EDITOR,-- The letter from Henningfield and Rose (Tobacco Control
10:295-296), provides valuable historic information about US Federal
Aviation Administration Policy to prohibit smoking in both the passenger
section and the flight deck. of scheduled passenger flights. They tell of
the smoking ban passed by Congress in 1989. Yes, their letter offers
lessons about political and bureaucratic achievements.
But they told only...
EDITOR,-- The letter from Henningfield and Rose (Tobacco Control
10:295-296), provides valuable historic information about US Federal
Aviation Administration Policy to prohibit smoking in both the passenger
section and the flight deck. of scheduled passenger flights. They tell of
the smoking ban passed by Congress in 1989. Yes, their letter offers
lessons about political and bureaucratic achievements.
But they told only one part of the story. The influence of anti-tobacco
activists, especially Betty Carnes, is of even greater interest and should
not be forgotten. Single handedly, Betty obtained the first non-smoking
flight on a scheduled airline, American Airlines, on one flight, New York
to Phoenix, on 8 August 1971.
******
On August 8, 1971, American Airlines provided three rows of non-
smoking seats on flights between New York and Phoenix, Arizona.
It was an idea whose time had come. The news of it spread like wildfire.
Passengers responded with enthusiasm and commendation.
American Airlines realized it was onto something popular and soon extended
non-smoking seats to other flights. Its competitors were forced to do the
same.
Gradually, the non-smoking rows increased from three to six to a dozen
rows and, within a few years, over half of the rows were non-smoking,
throughout North America, and later around the world.
Gradually, all scheduled flights, worldwide, became smoke-free.
The airlines saved money in all sorts of ways. Cleaning costs went way
down. Their flight attendants were no longer subjected to occupational
smoke. Tar deposits, which had spewed out of air-conditioning systems and
could add up to 45 kilograms in a year when smokers were on board, ceased
to be a non-remunerative payload.
Who achieved this breakthrough, this public health and preventive medicine
achievement, that has spread to many other venues throughout society and
must have saved lives that otherwise might have been lost to second-hand
smoke? Betty Carnes, of Scottsdale, Arizona.
In 1971, Carnes was travelling on an American Airlines plane between
Houston and Phoenix when the air-conditioning and filter system stopped
working. This did not stop Betty's chain-smoking seatmate. He refused to
extinguish his cigarette.
AIt was terribly embarrassing to grab an air bag and be sick in front
of all those people, recalled Carnes.
Because the Carneses were frequent air travellers (her husband, Herbert,
flew to executive meetings of American Home Products in New Jersey),
Betty arranged with Paul Willmore, the American Airlines sales manager in
Phoenix to provide three rows of non-smoking seats, New York to Phoenix
only.
This 30th anniversary is of special significance to me, because Betty was
a fellow birdbander and a long-time correspondent and special friend.
She was the first woman to become an elective member of the American
Ornithologists' Union (AOU), in 1955. She banded 10,000 birds and attended
more consecutive meetings (39) of the AOU than anyone else.
Mary and I visited her at her beautiful retirement home with a three-acre
waterfowl park in Tempe, Arizona. Each year, at the annual meeting of the
AOU, Betty would take the Houston family out to supper, usually at the
Faculty Club at the host University.
Her efforts were not restricted to air travel. She invented the sign,
AThank You for Not Smoking.
In 1973, she succeeded in persuading the Arizona legislature to become the
first state to prohibit smoking in public places, such as elevators,
libraries, art museums, indoor theatres, concert halls and public transit
systems. By 1983, the Arizona law had been the model for similar
legislation in 32 other states.
At the First World Conference on Nonsmokers' Rights, held in
Washington, DC in 1985, Carnes was recognized (along with the late Dr.
Luther L. Terry, who presented the first Surgeon General=s Report on
Smoking in 1964) as one of the Atwo pioneers of the nonsmokers= rights
movement.
Carnes died at Scottsdale on October 15, 1987, but her achievements
deserve to be remembered.
[The was published as an editorial in The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix on
August 9, 2001, one day after "Betty Carnes Day."]
The authors say:"The leaf is from a broad leafed plant (Diospyrus
melanoxylon or Diospyrus ebemum) native to India"
I feel there is an error here.Diospyrus ebenum (Ebony,black)
is not a source for Tendu leaves, as far as I know.(The authors write
'ebemum'-probably a typing error.For a list of plants from which bidi
leaves are obtained, see the following paragraph, from
J.K. MAHESHWARI
National Botanical Research Institut...
The authors say:"The leaf is from a broad leafed plant (Diospyrus
melanoxylon or Diospyrus ebemum) native to India"
I feel there is an error here.Diospyrus ebenum (Ebony,black)
is not a source for Tendu leaves, as far as I know.(The authors write
'ebemum'-probably a typing error.For a list of plants from which bidi
leaves are obtained, see the following paragraph, from
J.K. MAHESHWARI
National Botanical Research Institute, Lucknow - 226 001, India
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0115E/T0115E0g.htm
"1.11 Tendu leaves
The leaves of tendu (Diospyros melanoxylon) are most widely used as
bidi
(country cigarettes) wrapper. The collection of bidi leaves and making
bidis
is a labour-intensive cottage-scale industry. The leaves of the following
species are also used locally: D. exsculpta, Bauhinia racemosa, Holarrhena
pubescens, Artocarpus heterophyllus, Careya arborea and Cordia dichotoma.
A flap is going on over at the British Medical Journal
about whether Nottingham University should accept BAT
(tobacco) money to fund an International Centre for
Corporate Social Responsibility. Some critics not
only call for the university to refuse the money but
also clamor for the resignation of BMJ’s editor,
Richard Smith, because of his point of view on the
matter. For the tempest raging in that teapot see
http://www.bmj.com/...
A flap is going on over at the British Medical Journal
about whether Nottingham University should accept BAT
(tobacco) money to fund an International Centre for
Corporate Social Responsibility. Some critics not
only call for the university to refuse the money but
also clamor for the resignation of BMJ’s editor,
Richard Smith, because of his point of view on the
matter. For the tempest raging in that teapot see
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/322/7294/DC1
On May 6, 2001, I contributed a letter to the BMJ
forum called “Magical Money.” I suggested that anti-
tobacco activists and researchers seem to have a sort
of schizoid view of industry money: If it comes from
Big Pharmaceutical, it’s good money no matter what
it’s used for; if it comes from Big Tobacco, it’s bad
no matter what.
In a private email challenge (May 9), Tobacco Control
editor Professor Simon Chapman has asked me to write
to this forum to justify why the following sentence
appears in my letter: “Anti-tobacco warriors don’t
consider BMJ to be ‘tainted’ by that money, and even
support the objectivity of editor Smith who, with a
straight face, quotes from Tobacco Control as if that
publication were objective and scholarly.”
Mr. Chapman asks me to explain what I mean by the
term “objective,” and he says the term “for years has
been regarded as a fairly complicated issue.”
I’ll try.
In common parlance, a primary adjectival sense
of “objective” is “uninfluenced by emotion, surmise,
or personal prejudice; based on observable phenomena;
presented factually” (American Heritage Dictionary,
2nd College Edition) or perhaps, “expressing or
involving the use of facts without distortion by
personal feelings or prejudices” (Merriam Webster’s
New Collegiate Dictionary, 9th Edition). These are
the senses I intended.
Rather than attempting a painstaking review of scores
of articles published in TC over the years, I offer
the following five items to support my suggestion that
TC is no objective forum.
First, the very name of the journal makes clear its
aim: to control tobacco. One does not need to be a
veteran on the front lines of the worldwide war
against tobacco to know that “tobacco control” is a
euphemism for “taxing and segregating smokers with the
ultimate aim of prohibiting tobacco altogether.”
That’s a fine plan if Mr. Chapman wants to follow it,
but he cannot claim his journal is objective.
Second, every truly objective study of the effects of
ETS has shown either no negative effect on non-smokers
or a barely significant one. Some studies have even
produced statistically significant protective
effects. The 1992/93 U.S. EPA report on ETS is null
and void in most of its conclusions for the very
reason that non-objective bias led to cherry picked
data and false statistical conclusions. One would
never learn that by reading anything about ETS in TC
which continues to parrot blatant statistical untruths
about ETS and its relationship to coronary heart
disease and lung cancer.
Third, on the March 2001 TC Online Top Ten Articles,
we see an interesting phenomenon regarding the authors
of these pieces. Ten of the authors are members of
the TC editorial board: Sargent, Pierce, Gilpin, Choi,
Jacobson, Warner, Henningfield, Benowitz, Slade, and
Davis. So much for objective peer review: TC seems
clearly to be one of those journals that thrives due
only to self-referential publication. Not very
objective.
Fourth, the Associated Press (April 20, 1997) reported
that “Australia’s principle medical advisory board
massaged research results to suit recommendations to
ban smoking in public places.” The article states in
part: “In a letter to members of the working party,
[Chapman] expressed concern that tables in the draft
report did not show a high death rate from passive
smoking.” It then quotes Editor Chapman as
follows: “Journalists looking at that table (or being
directed to it by the industry) will be hard pressed
to write anything other than ‘Official: passive
smoking cleared – no lung cancer.’” So here we have a
study of ETS that does not lead to the conclusion that
Professor Chapman wants, so it is altered. According
to the Australian AP, the panel’s final report did not
contain either Mr. Chapman’s concerns that the
evidence was not in the direction he wanted, “nor did
the final report contain the contentious table of
data.” This report, therefore, is no more objective
than is the one from the U.S. EPA.
http://193.78.190.200/who/2308.htm
Finally, as regards money being good or bad depending
on where it comes from, we have this June 1, 2000
report by Victoria Button, medical reporter for The
Age, “Tobacco study funding attacked.” Ms. Button
writes, “Advance photocopies of the report were
distributed to journalists without any acknowledgement
that it was funded by the drug company SmithKline
Beecham.” She goes on, “One of the authors of the
report, Simon Chapman . . . defended industry funding
as standard academic practice. . . .” But Mr.
Chapman’s hands were spanked anyway by Meredith
Carter, executive director of the Health Issues
Centre: “’If the cigarette companies funded research
that wasn’t acknowledged we would be hopping mad,
wouldn’t we?’ she said.”
http://theage.com.au/news/20000601/A30178-
2000May31.html
Yes, you sure would.
The close relationships among TC contributors and its
editorial board plus its commitment to tobacco
eradication plus its cozy ties to BMJ mean that all
research published in TC must be considered suspect as
respects its objectivity. Too many of the articles in
TC use tortured statistics to make their points and
too many of its contributors are indeed warriors on
the front lines of the war on smokers. Bias not
science rules at Tobacco Control. I stand by my
original statement.
Editor's reply:
Thank you Dr Quinn for the obvious trouble you went to in replying. I have some further bad news for you about the lack of objectivity in medical publishing. There are so-called scholarly "journals" with names like Preventive Medicine and Injury Prevention, which, like Tobacco Control, have taken up the radical position that reducing preventable disease and injury is a good thing and that there is little point in feigning some sort of "objectivity" that we might not want to control AIDS, malaria, motor vehicle deaths or those caused by smoking, to name a few.
Turning to his specific accusations:
1. We want to tax tobacco. Guilty! It is a very effective way of reducing tobacco use.
2. We want to "prohibit tobacco altogether". Can he point to even one sentence published in any part of Tobacco Control since it began over 10 years ago, that shows prohibition of tobacco use by adults being advocated by any author or editorially endorsed? Indeed, I recently contributed to a debate in the journal (Banning smoking outdoors is seldom ethically justifiable 2000;9:95-7) where I explicitly argued against prohibitionism. Only yesterday I wrote an article for the Sydney Morning Herald advocating dedicated smoking rooms in hotels (http://www.smh.com.au/news/0105/11/features/features5.html)
3. We do not deal objectively with ETS: Could Dr Quinn name one review of the evidence on ETS not commissioned by the tobacco industry which does not conclude that ETS causes disease and should be controlled through public policy?
4. Our Top 10 Online articles for March are stacked with members of the editorial board ... we therefore "thrive on self-referential publication". "Ten of the authors are members of the editorial board". Sorry, Dr Quinn, but Sargent Gilpin, Choi, Jacobson and Davis (5/10 of the people you named) are not members of the journal's editorial board. That's not a very good "objective" start to your criticism. And, as stated plainly on the page, the Top 10 Online refers to those papers that have had most "hits" from online readers. It has nothing to do with "self-referential publicaton" Again, your case is looking decidedly threadbare.
5. Dr Quinn cites a newspaper article from 1997 that he believes shows evidence that I was party to a process that eliminated unfavourable evidence from an Australian government report on ETS. The remarks I made in the letter he cites concerned suggestions I made to the committee about ways of expressing data that would make them more understandable. A table in a draft report of a working party of which I was a member showed estimates of annual ETS caused lung cancer deaths in Australia, broken down by age and sex. As Australia has a relatively small population, this resulted in some cells having "fractional" annual death rates.
I warned my colleagues that journalists would have no idea what a "fractional death" meant and may question that the report's estimate of annual lung cancer deaths from passive smoking in Australia consisted of adding up "fractions" of deaths. However, an annual fraction such as 0.5 simply means we can expect one death every two years from a cause. If we were to construct tables of deaths broken down by age groups and sex for deaths in Australia from a huge number of relatively uncommon deaths, the same concern would have it that there were "no deaths" in Australia in the average year from measles, whooping cough or lightening strikes to name three because for most age groups, only annual "fractional" deaths occur.
My crime here, was to advise my colleagues that it would be sensible to express the estimated number of deaths from ETS in a way that would be more intelligible to the ordinary reader. The final report did that, but did not somehow "alter" the original estimate as Dr Quinn's offensive comments imply.
6. Dr Quinn's final effort at implying I accept support from the pharmaceutical industry and do not acknowledge it is also incorrect. The newspaper report to which he refers arose when a report I authored on trends and influences on smoking cessation in Australia was faxed to a journalist. Acknowledgement of SmithKlineBeecham sponsorship of the report was clearly printed on the report. The colour contrast of the lettering of the acknowledgement with the colour of the page on which it appeared did not carry when it was faxed. The journalist called me asking why there was no acknowledgement. I explained that there indeed was; and that the contrast problem was probably responsible for this misperception. A copy was immediately couriered to the journalist, who nonethless ran her muck raking story as planned, gathering condemning quotes from people who had not been told that acknowledgement indeed had been given. A formal complaint about this incident was lodged with the editor of the newspaper.
7. Tobacco Control has a "cozy" relationship with the BMJ. In fact the BMJ publishes Tobacco Control. Your point?
8. Our contributors are "warriors on the front lines of the war on smokers". The war is on smoking, not on smokers.
I read your recent apt editorial with great interest. The views
presented represent some of the more seminal in
contemporary ethics vis-a-vis the ivory tower. As you are well aware, it
is unfortunate to note that many academic institutions in developing
countries collaborate (in the literal sense of the word!) with the major
domos mentioned in your five scenarios. Less than 5% of academic research
are carried out citize...
I read your recent apt editorial with great interest. The views
presented represent some of the more seminal in
contemporary ethics vis-a-vis the ivory tower. As you are well aware, it
is unfortunate to note that many academic institutions in developing
countries collaborate (in the literal sense of the word!) with the major
domos mentioned in your five scenarios. Less than 5% of academic research
are carried out citizens of developing countries. Money, or lack of it,
is the usual obstacle. Thus, 'fortunate' African academics like myself,
with two dozen peer-reviewed publications, are rare in the developing
world. Your editorial raises three issues, which I would like to address
from the lenses of a developing country academic:
1) The editorial starts on the premise that the five senarios are
totally unacceptable to any university. Not quite. Mariam Babangida and
Maryam Abacha were wives of two dictators who collectively ruled Nigeria
for 14 years. Mariam established a Better life for Rural Women Program
while Maryam established the Family Support Program. Both programs were
affiliated to Nigerian universities, and funded from Nigeria's petrol
dollars. It is on record that Maryam Abacha, who with her late husband plundered about $US5 billion from Nigeria's
treasury, was awarded a PhD from The University of Maiduguri, Nigeria. As an 'academic' she joined Idi Amin, Uganda's
former dictator, who was awarded a PhD from Uganda's Makerere University. The military-dictator husbands of these powerful women
collectively damaged the very fabric that would facilitate improved
quality of life for Nigerian women and Nigerian families. On another
note, the atrocities perpetrated by Cecil Rhodes in Southern Africa are
well known to students of African history. Yet, many brilliant students
world-wide (but excluding Southern African countries, where the ill-gotten
wealth was obtained)
continue to benefit from Rhodes scholarship. I suspect that Sydney
University offers its students Rhodes scholarships. Furthermore, Shell
Nigeria provides funding to six Nigerian universities, part of which is
allocated to ecological
research. Thus, although I agree that these suggestions are in poor
taste, but when poor States have to deal with such ethical dillemas, I am
pretty certain they would not adopt your moral high ground - the recent
acceptance of a space tourist by the cash-strapped Russian space mission
is a case in point. The point I'm making is that it is difficult to
discuss ethics and morality on an empty stomach.
2) You suggested that the funding of universities by the tobacco
industry merits greater condemnation than their funding of other agencies
such as sports and schools. I disagree. Such a perspective is akin to
the front-page headlines the fall of the Australian dollar below the 50 US
cents 'psychological barrier' made in Australian newspapers about six
weeks ago. The fact, as you rightly pointed out,
is that the tobacco industry has been poaching venal and naive academics,
and using them to sow doubt among the public. With funding going directly
to a university, ethical approval processes should reduce the propensity
for a few academics to become the tobacco industries' mouthpiece after
taking the proverbial thirty pieces of silver. If properly managed, the
tobacco industry could end up funding their nemesis. Should the tobacco
industry withdraw funding from universities that dare speak the truth,
editorials such as yours would take on a superior ethical flavour.
3) Is the tobacco industry alone in influence peddling in
universities? Not quite. The adverse effects of the atrocities of the
pharmaceutical and information technology industries on the quality of
research in our universities, and indeed on the quality of health care is
currently a subject of intense intrest, attracting a recent editorial in
the New England Journal of Medicine. I was particularly exasperated by
their antics at the 14 International AIDS conference in Durban, South
Africa, in July 2000[1]. It is tempting to excuse their lobbying on the
premise that pharmaceuticals potentially save lives while tobacco
certainly costs lives. However, in the final analysis, the primary
concern of pharmaceutical
industries is the bottom line. Their recently withdrawn court case,
apparently to compel the South African government to buy their more
expensive drugs is a case
in point.
In conclusion, the ethics of tobacco funding need to be placed in
context. While it is ridiculous the the tobacco industry should continue
to exist at all, given the plethora of evidence on the adverse effects of
their products, we have all had to contend with the reality that it would
continue to exists for many more decades in spite of our best efforts. A
consensus also apparently exists that the fight against the tobacco
industry would have to be conducted at many points, to be successful.
Rejecting, outright, tobacco industries' funding for research in
universities is a rational approach to isolating them. Accepting the
funding, and subjecting the projects undertaken with such funds to utmost
ethical approval is
another. While the former is the more appropriate response in wealthy
nations, it would be unfair to blame poor nations for adopting the latter
strategy.
1. Awofeso N, Degeling P, Ritchie J, Winters M. Thabo Mbeki and the
AIDS 'jury'. School of Health Services Management, Faculty of Medicine,
University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia.
This letter was received from Sir Colin Campbell on 20 December 2000.
Thank you for your comments about the University's decision to accept funding for a new Business School Centre from British American Tobacco. From comments I have seen and heard since the announcement was made I know that people
hold widely differing views in this area. The University has made a judgement, which it holds to be the right one, but I recognise...
This letter was received from Sir Colin Campbell on 20 December 2000.
Thank you for your comments about the University's decision to accept funding for a new Business School Centre from British American Tobacco. From comments I have seen and heard since the announcement was made I know that people
hold widely differing views in this area. The University has made a judgement, which it holds to be the right one, but I recognise that the debate will continue.
Thank you for taking the time to let the University know your point of view.
Colin Campbell Colin.Campbell@nottingham.ac.uk
The reading of rolling round the curbs by Karina Oddoux and Pascal Melihan Cheinin reminds me of the suggestion to end each article by the question "so what?" meaning (if an explanation is needed) what does this bring to us, what
should/could be done concretely to improve the situation...
In the case of the advertising of roll your own cigarette papers in France the authors assert they are not covered by the prohibition enacted...
The reading of rolling round the curbs by Karina Oddoux and Pascal Melihan Cheinin reminds me of the suggestion to end each article by the question "so what?" meaning (if an explanation is needed) what does this bring to us, what
should/could be done concretely to improve the situation...
In the case of the advertising of roll your own cigarette papers in France the authors assert they are not covered by the prohibition enacted by the French anti-tobacco laws. How can they be so sure of that? have the ads been challenged in the courts?
I know that the advertising agency in charge of the OCB campaign and some lawyers claim there is a loophole and that those ads are not advertising for any tobacco product. I disagree with this position and I don't think it would
be that easy for the parties involved in those campaigns to defend themselves against the charge that they are pushing the use of tobacco. Besides, even if legally such a battle was lost it would probably be quite positive mediatically and politically: just imagine the famous model and actress being sued (as they are accomplices to the violation).
For a very small legal fee I bet you would get a lot of media exposure.
If you don't win (which I doubt), you clearly make the point that there is indeed a loophole that needs to be fixed.
Another interesting angle to pursue would be for all the health agencies to blacklist the advertising agencies that do such illegal work. As far as the OCB account is concerned the advertising agency was (still is?) a subsidiary of the Publicis Group (Publicis Constellation). In 1997 the CFES
awarded his anti-tobacco budget for 3 years to another subsidiary of Publicis (Publicis Etoiles). Had the CFES refused to work with the left hand of Publicis because its right hand was promoting RYO cigarette papers it would have sent a strong message to the ad world.
It is still time for all the health agencies to blacklist the advertising companies that engage in such illegal campaigns. Be sure that Publicis would hate such a bad advertising!
Meanwhile I strongly recommend one or several lawsuits. They are long overdue. Sue the bastards!
John Hughes has given us a common-sense article on the attributes of
smoking that make feel-good nicotine such an addicting drug: rapid onset
of effects, frequent use and thus reward (200 hits a day), reliability of
delivery, and easy availability. From this analysis, Hughes proposes a
way to reduce nicotine dependence through a regulatory system which
gradually phases in products ("vehicles") that ameliorate these very...
John Hughes has given us a common-sense article on the attributes of
smoking that make feel-good nicotine such an addicting drug: rapid onset
of effects, frequent use and thus reward (200 hits a day), reliability of
delivery, and easy availability. From this analysis, Hughes proposes a
way to reduce nicotine dependence through a regulatory system which
gradually phases in products ("vehicles") that ameliorate these very
attributes; a kind of weaning.
But if the tobacco industry is truly in the "nicotine delivery
business," would it not (as it has and is)try to create the delivery
vehicle that maintains smoking's advantage with fewer, perhaps even far
fewer, of its lethal other effects? What they promise will be the "safer"
cigarette, but something just this side of drug-regulation? Since their
true market targets are the young people with (according to Hughes) a
great need for the self-medication nicotine offers, nicotine-slow or
nicotine-light or nicotine-hard to get are not in the industry's financial
or competitive self-interest.
Given the industry's marketing and money clout, one cannot blithely
assume that weaning will win out.
I was wondering if smokless tabacco affects stamina and other factors
associated to stamina during intense exercise...ive heard that it does and
i was wondering how and why since its not being smoked which affects the
lungs,therefore affects breathing....plese reply..thank you....
Within an otherwise perceptive review of my book Civil Warriors: The
Legal Siege on the Tobacco Industry,
Anne Landman made two errors I would like to correct.
One is relatively minor. My book does not open, as she states, with a
description of the death of plaintiff's lawyer Ron Motley's mother from
cigarette-related emphysema. It opens with a scene that describes Motley
and others a...
Within an otherwise perceptive review of my book Civil Warriors: The
Legal Siege on the Tobacco Industry,
Anne Landman made two errors I would like to correct.
One is relatively minor. My book does not open, as she states, with a
description of the death of plaintiff's lawyer Ron Motley's mother from
cigarette-related emphysema. It opens with a scene that describes Motley
and others awaiting a verdict in a smoking and health case in Muncie,
Indiana, and links the trial up with its broader historical context,
namely efforts to settle, via Congressional fiat, all smoking and health
lawsuits.
The point is worth mentioning because my book, as Landman points out,
does not treat the fight against the cigarette companies as having been
the province of one plaintiff's lawyer, but of a much larger cast of
hitherto unsung - and generally underpaid - characters, especially
Cliff Douglas, a lone wolf health and social activist who is introduced
prominently in the first chapter, and who shares the limelight with
Motley throughout the story, a fact Landman never mentions.
This leads me to the second and more serious mistake.
Landman writes that I have failed to point out the fatal flaws in the
multi-billion dollar deal struck by Motley and his
plaintiff's lawyer
colleagues with the tobacco industry, the so-called Master Settlement
Agreement.
This is untrue. First, Douglas is in the book precisely as a proof and
criticism of the type of thinking that produced the MSA, a strain of
criticism that crops up
on numerous occasions throughout virtually the entire narrative.
Secondly, this author attacks the MSA in his own voice in no uncertain
terms in the book's final pages.
I describe the Master Settlement Agreement as "little more than a cash
lottery for the states," and observe that the alliance between the
attorneys general and the plaintiff's lawyers "didn't fundamentally
change [this] peculiar industry," and that the fees awarded to the law
firms representing the attorneys general were often
"grotesque."
Even more to the point, I comment that the Master Settlement Agreement
was expressly designed so that "no company would go broke paying for
it," that the increase in the price of a pack of cigarettes occasioned
by the MSA "probably wasn't big enough to make a dent in the tens of
millions of addicts," and that while "Motley could say he had won a
measure of justice for millions of victims, none was promised any of the
billions from the Master Settlement Agreement. The MSA did not even
compel the states to spend this windfall on tobacco control or health,
and many were already planning to use it to lower property taxes, repair
sidewalks and build prisons."
While not a comprehensive critique, I would call that a pretty good
thumbnail catalogue of the MSA's weaknesses. Finally, I would insist
that my book does not, as Landman implies, back away from Motley's
personal or professional flaws, but unpacks them in rather lavish
detail - his extravagant lifestyle, his questionable trade-off of the rights
of individual plaintiffs in order to nail down giant cash settlements,
and so on.
My book is not a simple-minded piece of cheerleading for the plaintiff's
lawyers, but indeed is a good deal more complex and nuanced than one
would gather from reading Landman's review.
Simon Chapman serves as Editor for Tobacco Control. Mike Cummings
acted as guest editor for this manuscript. Simon Chapman was excluded from
reviewer correspondence and excused himself from participation in
editorial
meetings where the manuscript was discussed.
EDITOR,-- The letter from Henningfield and Rose (Tobacco Control 10:295-296), provides valuable historic information about US Federal Aviation Administration Policy to prohibit smoking in both the passenger section and the flight deck. of scheduled passenger flights. They tell of the smoking ban passed by Congress in 1989. Yes, their letter offers lessons about political and bureaucratic achievements. But they told only...
The authors say:"The leaf is from a broad leafed plant (Diospyrus melanoxylon or Diospyrus ebemum) native to India" I feel there is an error here.Diospyrus ebenum (Ebony,black) is not a source for Tendu leaves, as far as I know.(The authors write 'ebemum'-probably a typing error.For a list of plants from which bidi leaves are obtained, see the following paragraph, from J.K. MAHESHWARI National Botanical Research Institut...
I read your recent apt editorial with great interest. The views presented represent some of the more seminal in contemporary ethics vis-a-vis the ivory tower. As you are well aware, it is unfortunate to note that many academic institutions in developing countries collaborate (in the literal sense of the word!) with the major domos mentioned in your five scenarios. Less than 5% of academic research are carried out citize...
John Hughes has given us a common-sense article on the attributes of smoking that make feel-good nicotine such an addicting drug: rapid onset of effects, frequent use and thus reward (200 hits a day), reliability of delivery, and easy availability. From this analysis, Hughes proposes a way to reduce nicotine dependence through a regulatory system which gradually phases in products ("vehicles") that ameliorate these very...
I was wondering if smokless tabacco affects stamina and other factors associated to stamina during intense exercise...ive heard that it does and i was wondering how and why since its not being smoked which affects the lungs,therefore affects breathing....plese reply..thank you....
Within an otherwise perceptive review of my book Civil Warriors: The Legal Siege on the Tobacco Industry, Anne Landman made two errors I would like to correct.
One is relatively minor. My book does not open, as she states, with a description of the death of plaintiff's lawyer Ron Motley's mother from cigarette-related emphysema. It opens with a scene that describes Motley and others a...
Simon Chapman serves as Editor for Tobacco Control. Mike Cummings acted as guest editor for this manuscript. Simon Chapman was excluded from reviewer correspondence and excused himself from participation in editorial meetings where the manuscript was discussed.
Pages