Tobacco Documents Online

C Testimony of Harry Perlstadt, Pn.D, M.11.I1., Chairperson M'ic3:igan Coalition on Stroki~ng or Health Before the Michigan House Public Health Ccsimittee Sub-Cazr.iittee on H613. 450V Representative C~ibow an3 t' rs of.the comaittee, I am here to sutzait to you the results of a public opinion survey of Michiyan residents and' to answer any, qquestions you may have about the survey. I' currently am chairperson of the Mir_higan Coalition on Smokiny or Healtth, a group of voluntary health associations, health professicna:l. oryaniz3tioras and& citizen's groups interested in clean indoor air. I a.-n presently employed as an associate professor of sociology at Michigan State Glniversity where I teach and db research in the areas of' medicai sociolcrgy, health care deli'very. In May of' 1984 the Hbuse Public Health Ccmrnittee toehd hearin5: on legislation similar to H.B. 45'H'6,. At that time many of the mem-err organizations of the Michigan Coalition on Smokingi or Health testifiled in favor of the legislation. The feedback we received wasthat the united andl favorable stand of the voluntary health associations and' health professional' organizations was not enough. The House Ccrrmittee uanted to tiear froin, Michigan residents and!learn what they think of the proposed 1'egislation. In.resnonse the American Heart Association of Ingham County andi the American I.ung' Ass'o:.iation of' Michigan decided to participate. in a puhi!ic C N-63'

Perlstadt Testicrony Pa9e 2 I opinion survey of Michigan residents. 1he purcnase.^cl space on the October 1984 Political Survey conducted by tne Insti'tute For Social Research (ISR) at the University of Michigan. Two, other clients purchased'~ space on tnat survey, The Detroit News and The University of M1chi'lyan. Each client independently submitted questions'for the survey whida were reviewed and formatted by the profe_ssional staff at ISR. The staff'then drew the sample, arranged the overall order of the questions and conducted the intzrviews using a camputer assisteai' telephone interviewing (CATP)i syst+an. The sampling d6sign involved a stratified cluster sample of persons 18 and older residiing, in Michigan households witfi telephones in three reyions of the state: the city of Detroit, the tri-county suburbs and the out-state area. Weights we=e assigned to reflect the proportion of the state"s telephone household population. ~The October survey was part of a panel - study condlacted by ISR during, the fall 1984 election, campaign. A total of 750 interviews were conducted between October 12th, and, 29th. Of these, 401, respondents had been previously interviewed in Septur,ber and', 349 were~ initial contacts obtained in an, independent randtxn sample (see Appendix 8'a i.etter to Harry Perlstadt frora Michael! Traugott, Senior Study Director)~. The survey contained questions on the national and state econocny,, a variety of national and state political issues, the presidential and senatorial candidates,, support for public education im Michigan and respondent desnographics. The questions on restricting smoking in public places were included tocards the end of the survey (see page 31 of the 39 page Apperadix C: Michigan Survey 8). The questions on smoking followed a set of three questions on newspaper readership and, how often the resaoccdent read newspaper stories about state and local politics.and government.. *i-64.

r Perlstadt Te:~'tiimony 3' We askaell four yuestionW relutedl to snuking. I heliped dL:il=,c. tnee q}:estionrs in consultation wi th , ttiie Fdoart an& LungAssoci~a ti ons ar.d, the ~ professional staff at ISR. Tiie quesLions :and responses are presented tF--1cw,: E5 P9ow I would like to ask a few questio:Ls about cidorette~ scro'king,. Do you now smoke cigarettes? 31.1% 66. 9~- Respondents who ans,4ered,no were then asked E6 Did you quit smoking cigarettes during the past year or was, it over, a year ago that you qt:it?' 8. DUPtI2d 1 3'i3E PAST YEAR 2. 4'% ~~ OV'iR A YF.AR A'flU 3'1.9b ld::VE2' STARTED 6fi.3a All respondents were Uhen:asked: E7 Would yoa*5evor* or*'c.Dpose*ast,atelawthatli~mits cigarette C=kiny to *designated* smoking are3s in puhlic places such~as stores, schools, offices, work places and'auditoriu¢rs? (The key words favor, oppose and da :gnated were rotated to assure an impartial and, balanced, presentation)~ FaWP 82. 6~ ' NEITFiER FAVJI2S NOR OPPOSES 3. 7 ~ OPPOSE 13. 7`s Respondents who replied either favor or oppose were then asked: E7a N7ou,ld you strongly [favor/opposel or not strongly ['favor/opposeJ .... (This titre the respondent's previous response was inserted ini the wording) STRONGLY Favor 68.5s Oppose 7.5% NOT STRONGLY Favor 14.010 Oppose 6.3s All respondents were then asked: E8 Have you ever heard about individuals with heart or respiratory prohlen; whose condition was sensitive to ttie cigarette 5moke of others? Yt:S 84'.1 % N0 15 . 9 % N-65

I Perlstadt Testimony Page 4 I would now like to: sumaari'ae tne overall findings. with 750 respondents, the statistical margin of error will be approximately 3.0% with a 95% degree of confidence, meaning,that the survey percentages will be within plus or minus 3.0% of the "true value" (see Appendix A: Respondents Views for the complete statistical tables). As I'mentioned'.earlier, the motivation for participating, in apublica op,inion survey was to! answer sor-- questions raised by the HousE Public Health Caamittee after hearings in May, 19e4. I shall present the findinys in qclestion and answer form: Q: How much support exists for a state, law that limits smoking to designated sroking areas in public places, such as stores, offices, work places and auditoriums? A: 68.5% of the respondents strongly favored!limiting smoking to designated scroking areas in public places and an additional 14.0% were generally in favor. This means that an overwheLning,82.5$'of those surveyed favored the type of legislation before this cocrmattee. Q: How do-sinokers feel about this type of legislation7. A: Surprisingly, 56~.21 of the respondents who currently smrske stromgly favor legislation that would restrict their ab,ility, to smoke in public places, and another 17.6% o4'cvrrent smokers were generally in favor. This means that aLcaost three-quarters or 73,81 of current smokers favor such: a law. Q: Do the respondents react to the proposed legislation along partisan or non-pazti~san lines? A: Approximately tsxr-thirds of the respondents who i~dentified themszlves as ?tepublicans~ (66.Q$)', Denocrats (68.0%) or independents (69.8$) were strongly N-66

Perlstadt Testiznony Y::g;a 5 in, favor of a state law to limit s,:wkina3 in public places. This, type cf legislation has across the board suppurt amo;:.; pc,telotial voters and uoe:, nTDt appear to be a partisan issue. Qx Do workers favor restrictions on siToki'ny, in public piacz., inciudin y tile work place? A: 73.4Vs ofl responri2nts living in taousv:nolds with a manber of a 1aL;,r union were strocagly in favor and an additional tB.l`a were yE.'neralily in favor for a total of 81.5% in support of limiting smokina3 in public places inclWi,n:~ tile work place. This me3ns that a substantial'and hiyhly signifioznt proportion of workers and their families would support the type of legislation beforee this committee. Qc How do minorities feel about legislation to limit smoking inpuoilic, places? A: The survey found similar levels of support fron both black and white respondents, with 67.6$ of black respondents and 69.0=0 of white resisondznLs: strongly in favor of a state law to limit smoking,. Q: How dbes total! household incocne influence support for the proposcd' legislation? A: Low i'ncome household5 with under $20,000 were more strongly in favor (72.3%) compared, to middle income households with between $2®,6'00 andS35,0041 (68.8%') and high income households~wi'tn over $35,000 (64.9%). Butt if general support is addbd for each incore yroup, (7.6"s, 17.4y, an6 15.C's O respectively) , all three inccme groups have approximately an E0$ support rate. N ~ Q: Does support vary by region in the state? ~ A: Strong support is greatest in the out-state area (71.1%) f©iloc.ec3 by the ~' W' .. ~ N-67

Perlstadt Testimony Page 6 1 i I tri-county sinburbs (65.2%) and'' the city of Detroit (63.2b). Fwat when general support is included (14.2%, 1'2.7%' and 15.4% respectively) all three rieqi'ons have at least a 75% overall support rate. Q: Does support vary by gender? A: Fesnales are more strongly in favor (721.5%) than males (63.9U, but if general support is included, over 75% of the males favor the proposed legislation. On the basis of this scientifically conducted' survey by a professi~onall staff of' interviewers, I would argue that substantial anct significant support exists among the residents of Michigan for a clean indoor air act that would limit saoking in public places such as stores, offi!ces, work places and auditoriums. I urge you toireport this bill out of coamittee with a strong favorable recomnandationi and to work for its passage in the Faouse. I am smbrnitting, along with a copy of this statement, a copy of the statisti'cal tables (Appendix A), a, letter frcm the senior study director at the Institute for Social Research, Michael W. Traugott, describing certain aspects of' the metisodblogy (Appendix B) and a copy of the complete cruestiotusaire (A(apendix C). 11 would be happy now or at a, later time, to answer any questions you may have concerning the survey and its results. N'-b'8 1.

Perlstadt Testimonv ApposYiix A I'•ESPJt4DEP,TS' VIEaS UK•7 A STATE LA1+Tl1M LIM1'P5 CIGAaXi•Pl: St4c3K1NG T0 D?::ST'Qv'aiEJ' SMCKI:JG ARJ1S IN 1'tDi'sL1'C PLtiCL•'S Strongly Favor Fovor NXkra1 Op~~e Stromyly o1-wsp All Responder.ts 68,.5% 14.0'4 3.7% 6.3kb 7.516 Current Smokers 56. 211, 17'. 6 ~ 3. 6-1, 9.71 12'. 9 a t;on-Smoia2rs. 74.1% 1'1'.4"0 3.70 4.7's 5'.1';; Rq~ublilcans 66.03 21.7w' 3.7d 3'.4°6 5.5% 1)--mcrats 68.0% 10A% 563%, B.A 81 A inde.pen3ents 69.8110, 12:6~ 2.$0 6'.7€ 8.1% (,pi!on Households 73.4% 8.1% 5.6% 5.4"b 7.5 1. iaorn-Uni on 67.6~ 15, 6b 3.2ti ti.6t 7.1"s White 69,. 0'0 14 .1`t 3. 5% ' 6, 3?0 7.1% Black 67.6# 10.0% 5.1% 5.16 12.eo Men 63', 6$ 13.9% 3.5% 7,.3% 11.30. Waak:n 72.5% 14I.1% 3I.5$ 5.50 4.4% Detruit 63.2$ 15.4$' 3'.5a 5.7% 12.3% hSetro Suburbs 65.2% 12.7% 2.61 7.2"s 12.3s (?,]tst:Jite . 71.1% 14.24' 4.2e 6.1% 4.5% ' Less Tnar: $20, 0013 72.3% 7.6% 5'.1'% 6.7% 8.3%' $201to S35,000 68. 8% 17.4% 3'.7% 61. 8b 3'.3 0 Over 535,000 64.9% 15.6% 3.0% 6.0% 10.4% on a samplie of 750 adults. Rasults weiy.rte& by area of state, numter of telephones and number of adults in hous:elrol'd. S;art:ple Danographics: Paye 7 Men, 44. 8% Wacren 55.3% 4rhite 87.4% Black 11.0% Average age 41 Currently Wr,mking 31. 0$' Other 1.6% O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ N-69 t