Tobacco Control in Maine, 1979-2009: the Power of Strategic Collaboration
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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 ……………………………….… 66 Proposition One ……………………………….…………………………... 69 The Statewide Smoke-free Law ……………………………….…………………. 70 LD 1349 is Heard ……………………………….…………………………. 72 The Smoke-free Restaurant Law Goes into Effect ……………………………. 74 The Keys to Success ……………………………….…………………………….. 74 The Smoke-free Workplace Law is Strengthened ……………………………….……. 76 Enforcement & Compliance