Back to Annual Meeting Page		American Public Health Association 133rd Annual Meeting & Exposition December 10-14, 2005 Philadelphia, PA

Abstract #115075

D. E. Apollonio, PhD, MPP, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, 530 Parnassus Avenue, Suite 366, Box 1390, Library, San Francisco, CA 94143-1390, 415-502-8202, dapollon@itsa.ucsf.edu, Peggy Lopipero, MPH, Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco, 3333 California Street, Laurel Heights Suite 420, Box 0613, San Francisco, CA 94143-0613, and Lisa A. Bero, PhD, Institute for Health Policy Studies, Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Calfiornia, San Francisco, Box 0936, Laurel Heights, San Francisco, CA 94143-0936.

Little empirical research has investigated the ways in which legislators debate public health issues. This is particularly the case in considering the ways they use scientific evidence and arguments to make decisions, and how scientific evidence is weighed relative to claims regarding political ideology and obligations to constituents. This article characterizes the arguments made for and against clean indoor air laws in six states in order to investigate the relationship between the kinds of arguments made and the eventual legislative outcome. We reviewed and coded the text of proposed and final legislation, transcripts of public hearings and legislative debate, and minutes of committee and task force meetings for strength of legislation, content, and the use of different types of evidence and argument. We find that extensive presentation of scientific evidence was common in states that passed strong legislation, while appeals to political ideology were more frequently observed in states that passed weak legislation, or where legislation failed. In keeping with theoretical expectations drawn from literature in political science, widespread participation by the public was also common in states that passed strong legislation. However, legislators appeared to be more responsive to calls for smoking restrictions when they were framed as risks to individual constituents than when they were presented as policies justified by scientific research. This research provides important information and guidance for legislators and public health advocates in how to successfully argue for tobacco control and other public health legislation.

Learning Objectives: