Arizona’s tobacco control initiative illustrates the need for continuing oversight by tobacco control advocates

BACKGROUND In 1994, Arizona voters approved Proposition 200 which increased the tobacco tax and earmarked 23% of the new revenues for tobacco education programmes. OBJECTIVE To describe the campaign to pass Proposition 200, the legislative debate that followed the passage of the initiative, and the...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Tobacco control 1999-06, Vol.8 (2), p.141-151
Hauptverfasser: Bialous, Stella Aguinaga, Glantz, Stanton A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 151
container_issue 2
container_start_page 141
container_title Tobacco control
container_volume 8
creator Bialous, Stella Aguinaga
Glantz, Stanton A
description BACKGROUND In 1994, Arizona voters approved Proposition 200 which increased the tobacco tax and earmarked 23% of the new revenues for tobacco education programmes. OBJECTIVE To describe the campaign to pass Proposition 200, the legislative debate that followed the passage of the initiative, and the development and implementation of the tobacco control programme. DESIGN This is a case study. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with key players in the initiative campaign and in the tobacco education programme, and written records (campaign material, newspapers, memoranda, public records). RESULTS Despite opposition from the tobacco industry, Arizonans approved an increase in the tobacco tax. At the legislature, health advocates in Arizona successfully fought the tobacco industry attempts to divert the health education funds and pass preemptive legislation. The executive branch limited the scope of the programme to adolescents and pregnant women. It also prevented the programme from attacking the tobacco industry or focusing on secondhand smoke. Health advocates did not put enough pressure at the executive branch to force it to develop a comprehensive tobacco education programme. CONCLUSIONS It is not enough for health advocates to campaign for an increase in tobacco tax and to protect the funds at the legislature. Tobacco control advocates must closely monitor the development and implementation of tax-funded tobacco education programmes at the administrative level and be willing to press the executive to implement effective programmes.
doi_str_mv 10.1136/tc.8.2.141
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_1759716</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>20207622</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>20207622</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b492t-dbc4df632c0d946c2cc22fb317ba809456091126b8734a2cdaad7b5a98258b503</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1LHDEAhkNpqVvbS-8tA9KLMNt8TZK5CLr0CxYFsa23kGQyu1lnJ5pkltqTf6N_z19i7MhiEXrK4Xny5g0vAG8RnCJE2MdkpmKKp4iiZ2CCKBMlIUg8BxNYM1rSipEd8CrGFYSI8Aq9BDsIUi5IzSfg6jC4375Xtzd_YpG8Vsb4wvg-Bd8VrnfJqeQ2tnBdN8QUVLJZW9qit7YpWh_-uq4fXL8o_MaG6BbLVOjrJ1mq2Xhzf_01eNGqLto3D-cu-P7509nsazk_-fJtdjgvNa1xKhttaNMygg1sasoMNgbjVhPEtRKwzr-CNUKYacEJVdg0SjVcV6oWuBK6gmQXHIy5l4Ne28bY3EN18jK4tQrX0isn_yW9W8qF30jEq5ojlgP2HgKCvxpsTHLlh9DnzlkRGNMKkypb-6Nlgo8x2Hb7AoLyfh6ZjBQSyzxPlt8_7vRIHffIwrtRWMXkw5ZjiCFnGGdejtzFZH9tuQoXkvE8rjz-MZPsaH4uzk9_SpL9D6Ov16v_FbsDt26z_A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1782245235</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Arizona’s tobacco control initiative illustrates the need for continuing oversight by tobacco control advocates</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Bialous, Stella Aguinaga ; Glantz, Stanton A</creator><creatorcontrib>Bialous, Stella Aguinaga ; Glantz, Stanton A</creatorcontrib><description>BACKGROUND In 1994, Arizona voters approved Proposition 200 which increased the tobacco tax and earmarked 23% of the new revenues for tobacco education programmes. OBJECTIVE To describe the campaign to pass Proposition 200, the legislative debate that followed the passage of the initiative, and the development and implementation of the tobacco control programme. DESIGN This is a case study. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with key players in the initiative campaign and in the tobacco education programme, and written records (campaign material, newspapers, memoranda, public records). RESULTS Despite opposition from the tobacco industry, Arizonans approved an increase in the tobacco tax. At the legislature, health advocates in Arizona successfully fought the tobacco industry attempts to divert the health education funds and pass preemptive legislation. The executive branch limited the scope of the programme to adolescents and pregnant women. It also prevented the programme from attacking the tobacco industry or focusing on secondhand smoke. Health advocates did not put enough pressure at the executive branch to force it to develop a comprehensive tobacco education programme. CONCLUSIONS It is not enough for health advocates to campaign for an increase in tobacco tax and to protect the funds at the legislature. Tobacco control advocates must closely monitor the development and implementation of tax-funded tobacco education programmes at the administrative level and be willing to press the executive to implement effective programmes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0964-4563</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-3318</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/tc.8.2.141</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10478397</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; advocacy ; Anti smoking movements ; Arizona ; Budgets ; Cancer ; Cigarette smoking ; Cigarettes ; Education ; Excise taxes ; Female ; Funds ; Health care ; Health education ; Health legislation ; Health Promotion ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Initiatives ; Legislation ; Legislatures ; Lobbying ; Lobbyists ; Male ; Mass Media ; Minors ; Nicotiana - adverse effects ; Original ; Passive smoking ; Plants, Toxic ; Political campaigns ; Political finance ; Pregnancy ; Prevention ; Public health ; Publishing ; Referendums ; Signatures ; Smoking - legislation &amp; jurisprudence ; Smoking Prevention ; Studies ; Tax increases ; Taxes - legislation &amp; jurisprudence ; Tobacco ; Tobacco industry ; Tobacco Industry - legislation &amp; jurisprudence ; tobacco tax ; Tobacco taxes ; Tobacco use ; Voters</subject><ispartof>Tobacco control, 1999-06, Vol.8 (2), p.141-151</ispartof><rights>Tobacco Control</rights><rights>Copyright 1999 Tobacco Control</rights><rights>Copyright: 1999 Tobacco Control</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b492t-dbc4df632c0d946c2cc22fb317ba809456091126b8734a2cdaad7b5a98258b503</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20207622$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/20207622$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,799,881,27901,27902,53766,53768,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10478397$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bialous, Stella Aguinaga</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Glantz, Stanton A</creatorcontrib><title>Arizona’s tobacco control initiative illustrates the need for continuing oversight by tobacco control advocates</title><title>Tobacco control</title><addtitle>Tob Control</addtitle><description>BACKGROUND In 1994, Arizona voters approved Proposition 200 which increased the tobacco tax and earmarked 23% of the new revenues for tobacco education programmes. OBJECTIVE To describe the campaign to pass Proposition 200, the legislative debate that followed the passage of the initiative, and the development and implementation of the tobacco control programme. DESIGN This is a case study. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with key players in the initiative campaign and in the tobacco education programme, and written records (campaign material, newspapers, memoranda, public records). RESULTS Despite opposition from the tobacco industry, Arizonans approved an increase in the tobacco tax. At the legislature, health advocates in Arizona successfully fought the tobacco industry attempts to divert the health education funds and pass preemptive legislation. The executive branch limited the scope of the programme to adolescents and pregnant women. It also prevented the programme from attacking the tobacco industry or focusing on secondhand smoke. Health advocates did not put enough pressure at the executive branch to force it to develop a comprehensive tobacco education programme. CONCLUSIONS It is not enough for health advocates to campaign for an increase in tobacco tax and to protect the funds at the legislature. Tobacco control advocates must closely monitor the development and implementation of tax-funded tobacco education programmes at the administrative level and be willing to press the executive to implement effective programmes.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>advocacy</subject><subject>Anti smoking movements</subject><subject>Arizona</subject><subject>Budgets</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Cigarette smoking</subject><subject>Cigarettes</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Excise taxes</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Funds</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health education</subject><subject>Health legislation</subject><subject>Health Promotion</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Initiatives</subject><subject>Legislation</subject><subject>Legislatures</subject><subject>Lobbying</subject><subject>Lobbyists</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mass Media</subject><subject>Minors</subject><subject>Nicotiana - adverse effects</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Passive smoking</subject><subject>Plants, Toxic</subject><subject>Political campaigns</subject><subject>Political finance</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Prevention</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Publishing</subject><subject>Referendums</subject><subject>Signatures</subject><subject>Smoking - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Smoking Prevention</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Tax increases</subject><subject>Taxes - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Tobacco</subject><subject>Tobacco industry</subject><subject>Tobacco Industry - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>tobacco tax</subject><subject>Tobacco taxes</subject><subject>Tobacco use</subject><subject>Voters</subject><issn>0964-4563</issn><issn>1468-3318</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1999</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU1LHDEAhkNpqVvbS-8tA9KLMNt8TZK5CLr0CxYFsa23kGQyu1lnJ5pkltqTf6N_z19i7MhiEXrK4Xny5g0vAG8RnCJE2MdkpmKKp4iiZ2CCKBMlIUg8BxNYM1rSipEd8CrGFYSI8Aq9BDsIUi5IzSfg6jC4375Xtzd_YpG8Vsb4wvg-Bd8VrnfJqeQ2tnBdN8QUVLJZW9qit7YpWh_-uq4fXL8o_MaG6BbLVOjrJ1mq2Xhzf_01eNGqLto3D-cu-P7509nsazk_-fJtdjgvNa1xKhttaNMygg1sasoMNgbjVhPEtRKwzr-CNUKYacEJVdg0SjVcV6oWuBK6gmQXHIy5l4Ne28bY3EN18jK4tQrX0isn_yW9W8qF30jEq5ojlgP2HgKCvxpsTHLlh9DnzlkRGNMKkypb-6Nlgo8x2Hb7AoLyfh6ZjBQSyzxPlt8_7vRIHffIwrtRWMXkw5ZjiCFnGGdejtzFZH9tuQoXkvE8rjz-MZPsaH4uzk9_SpL9D6Ov16v_FbsDt26z_A</recordid><startdate>19990601</startdate><enddate>19990601</enddate><creator>Bialous, Stella Aguinaga</creator><creator>Glantz, Stanton A</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><general>BMJ Group</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>883</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0F</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19990601</creationdate><title>Arizona’s tobacco control initiative illustrates the need for continuing oversight by tobacco control advocates</title><author>Bialous, Stella Aguinaga ; Glantz, Stanton A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b492t-dbc4df632c0d946c2cc22fb317ba809456091126b8734a2cdaad7b5a98258b503</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1999</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>advocacy</topic><topic>Anti smoking movements</topic><topic>Arizona</topic><topic>Budgets</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Cigarette smoking</topic><topic>Cigarettes</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Excise taxes</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Funds</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health education</topic><topic>Health legislation</topic><topic>Health Promotion</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Initiatives</topic><topic>Legislation</topic><topic>Legislatures</topic><topic>Lobbying</topic><topic>Lobbyists</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mass Media</topic><topic>Minors</topic><topic>Nicotiana - adverse effects</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Passive smoking</topic><topic>Plants, Toxic</topic><topic>Political campaigns</topic><topic>Political finance</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Prevention</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Publishing</topic><topic>Referendums</topic><topic>Signatures</topic><topic>Smoking - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Smoking Prevention</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Tax increases</topic><topic>Taxes - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Tobacco</topic><topic>Tobacco industry</topic><topic>Tobacco Industry - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>tobacco tax</topic><topic>Tobacco taxes</topic><topic>Tobacco use</topic><topic>Voters</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bialous, Stella Aguinaga</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Glantz, Stanton A</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Trade &amp; Industry (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Trade &amp; Industry</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Tobacco control</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bialous, Stella Aguinaga</au><au>Glantz, Stanton A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Arizona’s tobacco control initiative illustrates the need for continuing oversight by tobacco control advocates</atitle><jtitle>Tobacco control</jtitle><addtitle>Tob Control</addtitle><date>1999-06-01</date><risdate>1999</risdate><volume>8</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>141</spage><epage>151</epage><pages>141-151</pages><issn>0964-4563</issn><eissn>1468-3318</eissn><abstract>BACKGROUND In 1994, Arizona voters approved Proposition 200 which increased the tobacco tax and earmarked 23% of the new revenues for tobacco education programmes. OBJECTIVE To describe the campaign to pass Proposition 200, the legislative debate that followed the passage of the initiative, and the development and implementation of the tobacco control programme. DESIGN This is a case study. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with key players in the initiative campaign and in the tobacco education programme, and written records (campaign material, newspapers, memoranda, public records). RESULTS Despite opposition from the tobacco industry, Arizonans approved an increase in the tobacco tax. At the legislature, health advocates in Arizona successfully fought the tobacco industry attempts to divert the health education funds and pass preemptive legislation. The executive branch limited the scope of the programme to adolescents and pregnant women. It also prevented the programme from attacking the tobacco industry or focusing on secondhand smoke. Health advocates did not put enough pressure at the executive branch to force it to develop a comprehensive tobacco education programme. CONCLUSIONS It is not enough for health advocates to campaign for an increase in tobacco tax and to protect the funds at the legislature. Tobacco control advocates must closely monitor the development and implementation of tax-funded tobacco education programmes at the administrative level and be willing to press the executive to implement effective programmes.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</pub><pmid>10478397</pmid><doi>10.1136/tc.8.2.141</doi><tpages>11</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0964-4563
ispartof Tobacco control, 1999-06, Vol.8 (2), p.141-151
issn 0964-4563
1468-3318
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_1759716
source Jstor Complete Legacy; MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Adolescent
Adult
advocacy
Anti smoking movements
Arizona
Budgets
Cancer
Cigarette smoking
Cigarettes
Education
Excise taxes
Female
Funds
Health care
Health education
Health legislation
Health Promotion
Hospitals
Humans
Initiatives
Legislation
Legislatures
Lobbying
Lobbyists
Male
Mass Media
Minors
Nicotiana - adverse effects
Original
Passive smoking
Plants, Toxic
Political campaigns
Political finance
Pregnancy
Prevention
Public health
Publishing
Referendums
Signatures
Smoking - legislation & jurisprudence
Smoking Prevention
Studies
Tax increases
Taxes - legislation & jurisprudence
Tobacco
Tobacco industry
Tobacco Industry - legislation & jurisprudence
tobacco tax
Tobacco taxes
Tobacco use
Voters
title Arizona’s tobacco control initiative illustrates the need for continuing oversight by tobacco control advocates
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T03%3A42%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Arizona%E2%80%99s%20tobacco%20control%20initiative%20illustrates%20the%20need%20for%20continuing%20oversight%20by%20tobacco%20control%20advocates&rft.jtitle=Tobacco%20control&rft.au=Bialous,%20Stella%20Aguinaga&rft.date=1999-06-01&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=141&rft.epage=151&rft.pages=141-151&rft.issn=0964-4563&rft.eissn=1468-3318&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/tc.8.2.141&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_pubme%3E20207622%3C/jstor_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1782245235&rft_id=info:pmid/10478397&rft_jstor_id=20207622&rfr_iscdi=true