3. Questions and Answers

Please sign our OnLine Petition.

The Toxic-Tobacco Law Brochure

What is the Toxic-Tobacco Law?
A proposed federal law that will ban companies in the United States from making, marketing or importing cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos, chew, snuff, pipe tobacco or cigarette tobacco.

When will the Toxic-Tobacco Law go into effect? Five (5) years after Congress passes it and the president signs it. This period will help farmers and taxing jurisdictions adjust.

Will adults still be "free" to use toxic-tobacco? Yes. Adults will be "free" to buy, import and possess toxic-tobacco for personal use. During the 5-year adjustment period, they can buy toxic-tobacco products from their usual sources. After the Law goes into effect, adults will be "free" to use toxic-tobacco products that they import (or buy from "federal stores").

Why do we need the Toxic-Tobacco Law? Each year toxic tobacco kills nearly 500,000 Americans by causing cancer, heart attacks, strokes and emphysema. Treating these diseases costs $75 billion per year. Also, 700,000 children become addicted yearly.

What is our ethical dilemma regarding toxic-tobacco? We know toxic-tobacco products are lethal and addictive, yet we permit companies to make, market and widely distribute them like candy. We regulate carbon monoxide emissions from cars and nicotine pesticides on food. but, we don't limit carbon monoxide and nicotine from toxic-tobacco products, which American consumers directly ingest. Sadly, our past representatives in Congress purposely exempted toxic-tobacco from all consumer product safety laws.

What will the Toxic-Tobacco Law accomplish? The Law will end the massive presence of toxic-tobacco in our society, greatly reduce the number of children and adults who become addicted, and decrease suffering and deaths from cancer, heart attacks, strokes, emphysema and fires.

Why wait 5 years before the Toxic-Tobacco Law goes into effect? First, 50,000,000 Americans are addicted to toxic-tobacco. The adjustment period will give users time to quit or find foreign exporters as a source. Second, this period will give farmers, support industries, stockholders and tax collectors sufficient time to adjust.

Are there any problems with waiting 5 years before implementing the Toxic-Tobacco Law? Yes. The biggest problem is that 3-4 million children could become addicted to toxic-tobacco during this period. That is why all efforts must be vigorously pursued to prevent children from using toxic-tobacco during the adjustment period.

Whom might the Law negatively affect? Makers of toxic-tobacco products and their supporters like farmers, wholesalers, retailers, transporters, advertising agencies and the print media.

What will happen to these industries? Makers of toxic-tobacco will regretably continue to aggressively expand into developing countries unless these countries pass similar legislation. Some farmers have already begun to transition to other activities. For example, 85% of Maryland growers accepted a buyout that requires them to stop growing toxic-tobacco. Other support industries will have 5 years to expand services to legal products.

Does the Toxic-Tobacco Law differ from Prohibition? Yes. The Toxic-Tobacco Law will ban the making, marketing and importing of toxic-tobacco products. It will not ban the use of toxic-tobacco. Prohibition aimed to stop the use of alcoholic beverages by outlawing their production and sale. Under the Toxic-Tobacco Law, adults can buy from legal sources; during Prohibition consumers bought from illegal sources. A 5-year adjustment period will precede the implementation of the Toxic-Tobacco Law, whereas only a one-year period preceded Prohibition.

What about the "black market"? The "black market" will not increase because adults will be able to legally buy toxic-tobacco. The Law will end the "black market" activity that is currently driven by the great differences in excise taxes across the states.

Won't this Law end state and federal revenues from excise taxes on toxic-tobacco products? Yes. These revenues will, in part, be replaced by taxes on goods and services purchased with dollars no longer being spent on toxic-tobacco products by consumers who quit using them or never started using them. States and the federal government will also have 5 years to find alternative sources of revenue. Also, fewer tax dollars will be needed for health care because fewer Americans will get cancer and heart and lung disease caused by toxic-tobacco.

Can the Toxic-Tobacco Law be passed? Yes. The vast majority of Americans know that toxic-tobacco is injurious to health and contributes greatly to the cost of health care. Many state and local laws already ban indoor toxic-tobacco smoke. There is precedent to restrict the manufacture of other toxic products such as asbestos and paint containing lead. The toxic-tobacco industry is under siege for lying to the public and knowingly marketing addictive products that cause death and disability.

Are there other addictive and lethal consumer products that we permit to be sold everywhere in the U.S.? No.

What can I do to help pass the Toxic-Tobacco Law? Sign our OnLine Petition. Discuss the Toxic-Tobacco Law with your family, friends and co-workers.

The Toxic-Tobacco Law: Questions and Answers

1. What is the Toxic-Tobacco Law?
The Toxic-Tobacco Law (the "Law") will be a federal law that changes the legal status of toxic-tobacco products. The Law will make it illegal for corporations in the United States to make, market, or import cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos, chew, snuff, pipe tobacco, and cigarette tobacco.

2. When will the Toxic-Tobacco Law go into effect?
To permit an adjustment period for all stakeholders (e.g., farmers, taxing jurisdictions), the Toxic-Tobacco Law will go into effect five (5) years after Congress passes it and the president signs it.

3. Will adults be "free" to use toxic-tobacco after the Toxic-Tobacco Law is passed?
Yes. Adults will be "free" to buy, import, and possess toxic-tobacco for personal use. During the 5-year adjustment period they can buy toxic-tobacco products from their usual sources. After the Law goes into effect (5 years after passage), adults will be "free" to use products that they have imported for personal use. (Federal stores may be created to provide toxic-tobacco products to adults.)

Since nearly 50,000,000 Americans - our grandparents, mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, sisters, brothers, children and friends - are addicted to toxic-tobacco products, it would be cruel and clearly ineffective to prohibit their use of these products.

4. Why do we need the Toxic-Tobacco Law?
Every year toxic-tobacco products (e.g., cigarettes) addict 700,000 children¹and kill nearly 500,000 adults in the United States from preventable cancer, heart attacks, strokes, and emphysema.² Treating these diseases costs an estimated $75 billion each year. Besides death, toxic-tobacco causes enormous pain and suffering to its 8.6 million chronically impaired victims and their families.

5. What is our ethical dilemma regarding toxic-tobacco products?
As citizens of the United States we are in an ethical dilemma because we permit corporations to make toxic-tobacco products, products that we know cause death and disability,³ and contain nicotine, an addictive drug.⁴ Every Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health presented to Congress since the first report in 1964⁵ has documented the harmful effects of toxic-tobacco on human health.

Certainly, if a new product were introduced today that was clearly both as addictive and deadly as toxic-tobacco, we would not sanction its production or importation. It is illogical for us to allow toxic-tobacco products to be made legally, and then expend an enormous amount of time, energy, and money trying to prevent or stop them from being used.

6. What are the consequences of passing the Toxic-Tobacco Law?
Passing the Toxic-Tobacco Law will end all advertising and marketing of toxic-tobacco products; and their widespread availability at grocery, drug, and convenience stores, gasoline stations, and vending machines. The ubiquitous nature of toxic-tobacco will end.

• Whether or not children become addicted to toxic-tobacco products is strongly affected by use among their peers.⁶ When the Law becomes effective, toxic-tobacco products will disappear from their usual points of sale and promotion, and youth access and initiation will plummet. Consequently, the impact of peer pressure on the initiation of toxic-tobacco use will also decrease. The end result, youth smoking will dramatically decrease.

• The advertising and retail milieu, devoid of toxic-tobacco products, will be more conducive to quitting toxic-tobacco than the current environment.

• The long-term public health consequences will be substantial reductions in morbidity and mortality from heart disease, stroke, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and home and commercial fires.

• Unfortunately, United States corporations will continue to move their operations overseas to support their unconscionable invasion of our global neighbors. To counter this movement, we must encourage other countries to pass legislation similar to the Toxic-Tobacco Law.

7. Why should the effective date be five (5) years after enactment?
The five-year adjustment period between the date of enactment and the date of implementation of the Toxic-Tobacco Law will give consumers of toxic-tobacco products sufficient time to either 1) quit using them or 2) find foreign exporters as a source. During this interval the Toxic-Tobacco Law will be no threat to consumers.

• The five-year period will also give local, state and federal governments time to plan for the loss of revenues from excise taxes on toxic-tobacco and for the gain in tax revenues from alternate sources due to "redistributed spending" (see Question 12, paragraph 4). Likewise, managers of pension funds heavily invested in the toxic-tobacco industry can use this time to restructure their portfolios. In addition, the period will permit resolution of the many lawsuits against the toxic-tobacco industry.⁷

8. Are there precedents for adjustment periods before regulations on toxic-tobacco become effective?
Yes. The 1996 FDA regulation prohibiting brand name sponsorship of sporting events, such as the Marlboro Grand Prix, had an effective date in 1998.¹⁰ Also, France's ban of all toxic-tobacco advertising and sponsorship included a two year interval "in order to allow time for various sectors of society to adjust to the restrictions."¹¹

9. What are the problems with a five-year adjustment period?
The proposed five-year interval between passing the Toxic-Tobacco Law and its implementation will create several problems. First, and most disturbing, is the possibility that during this period an estimated 3-4 million American children might become addicted to toxic-tobacco,¹ and because of this, 1-2 million of them might subsequently succumb to cancer or diseases of the cardiovascular system or lung. Therefore during this interval primary prevention efforts and cessation programs must be vigorously pursued to minimize the influence of the toxic-tobacco predators on our children.

• Second, the toxic-tobacco industry will have 5 years to lobby for repeal of the Law.

10. What about farmers of toxic-tobacco?
Under the Toxic-Tobacco Law, farmers will be able to grow toxic-tobacco for export or for use other than human consumption in the United States.

• Because the interval between passage of the Toxic-Tobacco Law and its implementation is five years, some farmers of toxic-tobacco will be at or near retirement age when the Law goes into effect. Younger farmers of toxic-tobacco, or those considering this occupation, will know with five years "warning" that the domestic market for toxic-tobacco for human consumption will be gone when the Law goes into effect.

11. Is there legislation comparable to the Toxic-Tobacco Law?
Yes. Extensive precedents exist for the federal government's role in protecting citizens by stopping manufacturers from making dangerous products. For example, manufacturers of gasoline and paint are restricted from adding lead to their products.^12,13 Likewise, cyclamates can not be employed as sweeteners in food.¹⁴

• Poisons such as nicotine and carbon monoxide are unregulated in toxic-tobacco products, but they are regulated in other products. For example, nicotine in insecticides is restricted by federal law to minuscule quantities (1-2 parts per million) on fruits, vegetables, eggs, meat, and poultry,¹⁵ yet toxic-tobacco products may contain any amount of nicotine. Likewise, carbon monoxide, federally regulated as an emission from cars,¹⁶ is unregulated in toxic-tobacco smoke for human consumption.

• Nine enlightened nations have already banned the sale or importation of smokeless toxic-tobacco products.¹¹

12. Does the Toxic-Tobacco Law differ from Prohibition?
Yes. Unlike Prohibition, which tried to keep Americans from consuming alcoholic beverages, the Toxic-Tobacco Law will not restrict adults from buying or using toxic-tobacco.

• Prohibition was attempted in an era when the majority (>60%) of male adults were consumers of alcohol.¹⁷ Today, less than 25% of adult Americans regularly smoke toxic-tobacco, and 70% of them say they want to quit smoking.¹⁸ During Prohibition alcohol was used by members at all educational-economic levels,¹⁷ whereas today toxic-tobacco is used predominantly by persons at the lower educational-economic levels.^18,19 For example in 1993, persons with 9 to 11 years of education exhibited nearly three times the prevalence of smoking (42.1 per 100) compared to those with 16 or more years of education (14.8 per 100).¹⁸

• In the 1920s legislation comparable to Prohibition did not exist. Today, federal regulations comparable to the Toxic-Tobacco Law already exist. Beginning in 1970, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) started regulating toxic materials such as asbestos¹⁹ to protect Americans.²⁰

• Like Prohibition, the Toxic-Tobacco Law will decrease state and federal revenues from excise taxes. Lost tax revenues, however, will be replaced by taxes on other goods and services purchased with dollars that are no longer being spent on toxic-tobacco products (i.e., "redistributed spending"), newly created taxes, or increased tax rates.²¹ Redistributed spending will also stimulate the wholesale, retail, transportation, advertising and media industries. During Prohibition redistributed spending did not occur because consumers bought illegally produced alcoholic beverages that did not generate tax revenues.

13. Will a "black market" develop when the Toxic-Tobacco Law goes into effect?
A "black market" for toxic-tobacco already exists in the United States.²² The Toxic-Tobacco Law will not increase "black market" activity since adults will be able to legally buy toxic-tobacco products at a competitive price. The Toxic-Tobacco Law, however, will end the current "black market" activity that is driven by the great disparity in state excise taxes and the absence of taxes on toxic-tobacco products sold on American Indian reservations.

14. Will federal and state governments lose a lot of revenue without the excise tax on toxic-tobacco?
No. These revenues will, in part, be replaced by taxes on goods and services purchased with dollars no longer being spent on toxic-tobacco products. These dollars will come from persons who quit using toxic-tobacco, or never started to use it, because they were affected by the "new" environment that the Law created - an environment without advertising or hundreds of thousands of retail venues for the sale of toxic-tobacco. States and the federal government will have five years to find alternative sources of revenue. Furthermore, fewer tax dollars will be needed for health care because fewer Americans will contract toxic-tobacco caused illnesses like cancer and heart disease.

• As a percentage of all federal revenue, revenues from the excise tax on toxic-tobacco products have decreased from 3.4% in 1950 to .4% in 1989.²³

15. Is the Toxic-Tobacco Law timely with regards to health care reform?
Yes. Health care costs will naturally decrease if fewer services are needed, and the best way to decrease the demand for services is to prevent morbidity. The most obvious, pervasive, and preventable cause of disease in the United States is toxic-tobacco.³ Nearly 20% of our cost of health care results from illnesses caused by toxic-tobacco. Each year's "new" cohort of 700,000 smoking children¹ adds $6 to $7 billion in lifetime medical care expenses to the United States.²⁴

• The Toxic-Tobacco Law will result in the elimination of the widespread availability of toxic-tobacco products and the absence of toxic-tobacco promotions and advertisements. These changes will ultimately decrease the number of users of toxic-tobacco, morbid consequences, and the cost of health care in the United States.

16. What legal routes exist for passing the Toxic-Tobacco Law?
Congress could amend the Consumer Products Safety Act of 1972²⁵ to include "tobacco and tobacco products," which previous Congresses purposefully excluded.²⁶ Then, the Consumer Product Safety Commission would have the authority to declare that toxic-tobacco products are "banned hazardous product(s)."²⁷ There is no guarantee, however, that the Commission would ban toxic-tobacco products.

• Under the "commerce clause" of the United States Constitution,²⁸ Congress has the authority to directly limit what corporations do. In fact, Congress and congressionally empowered federal agencies (e.g., Federal Trade Commission) have a long and complex history related to toxic-tobacco corporations. Therefore, Congress, being the principal lawmaking body of the United States and knowing that toxic-tobacco is lethal and addictive, has the leadership responsibility and moral obligation to ban all corporations from producing, marketing and importing all toxic-tobacco products.

17. Is the climate good for passing the Toxic-Tobacco Law?
Yes. The climate for passing the Toxic-Tobacco Law may be the best in United States history. It was created by the efforts of many organizations and individuals. They have taught us about toxic-tobacco's negative effects on health. This lesson has resulted in a reduction in prevalence of adult smoking from 42% in 1964²⁹ to 25% in the 1990s.¹⁸They have also apprised employers and insurance companies of the financial drain created by the illnesses caused by toxic-tobacco.³⁰ Additionally, they have educated legislators at the local, state, and national levels who have responded by requiring that smoke-free areas be created in restaurants, worksites,³¹ and public buildings in 47 states, including traditional toxic-tobacco states like North Carolina and Virginia. ³²

• In 1988, the citizens of our most populous state, California, raised the excise tax on cigarettes to fund prevention programs for adolescents and motivation programs to help adults quit toxic-tobacco (Proposition 99).³³

• Today, even consumers of toxic-tobacco support restrictions on smoking at worksites.³⁴As part of a plan to make their occupation "toxic-tobacco-free", the Florida Professional Firefighters lobbied successfully for legislation that requires that all new firefighters be non-users of toxic-tobacco.³⁵

• Private industry has played an important role in creating a social environment where the presence of toxic-tobacco is the exception. For instance, McDonald's has banned smoking in all its company owned restaurants in the United States;³⁶ and in 1996, Target, the country's third largest discount chain, stopped selling cigarettes.³⁷

• Toxic-tobacco corporations are currently under internal and external siege. At recent annual meetings, their stockholders have offered proposals urging that their companies: 1) separate their food and toxic-tobacco divisions into separate companies because toxic-tobacco liability suits are depressing stock prices,³⁸ 2) assist farmers of toxic-tobacco in seeking alternative crops,³⁹ and 3) adhere to their voluntary code of cigarette advertising vis-a-vis targeting the youth market.⁴⁰ Other investors, like Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Texas have divested themselves of all their toxic-tobacco stocks.⁴¹

• Hundreds of class action and individual lawsuits against the toxic-tobacco industry have been filed in state and federal courts. The lawsuits claim that the toxic-tobacco companies are liable for deaths and diseases caused by first hand and environmental toxic-tobacco smoke. By 1998 50 states had settled with the major toxic-tobacco companies for $246 billion (over 25 years) to recover the costs of Medicaid payments used to treat illnesses caused by toxic-tobacco.⁴²

• In August 1996, the FDA, supported strongly by President Clinton, announced new regulations to decrease marketing and sales of toxic-tobacco to children.¹⁰ For example, under these regulations photo IDs would have been required for persons under 27 years of age to buy toxic-tobacco products.

• The above events are preoccupying the toxic-tobacco industry. For example, Geoffrey Bible, CEO of Philip Morris Inc., devoted nearly 60% of his September 12, 1996 letter to stockholders "about the litigation and public policy challenges facing . . . [the] domestic [toxic-] tobacco business."⁴³ In 1997, attorneys for the toxic-tobacco industry sought talks with the state attorneys general to discuss a "global settlement" of lawsuits brought by the states against the industry.⁴⁴

• The toxic-tobacco industry may also have lost some of its lock on Congress. For instance, at Congress's request the Department of Justice is investigating whether members of the toxic-tobacco industry "systematically made false or misleading statements to Congress and government agencies about the addictive nature of tobacco and about industry practices."⁴⁵ According to one toxic-tobacco lobbyist, "[O]ur only real champions these days are [Senators] Jesse Helms (retired) and Weddell Ford (retired) and maybe 20 members of the House."⁴⁶

• In 1991 and 1992, 83% of Senators and 68% of Representatives received money from the toxic-tobacco industry. Members of Congress who received the most money voted least often for legislation to control toxic-tobacco, and vice-versa.⁴⁷ So, even though the general climate is good for passing the Toxic-Tobacco Law, a great deal of effort will be necessary before Congress passes the Law.

• The mass media have extensively covered a wide range of legal and public relations assaults on the toxic-tobacco industry. In addition, three recently published books have presented the history and private papers of the toxic-tobacco industry, revealing its long-term knowledge of the addictive and lethal nature of toxic-tobacco, and its efforts to market products to children.^34,48,49

• Taken together, the above events have created a climate conducive to heeding the twelve editors of the Journal of the American Medical Association who, after reading the Brown and Williamson tobacco corporation documents, implored: "[W]e should force the removal of this scourge from our nation and by doing so set an example for the world."⁵⁰ The Toxic-Tobacco Law will accomplish this objective.

18. What other questions need to be addressed to make the Law work?

a) What should the implementation date be?

b) Should the adjustment period be longer or shorter than the proposed 5 years?

c) What is the maximum amount of toxic-tobacco products that an individual citizen will be allowed to import per shipment, or per year, for personal use?

d) How would foreign exporters verify the age of mail-order buyers of toxic-tobacco products?

e) Will "state" or "federal stores" ever be needed to sell products to adults when the Law goes into effect?

f) What agencies will enforce the Law?

g) What are the penalties for breaking the Law?

References

1. Pierce JP, Fiore MC, Novotny TE, Hatziandreu EJ, Davis RM. Trends in cigarette smoking in the United States-Projections to the Year 2000. JAMA. 1989;261:61-65.

2. MMWR. Cigarette smoking-attributable mortality and years of potential life lost- United States, 1990. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1993;42:645-649.

3. USDHHS. Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking: 25 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General. US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, 1989, 383-434. DHHS Publication No. (CDC) 89-8411.

4. USDHHS. The Health Consequences of Smoking. Nicotine Addiction. A Report of the Surgeon General. US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, 1988. DHHS Publication No. (CDC) 88-8406.

5. USDHHS. Smoking and Health. Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, 1964. PHS Publication No. 1103.

6. USDHHS. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People: A Report of the Surgeon General. US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, 1994, 248-256, S/N 017-001-00491-0.

7. Glanz SA, Fox BJ, Lightwood JM. Tobacco litigation: Issue for public health and public policy. JAMA. 1997;277:751-753.

10. Barr S, Hamilton MM. Clinton curtails tobacco ads in bid to cut sales to youth. The Washington Post. Aug 24, 1996; A1, 6.

11. Roemer R. Legislative action to combat the world tobacco epidemic, 2nd Edition. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1993.

12. Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration. Code of Federal Regulations. Protection of Environment, 40, parts 72-80. Revised July 1, 1996. Washington DC: US Govt. Printing Office, 1996, part 80.22.

13. Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration. Code of Federal Regulations. Commercial Practices, 16, parts 1000 to End. Revised Jan 1, 1996. Washington DC: US Govt. Printing Office, 1996, part 1303.

14. Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration. Code of Federal Regulations. Food and Drugs, 21, parts 170-199. Revised April 1, 1996. US Govt. Printing Office. Washington DC 1996, part 189.135.

15. Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration. Code of Federal Regulations. Protection of Environment, 40, parts 150 to 189. Revised July 1, 1995. US Govt. Printing Office. Washington DC 1995, parts 180.167, 180.167a.

16. Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration. Code of Federal Regulations. Protection of Environment, 40, parts 81-85. Revised July 1, 1996., US Govt. Printing Office. Washington DC 1996, part 85.2203.

17. Kyvig DE. Repealing national prohibition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

18. MMWR. Cigarette smoking among adults-United States. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1993. 1994;43;925-930.

19. Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration. Code of Federal Regulations. Protection of Environment, 40, parts 700-789. Revised July 1, 1995. US Govt. Printing Office. Washington DC 1996, part 763.160.

20. U.S. Government Manual, U.S. Superintendent of Documents, Washington DC, 1995, 394, 523.

21. Warner KE, Fulton GA. The economic implications of tobacco product sales in a nontobacco state. JAMA. 1994;271:771-776.

22. Linquest, Avery, Macdonald, Baskerville. Cigarette smuggling in the United States. Aug 15, 1994.

23. Congressional Budget Office. Federal taxation of tobacco, alcoholic beverages, and motor fuel. Washington DC: US Govt. Printing Office, 1990.

24. Hodgson, TA. Cigarette smoking and lifetime medical expenditures. Milbank Quarterly. 1992;70:81-125.

25. 15 USC 2051. Public Law 92-573; 86 Statute 1207, 92nd Congress, Oct 27, 1972.

26. Committee on Commerce. Senate Report 92-835 on the Consumer Product Safety Act (Public Law 92-573).

27. 15 USC 2051 sec 30 (a). Public Law 92-573; 86 Statute 1207, 92nd Congress, Oct 27, 1972.

28. Woll P, Binstock RH. America's Political System. New York: Random House, 1984.

29. Giovino GA, Schooley MW, Zhu B-P et al. Surveillance for selected tobacco-use behavior-United States, 1900-1994. In: Morb Mortal Wkly Rep CDC Surveill Summ. 1994;43 (3):1-43.

30. Vedantam S. Putting the squeeze on big tobacco. The Miami Herald. Aug 24, 1996:A1, 6.

31. Lacayo R. All fired up over smoking. Time. Apr 18, 1988, 64-75.

32. Shelton DM, Alciati MH, Chang MM et al. State laws on tobacco control-United States, 1995. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep CDC Surveill Summ. 1995;44 (6):1-28.

33. Novotny TE, Siegel Mb. California's tobacco control saga. Health Aff. 1996;15:58-72.

34. Glanz SA, Slade J, Bero LA, Hanauer P, Barnes DE. The cigarette papers. Los Angeles, London: University of California Press Berkley, 1996.

35. Gerace TA. Road to a smoke-free fire service for Florida, policies and progress. J. Public Health Policy, 1990;11:206-217.

36. Farley CJ. The butts stops here. Time. Apr 18, 1994; 58-64.

37. Pressler MW. Cigarette foes forecast a battle in stores. The Washington Post. Aug 29, 1996:b13.

38. Philip Morris Companies Inc. Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders and Proxy Statement. Mar 11, 1996.

39. Philip Morris Companies Inc. Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders and Proxy Statement. Mar 13, 1995.

40. Philip Morris Companies Inc. Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders and Proxy Statement. Mar 11, 1993.

41. Honan WH. Colleges ending investments in tobacco stocks. The New York Times. May 21, 1997:A16.

42. Coller M, Harrison GW, McInnes MM. Evaluating the tobacco settlement damage awards: too much or not enough? Am J. Public Health. 2002;92:984-989.

43. Bible GC. Dear shareholder. 1996 Midyear update. New York: Philip Morris Companies Incorporated, 1996.

44. Silva M, Merzer M. Tobacco firms seek to settle big suits. The Miami Herald. Feb 18, 1997:A1, 8.

45. Frankel G. Decades after declaration, war on smoking begins. The Washington Post. Aug 24, 1996:A:1, 8.

46. Thomas P, Schwartz J. U.S. widens tobacco investigation. The Washington Post. Sept 8, 1996:A1, 20.

47. Moore S, Wolfe S, Lindes D, Douglas C. Epidemiology of failed tobacco control legislation. JAMA. 1994;272:1171-1175.

48. Hilts PJ. Smoke Screen. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1996.

49. Kluger R. Ashes to Ashes: America's hundred-year cigarette war, the public health, and the unabashed triumph of Philip Morris. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996.

50. Editorial. The Brown and Williamson documents: where do we go form here?JAMA.1995;274:256-258.