The passage and initial implementation of Oregon's Measure 44
Lisa K Goldman, Stanton A Glantz
Institute for Health
Policy Studies, Department of Medicine, University of California, San
Francisco, California, USA
Correspondence to: Professor SA Glantz, Division of Cardiology, Box 0130, University of California, San Francisco, California 94143-0130, USA; glantz{at}medicine.ucsf.edu
Received 23 December
1998; Revision received 28 April 1999;
Accepted 17 May
1999
OBJECTIVE
To prepare a
history of the passage and early implementation of Ballot Measure 44, "An Act to Support the Oregon Health Plan", and tobacco control
policymaking in Oregon. Measure 44 raised cigarette taxes in Oregon by
US$0.30 per pack, and dedicated 10% of the revenues to tobacco control.
METHODS
Data were
gathered from interviews with members of the Committee to Support the
Oregon Health Plan, Measure 44's campaign committee, as well as with
state and local officials, and tobacco control advocates. Additional
information was obtained from public documents, internal memoranda, and
news reports.
RESULTS
Although the
tobacco industry outspent Measure 44's supporters 7 to 1, the
initiative passed with 56% of the vote. Even before the election,
tobacco control advocates were working to develop an implementation
plan for the tobacco control programme. They mounted a successful
lobbying campaign to see that the legislature did not divert tobacco
control funds to other uses. They also stopped industry efforts to
limit the scope of the programme. The one shortcoming of the tobacco
control forces was not getting involved in planning the initiative
early enough to influence the amount of money that was devoted to
tobacco control. Although public health groups provided 37% of the
money it cost to pass Measure 44, only 10% of revenues were devoted to
tobacco control.
CONCLUSIONS
Proactive
planning and aggressive implementation can secure passage of tobacco
control initiatives and see that the associated implementing
legislation follows good public health practice.
Keywords: advocacy; legislation; implementation; tobacco tax
© 1999 by Tobacco Control
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Ibrahim, J. K., Glantz, S. A.
(2007). The Rise and Fall of Tobacco Control Media Campaigns, 1967 2006. Am. J. Public Health
97: 1383-1396
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Tsoukalas, T H, Glantz, S A
(2003). Development and destruction of the first state funded anti-smoking campaign in the USA. Tobacco Control
12: 214-220
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Morley, C P, Cummings, K M, Hyland, A, Giovino, G A, Horan, J K
(2002). Tobacco Institute lobbying at the state and local levels of government in the 1990s. Tobacco Control
11: i102-109
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Friend, K., Levy, D. T.
(2002). Reductions in smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption associated with mass-media campaigns. Health Educ Res
17: 85-98
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Wakefield, M., Chaloupka, F.
(2000). Effectiveness of comprehensive tobacco control programmes in reducing teenage smoking in the USA. Tobacco Control
9: 177-186
[Abstract] [Full Text]
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.
