The defeat of Philip Morris' 'California Uniform Tobacco Control Act'.
OBJECTIVE
This paper describes the strategies used by Philip Morris and other tobacco companies to promote a California initiative (Proposition 188) preempting local control of tobacco and those used by public health groups to defeat the initiative.


METHODS
Interviews with key informants were conducted, and the written record was reviewed.


RESULTS
Tobacco companies nearly succeeded in passing Proposition 188 by presenting it as a pro-health measure that would prevent children from obtaining cigarettes and provide protection against secondhand smoke. Public health groups defeated it by highlighting tobacco industry backing. A private charitable foundation also played an innovative role by financing a non-partisan public education campaign.


CONCLUSIONS
Public health forces must be alert to sophisticated efforts by the tobacco industry to enact preemptive state legislation by making it look like tobacco control legislation. The coalition structure that emerged in the "No on 188" campaign represents an effective model for future tobacco control activities. The new role of charitable foundations defined in the Proposition 188 campaign can be used in other public health issues.
Macdonald
H
H
Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco 94143-0124, USA.
Aguinaga
S
S
Glantz
S A
SA
D002140:California; D003256:Community Participation; D006801:Humans; D007221:Industry / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D010947:Plants, Toxic; D011057:Politics; D011634:Public Health / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D014026:Nicotiana; D014028:Tobacco Smoke Pollution / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000517:prevention & control*; D014342:Truth Disclosure
D014028:Tobacco Smoke Pollution