[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.As with the rulings on AB 816, none of the litigation surrounding SB 493 compelledspending the $64 million in contested funds from the Health Education and ResearchAccounts, and the governor again simply let the money sit in the bank.Nevertheless,the health groups' victory represented a shot in the arm for the people working in thefield.According to Cynthia Hallett,The lawsuits were really when& the larger sort of California constituencies startedmoving& the Prop 99 constituency.& People finally got the word out,  This is what'shappening, and this is what they're doing.Are we going to sit behind and let thishappen? And a lot of that message came from ANR.& We were able to clearlycommunicate with our coalition members.And we were able to help.We were able tosay,  They're collecting affidavits or letters of support from previous clients.Can youdo it? And sure enough, people were popping them out.And it was great because then the community agencies felt a part of the process.And that's what it takesbecause they do so much of this work.[36]The lawsuits also demonstrated how far away from each other the original Proposition99 coalition members had moved, with the voluntary health agencies on one side andthe medical service providers on the other.As noted in the ALA newsletter,  Thebeneficiaries of the diverted 283 tobacco monies, the California Medical Association, California Association ofHospitals and Health Services, medical clinics, the Western Center on Law andPoverty, and the tobacco companies wielded enough political influence to achieve thediversion and are expected to lend legal support to the State's Attorney General inorder to keep the Prop 99 money. [38] The health groups finally accepted that theCMA, CAHHS, and Western Center for Law and Poverty were not even potentialallies.They were linked with the tobacco companies.ConclusionThe lawsuits did several useful things for the Proposition 99 programs.Theyincreased the visibility of the Proposition 99 issue, framing it not as sick babies versusprevention but as voter-approved initiatives versus illegal legislative deals.For theconstituency in the field, those who worked on the programs on a daily basis, thelawsuits showed a greater level of commitment to protecting those programs than theyhad seen before in Sacramento.The lawsuits showed that the health groups werewilling to fight for the Proposition 99 programs and to fight for them outside theworld of Capitol insider politics.The litigation also engaged ANR in the fight overProposition 99.Although ANR was not working with the voluntary health agencies,ANR's experience in grassroots political fights had the potential to be useful inprotecting Proposition 99.In 1996 new legislation would again be needed to authorize the Proposition 99programs.Regardless of the legality or illegality of AB 816 and SB 493, both werefacing a sunset deadline on June 30, 1996.The question before tobacco controladvocates was how they could exploit both their legal victories and theirorganizational strengths in a way that would make full funding of the anti-tobaccoeducation and research programs a reality.Notes1.State of California, California State Legislature. Assembly Bill 816.July 1994.2.Bowser R. Interview with Edith D.Balbach.August 21, 1996.3.Glynn T, Manley M.How to help your patients stop smoking: A National CancerInstitute manual for physicians.Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, 1989.NIH Publication No.93-3064. 4.Epps R, Manley M.Clinical interventions to prevent tobacco use by children andadolescents: A supplement to  How to help your patients stop smoking: A NationalCancer Institute guide for physicians. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health,1991.5.Manley M, Epps R, Husten C, Glynn T, Shopland D. Clinical interventions intobacco control.JAMA 1991;266(22):3172-3173.6.Horton A. Declaration of Ann Horton.Declaration, Superior Court of the Stateof California, County of Sacramento, November 8, 1994.Case No.379257.7.Range R. Declaration of Ruth S.Range.Declaration, Superior Court of the Stateof California, County of Sacramento, November 2, 1994.Case No.379257.8.Cumming GH. Deposition of Gordon H.Cumming.Deposition, Superior Courtof the State of California, County of Sacramento, October 12, 1994.Case No.379257.9.Tobacco Education Oversight Committee. Minutes.December 3, 1991.10.California Department of Health Services. PM 160 Instructions. Sacramento,1992 January.11.Manley MW. Declaration of Marc W.Manley.December 12, 1994.12.Glynn T. Essential elements of school-based smoking prevention programs.JSchool Health 1989;59:181-188.13.Epps RP, Manley MW. A physician's guide to preventing tobacco use duringchildhood and adolescence.Pediatrics 1991;88(1):140-144.14.Breslow L. Declaration of Lester Breslow.Declaration.Los Angeles:University of California, Los Angeles.November 17, 1994.15.Kennedy R. Interview with Edith Balbach.April 1, 1997.16.Martin C. Letter to Molly Joel Coye.October 16, 1992.17.Coye MJ. Letter to Carolyn Martin.January 22, 1993.18.Bal D, Shah R. Memo to health officers, Maternal and Child Health directors,Tobacco Control Project directors, Local Lead Agencies.November 14, 1991.19.Breslow L. Letter to Molly Joel Coye.October 5, 1992.20.Kessler SW. Letter to Jennie Cook.July 26, 1993.21.Gregory MA. CHDP Information Notice #94-C.February 10, 1994.22.Skolnick A. Judge rules diversion of antismoking money illegal, victory forCalifornia Tobacco Control Program.JAMA 1995;273(8):610-611. 23.Lungren DE. Respondents' memorandum of points and authorities re: Tailoringof relief to be granted, Case No.379257 [American Lung Association et al.v.PeteWilson, Governor of the State of California et al., Consolidated Case Nos.379257and 379460], Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento.December 30, 1994.24.Gregory BM. Letter to Diane E.Watson.June 13, 1991.25.Gregory BM. Letter to Phil Isenberg.June 27, 1991.26.Gregory BM. Letter to Elizabeth Hill.March 10, 1992.27.Waters G, Perlite D. Petitioners' opposition memorandum re: Relief andsupporting exhibits V through Y, Case No.379257 [Consolidated Case Nos.379257and 379450].January 9, 1995.28.Glantz SA. Thoughts on the Prop.99 lawsuit remedy.Memorandum, January2, 1995.29.Waters G. Memo to Tony Najera and Diane Perlite.February 23, 1995.30.Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights. ANR Prop.99 Lawsuit Background.Press release, January 17, 1995.31.Wilson P [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

Archiwum