To understand why some states have enacted relatively stringent laws to control smoking in public places while others have not, the authors examined the political evolution of tobacco control initiatives in six states: New York, Minnesota, Florida, Illinois, Texas, and Arizona. Taken together, the case studies demonstrate the difficulties inherent in enacting strong statewide tobacco control legislation. More important, several unmistakable themes emerge from these case studies, shedding light on the barriers to greater legislative success. These themes include the manner in which the legislative debate is framed by antismoking advocates and the tobacco industry, the relative dearth of leadership provided by medical and health organizations, the role of public opinion, and the complex interaction that exists between statewide antismoking legislation and local antismoking ordinances. Understanding how these issues affect legislative outcomes may help antismoking advocates enact future statewide tobacco control initiatives. It may also present lessons applicable to future battles over other public health legislation.

Originally published in: Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, v. 18, no. 4, Winter 1993, pp. 787-819.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation Reprint series. The Reprint was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1992 to 2011 that represented previously published journal articles, book chapters, and reports with the permission of the publisher. RAND reprints were formally reviewed in accordance with the publisher's editorial policy and compliant with RAND's rigorous quality assurance standards for quality and objectivity. For select current RAND journal articles, see External Publications.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.