This case study examines a nonlegislative task force as it struggled to reach internal consensus despite external-political constraints. The study highlights the convergence of politics and science, revealing complex issues likely to be confronted by advocates and public health officials. Three themes capture participants’experiences: context, sizing up the opportunities and constraints; task force process, tacit strategy to operate outside the political context and play the science card; and aftermath, a glass half full. The task force took advantage of ambiguous parameters, crafting a comprehensive statewide plan to reduce tobacco use and breaking out of the common public health paradigm of allowing budget considerations to drive program design. These internal victories could not sustain a policy success in the legislature. However, the group’s product sets science-based standards for future program development, and the task force’s process provides valuable insights into other states developing tobacco prevention and control policies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Office of the Attorney General: Show us the money: An update on the states’ allocation of the tobacco settlement dollars, in Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/settlements. Accessed October 27, 2002.
18. Burris S: The invisibility of public health: Population-level measures in a politics of market individualism. Am J Public Health87: 1607-1610, 1997.
19.
19. Jacobson PD, Wasserman J, Raube K: The politics of antismoking legislation. J Health Polit Policy Law18: 787-819, 1993.
20.
20. Givel MS, Glantz SA: Failure to defend a successful state tobacco control program: Policy lessons from Florida. Am J Public Health90: 762-767, 2000.
21.
21. Glantz SA, Balbach ED: Tobacco War: Inside the California Battles. Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press, 2000.
22.
22. Gibson B: An introduction to the controversy over tobacco. J Social Issues53: 3-11, 1997.
23.
23. Cummings KM, Hyland A: How low should you go?. Am J Prev Med21: 329-331, 2001.
24.
24. Benowitz NL: Compensatory smoking of low-yield cigarettes, in National Cancer InstituteMonograph 13, Smoking and Tobacco Control. Bethesda, MD, Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, 2001, pp. 39-52.
25.
25. Burns DM, Benowitz NL: Public health implications of changes in cigarette design and marketing, in National Cancer Institute Monograph 13, Smoking and Tobacco Control. Bethesda, MD, Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, 2001, pp. 1-12.
26.
26. Kozlowski LT, O’Connor RJ, Sweeney CT: Cigarette design, in National Cancer Institute Monograph 13, Smoking and Tobacco Control. Bethesda, MD, Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, 2001, pp. 13-38.
27.
27. Ong EK, Glantz SA: Constructing “sound science” and “good epidemiology”: Tobacco, lawyers, and public relations firms. Am J Public Health91: 1749-1757, 2001.
28.
28. Fox DM: The professions of public health. Am J Public Health91: 1362-1365, 2001.
29.
29. Givel MS, Glantz SA: Tobacco lobby political influence on US state legislatures in the 1990s. Tob Control10: 124-134, 2001.
30.
30. Buying influence, selling death: How big tobacco’s campaign contributions harm public health, in Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids. http://tobaccofreekids.org/reports/influence. (accessed November 13, 2001)
31.
31. Nixon, ML, Glantz SA: Tobacco Industry Political Activity and Tobacco Control Policy Making in Texas: 1980-2002. San Francisco, Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, 2002.
32.
32. Humphrey HH III: Let’s take the time to get it right. Public Health Rep112: 378-385, 1997.
33.
33. LaFrance AB: Tobacco litigation: Smoke, mirrors and public policy. Am J Law Med26: 187-203, 2000.
34.
34. Fintor L: Critics feel states may misspend their tobacco windfall. J Natl Cancer Inst91: 1356-1358, 1999.
35.
35. Beahrs JO: Ritual deception: A window to the hidden determinants of human politics. Politics Life Sci15: 3-12, 1996.
36.
36. Braden BR, Cowan CA, Lazenby HC, Martin AB, McDonnell PA, Sensenig AL, Stiller JM, Whittle LS, Donham CS, Long AM, Stewart MW: National health expenditures, 1997. Health Care Financ Rev20: 83-126, 1998.
37.
37. Cowan CA, Lazenby HC, Martin AB, McDonnell PA, Sensenig AL, Stiller JM, Whittle LS, Kotova KA, Zezza MA, Donham CS, Long AM, Stewart MW: National health expenditures, 1998. Health Care Financ Rev21: 165-196, 1999.
38.
38. Lee P, Paxman D: Reinventing public health. Annu Rev Public Health18: 1-35, 1997.
39.
39. Texas Department of Health Strategic Plan, FY 2001-2005. Austin, Texas Department of Health. http://www.tdh.state.tx.us. (accessed November 13, 2001)
40.
40. McGinnis JM: Does proof matter? Why strong evidence sometimes yields weak action. Am J Health Promotion15: 392-396, 2001.
41.
41. Hensley S: The price of technology. Modern Healthcare28: 41-41, 1998.
42.
42. Denzin N, Lincoln Y: Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, 1994.
43.
43. Patton MQ: Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods(2nd ed.). Newbury Park, Sage, 1990.
44.
44. Moris J: Designing Funded Qualitative Research, in Denzin N, Lincoln Y (eds.): Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA:, Sage, 1994, pp. 56-85.
45.
45. Lincoln Y, Guba E: Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA, Sage, 1985.
46.
46. Shillis JA, Hall BA, Sneden GG, Gottlieb NH: Keeping the Focus on Public Health: The Political Struggles of a Tobacco Task Force. Poster presentation, 16th National Conference on Chronic Disease Prevention and Control, Atlanta, GA, February 27-March 1, 2002.
47.
47. CDC Best Practices: Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs. Atlanta, GA, Centers for Disease Control, 1999. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/bestprac.htm.
48.
48. Gross CP, Soffer B, Bach PB, Rajkumar R, Forman HP: State expenditures for tobacco-control programs and the tobacco settlement. New Engl J Med347: 1080-1086, 2002.
