马萨诸塞州提高烟草税的运动。
The campaign to raise the tobacco tax in Massachusetts.
作者信息
Heiser P F, Begay M E
机构信息
Department of Community Health Studies, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst 01003-0430, USA.
出版信息
Am J Public Health. 1997 Jun;87(6):968-73. doi: 10.2105/ajph.87.6.968.
OBJECTIVES
Question 1 raised the Massachusetts state tobacco tax to fund tobacco education programs. This paper examines the process of qualifying and passing Question 1.
METHODS
Information was gathered from internal memoranda, meeting minutes, newspaper articles, internal documents, letters, newsletters, news and press releases, and personal interviews. Data about campaign contributions were obtained from the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance.
RESULTS
Three factors help explain why Question 1 passed: (1) the policy environment was favorable because of the social unacceptability of smoking; (2) the activists assembled a large coalition of supporters; and (3) the activists countered industry claims that the new tax would hurt small business and lower-income smokers and would be wasted by the legislature. The ballot initiative passed despite the industry's $7 million campaign to defeat it.
CONCLUSIONS
The apparent influence of the tobacco industry on the legislature was the driving force behind the decision of public health activists to qualify Question 1. Moving policy-making out of the legislature into the public arena widened the scope of conflict and enabled public health activists to win.
目标
问题1提高了马萨诸塞州的烟草税，以资助烟草教育项目。本文考察了问题1获得资格并得以通过的过程。
方法
信息收集自内部备忘录、会议记录、报纸文章、内部文件、信件、时事通讯、新闻及新闻稿，以及个人访谈。关于竞选捐款的数据来自马萨诸塞州竞选与政治财政办公室。
结果
有三个因素有助于解释问题1为何得以通过：（1）由于吸烟在社会上不被接受，政策环境有利；（2）活动人士组建了一个庞大的支持者联盟；（3）活动人士反驳了行业声称新税会损害小企业和低收入吸烟者利益且会被立法机构浪费的说法。尽管烟草行业投入700万美元进行反对该提案的活动，该投票倡议仍获得通过。
结论
烟草行业对立法机构的明显影响是公共卫生活动人士决定让问题1获得资格的背后驱动力。将决策从立法机构转移到公共领域扩大了冲突范围，并使公共卫生活动人士得以获胜。
Zotero 插件