Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Tobacco Control logoLink to Tobacco Control
. 2003 Jun;12(2):214–220. doi: 10.1136/tc.12.2.214

Development and destruction of the first state funded anti-smoking campaign in the USA

T Tsoukalas 1, S Glantz 1
PMCID: PMC1747722  PMID: 12773734

Abstract

Background: Minnesota was the first state in the USA to implement a large state funded tobacco control programme (in 1985). Despite evidence of effectiveness, it was dismantled in 1993.

Objective: To describe and analyse how and why these events transpired and identify lessons for tobacco control advocates facing similar challenges in the 21st century.

Design: Case study based on previously secret tobacco industry documents, news reports, research reports, official documents, and interviews with health advocates and state government officials.

Results: Unable to defeat funding for this campaign in 1985, the tobacco industry organised groups which eliminated it later. Despite the programme's documented effectiveness, it was dismantled based on claims of fiscal crisis. These claims were not true; the real debate was what to do with the state's surplus. Health advocates failed to challenge the claim of fiscal crisis or mobilise public support for the programme.

Conclusions: Simply quoting evidence that a tobacco control programme is effective does not ensure its continuing survival. Claims of fiscal crisis are an effective cover for tobacco industry efforts to dismantle successful programmes, particularly if health advocates accept these claims and fail to mobilise political pressure to defend the programme.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (177.5 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Aguinaga Bialous S., Glantz S. A. Arizona's tobacco control initiative illustrates the need for continuing oversight by tobacco control advocates. Tob Control. 1999 Summer;8(2):141–151. doi: 10.1136/tc.8.2.141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Balbach E. D., Glantz S. A. Tobacco control advocates must demand high-quality media campaigns: the California experience. Tob Control. 1998 Winter;7(4):397–408. doi: 10.1136/tc.7.4.397. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Begay M. E., Glantz S. A. Question 1 tobacco education expenditures in Massachusetts, USA. Tob Control. 1997 Autumn;6(3):213–218. doi: 10.1136/tc.6.3.213. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bialous S. A., Fox B. J., Glantz S. A. Tobacco industry allegations of "illegal lobbying" and state tobacco control. Am J Public Health. 2001 Jan;91(1):62–67. doi: 10.2105/ajph.91.1.62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Fichtenberg C. M., Glantz S. A. Association of the California Tobacco Control Program with declines in cigarette consumption and mortality from heart disease. N Engl J Med. 2000 Dec 14;343(24):1772–1777. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200012143432406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Givel M. S., Glantz S. A. Failure to defend a successful state tobacco control program: policy lessons from Florida. Am J Public Health. 2000 May;90(5):762–767. doi: 10.2105/ajph.90.5.762. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Goldman L. K., Glantz S. A. Evaluation of antismoking advertising campaigns. JAMA. 1998 Mar 11;279(10):772–777. doi: 10.1001/jama.279.10.772. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Goldman L. K., Glantz S. A. The passage and initial implementation of Oregon's Measure 44. Tob Control. 1999 Autumn;8(3):311–322. doi: 10.1136/tc.8.3.311. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Healton C. Who's afraid of the truth? Am J Public Health. 2001 Apr;91(4):554–558. doi: 10.2105/ajph.91.4.554. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Jacobson P. D., Wasserman J., Raube K. The politics of antismoking legislation. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1993 Winter;18(4):787–819. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Jacobson P. D., Wasserman J. The implementation and enforcement of tobacco control laws: policy implications for activists and the industry. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1999 Jun;24(3):567–598. doi: 10.1215/03616878-24-3-567. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Koh H. K. An analysis of the successful 1992 Massachusetts tobacco tax initiative. Tob Control. 1996 Autumn;5(3):220–225. doi: 10.1136/tc.5.3.220. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Levy D. T., Friend K. A computer simulation model of mass media interventions directed at tobacco use. Prev Med. 2001 Mar;32(3):284–294. doi: 10.1006/pmed.2000.0808. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Miller A. Designing an effective counteradvertising campaign--Massachusetts. Cancer. 1998 Dec 15;83(12 Suppl ROBERT):2742–2745. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19981215)83:12a+<2742::aid-cncr16>3.0.co;2-a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Shultz J. M., Moen M. E., Pechacek T. F., Harty K. C., Skubic M. A., Gust S. W., Dean A. G. The Minnesota Plan for Nonsmoking and Health: the legislative experience. J Public Health Policy. 1986 Autumn;7(3):300–313. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Siegel M., Biener L. The impact of an antismoking media campaign on progression to established smoking: results of a longitudinal youth study. Am J Public Health. 2000 Mar;90(3):380–386. doi: 10.2105/ajph.90.3.380. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Traynor M. P., Glantz S. A. California's tobacco tax initiative: the development and passage of Proposition 99. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1996 Fall;21(3):543–585. doi: 10.1215/03616878-21-3-543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Wakefield M., Chaloupka F. Effectiveness of comprehensive tobacco control programmes in reducing teenage smoking in the USA. Tob Control. 2000 Jun;9(2):177–186. doi: 10.1136/tc.9.2.177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Tobacco Control are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES