The latest available data on all countries` spending on ASM (2006) largely confirms the above models. As Table 1 shows, in most countries, tobacco control spending accounts for only a small fraction of total WMA spending. In 15 states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wisconsin), no MSA funding is dedicated to tobacco control. Most spending on health and «general services» (including education and social services) accounts for most of the MSA`s REPENSS. Given the domestic economic difficulties and political difficulties faced by states, either by cutting budgets and/or raising taxes, it is not surprising that many states have used MSA funds to fill budget deficits. It should be noted that two of the largest states (California and New York) have all guaranteed their 2006 MSA funds. (It should be noted that in four states [Florida, Minnesota, Mississippi and Texas], no tobacco revenue is paid through the MSA because, as noted above, they have entered into their own legal comparisons with tobacco companies that have different payment agreements.) The Attorney General and attorneys general in other states are taking steps to enforce the terms of the transaction agreement and encourage other tobacco companies to join the transaction. The state`s tobacco control policy has evolved since the introduction of housing. Over time, as public opinion has become less favourable and less tolerant of tobacco use and the cost of spending in the health sector has increased, government tobacco control measures have generally become more aggressive and restrictive. However, each state has its own policy and different economic, social and environmental characteristics.

As has already been said, the MSA was also written to give states full flexibility in the use of allocated revenues. It is therefore very difficult to separate and measure the impact of specific tobacco control initiatives, including those related to AMS. Further critical research and analysis is needed to assess the individual impact of AMM on other tobacco control efforts (e.g. Taxes, workplace initiatives, youth smoking programs, etc.).