| |
US: Where
There's Smoke, There's Money From Big Tobacco
A 40-year effort fails to lower lung cancers or the number of
addicted
By Alan Blum, Eric Solberg and Howard
Wolinsky
Los Angeles Times, January 13,
2004
http://www.latimes.com/[...]m13jan13,1,4001482.story
Forty years ago this month, the U.S.
surgeon general delivered a bombshell. Cigarettes, he said, represented
"a health hazard of sufficient importance ... to warrant remedial
action." He issued a call to arms against a modern plague, and in
doing so, launched the contemporary war on smoking.
Too bad that the war against smoking has
been a complete flop, the worst public health failure in U.S. history.
Lung cancer, despite its 14% decline in California over the last decade,
is as deadly as ever nationally and has even surpassed breast cancer as
the leading cancer killer among women. Though the proportion of people
who smoke has declined in the United States, the number of those who
smoke - 46.2 million people - has remained virtually the same. Smoking
claims more than 400,000 lives a year in this country. And today,
Marlboro smokers are younger than ever. Even the recent four-year
decline in smoking among adolescents has yet to offset the dramatic
increase in smoking among this age group over the last decade.
Progress has come slowly because of a combination of things. Topping the
list is that the tobacco industry has political clout and made lucrative
payoffs to the very forces that should have been in the vanguard to end
the tobacco pandemic - members of Congress from both parties, the media,
medical
organizations and academia have all been chronic recipients of tobacco
industry largess and have not been prepared to bite the hand that feeds
them.
Meanwhile, the health community has bounced from one failed
multimillion-dollar public relations crusade to another, only to settle
each time for voluntary agreements crafted by the tobacco industry. And
the anti-smoking movement is still wandering in the desert, unfocused
and splintered.
Sure, there have been some advances, most notably the smoking ban on
aircraft and the ban of TV, radio and billboard ads. But overall, the
tobacco industry has remained in the driver's seat during the last 40
years and has always managed to turn potential adversity to its
advantage.
For example, when Congress banned cigarette ads from broadcast media in
1971, it did so at the request of the tobacco companies, whose sales had
flattened because of anti-smoking commercials between 1967 and 1970 from
the American Cancer Society. The ban meant the end of free air time in
prime-time for the anti-smoking forces. But then the tobacco companies
launched a new strategy: sponsoring sporting events that made cigarette
logos a fixture at televised auto races as well as cultural events such
as concerts and art exhibitions.
California has marched to its own drummer and, as a result, smoking
rates and cigarette sales have fallen in the state more than nationally,
according to the American Lung Assn. That success can be attributed in
large measure to a uniquely persistent grass-roots movement responsible
for smoking bans in government and private workplaces, retail stores,
child-care centers, recreational and cultural centers, restaurants and
bars.
In 1987, a small coalition of health organizations persuaded
California voters to pass Proposition 99, a cigarette tax aimed at
raising hundreds of millions of dollars earmarked for medical research,
anti-smoking education and related programs. It was a great idea, but
problems surfaced over how the money should be spent. The fight against
the public health problem of smoking became a fight among umbrella
health organizations trying to get their hands on the money. Funds from
Proposition 99 were, among other things, supposed to pay for the best
minds in advertising to conceive and produce anti-smoking ads. Though
the ad campaigns won awards, they lacked the frequency needed to have a
more significant effect. Ironically, some of the best ads were not
designed to counteract smoking but were developed to challenge
politicians, medical organizations and others who wanted to dip into the
pot of money. During the 1990s, health organizations accustomed to
affluent new lifestyles with funds from Proposition 99 spent much of
their time and energy preserving their entitlements.
Now this experience is being repeated across the country as a result of
the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement - a $206-billion, 25-year agreement
between tobacco companies and 46 states, including California, to settle
state lawsuits. The American Lung Assn. found that state legislatures
were using the money from the windfall settlement to pay for programs
other than anti-smoking efforts.
The reality is that states are hooked on the cash flow and are using it
to close budget deficits. Besides nicotine, perhaps the most addictive
thing about tobacco is money. The contemporary public health
model to counteract tobacco use relies on money from state governments,
which in turn rely on the tobacco industry for funding.
It's time to return to the original grass-roots movement pioneered in
California. Activists in California and elsewhere need to be weaned from
their addiction to government money. They should use their creativity to
tackle this issue in new ways. Without breakthroughs in leadership, the
anti-smoking movement may be condemned to another 40 years in the desert
and the public no closer to the promised land of a smoke-free America.
Australia: One
in five Australians still refuses to butt out
By Kylie Walker
The Age, Melbourne, January
13, 2004
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/12/1073877762287.html
Forty
years after tobacco was first officially linked with cancer, a leading
public health expert warns that thousands will continue to die unless
the Government remedies its "scandalously low" spending on the
problem.
This
week marks the 40th anniversary of the US surgeon- general's 1964 report
on cigarettes, the first official recognition that tobacco causes cancer
and other serious diseases.
In
the years since, Australia has banned tobacco advertising, banished
smoking from indoor public spaces and forced the industry to put
anti-smoking messages on cigarette packets.
The
links between smoking and cancer, lung disease, heart disease,
osteoporosis, thyroid problems, diabetes and more have been backed by an
avalanche of scientific evidence. Yet a fifth of Australian adults
continue to smoke.
The
nation's tobacco-related death toll stands at about 19,000 a year - a
higher toll than from murder, suicide, car accidents, breast cancer,
skin cancer, AIDS and diabetes combined.
Professor
Simon Chapman, head of the University of Sydney's School of Public
Health, said the Federal Government was not doing enough to remedy
Australia's "tobacco epidemic".
"I
think the pace and commitment at which the epidemic's being addressed is
pretty poor compared with the size of it," he said.
|
|