Tobacco Documents Online

i AMERICAN t LUNG ASSOCIATION of Michigan The Christmas Seal Peop/e, 403 SEYMOUR AVENUE. LANSING. MICHIGAN 48914 John C. Howetl. PhD Hmdew. October 22, 1980 f. I I I , i ( Ben 0. Barker, D.O.S., Chairman Governor's Citizens' Panel on Smoking and Health c/o Office of Health Education Michigan Department of Public Health Box 30035 Lansing, MI 48909 Dear Dr. Barker: . Sf7/<d1 's4l Robert G. Smith E.w,... o..v.. Although I have previously offered testimony on behalf of the American Lung Association of Michigan's Task Force on Smoking and Health, I would like to take this opportunity, as a concerned citizen and, coincidentally,.a professional health worker, to offer some additional comments. Despite notable progress in curbing the ravages of contagious respiratory diseases, like influenza and pneumonia, three other diseases have become more and more prevalent throughout the United States: emphysema, chronic bronchitis and lung cancer. Indeed, emphysema, an insidious disease which literally robs its victims of breath, is now the second leading cause of disability in.the United States. Yet, it is a disease that is largely preventable because the national statistic is that 95% of emphysema victims_are or have been cigarette smokers. Lung cancer killed very few people a century ago. Even in 1914, only 371 deaths were attributed to it; but by 1930, the figure had risen to 2,357. Today, lung cancer claims more than 64,000 lives a year. Even allowing for the growth and aging of the population and for improved diagnosis, the statistical trends reveal a major new health hazard. In seeking to explain such a tragic increase amid generally improved standards of health, we are struck by two phenomena: the enormous increase in cigarette smoking and the increase in air pollution. Without getting into a dissertation on the kinds of damage that inhaled smoke can do to the breathing system, consider some of the massive accumulation of statistical data from a great number of sources. f th f t S s are: ome o e ac Cigarette smoking shortens life. Repeated studies show that cigarette smokers (Z are much more likely than nonsmokers-to die before their time. ~ The more cigarettes a person smokes, the more likely he is to die early. ~ .~ O It's a Matter of Life and Breath /pt.dd i. 17WW the At.ena. Lwy A,waanoe melWe IOp.ffiWteO a..caam t1ra.,Mld tea U.3.. aat a m.emi wW.k th.Aawon TAOr.ac Socxl. _218_ i i i I d, , I L L

Ben 0. Barker, D.D.S. Page 2 October 22, 1980 L The earlier in life a person starts smoking, the more likely he is to die early. The more a person inhales, the more likely he is to die early. A person who stops smoking is much-safer than if he continues to smoke cigarettes. Cigarette smokers are much more likely than nonsmokers to die from emphysema. Cigarette smokers-are much more likely than nonsmokers to die from chronic bronchitis. Cigarette smokers are much more likely than nonsmokers to die from lung cancer. There can be no question of the validity of these statements. Thousands of careful scientific studies have documented the evidence. There is not a medical or scientific agency which questions them, yet cigarettes are still advertised, sold and used everywhere. If some casual action, like eating parsley, were even suspected as a possible cause of three such deva-stating diseases as lung cancer, chronic bronchitis and emphysema, it is easy to guess what action would be taken. The very day the danger was announced, everyone would stop eating parsley. Soon the ship- ment and sale of parsley would be prohibited under the food and drug laws. How does cigarette smoking differ from parsley eating? In three ways. They are ways that make cigarette smoking much more difficult to curb. • First, there is widespread opposition to banning, by law, anything--like smoking-- that is generally-considered a simple pleasure. When the United States-tried to ban alcoholic beverages by law, the result not only failed-, but also produced a number of unfortunate side effects, like bootlegging, smuggling and gangsterism. Accordingly, few voices have been raised to urge that cigarette smoking be totally banned by law. Second, many, if not most, smokers find it very difficult to stop smoking. Many people continue, even when they are so poor that they have to cut down on eating and other pleasures. When the cigarette supply is cut in time of war, people pay enormous sums for one pack. Even very sick people who know that quitting may save their lives, often go right on smoking when they would stop eating parsley without a qualm. Third, the growing of tobacco and the manufacturing and distribution of cigarettes are prosperous parts of the Arnerican economy. Henqe, there is powerful economic opposition to any proposal like control of cigarette adver- tising that might discourage smoking. In the years since the Surgeon General told us that smoking may be hazardous to our health, an increasing proportion of Americans have chosen to call themselves nonsmokers. The United States Department of Agriculture reports that today 98 million people over the age of 18 do not smoke. In 1964, two years before the Surgeon General tacked his famous warning on cigarette packages, 70 million persons were nonsmokers. That indrease in nonsmokers is roughly equivalent to the population of 23 states. -219-

I Ben D. Barker, D.D.S. Page 3 October 22, 1980 Unfortunately, public policy has been slow to'follow the scientific community. Although there has been progress in the control of outdoor and indoor air pollution, it has been delayed by the inevitable conflicts between the need for economic growth and the need for a healthy population. Nowhere is the gap between scientific knowledge and public policy more dismaying than in the case of the cigarette. We know that the smoker who takes up the cigarette habit before reaching the age of twenty is the one who goes on to smoke more cigarettes for more years and who inhales more deeply. And the smoker most likely to be disabled or killed by cigarettes is the same person who smokes more cigarettes for more years and who inhales more deeply. We know that many thousands of Americans will die from' chronic lung diseases, such as emphysema, bronchitis and lung cancer. The evidence is quite conclusive that many of these diseases are aggravated, if not actually produced, by cigarette smoking, yet cigarettes are still advertised and sold throughout the country. It is, perhaps, sad that the tobacco industry has simply chosen to ignore the overwhelming number of studies which show that smoking definitely has more than an incidental relationship to many lung diseases and health problems. The general climate of acceptability of smoking is probably one of the strongest influences that makes smoking attractive, but acceptability is a social phenomenon and can be changed. It has been altered in many social and business settings. Public smoking is becoming rarer and those who smoke are often made to feel uncomfortable pr embarrassed. There is a real groundswell toward the social acceptability of the nonsmoker and the social unacceptability of the smoker. It just seems as if everyone smokes. The fact is that most people do not smoke. The heart of the nonsmokers' rights movement is an effort to protect the basic civil rights of nonsmokers. Foremost of these, of course, is the right to breathe clean air. Moral persuasion has not worked. Most smokers are not considerate of the nonsmoker's well-being. This must now be protected by intensified education and legislative support. There are changing attitudes on smoking in public, but we have only seen the tip of the iceberg. Smoking is no longer a personal right. It is instead a selfish invasion of another person's well-being. It has been said that smoking in public is a tyranny so complete that the victims are required to apologize to those who have assaulted them. That's how badly the public has been brainwashed by the tobacco companies. Nonsmokers have unwittingly allowed themselves to be on the defensive, always trying to prove that tobacco smoke is harmful. I submit that the burden of proof should be reversed and the smoker should have to prove that tobacco smoke is not harmful. Nonsmokers often fall into another trap. That is, the tendency to get into debates about whether smokers or nonsmokers constitute a majority. Although it is important to point out that nonsmokers comprise two-thirds of the adult population and most of the non-adult population, this misses the main point which is that we are trying to protect a civil right that cannot be taken away no matter who is in the majority and who is in the minority. The right to breathe clean air should be thought of in the same terms as the right to I 1 I I I a. I p I L L -220-

I I I Ben 0. Barker, D.D.S. Page 4 October 22, 1980 freedom of speech. In the United States, persons do not have that right or lose it according to a vote. It is a consititutional right that cannot be taken away from anybody._ The Citizens' Panel has considered some very serious issues. You are to be commended for your thoughtfulness and sincerity. Personally and professionally I pledge to you my continued support and cooperation. heodore W. Beiderwieden, III Director of Regional Operations /gk