This study explored the factors associated with state-level allocations to tobacco-control programs. The primary research question was whether public sentiment regarding tobacco control was a significant factor in the states’ 2001 budget decisions. In addition to public opinion, several additional political and economic measures were considered. Significant associations were found between our outcome, state-level tobaccocontrol funding per capita, and key variables of interest including public opinion, amount of tobacco settlement received, the party affiliation of the governor, the state’s smoking rate, excise tax revenue received, and whether the state was a major producer of tobacco. The findings from this study supported our hypothesis that states with citizens who favor more restrictive indoor air policies allocate more to tobacco control. Effective public education to change public opinion and the cultural norms surrounding smoking may affect political decisions and, in turn, increase funding for crucial public health programs.
Batra, V., Patkar, A., Weibel, S., Pincock, G., & Leone, F. (2002). Public health implications of voters’ attitudes regarding statewide tobacco policy. Chest, 122, 295-298.
2.
Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2002). Regional accounts data: Annual state personal income: Summary tables 1929-2001. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce. Retrieved June 9, 2003, from www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/spi
3.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999). Best practices for comprehensive tobacco control programs—August 1999. Retrieved June 9, 2003, from www.cdc.gov/tobacco/bestprac.htm
4.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2001a). Investment in tobacco control: State highlights 2001. Retrieved June 9, 2003, from www.cdc.gov/tobacco/statehi/statehi_2001.htm
5.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2001b). State-specific prevalence of current cigarette smoking among adults, and policies and attitudes about secondhand smoke—United States, 2000. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 50(49), 1101-1106.
6.
Dawson, R. E., & Robinson, J. A. (1963). Inter-party competition, economic variables, and welfare policies in the American states. Journal of Politics, 25(2), 265-289.
7.
Givel, M. S., & Glantz, S. A. (2000). Failure to defend a successful state tobacco control program: Policy lessons from Florida. American Journal of Public Health, 90(5), 762-767.
8.
Gross, C. P., Soffer, B., Bach, P. B., Rajkumar, R., & Forman, H. P. (2002). State expenditures for tobacco-control programs and the tobacco settlement. New England Journal of Medicine, 347, 1080-1086.
9.
Hansen, R. H. (1985). The Current Population Survey: Design and Methodology (Technical Paper No. 40). Washington, DC: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
10.
Hofferbert, R. I. (1966). The relation between public policy and some structural and environmental variables in the American states. American Political Science Review, 60(1), 73-82.
11.
Hurley, P. A., & Hill, K. Q. (2003). Beyond the demand-input model: A theory of representational linkages. Journal of Politics, 65(2), 304-326.
12.
Jacobson, P. D., & Wasserman, J. (1999). The implementation and enforcement of tobacco control laws: Policy implications for activists and the industry. Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law, 24(3), 567-598.
13.
Jacobson, P. D., Wasserman, J., & Raube, K. (1993). The politics of antismoking legislation. Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law, 18(4), 787-819.
14.
Luke, D. A., Stamatakis, K. A., & Brownson, R. C. (2000). State youth-access tobacco control policies and youth smoking behavior in the United States. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19(3), 180-187.
15.
Master Settlement Agreement. (1998). Retrieved June 9, 2003, from www.naag.org/issues/tobacco/index.php?sdpid=919
16.
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(1), S102-S109.
17.
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2002). State management and allocation of tobacco settlement revenue, 2002. Washington, DC: Health Policy Tracking Service.
18.
Orzechowski, W., & Walker, R. C. (2001). The tax burden on tobacco: Historical compilation 2000. Arlington, VA: Authors.
19.
Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1983). Effects of public opinion on policy. American Political Science Review, 77, 175-190.
20.
Pierce-Lavin, C., & Geller, A. (1998). Creating statewide tobacco control programs after passage of a tobacco tax. Cancer, 83, 2659-2665.
21.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). Statistical abstract of the United States: 2001. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved June 9, 2003, from www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/01statab/stat-ab01.html
22.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2002). United States and state farm income data. Retrieved June 9, 2003, from www.ers.usde.gov/data/farmincome/firkdmu.htm
23.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. (1999). National Cancer Institute sponsored tobacco use supplement to the current population survey. Washington, DC: Author.
24.
Wright, G. C., Erikson, R. S., & McIver, J. P. (1985). Measuring state partisanship and ideology with survey data. Journal of Politics, 47(2), 469-489.
25.
Wright, G. C., Erikson, R. S., & McIver, J. P. (1987). Public opinion and policy liberalism in the American states. American Journal of Political Science, 31(4), 980-1001.
