|
|
|
3.
Primary Results. 3.1
The sample of the 2000 Survey The
sample size was 504 respondents that consist of 47%
males and 53% females. The majority speak English
(74%), 16% French and 5% are bilingual. About 22%
of households receive an annual income of less than
$40 000-00 and 65% receive more than $40 000-00
annually. The sample population is fairly mature
with only 10% respondents between 19 and 24 years
(inclusive), 41% are between 25 and 44 years, 38%
between 45 and 64 and 11% 65 years and older.
Almost two thirds of the respondents (65%)
completed post secondary education and another 10%
post graduate education. Twenty one percent (21%)
respondents completed their secondary education.
About 59% of the respondents indicate that they do
not have any children in their households whilst
38% still have children The majority of the
respondents (83%) indicate that they are
non-smokers, 4% smoke occasionally and 13%
daily. These
demographic variables (gender, language, annual
income, age, education, children in the household
and smoker/non-smoker) are also used in the
analysis to determine if significant differences
exist with regard to awareness of the dangers of
second-hand smoke, support for a 100% smoke-free
by-law and the effects of smoking prohibitions on
patronage too public places. 3.2
Awareness of dangers of second hand
smoke Results
from the 2000 Survey indicate that the awareness of
the dangers of second hand smoke is currently
fairly high among the residents of RMOC. For
example, about 84% of the respondents have the
opinion that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer
in non-smokers, 82% feel it relates to heart
problems and 85% stated that it also causes
bronchitis, emphysema and asthma. Approximately 96%
of the respondents feel that pregnant women and
others living with them, should not smoke in the
home during the pregnancy and 95% believe that
non-smokers should be provided with a smoke-free
environment at work. A
slight increase in the awareness of the dangers of
second-hand smoke is evident since 1996/97. The
NPHS indicated at the time that 83% respondents
thought that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer
in non-smokers, 75% felt that it relates to heart
problems and 76% agree that smoking can cause
bronchitis, emphysema and asthma. About 93% of the
respondents felt that pregnant women and others
living with them, should not smoke in the home
during the pregnancy and 93% believed that
non-smokers should be provided with a smoke-free
environment at work. Dangers
of second-hand smoke variables were analyzed by
demographic variables. It seems that no or little
significant differences exist except for the
variable smoker/non-smoker. Smokers and non-smokers
differ significantly on awareness issues of the
dangers of second-hand smoke (p<0.05). For
example, from the sample population about 75%
smokers and 95% non-smokers agree that second-hand
smoke can cause lung cancer in a non-smoker. About
68% smokers and 93% non-smokers agree that
second-hand smoke can cause heart disease in a
non-smoker. Furthermore, 88% smokers and 99%
non-smokers agree that pregnant women and others
living with them, should not smoke in the home
during the pregnancy. 3.3
Support for a smoke-free by-law that will make all
public places 100% smoke-free. Overwhelming
support for a 100% prohibitive smoking by-law exist
currently among the residents of Ottawa-Carleton
for the following public places: unlicensed daycare
(85%), reception areas and waiting rooms (85%),
food courts in shopping malls (82%), office
environments or workplaces not open to the public
(81%), taxi's (80%), arenas or recreation centres
(80%) and lobbies and other common areas of
buildings (80%). Significant
smoke-free support also exist for public places
that endured some controversy in the past. They
are: donut shops (76%), restaurants / café's
(71%), bowling alleys (70%), neighborhood pubs
(65%), bingo halls (64%), casinos (64%), pool halls
(60%), bars / lounges that primarily serves drinks
(57%) and race tracks (55%). Data
from the Angus Reid (1996) and Opinion Search
(2000) surveys indicate an increase trend of
support for 100% smoke-free public places since
1996. For example, support for smoke free bars /
lounges increased from 49% to 57%, from 53% to 65%
for pubs, 56% to 64% for bingo halls and 64% to 71%
for restaurants / café's. As
expected, the greatest resistance to a 100%
smoke-free by-law exist among people who smoke.
Data from the 2000 Survey show that those who are
against such a by-law are 81% smokers and 15%
non-smokers. However, overall support for such a
by-law increased from 67% to 74% among residents in
the Regional Municipality of Ottawa Carleton
between 1999 and 2000. 3.4
Effect of smoke free prohibition on patronage of
certain public places. Results
from the 1999 and 2000 surveys indicate that
smoking prohibition would not have a significant
effect on respondent's patronage to public places.
A majority of respondents sited "no difference" to
establishments like race tracks, bingo halls, pool
halls, bowling alleys, and casinos. An
increase of patronage to the following
establishments were indicated by the majority of
respondents. For each of them the values from the
1999 and 2000 surveys are reported respectively:
Restaurants 52% & 60%, pubs 47% & 53%, food
courts 49% & 51%, bars 37% &
45%. Age,
education and smoker/nonsmoker seem to be primary
indicators of either support or opposition to 100%
smoke-free establishments. Generally, both older
respondents and those with at least a university
degree are most likely to increase their patronage
to certain types of establishments. The 1999 and
2000 surveys show that about 63% and 65%
respondents respectively with at least a university
degree would increase their patronage to
restaurants compared to 32% and 24% less educated
(high school and less) respondents. From the 2000
survey 78% of the smokers indicate that they would
less often patronage smoke-free restaurants. This
also applies to bars (82%), casinos (79%), race
tracks (77%), pubs (76%), bowling halls (76%), and
bingo halls (76%). Highlights
|
|
||
