Why the Surgeon General's Report Failed TWICE - Today's Report Even Less Effective Than 50 Years Ago

WASHINGTON - Jan. 17, 2014 - PRLog -- The first Surgeon General's report on smoking failed to reduce smoking, and the new one released today almost certainly will be even less effective, says the attorney whose legal action led to the first reduction in smoking several years after the initial report, and who also developed the most effective tool for getting people to quit or not start smoking.

Simply telling people that smoking causes cancer, as the first Surgeon General's report did, was not very effective, as smoking continued to rise for several years thereafter, despite the requirement a year later than cigarettes carry a warning label, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who has been called the "Man Behind the Ban on Cigarette Commercials."  Today's report, which simply lists a few more diseases, will be even less effective, he predicts, because it does not even propose any effective strategies for reaching the stated goal of reducing smoking from 18% to 12% of the adult population.

"Despite the first Surgeon General's report, per capita consumption of cigarette continued to rise for several years until my legal action forced radio and TV stations to provide hundreds of millions of dollars worth of time for antismoking messages.  This, and only this, produced the first decline in consumption - the first truly effective action against smoking, says Banzhaf, who has also been called "Mr. Anti-Smoking," and "One of the Most Vocal and Effective Anti-Tobacco Attorneys."

The irony, he says, is that we know what will substantially reduce smoking - and the huge $300 billion totally unnecessary annual cost it imposed on our economy - but we seemingly lack the political will to take those steps.  This, he suggests, is what the Surgeon General should have strongly recommended, rather than simply recommending more study:

FIRST, the most effective means of reducing smoking is to prohibit it in workplaces and public places, something which has been proven over and over.  Yet about half the U.S. population lives in areas which lack comprehensive nonsmokers' rights laws.  Extending the restrictions on smoking - which already exist in many states - to the remaining ones would do far more to save lives and money than all the Surgeon General's reports to date, including the current one, says Banzhaf.  Also, if major agencies like HHS, the FDA, and others would simply announce that, in awarding grants, they will give preference to governmental units and private entities which have comprehensive restrictions on smoking in place, we would quickly achieve the same effect.

SECOND, the other most effective way to reduce tobacco use is to make it more expensive to smoke.  Indeed, as reported in the Wall Street Journal, the British Medical Journal, and elsewhere, imposing a smoker surcharge can slash smoking rates among employees by 50% - which is far more effective than taxpayer supported smoking withdrawal programs.  That's why I pushed so hard to have a smoker surcharge incorporated into Obamacare - the 50% surcharge is the only part really aimed at reducing the costs of diseases by preventing them, rather than simply treating them more effectively or shift the costs to others.  Yet cigarette taxes in many states are far below levels which are generally accepted in most western countries, and far lower than they are in states which are effectively using them to drive down smoking rates.

THIRD, with jobs still scarce, permitting employers to give preference in hiring to nonsmokers, or even to decline smokers as a growing number of businesses are already doing, would provide the additional incentive that many smokers need to do what they already want to do - quit smoking.  Yet more than half the states have antiquated laws prohibiting employers from exercising this wise policy of avoiding smokers who cost them an additional $12,000 a year per person when making hiring selections.  Changing these law - as one state is about to do - would save millions of lives and billions of dollars.

FOURTH, children are becoming addicted to nicotine by using e-cigarettes - a percentage which has more than doubled over just the past year.  These devices act like candy cigarettes on steroids, since they encourage teens to use them by coming in bubblegum and fruit flavors, permit the user to appear to be smoking when exhaling the visible vapor, and at the same time provide a hit of a highly addictive stimulant drug.  Despite its own warnings, the FDA has so far refused to issue regulations prohibiting the sale of e-cigarettes to kids.  As a result, they are widely advertised and sold to kids, and are now even being sold and used to inhale the active ingredient in marijuana.

These are just a few proven techniques for slashing cigarette consumption.  Both the FDA and the courts have agreed that cigarette warnings - even larger graphic ones - have almost no impact on consumption, and adding a few diseases to the huge list of cigarette-caused diseases will do nothing to reduce smoking among those already willing to risk heart attacks, strokes, and lung- and other cancers, says Banzhaf.   After some 50 years, we need to use proven tools to take effective action, not just issue endless reports, he says.

JOHN F. BANZHAF III, B.S.E.E., J.D., Sc.D.
Professor of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School,
FAMRI Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professor,
Fellow, World Technology Network,
Founder, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
2000 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20052, USA
(202) 994-7229 // (703) 527-8418