Stanton Glantz, PhD's blog

$2/pack increase in CA tobacco excise tax will reduce smoking, save billions in healthcare costs, and create jobs

My colleagues at UCSF recently released two research studies on the effects of the proposed tobacco tax increase in California at Proposition 56.  Links to the full reports are at the end of this fact sheet (which, itself, is available at  Another summary of this work, as well as related work done at UCSD, is available at is
  Read more »

New ad completes three ad series that sums up Smoke Free Movies campaign

An ad summing up the five Smoke Free Movies policy goals – (1) R rating films with smoking (with two limited exceptions), (2) Certification of no payoffs for smoking, (3) Require anti-smoking ads, (4) Stop identifying brands, and (5) End subsidies for movies with smoking – is running in Variety and Hollywood Reporter tomorrow, October 11, 2016.
  Read more »

Court opens door to FDA authorizing “Teddy Bear” cigarettes

A federal court’s August 2016 ruling opened the door to FDA approving Teddy Bear cigarettes.  Here’s some background to explain why: The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act requires tobacco companies to obtain FDA approval before marketing new tobacco products.  This can be obtained by submitting a comprehensive new tobacco product premarket application, or by convincing the FDA that the new product is “substantially equivalent” to one already on the market. Read more »

WHO spotlights films as “cross-border tobacco promotion”

Every two years, 180 nations meet for the Conference of the Parties (COP) to review progress and problems in implementing the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) and develop new guidelines and protocols.
  Read more »

Campaign for California Tobacco Tax (Prop 56) hits the right tone in its media campaign

It has been no secret that I have been critical of the campaign to pass Proposition 56, the $2 tobacco tax that would reinvigorate the California Tobacco Control Program and fund expansion of medical care for poor people.  In particular, the campaign didn’t seem to have learned from defeats of past tobacco tax initiatives in California (Propositions 29 and 86 in 2012 and 2006), which also failed to engage the tobacco companies’ misrepresentations of what the tax actually did.&n Read more »

Why the data in latest study on smoke free laws and heart attacks supports an effect

Vivian Ho and colleagues recently published “A Nationwide Assessment of the Association of Smoking Bans and Cigarette Taxes With Hospitalizations for Acute Myocardial Infarction, Heart Failure, and Pneumonia” that concluded that “Smoking bans were not associated with acute myocardial infarction or heart failure hospitalizations, but lowered pneumonia hospitalization rates for persons ages 60 to 74 years. Read more »

If Legalizing Pot, Consider Health, Not Profits: New UCSF Analysis Looks at History to Help Guide Future Marijuana Laws

A new analysis of marijuana legislation offers a framework for states that are considering legalizing the drug and want to protect public health, rather than corporate profits.
The policy analysis by researchers at UC San Francisco is intended as a roadmap to help prevent a legalized marijuana industry from becoming a new version of the tobacco or alcohol industries, replete with aggressive marketing and political strategies to protect their economic interests.
  Read more »

SAVE THE DATE: UCSF “It’s About a Billion Lives” annual public symposium will be Friday, February 24, 2017

Children and Tobacco 2017: Who’s Winning‎?
Jonathan Klein, MD, MPH, FAAP
Associate Executive Director, American Academy of Pediatrics
“Rather wreck my gums than my lungs:" Smokeless tobacco and California rural adolescent males
Benjamin Chaffee, DDS, MPH, PhD
Assistant Professor, Preventive and Restorative Dentistry Sciences
Booze, Butts or Both? Combating young adult tobacco use in bars. Read more »

First-ever R-rating for smoking goes to the wrong film?

All These Sleepless Nights — Rated R for language and smoking throughout, drug use and some sexuality/graphic nudity. Rating certificate #50675. Source: MPAA Rating Bulletin #2442 (14 September 2016)
What we know about this film
  Read more »

Syndicate content