Background Reducing tobacco depictions in media has significant health benefits because tobacco placements in films normalise tobacco use and are linked to youth initiation. Cannabis depictions may have similar effects. Placing restrictions on film incentives has been suggested; however, it remains an unexplored strategy for reducing tobacco depictions. We investigated whether states and localities that offer film incentives have established funding restrictions to deter tobacco or cannabis depictions.
Methods We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional survey of official state and local government websites in the USA that listed film incentives. We coded policy level (ie, state, local), incentive type (ie, tax credit, rebate), incentive amounts, programme qualifiers and presence and characteristics of tobacco and cannabis restrictions.
Results Quantifiable tax incentives at the state level offered over $1.6 billion to producers. Among 50 US states and Washington, DC, 39 provided film incentives: 4 restricted tobacco and 0 restricted cannabis. Among the 238 local film offices we identified, 24 offered incentives; 5 restricted tobacco and 1 restricted cannabis. All the incentive restrictions excluded tobacco or cannabis purchases from reimbursement; there were no penalties for tobacco or cannabis depictions.
Conclusions Film incentives are large financial commitments that may undermine public health since they allow depictions of tobacco and cannabis that contribute to initiation and use. Few states or localities limit film incentives related to tobacco or cannabis, and the existing restrictions are unlikely to deter depictions or product placement. Restrictions on incentives are an underused tool for deterring tobacco and cannabis depictions in film.
- Public policy
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request made to the corresponding author.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors TDW: conceptualisation; methodology; software; formal analysis; investigation; data curation; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing; visualisation. JG: conceptualisation; methodology; writing—review and editing; supervision. PL: conceptualisation; methodology; writing—review and editing; supervision; funding acquisition. DEA: conceptualisation; methodology; software; validation; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing; supervision; project administration; funding acquisition.
Funding This work was supported by funding from the UCSF Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.