, or vilification of, any person (whether by name orbusiness affiliation), company, or governmental agency, whetherindividually or collectively." In other words, the settlement bars the kinds of ads thathave been so successful in California and Massachusetts. Therestriction isn't watertight - it only applies to the foundationcreated by the settlement, and states could use other funds topay for anti-smoking campaigns. But that's not likely, giventhat the foundation is slated to get $ 25 million a year foreducation and media purposes. And many states have already madeit clear that they intend to use the rest of the money to fillgaps in their budgets. New York City plans to use its share toclean up public schools, Los Angeles wants to repair itssidewalks, Louisiana will reduce the state debt, and Kentuckymay use some of its money to help ailing tobacco farmers. Manyof these states may find themselves running toothlessanti-smoking campaigns - which is precisely what the tobaccoindustry wants. BibliographyCNN.com “ Proposed tobacco industry settlement” 20 June 1997Kluger, Richard. Ashes to Ashes Los Angeles, Calif.: VintageBooks, 1997http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:S.1414: S.1414Universal Tobacco Settlement Act (Placed in the Senate) 7November 1997Hamilton JL. "The demand for cigarettes: advertising, the healthscare, and the cigarette advertising ban." Review of Economicsand Statistics 1972;54:401-11Goldman LK, Glantz SA. "Evaluation of antismoking advertisingcampaigns." JAMA 1998;279:772-7Siegel M., "Mass Media Antismoking Campaigns: A Powerful Toolfor Health Promotion." Ann. Intern Med., 1998;129:128-132Federal Trade Commission, “1997 Federal Trade Commission Reportto Congress for 1995, Pursuant to the Federal Cigarette Labelingand Advertising Act,” 1997.Hu T, Keler TE, et. al., "The Impact of California anti-smokinglegislation on cigarette sales, consumption, and prices."Tobacco Control. 1995;4(Suppl 1):...
