Yet Rhian Evans Allvin,consultant to the Proposition 203 campaign stated in a 2006 interview, “To be totally honest with you, there was not a conversation about backfill.”Proposition 203 would gain millions of dollars previous designated for TEPP. First Things First passed November 7, 2006, with 53.2% of the vote. This low victory margin was surprising to tobacco control advocates and the Proposition 203 campaign alike, given previous polling in late September showed Proposition 203 at 62% support.The fate of Proposition 203 was placed in doubt when the language regarding the denomination of the tax was misprinted on the voting ballots. While the actual initiative language was not in error , the ballot information for Proposition 203 issued by the Secretary of State erroneously stated: “A ‘yes’ vote shall have the effect of establishing an early childhood development health care board and fund, increasing the state tax on cigarettes …” This error was discovered during “early voting” in which Arizonans are permitted and encouraged to go into county courthouses and vote in the month before the actual election. Voters noticed that the ballot said “.80 cents” instead of “80 cents” or “$.80″ as was originally submitted to the Secretary of State. While voters actually vote on the full ballot language of the ballot proposals rather than the summaries printed on voting materials, the mistype drew untoward media attention. Because of this flaw, first reported by Arizona Republic columnist E.J. Montini on October 25, several editorials in the media called for invalidation of the ballot measure. Proposition 203 campaign chair Nadine Basha rebutted this opinion with a Letter to the Editor entitled “Don’t let dot deplete Prop. 203.”This turn of events forced the First Things First campaign to talk about the 80 cent tobacco tax as their funding source to save their proposition. Yet, when confronted with a potential court challenge and losing at the ballot box versus airing the specifics of the additional 80 cent tax per package of cigarettes, the First Things First campaign defended the typo by discussing the particulars of their funding scheme. However,commercial grow tables because the Proposition 203 campaign remained adamant in its belief that it was the actual language of the initiative that mattered and not what was printed on the voter’s ballot, they managed to stave off what could have avalanched into strong public opposition.
While the newspapers were against dismissing the added decimal point on the voting ballot as inconsequential, few members of the public or government saw this typo as a serious issue. Following this problem, Philip Morris did not spend any additional money challenging Proposition 203, instead investing in lawyers to investigate how they could use this Secretary of State’s error to undermine the campaign and disqualify Proposition 203. John Rivers remarked after the media drew its attention to the erroneous decimal point, “Phillip Morris is now sitting back and saying, ‘let’s save our money for a court challenge here, let’s not spend it on this campaign.’”Despite this misadventure, Proposition 203 passed with 53.2% of the vote and Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard issued a formal legal opinion on December 1, 2006, ruling that the tax was valid. Neither Philip Morris nor RJ Reynolds challenged in court the enactment of Proposition 203 or the legality of the vote.After Goddard issued his opinion, RJ Reynolds began “scouting around for attorneys to challenge the state’s new 80-cent tobacco tax,” though they did not end up filing a lawsuit.The Arizona Revenue Department, upon receiving Goddard’s affirmative ruling they had requested, began collecting the 80-cent per-pack tax. However, in a separate ruling, Goddard said the tax would not apply to Indian Reservations and therefore did not have to be collected there.When the final election results came out, the Proposition 201 committee was pleasantly surprised that the favorable poll results the campaign staff initially regarded with skepticism were representative of the actual outcome. Speaking the day after the election, Justin Turner commented, “essentially, on Nov. 7 we won two campaigns: We got clean indoor air in Arizona, and also fought off preemption.”Proposition 201 beat Proposition 206 by a larger margin than any of the polls predicted. In the final tally, Proposition 201 garnered 54.8% of the vote while Proposition 206 only received 42.7% of the vote .The public’s clear preference for a genuine smoke free law made further challenges by the tobacco industry unviable, despite the long history of such challenges in Arizona and elsewhere.The Smoke-Free Arizona coalition exempted patios from the required minimum distance of 20-feet from the building established for all other outdoor smoking areas. Future tobacco control efforts in Arizona must remove this exemption. Making patios smoke free prevents patios from becoming the new smoking section for restaurants and bars. Another important protection will be to insure that veterans and fraternal clubs are covered in the future, as Arizona has already accomplished locally in Flagstaff.
While the national VFW already has been thinking about making VFW posts smoke free to attract younger clientele,protecting veterans through smoke free ordinances or laws in Arizona will help encourage the VFW’s action.Proposition 201 made the Environmental Health Services Division of ADHS responsible for enforcing the Smoke-Free Arizona Act. At the time Proposition 201 passed, Arizona was $4.7 million short of meeting the then-minimum CDC requirements14 for adequate spending for tobacco control programs and education. While any revenue leftover from the 2 cent tobacco tax added by Proposition 201 would go to TEPP, this gain will likely be somewhat counteracted by the decrease in tobacco sales due to the 80 cent additional tobacco tax instituted by Proposition 203. Part of ADHS’ implementation scheme for the clean indoor air law included mandatory signs inside buildings including a number to call to report clean indoor air violations. ADHS would initially receive an estimated $4.7 million a year for enforcement. ADHS implementation plans included $100,000 for free no-smoking signs for bars and restaurants.These no-smoking signs include a toll-free telephone number and email address to lodge complaints. Because the policy ADHS adopted makes the majority of the enforcement of the Smoke-Free Arizona Act complaint driven, easy access to the system of redress both gives smokers a visual reminder that indoor smoking is illegal and can result in fines, and empowers the non-smoker to assert his or her right to clean indoor air. These placards were effective in giving citizens a convenient method of addressing illegal secondhand smoke. Over 1,000 calls were made in the first month the law was enforced. However, EHS did not always respond to the calls, and often, by the time EHS came to the location to confirm the violation, the smoke had dissipated and the offender had left. In addition to responding to complaints, EHS also integrated enforcement of Proposition 201 into its routine enforcement of food safety by checking for signs of smoking, including ashtrays, the smell of smoke,or other tell-tale signs of smoking in their routine random inspections of restaurants and bars to ensure sanitary conditions. With their positive advertising campaign creating the expectation of self-enforcement and committed enforcement early on in dealing with challenges, the ADHS created an effective enforcement precedent.
During implementation, TEPP did not take a proactive role in educating Arizonans about the dangers of secondhand smoke or promoting the smoke free law. Instead, TEPP rode on the coattails of Smoke-Free Arizona’s success to focus on cessation services, airing commercials “Nick” and “Hector” with characters describing their process of quitting smoking.ALBA would follow up on this statement. Before implementation even began,ebb & grow table a group of bar owners based in Tucson calling itself the Arizona Alcohol Service Providers Association began holding meetings inviting the press to report on their plans to challenge Smoke-Free Arizona, claiming it cost Arizona 28,000 lost jobs.Bar owners Alfonso Larriva and Alfonzo Ruiz flaunted the Smoke-Free Arizona law during the first two weeks of enforcement in the four bars they owned by removing the panes of the small windows in their bar and replacing them with vents, claiming that transformed their bar into a patio.Following a strategy pursued by the tobacco industry and its allies elsewhere,32, 223 the bar owners worked with AASPA to challenge the Smoke-Free Arizona law so they could bring the case to court in hopes of finding it unconstitutional. ADHS, in charge of enforcing the smoke free law, filed an injunction against the owners after inspectors had found the bars in noncompliance after three visits.The Attorney General’s Office and ADHS sought preliminary and permanent injunctions against the defendants to stop violating the smoke free law and correct their violations, imposing a total of $102,400 in fines on the various responsible parties.The four non-compliant bars quickly became completely smoke free. ALBA was not supportive of AASPA or the violating bar owners’ cause. Instead, on the ALBA website, they provided information on how to comply with the law and issued a letter of caution to their members against signing AASPA’s petition to overturn the smoke free initiative.ALBA wrote: “we have a number of difficulties supporting what AASPA is doing,” citing that not only does Supreme Court not take cases because the public asks it to, but the likelihood of overturning the initiative was very slim, and, in short, futile.ALBA also wrote: “AASPA fundamentally misunderstands what happened in November” 2006, and because AASPA was not registered with the Secretary of State as a non-profit entity, “there is now way of knowing how these funds [that AASPA solicited] will be controlled.”ALBA has disassociated itself from representing tobacco interests and is more interested in benefitting from the smoke free law than fighting it.With smooth enforcement of the Smoke-Free Arizona law, a $2.00 excise taxes on tobacco products, and new personnel at TEPP, Arizona has the opportunity to devote time and energy toward bolstering its tobacco control program and ensure that all Arizonans can enjoy a healthy lifestyle breathing clean, smoke free air.The evaluations were centered around two hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 is based on observations from fMRI studies of young individuals who did not have an AUD history prior to testing where regional BOLD differences were observed during placebo conditions. This prediction states that compared with high LR individuals, those with less intense response to modest alcohol doses will demonstrate lower levels of functional connectivity between the amygdala and PFC when processing emotion-laden faces. Further, we predict negatively valenced emotions will elicit a greater decrease in connectivity relative to positively valenced emotions . Given prior studies demonstrating changes to brain functional connectivity following alcohol administration, Hypothesis 2 states that low LR individuals will have lower levels of functional connectivity following alcohol for negatively valenced emotions compared with high LR individuals.In the original study from which the current data were extracted , a survey was distributed to randomly selected 18 to 25-year-old European American and white Hispanic students at the University of California, San Diego, using methods approved by the UCSD Institutional Review Board. This questionnaire gathered information on demography, substance use, and DSM-IV psychiatric disorders using questions extracted from the Semi-Structured Assessment for the Genetics of Alcoholism interview . To be included in the fMRI protocol described below, subjects were limited to those who were: right-handed; had no history of brain trauma or epilepsy; no history of alcohol or drug dependence; no current major psychiatric disorder; were not pregnant; and had no irremovable body metal.After confirming zero baseline breath alcohol concentrations , subjects drank alcohol over a 10-min period given as a 20% by volume solution in a room-temperature carbonated beverage, a protocol that produced approximately equivalent BrACs across sexes . We used a median split on self-report scores from the Subjective High Assessment Scale during the alcohol challenge to determine low versus high LR in both the prior study and the present secondary analysis of those data. Once the LR status was confirmed through the initial alcohol challenge, two MRI sessions were scheduled on nonconsecutive days within 1 week of each other whenever possible. Alcohol and placebo sessions were carried out in an MRI scanner where participants received, in random order, the same alcohol dose as in the laboratory session or placebo in sessions that included the Hariri emotional face recognition task .