ArticleTobacco control2023
Descriptive cross-sectional survey of tobacco and cannabis restrictions on state and local film incentives in the USA.
Article in Tobacco control, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Efforts to Secure Nicotine and Cannabis Product Placements in Popular Media by Ploom, Pax, and Juul: An Analysis of Tobacco Industry Documents.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundReducing tobacco depictions in media has significant health benefits because tobacco placements in films normalise tobacco use and are linked to youth initiation. Cannabis depictions may have similar effects. Placing restrictions on film incentives has been suggested; however, it remains an unexplored strategy for reducing tobacco depictions. We investigated whether states and localities that offer film incentives have established funding restrictions to deter tobacco or cannabis depictions.
methodsWe conducted a descriptive cross-sectional survey of official state and local government websites in the USA that listed film incentives. We coded policy level (ie, state, local), incentive type (ie, tax credit, rebate), incentive amounts, programme qualifiers and presence and characteristics of tobacco and cannabis restrictions.
resultsQuantifiable tax incentives at the state level offered over $1.6 billion to producers. Among 50 US states and Washington, DC, 39 provided film incentives: 4 restricted tobacco and 0 restricted cannabis. Among the 238 local film offices we identified, 24 offered incentives; 5 restricted tobacco and 1 restricted cannabis. All the incentive restrictions excluded tobacco or cannabis purchases from reimbursement; there were no penalties for tobacco or cannabis depictions.
conclusionsFilm incentives are large financial commitments that may undermine public health since they allow depictions of tobacco and cannabis that contribute to initiation and use. Few states or localities limit film incentives related to tobacco or cannabis, and the existing restrictions are unlikely to deter depictions or product placement. Restrictions on incentives are an underused tool for deterring tobacco and cannabis depictions in film.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.