Skip to main content
PMC home page
Tobacco Control logoLink to Tobacco Control
. 1999 Jun;8(2):141–151. doi: 10.1136/tc.8.2.141

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

S A Bialous 1, S Glantz 1
PMCID: PMC1759716  PMID: 10478397

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.


Keywords: tobacco tax; health education; advocacy

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (127.6 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Bal D. G., Kizer K. W., Felten P. G., Mozar H. N., Niemeyer D. Reducing tobacco consumption in California. Development of a statewide anti-tobacco use campaign. JAMA. 1990 Sep 26;264(12):1570–1574. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. 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]
  3. Begay M. E., Traynor M., Glantz S. A. The tobacco industry, state politics, and tobacco education in California. Am J Public Health. 1993 Sep;83(9):1214–1221. doi: 10.2105/ajph.83.9.1214. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Glantz S. A. Preventing tobacco use--the youth access trap. Am J Public Health. 1996 Feb;86(2):156–158. doi: 10.2105/ajph.86.2.156. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. 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]
  6. Heiser P. F., Begay M. E. The campaign to raise the tobacco tax in Massachusetts. Am J Public Health. 1997 Jun;87(6):968–973. doi: 10.2105/ajph.87.6.968. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. 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]
  8. Macdonald H., Aguinaga S., Glantz S. A. The defeat of Philip Morris' 'California Uniform Tobacco Control Act'. Am J Public Health. 1997 Dec;87(12):1989–1996. doi: 10.2105/ajph.87.12.1989. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Macdonald H., Aguinaga S., Glantz S. A. The defeat of Philip Morris' 'California Uniform Tobacco Control Act'. Am J Public Health. 1997 Dec;87(12):1989–1996. doi: 10.2105/ajph.87.12.1989. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Monardi F., Glantz S. A. Are tobacco industry campaign contributions influencing state legislative behavior? Am J Public Health. 1998 Jun;88(6):918–923. doi: 10.2105/ajph.88.6.918. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Samuels B., Glantz S. A. The politics of local tobacco control. JAMA. 1991 Oct 16;266(15):2110–2117. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Siegel M., Carol J., Jordan J., Hobart R., Schoenmarklin S., DuMelle F., Fisher P. Preemption in tobacco control. Review of an emerging public health problem. JAMA. 1997 Sep 10;278(10):858–863. doi: 10.1001/jama.278.10.858. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Traynor M. P., Begay M. E., Glantz S. A. New tobacco industry strategy to prevent local tobacco control. JAMA. 1993 Jul 28;270(4):479–486. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. 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]

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

RESOURCES