Power relations and the public health challenge

The disease, suffering and premature death caused by tobacco products are unevenly distributed. This is at least partly because smoking prevalence in many countries, particularly those at later stages of the tobacco epidemic, is much higher among marginalised groups: minority groups who experience various forms of discrimination; people who are financially deprived; those who are mentally ill; and those in prisons and jails, among others. However, these same groups, compared with those who are relatively more advantaged and powerful in society, may also experience other forms of health injustice—more targeted marketing of deadly products, reduced access to preventive health services, communities with more environmental toxins, crime, stress, and fewer economic opportunities. Tobacco is a social justice issue, and the papers in this special collection help draw attention to that fact and call on each of us to acknowledge the ways in which our power (or lack thereof) shapes our health status. Curry et al 1 document the phenomenon of e-cigarettes made especially for inmates of prisons and jails, a population with extraordinarily high tobacco use rates who too often are forgotten in public health initiatives. While many institutions now have smokefree policies to protect the health of nonsmoking inmates, e-cigarettes could alter the landscape in unknown ways. Some claim their availability increases morale and decreases contraband issues. However, it is still unknown if there are any long-term effects from e-cigarette use on nonusers in enclosed institutional settings. The fact that this population is challenging to study should not be an excuse to allow them to be exposed as captives to potential new risks without assessing possible effects on health. In an important review, Hill et al 2 analyse the socioeconomic impact of six tobacco control interventions: price increases, smokefree policies, ad bans, mass media campaigns, warning labels, and …

[1]  A. Amos,et al.  Equity impact of interventions and policies to reduce smoking in youth: systematic review , 2014, Tobacco Control.

[2]  David R. Williams,et al.  Racial and non-racial discrimination and smoking status among South African adults 10 years after apartheid , 2014, Tobacco Control.

[3]  H. Ross,et al.  Tobacco control funding for low-income and middle-income countries in a time of economic hardship , 2014, Tobacco Control.

[4]  C. Mazure,et al.  Smoking and mental illness in the US population , 2014, Tobacco Control.

[5]  T. Rogers,et al.  E-cigarettes made especially for inmates , 2014, Tobacco Control.

[6]  P. Clare,et al.  The relationship between socioeconomic status and ‘hardcore’ smoking over time – greater accumulation of hardened smokers in low-SES than high-SES smokers , 2014, Tobacco Control.

[7]  D. Hasin,et al.  State-level tobacco environments and sexual orientation disparities in tobacco use and dependence in the USA , 2014, Tobacco Control.

[8]  S. Glantz,et al.  Tobacco industry marketing to low socioeconomic status women in the USA , 2014, Tobacco Control.

[9]  G. Giovino,et al.  Trends in menthol and non-menthol cigarette consumption in the USA: 2000–2011 , 2013, Tobacco Control.

[10]  Joseph G. L. Lee,et al.  Out smoking on the big screen: tobacco use in LGBT movies, 2000–2011 , 2013, Tobacco Control.

[11]  A. Amos,et al.  Impact of tobacco control interventions on socioeconomic inequalities in smoking: review of the evidence , 2013, Tobacco Control.

[12]  T. Blakely,et al.  Do changes in income, deprivation, labour force status and family status influence smoking behaviour over the short run? Panel study of 15 000 adults , 2013, Tobacco Control.