By Robert Goldrich

Featured prominently in last week’s “The Best Work You May Never See” was a spec spot for the American Lung Association in which the perils of smoking are paralleled to walking in front of moving car traffic. Directed by Paul Santana, “Odds” points out that every day 3,000 people start smoking–and that about one-third of them will die from illnesses related to that habit. A voiceover rhetorically asks, “How do you like the odds?” as we see several pedestrians run over.

Whether this spec ad gains airtime remains to be seen. Yet there have been assorted real-world anti-smoking spots that have consistently made the pages of SHOOT over the years, particularly in our “The Best Work You May Never See” gallery. Anti-smoking spots from Florida, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Arizona and California have scored multiple times in our rundown of creatively worthwhile fare that might not be seen in most of the country.

But, thankfully, this work is getting watched–and noticed by the right people–in those and other states. State health departments have generally proven to be good clients, empowering ad agencies to bring their creative prowess to bear in order to positively influence youngsters who are being targeted by Big Tobacco. These efforts have also successfully reached adult smokers, helping many of them to at least curtail their tobacco use, and some to quit smoking altogether.

Much of the anti-smoking work in California has been funded by tax dollars collected under the state’s Proposition 99, which was passed in 1988. Prop 99 imposed a 25-cent-tax on each pack of cigarettes sold in California, with some of those funds going toward PSAs. As chronicled in SHOOT, the California campaign has enjoyed considerable success. For example, since the campaign’s inception, adult smoking in the state has declined more than one-third, to 16 percent. On average nationwide, about 20-plus percent of adults smoke. Similarly the campaign has had a hand in raising awareness among youngsters and teens as to how tobacco companies try to manipulate them into habit-forming behavior.

Similarly, according to research published in this month’s American Journal of Public Health, the American Legacy Foundation’s national “truth” youth smoking prevention campaign accelerated the decline in youth smoking rates between 2000 and ’02. “Evidence of a Dose-Response Relationship between ‘Truth’ Anti-smoking Ads and Youth Smoking” found that in the first three years of the Legacy campaign, youths who were exposed to a greater number of “truth” ads were less likely to smoke.

However, budget shortfalls in states throughout the country have resulted in sharp funding reductions for anti-smoking campaigns. This year, California will spend a little more than $77 million on its overall anti-tobacco push. Under the proposed state budget for the ’05-’06 fiscal year, that will drop slightly to $76.7 million. That’s half of the $152 million the state spent in 1989-’90, the first year of the program, and just 40 percent of the $165 million that federal health officials recommend for anti-smoking efforts in California.

Interviewed recently by The Los Angeles Times, Terry Pechacek, associate director of the Office on Smoking and Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said that only three states–Maine, Mississippi and Delaware–are spending enough to meet federal guidelines.

    In an era of budget deficits, bottom-line figures reign supreme, frequently without regard for how key expenditures actually save money in the long run, helping in the big picture to keep budgets in check. A reduction in smokers results in significantly reduced healthcare and medical treatment costs. In the Times article, Pechacek simply concluded, “You get a benefit for what you invest.”

MySHOOT Profiles