The campaign to raise the tobacco tax in Massachusetts.
P F Heiser and
M E Begay
Department of Community Health Studies, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst 01003-0430, USA.
OBJECTIVES: Question 1 raised the Massachusetts state tobaccotax to fund tobacco education programs. This paper examinesthe process of qualifying and passing Question 1. METHODS: Informationwas gathered from internal memoranda, meeting minutes, newspaperarticles, internal documents, letters, newsletters, news andpress releases, and personal interviews. Data about campaigncontributions were obtained from the Massachusetts Office ofCampaign and Political Finance. RESULTS: Three factors helpexplain why Question 1 passed: (1) the policy environment wasfavorable because of the social unacceptability of smoking;(2) the activists assembled a large coalition of supporters;and (3) the activists countered industry claims that the newtax would hurt small business and lower-income smokers and wouldbe wasted by the legislature. The ballot initiative passed despitethe industry's $7 million campaign to defeat it. CONCLUSIONS:The apparent influence of the tobacco industry on the legislaturewas the driving force behind the decision of public health activiststo qualify Question 1. Moving policy-making out of the legislatureinto the public arena widened the scope of conflict and enabledpublic health activists to win.
Related articles in AJPH:
Dealing with tobacco--the implications of a legislative settlement with the tobacco industry.
B. S. Andersen, M. E. Begay, and C. B. Lawson Breaking the Alliance: Defeating the Tobacco Industry's Allies and Enacting Youth Access Restrictions in Massachusetts
Am J Public Health,
November 1, 2003;
93(11):
1922 - 1928.
[Abstract][Full Text][PDF]
W. A Ritch and M. E Begay Smoke and mirrors: how Massachusetts diverted millions in tobacco tax revenues
J Epidemiol Community Health,
July 1, 2002;
56(7):
522 - 528.
[Abstract][Full Text]
M. Stead, G. Hastings, and D. Eadie The challenge of evaluating complex interventions: a framework for evaluating media advocacy
Health Educ. Res.,
June 1, 2002;
17(3):
351 - 364.
[Abstract][Full Text][PDF]
C P Morley, K M Cummings, A Hyland, G A Giovino, and J K Horan Tobacco Institute lobbying at the state and local levels of government in the 1990s
Tob. Control,
March 1, 2002;
11(90001):
i102 - 109.
[Abstract][Full Text][PDF]
W. A Ritch and M. E Begay Smoke and mirrors: how Massachusetts diverted millions in tobacco tax revenues
Tob. Control,
December 1, 2001;
10(4):
309 - 316.
[Abstract][Full Text][PDF]
L. K Goldman and S. A Glantz The passage and initial implementation of Oregon's Measure 44
Tob. Control,
September 1, 1999;
8(3):
311 - 322.
[Abstract][Full Text]
S. A. Bialous and S. A Glantz Arizona's tobacco control initiative illustrates the need for continuing oversight by tobacco control advocates
Tob. Control,
June 1, 1999;
8(2):
141 - 151.
[Abstract][Full Text]
J. P. Pierce, E. A. Gilpin, S. L. Emery, M. M. White, B. Rosbrook, and C. C. Berry Has the California Tobacco Control Program Reduced Smoking?
JAMA,
September 9, 1998;
280(10):
893 - 899.
[Abstract][Full Text][PDF]
L. K. Goldman and S. A. Glantz Evaluation of Antismoking Advertising Campaigns
JAMA,
March 11, 1998;
279(10):
772 - 777.
[Abstract][Full Text][PDF]