CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 62Smoking Behavior and CessationGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyPublic Health Policies and Education

Strong advocacy led to successful implementation of smokefree Mexico City

Open access
Crosbie, Eric, Sebrié, Ernesto M, Glantz, Stanton A·2011·Tobacco Control
DOI 10.1136/tc.2010.037010PMC PMC3089444
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective: To describe the approval process and implementation of the 100% smokefree law in Mexico City and a competing federal law between 2007 and 2010. Methods: Reviewed smokefree legislation, published newspaper articles and interviewed key informants. Results: Strong efforts by tobacco control advocacy groups and key policymakers in Mexico City in 2008 prompted the approval of a 100% smokefree law following the WHO FCTC. As elsewhere, the tobacco industry utilised the hospitality sector to block smokefree legislation, challenged the City law before the Supreme Court and promoted the passage of a federal law that required designated smoking areas. These tactics disrupted implementation of the City law by causing confusion over which law applied in Mexico City. Despite interference, the City law increased public support for 100% smokefree policies and decreased the social acceptability of smoking. In September 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the City law, giving it the authority to go beyond the federal law to protect the fundamental right of health for all citizens. Conclusions: Early education and enforcement efforts by tobacco control advocates promoted the City law in 2008 but advocates should still anticipate continuing opposition from the tobacco industry, which will require continued pressure on the government. Advocates should utilise the Supreme Court's ruling to promote 100% smokefree policies outside Mexico City. Strong advocacy for the City law could be used as a model of success throughout Mexico and other Latin American countries.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/tc.2010.037010

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Constitutional courts upheld strong tobacco control policies in fourteen countries.

    “Constitutional courts upheld strong tobacco control policies in fourteen countries.17199399”

    From Defending strong tobacco packaging and labelling regulations in Uruguay: transnational tobacco control network versus Philip Morris International (2018) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Results section (‘Litigation against the Mexico City law’; page not provided) says Mexico’s Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Mexico City smokefree law. It does not report constitutional-court rulings in fourteen countries, so the claim’s country count is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In countries such as Uruguay, where sufficient legal support domestically did not exist, a transnational tobacco control network comprised of domestic and international health groups, philanthropy donors and legal scholars helped fill this void and assisted the government to legally defend its tobacco packaging and labelling regulations.

    “In countries such as Uruguay, where sufficient legal support domestically did not exist, a transnational tobacco control network (Crosbie, Sebrie, & Glantz, 2011; Crosbie, Sosa, & Glantz, 2016; Uang, Crosbie, & Glantz, 2017), comprised of domestic and international health groups, philanthropy donors and legal scholars, helped fill this void and assisted the government to legally defend its tobacco”

    From Advancing progressive health policy to reduce NCDs amidst international commercial opposition: Tobacco standardised packaging in Australia (2018) · cites this paper as Crosbie, Sebrie, & Glantz, 2011

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The experience of increased international technical support, training and funding for tobacco control advocacy in Nigeria is consistent with the results of similar support for civil society groups in other countries, including South Africa, Mexico, Costa Rica, Colombia, Uruguay and Thailand.

    “This experience is consistent with the results of similar support for civil society groups in other countries, including South Africa,5 Mexico,59 Costa Rica,63 Colombia,64 Uruguay65 and Thailand.3”

    From Role of stakeholders in Nigeria’s tobacco control journey after the FCTC: lessons for tobacco control advocacy in low-income and middle-income countries (2019) · cites this paper as [59]

  • The transnational tobacco control network supported the creation of the WHO FCTC and assisted governments in implementing it, which has accelerated the adoption of tobacco control regulations, including pictorial health warning labels on cigarette packages.

    “This network supported the creation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC)15 and assisted governments in implementing it,16–19 which has accelerated the adoption of tobacco control regulations,20–23 including pictorial health warning labels (HWLs) on cigarette packages.24”

    From Defending strong tobacco packaging and labelling regulations in Uruguay: transnational tobacco control network versus Philip Morris International (2018) · cites this paper as [17]

  • Similar to successful tobacco control advocacy efforts in other countries, local civil society groups developed close relationships with government officials, provided evidence-based information to policy-makers, and closely monitored swift government actions and industry activity to advance tobacco control in Uruguay.

    “Similar to successful tobacco control advocacy efforts in other countries,17579293 local civil society groups developed close relationships with government officials, provided evidence-based information to policy-makers, and closely monitored swift government actions and industry activity to advance tobacco control in Uruguay.”

    From Defending strong tobacco packaging and labelling regulations in Uruguay: transnational tobacco control network versus Philip Morris International (2018) · cites this paper as [17]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. [2]Alamar B Glantz SA Effect of increased social unacceptability of cigarette smoking on reduction in cigarette consumption Am J Public Health 2006 96 1359 63 16809588 PMC1522108
  2. [4]Levy DT Friend KB The effects of clean indoor air laws: what do we know and what do we need to know? Health Educ Res 2003 18 592 609 14572019
  3. [5]Botello-Harbaum MT Haynie DL Iannotti RJ Tobacco control policy and adolescent cigarette smoking status in the United States Nicotine Tob Res 2009 11 875 85 19443786 PMC2699932
  4. [6]Chen V Forster JL The long-term effect of local policies to restrict retail sale of tobacco to youth Nicotine Tob Res 2006 8 371 7 16801295
  5. [7]Glantz SA Balbach ED Tobacco war: inside the California battles 2000 University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA
  6. [8]Nixon ML Mahmoud L Glantz SA Tobacco industry litigation to deter local public health ordinances: the industry usually loses in court Tob Control 2004 13 65 73 14985600 PMC1747817
  7. [9]Samuels B Glantz SA The politics of local tobacco control J Am Med Assoc 1991 266 2110 17 1920699
  8. [10]Dearlove JV Bialous SA Glantz SA Tobacco industry manipulation of the hospitality industry to maintain smoking in public places Tob Control 2002 11 94 104 12034999 PMC1763854
  9. [11]Ritch WA Begay ME Strange bedfellows: the history of collaboration between the Massachusetts Restaurant Association and the tobacco industry Am J Public Health 2001 91 598 603 11291372 PMC1446642
  10. [12]Sebrie E Glantz S “Accommodating” smoke-free policies: tobacco industry’s Courtesy of Choice programme in Latin America Tob Control 2007 14 e2 17897975 PMC2598557
  11. [13]Drope J Glantz SA British Columbia capital regional district 100% smokefree bylaw: a successful public health campagin despite industry opposition Tob Control 2003 12 264 8 12958385 PMC1747755
  12. [14]Traynor MP Begay ME Glantz SA New tobacco industry strategy to prevent local tobacco control J Am Med Assoc 1993 270 479 86 8320788
  13. [15]Sebrie E Glantz SA Local smokefree policy development in Sant Fe Tob Control 2010 19 110 16 19955534 PMC2989155
  14. [16]Muggli ME Lockhart NJ Ebbert JO Legislating tolerance: Spain’s national public smoking law Tob Control 2009 19 24 30 19850551
  15. [17]Siegel M Carol J Jordan J Preemption in tobacco control. Review of an emerging public health problem J Am Med Assoc 1997 278 858 63 9293996
  16. [19]Gonzalez-Roldan JF Abogacía para el control del tabaco en México: retos y recomendaciones Salud Publica de Mexico 2008 50 3 391 400 2008 18604361
  17. [21]Sebrie E Schoj V Glantz SA Smokefree enviornments in Latin America: on the road to real change? Prev Control 2008 3 21 35 19578527 PMC2705163
  18. [23]Weber M Bagwell D Fielding J Long term compliance with California’s Smoke-Free Workplace Law among bars and restaurants in Los Angeles County Tob Control 2003 12 269 73 12958386 PMC1747734
  19. [24]Magzamen S Charlesworth A Glantz SA Print media coverage of California’s smokefree bar law Tob Control 2001 10 154 60 11387536 PMC1747550
  20. [26]Ramirez-Barba EJ Saro-Boardman E Vazquez-Guerrero A Ley General para el Control del Tabaco en Mexico Salud Publica de Mexico 2008 50 372 83 18604359
  21. [30]Samet J Wipfli H Perez-Padilla R Mexico and the tobacco industry: doing the wrong thing for the right reason Br Med J 2006 332 353 4 16470060 PMC1363920
  22. [31]Sebrie E Glantz SA The tobacco industry in developing countries BMJ 2006 332 313 14 16470028 PMC1363897
  23. [34]Thrasher JF Reynales-Shigematsu LM Baezconde-Garbanati L Promoting the effective translation of the framework convention on tobacco control: a case study of challenges and opportunities for strategic communications in Mexico Eval Health Prof 2008 31 145 66 18390866 PMC6109969
  24. [48]Guerrero C Impactos sociales, ambientales y economicos de los espacios 100% libres de humo de tabaco 2nd SRNT IAHF Latin American Conference on Tobacco Control Mexico City, Mexico 14 October 2009
  25. [66]Valdes-Salgado R Reynales-Shigematsu LM Lazcano-Ponce E Antes y despues del Convenio Marco en Mexico: una comparacion desde la Encuesta sobre Tabaquismo en Jovenes 2003 y 2006 Salud Publica de Mexico 2007 49 155 69 17607478
  26. [67]Barrientos-Guiterrez T Valdes-Salgado R Reynales-Shigematsu LM Exposicion involuntaria al humo de tabaco en lugares publicos de la Ciudad de Mexico Salud Publica Mex 2007 49 205 12 17607482
  27. [73]Sebrie E Glantz SA Attempts to undermine tobacco control: tobacco industy “youth smoking prevention” programs to undermine meaningful tobacco control in latin America Am J Public Health 2007 97 1357 67 17600260 PMC1931455
  28. [84]Drope J Bialous SA Glantz S Tobacco industry efforts to present ventilation as an alternative to smoke-free environments in North America Tob Control 2004 Suppl 1 41 7 PMC1766145 14985616
  29. [92]Thrasher JF Hernandez RP Swayampakala K Translating the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control to middle-income countries: Policy support, norms, and secondhand smoke exposure before and after implementation of a comprehensive smoke-free policy in Mexico City 2010 PMC2920995 20466952
  30. [104]Thrasher JF Huang L Perez-Hernandez R Porque todos respiramos lo mismo: Evaluation of a social marketing campaign to support Mexico City’s comprehensive smoke-free law 2010 PMC3020192 21164097
  31. [106]Fong GT Hyland A Borland R Reductions in tobacco smoke pollution and increases in support for smoke-free public places following the implementation of comprehensive smoke-free workplace legislation in the Republic of Ireland: findings from the ITC Ireland/UK Survey Tob Control 2006 15 51 8 PMC2593063 16754947
  32. [113]Madrazo Lajous A Sobre la constitucionalidad de la regulacion del tabaco en Mexico Salud Publica de Mexico 2008 50 323 33 18604353
  33. [115]Glantz SA Achieving a smokefree society J Am Heart Assoc 1987 76 746 52 3652418
  34. [116]U.S. DHHS The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: a Report of the Surgeon General 20669524
  35. [118]Cardador MT Hazan AR Glantz SA Tobacco industry smokers’ rights publications: a content analysis Am J Public Health 1995 85 1212 17 7661227 PMC1615592
  36. [119]Tsoukalas T Glantz SA The duluth clean indoor air ordinance: problems and success in fighting the tobacco industry at the local level in the 21st century Am J Public Health 2003 93 1214 21 12893598 PMC1447940
  37. [120]Sebrie E Barnoya J Perez-Stable EJ Tobacco industry successfully prevented tobacco control legislation in Argentina Tob Control 2005 14 e2 16183967 PMC1748093
  38. [121]Bialous S Presman S Gigliotti A A resposta da indústria do tabaco à criação de espaços livre de fumo no Brasil Rev Panam Salud Publica 2010 27 283 90 20512231
  39. [122]Glantz SA Smoke-free restaurant ordinances do not affect restaurant business. Period J Public Health Manage Pract 1999 5 vi ix 10345506
  40. [123]Sabatier PA Theories of the policy process 2007 Westview Press Boulder, Colorado
  41. [124]Keck M Sikkink K Activists beyond borders: advocacy networks in international politics 1998 Cornell University Press Ithaca, NY
  42. [125]Llaguno-Aguilar SE Dorantes-Alonso AdC Thrasher JF Analisis de la cobertura del tema de tabaco en medios impresos mexicanos Salud Publica de Mexico 2008 50 348 54 18604356
  43. [126]Thrasher JF Boado M Sebrie EM Smoke-free policies and the social acceptability of smoking in Uruguay and Mexico: findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project Nicotine Tob Res 2009 11 591 9 19380383 PMC2688601

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Crosbie, E., Sebrié, E. M., & Glantz, S. A.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Glantz, Stanton A
ORCID
Venue
Tobacco Control
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2010-11-07
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
64-72
ISSN
  • 0964-4563 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3318
DOI
10.1136/tc.2010.037010
PMC
PMC3089444
OpenAlex
W2112030307
Cited by
62
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 9
FWCI
2.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Tobacco Control (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • University of California, San Francisco
  • Health Canada
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA087472, CA 87472)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Public Health Policies and Education
Keywords
tobacco control advocacy, Mexico City, tobacco industry opposition, hospitality industry, designated smoking areas, federal legislation, Supreme Court decision, social acceptability of smoking, policy implementation
MeSH terms
Smoking Prevention, Cities, Consumer Advocacy, Health Policy, Health Promotion, Humans, Mexico, Public Opinion, Restaurants, Smoking, World Health Organization, Tobacco Industry

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review