Literature DB >> 19150904

Competing initiatives: a new tobacco industry strategy to oppose statewide clean indoor air ballot measures.

Gregory J Tung1, Yogi H Hendlin, Stanton A Glantz.   

Abstract

To describe how the tobacco and gaming industries opposed clean indoor air voter initiatives in 2006, we analyzed media records and government and other publicly available documents and conducted interviews with knowledgeable individuals. In an attempt to avoid strict "smoke free" regulations pursued by health groups via voter initiatives in Arizona, Ohio, and Nevada, in 2006, the tobacco and gaming industries sponsored competing voter initiatives for alternative laws. Health groups succeeded in defeating the pro-tobacco competing initiatives because they were able to dispel confusion and create a head-to-head competition by associating each campaign with its respective backer and instructing voters to vote "no" on the pro-tobacco initiative in addition to voting "yes" on the health group initiative.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19150904      PMCID: PMC2642532          DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.138461

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


  18 in total

1.  Bar and club tobacco promotions in the alternative press: targeting young adults.

Authors:  Edward Sepe; Stanton A Glantz
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 2.  The effects of tobacco control policies on smoking rates: a tobacco control scorecard.

Authors:  David T Levy; Frank Chaloupka; Joseph Gitchell
Journal:  J Public Health Manag Pract       Date:  2004 Jul-Aug

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.  Achieving a smokefree society.

Authors:  S A Glantz
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 29.690

5.  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

6.  The defeat of Philip Morris' 'California Uniform Tobacco Control Act'.

Authors:  H Macdonald; S Aguinaga; S A Glantz
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 9.308

7.  Tobacco lobby political influence on US state legislatures in the 1990s.

Authors:  M S Givel; S A Glantz
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 7.552

8.  The politics of local tobacco control.

Authors:  B Samuels; S A Glantz
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1991-10-16       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Are tobacco industry campaign contributions influencing state legislative behavior?

Authors:  F Monardi; S A Glantz
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 9.308

10.  Tobacco industry litigation to deter local public health ordinances: the industry usually loses in court.

Authors:  M L Nixon; L Mahmoud; S A Glantz
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 7.552

View more
  5 in total

1.  Political factors affecting the enactment of state-level clean indoor air laws.

Authors:  Gregory Jackson Tung; Jon S Vernick; Elizabeth A Stuart; Daniel W Webster
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2014-04-17       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  When tobacco targets direct democracy.

Authors:  Elizabeth Laposata; Allison P Kennedy; Stanton A Glantz
Journal:  J Health Polit Policy Law       Date:  2014-03-06       Impact factor: 2.265

3.  The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Campaign Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016.

Authors:  Daniel G Orenstein; Stanton A Glantz
Journal:  J Health Polit Policy Law       Date:  2020-02-01       Impact factor: 2.265

4.  Enacting tobacco taxes by direct popular vote in the United States: lessons from 20 years of experience.

Authors:  K L Lum; R L Barnes; S A Glantz
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2009-06-25       Impact factor: 7.552

5.  Defeating JUUL's Effort to Rewrite San Francisco's E-Cigarette Regulations.

Authors:  Neiloy R Sircar; Stanton A Glantz
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2021-01-21       Impact factor: 9.308

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.