274791 Case for Abolition

Tuesday, October 30, 2012 : 9:30 AM - 9:50 AM

Robert N. Proctor, PhD , Professor, History of Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
The cigarette is the deadliest artifact in the history of human civilization--and most of that death lies in the future. Richer countries of the globe, however, are making progress in reducing both smoking rates and overall consumption. Many different methods have been proposed to steepen the downward slope of consumption, including increased taxation, bans on advertising, promotion of cessation, and expansion of smoke-free spaces indoors and outdoors. One option that deserves more attention is the enactment of local and/or regional bans on the sale of cigarettes. There is historical precedent: 15 U.S. states enacted such bans from 1890 to 1927. Such laws are fully within the power of local communities and state governments; indeed in Austin vs. the State of Tennessee the right of states to bar the sale of tobacco was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. There are many different reasons to abolish the sale of cigarettes, including: savings in the realm of health care costs, increased labor productivity, reduced human suffering, lessened harms from fires, reduced consumption of scarce physical resources, and a lessened global carbon footprint. The principal reason for abolishing cigarettes, however, is that smokers themselves don't like the fact they smoke. Smoking is not a recreational drug, and abolishing cigarettes would therefore enlarge rather than restrict human freedoms. Abolition would also help the industry fulfill its (repeated) historical promise to “cease production” of cigarettes if they were ever found to be hazardous.

Learning Areas:
Public health or related research

Learning Objectives:
Explain the history of industry interference tactics. Identify options for possible tobacco control measures. Discuss the future of tobacco control and Describe next steps in their work.

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Qualified on the content I am responsible for because: I am qualified because I have been researching the history of the tobacco industry, both in the US and abroad, for the past 30 years, and have published extensively on this topic. My research is in 20th century science, technology, and medicine, especially the history of controversy in those fields and projects on scientific rhetoric, the cultural production of ignorance (agnotology), and the history of expert witnessing. My research experience in tobacco research and policy.
Any relevant financial relationships? No

I agree to comply with the American Public Health Association Conflict of Interest and Commercial Support Guidelines, and to disclose to the participants any off-label or experimental uses of a commercial product or service discussed in my presentation.