DOCSLIB.ORG

Tobacco Control in Maine, 1979-2009: the Power of Strategic Collaboration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tobacco Control in Maine, 1979-2009: the Power of Strategic Collaboration UCSF Tobacco Control Policy Making: United States Title Tobacco Control in Maine, 1979-2009: The Power of Strategic Collaboration Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5jz4q9m4 Authors Caitlin Stanton, MPH Richard Barnes, JD Stanton A. Glantz, PhD Publication Date 2009-07-31 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Tobacco Control in Maine, 1979-2009: The Power of Strategic Collaboration Caitlin Stanton, MPH Richard Barnes, JD Stanton A. Glantz, PhD Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education School of Medicine University of California, San Francisco San Francisco, CA 94143-1390 August 2009 Supported in part by National Cancer Institute Grant CA -61021, the Cahan Endowment provided by the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute, and other donors. Opinions expressed reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent the spons oring agency. This report is available on the World Wide Web at http://repositories.cdlib.org/ctcre/tcpmus/ME2009 . Reports on other states and nations are available at http://repositories.cdlib.ord/ctcre . 1 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Maine has a small population, with a relatively high proportion of people living in the state’s major population centers, making Maine politics function more like a large city than a state, fostering bipartisan efforts to pass progressive tobacco control legislation despite the presence of tobacco industry lobbyist from the late 1970s throughout the 1980s. • Credit for Maine’s successes in tobacco prevention and control can be attributed to two major factors: A cohesive and collaborative partnerships among tobacco control advocates with effective lobbying strategies (individually tailored campaigns rather than a one-size-fits-all approach) and diversified funding strategies. • Since 1983, the Maine Coalition on Smoking or Health partnered with more than 100 state and municipal agencies, including the American Cancer Society, New England Division, the Maine Lung Association, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, the American Heart Association, and the Maine Center for Public Health. • Strong and consistent individual commitment to tobacco control, including support from the Maine Department of Health and numerous legislators, gave an advantage to tobacco control bills and laws. • Early tobacco control legislation focused on the protection of indoor air, and struggled against powerful tobacco industry lobbyists. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the Maine legislature passed significant and progressive smoke-free air laws , including but not limited to smoke-free restaurants (1999), bars (2003), and cars (2008), as well as tobacco excise tax increases (the latest, in 2005, raised the excise tax from $1 to $2 per pack) and the establishment of a state tobacco control program. • Tobacco control advocates in Maine were successful because they were able to sell a collective vision to health organizations in the state, and convinced these organizations to give up a little for the greater good of Maine’s residents. • Tobacco prevention and control efforts did not begin in earnest until the mid 1990s, when Maine was faced with highest youth smoking rates in the country. In 1997, Maine’s network of health advocates worked with Governor Angus King (I), to promote a tobacco excise tax increase to fund a tobacco prevention and control program. This success was followed in 1999 with the statewide smoke-free restaurant bill, and smoke-free bars in 2003. By 2008, cars and outdoor dining areas were also smoke-free, passing easily without significant opposition from tobacco industry lobbyists. • After the tobacco excise tax was doubled in 1997, Maine experienced with a dramatic reduction in youth smoking rates from 35% in 1997 to 20% in 2003. 3 • Adult smoking rates also declined steadily in Maine from 25% in 1996 to 18% in 2008. This was accomplished mainly through the state quit line along with the Partnership for a Tobacco-Free Maine’s (PTM) media campaigns targeting parents and adults. • Despite the successes of the state tobacco control program, PTM at reducing youth smoking, the program’s narrow focus was at the expense of other vulnerable demographics, most significantly, young adults age 18-25. In 2007, 35% of young adults in Maine smoked at rates similar to 1992 levels (35%). • Maine’s tobacco control advocates have worked tirelessly to protect the Fund for a Healthy Maine (FHM), Maine’s funding mechanism for the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA), the result of the 1998 lawsuit filed against the major US tobacco companies, which secured more than $40 million annually for the state. The statewide support of the FHM has been a result of the careful orchestration of the FHM’s diverse funding structure that has enlarged the circle of recipient beneficiaries. • In 2001, PTM began receiving funds from the Master Settlement Agreement. Because of these funds, despite severe budget shortfalls since 1998, the PTM reported that tobacco control in Maine was funded at or just short of the CDC Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Recommended Guidelines each year. In 2008, the Maine Center for Disease control acknowledged that their tobacco control funding, dedicated by the Legislature from the FHM, had been allocated to fund a variety of chronic disease programs in addition tobacco control, and that their reported spending had not been accurate. A portion of tobacco control funds were either unaccounted for or had been allocated to chronic disease programs. Beginning in 2009, PTMs accounting reflected the actual reduced funding level for tobacco control. • The Partnership for a Tobacco-Free Maine’s misrepresentation of spending resulted in the diversion millions of dollars from tobacco control to other healthcare programs since 1999. • Despite the state’s successes in reducing youth and adult smoking rates, there is a significant amount of work to be accomplished. To continue to reduce the burden of tobacco-induced disease, PTM must increase spending for tobacco prevention and control, and fund programs at levels recommended by the US CDC Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Recommended Guidelines. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS ……………………………………………………………………. 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..………………………………………………………………… 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ……………………………………………………………………. 5 INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………………. 9 The State …………………………………………………………………………….. 9 Tobacco Use …………………………………………………………………………. 10 Tobacco Prevention & Control ……………………………………………………. 14 TOBACCO INDUSTRY INFLUENCE IN MAINE ……………………………………….. 16 Campaign Contributions …………………………………………………………… 16 Maine’s Contribution Limits …………………………………………………. 16 Maine’s Public Election Financing and Spending Limits Under the Maine 16 Clean Election ….…………………………………………………………. Total Tobacco Industry Campaign Contributions ………………………………… 18 Tobacco Industry Contributions to Political Parties ……………………………… 19 Tobacco Industry Contributions to Legislative Candidates…………………………... 21 Tobacco Industry Lobbyists …………………………………………………………... 23 Tobacco Industry Organizations and Allies …………………………………………... 25 THE DEVELOPMENT OF TOBACCO CONTROL ADVOCACY IN MAINE ………………… 27 Key Players …………………………………………………….……………………... 27 The Maine Coalition on Smoking or Health ……………………………….……... 28 ASSIST ……………………………….………………………………………….…… 31 Structure ……………………………….……………………………………….. 31 Tobacco Companies Challenge ASSIST ……………………………….…………. 32 After ASSIST ……………………………….……………………………………. 34 2001 Smokeless States Grant ……………………………….………………………… 34 Accomplishments Under the SmokeLess States Grant …………………………… 37 The State Tobacco Control Infrastructure Emerges ……………………………….… 38 2001 Healthy Maine Partnerships ……………………………….…………………… 39 The Maine Turning Point Project ……………………………….………….. 39 Healthy Maine Partnerships ……………………………….………………… 40 Evaluations and Changes in the HMPs ……………………………….…… 43 TOBACCO CONTROL POLICY: CLEAN INDOOR AIR ……………………………….…… 44 Early Legislation: 1979-1981 ……………………………….………………………… 44 Regulations in Public Places ……………………………….…………………… 44 Progress ……………………………….………………………………… 46 A Continued Effort: Smoking in Public Meetings, Jury Rooms, and Indoor Public 48 Waiting Rooms ……………………………….………………………………… A Failure in 1983: Attempt at smoke-free workplaces …………………………… 49 Smoke-free Legislation, 1983-1991 ……………………………….………………….. 50 Smoking in Nursing Homes ……………………………….……………………. 50 Smoking in Restaurants and Food Stores ……………………………….………. 51 5 Public Places ……………………………….…………………………………… 52 Smoke-free Workplace Bill Passes, 1985 ……………………………….………… 52 Building Support ……………………………….………………………….. 54 Opposition ……………………………….……………………………….. 54 The Bill is Heard ……………………………….…………………………. 55 LD 276 Passes ……………………………….…………………………… 56 Lessons Learned from the Workplace Bill ……………………………….…. 56 LD 267 Goes into Effect ……………………………….…………………… 58 Attempts at Smoke-free Restaurants Continue ……………………………….…… 58 The Governor and the Coalition Work Together for Smoke-free Air ………………… 59 The Governor’s Commission on Smoking or Health ……………………………… 60 The Report ……………………………….………………………………... 60 Recommendations Regarding Prevention and Youth ………………………… 61 Cessation Resources ……………………………….………………………. 61 Tobacco Industry Response ……………………………….………………... 62 Smoke-free Bills, 1991-1997 ………………………………………………………………… 62 Restaurant Bills ……………………………….………………………………… 63 Early Attempts ……………………………….……………………………. 63 Tobacco Control vs. Tobacco Industry ……………………………….…………… 66 Restaurant Bills: 1997-2001 ……………………………….………………………….. 66 The Portland Smoke-free Restaurant Ordinance ……………………………….…
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Electronic (E-) Cigarettes and Secondhand Aerosol
    Defending your right to breathe smokefree air since 1976 Electronic (e-) Cigarettes and Secondhand Aerosol “If you are around somebody who is using e-cigarettes, you are breathing an aerosol of exhaled nicotine, ultra-fine particles, volatile organic compounds, and other toxins,” Dr. Stanton Glantz, Director for the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco. Current Legislative Landscape As of January 2, 2014, 108 municipalities and three states include e-cigarettes as products that are prohibited from use in smokefree environments. Constituents of Secondhand Aerosol E-cigarettes do not just emit “harmless water vapor.” Secondhand e-cigarette aerosol (incorrectly called vapor by the industry) contains nicotine, ultrafine particles and low levels of toxins that are known to cause cancer. E-cigarette aerosol is made up of a high concentration of ultrafine particles, and the particle concentration is higher than in conventional tobacco cigarette smoke.1 Exposure to fine and ultrafine particles may exacerbate respiratory ailments like asthma, and constrict arteries which could trigger a heart attack.2 At least 10 chemicals identified in e-cigarette aerosol are on California’s Proposition 65 list of carcinogens and reproductive toxins, also known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. The compounds that have already been identified in mainstream (MS) or secondhand (SS) e-cigarette aerosol include: Acetaldehyde (MS), Benzene (SS), Cadmium (MS), Formaldehyde (MS,SS), Isoprene (SS), Lead (MS), Nickel (MS), Nicotine (MS, SS), N-Nitrosonornicotine (MS, SS), Toluene (MS, SS).3,4 E-cigarettes contain and emit propylene glycol, a chemical that is used as a base in e- cigarette solution and is one of the primary components in the aerosol emitted by e-cigarettes.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
    United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 16-1492 MARK W. EVES, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. PAUL R. LEPAGE, Defendant, Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. George Z. Singal, U.S. District Judge] Before Howard, Chief Judge, Torruella, Stahl, Lynch, Thompson, Kayatta, and Barron, Circuit Judges. David G. Webbert, with whom Carol J. Garvan and Johnson, Webbert & Young, LLP were on brief, for appellant. Patrick Strawbridge, with whom Bryan K. Weir, Caroline A. Cook, and Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC were on brief, for appellee. Opinion En Banc June 19, 2019 Judge Kayatta is recused and did not participate in consideration of this matter. LYNCH, Circuit Judge. This court took this case en banc, which then caused the withdrawal of the panel opinion, Eves v. LePage, 842 F.3d 133 (1st Cir. 2016), while we reconsidered the case. A divided panel there had affirmed the district court's dismissal of this First Amendment retaliation suit brought by the then-Speaker of Maine's House of Representatives, Mark Eves, against the then-Governor of Maine, Paul LePage.1 Eves alleged that, while governor, LePage leveraged discretionary state funding, in a yet unpassed state budget, to coerce an organization, Good Will-Hinckley ("GWH"), to terminate Eves's upcoming employment as its President. In his en banc petition, Eves has narrowed his legal claims by dropping all damages claims for the alleged violation of his free speech rights by LePage. Eves continues to pursue damages against LePage for his claim of political affiliation discrimination, which is now the only damages claim before us.
    [Show full text]
  • Tobacco Reborn: the Rise of E-Cigarettes and Regulatory Approaches
    LCB_25_3_Article_3_Aaron (Do Not Delete) 8/6/2021 9:26 AM TOBACCO REBORN: THE RISE OF E-CIGARETTES AND REGULATORY APPROACHES by Dr. Daniel G. Aaron* This Article examines e-cigarettes, FDA-regulated products which heat nico- tine-containing fluid into an aerosol to be breathed into the lungs. Recent data show that e-cigarettes are used by about one-fifth of U.S. high school students. Given that we have, in the Surgeon General’s words, reached an epidemic of youth e-cigarette use, it is worth asking how a product within FDA jurisdic- tion became a serious threat to 3.6 million youth. This Article reviews the law surrounding e-cigarettes and the history of FDA’s attempts to regulate them. Administrative law doctrines instruct us that in- creased presidential control will rein in misbehaving agencies by allowing the people to vote out a president who improperly directs the administrative state. However, e-cigarettes present a potent counterexample. On multiple occasions, presidential control over FDA stymied essential tobacco regulations by increas- ing the influence of the tobacco industry over expert agency policymaking. Yet children harmed by these tobacco policies have no right to vote and little po- litical clout with which to advocate for their interests. Ultimately, the emerg- ing approach to regulating e-cigarettes stands in opposition to a looming his- torical context and a boiling epidemic of nicotine addiction. By painting the context of e-cigarettes in lush detail, drawing from history, law, medicine, and public health, this Article charts a path forward for e-cigarettes and other ad- dicting products.
    [Show full text]
  • Open PDF File, 8.71 MB, for February 01, 2017 Appendix In
    Case 4:16-cv-00469-K Document 175 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID 5923 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, § § Plaintiff, § v. § No. 4:16-CV-469-K § ERIC TRADD SCHNEIDERMAN, § Attorney General of New York, in his § official capacity, and MAURA TRACY § HEALEY, Attorney General of § Massachusetts, in her official capacity, § § Defendants. § APPENDIX IN SUPPORT OF EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THIS COURT’S PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANTS Exhibit Description Page(s) N/A Declaration of Justin Anderson (Feb. 1, 2017) v – ix A Transcript of the AGs United for Clean Power App. 1 –App. 21 Press Conference, held on March 29, 2016, which was prepared by counsel based on a video recording of the event. The video recording is available at http://www.ag.ny.gov/press- release/ag-schneiderman-former-vice-president- al-gore-and-coalition-attorneys-general-across B E-mail from Wendy Morgan, Chief of Public App. 22 – App. 32 Protection, Office of the Vermont Attorney General to Michael Meade, Director, Intergovernmental Affairs Bureau, Office of the New York Attorney General (Mar. 18, 2016, 6:06 PM) C Union of Concerned Scientists, Peter Frumhoff, App. 33 – App. 37 http://www.ucsusa.org/about/staff/staff/peter- frumhoff.html#.WI-OaVMrLcs (last visited Jan. 20, 2017, 2:05 PM) Case 4:16-cv-00469-K Document 175 Filed 02/01/17 Page 2 of 10 PageID 5924 Exhibit Description Page(s) D Union of Concerned Scientists, Smoke, Mirrors & App.
    [Show full text]
  • University of California San Francisco
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • MERCED • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ STANTON A. GLANTZ, PhD 530 Parnassus Suite 366 Professor of Medicine (Cardiology) San Francisco, CA 94143-1390 Truth Initiative Distinguished Professor of Tobacco Control Phone: (415) 476-3893 Director, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education Fax: (415) 514-9345 [email protected] December 20, 2017 Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee c/o Caryn Cohen Office of Science Center for Tobacco Products Food and Drug Administration Document Control Center Bldg. 71, Rm. G335 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002 [email protected] Re: 82 FR 27487, Docket no. FDA-2017-D-3001-3002 for Modified Risk Tobacco Product Applications: Applications for IQOS System With Marlboro Heatsticks, IQOS System With Marlboro Smooth Menthol Heatsticks, and IQOS System With Marlboro Fresh Menthol Heatsticks Submitted by Philip Morris Products S.A.; Availability Dear Committee Members: We are submitting the 10 public comments that we have submitted to the above-referenced docket on Philip Morris’s modified risk tobacco product applications (MRTPA) for IQOS. It is barely a month before the meeting and the docket on IQOS has not even closed. As someone who has served and does serve on committees similar to TPSAC, I do not see how the schedule that the FDA has established for TPSAC’s consideration of this application can permit a responsible assessment of the applications and associated public comments. I sincerely hope that you will not be pressed to make any recommendations on the IQOS applications until the applications have been finalized, the public has had a reasonable time to assess the applications, and TPSAC has had a reasonable time to digest both the completed applications and the public comments before making any recommendation to the FDA.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Health Chronicles
    Public Health Chronicles TOBACCO INDUSTRY bacco industry to manipulate information on the risks of MANIPULATION OF RESEARCH tobacco (Figure). These strategies have remained remark- ably constant since the early 1950s. During the 1950s and Lisa A. Bero, PhD 1960s, the tobacco industry focused on refuting data on the adverse effects of active smoking. The industry applied the Research findings provide the basis for estimates of risk. tools it had developed during this time to refute data on However, research findings or “facts” are subject to interpre- the adverse effects of secondhand smoke exposure from the tation and to the social construction of the evidence.1 Re- 1970s through the 1990s. search evidence has a context. The roles of framing, problem The release of previously secret internal tobacco industry definition, and choice of language influence risk communi- documents as a result of the Master Settlement Agreement cation.2 Since data do not “speak for themselves,” interest in 1998 has given the public health community insight into groups can play a critical role in creating and communicat- the tobacco industry’s motives, strategies, tactics, and data.16 ing the research evidence on risk. These documents show that for decades the industry has An interest group is an organized group with a narrowly tried to generate controversy about the health risks of its defined viewpoint, which protects its position or profits.3 products. The internal documents also reveal how the in- These groups are not exclusively business groups, but can dustry has been concerned about maintaining its credibility include all kinds of organizations that may attempt to influ- as it has manipulated research on tobacco.16 ence government.4,5 Interest groups can be expected to con- The tobacco industry has explicitly stated its goal of gen- struct the evidence about a health risk to support their erating controversy about the health risks of tobacco.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Policy Brief the State of Tobacco Use Prevention and Cessation in Ohio Environmental Scan and Policy Implications
    June 2015 Health Policy Brief The state of tobacco use prevention and cessation in Ohio Environmental scan and policy implications After releasing the Health Value Dashboard in prevalence of tobacco use given the December 2014, HPIO convened a group of strengths and challenges of Ohio’s current healthcare and public health stakeholders to tobacco policies. review Ohio’s greatest health strengths and challenges. This group identified tobacco use In addition, HPIO will soon release an as a significant concern, noting that compared accountability map that describes how various to other states, Ohio performed in the bottom public health and healthcare entities in Ohio quartile for the following metrics: are accountable for specific tobacco-related Ohio’s metrics. Metric rank Adult cigarette smoking 44 Part 1. Environmental scan Secondhand smoke exposure for children 49 The purpose of this environmental scan is to describe the current status of tobacco use in Tobacco prevention and control spending 46 Ohio, review the state-level policy landscape Tobacco use is highly relevant to state health from the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement policy because it impacts a significant number to the current session of the General Assembly, of Ohioans (approximately 2.2 million youth and and describe the extent to which Ohio is adult tobacco users1), is a major cause of illness implementing evidence-based strategies proven and premature death (see Figure 1), and results to reduce tobacco use. in lost productivity and increased healthcare Figure 1. Health consequences of costs.2 smoking and secondhand smoke Tobacco use also contributes to infant mortality Conditions causally linked to smoking and diabetes, two other health issues for which Cancers Chronic diseases Ohio ranks in the bottom quartile of states on the • Trachea, bronchus and • Diabetes Health Value Dashboard.
    [Show full text]
  • Heated Tobacco Products This Episode Is De
    Episode Details: Date of Publication: July 28, 2020 Title: Episode 18: Heated Tobacco Products Description: This episode is designed to answer all your questions about heated tobacco products, or as the industry refers to them, "heat-not-burn" products. This episode covers their design and safety, assesses their marketing and current regulation, examines a bit of the newer research and literature on the products, explains the FDA's 'modified risk' label authorization for the IQOS Heated Tobacco System, and considers policy options moving forward. Transcription: I'm Allie Rothschild and you're listening to the Counter Tobacco Podcast. You may be hearing a lot more this month than usual about heated tobacco products. That's because the Food and Drug Administration just announced a monumental decision on how one of these products, the IQOS heated tobacco system, can be marketed here in the United States. But before we dive deeper into this, I want to start at the beginning and cover some of the basics. What are heated tobacco products? Are they really safer than cigarettes? What’s all this news with the FDA? This episode is designed to answer all your questions on heated tobacco products, or HTPs. We'll look at their design and safety, assess their marketing and current regulation, examine a bit of the newer research and literature on the products, and consider policy options moving forward. So, foremost, what are and are not heated tobacco products? The most basic definition of a heated tobacco product is an electronic device that heats tobacco which produces an aerosol inhaled by the user.
    [Show full text]
  • TEA Party Exposed by ANONYMOUS Political Party
    ANONYMOUS Political Party would like to take the pleasure to introduce The TEA Party /// Tobacco Everywhere Always this DOX will serve as a wake-up call to some people in the Tea Party itself … who will find it a disturbing to know the “grassroots” movement they are so emotionally attached to, is in fact a pawn created by billionaires and large corporations with little interest in fighting for the rights of the common person, but instead using the common person to fight for their own unfettered profits. The “TEA Party” drives a wedge of division in America | It desires patriots, militias, constitutionalists, and so many more groups and individuals to ignite a revolution | to destroy the very fabric of the threads which were designed to kept this republic united | WE, will not tolerate the ideologies of this alleged political party anymore, nor, should any other individual residing in this nation. We will NOT ‘Hail Hydra”! United as One | Divided by Zero ANONYMOUS Political Party | United States of America www.anonymouspoliticalparty.org Study Confirms Tea Party Was Created by Big Tobacco and Billionaires Clearing the PR Pollution That Clouds Climate Science Select Language ▼ FOLLOW US! Mon, 2013-02-11 00:44 BRENDAN DEMELLE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E- Study Confirms Tea Party Was Created by Big NEWSLETTER Get our Top 5 stories in your inbox Tobacco and Billionaires weekly. A new academic study confirms that front 12k groups with longstanding ties to the tobacco industry and the billionaire Koch Like DESMOG TIP JAR brothers planned the formation of the Tea Help us clear the PR pollution that Party movement more than a decade clouds climate science.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tobacco Industry's Successful Efforts to Control Tobacco Policy
    The Tobacco Industry’s Successful Efforts to Control Tobacco Policy Making in Switzerland Chung-Yol Lee, MD MPH Stanton A. Glantz, PhD Division of Adolescent Medicine Department of Pediatrics Institute for Health Policy Studies School of Medicine University of California, San Francisco San Francisco CA 94143 January 2001 The Tobacco Industry’s Successful Efforts to Control Tobacco Policy Making in Switzerland Chung-Yol Lee, MD MPH Stanton A. Glantz, PhD Division of Adolescent Medicine Department of Pediatrics Institute for Health Policy Studies School of Medicine University of California, San Francisco San Francisco CA 94143 January 2001 Supported in part by Swiss National Science Foundation Grant 823B-053423 to the first author and National Cancer Institute Grants CA-61021 and CA-87482, American Cancer Society Grant CCG-294, and a grant from the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund to the second author. This report was prepared in response to a request from the World Health Organization Tobacco Free Initiative. Opinions expressed reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent any sponsoring agency, the WHO, or the Division of Adolescent Medicine or the Institute for Health Policy Studies at the University of California. Copyright 2000 by Chung-Yol Lee and Stanton Glantz. This report is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/swiss. (5/28/01 correction) This report is the latest in a series of reports that analyze tobacco industry campaign contributions, lobbying, and other political activity. The previous reports are: M. Begay and S. Glantz. Political Expenditures by the Tobacco Industry in California State Politics UCSF IHPS Monograph Series, 1991.
    [Show full text]
  • Stanton A. Glantz Papers MSS.97.08
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8wq086t No online items Stanton A. Glantz Papers MSS.97.08 David Krah University of California, San Francisco Archives & Special Collections 530 Parnassus Ave Room 524 San Francisco, CA 94143-0840 415-476-8112 [email protected] URL: http://www.library.ucsf.edu/collections/archives Stanton A. Glantz Papers MSS.97.08 1 MSS.97.08 Language of Material: English Contributing Institution: University of California, San Francisco Archives & Special Collections Title: Stanton A. Glantz Papers creator: Glantz, Stanton A. Identifier/Call Number: MSS.97.08 Physical Description: 12.5 Linear Feet(7 cartons, 12 boxes) Date (inclusive): 1983-2012 Biographical note Stanton Arnold Glantz is a professor in the Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, at the University of California, San Francisco, and a well-known anti-tobacco activist and writer. In 1994, Glantz donated to the UCSF Tobacco Control Archives his research files based on copies of internal tobacco industry documents, which are known as the Brown & Williamson Collection. He co-authored with John Slade, Lisa A. Bero, Peter Hanauer, and Deborah E. Barnes The Cigarette Papers (Berkeley: University of California Press, c1996) and Tobacco War: Inside the California Battles (Berkeley: University of California Press, c.2000) with Edith D. Balbach. Glantz has written numerous articles based on the Brown & Williamson industry documents and co-wrote a series of reports on the tobacco industry and anti-tobacco activities around the country. Glantz received a Ph.D. in Applied Mechanics/Engineering-Economic Systems from Stanford University in 1973 and stayed at Stanford as a Research Fellow in Cardiology.
    [Show full text]
  • 2H2015 Political Donations
    2H2015 Political Donations State First Name/Committee Name Last Name Senate House Other Party Amount AL House Democratic Caucus D $ 1,500 AL Alabama Senate Democratic Caucus D $ 1,500 AL House GOP Caucus R $ 2,500 AL Alabama Senate Republican Conference R $ 2,500 CA Ben Allen X D $ 1,000 CA Pat Bates X R $ 1,000 CA Richard Bloom Assembly D $ 1,000 CA Anthony Cannella Lt. Gov R $ 1,000 CA Ling-Ling Chang Assembly R $ 1,000 CA Ken Cooley Assembly D $ 1,000 CA Jim Cooper Assembly D $ 1,000 CA Tom Daly Assembly D $ 1,000 CA Bill Dodd Assembly D $ 1,000 CA Jean Fuller X R $ 1,000 CA Mike Gipson Assembly D $ 1,000 CA Bob Hertzberg X D $ 1,000 CA Chris Holden Assembly D $ 1,000 CA Bob Huff Assembly R $ 1,000 CA Jacqui Irwin Assembly D $ 1,000 CA Marc Levine Assembly D $ 1,000 CA Eric Linder Assembly D $ 1,000 CA Mike McGuire X D $ 1,000 CA Melissa Melendez Assembly R $ 1,000 CA Bill Monning X D $ 1,000 CA Mike Morrell X D $ 1,000 CA Andy Vidak X R $ 1,000 CA Don Wagner X R $ 1,000 CA Scott Wilk Assembly D $ 1,000 CA Luis Alejo Assembly D $ 1,500 CA Joel Anderson Assembly R $ 1,500 CA Susan Bonilla X D $ 1,500 CA Autumn Burke Assembly D $ 1,500 CA Susan Eggman Assembly D $ 1,500 CA Cathleen Galgiani X D $ 1,500 CA Steve Glazer X D $ 1,500 CA Todd Gloria Assembly Assembly D $ 1,500 CA Lorena Gonzalez Assembly D $ 1,500 CA Rich Gordon Assembly D $ 1,500 CA Roger Hernandez X D $ 1,500 CA Ben Hueso X D $ 1,500 CA Brian Jones Assembly R $ 1,500 CA Reginald Jones-Sawyer Assembly D $ 1,500 CA Tom Lackey Assembly R $ 1,500 CA Brian Maienschein Assembly
    [Show full text]