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.
In Tobacco Control of June, 2000, you invited Michelle Scollo to
write about world's best practice in tobacco taxation. In an otherwise
elegant article she missed out what was, arguably, Australia's major
contribution to tobacco tax policy. I refer to the idea of hypothecation
(earmarking) of tobacco tax for health purposes, which was enshrined in
the Victorian Tobacco Act of 1987 and copied by California, Massachusett...
In Tobacco Control of June, 2000, you invited Michelle Scollo to
write about world's best practice in tobacco taxation. In an otherwise
elegant article she missed out what was, arguably, Australia's major
contribution to tobacco tax policy. I refer to the idea of hypothecation
(earmarking) of tobacco tax for health purposes, which was enshrined in
the Victorian Tobacco Act of 1987 and copied by California, Massachusetts
and others.
The idea entered my correspondence in 1981 but took until 1987 to
become law.
I recently discovered that we were actually not the first with the
idea. Dr Eduardo Caceres told me last month that the Peruvian government
adopted this principle in 1985 to find the money to build South America's
best cancer hospital, which cost $US35,000,000. This tribute to him should
be published-he was the winner of the UICC's Mucio Athyede award in
September-$US 150,000- and deservedly so.
This principle remains a crucial component of tax policy.
The authors have written an excellent article. Readers may
also be interested in knowing that the website for the British Columbia
Ministry of Health also contains copies of industry documents retrived
from the Guildford depository in England.
Approximately 40,000 pages of documents on the Canadian operations of
BAT and Imperial Tobacco Limited are posted at:
www.hlth.gov.bc.ca/guildford/index.html
The authors have written an excellent article. Readers may
also be interested in knowing that the website for the British Columbia
Ministry of Health also contains copies of industry documents retrived
from the Guildford depository in England.
Approximately 40,000 pages of documents on the Canadian operations of
BAT and Imperial Tobacco Limited are posted at:
www.hlth.gov.bc.ca/guildford/index.html
Jennifer O'Loughlin from McGill University is engaged in a
replication/extension of our study. She has conducted focus groups with young smokers which demonstrate that youths experience nicotine dependence in ways very similar to adults but with some exceptions. They do know what addiction means and they describe their symptoms the same way adult smokers do.
Dr O'Loughlin has also demonstrated that the measures used in our stu...
Jennifer O'Loughlin from McGill University is engaged in a
replication/extension of our study. She has conducted focus groups with young smokers which demonstrate that youths experience nicotine dependence in ways very similar to adults but with some exceptions. They do know what addiction means and they describe their symptoms the same way adult smokers do.
Dr O'Loughlin has also demonstrated that the measures used in our study have excellent test properties, superior to those of other common measures.
As a family physician I have spoken to thousands of smokers young and old about their smoking cessation efforts. I have no reason to believe that adult smokers are not experiencing the same cravings and withdrawal symptoms they have since they started smoking. Since it takes an average of 20 years for adolescent smokers to quit, it seems most logical to
assume, if anything, that the strength of the addiction weakens with time,rather than growing stronger. I don't believe this, but say this only to underscore that there is no data to suggest that the nicotine addiction experienced by youths is a watered down version of what adults experience.
We have now completed three years of follow up with our cohort and
will be looking at the issues raised above.
I do not feel that tolerance is central to nicotine dependence and I
would not feel that the rate at which tolerance builds up would be a valid
measure of whether these youths are addicted. After all, chippers show no
signs of dependence but do show tolerance. I do not think you can prove
that a measure of dependence is valid by showing that youths who have that
symptom progress more rapidly to higher levels of consumption. We will
look at that however.
Regarding the DeFranza et al article published in the
current issue. If the conclusions are true, the
implications are large. Before being convinced I
would like to see evidence that these inexperienced
users meant the same thing by their answers as
a 'real' addict might, or that the questions have
predictive validity. I would be reassured if those
asked to reflect on these early experiences still saw
them in the same way after...
Regarding the DeFranza et al article published in the
current issue. If the conclusions are true, the
implications are large. Before being convinced I
would like to see evidence that these inexperienced
users meant the same thing by their answers as
a 'real' addict might, or that the questions have
predictive validity. I would be reassured if those
asked to reflect on these early experiences still saw
them in the same way after thay had become more
dependant. Also, is there any evidence that those
reporing these signs are more likely to continue to
smoke and/or to increase their consumption at a
greater rate than those who don't report them? In the
absence of either form of data, I think their strong
conclusions are premature.
Tobacco control in New Zealand – not so comprehensive?
Laugesen and Swinburn(1) provide a very helpful overview of New
Zealand’s tobacco control activities between 1985 and 1998. We strongly
agree with them that the achievements were largely a consequence of work
in the period from 1985 to 1990 and subsequent activity was much less
effective. With a series of conservative governments betwe...
Tobacco control in New Zealand – not so comprehensive?
Laugesen and Swinburn(1) provide a very helpful overview of New
Zealand’s tobacco control activities between 1985 and 1998. We strongly
agree with them that the achievements were largely a consequence of work
in the period from 1985 to 1990 and subsequent activity was much less
effective. With a series of conservative governments between 1990 and 1998
there was very little progress with tobacco control, as we have documented
elsewhere.(2,3)
However, the description of present tobacco control activity in New
Zealand, in their conclusion, as “comprehensive” appears to us to be
optimistic. It is comprehensive neither by intervention type or by
objective. Neither is the depth of investment in tobacco control
sufficient to give much reality to some of the interventions currently
used.
While some smoking cessation services are now available, the mass
media campaign promoting this service has a minute budget (around $US 0.6
per smoker per year). Policy development and research continues to be done
on a shoestring, when compared to the need for and the opposition to
advancing tobacco control.
Some policy instruments are still virtually unused. There is no
control of tobacco constituents or packaging (except for warnings).
Perhaps of most importance in the long run is that New Zealand governments
have considered that tobacco use is the core problem, rather than the
tobacco industry and the economic and political processes that support the
industry. Consequently they have relied on legislation that focuses on
tobacco use and (limited) education, and have not invested sufficiently in
legal resources and developing more appropriate political processes.
Our work has found that the lack of official legal resources has
hindered the progress of legislation and its enforcement.2, 3 There has
been limited progress in preventing the tobacco industry from influencing
tobacco control policy development. Preventive measures that need progress
include increasing the transparency of MPs interests and political party
fundraising; improving reporting requirements for politicians, lobbyists,
and officials; making deception about the health effects of smoking a
criminal offence; and creating an effective regulatory framework for the
activities of the industry. We consider that a ‘comprehensive’ program
would encompass measures to counter the industry’s strategy to ‘defend
itself on three major fronts – litigation, politics and public
opinion’.(4)
The new government elected in late 1999 has revitalised hopes for
tobacco control in New Zealand. There was a 20% tobacco tax increase in
May 2000 and more comprehensive smokefree environments legislation is
being developed. Furthermore, nicotine patches and gum are to be heavily
subsidised in late 2000. However, moves to control the tobacco industry
are still lacking. Perhaps most telling is that government spending on
tobacco control remains at under 3% of the tax revenue from tobacco.(5)
George Thomson
Nick Wilson
(1) Laugesen M, Swinburn B. New Zealand's tobacco control programme
1985-1998.Tob Control 2000; 9: 155-62.
(2) Thomson G, Wilson N. Lost in the Smoke: Tobacco control in New
Zealand during the 1990s. N Z Med J 2000; 113: 122-4.
(3) Thomson G, Wilson N. Tobacco Control Policy During 1984-1998. In:
Davis P, Ashton T (eds). Health and Public Policy in New Zealand. Sydney:
Oxford University Press, (in press).
(4) Hurt R, Robertson C. Prying open the door to the tobacco
industry’s secrets about nicotine. JAMA 1998; 280:1173-1181.
(5) Thomson G, O’Dea D, Wilson N, Reid P, Howden-Chapman P. The
effects of tobacco tax increases on Maori and low-income families.
Wellington: Department of Public Health.
Wellington School of Medicine, 2000
Readers may be interested to know that the Virginia Slims ad shown in
this article was changed after the head of Philip Morris was asked pointed
questions about it in a recent deposition. The deposition was taken as
part of the "Engle" class action lawsuit in Florida, which is heading
towards a large punitive damages award (the jury has already handed out
two positive verdicts for the plaintiffs).
Readers may be interested to know that the Virginia Slims ad shown in
this article was changed after the head of Philip Morris was asked pointed
questions about it in a recent deposition. The deposition was taken as
part of the "Engle" class action lawsuit in Florida, which is heading
towards a large punitive damages award (the jury has already handed out
two positive verdicts for the plaintiffs).
Here is an excerpt from the Wall Street Journal, which provides some
details.
---------------------------
Wall Steet Journal
June 13, 2000
Philip Morris Removes Slogan From Ads
In Second Attempt Responding to Critics
By GORDON FAIRCLOUGH
Michael E. Szymanczyk, head of Philip Morris Cos.' U.S. tobacco
operations, said he ordered changes last month to an advertising campaign
for Virginia Slims cigarettes after a lawyer suing the cigarette maker
asked him pointed questions in a deposition.
Mr. Szymanczyk, testifying in the trial of a class-action suit filed
by Florida residents with smoking-related illnesses, said he removed the
slogan "Find your voice" from the ads after being deposed by plaintiffs'
attorney Stanley M. Rosenblatt, who had suggested it might be offensive to
smokers with throat cancer. ...
Mr. Szymanczyk testified that during a deposition in May, Mr.
Rosenblatt asked him if he thought the Virginia Slims ad slogan "Find your
voice" would be offensive to people who had developed throat cancer from
smoking and lost their ability to talk. The next day, Mr. Szymanczyk
testified, he ordered the slogan removed from the ads. "He made a good
point," Mr. Szymanczyk said, adding that using the slogan in the first
place "was my mistake."
During the deposition, Mr. Rosenblatt also questioned Mr. Szymanczyk
about the use of the line "Don't let the goody-two-shoes get you down" in
some Virginia Slims ads. Mr. Rosenblatt suggested it encouraged people to
disregard health warnings about cigarettes.
In his testimony Monday, Mr. Szymanczyk said that slogan was set to
"expire anyway" and be discontinued at the end of June. If it had been
scheduled to continue, however, Mr. Szymanczyk said he would have ordered
it pulled, too. He said he has told managers in charge of the Virginia
Slims brand to make sure "there isn't any hint of rebelliousness" in
future advertising. "We don't want controversial advertising," he said. "I
don't want people to look at our advertising and say that we're trying to
do something wrong."
A Philip Morris spokesman said that the Virginia Slims ad campaign,
which also has been criticized by antismoking activists for targeting
minority women, would continue to run, but with the changes ordered by Mr.
Szymanczyk. ...
It is regrettable that so much attention continues to be given to
suggestions that alternative nicotine products will reduce smoking.
The US has had numerous nicotine products on the market for years, at
least gum and patch are available without prescription. The effects of
those products on smoking rates have been assessed and are tiny, nearly
negligible (see below), compared to reductions in tobacco consumptio...
It is regrettable that so much attention continues to be given to
suggestions that alternative nicotine products will reduce smoking.
The US has had numerous nicotine products on the market for years, at
least gum and patch are available without prescription. The effects of
those products on smoking rates have been assessed and are tiny, nearly
negligible (see below), compared to reductions in tobacco consumption
under e.g. the California or Massachusetts tobacco control programs or US
EPA labeling regimes that given consumers notice that nicotine smoke
generators are poisonous pesticides. Pushing nicotine, like pushing
tobacco, is a profit making enterprise with, ultimately, little regard for
more effective measures that promote public health rather than simply
profit.
See: Cigarette consumption and sales of nicotine replacement
products
The-wei Hu, Hai-Yen Sung, Theodore E Keeler, and Martin Marciniak
I am absolutely mystified by Clive Bates’ hypothetical introduction of a new product called "Satisfaction". This theoretical nicotine delivery device will be marketed in a real world where the sale of cigarettes is still legal. Smokers will still smoke, but a significant number of young nonsmokers will undoubtedly be lured by what Bates calls an “ironic marketing gambit”. ‘We’re too cool for Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man’, they...
I am absolutely mystified by Clive Bates’ hypothetical introduction of a new product called "Satisfaction". This theoretical nicotine delivery device will be marketed in a real world where the sale of cigarettes is still legal. Smokers will still smoke, but a significant number of young nonsmokers will undoubtedly be lured by what Bates calls an “ironic marketing gambit”. ‘We’re too cool for Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man’, they’ll say, ‘but Keith Richards is my beast of burden.’ Pop some ‘nico’ with a shot of tequila and you stay onstage forever, satisfaction guaranteed. Retro irony is the best kind.
So, who gains? A buzz has been created for a new product, filling the coffers of unscrupulous marketers and spiking the rates of cardiovascular disease. But most smokers, genuinely desperate to quit, and justly resentful of the industry’s marketing ploys, will only feel lied to once again.
If Clive Bates wants to mount the barricades and attack the “entrenched conservative pharmaceutical regulators… who have never had to face their de facto complicity in protecting and nurturing tobacco interests”, then I stand shoulder-to-shoulder with him. If he wants to introduce a new, unhealthy nicotine fad, he’s lost me. The cachet of the drug will only increase, globally, and that can only help global cigarette sales.
Stan Shatenstein
Editor - Tobacco News Online
5492-B Trans Island
Montreal, Quebec H3W 3A8
Tel: 514-486-1243
Fax: 514-486-6894
E-mail: shatensteins@sympatico.ca
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.
In Tobacco Control of June, 2000, you invited Michelle Scollo to write about world's best practice in tobacco taxation. In an otherwise elegant article she missed out what was, arguably, Australia's major contribution to tobacco tax policy. I refer to the idea of hypothecation (earmarking) of tobacco tax for health purposes, which was enshrined in the Victorian Tobacco Act of 1987 and copied by California, Massachusett...
The authors have written an excellent article. Readers may also be interested in knowing that the website for the British Columbia Ministry of Health also contains copies of industry documents retrived from the Guildford depository in England.
Approximately 40,000 pages of documents on the Canadian operations of BAT and Imperial Tobacco Limited are posted at: www.hlth.gov.bc.ca/guildford/index.html
Tha...
Dear Editor
Tobacco control in New Zealand – not so comprehensive?
Laugesen and Swinburn(1) provide a very helpful overview of New Zealand’s tobacco control activities between 1985 and 1998. We strongly agree with them that the achievements were largely a consequence of work in the period from 1985 to 1990 and subsequent activity was much less effective. With a series of conservative governments betwe...
Readers may be interested to know that the Virginia Slims ad shown in this article was changed after the head of Philip Morris was asked pointed questions about it in a recent deposition. The deposition was taken as part of the "Engle" class action lawsuit in Florida, which is heading towards a large punitive damages award (the jury has already handed out two positive verdicts for the plaintiffs).
Here is an exce...
It is regrettable that so much attention continues to be given to suggestions that alternative nicotine products will reduce smoking.
The US has had numerous nicotine products on the market for years, at least gum and patch are available without prescription. The effects of those products on smoking rates have been assessed and are tiny, nearly negligible (see below), compared to reductions in tobacco consumptio...
Pages