RESEARCH PAPER

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

T H Tsoukalas, S A Glantz

Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, Institute for Health Policy Studies, Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Professor Stanton A Glantz, PhD, Box 0130, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California CA 94143, USA;
glantz{at}medicine.ucsf.edu

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.

Keywords: Minnesota; media campaigns; state control programmes; industry documents

Abbreviations: ANSR, Association for Nonsmokers Rights; HYD, Helping Youth Decide; HYSN, Helping Youth Say No; IBEW, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; MMA, Minnesota Medical Association; UFCW, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Best, D., Committee on Environmental Health, , Committee on Native American Child Health, , Committee on Adolescence, (2009). Secondhand and Prenatal Tobacco Smoke Exposure. Pediatrics 124: e1017-e1044 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Mamudu, H. M., Hammond, R., Glantz, S. A. (2008). Project Cerberus: Tobacco Industry Strategy to Create an Alternative to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. AJPH 98: 1630-1642 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Ibrahim, J. K., Glantz, S. A. (2007). The Rise and Fall of Tobacco Control Media Campaigns, 1967 2006. AJPH 97: 1383-1396 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Smith, E. A., Malone, R. E. (2007). 'We will speak as the smoker': the tobacco industry's smokers' rights groups. Eur J Public Health 17: 306-313 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Ibrahim, J K, Glantz, S. A (2006). Tobacco industry litigation strategies to oppose tobacco control media campaigns. Tobacco Control 15: 50-58 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Hersey, J C, Niederdeppe, J, Ng, S W, Mowery, P, Farrelly, M, Messeri, P (2005). How state counter-industry campaigns help prime perceptions of tobacco industry practices to promote reductions in youth smoking. Tobacco Control 14: 377-383 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Ibrahim, J K, Tsoukalas, T H, Glantz, S A (2004). Public health foundations and the tobacco industry: lessons from Minnesota. Tobacco Control 13: 228-236 [Abstract] [Full Text]