H.Con.Res. 184 [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:h.con.res.00184:], a resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that motion pictures should discourage youth smoking, introduced by Rep. Luther.
The board thanks staff of the American Cancer Society and Senate Labor Committee for help preparing this list of pending legislation.
10. Warner, K. University of Michigan. Effects of Price on Consumption of Tobacco Products. Presentation at the National Cancer Policy Board Tobacco Control Workshop, July 15, 1997, Washington, D.C.
11. Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom would all have higher prices even with a $2 increase in the United States. A $2 excise tax increment would produce prices comparable to those in Australia, Hong Kong, and Singapore.
12. Novotny, T.E., and M.B. Siegel. California's Tobacco Control Saga. Health Affairs 15 (Spring):58-72 1996; Barinaga, M. UC Objects to Research Restrictions. Science 273:178, 1996.
13. Lynch and Bonnie, op cit. For more recent figures, see the University of California's Tobacco-Related Diseases Research Program at http://www.ucop.edu/srphome/trdrp/homeback.html.
14. U.S. Public Health Service, Healthy People 2000. National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Pub. No. [PHS] 91-50212), 1990.
15. National Cancer Institute Expert Panel. The Impact of Cigarette Excise Taxes on Smoking Among Children and Adults, Summary Report of a National Cancer Institute Expert Panel, Cancer Control Science Program, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Bethesda, Md., 1993.
16. Warner, K., op cit.; also Meier, K.J., and M. J. Licari. The Effect of Cigarette Taxes on Cigarette Consumption, 1955 through 1994. American Journal of Public Health 87:1126-1130, 1997; F.J. Chaloupka. The Effects of Prices and Tobacco Control Policies on the Demand for Tobacco Products. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Conference, New Partnerships and Paradigms for Tobacco Prevention Research, Sundance, Utah, May 1997, pp. 213-228; Grossman, M., and F. J. Chaloupka. Cigarette Taxes: The Straw to Break the Camel's Back? Public Health Reports 112:290-297, 1997; and Chaloupka, F.J. Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition, U.S. Senate, October 29, 1997.
17. Harris, J.E. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Tobacco Settlement. Tab 16 in An Analysis and Review of the Proposed Tobacco Settlement. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, 1997.
18. Impact of the Proposed Resolution on the U.S. Cigarette Industry. A report prepared for the Conrad Senatorial Task Force, October 8, 1997.
19. Federal Trade Commission. Evaluation of the Tobacco Industry Analysis Submitted to Congress on October 8, 1997. Washington, D.C.: Federal Trade Commission, November 10, 1997.
20. American Medical Association. Analysis, Report, and Recommendations of the American Medical Association Task Force on the Proposed Tobacco Settlement. Chicago: American Medical Association, 1997.
21. The goal would be payments sufficient to make the brands most attractive to youths less profitable than others. This could be achieved by payments based on youth consumption of specific brands—for example a total penalty estimated to reduce youth consumption to target levels, with payments apportioned among manufacturers according to market share of underage users. The assessments would have to be revised periodically to adjust for brand shifting. A similar effect could be achieved via a tax, although unusual in having manufacturer-specific tax rates. Reassessments could be continued until the goals for reduced youth consumption were achieved.
22. Data were presented by Dileep Bal (California data) and Carolyn Celebucki (Massachusetts data) the National Cancer Policy Board Tobacco Control Workshop, July 15, 1997, Washington, D.C. [see http://www2.nas.edu/cancerbd/218a.html].
23. Lynch and Bonnie, op. cit.
24. U.S. Public Health Service, Healthy People 2000, op cit.