Bliley PM
Public Smoking
Abstract
Analyzes public smoking issue, exhaustively citing examples from health effects of secondhand smoke exposure by industry and independent researchers, public policy regulations and legislation, and the popular press. Includes sections entitled: "I. Public smoking as a public issue; II. Atmospheric tobacco smoke and health; III. Government regulations and individual rights; IV. Recommendations; [and] References". Includes editing in marginalia. Relates to Bates 1000083812, 1005130966, 2501024736.
Fields
- Company
- Philip Morris Cos., Inc.
- Type
- Report
- Named Person
- Aronow
- Astrup
- Bouhuys
- Brunneman, Dr.
- Buckley, W.F.
- Colley
- First
- Fletcher
- Gleich, G. Dr.
- Hammond, Edward Cuyler, Sc.D. (Epidemiologist, ACS (1950s), Plaintiff's Expert)PMI
- Harke, Dr.
- Hinds
- Huber, Gary L., M.D. (Harvard University: Conducted Smoke Inhalation Studies)Testified for industry
- Kerrebijn
- Pimm, Dr.
- Pitofsky, R.
- Rhoades, J. Dr.
- Rucker, R.B.
- Rummel
- Rylander, Dr.
- Salvaggio, John Edmond, M.D. (CTR Special Projects, Allergist & Immunologist, Tulane Med. )John Salvaggio was a CTR Special Projects Researcher. (N.M. Tobacco Companies Personnel List; professor at Tulane University
- Schievelbein, Prof.
- Sheraton, M.
- Srch
- Steinfeld, J.
- Steinfeld, Jesse Leonard, M.D. (Oncologist, Retired, Med. College of Georgia, Anti-Tobacco E)Plaintiff
- Terry, Luther Leonidas, M.D. (Surgeon General, 61-65, U of Pennsylvania, Anti-Tobacco Expe)Luther Terry was former Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service from 1961 to 1965. Terry was emeritus professor of Research Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine in 1984 (E. Whelan 1984).
- Valentin, H. Dr.
- Vogel
- Wynder, E.L. Dr.
- Named Organization
- Action on Smoking and Health, USPlaintiff
- Air Force
- Airline Passengers Association
- American Academy of Allergy
- American Cancer Society
- American Express Company
- American Health Foundation (Health Research)Plaintiff
- Bavarian Academy of Industrial and Social Medicine
- Department of Health, Education and Welfare
- Environmental Protection Agency
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Federal Trade Commission
- German Cancer Center
- German Heart Center Institute for Clinical Medicine (Munich)
- German Society of Occupational Medicine
- Harvard Medical School
- Harvard School of Public Health
- Institute for Clinical Medicine of the German Heart Center, Munich
- Interstate Commerce Commission
- Marriott Hotel
- Massachusetts Lung Association
- Mayo Clinic
- Minnesota Association of Commerce and Industry
- National Cancer Advisory Board
- National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NIOSH (NIOSH)National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is NIOSH.
- National Observer
- National Restaurant Association
- New England Journal of Medicine
- New York Times
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Held hearings in 1994 to ban smoking in workplaces)OSHA opened hearings in September 1994 on a proposal that amounts to a virtual ban on smoking in every workplace in the nation
- Philip Morris Europe
- Public Health Service
- Reemtsma
- Surgeon General
- Tulane University
- University of Erlangen, Nuremburg
- University of Geneva
- University of Gothenburg
- Verband
- Keyword
- 3rd World Conference on Smoking and Health
- Carboxyhemoglobin
- Nitrosamines
- Thesaurus Term
- Accommodation
- Airplane
- Animal subject
- Anti-smoking advocacy
- Bronchitis
- Cancer
- Carbon monoxide
- Cardiovascular disease
- Children
- Cigarette
- Disease
- Emphysema
- Environmental tobacco smoke
- Gene or genome
- Government agency
- Health advocacy group
- Health belief
- Health effects
- Industry response
- Industry sponsored research
- Industry strategy
- Inhalation study
- Legislation
- Lung cancer
- Mass media
- Nicotine
- Non-smoker
- Parent
- Passive smoking
- Public places
- Public policy
- Public relations
- Public smoking law
- Regulations
- Research activity
- Secondhand smoke
- Smoker
- State legislation
- Tobacco allergy
- Tobacco leaf constituent
- Tobacco smoke
- Ventilation
Document Images
.... -,, !~j,i OiS" "~ ' "
" 'kP ,'~ ' v .
s~ . ~ ; r L"~ ~ •
V d. '.i~~ , ~ ,'~'~" ,'~,.~ ~ ~ ~.,.~ ~
iC~" "~" ~ ~ iiPubllc " "
- ~(~,: presence, of another person, has become a p.ubl~c ~s~ue.
~.s issue has also been variously referred to as
"passive smoking" or "£nvoluntary smoking"; however,,~
in this paper these terms are intended to be ~ubsumed
under "Public Smoking". Misinformation on this issue
abounds. This paper will, therefore, address the issue
according to the present state ,of scientific knowledge, _. ~.Zu'~.~
which points to the conclusion that tobacco ~moke in?' " ~ " "
contrary to the beliefs o,f many smokers and i~o~smokers
alike.
I. Publlc. SmokinBa~a Pub~.ic ~ssp~
In the last few. years, controversy has arisen
about public smoking and health; claims and charges have.
escalated; campaigns to ban or reEtrict smoking in public
have taken place and continue to increase. Thus, the public
smoking issue has become a matter where the tobacco industry's
• position should be clear.
There are three major points upon which to
~OCUS.
First~ claims that tobacco smoke in the atmo-
sphere causes disease in nonsmokers are u~founded; never-
theless, a large portion.of the population--both smokers
and nonsmokers--believe these claims.
_Second, leaders of the drive to prohibit
smoking in public frequently resort to scare tactics
to make nonsmokers believe their health is being harmed
by tob.acco smoke in the atmosphere.
.Third, against this background of misinforma-
tlon public bodies are making rules about public smoking
-that intrude into private lives.
Although the public smoking issue arose in
the 1970's, it stemmed from the smoking and health contro-
• versy of the last 25 years. As a supplementary method to
dissuade people from smoking, the notion~ of a crusade to
make smoking so.cially unacceptable_was evolved. The
mechanism to do this was to ~aint
hazard to the nonsmoker.
At the 3rd World Conference on Smo.ki~g and
Health in New York in 1975:, this was considered a viable
plan for curtailing smoking. Since then, efforts .along
these lines have intensified..
The problem that advocates
of this tactic
faced in 1975, and still face today, is the fact that
there is no proof that tobacco smokein the atmosphe=e
causes disease in the nonsmokero~
~e most that can be said about atmospheric
tobacco smoke is the possibility that there is a small
group of exceedingly sensitive or otherwise ill people
who have e~nditions which may be exacerbated by various
environmental influences including environmental tobacco
smoke. However, the contribution of tobacco smoke to
atmospheric constituents is minimal. .
Even so, effo.r=s were undertaken to ~ke non-
smokers believe that their health was being adversely
affected by atmospheric tobacco smoke. Thus, a smal~
but determined corps of antismokers set out to get smok-
ing.banned in the work place, either by court or govern-
mental.regulation; to get laws passed regulating smoking
in public places; and to get smoking restrictions on
public transport. These forces are still at work and
today the public smoking issue is receiving .widespread
attention. In generating this public issue, the corps
of antismokers uses tactics based on m~isinformation and
emotionalism not justified by facts.
IX. ~tmospheric Tobacco Smoke and Health
There is no. scientific proof that tobacco
smoke in the atmosphere causes disease in nonsmokers.
Despite the contrary claims of a few, the view that
atmospheric tobacco~smoke does not present a health
hazard to the nonsmoker is supported by numerous
ports of independent scientists and governmental bodies
that have examined this issue. For example, in 1973
Professor Doctor Schievelbein, who is currentiy Director
of the Institute for Clinical Medicine of the German
Heart Center in Munich, reviewed the scientific litera-
ture on this topic and conclude~ that '~o proof of a
threat to the health of nonsmokers through 'passive
smoking' can be found in studies: available to date.''I
Likewise, the 1973 =eport by Fletcher, eC al.--an expert
group appointed by the antismoking o.rganization known
as Action on Smoking and Heal~h--concluded that there
is no "evidence" that smoking is "dangerous to healthy
nonsmokers.''2
In 1974, a workshop (organized, among others,
by Dr. Rylander of the Universities of Geneva and
Gothenburg) was attended by scientists from all over
the world to consider the health consequences of atmo-"
s~eric tobacco smoke. These scientists were unable to
I0
5
conclude that cigarette smoking is a hazard to non-
smokers• .Further, these scientists stated that:
'~or the majority of the population
the average exposure burden due to
environmental tobacco, smoke is pro-
bably much lower than that due to
industrial air pollutants, and in many
eases also environmental air pollu~ion
or the lung burden due to dust clouds
or other indoor air pollutants.''3
In 1971, a joint study hy the Federal Aviation
Administration, the United States Department of Health,
Education and Welfare and the National Institute of Occu-
pational Safety and Health examined the health aspects
of smoking on transport aircraft• Its conclusion was as
follows:
" it is concluded that inhalation
• • •
of the by-products from tobacco ~moke
generated as a result of passengers
smoking aboard commercial aircraft does
not represent a significant health hazard
to nonsmoking passengers.''4
This conclusion is supported by thit of the U. S. Inter-
state Commerce Commission's study of smoking on buses:
'We agree with the examiner's con-
=lusions that petitioner has failed
adequately to demonstrate the deleterious
effects of second-hand smoke upo~ the
health of motor bus passengers.''~
In 1977, a symposium, on the topic of smoking
in the work place sponsored by the Bavarian Academy of
Industrial and Social Medicine was held in Munich,
Ge~'many and attended by eminent GekTnan scientists,
lawyers, as well as govehnment leaders. The chairman
o.f this symposium, Professor Doctor H. Valentin of the
University of Erlangen-Nuremburg stated as follows:
"In conclusion, with regard to medical
and legal facts of passive smoking at
the work place, the following must be
considered• Under ourpresent day work
place conditions, no clear and. signifi-
cant untoward health effects from
passive smoking have been shown. There-
fore, we shoul~ as in other everyday
situations, observe the following rules:
• . .as much state intervention
as necessary ~ much freedom
as possible. ' ['6as
In view of these conclusions by independent
scientists and governmental bodies, it is not surprising
that some of the most avowed critics of tobacco have
acknowledged that smoking has not been established as
a cause of disease in nonsmokers.
For example, Dr. Ernest L. Wynder of the
American Health Foundation admitted that he does not
believe that "passive smoking really hurts the health
of somebody who sits next to you ._..,,7 Dr. Jonathon
Rhoades, Chairman of the National Cancer Advisory Board,
admitted in commenting upon atmospheric tob:acco smoke
and healththat to his knowledge "it is not, in fact,
actually harmful.''8 And on cancer, Dr. E. Cuyler Hammond
of the America~ Cancer Society stated that there "was no
12
shred of evidence" that a nonsmoker can get cancer from
"second hand" smoke and there is a lot of evidence that
he cal~not,
Dr. Hammond added that to suggest passive
smoking could cause cancer is dishonest, and that he
~ould be prepared to testify as much in a court.9 And
even the then Surgeon General of the United States--
Jesse" Steinfeld-ladmitted after the 1972 Public Health
Service Report was issued that he could not "say with
certainty that exposure to tobacco smoke can cause
serious illness in nonsmokers.''lO As further examples,.
the footnote lists a dozen othe~ scientists* who are
usually critical of smoking and who have voiced the
view that atmospheric tobacco smoke has not been
established as being harmful to the health of ~onsmokers.
• These opinions are supported by the findings
of Hinds and First of the Harvard School of Public Health.
Their study, which was financed by the Massachusetts Lung
Association, measured tobacco smoke in various public
places such as restaurants, cocktail lounges, bus and
*Wilbert S. Aronow, Richard Doll, Dean F. Davies,
John R. Goldsmith, Gio Gori, Roy Korson, David Owen, Irwin
Schmeltz, Dietrich Hoffmann, Reuel Stallones, R. D. Stewart
and Luther Terry.ll
airline terminals and student lounges, and found that
the amounts were very small indeed.12 In editorial
con~nent= appearing in the issue of the New England
Journal of Medicine which reported this study, Dr.
Gary Huber ofthe Harvard Medical School. stated:
"The data of Hinds and First demonstrate
that in public places nonsmokers poten-
tially consume i/I000 to i/i00 of one
filter cigarette per hour, a level of
exposure that has no known serious
association with disease.''13
In further comment upon this study, Dr. Huber stated:
'~nder the most severe concentrations
of exposure in thelrs~udy, the non-
smoker could consume an amountof tobacco
so-small that the risk of development of
any adverse health effect would be non-
existent, on the basis of any available
data in the literature today.''14
Scientific facts notwithstanding, claims are
sometimes made that smoking causes c~ronic degenerative
~iseases in nonsmokers. There is no scientific basis
for such claims. Indeed, one recent study reviewed the
data from a number of other studies, including an American
Cancer Society epidemiological study, and found no evidence
that nonsmokers constantly exposed to tobacco smoke have an
15
increased risk of im~g cancer.
It is frequently asserted that atmospheric
o:r contributes to the development
tobacco.smoke
causes
of atherosclerosis in nonsmokers, as a result of carbon
14¸
monoxide.
Those that make this assertion point to. studies
by Astrup, et al., which reported a higher cholesterol
content in animals chronically ex_p_q_s_ed to carbon monoxide
compared with animals not so exposed.16 While these ~.~f~.r/~.~./~
stUdies also reported that the exposed animals had arterial
changes indistinguishable from early athe~osclerosis, they
ignored observations in humans (bridge and tunnel workers)
indicating that persons chronically exposed to carbon
monoxide do not have any increased incidence of athero-
sclerosis.17
For those who advance the carbon monoxide-
atherosclerosis theory, the Astrup work is dispositive of
the matter and anyone suggesting a contrary view is dis.-
counted. Very recently, however, Astrup has admitted
that he has been unable to reproduce his previous experi-
ment. He stated that his "present study suggests that
applying the generally accepted criteria for intimal
damage no, direct toxic effect o,f CO can be demonstrated.''18
Thus what was asserted yesterday as scientific fact becomes
today's discarded theory. This is illustrative of what
happens whenpeople prematurely rush to judgment on
scientific~matters.
A similar situation exists as to chronic ob-
structive pulmonary disease (COPD), principally bronchitis
and emphysema. No one seriously claims that atmospheric
15
tobacco, smoke causes such disenses in nonsmokers. However~
iC is frequently claimed by some--usually the same vocal
minority who make assertlons.about cardiovascular disease
~nd cancer--that parental smoking causes respiratory
illness in children. ~hose making this claim point to
various questionnalre-type studies by Colley and others,19
which report "that childre~ of smoking parents have ar~in-
creased incidence of respiratory illness compared to
children of nonsmoking parents. ~ey cite these studies
as proof of their theory, even though some of these
studies also find a correlation between respiratory illness
~n the parents and similar such illnesses in the children,
irrespectiveof smoking. ~nus, the question recognized by
Colley himself of whether the children's respiratory
illness is caused by cross-infection from the parents o=
by a genetic predisposition to such illnesses in both
parents and children,~0 is simply ignored by those who
argue that smoking is the established cause of the reported
respiratory illness, in these children. Likewise, they
ignore other studies, including one by the Environmental
Protec~ionAgency, that do not find such an association.~l
For them, the. parts of the questionnaire-type studies that
appear to support their position settle the issue.
