Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDiFranza, Joseph R.
dc.date2022-08-11T08:09:42.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T16:40:33Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T16:40:33Z
dc.date.issued2000-09-12
dc.date.submitted2008-03-26
dc.identifier.citation<p>Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000 Sep;154(9):936-42.</p>
dc.identifier.issn1072-4710 (Print)
dc.identifier.doi10.1001/archpedi.154.9.936
dc.identifier.pmid10980799
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/39705
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: The Synar Amendment requires states and territories to enact a law prohibiting the sale of tobacco to minors and to enforce that law in a manner that could reasonably be expected to decrease the availability of tobacco to minors. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and applicant states and territories are complying with the Synar Amendment. DATA SOURCES: Block grant applications from 59 states and territories describing activities during federal fiscal year 1997. MEASURES: Whether applicants had enacted a tobacco sales law without loopholes, conducted enforcement inspections, penalized violators, and conducted a valid statewide survey with violation rates below the permissible threshold, and whether DHHS actions were consistent with the statutory requirements of the Synar Amendment. RESULTS: Three applicants had laws containing loopholes, 8 failed to conduct enforcement inspections, 8 failed to prosecute violators, 6 failed to conduct a valid survey, and 8 failed to demonstrate compliance with violation rate targets. Fifteen applicants failed 1 or more criteria, but none was ultimately penalized by DHHS. Fourteen sources of bias were identified in state survey protocols that could substantially lower reported violation rates. CONCLUSIONS: A few states did a remarkable job with enforcement, while many others made little effort. Because the DHHS regulations are so weak and DHHS is willing to accept biased surveys, states can be in full compliance with the regulations without ever enforcing their laws or having any impact on the availability of tobacco to minors.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<p><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10980799&dopt=Abstract ">Link to article in PubMed</a></p>
dc.relation.urlhttps://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.154.9.936
dc.subjectAdolescent
dc.subjectBias (Epidemiology)
dc.subjectChild
dc.subjectChild Welfare
dc.subjectCrime
dc.subjectFacility Regulation and Control
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectManagement Audit
dc.subjectMarketing of Health Services
dc.subjectSmoking
dc.subject*State Government
dc.subjectTobacco Industry
dc.subjectUnited States
dc.subjectUnited States Dept. of Health and Human Services
dc.subjectjurisprudence
dc.subjectLife Sciences
dc.subjectMedicine and Health Sciences
dc.titleState and federal compliance with the Synar amendment: federal fiscal year 1997
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleArchives of pediatrics and adolescent medicine
dc.source.volume154
dc.source.issue9
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/oapubs/250
dc.identifier.contextkey472824
html.description.abstract<p>BACKGROUND: The Synar Amendment requires states and territories to enact a law prohibiting the sale of tobacco to minors and to enforce that law in a manner that could reasonably be expected to decrease the availability of tobacco to minors. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and applicant states and territories are complying with the Synar Amendment. DATA SOURCES: Block grant applications from 59 states and territories describing activities during federal fiscal year 1997. MEASURES: Whether applicants had enacted a tobacco sales law without loopholes, conducted enforcement inspections, penalized violators, and conducted a valid statewide survey with violation rates below the permissible threshold, and whether DHHS actions were consistent with the statutory requirements of the Synar Amendment. RESULTS: Three applicants had laws containing loopholes, 8 failed to conduct enforcement inspections, 8 failed to prosecute violators, 6 failed to conduct a valid survey, and 8 failed to demonstrate compliance with violation rate targets. Fifteen applicants failed 1 or more criteria, but none was ultimately penalized by DHHS. Fourteen sources of bias were identified in state survey protocols that could substantially lower reported violation rates. CONCLUSIONS: A few states did a remarkable job with enforcement, while many others made little effort. Because the DHHS regulations are so weak and DHHS is willing to accept biased surveys, states can be in full compliance with the regulations without ever enforcing their laws or having any impact on the availability of tobacco to minors.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathoapubs/250
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health
dc.source.pages936-42


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record