Literature DB >> 11818302

Boards of Health as venues for clean indoor air policy making.

Joanna V Dearlove1, Stanton A Glantz.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the tobacco industry's strategies for opposing health board actions and to identify elements necessary for public health to prevail.
METHODS: Newspaper articles, personal interviews, and tobacco industry documents released through litigation were reviewed.
RESULTS: Twenty-five instances in which the tobacco industry opposed health board regulations were identified. It was shown that the tobacco industry uses 3 strategies against health boards: "accommodation" (tobacco industry public relations campaigns to accommodate smokers in public places), legislative intervention, and litigation. These strategies are often executed with the help of tobacco industry front groups or allies in the hospitality industry.
CONCLUSIONS: Although many tobacco control advocates believe that passing health board regulations is easier than the legislative route, this is generally not the case. The industry will often attempt to involve the legislature in fighting the regulations, forcing advocates to fight a battle on 2 fronts. It is important for health boards to verify their authority over smoking restrictions and refrain from considering non-health factors (including industry claims of adverse economic impacts) so as to withstand court challenges.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11818302      PMCID: PMC1447053          DOI: 10.2105/ajph.92.2.257

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Public Health        ISSN: 0090-0036            Impact factor:   9.308


  23 in total

1.  The economic effect of smoke-free restaurant policies on restaurant business in Massachusetts.

Authors:  W J Bartosch; G C Pope
Journal:  J Public Health Manag Pract       Date:  1999-01

2.  Preventing tobacco use--the youth access trap.

Authors:  S A Glantz
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Preemption in tobacco control. Review of an emerging public health problem.

Authors:  M Siegel; J Carol; J Jordan; R Hobart; S Schoenmarklin; F DuMelle; P Fisher
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1997-09-10       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  The ledger of tobacco control: Is the cup half empty or half full?

Authors:  R M Davis
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-04-24       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  The status of local smoking regulations in North Carolina following a state preemption bill.

Authors:  E Conlisk; M Siegel; E Lengerich; W Mac Kenzie; S Malek; M Eriksen
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-03-08       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  New tobacco industry strategy to prevent local tobacco control.

Authors:  M P Traynor; M E Begay; S A Glantz
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1993-07-28       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  The effect of ordinances requiring smoke-free restaurants on restaurant sales.

Authors:  S A Glantz; L R Smith
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  Overcoming a powerful tobacco lobby in enacting local smoking ordinances: the Contra Costa County experience.

Authors:  G A Ellis; R L Hobart; D F Reed
Journal:  J Public Health Policy       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 2.222

9.  Epidemiology of failed tobacco control legislation.

Authors:  S Moore; S M Wolfe; D Lindes; C E Douglas
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-10-19       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Tobacco industry campaign contributions are affecting tobacco control policymaking in California.

Authors:  S A Glantz; M E Begay
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-10-19       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  19 in total

1.  Through tobacco industry eyes: civil society and the FCTC process from Philip Morris and British American Tobacco's perspectives.

Authors:  Mariaelena Gonzalez; Lawrence W Green; Stanton A Glantz
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2011-06-02       Impact factor: 7.552

2.  Failure of policy regarding smoke-free bars in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Mariaelena Gonzalez; Stanton A Glantz
Journal:  Eur J Public Health       Date:  2011-12-05       Impact factor: 3.367

3.  Breaking the alliance: Defeating the tobacco industry's allies and enacting youth access restrictions in Massachusetts.

Authors:  Brent S Andersen; Michael E Begay; Cecil B Lawson
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  The descriptive epidemiology of local restaurant smoking regulations in Massachusetts: an analysis of the protection of restaurant customers and workers.

Authors:  M Skeer; M Siegel
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 7.552

5.  Free nicotine replacement therapy programs vs implementing smoke-free workplaces: a cost-effectiveness comparison.

Authors:  Michael K Ong; Stanton A Glantz
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 9.308

6.  The importance of public health agency independence: Marcellus shale gas drilling in Pennsylvania.

Authors:  Bernard D Goldstein
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2013-12-12       Impact factor: 9.308

7.  Uneven Access to Smoke-Free Laws and Policies and Its Effect on Health Equity in the United States: 2000-2019.

Authors:  Amy Y Hafez; Mariaelena Gonzalez; Margarete C Kulik; Maya Vijayaraghavan; Stanton A Glantz
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2019-09-19       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  Vested Interests in addiction research and policy. Alliance between tobacco and alcohol industries to shape public policy.

Authors:  Nan Jiang; Pamela Ling
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 6.526

9.  Hedging their bets: tobacco and gambling industries work against smoke-free policies.

Authors:  L L Mandel; S A Glantz
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 7.552

10.  Public health foundations and the tobacco industry: lessons from Minnesota.

Authors:  J K Ibrahim; T H Tsoukalas; S A Glantz
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 7.552

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.