Literature DB >> 8362994

The tobacco industry, state politics, and tobacco education in California.

M E Begay1, M Traynor, S A Glantz.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Proposition 99 added 25 cents to the California state cigarette tax and mandated that 20% of the new revenues be spent on tobacco education and prevention programs. This paper examines the implementation of these programs and the tobacco industry's response to Proposition 99.
METHODS: Political expenditure data for twelve tobacco firms and associations were gathered from California's Fair Political Practices Commission and secretary of state's Political Reform Division. Tobacco education expenditure data were collected from Governor's Budgets and the Department of Finance.
RESULTS: Since Proposition 99 passed, tobacco industry political expenditures in California have risen 10-fold, from $790,050 in the 1985-1986 election to $7,615,091 in the 1991-1992 election. The tobacco industry is contributing more heavily to the California legislature than to Congress. A statistical analysis of data on campaign contributions indicates that California legislators' policy-making is influenced by campaign contributions from the tobacco industry. Since fiscal year 1989-1990, the state has ignored the voters' mandate and spent only 14.7% of the new revenues to tobacco education. Medical care programs received more money than permitted by the voters.
CONCLUSIONS: The tobacco industry has become politically active in California following the passage of Proposition 99. One result may be that the state has underfunded tobacco education by $174.7 million through the 1993-1994 fiscal year. The estimated redirection of funds to medical care would essentially eliminate the tobacco education campaign by the year 2000.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8362994      PMCID: PMC1694950          DOI: 10.2105/ajph.83.9.1214

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


  6 in total

1.  First-year impact of the 1989 California cigarette tax increase on cigarette consumption.

Authors:  R L Flewelling; E Kenney; J P Elder; J Pierce; M Johnson; D G Bal
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Court orders California governor to restore antismoking media campaign funding.

Authors:  A A Skolnick
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1992-05-27       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Trends in cigarette smoking in the United States. Projections to the year 2000.

Authors:  J P Pierce; M C Fiore; T E Novotny; E J Hatziandreu; R M Davis
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1989-01-06       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Reducing tobacco consumption in California. Development of a statewide anti-tobacco use campaign.

Authors:  D G Bal; K W Kizer; P G Felten; H N Mozar; D Niemeyer
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1990-09-26       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  The politics of local tobacco control.

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

6.  Lower levels of cigarette consumption found in smoke-free workplaces in California.

Authors:  T J Woodruff; B Rosbrook; J Pierce; S A Glantz
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1993-06-28
  6 in total
  16 in total

1.  Trends in adult cigarette smoking in California compared with the rest of the United States, 1978-1994.

Authors:  M Siegel; P D Mowery; T P Pechacek; W J Strauss; M W Schooley; R K Merritt; T E Novotny; G A Giovino; M P Eriksen
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Local enactment of tobacco control policies in Massachusetts.

Authors:  William J Bartosch; Gregory C Pope
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Town-level characteristics and smoking policy adoption in Massachusetts: are local restaurant smoking regulations fostering disparities in health protection?

Authors:  Margie Skeer; Sarah George; William L Hamilton; Debbie M Cheng; Michael Siegel
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 9.308

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

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

5.  Goliath and some Davids in the tobacco wars.

Authors:  M Susser
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 9.308

6.  Failure to defend a successful state tobacco control program: policy lessons from Florida.

Authors:  M S Givel; S A Glantz
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 9.308

7.  Profits of doom.

Authors:  K E Warner
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  Policy-driven tobacco control.

Authors:  John A Francis; Erin M Abramsohn; Hye-Youn Park
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 7.552

Review 9.  What is known about tobacco industry efforts to influence tobacco tax? A systematic review of empirical studies.

Authors:  Katherine E Smith; Emily Savell; Anna B Gilmore
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2012-08-12       Impact factor: 7.552

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.