In 2007, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) claimed that “Research shows that the more states spend on comprehensive tobacco control programs, the greater the reductions in smoking—and the longer states invest in such programs, the greater and faster the impact.”
Despite such claims, new economic research indicates that increased funding for state tobacco control programs does not significantly reduce tobacco consumption, and calls into question the methodology of the research the CDC relies on to support their assertion. Michael L. Marlow, professor of economics at California Polytechnic State University, summarized a number of the flaws in the CDC’s research in the latest issue of the Cato Institute’s Regulation Magazine.
According to Marlow:
The CDC recommendations draw heavily on research from just two states: California and Massachusetts. Those two states are considered models of effective programs, in part, because they have the longest funding histories. Even if highly effective, their success may not be easily exported to other states.
The CDC ignores studies that show little to no impact from tobacco control programs.”
There is evidence, again ignored by the CDC, that little to no connection exists between state
spending on tobacco control and the degree to which residents smoke.The CDC offers no empirical verification that implementing recommended spending targets causes significant reductions in tobacco use.
While some research does support the CDC policy recommendations, these studies typically ignore other factors that may influence tobacco consumption. A 2003 Journal of Health Economics paper by Matthew Farrelly et al., for example, explained “that most studies simply perform trend analysis on the introduction of new tobacco control programs,” according to Marlow. They don’t actually establish a causal relationship between tobacco control efforts and a reduction in smoking.
Several studies published as late as 2005, however, did control for other factors that influence tobacco consumption and still found that government programs can reduce smoking. Unfortunately, the value of the data these studies analyzed was severely limited. Most states didn’t begin funding their tobacco control programs until the Master Settlement Agreement was reached in 1998, and, as a result, the CDC only started releasing funding data in 2000. Therefore, the studied data only reflects the results in a handful of states that were funding their programs before 1998. It’s questionable whether such results can be counted as evidence that all states’ tobacco control efforts are successful.
Parenthetically, well-funded tobacco control programs may inversely urge teenagers and young adults to take up smoking as a form of rebellion. The reason being that, pushing a particular behavior beyond the bounds of social acceptability with foolish laws and poorly-produced media campaigns often results in more of that supposedly illicit behavior.
If given a hearing this evidence could seriously inconvenience the tobacco nannies and complicate their unrelenting attacks on personal freedom.
We can only hope.
Comments
The FDA's motto should be: The road to hell is paved withgood intentions. Or better yet, the FDA is just full of sh!t.
I found out that the FDA wants to regulate out of existence the electronic "smokeless cigarette" that delivers a nicotine vapor to the user without the harmful chemicals in real cigarettes. For chain smokers, the device seriously helps those who want to cut back or even quit tobacco altogether do so, and for casual smokers it allows the same benefits as well.
With the new tobacco legislation that was pushed through congress, I have a hard time seeing the e-cigarette sell without a lengthy political battle. Better get my hands on one before it's too late!
Anti-Drug campaigns and anti-obesity campaigns (and pretty much every other anti-anything campaign) is haunted by a nagging problem that won't go away.
They don't work. They never have, and by all appearances, they never will. The studies are unanimous on this. Even on the "radically successful" campaigns in the headlines, if you go to the data, it shows statistically insignificant changes in the campaign's targets (Ie: people lie to get funding, what a revealation). However, many times, there is a rebellion against the campaign (one school study found that drug use increased after the campaign). Why are we wasting our time?
What about abstinence-only?
Thank you Sir, for daring to print your great article.
It was never really about health was it? Too many lies have been told, too much scare-mongering has been allowed to "try" and "denornmalize" the people.
Millions if not billions of "tobacco money, Master settlement" has been squandered by anti fanatical bigots, yet still they scream for more.
I agree with you about the funding, which if it continues will always produce the "right results" for puritans and prohibitionists.
Sorry forgot to add how I found your article -
Also a great write-up from Mr.Grainger.
freedom2choose.info/news_viewer.php?id=1046
Very few programs that are sponsored by local, state or Federally funded prgrams work. I know because I did them. From California to Massachusetts and Oregon to Florida. They were then and still are the biggest scam and hoax forced on this country. From 1990 to present it was all about money and none of it for Public Health. The Health Departments and Offices of Education did what they were told, and it was about money and grants. 80% of the employees of local and state agencies will tell you that, but no one ever asks including the media. The media, the health departmenst and lead agencies who are suppose to help the population don't know what they are doing for the most part. Some people do, but they are the miniority. This country has gone to hell in a hand basket and I'm afraid it is not now or can ever be fised. David G.
This not-so-young adult cut down to about 2-5 cigarettes a day on his own initiative. Then they started this grotesque little crusade against smokers and now I've doubled my intake just because I hate the intolerant mentality of these people.
Smoking is UP in Ireland, Scotland, Canada and Italy--all smoking-ban coutries. One of the oldest stories in our culture is that of the "forbidden fruit". Too bad our so-called leaders never learn from it.
Marlow works for an institute that recieves funding from RJReynolds and Altria (the parent company for Philip Morris)
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!