Literature DB >> 24603083

When tobacco targets direct democracy.

Elizabeth Laposata1, Allison P Kennedy1, Stanton A Glantz1.   

Abstract

Tobacco control advocates began to use ballot initiatives to enact tobacco control measures in the late 1970s. In response, the tobacco industry worked for over two decades to change laws governing initiative and referendum processes to prevent passage of such measures. In 1981 the tobacco industry's political lobbying arm, the Tobacco Institute, created a front group that presented itself as a neutral initiative research clearinghouse to effect changes in state initiative and referenda laws. In 1990 the Tobacco Institute began creating an in-house team and worked with third-party groups to try to change state initiative laws. While the industry ultimately abandoned both efforts when neither achieved immediate success, over time the industry's goals have penetrated legitimate discourse on the initiative and referendum process in the United States, and many specific ideas it advocated have garnered mainstream support. Direct democracy advocates, as well as public health advocates and policy makers, need to understand the tobacco industry's goals (which other industries adopted) of limiting the direct democracy process to ensure that any changes do not inadvertently increase the power of the special interests that direct democracy was developed to counterbalance.
Copyright © 2014 by Duke University Press.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24603083      PMCID: PMC4040295          DOI: 10.1215/03616878-2682603

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Health Polit Policy Law        ISSN: 0361-6878            Impact factor:   2.265


  25 in total

1.  Tobacco industry documents: treasure trove or quagmire?

Authors:  R E Malone; E D Balbach
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 7.552

2.  Who loses in direct democracy?

Authors:  Ryan T Moore; Nirmala Ravishankar
Journal:  Soc Sci Res       Date:  2011-11-02

3.  The campaign to raise the tobacco tax in Massachusetts.

Authors:  P F Heiser; M E Begay
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  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

Review 5.  African American leadership groups: smoking with the enemy.

Authors:  V B Yerger; R E Malone
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 7.552

6.  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

Review 7.  Tobacco document research reporting.

Authors:  S M Carter
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 7.552

8.  The perils of ignoring history: Big Tobacco played dirty and millions died. How similar is Big Food?

Authors:  Kelly D Brownell; Kenneth E Warner
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 4.911

9.  Building alliances in unlikely places: progressive allies and the Tobacco Institute's coalition strategy on cigarette excise taxes.

Authors:  Richard B Campbell; Edith D Balbach
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2009-05-14       Impact factor: 9.308

10.  Tobacco industry sociological programs to influence public beliefs about smoking.

Authors:  Anne Landman; Daniel K Cortese; Stanton Glantz
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 4.634

View more
  3 in total

1.  Effects of a granulocyte colony stimulating factor, Neulasta, in mini pigs exposed to total body proton irradiation.

Authors:  Jenine K Sanzari; Gabriel S Krigsfeld; Anne L Shuman; Antonia K Diener; Liyong Lin; Wilfried Mai; Ann R Kennedy
Journal:  Life Sci Space Res (Amst)       Date:  2015-04

2.  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

3.  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

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.