Jennifer K. Ibrahim, PhD, Center for Tobacco Control Research & Education, University of California, San Francisco, 530 Parnassus Ave. Suite 366, San Francisco, CA 94143-1390, 415-476-0813, ibrahim@itsa.ucsf.edu and Stanton A. Glantz, PhD, University of California, San Francisco, Center for Tobacco Control Research & Education, 530 Parnassus Ave., Suite 366, San Francisco, CA 94143-1390.

Objective: To describe developments leading to recent changes in Connecticut’s tobacco control policies. Methods: Information on tobacco control policymaking was gathered through interviews with health advocates, lobbyists, and elected officials, as well as reviews of newspaper articles and internal tobacco industry documents. Results: Tobacco control advocates met success in 2002 and 2003 with the tripling of the state's tobacco tax from $0.50 in 2001 to $1.11 in 2002 and $1.51 in 2003. They also won a battle that has persisted since 1993, when Connecticut passed legislation to allow preemption of local tobacco control. Despite support from local officials in Spring 2002, the Speaker of the House stated that a bill to repeal preemption was not a priority. Health advocates revealed that one reason for this position was that Philip Morris lobbyists were a major sponsor for a mid-session gathering of legislators hosted by the Speaker. The bill was reintroduced in 2003 along with a bill to stop smoking in restaurants statewide. The restaurant restriction was supported by the Restaurant Association who strongly preferred a statewide policy, following tobacco industry rhetoric that preemption might lead to unfair competition. The bill was signed into law and went into effect on October 1, 2003, prohibiting smoking in restaurants; the law will pertain to bars as of April 2004. Conclusion: Health advocates recruited support from would-be tobacco allies and revealed tobacco industry ties with elected officials, demonstrating that direct confrontation in the public eye is a powerful and effective tool to oppose the tobacco industry.

Learning Objectives:

• Describe the manner in which the tobacco industry through top-level elected officials in Connecticut to impede the repeal of preemption.
• Analyze the ways in which health advocates recognized and appropriately responded to the ties between the tobacco industry and elected officials to advance tobacco control efforts.
• Discuss the advocates’ experiences in Connecticut in the context of other tobacco control efforts, both past and present.

Keywords: Tobacco Policy, Tobacco Industry

Presenting author's disclosure statement:
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.