"Smoking and Politics," presents the mechanical bureaucratic and political moves that involve PACs, lobbyist firms, and constituents. There are ample amounts of administrative information that is important to explain what happened and why, but it can overwhelm some. However, it does reflect the complexities of the legislative process.

In recent years there have been many legislative and legalistic transformations since Fritschler began this book (first edition). This book is commonly read, studied, and dissected at some point in a public administration student's college stint. Compromising, steps forward and back, lobbying, and watershed legislation are presented here highlighting the individuals and organizations involved. (The who, what, how, why, and where.) It's what I call "Machiavellian bureaucratic implementation of policy." Those doing research into the historical politics of smoking, and/or the public policy process involving smoking in particular will get a lot of facts from this.

Federal policy with regard to tobacco has undergone substantial change over the past thirty years. Fritschler and Hoefler have regularly updated their book, to include these new changes. Unfortunately for them, the mid- to late-1990s has seen a whole new series of proposals, which means a two year old book is already somewhat out of date.

Also, with each new edition, they've tried to maintain the general organization of their earlier editions. This means the fifth edition tells a somewhat disjointed story. The book jumps repeated from the 1960s to the 1970s to the 1980s and 1990s, then back again. Often, this leaves the reader confused as to exactly *when* a particular change occurred.

The book's strongest point is that it clearly illustrates the importance of the bureaucracy in making [not just implementing] public policy. Many policy texts present the mistaken impression that Congress makes policy and the bureaucracy implements policy. Fritschler and Hoefler do policy students a great service by demonstrating the importance of the federal rulemaking process, and the ability of an activist bureaucracy to make or motivate substantial changes in federal policy.