Six Arguments For the Elimination of Cigarettes

Prohibition and the “tobacco control endgame.”

Despite all our efforts in recent years to reduce the percentage of Americans who smoke cigarettes—currently about one in five—the idea of full-blown cigarette prohibition has not gained much traction. That may be changing, as prominent nicotine researchers and public police officials start thinking about what is widely referred to as the “tobacco control endgame.”

Considering the new regulatory powers given the FDA under the terms of the Tobacco Control Act of 2009, as a commentary in Tobacco Control framed it, “will the government be a facilitator or barrier to the effective implementation of strategies designed to achieve this public health goal?”
Two newer approaches have gained some traction in the research community: Reduce the level of nicotine in cigarette products (the FDA is prohibited by law from reducing nicotine content to zero), and continuing to emphasize the non-combustible forms. Plus, everybody pretty much agrees on higher prices.

Here are the six arguments for going all the way:

1) Death. Six million of them a year, worldwide, a number that will grow before it starts shrinking. A billion deaths this century, compared to 100 million in the 20th Century. Robert Proctor, author of The Golden Holocaust and a professor of history at Stanford, whose six arguments these are, calls the cigarette “the deadliest object in the history of human civilization.” So there’s that.

2) Other product defects. The cigarette is defective, Proctor writes in defense of his six arguments in Tobacco Control, because it is “not just dangerous but unreasonably dangerous, killing half its long-term users.” Indeed, it is hard to imagine the FDA green-lighting a drug product like that today. In addition, Proctor claims cigarettes are defective because the tobacco has been altered by flue curing to make it far more inhalable than would otherwise be the case. “The world’s present epidemic of lung cancer is almost entirely due to the use of low pH flue-cured tobacco in cigarettes, an industry-wide practice that could be reversed at any time.”

3) Financial burdens. These can be reckoned principally in terms of the costs of treating smoking-related illnesses. This, in turn, leads to diminished labor productivity, especially in the developing world, a process that “in many parts of the world makes the poor even poorer,” Proctor observes.

4) Big Tobacco’s impact on science. By sponsoring shoddy and distracting research, by publishing “decoy” findings and by otherwise confusing and corrupting scientific discourse on the cigarette question in the advertising-dependent popular media. The tobacco industry has proved to everyone’s satisfaction that it can put politicians and regulators under intense pressure to see things its way. Not to mention other institutions that have been “bullied, corrupted or exploited,” according to Proctor: The AMA, The American Law Institute, sports organizations, Hollywood, the military, and the U.S. Congress, for starters. (Until 2011, American submarines were not smoke-free.)

5) Environmental harms. More than you might think falls into this category: Deforestation, pesticide use, loss of savannah woodlands for charcoal used in flue curing, fossil fuels for curing and transport, fires caused by burning cigarettes, etc.

6) Smokers want to quit. Smoking is not a recreational drug, as Proctor takes pains to point out. Most smokers hate it and wish they could quit. This makes cigarettes different from alcohol or marijuana, Proctor insists. He quotes a Canadian tobacco executive, who said that smoking isn’t like drinking; it’s more like being an alcoholic. This rings true to for the majority of addicted smokers I know, and was certainly true of me when I was a smoker.


So there it is, the case for tobacco prohibition. But hasn’t all this prohibition business been tried and found wanting? We know the results of drug and alcohol prohibition, whatever their rationales: Smuggling, organized crime, increased law enforcement, more money. This argument, says Proctor, has been central to the cigarette industry since forever: “Bans are ridiculed as impractical or tyrannical. (First they come for your cigarettes…)”

Proctor’s response is that smuggling is already common, and people should be free to grow tobacco for their personal use. He advocates a ban on sales, not possession.

There are at least two major obstacles to cigarette prohibition. First, an enormous amount of tax revenue is generated by the production and sale of cigarettes. And the troubling question of a steep rise in black marketeering goes largely ignored or unaddressed. In the same special issue of Tobacco Control, Peter Reuter has sobering thoughts on that front: “Cigarette black markets are commonplace in high tax jurisdictions. For example, estimates are that contraband cigarettes now account for 20-30% of the Canadian market, which has restrained government enthusiasm for raising taxes further. All the proposed ‘endgame’ proposals for shrinking cigarette prevalence toward zero run the risk of creating black markets.”

In the end, Proctor argues that the cigarette industry itself has repeatedly promised to quit the business if its products where ever found to be profoundly harmful to consumers. As recently as 1997, Philip Morris CEO Geoffrey Bible swore under oath that if cigarettes were found to cause cancer “I’d probably… shut it down instantly to get a better hold on things.” Incredible statements like this by company executives go back to the 1950s. Perhaps it’s time to let them stop lying. “The cigarette, as presently constituted,” writes Proctor, “is simply too dangerous—and destructive and unloved—to be sold.”

Proctor R.N. (2013). Why ban the sale of cigarettes? The case for abolition, Tobacco Control, 22 (Supplement 1) i27-i30. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050811

Photo: AAP/April Fonti

For Smokers, Nowhere to Run and Nowhere to Hide

(With love and apologies to Martha and the Vandellas.)

That wonderful song goes on to declare:

'Cause I know
You're no good for me
But you’ve become
A part of me.

The song is not about cigarette addiction, but it could be. Full Disclosure: I smoked cigarettes myself for almost 25 years. And then, after several failed attempts, I quit. I out myself on this subject because a paper from the May 25 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) decries what the authors call the “denormalization” of smoking—and I find myself agreeing with them, smokeless though I may be. I recently visited New York, coincidentally on the day that smoking outdoors in New York City became illegal. Okay, that’s not quite fair to say—it became illegal to smoke in Central Park, or at Brighton Beach, or along the newly pedestrian mallways of Times Square. There is no smoking along the High Line. There is no smoking at any park, beach, or pedestrian mall. As both the tobacco industry and anti-smoking activists well know, this was an iconic victory that has the potential to change smoking laws in virtually every other American city.

It’s a fascinating progression, starting in the 70s when the Civil Aeronautics Board decreed non-smoking sections on domestic airline flights, to the recent New York City Council Decision to ban smoking en plein air, so to speak. Thomas Farley, New York City Health Commissioner, summed it up as follows in a public hearing: “I think in the future, we will look back on this time and say ‘How could we have ever tolerated smoking in a park?’”

I’m not so sure on that, myself. James Colgrove, Ronald Bayer, and Kathleen Bachynski of the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University wrote the paper, entitled “Nowhere Left to Hide? The Banishment of Smoking from Public Spaces,” in the NEJM. The authors note that more than 500 towns and cities in 43 different states have already enacted laws banning smoking “in outdoor recreation areas.” At first, as the authors summarize the history, it all seems like a sensible compromise, built on common courtesy. First airplanes and buses, then restaurants and bars, began setting aside seats for non-smokers. By the early 90s, the first data on secondhand smoke was rolling in. Schools, convention centers, and finally even private workplaces either banned smoking or created smoke-free areas. But even then, the primary motivator, according to the researchers, was that secondhand smoke was “unpleasant and annoying,” not deadly. Smokers weren’t being asked to refrain from public smoking for the good of their own health, but as a courtesy to others.

The solid scientific evidence kept accumulating, however—even though tobacco cigarettes were, and still are, completely legal products for adult Americans to purchase and consume if they so choose. Now the arguments shifted to the innocent bystanders, those within the six-foot ring, the immediate smoke zone surrounding a smoker, and the elevated risk of lung cancer, heart disease, and asthma that smokers were subjecting them to. In 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classified secondhand smoke as a Class A carcinogen, and more school, stadiums and offices proscribed smoking.

So far so good, really, from a public health standpoint. But now comes the bend in the road. Suddenly, parks and beaches were being added to the no-smoking roster. “As the zones of prohibition are extended from indoor to outdoor spaces, however, the evidence of physical harm to bystanders grows more tenuous.” In 2008, the authors report, “The editor of the journal Tobacco Control dismissed as ‘flimsy’ the evidence that secondhand smoke poses a threat to the health of nonsmokers in most outdoor settings.”

This confusion was much in evidence at public hearings last fall on the proposed outdoor smoking bans. While Health commissioner Farley argued that 57% of New Yorkers showed nicotine by-products in their blood, he also argued that exposing young children to adults in the carnal act of smoking was detrimental to the public health and welfare. “Families,” he said, “should be able to bring their children to parks and beaches knowing that they won’t see others smoking.” This is really quite an astonishing assertion, given the range of bad habits youngsters are exposed to as they go about a normal day in the adult world. The authors are particularly concerned about this push to stigmatize smokers. “Given the addictive nature of nicotine and the difficultly of quitting smoking, strategies of denormalization raise both pragmatic and ethical concerns.” Furthermore:

The decline in U.S. smoking rates since the 1960s has coincided with the development of a sharp gradient along the lines of socioeconomic status. Whereas about one fifth of all Americans are smokers, about one third of those with incomes below the federal poverty level smoke. These data are especially pertinent to the question of bans in parks. Since smokers are more likely to be poor and therefore dependent on free public spaces for enjoyment and recreation, refusing to allow them to smoke in those places poses potential problems of fairness.

The anti-tobacco movement, frustrated by the slow pace of gains over several years of active efforts, with rates of smoking remaining essentially unchanged, has to face the fact that an outright ban on cigarettes is a ticket to black market, crime syndicate hell. But a de facto ban is something altogether different, and “steadily winnowing the spaces in which smoking is legally allowed may be leading to a kind of de facto prohibition.” More and more employers prohibit smoking in doorways, within ten feet of doorways, anywhere on university campuses, and so on. No one has voted to make cigarette smoking illegal. But the public space in which this legal activity can be pursued is disappearing. And here is where the tough questions start: “In the absence of direct health risks to others, bans on smoking in parks and beaches raise questions about the acceptable limits for government to impose on conduct,” the authors conclude. Not to mention issues of personal autonomy, individual choice, and the stigma attached to addictive behavior. Perhaps the ACLU will soon take an interest in the civil rights of outdoor smokers, where the only health being hazarded is the smokers’ own.

Colgrove J, Bayer R, & Bachynski KE (2011). Nowhere Left to Hide? The Banishment of Smoking from Public Spaces. The New England journal of medicine PMID: 21612464

Photo Credit: www.thinkstock.com

Scared Smokeless

Will New Yorkers quit smoking if you frighten them?

If it looks grim, that’s because it’s meant to. And if you don’t like that one, the New York Health Department has several other yucky pictures you’re bound to dislike just as much.

That’s the idea, anyway. Whether or not it proves successful or even useful is another matter. Yesterday, the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene rolled out its new series of revolting matchbooks designed to help undercut tobacco industry marketing schemes. By focusing awareness on the graphic presentation of smoking’s worst effects, the campaign hopes to highlight the ugly side of the public health equation and reinforce this message by associating cigarettes with pictorial representations of gum disease, blackened lungs, and throat cancer.

“The tobacco industry spends $13 billion dollars each year promoting smoking by showing glamorous, healthful images,” the Health Department’s Sarah B. Perl said in a press release. “The reality of smoking is ugly and devastating. We hope these images will encourage New Yorkers to get the help they need to quit.”

Health officials are keying off several similar campaigns conducted in Canada, Australia, Brazil, Thailand, and other countries. However, in those countries, the grisly images have been placed directly on cigarette packs, rather than on matchbooks. Cigarettes sold in Canada must have warning labels that occupy at least 50% of the principal display space on the pack.

While inconspicuous text boxes with dire warnings have been mandatory on cigarette packs and other nicotine products for more than forty years in the U.S., the current warnings have not been updated since 1984, according to New York health officials.

According to the September 22 New York Times, the matchbooks will be distributed for free in the neighborhoods that have so far proven the most resistant to public anti-smoking campaigns—the heavy-smoking neighborhoods of East Harlem, the South Bronx, and Brooklyn.

In the Times article by Sewell Chan, Dr. Susan D. Karabin of the American Academy of Periodontology said: “These images are accurate: Smoking interferes with healing, with the immune system, and if you have periodontal disease—a chronic, low-grade infection—it exacerbates it, and makes the body less able to deal with that infection.” The result, said Karabin, is that smokers lose more teeth than non-smokers do. She supported the new “Eating You Alive” matchbook campaign: “Unfortunately, I think it does take scare tactics to get people to stop smoking.”

Graphic credit: NYC Health

smoking nicotine