From 1998 to 2001, the American Council on Science & Health, New York (the council), conducted a study of the perspectives on tobacco policy of a wide range of U.S. liberal and conservative leaders (which in council terms are those representing the political "left" and the political "right").
For the project, the council (a consortium of more than 350 scientists and physicians dedicated to consumer education on public health issues):
- Reviewed the literature on tobacco policy of opinion leaders, columnists, publications, and organizations.
- Analyzed the public statements of liberals and conservatives to identify salient themes and assumptions in order to assess the extent to which political ideology defines the debate about tobacco policy.
- Prepared a white paper, entitled Bridging the Ideological Divide: An Analysis of Views on Tobacco Policy Across the Political Spectrum.
- The left and the right disagree on scientific findings about the health effects of smoking, including the number of smoking-related deaths and the effects of environmental tobacco smoke.
- Both sides generally agree that stronger efforts are needed to prevent children from smoking; they disagree, however, as to the severity of the problem of youth smoking, as well as the nature of the efforts that should be made to restrict industry's attempt to appeal to children.
- The left places the blame and the responsibility of the consequences of smoking on the tobacco industry; the right points the finger at individual smokers, asserting that smokers know the risks and still choose to smoke.
- The left argues that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should regulate tobacco products for health and safety; the right tends to oppose such governmental regulation, based on the concern that it will lead to further unnecessary and restrictive regulation of consumer goods.
The report concludes that policymakers across the political spectrum need better education about the health consequences of cigarette smoking, and that such knowledge might help bridge the gap between the two sides and help lay the foundation for a dialogue that is grounded in fact rather than ideology.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) supported the project with a grant of $204,465 between June 1998 and May 2000.
Executive Nurse Fellow Jerry Mansfield explains why the University Hospital and the Richard M. Ross Heart Hospital do not have a BSN-only hi...
The What's Next Health series features leading thinkers and visionaries. Stanford social scientist & innovator BJ Fogg discusses his model f...
We create new opportunities for better health by investing in health where it starts—in our homes, schools, and jobs.
NewPublicHealth spoke with John Auerbach, professor at Northeastern University and the primary author of a report on the Trust, and Cheryl B...
Patrick M. Krueger recently co-authored a study that examines the characteristics and mortality risks of nondrinker subgroups to explain why...
Imagine a shared national culture of health in which being healthy and staying healthy are esteemed social values.
Developing small community homes as alternatives to nursing homes, this radical, new national model for skilled nursing care returns control...
RWJF Nurse Faculty Scholar Jennifer Bellot writes about losing her grandmother to complications from a medical error.
When companies invest in employee wellness, it’s good for health, productivity ... and the bottom line.
Team members, grantees, and guests discuss breakthrough ideas that will allow us to move toward solving challenges in health care.
Enabling patients to see their doctors' visit notes is a simple idea that can transform the way patients engage with their health.
America is not getting good value for its health care dollar. These resources explore issues of cost and value of health care.