1993
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.pu.14.050193.003101
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

California's Proposition 99 on Tobacco, and its Impact

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

1995
1995
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Proposition 99 raised the state tax on each pack of cigarettes by 25 cents, and imposed corresponding increases on the tax on other tobacco products. Twenty percent of the revenues from the tax increase was earmarked to support tobacco prevention and cessation efforts in schools and communities throughout the state (12,60).…”
Section: National Effortsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Proposition 99 raised the state tax on each pack of cigarettes by 25 cents, and imposed corresponding increases on the tax on other tobacco products. Twenty percent of the revenues from the tax increase was earmarked to support tobacco prevention and cessation efforts in schools and communities throughout the state (12,60).…”
Section: National Effortsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Along these lines, McKinlay (1975) observed that ''one stroke of effective health legislation is equal to many separate health intervention endeavors and the cumulative efforts of innumerable health workers over long periods of time.'' Indeed, several legislative programs to promote public health, such as California's tobacco tax (Proposition 99) to reduce smoking and laws mandating the use of vehicular child safety seats, raising the legal age for alcohol purchase and drivers' licensure, and lowering vehicle speed limits, have been empirically evaluated and shown to be effective in achieving specified health promotion objectives (e.g., the reduction of smoking prevalence and traffic-related fatalities; Breslow & Johnson, 1993;Fawcett, Seekins, & Jason, 1987;National Safety Council, 1987;Williams, Karpf, & Zador, 1983).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One possible explanation for the different rates of decrease in recent smoking prevalence for California and the remainder of the nation is the continued presence of California's tobacco control program (Proposition 99). Proposition 99 was associated with an acceleration in the rate of decline of per capita cigarette consumption in California 7,29,[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] and produced a 10% to 13% longterm reduction in cigarette consumption. 44 Both short-term effects of the cigarette tax increase and long-term effects due to the tax increase or other programs funded by Proposition 99 have been demonstrated, 38,42 and evidence exists that the antismoking media campaign specifically resulted in reduced cigarette consumption.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%