You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 154 No. 9, September 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Article
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (5)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Medical Practice
 •Law and Medicine
 •Tobacco
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

State and Federal Compliance With the Synar Amendment

Federal Fiscal Year 1997

Joseph R. DiFranza, MD

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000;154:936-942.

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.


From the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The federal initiative to halt the sale of tobacco to children--the Synar Amendment, 1992-2000: lessons learned
DiFranza and Dussault
Tobacco Control 2005;14:93-98.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Is the standard compliance check protocol a valid measure of the accessibility of tobacco to underage smokers?
DiFranza et al.
Tobacco Control 2001;10:227-232.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Curtailing Youth Smoking
Bergman
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2001;155:546-547.
FULL TEXT  

State and Federal Compliance With the Synar Amendment: Federal Fiscal Year 1998
DiFranza
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2001;155:572-578.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2000 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.