The State`s tobacco control policy has evolved since the adoption of the regulation. Over time, as public opinion in general has become less supportive and tolerant of smoking and the cost of health care spending has increased, government policies on tobacco control in general have become more aggressive and restrictive. However, each state defines its own policies and has different economic, social and environmental characteristics. As mentioned earlier, the MSA was also drafted to give States full flexibility in the use of the revenues granted. As a result, it is very difficult to separate and measure the impact of some tobacco control initiatives, including those associated with the ADM. Further critical research and analysis is needed to assess the individual impact of the MSA compared to other tobacco reduction efforts (e.g. taxes. B, workplace initiatives, youth tobacco control programs, etc.). Although the motivation of colonization states differs from that of OPMs, these states were also concerned about the impact of tobacco companies` refusal to join the MSA. The settlement states were concerned that NPMs would be able to regulate their sales in order to stay afloat financially while being effectively critical.

Because of these two concerns, THE OPMs and settlement states have attempted to get the MSA to encourage these other tobacco companies to join the agreement. To fill this gap, the National Association of Attorneys General («NAAG») introduced the Allocable Share Release Repealer («ASR Repealer») in late 2002, a model law that eliminated the ASR. In a September 12, 2003 memo, Vermont Attorney General William H. Sorrell, chairman of the NAAG Tobacco Project, stressed the urgency that «all states take steps toward the spread of NPM sales, including the passage of additional and enforceable corporate laws, and consideration of other measures designed to serve the interests of states by avoiding reductions in tobacco payments.» He stressed that «NPM sales throughout the country harm all states,» that NPM sales in each state reduce payments to any other state, and that «all states have an interest in reducing NPM sales in each state.» [40] The latest available data on ESA spending from all countries (2006) broadly confirm the above trends. As shown in Table 1, tobacco control expenditures in most states are only a small fraction of total MSA expenditures. In 15 states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wisconsin), MSA funds are not spent on tobacco control. Health expenditure and «general purpose» expenditure (including education and social affairs) account for the largest number of ASA expenditures. .