 73: mso13c00
CHAPTER IV THE'REGULATION OF SMOKING IN DADE CDUNTY' IN THE FUTURE f {
Page 74: mso13c00
and without doubt makes the campaign somewhat harder to conduct. On the other hand, in Dade County at this point, the magnitude of this prob]emm does not appear to be overwhelming.
Page 75: mso13c00
-67- TABLE 16 "'People that were caught smoking in the wrong pl'aces could be arrested and' fined g500~." Do you bel!ieve this.is true or not?'. Believe Oon't Believe Not Sure A¢aregates k 50; ~ ro 40 % 10 Region Northeast 46 4;8 6 Northwest 54 34 13'. Southeast 50 413 8' Southwest 49. 39 12' Vote Behavior Republ i'can 58' 35 8 Ti'cket-Solitter 41, 46 13 Democrat 52', 39~ 10 A4e/tifestyl.e Young adult 59 36 6 Family adult 58 33 9 Older adult, 39 48 13'. Education Less. than hi'gh school 43' 45 12 High school graduate 50 40' 11 Some, colll'.ege 48' 41 11 College graduate 55 37 8 Smoking Histo ry Yes/smoker 67 23 10 Former smoker 42 48 10 Nonsmoker 43 47 10 Sex Male 52' 40' 8 Female/home 41 47 12 Femal,e/works 54 34' 12 Jewish/Condo Jewish and Condo (N=34') 35~ 56 9 0 Jewish or Condo 44 47 8 Others 53 37 10 ~ Turnout Yes 50' 39 ]i 1 c0 ~ No 50 41 9 For additional ilnfiormatinn, see pages 84,. 1'39, 187, 211,. 235, 331 355, and!34 of the cross,tabulations.
Page 76: mso13c00
-73- Question 2 Contiinued Smoking Type of Age Education Behavior Religion Hous:iinq Area 65 & Less than Former Single Northr over high schooll smoker Baptist. famillly east "I wasn't quite interested in it...I quit smoking a.long time ago, but.I still think it isn't riight:for them toiteill others what to do.." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- College Roman Condo- North- 45-54 graduate Nonsmoker Catholic minium east "I don't care...I was not concerned with the issue because,it was exaggerated." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- College Yes/ Roman North- 45-54 graduate, smo:ke Catholic Apartment east "'It was a busy day at work.and I didn't.get home until 8:00....I was also irritated that it was the kind of ellection where you had to take off work. to go and vote."' ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some Roman Single North- 35-44 college Nonsmoker Catholic family east "My husband' was away...I,was busy and the day came and went...I don't think many people voted...I dhdn"t hear anyone say anything about ft ...that would have reminded me to goiand vote." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 66 & Less than Former Singl.e North- over high school smoker methodist family east "I thought it was.us.eless...wouldn't really make a difference." -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 77: mso13c00
-68- TABLE 17 "B'reathing ini other people's smoke can be bad for the heallth of the nonsmoker.:" Do.you believe this is true or not? Believe Don't Believe Not Sure 0 Aggregates 73 19' 8 Re ion Northeast 75 19 7 Northwest 72 19 8 Southeast 71 22 7 Southwest 77 12 10. `lote Behavior Reoub,t- i- a- 70 25 5 Ticket-Solitter 75 14 11 Democrat 74 19' 7 Age/Lifestyle Young adul t 80 14 6 Family adult . 70., 22 8 OTder adult 72 18 9' Education: Less thani hiah! school 68 27 5 Hiigh school graauate 71 19 10 Some col'lege 75 14 11 Col'lege graduate 75 19' 5 Smoking History Yes/smoker 61 28 11 Former smoker 77 17 6 Nonsmoker 81 12 7 Sex. ?1a l e 72' 20 8 Femaie/home 77 14 9 Female/works 72' 21 7 Jewish/Condo O Jewish, and Condo (N=34') 82 15 3 G7 Jewish,or Condo~ 78 17 5 ~ Others. 72 19 9 W Turnout CD Yes 73 18 8 ~ No. 73 20 7 For additionall information, see pages 85, 140,. 188'., 212, 236, 332 356, and 35 of the cross-tabulations.
Page 78: mso13c00
-66- TABLE 15 REASON6 IN FAVOR OF THE ORDINANCE Voters Ca9ifornia Nonvoters Voters. Heal'th, 13 24 23 Passive smoking/Health 6 Passive smoking/General 17 21, 26 Smokers inconsiderate 3 6 (Lack 6 courtesy) Control smokiing in public 8 14 . 2 Nonsmoker rights 12 15 (Nonsmoker 9 Protect chi 1'dren 2' protection) 1 Clean air 7' 6 5 Anti tobacco industry 6 Di sl i ke "anti?' ads 2 0-6 Smokefree restaurants 11 8 Approve ordinance 2', (For Prop 5) 3: Against all smokiing 5 3 (N=21T) (N=87)
Page 79: mso13c00
-79- Question 18' Continued Smoking Type of Age, Education Behavior Religion Housimgi Area 65 & College Yes/ Single North- over graduate smoke Other famil'y east "They pointed out some of the thing,s in the ordinance that are unfair -- such as smoking allowed at boxing affairs, but not at the operas or various concerts.."' 6:5 & Hig,h school Yes! North- over graduate smoke Jewish Apartment east "The main thing would' be the cost of constructing walls and separate rooms for smokers and nonsmokers ... they would therefore lose business because there are.a lot of cases where one-half the party smokes and one-half doesn't, but they still want to sit together." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- College Yes/ Singlle North- 35-44 graduate smoke Other family east "They were trying to get across two things -- basically the money that it. would cost and that it would be changing it into a corrmwnist or Nazi', country .,..by the way, the second one.isn't true by me." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- DidlNot Vote - Would Have Voted Aaainst College Rbman Single North- 18-24 graduate Nonsmoker CathoTic familly east "'That it was a waste of time and money...it's sad'.that they don't have any- thing better to d'o...:I swear,, between gay rights and nonsmokers and all this other bullshit they hand'us, you're lucky you're in Texas." -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 80: mso13c00
-70- TABLE 19 "The big, tobacco firms spent a million dollars to defeat the ordinance in the election." Do you bel iieve this is true or not? Believe Don't Believe Not Sure A'gqreaates 77 8 15 Region Northeast 82' 6 12 Northwest 74 10 16 Soutfieast 74 8' 18 Southwest 80 6 14 'Jote Behavi'or - Reputrican 72 1& 18 Ticket-Splitter 81 4 14 Democrat 76 9 15 Age/Lir"estyle Young, adu]t. 77' 9. 14 Family adult 75 9 17 Older adult 79 7 14 Education Less than high school 65 13' 22 Hich schooT, graduate 76 7 17 Some college 78 8 14 College graduate 80 8 12 Smoki,na History Yes/smoker 70. 11 20 Former smoker 78 8 15 Nonsmoker 81 6 12 Sex +1d e 77 8 15 Female/home 79~ 7' 14 Fema]e/works 73'. 9 17 Jewish/Condo Jewish ana Condo (N=34) 88 3 9 Jewish or Condo: 82 7 11 Others 75 9 17 Turnout Yes 77 8 15 No. 75 9 16 For additional information, see pages 87, 142 , 190, 214, 238, 334, 358, and 37 ofthe cross-tabulations.
Page 81: mso13c00
-87- Question 27 Continued Smoking Type of Age Educati'on Behavior Religion Housing. Area Hi',ghischool Yes/ Northr 25-34 gradluate smoke Baptist Other east "Smoking sections -- as far as the fine, I don't care for fit-..have an ashtray device to control the smoke if they can afford.it." Dild Not Vote - Would Have Voted Against 65 &. Some Yes/' Presby- Single South- over college smoke terian, family east "I don't smoke out, just at home...I think people could do without smoking for awhile in public." College Roman North- 25-34 graduate Nonsmoker Catholic Apartment 'east "I think that they should have it in small places liike elevators, but not in wide open places such as.a restaurant where.the ventilation is proper." Q C
Page 82: mso13c00
Page 83: mso13c00
-71- SELECTED VERBATIM RESPONSES Questioni a2: In any election many people are unable to vote for different reasons. What was the most important reason why you did not vote in the election on the smoking ordinance? Would Have Voted "'For" - -- - - Smoking - Type of - Age Education Behavior Religion Housing Area Some Former Single South- 25-34 college smoker Other family west "IN'y purse w as stoTen.and m y voting card wa s in my purse., . .so I couldn't vote.:" High school Roman North- 45-54 graduate Nonsmoker Catholic Apartment east "A very embarrassing thing happened...we went to the polls at 6:40...my husband is hard of hearing,and had not voted for awhile, so was not used to the new, machines...the man who was in charge was sitting at a table tallking so I just told'him how to dbiit and the man jumped up and said, 'you can"t do that, that's against the,law"....,so it made me mad and I tore my husband's card up and mine up~and threw them on the floor." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- College, Presby- Single North- 35-44 graduate Nonismoker teri.an family west "'I think the main reason is that I had mixed feelings about.it_..I' wasn't reaFlly sure how I wanted to:vote." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Some Roman North- 18'-24i college Nonsmoker Catholic Apartment east "My husband was ill and,I' dildn`t have time to get to the polls,. but I was interested and wanted to.vote." Not Sure 65 & Less than Former Single North- O over high school smoker Methodist family east w' ~ W "I smoked for years..~.I qui't...it doesn't bother me...I just'didn't want to 4 be against the rights of~the people who db smoke."' ~ O ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- p
Page 84: mso13c00
-74- SELECTED VERBATIM RESPONSES Question #17: And about the ads im favor of the ordinance, in your own words, what do you feell that the ads were trying to tell, you? (Asked of those respondents indicating they had seen the "for" add or had seen both sets of ads.). Voted For C Smoking Type of' Age Education Behavior Religion Housing. Area Some Other Single North- 45-54 college Nonsmoker Protestant family east "Reai'ly I think our TV station (Channel 4). was trying to counterbalance the imbalance createdlwhen the tobacco industry threwtheir money in.....it said, that the ads were pai'd,for by Channel 4.." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 65 & High school Condo- North- over graduate Nonsmoker Other _ minium east "They tell you to make your own decision...they gave both sides of the prob- lem and.left it up to you." ------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- High school Former Single North- 55-64 graduate: smoker Other family west "'That people that.d'on't smoke have the brai',ns and that people that smoke are, not smart enough toiget.in out of the rain.," ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- College Other Single Southr 45-54 graduate Nonsmoker Protestant fiamilly west "They were mainly Carol'! Burnett trying to say that the smoke was causing air pollution." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 65 & High schooll Other Sinal!e North- over graduate Nonsmoker Protestant famillly east "To vote for it, but they didn't tell enough about it." ------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
Page 85: mso13c00
-78- Questian 18 ' Continued Smoking Type ofi Age Edu.cation Behavior Religion Housing Area High school, Other Sing,lle North!- 25-34 graduate Nonsmoker Protestant family east "Someone's rights were being invaded and that the smoker had more rights than! the nonsmoker." College Former ponit SingTe North- 4!5-54 graduate smoker know family east "1t,was a big,brother type of thing -- saying that it's not American to have these rights taken away.:" 65 & College Former Roman Condo- South- over graduate smoker Catholic minium west "'They tried to:promote the.idea that a democracy shouldn't,reguiate people like that,in accordance with the Consti'tution...however, thisis a bunch of 'bul.l' because you don't have the rilght to do anythiing.that forces someone to do something that they have the right not to do."' ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 65 & College Former Roman Condo North- over graduate smoker Catholic mi'nium east "The tobacco people want to keep. on selling!cigarettes is alll I got from the ads.,..the main reason I voted for the ordinance was because I was mad at the tobacco industry for all, ofthe false advertising!...I wasn't even going to, vote in the election until I saw all of the ads." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Voted Against College Yes/ Sing1le North- 35-44 graduate smoke Baptist family east "Trying to give the views of both sides of it and let voter decide." Some Yes/ Roman North- 25-34 college smoke Catholic Apartmen!t east "They were informative andlmade me aware of the consequences if the ordinance passed -- such as a.55001fine if violatilons occur and that parti!tions would have to be installed,:" -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 86: mso13c00
-48- SELECTED~VERBATIM'RESPDNSES Question #1,2: And what are one or two:reasons why you were a ainst the.ordinance? (Asked of those respondents who.votedi"'against" the ordinance.) Smoking: Type of Age Education Behavior Religion! Housing Area Some Yes/' Roman. Single North- 35-44 college smoke Catholic family east "I didn't like the way it was worded...I, would have voted for it maybe if it was worded differently." 65 & Some Former Condo- North- over college smoker Jewish minium east "°It was poorly written...an infri'ngement on rights of people...it made it seem that a smoker was commitirg a crime...wearing dark brown shoes could be a crime next -- who knows?" ------------------°--------------------------------------------------------- 65 & WSgh school Former Roman Condo- North- over graduate smoker Catholic minium west "T' don't feel that people should be separated..,.maybe separate secti'ons,, but not walls." 65 &' College Single North- over graduate Nonsmoker Other family west. "If you're going to spend that much money on an ordinance, I think it would. be better spent on crime rather than polilcing people's smoking...I allso don't want other people's opinilonspressured on me." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Less. thani Yes/' Don't Single North- 55-64 high school smoke know family east. "Stupid.ordinance...ifi I go~out with,a party, where do we sit?'," ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- College North 25-34 gradUate Nonsmoker Other Apartment east "If you tell bosses they cannot have smokers and nonsmokers together, they must have separate sections and rooms, tell them the cost, they won't like it...say I got,a jpb,and told my boss, "I'm a nonsmoker, I need a separate room,,' -- he'lil say get a separate job!'...there are too many regulations ...anyone who feels like it can get one...it will get to where everything is.regul'ated." -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 87: mso13c00
-16- Question 17 Continued Smoking Type of Age Education Behavilor Religion Housing Area 65 & Some Yes/ Don't Single North- over college smoke know family east "To try to force me to:take care of myself...same with seat belts...jus.t leave me alone,and let me kill myself." 65 & Hilgh school Yes/ Single North- over graduate smoke Baptist family west "They were talking about health and,stuff, but no matter what you eat, drink, breathe, or where you sleep nowadays, you get cancer." College Yes/ North- 25-34 graduate, smoke. Mormon Duplex east "They had a good point -- that smoking's bad for your heallth but they went about i,ntroducing it. the wrong way."' ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Did Not Vote - Would Have Voted For College North- 25-34 graduate Nonsmoker Lutheran Apartment west "That the rights of some peopTe.(nonsmokers) were being violated...they were saying, 'we have a complaint andlwe want you to do something about it.'" 65 & Some North- over college Nonsmoker Jewi'sh Apartment east "That the tobacco,companies were against i:t and they were.putting up a lot of money for it.:" -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 88: mso13c00
-83- TABLE 21 Do you' approve or disapprove of the tobacco industry's financiall contributions to the campaign against the ordinance?' (IF ANSWERED,. ASK:) Do you'feel, strongily about that? Strong Strong Don't Appr ove A rove Disapprove Disapprove Know / rV n W q /C A~].cg,regates 22 25 10 29 13 Rpgion Northeast 20 29 11 28' 13 Northwest 23 21 11 32' 13 Southeast 25: 25 8 26 16 Southwest 20' 29 12 29 10 dote Behavior Repuoliican 28 23 11 27 11 T.icket-Splitter 22' 24 9 32 13 Democrat 20 26 11 29 14 Age/Lifestyle Young adult 23 32 10 28 7 Family adult 24' 20 12 28' 15 Older adult 19 24 9 31, 16 Education Less than high school 23: 21 13 23 20 High school graduate 25 24 8 30 13 Some college 19' 27 14 30 11 College graduate 21 26 9 30 14 Smoking History Yes/smoker 30 25 12 16 17 Former smoker 19 26 11 33 10 G Nonsmoker 18 24 9 37 13 Sex M'ale 25 23 9 29 13 Female/home 23' 22 8 34 12 Female/works 15 31 14 24! 16 Jewish/Condb Jewish and Condo (N 34) 18 15 9 41 G.1 18 Jewish or Condo 22 30 10 28 O), 10 Others 22 24 11 29 W »+ 14 Turnout, UT W Yes 21 25 10 30 . 14 No 24 25 10 29 12 For additionall information, see pages 90, 145, 193, 217, 2'41,. 337, 361, and 40, of the cross-tabulatiions.
Page 89: mso13c00
-72- Question 2 Continued' Would Have Voted "Against" Smoki`ing Type of Age Education Behavior Relilgion Housing Area College Former Roman Condb- North- 35-44 graduate smoker Catholic minium east "I fel.t very strongly against the ordinance, but I do enjoy nonsmoking areas ...I was really stuck." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- High school' North- 25-34 graduate Nonsmoker Mormon Other west "I changed address...I' wasn't able to get to the rilght precinct.,"' ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 65 & College Former Northr over graduate smoker Other Other east "They wasted too much of our money and,it waspoorly organized." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25-34 High school graduate Nonsmoker Lutheran Single family North- east . ~ "My husband would have canceled my vote_...he is for the ordinance and II am against it." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 65 &. Less than Condo- North- C over high school Nonsmoker Jewish minium east "I don?t have the right totell people what to do...they can smoke"where they want.."' ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- C E College Yes/ Other Single North- 35-44 graduate smoke P'rotestantt family east "'I worked on the ordinance and I was in charge ofi driving people to the polls so they could vote, and I didn't.get a chance to myself." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 65 & College Former North- over graduate smoker Other Other east "It rained that day and!I had a cold...I d5'dn't want to go out in the rain." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Col'1lege Yes/ Rbman S9ng1'e North- 25-34 graduate smoke Catholic famil'y east "I wasn"t moti'vated enough to~get out and vote." -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 90: mso13c00
Page 91: mso13c00
-82- TABLE 20 On the whole, now that the ordinance has been defeated, and disregarding the specifics of the ordinance, do you feel that some sort of regulation of smoking in public places is needed or do you feel that there should be no restrictilons? No Some RestrictionsRegulations (N=12) Don't Know p o A'ggregates 33: 66 2' Re ion Northeast 30. 68' 2 Northwest 33. 66 1 Southeast 35 61 2' Southwest 30 68' 2' Vote Behavior Republican 41 58'. 1 Ticket-Splitter 33 64 3'. Democrat 29 70, 1 Age/Lifestyle Youn:g adult 31 68 2' Family adwlit 34 65 1. Older adult 32' 66 2'.. Education Less than hi'gh school 46 51' 2'. High, school graduate 28' 70 2', Some coTlege 301 68 2'. College graduate 33, 66' 1 Smoking History C G.7 Yes/smoker 51 48 11 M Former smoker 27 72' 2 CJ Nonsmoker 22 76 2 `:a Sex Cn W ~ M'ale 3.7 61 2 Female/home 27 72 1 Femalle/works, 28 69 2 Jewish/Condo. Jewisli and Condo (N=34) 241 76 0 Jewish or Condo 33 64 2' Others 33' 66 2 Turnout Yes 32 6& 2 No, 33'. 65 2' For addiitional information, see pages 91, 146, 194, 218, 242, 338, 362, and 411 of the cross-tabulatiions.
Page 92: mso13c00
-77- SELECTED VERBATIM RESPONSES Question #18: And.what about the ads against the ordinance, what in your own wordsdo you feel the ads were trying to tell you? (Asked of those respondents i'ndicating they had seen the "against" ads or had seen both sets of ads..). Voted For Smoking Type of Age Education Behavior Religion Housing Area College Former Single North- 45-54 graduate smoker Lutheran family west "They were trying to get people to protest and not quit smoking." College Other Single North- 35-44 graduate Nonsmoker Protestant. family east "'That people"s rights would be taken. away...and don't 1~et this happen here as i~t would be only the beginning..,.I felt this was a scare tactic." 55-64 College graduate Former smoker Roman Catholic Single family North- east ( "So many of the ads were thrown at the young people, ma~kiing themithink that they will always be giving up rights iif they let this pass." 4'5-54 Some college Former smoker Other Protestant Single family South- east "They talked.about fireedom...however. I don't believe it because I think they were doing i't so they wouldni't lose their bnsiness...I can see that but,they should have pointed out that they didn't care about rights and freedom as much as money." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 65 &, College Roman Single North- C over graduate Nonsmoker Catholic family west "It wasn't,going to help any, and!in this area tourism is important andlhotel'~ and restaurants would lose business if it was passed!."' ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ~. College North- W 55-64 graduate Nonsmoker Jewish Apartment east W. ~ "It was a phony campaign...they dbdged the issue of the health element...ih ~ effect they resented the fact.that the government was taking liberties from Q., them."' -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 93: mso13c00
VLT & ASSOCIATES - DA'DE CO. POST-ELECTION STUDYr -+112'30 1'5 AQGP'EGA'TES GEOGknPHI CAt~_ RECOOES kG FREQUENCY' CUM FREQ HEPCENT CU", PERCENT PjOPT'HEA',T 167 167 ' 22.267 22'.2:+7 NORTHWEST 31!1 479 41.467 63'.73'3 SGUTHFSST 167 645 22.267 14.6.000 50UTHwgST 105 750 14.000 100.000 i
Page 94: mso13c00
-75- Questiion 17 Continued Voted Against Smoking Type of Age Education Behavior Religi©n Housiing Area 65 & Some Former Episco- Southr over college smoker palian Apartment west "I don't like Amerilca the land of the free, to be free, is exactly what they're saying." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some Yes/ Roman Single North- 45-54 college smoke Catholic family east "They were appea,liing, to the apparent.stupidity of people, but they didn't move me one way or the other.," ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- College Yes/ Single North- 55-64 graduate smoke Baptist family east "A bunch of l;ies...they left out the bad parts~and only told the good." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Col'lege Roman Single North- 45-54 graduate. Nonsmoker Catholic family west "'That the people that don't smoke have rights too! ...it was aig,ood!poiint, but.I felt stronger about the other one." 65 &, Some Former Other Simgil'e North- over college smoker Protestant family east "Well, one man especially seemed to.want us to feel that nonsmokers hadd more rights than smokers...I occasionaTl~y smoke, but if I didh't I don't think that everyone else should stop smoking too." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- College Former Roman Single North- 55-64 graduate smoker Catholic family east "Trying to tell business people that they have to make room for nonsmokers." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- College Yes/ Don't North- 25-34 graduate smoke know Apartment west "Everything should be regulated, or it seems,, and~peopie shouldn't be smoking ..I' think it stinks!" -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 95: mso13c00
-80- Ouerview Finally some attentilon should be paid to the regulation of smoking in Dade County in the future. In spite of the defeat of the ordinance and all the campaigning against it, there is.still a substantial reservoir of support.fior the regulation of smoking in public places in Dade County. In the postelection survey onlly 33% of the respondents said that,they wanted no regulations at all. Sixty-six percent said that they wanted some kind of regulation of smoking in publilc places. The comparable percentages from the California postelection survey are 31% and 53w. In this context it appears that the campaign was seen against the ordi- nance specifically without affecting the voters' views on the desir- ability of some kind of regullation of smoking,in general. The smokers in the study, for instance, are again nearly evenly spllit on the desir- ability of'some kind of regulation of smoking in pub:lic. What it is that respondents want i'n terms of regulation is rather similar to what appeared in California, andinot all, that different from what the ordilnance seemed to be offering. Most people mentioned'that they did want.separate areas. As in California, restaurants were mentioned by a substantialnumber of the respondents. From the responses, no very clear ideas of what an ordh',nance.shoul'd contain and what ilt shoulld omit are apparent, however. Fewer other points are noteworthy here. Although there is some resent- ment against the campaign, it does not appear to be very strong at this point. Substantial numbers: of'people did disapprove of the.campaigns, and'many referred.to the "against" campaign. The numbers are far from! overwhelming, however. Moreover, some resentment should be respected since the anti campaign was so much more visible than the pro campaign. Simiiarliy the involvement of the tobacco industry was not appreciated in some areas., but the resentment was far from overwhelming. Pretty much the same observations apply here as were made in the post-election on Proposition 5. Exposure of the tobacco industry's role is unavoidable
Page 96: mso13c00
VLT & ASSCCI'.ATES PEftCENTAGE bAR CHART PERCENT ,GE ~0 + amama ~ paaaa ~ mppan ~ aaaaa ~ 40 + papaa aoaqa ~ apaao eaaaa ~ ananp'aaa:aa ~ pnnam ae.aq ! qpnap. aOn:aq 30 + aaana apaaa ( naan.m aaaau ~ paaa~.apnaOq ~ qnaaa aaaan ~ aaaaqaaaap + aap.aAn'.6na0 20 ~ aan:na. p.apao .. ~ napaq manm'q ~ aaoaa nanaa ~ aa~n0aaapp~a + nn',aua qaapa pqaqtl' 10 t aqlpAa aAa.q11 aqqqq. ~ tla'.apm'. pppmtl aqaqa. ~ ap.pAa'. paplan pqAqm. ~ anmpp mmnlaq amaqa ------------------------------------- q p', 511 E 0 m L N T E T 5 y. rl E F P19 OFFENDERS COWLJ'. BE i+RRESTEG 6 FI'NEG'R5.00'.
Page 97: mso13c00
03634552 a
Page 98: mso13c00
VLT 6 ASSC,CPA'TES PERCENTAGF_ F3A'RC4ART PERCENTaGE 3' ~ o4a4# 70 #4Wa4 ~ 444aa ~ 4a4W4 ~ a4AAa 60'.. a a4Wa# ~ WA,aWa ~ aA.4aa ~ #4Wao 50 nA'oaa: ( 4WOaW ~ 44aW.4 ~ a4b4ir 40' a4Wwa ~ aa4au I I 4tl440 4W#tl0 30' ~ 44W4i} aaA4W ~ aAA:aW ~ a4ano 20 f a 4.W.a4 W',44ki4 ~ 4W4an aAW4!W ~ a a.aAa 4.4W4a ~ 4Aa4a a.Aa4W 10 . 1 4WIW4a WAA~.aA ' I a4Y44 OW':4an aa4b;a a444a W#~#a4 a44#a'. ' 4A'AAa 444'aA Aad4a. -----------~~~~~~---~ D ~ L N T E T V U E : N E F L, T c VF P20 BAD FOR iNOItiSMO~:FR TO BREATHE IN SMn,IiF
Page 99: mso13c00
-86- Question 27 Continued Smok:iing Type of Age Education B'ehaviior Religion Housinq Area High school, Single Northr 55-fi4 graduate Nbnsmoker Baptist family east "There was nothing wrong with!the ordinance...if I smoked I'd have the courtesy to go iln another room or outside if I had to suck that nicotine in my lungs ...If I was a heroine addict I'dstep outside to stick the needlie in my arm." ----------------°----------------------------------------------------------- High school', Single North- 35-44 graduate Nonsmoker Baptist family east "It's neededlnowrbecause smokers are walking around smoking everywhere... just showing that they can_..,b.usilnesses first need to make sections for smokers and nonsmokers." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- College Roman Single NorthH 25-34 graduate Nonsmoker Catholic fami',lly east "In,airplanes there should be smoki!ng and nonsmoking areas:...,iit's not the cigarettes that bother me, it's the,5.0.B.~ with the cigar that's gonna 'smoke until Psmoke you out'...ttiat's why I'm against smoking." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Voted Aoainst College Former Single North- 55-64 graduate smoker Other family west "Elievators and buses -- I agree with restaurants, lounges and!bairs...they should all'ow smokingi...you're hurting their business." College Yes/ Condo- North- 25-34 graduate smoke Jdwish minium east "'I think they're sufficient now.,..I think there should be a concern for smokers ...I feel like.a persecuted minority...I. could favor certain designated':.smoking areas, but.not.absolute refusal of smoking in places like theaters." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- High school Yes/ Other Single North- 45-54 graduate smoke Protestant family east "I have seen people smoking in elevators and waiters handling,food...I just W think people should,use common courtesy." M ------------------------------------------------- -- --------------- G.7 4h CJ1 M+ C9
Page 100: mso13c00
-84- SELECTED VERBATIM RESPONSES Question #27: And could you tell me one or two things which you might favor in terms of' rules and~ regulatio:ns conc:erning public smoking? (Asked of those respondents indicating that some sort of regulation of smoki'ng in public places is needed.) Voted For f Smoking Type of Age Education Behavior Rellioi'on Housing. Area 65 & Colllege Former North- over graduate smoker Jewish Apartment east "There should be restrictions, but milder fines and'alll...maybe just a.warn- ing, and not put up these walls...just separate sections.."' Colllege Single North- 45-54 graduate Nonsmoker Lutheran family east "There are rulles already....if we obey the laws that exiist now, things will work, out...actually it shoulldlbe banned in all public places." Some Single North- 25-34 col!lege Nonsmoker Lutheran family east "In restaurants.it should be.prohibited...an anchorman om one of our locaT TV stations said that if everyone would just compromise there wouldn't be a problem and I feel that is true." ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- 65 & Colllege Former Other Single North- over graduate smoker Protestant family east "Restaurants should put up more signs...after alli, the election was so~ciose.," Less than Other Single North- 55-64 hiigh school Nonsmoker Protestant family east "I would like to see sign.s displayed.even in supermarkets, at eye level... first see how much change people wi!lil do on their own.,..our TV people pick it up and1briing to our attention what restaurants are making an effort and that makes. people more aware,of where they can go and be separated from smokers...,I do appreciate it."
Page 101: mso13c00
-85- Question,27 Continued Smokiing Type of Age Education: Behaviior Religion Howsing Area High school Yes/ North- 35-44 35-44 graduate smoke Jewishi Apartment west "To smoke outside of a building and'.in a large room with sufficient air condiitioning." Some Yes/ Single North- 45-54 college smoke Jewish family west "No smoking, iin.elevators because of the fire hazard and no smoking iin food stores as it isn't healthy and a fire hazard."' 65 & Less than, Yes/ Roman Single North- over high school. smoke Catholic family east "There are pl~aces that have,'no smoking' signs and anyone who disobeys the sign should be fined so they learn a.lesson."' College Presby- Single North- 35-44 graduate Nonsmoker terian famrily east "Smoking,areas in. high schools...~encourage smoking in kids -- that's one thing I'm against." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Did Not Vote - Would Have Voted For High,school Former Roman North- 25-34 graduate smoker Catholic Apartment, east "SuMwaysdo have no smokingiand a $100 fine...should do it here...that was in Europe." 65 &, Some Former Roman, Single North- over college smoker Catholic family east "'I think businesses will make adjustments in seating voluntarily now...they have received,the message loud and clear." 65 &, College Former Don't Single North C' over graduate smoker know family east w ~ '°Government should have taken care of it earlier...they are cowards who are. I&A afraid to exert their bestowed powers..,.what i.s a city controller for?"' W IPA - -- - - -- -- - - -- -- --- - -- V1
Page 102: mso13c00
VLT K ASSOCIATES PEPCENT aGE 8A'R CHART PERCENTAGE { naaa# ~ aama#' { aaaam + ab@aa 70 ~ a4'@a#'~ 4@',4am I n4pam 60, ~ aama:4 ~ aaaa,a ~ m##an a naa:au 50 ~ a#aaa ~ aa@mA ~ @#ano + aaaaa 40 ~ Aa,a4a ~ amtma { 4#',maa, malt@A'. 30 { #al@bb, { a a':a tl a'. ~ aaana. 2Q. + aoaaa { aA#an ' aA@a#. mA4~aA' 10 .. n@#ma @Oann ( aaa@mmm.#4tl ntl#'.@aI @aBaA aa@@a Maa:4n{ alta'':aaa.aaa# 40A@m ------------------------------------- . 6 D Q (I N T I T S 1 {:, ,F F L I P22 tII1G Tr,PACCC7 FI'kMS S?ENT $1 411LLIGN, 5'
Page 103: mso13c00
VLT 6 ASSOCIATES - DaDE CO. p05T-ELECTPnN. STUDY - H1231) ' AGGREGATES REASONSI AGAI"iST / C RP12 FkEOuENCY CU~ FREO PER'rENT CUM PERCENT ~4fSC . FREEDOMiCHOIGc 104 P(, ,4 38'.519 38.519 irORE GOVT CO'vTRO 47' 151 17.407 55.926 OTHR' CAtfPGM THMS 55 2+)7 20.741 76.667 OTHER/J'x 63 270 23.333 100.000 MADE DECI'S:ION ON HOW TO VOTE. P'13 FR,'EQUENCYCUP" FREQ PF.R'CENT CtilNIi PEkCEN'F , ?3.3, ELECTION DAY 34 34 6.64:1 6.M41 FIRST WEEK/M'AY 31 65 6.';5.5 12.695 LAST 2 1:KS/APN1L 30' 95 5.659 1.d.555 FIRST 2' lvX5!'aPRL 36 131. 7.u3l 25.5c36 MARCH .. 59 1'90 11.523 37.109 8'EFORE -ARCH' 282 472' 55, 1i 78 9a.188 ' UON"T Kn10W.' 40 512 7.813 10.0.0'00' RECALL 4D4/EGTISING U.N THE URDINANCE P114 FREOJENCY' CUPA' FREO PERCENT CUt+ PERCENT NQ 95 95 12.667 12.667 EQTH 377' 472 50.267 62'.93'3 nFOR" ONLY 26 493' 3.467 66.403 °AGAdNST" ONLY 247 745 32.933 99'.333 DaN"T KNQW S 750 0'.,667 1.00.000 RECALL ADVERTIEING ON THE ORDINANCE ( (!3 FREQUENCY CUM ' FREQ PERCENT CUM PER'CEniT KI0 12C, 126: 1h.n00 16.A00 FOR ONLY 43 169 5.733 22.53,3 AGAINST ONLY 371 54:0~ 49.467 7'I.0Q0 BO''Th 21.0 750, 28.000 100i.00D
Page 104: mso13c00
~' rn m r " n~ u r 0 m t----------------*-- z m w 1 ti ti D lu 1 1 G' C !A p rn m 0 '" z p i a a a a a a o a# a a a### a a## a b a X ','~~ . y ? /$# B C# a O a b a a a a a a a a~p # a a+p r*: tn m n~ <!r e-, r; rr t# a o a S 4# 4 m# a e# a a a a a a~ e b s n v, 1 e a a a a a b a a a a a a a b 4 P## a a a x 1 C t## 0# i? C R 4 O O# 9¢# G B O### ? r 1 t 1 °' 1 a# b# 8# 4 8 O 4 b 4+Y a# a a a ~ 1 a b a b s s a e b a a a s e O O a a - 7T r*1 C: 1+ _ -4 -zC q 1## O## a b## a b a a b a a a b t a a 9 8 A e O### 4# a 4 a C p b n 1 a b O b b# a a 6 a## a a b a a# O 1 t i a a a a# a## a a 1 a b a a q# a b a b r * z= -. /' ~_ t .._ 1 a a a o a a a a e s a a b a b o b b b tr c z t a e c a a e# c# a 6CSvE9E0
Page 105: mso13c00
VCT & aSSaCIATES. uERCEi1TAGE' BAR CHART PERCEr!TaGE I SSSSS 1 SSS55 I SSSSS 70 SSSSS 1 SSSSS I SSSSS' I SSSSS 60 SSSSS 1 SSS55 1 NNNNN' f NNNNN' 50 M1iNNNN', I NPbNNN'I tiNNNN I NNNNN, . 40 . MNNNN I NNNN"1 1 NNNNN. I NNPiNN. 30 NNNNN ( Il'NNNhs I NNNN"V' I FFFFF 201 FFFFF 1 FFFFF I B'FFFF SSS'SS I FFFFF' SSS.SS 10 FFFFF NNNdJNI FFFFF SSSSS' NNNNN I FFFFF NNNNN FFFFF I FFFFF FFFFF FFFFF -------__-----------_-D-_-_ .a EC p n L N T I 0 E T V. E ? c 1 1 C V c P22 BIG TOBACCO FL.4MC SPENT 7:1 MILLION SY'M[30L P'PltiSYM~iOL PP'lLfi F FORdq$R' SMCKf R N NONSMOKER O W 09 W J;h C!1 ~ ;TMFiOL PPT 0 O S SMO'XEk !5
Page 106: mso13c00
VLT & ASSACI4TES PERCE`JTAGE 6'bR CHART PERCENT"GE I vvvvv 70! VVVVV I vvvvv I vvVVV I VVVVV 60 VVVVV I VVVV'V I VVVVV' I VWVV'V 50 + vvvvv I vVVVV' I VVV'VV' I vvvvv 40 + vvvvv I VVVNV I vvvvv i VV:VVV 30 + vvvvv i vvvvv i vvvvv I NNNNwJ, 20 + NNNNN, VVV:VV I NNNNN, vvvvv I NNNNN: vvvvv 1 NNNNN VVVVV 10 NNNNN VVVVV I NNNNN, NNNNN VVV'VV I NNNNN NNNNN VVV:WV I NNNNN NNNNN NNNNN'. ------------------------------------- P20 SAD FOR NONSMOKER TO R!RE"4THE IN SHOMF SYMBOL PP1 SYtd'HUL PPl N NONVOTER V V!7TEN' 8
Page 107: mso13c00
VLT & ASSOCIATES - DADE CO'. POST-F'.LErTI~DN STUDY -'023Q. 2 AGGREGATES REASONS FOR /' C RP4 .. FREQUENCY' 663 CU4 FREO HERCENT CU!w'P'ERCENT HEALTH 21 21 24.13P ' 24,138 PASSV SMKG/GENRL 18 39 20.690: 44.828 CKITRL PUHL SMKG 12' 51 1.3.79:3' 58.621, NONS;NOKER' RI,GHTS 13 64 1.4.943' 73.563 OTHERVDK 23 87 26.437 100.000 R:aSONS OPPOSED OR'0 LNANCE PS FR(:QUE.NCY 622 CU'A FREQ . PE'RCENT CU!l PERCENT FREEDOM OF CHQ1C 50 50 39.,063 3~9.U63 MORE GOVT CONTRL Tl 62 9.375 48.438 EXTR'EM/UNENFRCfsL 9 71 7.G31 5~5.469 CST E?US.°S/TAXPYR 13 84 1!i.1S6 65.625 - SOh' RSTRCT ACCPT 5 89 3.906, 69.,531' FOQR:LY WRITTEN 6 95 4.68Fi 74.219' N[!T PR0_?L41 TO ME 5 100 3.906 78. 125 5 I SM'DKH_ 9 109 7.031 85.156 : AGAINST ORUINANC 2 111 1.563 86.719, OTHER 6 117 w.688 9' 1 ..4 J b . CONIT !c!qOw 1.1 1'2,8 8.594 100.000 REAS©NS. AGAINST / C RP5 FREQUENCY 522 CU" FREU PE.RCENT C:Uv 'PERC~ENT FREEDOM CHOI'CE 50 56 39.0 63'. 39. fjti3': MOIRE GOVT CONTRO 12 62 9.375 48.438. O1rHR' CAMPCN THMS 22 84 17.188' 65.625 OTHER/DK 44 128 34.375 10'0.000. WHOLE ISSUE WAS EXAGGEwATEC P6 FRE9UENCY CU^^. FREQ PERCENT CUfi PERCENT . 515 AGREE STRO"dGLY ?l, ~? 34. A'94 34, &:94 AGREE 46 1' [b 19,S74 54.468 NEUTR!t,L 2V 1,^b 11.915 66.3K3' C' O I SAGII<EE 38 104 1' 6. 17 .^. 82.553 aJ STRNGLY' OISAGREE J'6 23J 15.319 Q'7. 872 ~. . G7 DON'T rc~4Ow S 235 2.123 100.000 IG+ ~ Wy
Page 108: mso13c00
VLT 6 4SSOCyAT!E5 PERCENTAGE BARCN'aRT PERCENTAGE 50. V'VVVV I vvvvv I VV V U'V' t vvvvv I VVVVV' 40 VVVVV VVVVV I VVVVV' VVVVV I VVVVV VVVVV I vvvvv vvvvv I VVVVV VVVVV 30' + VVVVV VVVVv d vvvvv vvvvv I vvVVV' vvvvv I VVVVV vvvvv I VVVV:V VVVVV 20' + VVWV'V VVVVV I VVWV"J' VVVVV I NNNNN VVVVV I NNNNN NNNNN I NNNNN NNNNN 10, + NNNNN. NNNNN vvvvv I NNNNN'. "aNNNN vvvvv I NNN~NU NNNNN vvvvv I NMNNN NNNNN VVVVV I NNNNN: NNNNN NNNNN..--- °----q-----------0-----------+-- 0 01 L N T ~ T F` V E ?' P E F L. i E P1',') GFFENOER'S COULD BE eRRESTED & FINED Vs00 SCM;?CL PP'1 SYw30L PP1 N N0NV0TER V' VOT~-R 7
Page 109: mso13c00
VLT & PERCE PERCE ASSOCIA NTAGE EA :JT AGE TES R CHART' 4 I 1 vVVVV' 40 + VVVVV' ! VVVVV' 1 VvvVV' VVVVV 1 vvVVU' VVVVV I 30 + VV,VVV' VVVVV VVVVV V'VVVV t I I I 20 + VV'VVV VVVVV VVVVV: VvvvV VVVVV VVVVV VVVVV VVV:VV VVVVV vvvvv VVVV 1 VVVVV vvvvV VvvvV I VVVVV VVVVV VVVVV I NNNNN VVVVV VVVVV I NNNNN VVVVV vVVVV 10' + NNNNN NNNNN VV'VVV' I NNNNRI' NNNNN NNNNN I I NNNNN NNNNN NNNNN NNNNN f+iNNNN NNNNN I NNNNN NNNNN ;:NNNN ------------------ ~ D tii E 0 i L N', T I. ~ E T ~ V E S r F R. i c U P21 ORDINANCE ',OULD HAVE COST a,:, MILLION SYMNOL PPI SYM3OL PP1 N NONVOTcR' V. VGTtR'
Page 110: mso13c00
VLT F~ ASSOCIATES PERCENTAGE' BdR CHART PEk'CE'dT ^ GE I''6 ~ 55555 I sssss 60 SSSSS I SSSSS I SSSSS I NNNW SO NNNN4J' 1 I NNNNN NNNNN I NNNNN 40 + N.NNNN I NN!NNN. I I NNNNN NNNNN 30' SSSS9 NNNNN I I I 20 + SS55S SS.SbS SSSSS SS555. NNNNN NNNNN FFFFF FFFFF I I I 10 SSSSS tNN1JNN NNNNN NNNNN FFFFF FFFFF FFFFF FFFFF I I I FFFFF FFFFF FFFFF ~! FFFFF FFFFF FFFFF S h k M E N ~ c T L 4 FE T P I 1J1 id' C T L 4 al I o t! S T U ci ~d P26 tiTT ITUWE CN SUFtE REGULAT'ION OF 4MUnI NG C c.: ~ W 4YM=?OL PP11 SYMBOL PP'10 SYM'60L PP1' J t11' F FCRME2'. : M(IKER N P:ONSr+bKF_R S SMOkER ~
Page 111: mso13c00
VLT G ASSOCIATES PERCENTAGE BAR CHART PERCENT :G'E 6 I i ! aaaAa a,paAa A',Ampa 60 A'.p mAlp 1 A'a pA.a AA AA.A I ~ aaaAa ApA'Ap 50' A4A.Ap ! pRAYO i ~ aaAAO aaauo aApfia 40 + pApAA 1 n'AaaA 0 A p..apA a A.OAa o,AAaA A'Aaoo AA aA'.A A.Aap'a i ! aAlAap aAlAA6' mmaAa Aaam.a 1 aA'Aap'. AAp!pA I 20 ap'pAp'. aAmAa A4p',Aa AAA~aa ! mAAAp. piFp'ptF I I ! paaaA appAA Aa4Ap pAaan appAp ApAAp 10 Ape4am. 4A~,AYa E i i I AaaAa A6aaA AAAAA Ap4aa pplAAa aA'.AaA AAAAp p..A.AAA AAAp.. N S: 0 ' U, 0 r } p'. MI F t~l ~ E T S ~ T ~ K R {, I C U L 0 ~ O Q.7 T I A T CJ ~ ~3 I cn r: S o N N P26 ATTITUilE ON SOME PEGULATtON! OF SMOKING
Page 112: mso13c00
C, VLT & ASSOCIATES PERGENTAGE EAR QHURTi PeRC.ENToGE I VVVVV I VVVVV 60 + VVVVV I vvvvv I vvvvv I VVVVV 50 + vvvvv ! vvvvv I v'vVVV I V'V V Vv 4 0 vvvvv f vvvvv ! VVV'V'V ! VVVVV' vvvvv 30 VVVVV VVV'VW I vvvvv VvV'vW I VVV'VV vvvvv I VVlVVVVVVVW 20' vvvvv NNNNN I VVVVV' NNNNN I VVVVV NNNNN I VVVVV NN.NNN 10 NNNNN NNNNN I NNNNN NNNNN ! NNNN3NNNNfu I NNNNN NNNNN ------------------------------------- P?6 aTTITt1~)EOr'i 9;(7MEREGULATIOi4, OF ' 5MUKING 4Yt'FOL PP4 SYw'°%OL PPI N rioNVCiTFR v vOTr:L7 11
Page 113: mso13c00
VLT E. ASSOCIATES - DAf3E CO. POST-F.LECTION STUGY - 41230 AGG?EGA'TE5 AGE CS' FREG'JENCYCU14 FRED PERCENTCUS*PERCENT 7 1 F1'-2'4 46 4 6 6.191 6.191 25-34 142' 18 S 19.112 25.303 35-44 1'2y' 3'1 7' 17.362 42,665 45-54 128 44 5 17.227 59.0392 . 55!-64 125 57 0 16.824 76.716 65' AitiO OVER 173 74 3 23.264 100.000 EDUCAT I iN 09~ FREf1UENCY' C~U'M FREQ PERCENT CUM ~~ PERCENT'~ ., ? . LT HIGH SCHOOL fs2 F'2 Tt1.977 10.9'77 HIGH SCHOOL fiRAD 230 3,12 30.790 41.767 SOME COLLEGE 171 483 22.892' 64.659 COLLEGE GR'AD 264 747 35.341 100.0.06 SMOKING HISTO!fzY 010 FREt1UENCY CUM FREQ' PERGENTCUa-t,PERCENT YES/SMONER' z3w 234 3'1."200~ 3'1.200. FORMER 5MOKER' 2Z8 460 30.1'33'. 61.333 NONSMOKER 290 750 38.667 ' 100.000 12' RELIGIOUS PkEFERENCE Q111 FREQUENC Y CUM FREtJ PERCENT CUrfi PERCEVT ROiMAN CA'THOLIC 186 186 $4.,d300 24.P,00'. i BAPTiIST 814 275 1'.1.i367 36.667 METHIJDIST 37 312 4.933' 41.600. EP'ISCdP'A'LIAN 2.0 332 2.667 44.267 PRESB'.YTP_RIA'N 31 363 4.133' 48.400. LUTHERAN 32 345 4.e167 52.667 OTHER' PtTOLE.STANT96 '+y1 12.800 n5..67' GREEK ORTHOL. 5 4y6 0.667 6:6.133' JEWISH 114 61.0 15.d0~1 Y1.333' MORMON 14 F;24 1.867' 83.200: OTHER 83 712 11.733 94.933' DONOT' KNOw 30. 750 5.067 10'0.000 0 W. 0'a rA Ut w
Page 114: mso13c00
c VLT & ASSOCIATES PERCENTAGE BAR CHART PERCENTAGE ! VvvVW' i vvvvv I vvvvv 70 vvvvv I vvvvv I VVVVV 1 VVVVV' 60 VVVVV' I VV,VVU4' I vvvvv I VvV'VV' 0 + vvvvv I vvvvv I vvvvv I vvvvv 40 . VWlVVV I vvvvv t vvvvv I vvvvv 30 + vvvvv I vvvvv I NNNNN I NNNNN 20 + NNNNN f NNNNN', ! NNNNt's, VV V'V V I NNNNN' - JVVVV 10 + NNNNN VVVVV I NNNNN VVVWV VVVVV I NNNNN vvvvv NNNNN I NNNNN NNNNN NNNNN -- ---- ---- ---------n---- -n,- E' U O L N T I, r E' T °. V E v ,r F P22 EsTG TUFikCCO FIkMS SPENT f:1 MILLIiQ{v SY1-tn©L P'P1. S'YM(3nL PP'I N NONVO.TER' V VOTER 10.
Page 115: mso13c00
ViT 6 ASSOCIATES - OhDE C0. P'05T-EL.ECTLYIN STUDY - x1230 4 AGGREGATES REASONS IN FAVOR OF ORDIN'ANCE' Pll1 FREQUENCY Cl':'bi FREO NERCEN!T CUN, PERCEfuT . 53x' HEALTH 2d' 2b 13.208 13.2U8 PASSIV 5*AO:K/HLTH 12 40 5.660 18.,868 PASSV St+tO'K/GENRL 37 77 17.453 36.321 SMDKRS/INCONSORT 6 S.3 2.a3o. 3'9.15I CNTRL SMKPJG/P'HLC 17 Il00 8.019 47,170 NONSMOKERS RGHTS 26 126 12.264 59.434 PRTCTN OF CHLDRN 4 1.30 1.M87 61e321 CLEAN AIR 16 146 7.547 68.868 TOBAC I!vD MEN7N!'i 12' 158 5.66:0 74.528. 0'ISLIK kGNST ADS 4 162 1.887 5 76.415 SMK FREE R!STPNTS 23 16'5 1,0 . Li49 87.264 APPROV 4}RD I P,iANCE 4 189 1.887' 69.151 AGNST ALL SMOKNo 10 199 4.717 93.8,6683 OTHER 7 296 3 . 3 0 2' 97.170', DONIT KNO'W c 212 2. 83:0 100.0'00- REASO+lS FOR / C RP'1I FRF_OUENCYCUM FREO PERCENT CU~Ji PERCENT HEALTH 4r, 4, Cr 18.863 1'8.8e8 PASSV' SMKGJGENMIi 37 77 17.453 36. 321: CNTRL PUBL SkihG 1',7 94 A. '3 19' 44.. "i40! L NONSMOKER RIGHTS 26 120 12.264 56.604 OTHER/DK 92 212 43.39E; 100.000 REASONS OPPOSEU OROI'NANCE P12 FREOUENCY CU4 FREQ PERCENT CUm ' PERCENT . 4F3p FREEDOM' OF CH01C 104 Ic!4 38.519' 3'8.519 MORE GOVT CONTPL 47 1'S1 17.407 55.426 EXTREMeUNENFR:CUL 23 174 8.51') -,4,444 CST BUSNS/'TArPYR 15 1u9 5.556 70.000 REDICLS./UNNCSSRI° 13 207 ,~.667 76.,667 SOM RSTRCTi AC:CPT 2 209 0.741 77.407 POORLY aRITTE",' 13 222 4.A 15 -~2.222 DET1?'IM7r1TL /tiUS:'ASS ci 22" 2.222' P4 444 I SMOKF 22 45"j q.146 92.`93' AGADtiST ORDINA;4C OTHFR 4 5 "4 219 1.4n1 1 . !+5 2 94.C74 95.926. O~ W'. ~ r,ONrJ K`10'a 11 270 4.074 100.000. W ~t+ Vt W
Page 116: mso13c00
VLT & ASSGCIAfES - DADE CO. POST'-ELECTION STUDY -4123U A4iGREGA TES' DID YOU VOTE IN',THE EL.ECTiON? P1 FKE67UE'VCY CUM FPEC+ ! ERCENT' CUM PEPCENT YES 5'12 i'12 68.267' 68.267 r.0 2 35 747 31.333'. 99.h00~ NO tiN,s4E2'[!NEFUSD 3 750 0.400~ 100.000: REASON FOR NOT VOTING LN THE ELECTION: P2' FREldUENCY CUt9 FREG PERCENT CU,A PERCFNT 54 ,5 «. . :+'ORKINr; 51 51 21.702 21.7 02. ILLNSSlr+.LTH RSNS. lb N.'7 115.319 37.021 OiJT OF TOWN 23 110 9.737 "+.6. ,fi C 9, UNU;QNCR;vD Afi.SSU' 30 1'40 112.766 59.5,74 ^aU T7"~E 14 154 5.957 65.532 FORGOT 1'1 155 4.681 7?.213. BAD WEATHER 10 175 4.255 74..468'. LaCKD TRAN'SPRTTN 1 182 2.979 77.447 WAS U*;OFCIDED' 14 196 5.957 i33.4q4 rOVLtiC 5 201 1 2.128 , 85.532 APPNTtrNTSfDUTIES. 12 213 5.106 96.638 DISLTKD CAMPAIGN 3 216 1.277 CTHtF 10 226 4.255 96.1i7J DO'N*T KNOW 9 235 3.530 100.000 '. HOW YOUi WOULLi HAVE VOTED, P3FR'E;OUENCY CU'!j FREO PERCENT CUr+ PERCENT . 5[.5 FOR 87 87 37.021 37.u2'1 AGAINST 128 215 54.46ts, 9~~1',.. 4.R9 NOT SURF 2C 235 b.G11, '. 100.000 REASONS INFAVUHI OF ORDINANCE P4 FP.EOUENCY CUM FR EQ PERCENT CU"^. PERCENT 663 . HEALTH 21 _1 24.133 ?4. 13c+ PASSV' SMCKIGENkL 16 39 2'0.b90 44.P28 SMOKPSfLNC01dSERT 5 44 7.747 5o .575 CNTPL SMOK/PUELC 12 55 13.793. 5w.368 O NONSMOKtRS RGHTiS 13 0~9 14.943 . 74. "s.1 u W CLEAN AfR 5 74 5.747 8s..1:5T 0'a t~7 AGNST ALL 4_MUKNG 3 77 3.448' tI8 . 5!'.i 6 OTHiER 4 f'.1 4,~qga 93.103. C!1 UONOT K=^1U10, ~ P7 r;.m97 100~. &00 C I
Page 117: mso13c00
VLT 8 ASSOCIATES PERCENT4GE'9'AR CHART PERCENTaGE. I SSSSS 70 SSSSS I SSSSS'. I 55555 I SSSSS ti0 SSSSS i SSSSS I NNNNNI i NNNNN 50 NNNNN I NNNNN I NNNNN I NNNNN, 40 + NNNNN I NNNNN I fVNNNN I NNNNN 30' + NNNNN I NNNNN I NNNNN I FFFFF 20 + FFFFF SSSSS i FFFFF SSSSS I FFFFF 5'SSSIS I FFFFF $SSSS 10 + FFFFF NNNNN I FFFFF -NNNNN SSSSS' ( FFFFF FFFFF "INNNN. I FFFFF FFFFF FFFFF ------------------------------------- C. P20 Eiti.Q, FGR' KdNSMI'ONER TO BRE.^THE IN 4MOhF SYMPOL PP1.0 ~Y1%'r4(1L PPl(p '::NM~OL PP'11 S SM'UKFR F FORMER SMOKER N NCN51f'UMFK 13.
Page 118: mso13c00
VLT s ASSOCIATES - DADE C0. POST-ELECTION STUDY - ia1230, 14 A'GGREGATCS. A'GE/LIFF_STYLE RR FREQUENCY CUM FREO PERCENT CU" PERCENT , 7 YOUNG ADULTS 188 FAMILY ADULTS 257 OLDER At)ULTS 298 . 188 445 743' .. 25.303 34.590 40.108 25.303 59.392 1G0.00& RELIGIOUS PREFEREUCE/C R11 FREOUENC ROMAN C.yTHGLIC 186 Y' CUM FREO 1.86 PERCENT 24.k0a CUM' PERCENT' 24.e00 BAPTIST/C1fHRPR1'85 371 c4,667 49.467 METH/EP'I/P'ttES/LU 123: 4'91 1'5.000 6'5.467 JEWISH 114 6~G5 15.200' 7 80.667 OTHEiR/NUPiE 145 750 19.333. 1010 . 0'0 0 BALLOT CHANGING, R97 FREQUENC S1fAY FoP 2'2`9 Y CUM FRED 229 PERCENT 3!0.533' CUM PERCENT 30.533 SWITCH FOR 36 265 4.90'0 35.3'33' UNDECIDED. T0 FOR 34 ,; 99 4.533' 390867 UNDECIDED TO A!4T 37 336 4.93'3' 44. 3:O 0'. SWITCH ANTI 33 369 4.40.0' 49.200' STAY ANTI 3'?'8 697 43.,733'. 92.933 NOT SURE/REFUSED S3 750 7.067' 100.000, JEWISH CONDO' VOTE R9H FRE(lUENC JEWISH AhD COIaDO' 34 Y' CU'A FREU 14 P'E'RCEt1T 4,433 CUr+ PERCENT 4.,5'33'. JEWISH OF CONDO 135 169 1',d.000'. 22.533i ALL OTHERS 581 73o 77.467 100.0.00 TURNOUT PRObAFiPLITY R99 FREOUEFICY CUA FREO, P'ERCE'vT C'Jt- PERCE^fT' HIGH 247 ?47 33.372 33.37'8 MEGIUM 36S 612' 4`3,324 R2.7'!3 O LOW 128 740 17.297 100.000 CW' ~ C1t CJ W.
Page 119: mso13c00
VLT & ASSOCIATES lw PERCENTAGE BAR CHART PERCENTAGE I SSSSS I SSSSS' 40 + SSSSs . I SSSSS I SSSSS SSSSS ! SSSS5 SSSSS I SSSSS~ SSSSS 30 555I55 NNNNN I 55555 NNNNN I NNNNN' NNNNN I NNNNN NNNNN I NNNiNN. NNNNN SSSSS 20. + NNNNNI NNNN.M SS:S'SS I NNNNN. NNNNN SSSSS I NNNNN NNNNN SS,S'S5 I NNNNN: FFFFF NNNNN I FFFFF FFFFF NNNNN 10 FFFFF FFFFF vNNNN I FFFFF FFFFF NNNNN ! FFFFF FFFFF FFFFF I FFFFF FFFFF FFFFF I FFFFF FFFFF FFFFF --- °y-----------p-----------^,- E 0' ~ L. N. T 1; .. i ti T ~ H' (i E 9 k E, E L, I E V E P21 ORDINANCE :vAIULD H4VE CO'ST ?A MILL['Ov SYMBOL PPI0 SNMc30L PP'1'u SYMnGL PR1(' F FOR'MER. "-,MO:cFF? M NOJJSMOKFa 5 SMOKER
Page 120: mso13c00
' VLT S A5Sf1CIATES - DAGE C(l'. POST-ELECTION STUDY'- 41230 C AGGREGA FE5 OFFENDEP5 COULD 8E ARRESTED & FLNEPi 1500 P19 FREGUENCY CUM FREO PERCENT CUM PERCENT tELIfvE 377 377 50.2fi7 50.2'67 DCYN'T 4ELI1EV'E 298 675 39.733. 90.000' NOT SURE 75 750 10.000 10.0.000. BAD FOR'N'ONS:MOKERTOBREATHE INISb90'KE P20 FREQUENCY CUM FREQ PERCENT CUM ' PERCENT HELIEVF 550 550 73.333 DON'T 3ELIEVE 1141 691 1'1.900. N0'T SURF' 59 750 7.867 0'RDINaNC:E WOULD HAVE COST $8 MILLION P21 FREi0UEP7CY CWM FREG PERCENT FELIEVE 325 325 43.333 . DON'T OELIEVE 27.3 59'9 36.4,10 NOT SURF 152 750 20.267 BIG TOE3'nCCO FIF?h9S SPENT 51 MILLION P22 FREQUENCY CUM FRE©PERCENT 9ELI'EVE 575 575 76.667 DONOT BELIEVE 60 635 H.U'00 NOT SURE 1115 750 15..3':33: 73.333 '12.133'. 10,0.0A0 CU'4~ PERCENT 43.333 79.733 1010.040' CUF4 PERCENT 76,.667 84.667 100..000: 6 ATTITUDE ON WAY' CAMPAIGN: WAS CONDUCTED P23 FREQUENCY CU`? FREQ PERCENT CU'4 ' PERCENT STRONG IAPPRUVE 155 1'S5 2c;.667 2'G.667 APPROVE 222 377 29.600 50.257 DISAPPR<~VE STRONG DISAPPRVE 59 1'06 466 646 11.867 24.0:00 62. 1'.33'86.133 ,. DONOT KNOW 1'.04 750 13.!3'67 100.000 THINKIN,G OF 'a!HbCH SIDE +IHEN ANSWEQED N23 P24 FREQUENCY CU'A'FREC' f'FRCENT CU'+ PNCENT . IU4 . . O W'. FOR 1.25 125 1r)'.35r! 19. 350 P). AGAI^ftiT "r'o4 3B9 40.n67 6U'.217 f30'THI EQUQLLY 241 630 37.30'7 97.523 `Ca Cl1, DDNIT K;+OIJ' lb 646 2.471 100.000'
Page 121: mso13c00
VLT 6 ASS3CLATES PERCE'J,T4GE bARCH'oYP,T P'ENCENT:~GE So + I SSSSS I SSSSS I sssss I SSSS'S'. 40 + SSSSS SSSSS 1 sssss 55555 I SSSSS SSSSS I sssss SSSSS I SSSSS NNNNtit a0. SS'SSS NNNNN ( NN.NNN N'NNNN I NNNNN NNNN'N { NNNNN NNNNN 1 NNNNN NNNNN 20' + NNNNN NNNNN I P!NyNN, NNNNN / NNNNNNNN'NN I NNNNN' FFFFF I FFFFF FFFFF SSSSS 10 FFFFF FFFFF SSSSS I FFFFFFFFFF NNNNN I FFFFFFFFFF NNNNN'. I FFFFF FFFFF FFFFF I FFFFF FFFFF FFFFF ------------------------------------- E+ E L I E~ V' 0, \1 0 ri N! ,T f T s, E U K F F L 1 F c P1.9 OFFEP:OERS COULU. HE ai?P'.ESTED t. FIrIEO 'AtiOJ SY'MHOL. PP 1 G SYe!h-0L. PPI.ri SYM!.OL PP'I 0 F FOkMER. SMOKER N NONSMOK"r"R S SMIDK'--k 12
Page 122: mso13c00
VLT & 4'SSDCIATES - DADE CO. POST-ELECTION STUDY -.K123U 3 AGGREGATES ISSUE D'1D NOT CONCERN mE PERSONALLY P7 FREQUENCY CUM' FREO <ReENT CUrl PERCENT . 5ll5 . . . AGREE STRQ'ddGf-Y 67 67 2R.511'~ 2H.,511 AGPEE 51 1.18 21.702 5o.213 NEUTRAL 9' 127' 3.830 54.C43 DISAGREE 37' 164 15.745 69.787 DISAGREE STRNGLY 70 234 29.787 99.574 L©'N'T KNOW 1 2'35' 0,426 1!010.0'00 ATTENTIDN , NOISE TURNEU ME OFF F'2 FREQUENCY' CUM FRED PERCENT CUM PERCENT . 515 . AGREE S~TRON(ih,Y 56 56 23.E~.30 23.t3'3J' AGPFE NEUTRnL 46 2'6 ll.02 128 19.574 11.0,64~ 43.404 54,46a- DTSAGrrEE 51 179 21.702 7b.170 DISAGREE STRNGLY 52' 231 22.128 913.298 DON'T KNOW 4 23S 1.702 100.000, hISH'. I WOULD HAVE HAU CHANCE T0, VOTE P9'. FREpUEfitCY' CU"4 FREQ PERCENT CUM ' PERCENT . 5T5 . . . AGREE STRnNG1.Y 11TJ9 Lfr9 46,383 46.383 AGREE 33 147 16.170 62.553' NEUTRAL 22 169 9.362 71.915 D'ISAG°EE 41 211) 17.447 89.362 ' D'I'SAGREF_ STRNGLY 25 235 1d.63[s 100.000 t WAY VOTtD ON:TWE (JRD1AiuNCE PIO FREGUEN'CY CUM FRFD PERCENT CUI'l'PERCENT ,. ~l.f`. , . FC1!R 2'12 2'12 41.4,~6 41.4U6 C AGAINST 270 48? 52.734 94.1141 NOT SURt 3 485 ~).586 94.727 REFUSED 27 i12 5.,273 10.0.000 BALLOT ON SMOKING OrDIN,ANCE O Q.~ ~ 04 FREQUENCY C.U~-! FRED' PFRCENT CU%+ PERCENT W r:+ FO'R 275 a75 36.n67 36.667 Clt ~ NOT SUkr: 94 369 12.533 41,.200 N AGAINST 381 1 750 SO.h00 100.0'00'
Page 123: mso13c00
VLT & ASS4CIATES - DADE CO. POST-F_LECTION gTUDY'- 41230 AGGREGATES TYPE WOi~K OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD 1.0~ P28 FR'EQUEFlCY' CU!M' FREQ WERCENT CU' PERCENT SELF-EMPLOYED 131 131 17,467 17.467 LARGE !3USINESS 204 3'.35 27.200 44,667 SMALL dUSI:NS5 101 436 13.467 978.133 GQVT WOl?K.ER 110 546, 14.667 72.800 ' NOT IN LA9R FOkC 1',62'. 703 21.60'-0 94,,,4-00. UNEMPLOYED 20 728 2.667' 97.367: OTHER n, 736 1.067 98.133 NO RESPONSE 1"% 750 1.867 104.000, TYPE WORK OF HEAD'OF HOUSEHOLD / C'. RP28 FREQUENCY CU:'-1 FREO PERCENT CU^" PERCENT SELF-fN'NLOYED 131 131 17.467 17,467 LARGE BUSSh;ESS 204 335 2'7.200'' 7' 44.667 SMALL BUSIri'ESS 101 436 13.407 59.133' GOVT wORKER 1'In 54b 14.,667 72.,300 NOT IN LABR FORC 162 708 2.1.600 94.400 0?HERJNO RESPONS 42 750 5.600' 10'0.G00 HOW YOU.USUALLY'VQTE P29 FREQUENCY CUM'FRE.C PERCENT CUM PERCENT MOSTL RPUSLICNI 104 104 1'3.867 13'.867 f SLIGHT REPUEtLCN' 42 146 5.600 19.,+67 THE MAN 162 308 21.600 41.067 SLIGHT DEMOCRAT 90 J9'E! 1'2.000 53'..J67 MOSTLY '.)EMOCRAT 3?'7' 725 43.600 96.667 DONIT KNOW 25: 750 3.3'33 1A0.0,00 HOW YOUIUSUALLY VOTE / C RP29 FREQUENCY CUl!+FREO PERCENT CUt'. PERCENT REPUBLICAN 146 146 19.467 19.467 THE MAN Ii37' 333 24.=~33 44.400 DEF`OCPAT 41.7 75;0 55.600'. 1'00.000 LEVEL 0'FInlVO:LVEMENT DN POLITI'C3s G P30 FI<E/)UENCY CU.'A FR OVT E!: PERCENT CU'7 PERCENT 0 NEVR GET INV4TLVD 31 31 4.133: 4.133 W OCCASIO*JiALLY VOT 79 1.1' ) Ir).533 14.6h7 ~. RECiULARLY VOTE (41() 520 54.667' F9.3I33' W . ~ HA'V wRTTN OFFCLS 70 50-0 9.333 7A.667 UT GAVE 'F->CA'3PAI~GN, 63 653 h.400' 8:7.0167 t,:' WORKDP*i ELECTr,yS 86 739 11.467 98.533 cD N0RESP?iNSE 11 75 11 1.467 100'.0100,
Page 124: mso13c00
VLT h ASSOCI'ATES - DADE CO. POST-ELECTION STUDY -°1230 11' AGGREGATES INVOLVEMENT IlN PO~L,ITICS ('>GOVT /C RP30 FREOUENCY CUN' FR'EO' PERCENT CU!+ PERCENT L0W 121 1''21 16.133 16.13'3' VUTE kEGU1ARL,Y 410 S31 54.667 70.800 0' HIGH 219 750 29.20'0 1i00'.000' SALLO'.T ON SMOKLNG.OR03NANCE 04, FREQUENCY CUfr FREQ PERCENMT' CUM 'PERCENT FOR 275 ?'75 35.667 36..66T NOT SUrTk 94 3'S9 1:2.533 49.200 AGAINST~ 38~1 750 50.30~U 10~0.0~~00 REASONS, INI FAVOR OF aR;3INANCE 05 ' F'REr.1,UENCY' CUM FREO PERCENT CUwa PERCENT , 4 75 HEALTH 4a 48 17.455 I7.455' P'ASS.V SMhG/HEALT 25 73 9.1^c) 1 2'6.545 P'ASSV' SMKfi/GENRL 55. 12K 20.000 46.,45 SMOKRS INCONSD'n2Tl 8 136 2.909 49.455 CNTRL P'U9'L SMOKG 36 172 13.091 62.545 NONSMOKeRRIGHTS4'5 217 16.364 7A.9'09, PROTECT CHILDREN' 3 220 1.091, r+'0.,000' CLEAN AIR 2 12 232 4.364. 84.364 i NEGT INi'STR INV!4 9 241 41 3.273 8'7.636 LVISL ANTI ADS ', 247 2.182 8'9.,8'1ll ANTI SMUKING. 14 261 5.091 94.909 OTHER 10 2'71 3.636 98.545 DDNI'T KNOW + 27S 1.455 1f:'0.0'D0 L REASdNS. OPPOSED TO OPDIb11.taCE. 06 FREQUENCY CUM FRE.O PERCENT CU!4,PERCENT . '159 . FPEED'OM.CwOICE 162 162 42.52a 42.520 C MORE GOVT CCNTRL 68 236 17.848 6G.;?67 EXTREFIE/'UNENFRCf3: 1.!1 246 4.724 65.992' CO!ST/8UhN5/TAXPR 2t> 27'7 7.612' 7'2.703 RIDI:CUL`i/UNNECSR' 25 302 6.~)62' 79.265 SOME PESTR ACC?T 10 312 2.625 81.890 ' POORLY :RITTFN 6 313 1.575 A'3.465' TOURISM' 1 319 0.262 2 i~3.727' O W OTRMTUTL T0 E7SNSS 7 326 1.8'37 k35..`'i64 ~. I AM' A 4MOKER GNRL OPPOSITION 25 5 351 356 6.5.62 1.312 y2.1,26 93.43H W rA GJ1 UTHER' 15 371 3.937 97.375 W DONIT KUIl'« 10 3'8'1 2.6L5 100.000 C
Page 125: mso13c00
VLT & ASSOCIATES - DADE C0. POST-ELE,CTION STUDY - 41230 7 AGGREGATES WHAT FAVORAfBLE ADS WERE. SAYING P17 FREQUENCY CUM FPEO PEPCENT CUw PEFCENT . 347 . .. HLTH NZI'-D5/SMKNG 1!20 120 29'..777 2'9.7?7 CLEAN AIR RIGHT 36 156 8.933 38.710. SEGRGTfNUR RSTRC 24 1R0 5.955 44.665 SMOKE ANNOYINii 19' 199. 4.71Ez 49..3'80' NONSMOKRIS RGHTS 41 240 10.174, 59.553 ELIMINATE SMOxNG 18 258 4.46.7 64.020' SMKRS LK COURTSY 9' 267 2.233 66.253' ANTI SMU!(EU 9 276 2.23'3 68.48m MK OtvN UGSN/TFdNK 9 2R', 2.233 70.720 EM'TRM/l?l-AIN++SHNG 13 29B 3.224s 73.945 SILLY 7 305 1.737 75.682 D1:CTATUuIeL '3 313 1.985' 77,667' A,hlTI-TO'iACCG IND 5 31h 1.24t 78.908', JST GVNG THk SI!C' 3 321 0.744 79.653'. TO FAVR ORUI^'aiaC 22 343 5.459' 85.112' DISREGARDED ADS i8 361 4.467 89.57& 4THER 7 3E8 1.7.37 91.315 DON~'T' ItN0Y1 35 403 8.685 100.A-00 YrHAT OPPOSITiO~f, AOS WERE SA.YI!isG P1'8 FREQUENCY CUM FREQ PERCENT CUM PERCENT . 126 . . I INDIVOL RT/CHUI'C 170 170 27.244 27.244. SMDKERS' RIGHTS 64 234 10.256 37.S0C GOVT INTERVE+VTNi 51 285 8.173 45.t73' CST HEAVY/TAxPYR 61 346 9.776 55.449' EXPN BSrvS/'I:NCNVN 32 379 5.12,3 ' 60,~~7fi TOBAC CO SLF Tt3'T 29 407 4.647 65.224 NXT?/FRTHR RSTRC 9 41b 1,442 66.667 EIVGGRT/SCR TACTC 3'i 447 e,968 71.635 SLLLY/kIDICULUUS a 455 1.282 72.917 BR'AIriwASHING 7 46? 1.122'. 74..08 EXPLND ORDINANCE 8 47n 1.282 75.321 CNSQNCS IF PASSD: 16 486 2.564 77.?'Pb5 : MAKE OWN DECLSN 8 494 1.a'.82 79.167 PRO SMK/NT HRMhL 7 Si}1 1.122 :30.r.'S8 GIVNG. VHEIR. SICE. 4 505 0.641 9' 80.929 GEN AGR++NT W/AUS 2 5P, 7 0..3'21 91.250 p OPPOSE [aR0'1N'a'NCE 33 540 5.288 96.53h ~ DISkEGiirtDE:@. ADS 19 559 3.045 ft9.583 W OTHER 11 570 1.763' 91.346 ,W DON'T KNOW 54 624 6.654 10'0.0100 ~ C~.
Page 126: mso13c00
VLT & ASSOCIaTES -:1'ADECO. WOST-ELECTIOiN STUDY - 41230 6 AGGitEGATES WHERE HEARD MOST ABOUT SI?OKING ORDINANCE P15 Fi3'EOUENCY' CUM FRE0 PERCENT CU^' P'ERC'cNT I00' . . NEw'SPAP'ER'AUS 133 133 20,462 2D.462 TELEVISION ADS 406 539 62.462 &1.2.923 RADIO ADS, 55 594 8.462 91.335 DIRECT MAILING 13 607 2.000 9'3.385 B'I'LLBOARDS ti2 619 1.846 95.23I TELEPHONE CALLS 3 622 0.462 95.691- PSTRfHN00UT/ETC, 6 628 0.923 96.615 OTHER 9 637 1.385 98.000 CiONOT KNOW 13 650 2.OO10' 100.000 WHERE HEARD rAOST ABOUT SMOKING ORD'INANCE 02 FREQUENCY CUM FREO PERCENT CUM' PERCENT NEWSP'APER: 117 118 119 1 8.6w1 16.641 TELEVISdON 387 505 b1.ll37 79.779 RADIO 44 549 6.95l 86.736' DIRECT MAILING 7 556 1.1i)6 E17.836 6ILLBOAkDS, 110 S66 1.5t?0 y9.~15 TELEPHONE 14 580 2.212 91.627 OTHE'R' 14 594 2.212 93.839'. FRNDS & RELATIVS 27 621 4.265 95.104 E D O'N IT K N OW' 12 6 313 1.896 100. 3 0 0: SECOND MEDIA SOU2CE ON SMGKING ORDINAwCE P'16 FP.EOUENCY' CUH FRt,= PE.RCENT CUM PERCENT . I00 « . p}E;~SPAP'ER AJS .'57 257 39..538 39.538 TELEVISION, ADS 153 41i; 23.538 63.1,)77 RADIO A'DS 73 483 11.231 74.308 DIRECT MAILING 1.2 445 1.846 76.154 BILLBOARDS 25 52a 3.866 k0.000 TELEPHONE CAILLS lu 53^ 1.539 81.538 PSTR'lHNGOUT/ETC., hri 54~, 2.759 04.30fi OTHEit 30 579 4.615 28.,923 DONiT KNOW 72 5r1 11.077 100.000
Page 127: mso13c00
VLT & ASSOCIATES - DADE C0. POST-ELECTIQN STUDY - n12'30. 9 AGGREGATES ATTITUDE Ot. TOBACCO IND.NS CQNTRIB!UTIOrr P25 Fkt'EQUENCY CUM FREQ PERCENT CUta' PERCENT STROhG aPPROVE 165 165 22'.00'0' 22.000 APPROVE 187 352' 24.933 46.433 DISAPPR',VE 78 430, li0'.4Q0 57.333 STROr±G OISAPPRVE 219 649 : 29.20'A 86.533' D'ONOT KNOW' 101 750 13'.467' 100.000 ATTI.TUDE ON SOME REGULATION OF SMQkING P26 FREOUENCY CUtt FP.EQ PLRCENT' CUM PERCENT NO RESTRICTIONS 244 244 SOME REGULaTION 4'94 738 GON+'T KNOW 12 750 ~t.533! 65.R67' 1.600 32.533 98.400 100.000 RULES b REGULATIONS YOU MIGHT FAVOR P27 FREQUENCY CUta FREQ PERf'.EN!11 CUm PERCENT :'_'56. . . SEPARATE AkEAS 111 111 22.470', 22.A7C RGLT ENCLSD PLCS 57 168 11.53'8' 34.0'C8 HAV RSTPCT/ENFRC 32 200 6.473' 40.486 CD'URTSYfCONSDRTN, 211 22? 5.6b8 46.p54. REGULAT PESTRNTS 7C 298 14.1701 6fJ..324. PUT UP SIGNS 17 315 3.441'. 63.765 RE'STR'CRvS NCSSRY 19 334 3.846, 67.611 LAW NECESSAkY 18 3111 3.644 7'1.255 8AN PUdLC SMOKNO 20 372 4.049' 75.304 6'SNS OWN PEGLTNG 31 403 6.275 81.579' IMPR'AV VENTILATN 4 407 0.1810 ' 82.389 RGLT THTRSfHAZRD 19 4?.6 3.846 H6.2'35' REG HSPTL/OR OFC 7 433 1.417 87.652'. REGULATE ST!JRES. 10 4,43 2.i 24 89.676 FTNES NECESSARY 6 449 1.215 9n,.iz91 ORDNiC HRSH/EOUCT 1.9 48 q 2.024 92.1915 REGULATE OFFICES 5 464 1.012 93.927' 0'THER 4 468 O.610. 94,737 DONIT KNOW 26 494 5.263 10'0.000 l
Page 128: mso13c00
VLT & ASSOCI'ATES - OAOE CO. POST-ELECTIGN STt)OY - #1230 pGGREGATES TYPF_ OF HOIJS I'1G 13'. 012 FREQUENCY' CUM FREQ PERCENT CU'4 PERCENT APART:aEatT 1,22 122 115.267 16.267 CONOOMI:NI.UM 89 211 i1.tio7 2'9.133 SINGLE FAMILY 50 5 7:16 67.333' 95.:4,67 DUPLEX . 18 734 2.400 97.8'67 C'THER 16 750 2.133 I00.,oQ0 RACE/NATTT!NAL ORIGIN, 013 FREQUENCY' CU+a FRf_Q PERCENT CU'A PERCENT WHITE 612 612 rT1.E00 8!1.600 BILACK 72 AE4 9.60:0 91.200 HISRi1DiIC 5:6 740 7.467' 9i3.:6,67 0'THF R 10 l50 1.333' 100.-0D0. FEX 0'14 FREQUENCY CUr~ FREQ' PERCENT CUM wERCENT 1 MnltF 373 FEMA'LE 174 FEMALE 4ORKS 202 373 547 749 49'.S0'0 23.231 2'6:.969 49.e00 73'.031 1'00.000 REASONS FOR / C R5 FRFflWEP7 CY CUM FREQ PERCENT CUM PERCENT . (.7S HEALTH 73 73 26..545 `r.'6.545 PASSV SMKG/GEf!JRL 55 122 ?0.000 46.545 CNTRL PU9L SMKu. 36 1' E4 '.5~9.:6~36~ NONSMOKER RIGHTS 4S 209 16.1i4~ 7E.,0~00 OTHER/DX 66 275 24.000' 100.0.0G REASONS:AGAItdST / C P6 FREQUEN CY' CUM FREO PERCENT CUM PERCENT FREEDOMICHOI'CE 3li 1i 16? Ii)2 42.520 42.520, MORE GOVT CUNTRO' ~'S 230 17.8:49 60.367 Q OTHP' C4^?PfSN THMS' 72 302 1'6.298 79.265 C J ~ OTHER/Un 79 3E7 ?'0.735 100.000, 47 A
Page 129: mso13c00
Page 130: mso13c00