Register for email alerts and news feeds:
This journal | BMJ Group
rss
Tobacco Control 2001;10:309-316; doi:10.1136/tc.10.4.309
Copyright © 2001 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
Tob Control 2001;10:309-316 ( Winter )

Smoke and mirrors: how Massachusetts diverted millions in tobacco tax revenues

Wendy A Ritcha, Michael E Begayb

a University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, School of Public Health, Health Systems and Policy Division, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA, b University of Massachusetts Amherst, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, Department of Community Health Studies, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA

Correspondence to: Michael E Begay PhD, Department of Community Health Studies, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, 715 N Pleasant Street, 309 Arnold House, Amherst, MA 01003-9304, USA begay.schoolph.umass.edu

Received 4 April 2000; Revision received 1 October 2000; Accepted 20 August 2001

OBJECTIVE---This study examines the politics of appropriating Question 1 tobacco tax revenues in the first budget year after Massachusetts voters passed the ballot initiative in 1992. The initiative increased the tobacco tax on cigarettes by 25 cents per pack and on smokeless tobacco by 25% of the wholesale price.
METHODS---Data were collected from newspapers, letters, memoranda, budgets, press releases, legislative floor debates, government documents, legislative journals, personal interviews, and tobacco industry documents that were downloaded from the Tobacco Archives internet site.
RESULTS---During the first budget year, programmes mentioned by the initiative that were not exclusively tobacco related accounted for 27% of total Question 1 expenditures, while 50% of the revenues were allocated for programmes that were neither mentioned by the initiative nor provided any tobacco education, prevention, and cessation services. Only 23% of Question 1 funds were appropriated for programmes that provided exclusively tobacco education, prevention, and cessation services. Question 1 revenues were also used to supplant funding for pre-existing programmes, which was explicitly prohibited by the initiative. The first budget year became the template for Question 1 appropriations in subsequent fiscal years.
CONCLUSION---Politics did not end after voters passed Question 1. Public health advocates lacked a strategy and budget plan to influence the appropriation of Question 1 funds after the passage of this ballot initiative.


Keywords: Massachusetts; Question 1; tobacco tax

© 2001 by Tobacco Control
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Austin-Lane, J., Girasek, D. C., Barbour, G. L. (2004). A Qualitative Study of Post-Settlement Influences on State Tobacco Control Funding. Health Promot Pract 5: 46S-56S [Abstract]  
  • Sumner, W II (2003). Estimating the health consequences of replacing cigarettes with nicotine inhalers. Tobacco Control 12: 124-132 [Abstract] [Full Text]  

This Article

Services
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Bookmark with

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.

BMJ Careers