Search

Background: Policies designed to restrict marketing, access to, and public use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are increasingly under debate in various jurisdictions in the US. Little is known about public perceptions of these policies and factors that predict their support or opposition. Methods: Using a sample of US adults from Amazon Mechanical Turk in May 2015, this paper identifies beliefs about the benefits and costs of regulating e-cigarettes and identifies which of these beliefs predict support for e-cigarette restricting policies. Results: A higher proportion of respondents agreed with 8 different reasons to regulate e-cigarettes (48.5% to 83.3% agreement) versus 7 reasons not to regulate e-cigarettes (11.5% to 18.9%). The majority of participants agreed with 7 out of 8 reasons for regulation. When all reasons to regulate or not were included in a final multivariable model, beliefs about protecting people from secondhand vapor and protecting youth from trying e-cigarettes significantly predicted stronger support for e-cigarette restricting policies, whereas concern about government intrusion into individual choices was associated with reduced support. Discussion: This research identifies key beliefs that may underlie public support or opposition to policies designed to regulate the marketing and use of e-cigarettes. Advocates on both sides of the issue may find this research valuable in developing strategic campaigns related to the issue. Implications: Specific beliefs of potential benefits and costs of e-cigarette regulation (protecting youth, preventing exposure to secondhand vapor, and government intrusion into individual choices) may be effectively deployed by policy makers or health advocates in communicating with the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rachel Barry and Stanton Glantz argue that a public health framework that prioritizes public health over business interests should be used by US states and countries that legalize retail marijuana. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses several issues of concern related to the status of the United States specially its image as a nation on the one hand and as an empire on the other. The author cites the exceptionalism concept which argues that the United States is not an empire and has never been on account of the fact that it espouses anti-colonial tradition, supports liberal institutions, as well as promotes democratic values. A school of thought harbored by some scholars which criticize the exceptionalism thesis proposes that in denying the empire issue, the United States exhibits an imperial amnesia about its past.

This article is designed to serve two purposes. The first purpose in the order presented is to describe what is happening in university policy studies activities within political science departments and within interdisciplinary programs. The second purpose is to analyze a set of prescriptions for improving policy studies activities, which have been recommended by academics and by government practitioners. By policy studies activities in this context political scientists mean research, teaching, and related activities that deal with the applications of political and social science to the study of the causes and especially the effects of alternative governmental policies. Causes include among other things the role of public administrators in making policies or prospective decisions, and effects include the varied implementation of governmental policies. The main conclusion to be drawn from the questionnaire responses is that policy studies are alive and well in political science departments and interdisciplinary programs across the country, and still growing rapidly although possibly at a less rapid rate than in the early 1970's.

The article outlines a political science that is founded on principles different from those underlying the discipline at present in the U.S. politics. It notes that contemporary American political science is Newtonian and interactionist in orientation in a world in which scientific thought has become field oriented and transactionist.