Keay KD, Woodruff SI, Wilde!. MB, Kenne); EM. Ef- fect of a retailer inter\,ention on cigarette sales to mi- nors in San Diego Count);, California. fi)twcrc~ Corltwl 1993;2(2):135-51, Keil R. Brooke Group's Liggett to cooperate in tobacco probe. Bloomberg (nerds Mire), Apr 28, 1998. Kelder G. Fight the future or everything you always i\ranted to know about how the tobacco industry (a.k.a. the cigarette smoking men) killed the McCain Bill but were afraid to ask. fi~bnc-co Co/ltr-cd Llpl'flk 1998;2(3-11: 5-21. Kelder GE. First class certifications in the third wave of tobacco litigation herald the beginning of the end for the tobacco industry. ~JbflcTO O~I Turin/ 19% (&t):l, 3-7. Kelder GE, Daynard RA. The role of litigation in the effective control of the sale and use of tobacco. Slr7r1fclrif Lni~ nr~tf Policy Rtv;tw~ 199i;8(1):63-9X. Kennedy J. Talks break off in bid to end tobacco suit; the state and cigarette makers traded charges after negotiations failed to settle Florida's 51 billion claim. Orlamfo Sc~~ti,~cl, July 27, 1996;Metrn Sect:Cl. Kessler DA. Letter from Food and Drug Administra- tion re regulation of cigarettes as drugs, iifd irr 9.1 TI'LR 8.1 (1991~1). Kessler DA. Statement on nicotine-containing ciga- rettes. Toh17cc0 Corltrol 1994b;3(2):1-l8-58. Kessler DA. The control and manipulation of nicotine in cigarettes. Tolwiic~ C0iltwl 14%;3(4):362-9. Klonoff EA, Fritz JM, Landrine H, Riddle RW, Tully- Payne L. The problem and sociocultural context of single-cigarette sales. jol1rllr71 of f/it' Auwriin~l illetficnl Assoiiafiorl lYY-l;271(8):618-20. Klonoff-Cohen HS, Edtlstein SL, Lefkoivitz ES, Srini- vasan IP, Kaegi D, Chang JC, Wiley KJ. The effect of passive smoking and tobacco exposure through breast milk on sudden infant death svndrome. ](~~lr)wl of flrc Amcricn~~ Mcdhl Asm-infiml 1'%;273(10):795-8. Koepp S. Tobacco's first loss. -Tirjw 1988;131(26):48-50. Kozlowski LT. Less hazardous smoking and the pur- suit of satisfaction [editorial]. Amrricm /orlrrral of PI~[I- lit Hmlth 1987;77(5):539-41. Kraft BP. Second-hand smoke suit seeks $650 mln from industry. Rrutcr Europtvn Busiwss Reprt, May 13,1994. Available from Dialog(R)F 611:Reuters. Kristein MM. Economic issues related to smoking in the workplace. New York StnfeJorlvrznl of Medicine 19X9; 89(1):44-7. Kronquist L. Stllrscfs Innehn"ll (The content of snuff). Gothenburg (Sweden): Gothia Tobak, 1994. Kropp Ii. E,7fc~rrwlr~rJf r$ Mi/rjm~lm Ap-of-Srrl~ Tohncco Lnw. Petaluma (CA): North Bay Health Resources Center, 1996. Kyte 71. Philif~ Morris Ir~c., 408 Mass. 162, 556 N.E.Zd 1025 (Mass. 1990). Landler M. Philip Morris revels in rare ABC news apoP ogv for report on nicotine. New York Tinw, Aug 28, lY& TI't?~cs, July 27, 1998a;Sect A:10 (co1 1). Meier B. Judge vroids study linking cancer to second: hand smoke. NL~~P Yurk Tinrcs, July 20, 1998b;Sect A:14 (co1 1). Meier B. Tobacco company subject of investigation officials say. NPill \~I/L)Y~ Tin~cs, May 11, 1998c;Sect A:1 3. Meier B. U.S. brings its first charges in the tobacco in, vestigation. Nc~u Yurk Tinres, Jan 8, 1998d;Sect A:17. Mcfrormfi~, hc. ~1. City c!f.Sm Diego,453 U.S. 490 (1981) Miga A. Fed juries subpoena tobacco co. executives Bostorz Hmld, July 26, 1995;Sect 1:3. Milbank D. British government will help smokers sue. Wall Street [u~lrnal, Feb 3, 1995;Sect B:l (co1 3). Minnesota Attorney General. Attorney General obtains settlement with cigarette manufacturer [press release]. St. Paul (MN): State of Minnesota, Office of the Attor- ney General, May 3, 1994. Minnesota Automatic Merchandising Council. Ciga- rette vending legislation fact sheet [memo]. Minneapo- lis: Minnesota Automatic Merchandising Council, Feb 24, 1987. Mir~r~esota ~7. Philip Morris Ilrc., No. Cl-94-8563 (Minn., Ramsey Cty. Nov. 29, 1994), cifril irz 9.3 TPLR 3.273 (1994). Mifzwsofn ~1. Plzilij? Morris I~Ic., No. Cl-94-8565 (Minn., Ramsey Cty. May 8, 19981, cited ill 13.2 T'I'LR 2.112 (1998) (Consent Judgment). n/li~rwsot~ ~1. Philip Morris III~., No. Cl-Y+8565 (Minn., Ramsey Cty. May 8,1998), zitcd i17 13.2 TPLR 3.39 (1998) (Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Entry of Consent Judgment). Montgomery N. Ex-smoker who lost in court u'on ad- mirers read; to follo\y his lead. Seatfle Tir?ltTs, July 4, 1993;Sect B:3. Moore u. Amrica!l Tobacco Co., No. 94:1329 (Miss., Jack- son Cty. Oct. 14, 1994), cited irl 9.5 TPLR 3.597 (1994) (Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Challenges to the Sufficiency of the Complaint and the Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the Chancery Court). Moore P. Anlerica~l Tobacco Co., Cause No. 94:1429 (Miss., Jackson Cty. Feb. 21, 1995), cited in 10.1 TPLR 2.13 (7995). Morain D. Behind fuming bar owners is savvy, well- heeled group. Los Alrgeles Tiwes, Jan 30, 1998;Sect A:l. Morain D, Ellis V. California elections/propositions; voters approve "three strikes" law, reject smoking mea- sure; proposal for government-run health care system, gasoline tax to fund rail projects are also defeated. Los Azgeles Times, Nov 9, 1994;Sect A:3 (co1 2). Mosher JF. The merchants, not the customers: resist- ing the alcohol and tobacco industries' strategy to blame young people for illegal alcohol and tobacco sales. Iolr~ln/ of P~blir Hcaltll Policy 1995;16(4):412-32. Moss JE. Minority views on the Federal Cigarette La- beling and Advertising Act. In: Uflifeii Sfafes Code: Cow gwssiorrtll a?d Admir?ir;fra~~ue News. 89th Congress-First Sc.; accessed: December 6, 1 YYY. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. ~,7i~i~O/?JJli'/?flll 7cJlwizc~ SrmJk ill tllc LVJ/k/JII71W Ll/rl$ Carl- ccr a77d Otlw H~wlfh Efti~c-t.;. Current Intelligence Bulle- tin 54. Cincinnati: US Department of Health and Human Seri,ices, Public Health Ser\?ce, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1991. DHHS Publication No. (NIOSH) 91- 108. Neergaard L. Cigarette maker named in plot. ;2llr/ .-lr- hr New, Jan 8, 1998;Sect A:lO. Negri E, Franzosi MG, La Vecchia C, Santoro L, Nobili A, Tognoni G on behalf of GISSI-EFRIM Investigators. Tar yield of cigarettes and risk of acute myocardial in- farction. British M~dicul ]~UTJUI/ 1993;306(6892):1567-70. Nordstrom DL, DeStefano E Evaluation of Wisconsin legislation on smoking in restaurants. fidmrro Cmzfro/ 1995;4(23:325-8. Nova Scotia Council on Smoking and Health. Strrdcvrtb 0 Tot~ilccn: T/w 1990 NOM Scnfia Cuut7cil of1 Smokir~~ i; Hmlfh S~frwy. Final Report. Halifax (Canada): Nova Scotia Department of Health and Fitness, 1991. Novak V, Freedman A. Tobacco industry facing 2 crinli- nal investigations. Will Stwf /wrjza[, July 25,1995:Sect A:3. Office of Inspector General. Yol!f/~ Access to Cigavcttcs. Washington: US Department of Health and Huma, Services, Office of Inspector General, Office of Eval~,- ation and Inspections, 1990. OEI-02-90-02310. Office of Inspector General. Strrte Owsipht of Tobnrcc~ So& to Mir~ovs. Washington: US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, Of- fice of Evaluation and Inspections, 1995. OEI-02-9-1. 00270. Offord KP, Hurt RD, Berge KG, Frusti DK, Schmidt L. Effects of the implementation of a smoke-free policy in a medical center. C/vsf 1992;102(5):1531-6. 0177~7/ik il. O/lirJ Sfatc Rnr ,4w7., 436 U.S. 447 (1978). 0k/i7/f~JJJf~? ~1. R.j. Rq~wllf~ 7obni-~0 CO., No. CJ96149YL. (Okla., Cle\~eland Cty. Aug. 22, 19961, cited irz 11.7TI'LR 3.901 (1996). Orcv M. Smoke signals on Wall Street. Anwicn~~ Lox- y'r i99S (May):68-74. Pace E. NeLv L'ork City moves against cigarette md- chines. Ntw ki~rk T~IJWS, Ott 16, 1990;Sect A:1 (co1 2). Palmer JR, Rosenberg L, Shapiro S. "Low yield" ciga- rettes and the risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction in Lvomen. iVci[l Eflglar1r-l /o~lrrm! of Mrdicille 1989;320(24): 1369-73. Parish S, Collins R, Pete R, \I'oungman L, Barton J, Jayne K, Clarke R, Appleby P, Lvon V, Cederholm-Williallis `;, Marshall J, Sleight P for-the International Studies of Infarct Survival (ISIS) Collaborators. Cigarette smok- ins, tar yields, and non-fatal mvocardial infarction: l-1,000 cases ancl 32,000 controls-in the United King- dom. British Mrdici71 ~mr-r7il/ 199?;3 I1 (7003):471-7. I'armet WE, Daynard RA, Gottlieb MA. The ph\,si- cian's role in helping smoke-sensitil-e patients to USC the Americans \cith Disabilities Act to secure smoke- free lvorkplaces and public spaces. /(11/r-rrrl/ IIf t/1(, .-\l/~l'ri- ii?/1 Mdictll A~m-i~~t;oi~ lYY6;2767( 11 ):YOY-1 3. Parsons J. Proposed cigarette machineban is amended. hfii~fk~i7pdi5 Sfi7r fi4~ii~, Dee 7, lY8Y;Ne\\.s Sect B:? (co1 3). Patten CA, Cilpin E, Ca\.in SLY, Pierce JP. Workplace smoking poliw and changes in smoking beha\.iour in California: a suggestecl association. TCI/~~~CC-CI Cor~fr~~/ 1 YY5a;4(1):36-4 1, Pntten CA, Pierce JP, Ca\.in SW, Bet-w CC, Kaplan RM. Progress in protecting noii-smokers from en\ironmen- tal tobacco smoke in California \vorkplaces. fi+l7cccl Co!~trol 1995b;3(2):139-43. huh JL, Allaart HA, Rodriguez MI, Streck RJ. Fibers released from cigarette filters: an additional health risk to the smoker? Cnr7rrr Rtworch 1995;55(2):253-8. I'ertschuk M, editor. Major Loco1 Tobacco Cor~frol Ordi- 71~777~~~5 i/l t/w U/iifcTrf StnftTs. Smoking and Tobacco Con- trol Monograph No. 3. Bethesda (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, 1993. NIH Publication No. 93-3532. I'ertschuk M, Shopland DR, editors. Major Local Smok- r/l;; Onfi/7i7/7i~~~ i/r f/w Llrlitd Sfnfe: A Dcfailed Mafl.ix of f/w Prcvi~ior~s of Work~dm~, Rrsfnlrrr-rr~f, nrzd Public Placrs SIIIOX.III;; Ordi~7~777cc~. Bethesda (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, Americans for Nonsmok- ers' Rights, 1989. NIH Publication No. 90-479. Petersen LR, Helgerson SD, Gibbons CM, Calhoun CR, Ciacco KH, l'itchford KC. Employee smoking behav- ior changes and attitudes following a restrictive policy on Lvorksitc smoking in a large company. Plrlllic Hmlflz Rt~pm-ts 1 Y88;103(2):11.4-20. Philip Morris Companies Inc. lb7rf~7/ RqJUrf (SEC Forn~ 70-K) (filing Itrith Securities and Exchange Commis- sion), Mar 6, 1998. Philip Morris /jlc. il. Bl~rr~wr~tl~~l, Lo. 97-7122 (2d Cir. 1997), rifcd ;/I 12.5 TPLR 2.305 (1997). P'lri/ilJ Morris Irlt-. 7'. Gmhnru, Case No. 960904948 CV (Utah Dist. Ct. Salt Lake Cty. Feb. 13, 19971, citpll if1 12.1 TI'LR 2.46 (1997). P/7i/i/~ Morris I/7(-. il. Harshbnrgcv, Civil Action No. 95- 12574-GAO (Mass. Nov. 22, 1996), cifcd irz 11.8 TPLR 2.259 (1996). Pllili}l Morris 111~. il. Horshhrgcr, Civil Action No. 96- 1159Y-GAO, Civil Action No. 96-11619-GAO, 1997U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21012 (D. Mass. Dec. 10, 1997). Philif~ Morris Irlc-. iI. Hurshr;ycr, 122 E3d 58 (1st Cir. 1997). Pierce JP, Gilpin EA. A historical analysis of tobacco marketing and the uptake of smoking by youth in the United States: 1890-1977. Htvlfh Psyrlrolo,q~ 1995; 14(6):500-8. Pierce JP, Gilpin E, Burns DM, Whalen E, Rosbrook B, Shopland D, Johnson M. Does tobacco advertising tar- get young people to start smoking? Evidence from California. /olrnzn/ of t/w AI~x~~~T~II Mcificnl Associafior7 1991;266(22):3154-8: Pierce JP, Lee L, Gilpin EA. Smoking initiation by ado- lescent girls, 1944 through 1988: an association with targeted advertising. /077r77a[ of tlrc At71crica77 Medical A55OriatiUr7 1994a;271(8):608-11. Pierce JP, Shanks TG, Pertschuk M, Gilpin E, Shopland D, Johnson M, Bal D. Do smoking ordinances protect non-smokers from environmental tobacco smoke at work? Tc)twsco Corrtlal 1994b;3(1):15-20. Pillsbury HC, Bright CC, O'Connor KJ, Irish FW. Tar and nicotine in cigarette smoke. ]ol/r,~n/ elf' t/w Aw~ia- fiord of Offirial A~alyfical Chr77isfs 1969;52(3):458-62. Pirkle JL, Flegal KM, Bernert JT, Brody DJ, Etzel RA, Maurer KR. Exposure of the US population to envi- ronmental tobacco smoke: the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survev, 1988 to 1991. ]o~~r- 11172 uf the ,477iel.;ca17 Medical Awii~7fio77 lY96;275(16): 1233-40. Price J. Economist trashes anti-smokers' stud!, of eat- erv business; optimistic conclusions "un\rarrantecl." W;lslri,l~to,r Tilw5, Apr 2-1, 1 C)Y7;Sect A:Y. PR Ne\vs\vire. Tobacco litigation gi\-en go-ahead in Britain. Feb 1, 1995; Financial Ne\vs Sect. A\.ailable from Dialog(R)F 613:PR Ne\vs\cire. PR NewsLvire. Mississippi tobacco settlement relised to reflect impact of Minnesota settlement. PR News- wire, Julv 6, 1998a; Domestic Ncrvs Sect. PR Newswire. Prohibition nelvs update. PR Newswire, June 18, 1998b; State and Regional Nelvs Sect. Puldic Cifimt il. FcJeral 7rad~~ Cmmissio77, 869 F.2d 1541 (D.C. Cir. 1989). Queensgate ~r~i~estrirc~zt co. i'. Lii~""' CO,Zf7YJ/ Cor77777issio77, 433 N.E.2d 138, 69 Ohio St. 2d 361 (Ohio 1982). Rabin RL. Institutional and historical perspectives on tobacco tort liability. In: Rabin RL, Sugarman SD, edi- tors. St77okirrg Policy: Law, Politics, and Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993:110-30. Rabin RL, Sugarman SD, editors. Sn&ng Policy: Laq Politics, o/zd Culfurc. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Ranzal E. Troy asks repeal of nicotine levy. Neu! York~ Tims, Ott 10, 1973;35 (co1 1). Reidy A, Carter R. Tobacco litigation: looking for cover. Legal Times, Mar 6, 1995; Focus on Insurance Sect:S37 (co1 1). Repace JL. Risk management of passive smoking at work and at home. St. Louis Utziaersify Public law Rr- ilicttl 1994;13(2):763-85. Response Research, Incorporated. Firtdirtgs for the Study of Tecrtagc CiSnreffc Sn~okir~g ntzci Purchasing BehazG. Chicago: Response Research, Incorporated, 1989. NB 6246. Rcuijl JC. 0~7 tl7r Deftwnirtnfio~~ of Adwrfisi~,g Effcrfioe- ~ICSS: A/I E7n)lit'ica/ Study uf tl7c Gcrvtnrt Cigarette Markcf- Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing, 1982. Reuters. Philip Morris gets subpoena from federa grand jury. Aug 31,1996. Available from Dialog(R)Filc 197:Sun-Sentinel Co. Reuters. British Columbia lays out tough tobacco list ings. Reuters (news wire), June 22, 1998. Reynolds T. EPA finds passive smoking causes 1~711; cancer. ]ourr7al of tl7c Nnfiollrrl Caricer lwtiflltc 199: 85(3):179-80. Ribisl KM, Norman GJ, Howard-Pitney B, Howard Kp Which adults do underaged youth ask for cigarettes A777erica7z lournal of Pub/it Hen/t/~ 1999;89(10):1561-4. Riclranlso~t v. Philip Morris IHC., No. 96145050/CE2125' (Md. Cir. Ct. Baltimore City Jan. 28, 1998). Rickert WS. Quarttitafiorz of Class A Carcirtoger7s irt T b~zcc~ Sntokefvor77 Cigarettes: ~-A777i77o-Biyhcr7y1. Kitchen1 (Canada): Labstat Incorporated, Analytical Service Division, 1994. Kigotti NA, Bourne D, Rosen A, Locke JA, Schelling TC. Workplace compliance 1%.ith a no-smoking lair: a randomized communitv intervention trial. ,4111crri17rr /olirr~al of Prrblic HCl7lfh i992;82(2):229-35. Rigotti NA, DiFranza, JR, Chang Y, Tisdale T, Kemp B, Singer DE. The effect of enforcing tobacco-sales la\vs on adolescents' access to tobacco and smoking behal.- ior. New E~r,ylnr~il ]0111.1117/ of Mrdi~irz~' 1997;337(15): 1044-51. Rigotti NA, Pashos CL. No-smoking la\vs in the United States: an analysis of state and city actions to limit smoking in public places and \vorkplaces. ]011r71l7/ (1f fh ,41~wim~2 MdI'mI ilsrvinficvl 1991;266(22):31 Q-7. Kigotti NA, Pikl BH, Clearv I', Singer DE, MulIe\, AG. The impact of banning snioking on a hospital i\.ard: acceptance, compliance, air quality and smoking be- ha\ior. Clirlicnl Rmt7rcl~ 1986;31(2):833A. Rigotti NA, Stoto MA, Schelling TC. Do businesses comply 1%.ith a no-smoking la127 Assessins the self- enforcement approach. Pwwrlfiw Medic-ijrf, 1994;23(2): '23-9. R./. Rrydils Co. il. E,@c, 672 So. 2d 39 (Fla. Ct. Apt'. 1996). ft.]. Rcqr~olds ToEncco Co. il. johr~ fhs, 94-CVS-5867 (N.C., jorsvth Ctv. Aug. 12, 19931, citc~ll ij~ 9.4 TPLR 7.95 (1994) iTempbrarv Restraining Order). R.J. Revnolds Tobacco Company. Clwnricill 171111 Bicl/qi- ial Sfurlics OII Ncicl Cipwffc Prototyycs Thnt Hfvf Illsfcild of Bllrrl Tih~cco. Winston-Salem'( R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, 1988. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. Cipwfk I~~~~wdi~wf~: .-1 Conrplcfe Lisf nrld Backputd. Winston-Salem (NC): R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, 1994. R/R-MacDolznld Ilrc. 11. Aftorrlcy Guwrnl of Car&a, File Nos. 23460, 23490 (Can. Nov. 29-30, 1494, Sept. 21, 1995), cited ijz 10.6 TPLR 2.167 (1995). li]R Nabisco Holdings, Corp. ~7. Durzrr, 657 N.E.2d 1220 (Ind. 1995). Robertson I. Socio/og~/. Ne\v York: Worth Publishers, 1977. Robinson LA, Klesges RC, Zbikowski SM, Glaser R. Predictors of risk for different stages of adolescent smoking in a biracial sample. ]ourr~/ ofCoj~su/fij~~ ~td Clijlical P.;,t/cl7olo~y 1997;65(4)653-62. Rodriguez E, Taylor J, Meehan brief leveling fraud charges against tobacco firms gets credibility. W[?// Sfrwf ]o~~rr~aI, Mar 9, 1998;Sect A:20. Rohter L. Florida prepares new basis to sue tobacco industrv. ,\`~~:~~ York Time, May 27, 1994;Sect A:1 (ml I). - Rosa M, Pacifici R, Altieri I, Pichini S, Ottaviani G, Zuccnro I'. Hoi\. the steadv-state cotinine concentra- tion in cigarette smokers is directly related to nicotine intake. C/ij1ic~7/ P/ia,,rllilc-o/o~!/ njld Theropcufic-s 1992; Tl'(3):334-9. - - Rose RL, H\\.ang SL. Harle), is suing to get its name off cigarettes. lU7ll Strwf ]o~~rrlnl, Mar 23, 1995;Sect B:l (co1 3). Rosenstock IM, Stergachis A, Heaney C. Evaluation of smoking prohibition policy in a health maintenance organization. ilrlli,riiclrl ~0111~17171 of Plrblic Hrzlfh 1986; 76(8):1011-5. Ros~~~ell Park Cancer Institute. s~~rw,q of ,~icoho~, El- bacco, l7r1d DVIIS Ue A~IHJ\~~ Nijlfh Grmlc Sfudcllfs, 2996: Eric, Col/rlfy, 799c7. Buffalo (NY): Rostvell Park Cancer Institute, Department of Cancer Control and Epide- miology, 1997. RI/bill P. Coors Rrcwir~~ Co., 514 U.S. 476, 115 S. Ct. 1585 (1995). Samuels B, Glantz SA. The politics of local tobacco control. jrwrrlnl r$ flrr Anwicn,l Mrdicnl Asociclfim 1991; 266(15):2110-7. Sanders J. The Bendectin litigation: a case study in the life cycle of mass torts. HnsfilIgs Lns ]ourrlnl 1992; 43(Jan):301-418. Scherer R, Rybak DC. Tobacco foes win a vast memo arsenal. Cllristiojl Sricrrcc Morzitor, May 11, 1998:l. Schmeltzer J, Arndt M. Under siege in cigarette wars, tobacco titans counterattack. Cllicnso 7rih/7c, Mar 25, 1993;Nelzs Sect:1 (co1 2). Schmit JT. The role of the \vorh place, business plain- tiffs, and mass torts in products liabilit~~ litigation. ]olir- 7701 of Ir7517rxr7zt~ Rqwl&io/7 lYY4;12(3):;30-53. Schneider L, Klein B, Murphy KM. Governmental regulation of cigarette health information. /0711.17171 of Lnirl arrd Ect~rrorrrii5 IYX1;24(3):575-612. Schoendorf KC, Kiel; JL. Relationship of sudden in- fant death syndrome to maternal smoking during and after pregnancy. Ptdi~7tricS lYY2;YO(6):YO5-P. Schuartz GT. Tobacco liability in the courts. In: Rabin RL, Sugarman SD, editors. S~~7okir7~~ Policy: Li7itl, PO/~- tic-s, i~rlil Cfrlf~rw. New York: Oxford Unilrersitv Press, lYY3:131-60. Schivartz J. Lawmaker asks Reno to take up tobacco probe. TIw Wnd7i~7ptor7 Posf, Dee 14, 1994; Sect A: 15. Schwartz J. Tobacco firm's nicotine studies assailed on Hill. T/7tT CZii75hir7gfor7 Post, July 25, lYY5;Sect A%. Schlvartz J. Cigarette company turns C.S. informant. T/71, Wflshit7$olf Post, Apr 29, lYY8a;Sect A:l. Schwartz J. Firm pleads guilty to criminal charge in tobacco probe. T17c W~~llir7gtc~rr Posf, Jan 24, lYY8b;Sect A:l. Sch\vartz J. Tobacco firms ordered to turn o\`er docu- ments. 7/w Vhsl7ir7gtt~~7 ht, Mar 8, lYY8c;Sect A:2. Schlvartz J, Connolly C. Nicotine conspirac>. alleged. T/w lAhhi~7g-ftx7 Posf, Jan 8, 1 YYX;Sect A:1 Scott C-JE, Cerberich SC. Analysis of a smoking polic!. in the w-orkplace. A~rwrirr717 A;m-i~7fio17 of Oc-~~7~~~~7ficl~7~7/ HtW/f/l Nli7'Sif?<~ /~J7ir77d 1989;37(7):265-73. Srnfflt~ Posf-lr7tt'll;~~t,~71-t'~. Tobacco is not addicti\,e, top executives sav but thev do concede on nicotine le\.els, other major issues. Swfflc P~,~f-/,lfc,l/iS[,r7`-~,~,, Apr 15, 1991;Sect A:3. Seldon BJ, Doroodian K. A simultaneous model of ciga- rette advertising: effects on demand and industrjr re- sponse to public police. Rl'i'il'il ' of Ei0/7~~ll7ii~ ilrfif Stofistics 1989;71(1):673-7. Shaffer D. Feds sniff around Minnesota tobacco civil lar\Tsuit. .%irlt Pal/l Pi0~7t~t~~ Pw.~, Feb 19, 1997;Sect A:], Shane S. Criminal probes shadow tobacco. Bdfit77t1rt~ Sur7, June 20, 1997;News Sect:lA. Shapiro E. A crafty lawyer turns up the heat on tobacco. LV7II Sfwf jn77n7nl, May 19, 1994a;Sect B:I (co1 3). Shapiro E. The insider who copied tobacco firm's secrets. Wall Sfvecf /olrrrra/, June 20, 1994b;Sect B:I (co1 3). Shapiro E. U.S. probes whether tobacco concerns agreed not to sell "fire-safe" cigarettes. WQII Sfvect jor~r- 77nl, Mar H, lYY4c;Sect A:2 (co1 3). Shiprr7077 P. flri/ip Morris Cos., Cause No. 26294 (Tex., Johnson Cty. Oct. 7,1YY4), rittd i/7 10.1 TPLR 3.91 (1995). Shopland DR, Hartman AM, Repace JL, Lynn WR. Smoking behavior, ivorkplace policies, and public opinion regarding smoking restrictions in Maryland. Mcuyln7rcf Mtdiiill /twmn/ lYY5;44(2):YY-104. Siegel M. In\roluntary smoking in the restaurant work- place: a revielv of employee exposure and health ef- fects. \o~rr~l~~l of f/w Aurtv.i~-or7 Mtdicnl Associntior7 lYY3; 370(4):4YO-3. Siegel M, Carol J, Jordan J, Hobart R, Schoenmarklin S, DuMelle F, Fisher I'. Preemption in tobacco control. Re\.ie\v of an emerging public health program. ]~~L~r~wf of fl7c Ar17~,ric-~7rl Mtdicol Asm%7fic~r7 1997;278(10):858-63. Skretny MT, Cummings KM, Sciandra R, Marshall J: An inter\,ention to reduce the sale of cigarettes tc minors. Ncn? York Sfatc ]017r77nl OF Mtdici77t~ lY90;90(2)- 54-O. Slade J. The tobacco epidemic: lessons from history /1)1/1.12111 of J)S1/C/7Ol7~~fiilt' Drlrgs 1989;21 (3):281-91. Slade J. Nicotine delivery devices. In: Orleans CT, Sladc J, editors. Nicofi77c Adrlic;ir177: Pri,7ci;rdrs 077~1 Mn77ogtw7cr7f Ne\z York: Oxford University Press, 1993:3-23. Slade J. Are tobacco products drugs7 E\.idence tram L'S Tobacco [editorial]. Th7c-ccl Cc177trt~l lYY5;4(1 ): l-2. 5lde J, Connoll\~ GN, Da+ RM, Douglas CE, Henning fic,ld JE, Hughes JR, Kozlor+xki LT, M\rers ML. Report ot the Tobacco I'olici, Research Study Group on tobacco products. i-d~i7iiC~ CLv7t,ll/ 1 YY2;l (su~`pl):s1-5~~. `imothers R. Workers challenge casinos' role as a ha- \ cm for smokers. !"v'l,;l, \ilr.i Tirr7tx, bla\, 25, 1WX;Sect B:l (co1 2). Sorensen G, Rigotti NA, Rosen A, I'inne\, J, I'rible Ii. Effects of a lvorksite nonsmoking polic\~:c\?dence for increased cessation. Arr7rrii~7r7 ~0711~17~71 (if Plildi~- H1~7ltl7 1 YYI a;81 (2):202-1. Sorensen G, Rigotti NA, Rosen A, I'innev J, I'rible R. Employee kno\vledge and attitudes aboui a \vork-site nonsmoking policv: rationale for further smoking rc- strictions. jrwr,lill ofOcc~~~~17ficv201 ii&~lic-i/w 1991 b;33(11): 11 X-30. Spwks i'. R.]. Rry7olds To/m-co Co., No. C94-783C (W.D. h'a. Dec. 9, 1994), citc,ll i17 9.6 TPLR 2.171 (199-l). Spavd L. Court ruling puts new smoking ban on hold in Md. 71~~ hhd7i17gf~Jf7 Post, Aug 13, lY%;Sect D:l (co1 4). ~jk7ifilfor. "Camouflaged" \varning has Beattv smok- ing. Tl7c Spy-tofor (Hamilton, Ontario), Mav 31, 1989; Sect C:lO (~01 3). Standing Committee on Health. Toz~wrls ZCIV Cor7577777p fjol2: C~~~~crii Pnckngi17g 0f Tobacco P&IIC~S. Ottawa (Canada): Canada Communication Group--Publishing, Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1994. Staver S. AMA to urge pharmacies to remove tobacco products. ,4777t~7,icnr7 M~~ilicnl Iv'ciCls, Dee 18, 1987:8 (co1 I). Steenland K, Thun M, Lally C, Heath C Jr. Environmen- tal tobacco smoke and coronarv heart disease in the American Cancer Society CPS~II cohort. Circulntior7 lY%;Y44):6~~-8. GL Stellnnan SD, Garfinkel L. Lung cancer risk is propor- tional to cigarette tar yield: evidence from a prospec- ti1.c stud\`. Pl'c'i'c'l~fjilc' M~~fici17c~ 1989;18(3):518-25. Stillman FA, Becker DM, Sivank RT, Hantula D, Moses H, Glantz S, Waranch HR. Ending smoking at The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions: an evaluation of smoking prevalence and indoor air pollution. /our- /7(7/ 11t t/7(' .4777c~r~ii-n,/ Mdicnl /hoc-intio17 1990;264(123: 1 Fihcr-9. Stock~\~cll HG, Goldman AL, Lyman GH, Noss CI, Armstrong AW, Pinkham PA, Candelora EC, Brusa MR. En\.ironmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer risk in nonsmoking xvomen. ~017r-r717/ qf t/70 Nnfior7171 CO~ICCT 177~ stit7lfv lL)92;8418):1317-23. Stohr G. Tobacco companies, officials face \,\.idening criminal probe. Bloomberg (ne\vs wire), June 25,1997. Stone PH. Smoking out the opposition. TI7c Nnfior7n2 ]0711~77171, Apr 16, 1993;26(16):925. stop 1'01if/7 Addicfior~, 177~. il. Lucky Stows, 177~., 17 Cal. 4th 553, 71 Cal. Rptr. 2d 731 (1998). Sullixran JF. Bans on cigarette machines are upheld. New York Ti/rws, Apr I, 1994;Sect B:5 (co1 4). Sulli\,an K. Smokers to appeal UCSF research suit; to- bacco group had alleged Glantz misused funds; case \vas dismissed. 5717 frojxisco E.u7777i77u, Dee 2,1997;Sect A:7. Sullivan I? CMA targets drugstores in latest antitobacco dri1.e. Cf777[7dic7,7 Medic-nl Associnfiol7 /our,~nl 1989; 111(1):66. Suttle G. P~~vallup ban goes up in smoke after tobacco- financed lali,suit. 7;7<011117 R;ci~lq 7i~il~lrrlc~, Dee 20, 1994; sect A:l. S\veda EL Jr, Daynard RA. Tobacco industry tactics. British Mdiinl Rlilli'fi/l lYY6;52(1):183-92. Svl\,ester K. The tobacco industry Mill Malk a mile to stop an anti-smoking la\v. Go~~~r~lirl~~ 1989;2(8):34-10. 7i7k~~ Fiw Vtvdir~,y, Lfd. ~1. hv~ clfP,,oilirl~l~forilrl, 415 Mass. 741,615 N.E.Zd 576,1993 Mass. LEXIS 440 (Mass. Mar. 4.1993). Talbot B. "Adolescent smokers rights laws." ~~lwt-co Cmtrd 1992;1(3):294-5. Tavlor HG. Pharmacists \vho choose not to sell tobacco. /I,;wiii7,~ Phrrrriri~/ 1992;NS32(5):4Y-52. Tavlor J. DNA plant technology pleads qlilty in U.S. investigation of cigarette makers. W7ll Strut /011rrl~7/, Jan 26, 1YYti;Sect B:5. Taylor J, Rodriguez E. U.S. brings tirst charge in the tobacco inquirv. lniilll Slrwt jo111.11171, Jan 8, 1YC)H;Sect A:3. Technical Study Group on Cigarette and Little Cigar Fire Safety. 7'ownr-d ~7 LP~S Fiw17~11\1~ Ci97wIh. Final Re- port. Washington: Consumer Product Safety Commis- sion, I Y87. kn.; ~7. Amrirnr~ Td~~~cco Co., No. S-96CV-Yl (E.D. Tex. Jan. 16, lYY8) (Comprehensi\,e Settlement Agreement and Release). Thomas P, Schlvartz J. Madison Square Garden to move cigarette ads; U.S. action affects TV broadcasts at arena. T/IL, Wd~irrgtar~ ht, Apr 5, 1YYi;Sect A:l?. Thomas I', Schwartz J. U.S. widens tobacco investiga- tion. The Wns~zir~@v7 Post, Sept 8, 1996;Sect A:l. Thomas P, Schwartz J. Government intensifies tobacco company probe. T/w WashilJgfOtJ ht, May 3,1997;Sect A:18. Thomson B, Toffler WL. The illegal sale of cigarettes to minors in Oregon. ]olrrl?al Of Fnrvlily Prnctice 1090; 31(2):206-8. Thun MJ, Day-Lally C, Myers DG, Calle EE, Flanders WD, Zhu B-P, Namboodiri MM, Heath CW Jr. Trends in tobacco smoking and mortality from cigarette use in Cancer Prevention Studies I(1959 through 1965) and II (1982 through 1988). In: Clianges i!z Ciprette-Relnt~~Ij Di5;tTiljcJ Risks arid T/leiv ~lnp~ication for h'eUel?tion i71Jlf CmJfrol. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 8. Bethesda (MD): US Department of Health and Hu- man Sertrices, Public Health Service, National Insti- tutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, 1997:305-82. NIH Publication No. 97-1213. Tobacco Control Resource Center. Tobacco Rctaikr RP ~pomi~~i/ify I~~i~infiw: Projccf U/?&e #I. Boston: Tobaccc Control Resource Cent&, 1998. Tobacco Institute. Th fi.~ Blirde/l o/l T&ZCCO. Histori. cal Compilation. Vol. 32. Washington: Tobacco Insti- tute. 1998. Tobacco Institute. Tobacco Activity at the Federal State and Local Levels-1992: Priorities for 1993 Dee 1992; S~lryw~ Gcw~. Rockville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, Center for Health Promo- tion and Education, Office on Smoking and Health, 1986. DHHS Publication No. (CD0 87-8398. CS Department ot Health and Human Stw,ices. 7-/w H07lflf Cf~ilsf,i7li~`llii'j of 57wkirrS: .h~m~fi~w Adifiifi~~~~. A Rqwrt of f/w Srrr.,ywr~ Gcrtcrl7l. Rock\,ille (MD): US De- partment of Health and Human Serl,ices, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, Center for Health Promotion and Education, Office on Smoking and Health, 1988. DHHS Publication No. (CDC) 88-8416. US Department of Health and Human Services. RP L~lKill~ fhc Hrnlflr COi7Sf'L~ll~`77il'~ Of SmcIkl'r7~~: 2.5 G7IY Of Prqrc~ss. ,4 RC~OY~ of t/w S~li;ycwri Gtvrurrl. Atlanta: LS Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Chronic Disease I're\,ention and Health Pro- motion, Office on Smoking and Health, 1989. DHHS Publication No. (CDC) 89-8411. US Department of Health and Human Services. Moll~l SO/C Of fiJhCi0 PI-OdliitS f0 !bfi,lO,3 CCJ/7f,`O/ ,`k-t: A h'fOd~`/ L/w R~`~otJ7JJJt'Jlil~`lj for AdqJtiorr by Stizfi~ or Lot-,7litk tcJ Pwzwf the, Salk of Tolwiio Protf~lcts IO Mirrors. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, I'ub- lit Health %x-ice, Centers for Disease Control, Na- tional Center for Chronic Disease Pre\.ention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 1990. US Department of Health and Human Ser\,ices. 7 992 Nl?tifJlUl SW;Y'.l/ Of \`btlhk5ih' h'cV/t/f ~f~O~~K~fiOi~ ,ilifii'itic'5: S1~777~7~7ry. Washington: US Department of Health caned Human Serlrices, Public Health Ser\,ice, 1993. US Department of Health and Human Ser\-ices. PHI- ~wrfiq Toh7iicJ Ilw ArucJr7~~ Liwr~~~ &CJ~J/K A Rq~tvf c~i rfl(l S~IT~L~I G~rrw~7l. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and I're\.ention, National Center for Chronic Disease I're\.ention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, lYY4. US Department of Health and Human Ser\.ices. 5yj111/ Rqhfio~~ /117~`/~`,77l'/7t,rfi(,ll.. Rt~~wt ,`(I CO,I~IYS OII Ff Y 799; Stnl~,C0tli~~/il7ll~(`. Rock\.ille (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Scr\.ices AL~ministratioii, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, lYY8a. Publication ho. (SMA) 98-3186. L6 Department of Health and Human Services. Tobacc(, Llw .-2~m,1p U.S. Racid/Ethiz Mii~~rify ~ro~ips--Afvi~~,~ Amv+n~~~, AIIWI'CL~J~ f1dil7~z.s nr~d AInska Nntiiws, As;nri ,;l/llf'~kl7/7S 17/d h+' fShh'5, f7fld Hk[Jfl"iCC A Re/JcJut (Jf f/w S~ly.yor~ Ccrrwnl. Atlanta: l-S Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and I'revention, National Center for Chronic Disease Pre- vention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking ancl~ Health, 199813. US Department of Health and Human Services. EII- ~i~rrtv~c~~f of 7i1b~7cco Snlus Lrrws: G~lidnt~cc from E.x;Ju- t'/7rt' 1'17 flzc iit~ld. CSAP fJJ2FJlt~nZt~rlfafit7lr Guide. Rockville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Admin- istration, 1999. DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 99-3317. US Department of Health and Human Services. Hwl+/ P~c)/r/c~ 2070 (Conference edition, in two volumes). Washington: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2000a. US Department of Health and Human Services. 9th Rqwf OII Carri,~c~,y~r~~. Research Triangle Park (NC): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Serlrice, National Toxicology Program, 2000b. US Department of Health and Human Services. Syr~nr Rq7~lcrti~JJl I,rr~Jlt,/rlc,rrff7fiorl: Rcprt fo f/re .k-wtnry UII FFY I998 Stnf~ Cor~7~~li~7r7cc~. Rockville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, in press. L'S Department of Justice. Justice Department reacher; agreement lvith Liggett & Myers for cooperation in tobacco probe [press release]. Washington: US Depart- ment of Justice, Apr 28, 19%. US House of Representatives. Rcg1~/otio77 of Tobnccr Prodl~ct~ (Port 7): Hmril~p Bcfow fhr Subrnmt~~ittc~~~ OI Health 17mf f/w Ef7i~iror7777cr7t of fhc ConImitferJ 011 t`r7e73y arlil Cmr777zcrcc, 103rd Congress, 2nd Sess. (1994). Wash ington: US Government Printing Office, 1995b. Seria No. 103-149. US House of Representatives. Rq17l~tio77 of Tohcco Pr~oducfs (Part 2 J: Hearir7gs Brfow tl7c S7rbc-orl7777iftcr 017 Hmlfh nr7d the E77z~iro77177rr7t qf tl7r, Cor77777itfw O/I E77cv;q/ nr7d Comrurrcr, 103rd Congress, 2nd Sess. (1994). Wash- ington: US Government Printing Office, 1995~. Serial No. 103-l 53. US House of Representatives. Rcplnfior7 of Tobncco Prod~rcts (Part .?I: Hmi77g.s BcfrJrc fhr Sllbco,l77?7itfel~ or7 Hcwlfl7 aid the Em~im7~77tv7f 4fhe Co777117iffw of7 Ei7ergy n17d Corvr77erce, 103rd Congress, 2nd Sess. (1994). Wash- ington: US Government Printing Office, 1995d. Serial No. 103-171. Utah Delegation. Resolution no. 96. Total tobacco ad ban legislation. Paper presented at the American Medi- cal Association House of Delegates 43rd interim meet- ing; Dee 3-6, 1989; Honolulu (HI). Valkonen M, Kuusi T. Passi1.e smoking induces athero- genie changes in low-density lipoprotein. Cirirrlotio,l 1998;97(20):2012-6. Van Rijn N. Class action suit filed against tobacco gi- ants: Toronto lawyer says U.S. probe spurred action. Toronto Star, Jan 15, 1995;News Sect:A5. Virgirrin State Botlrd ofPl7nr777ncy iI. Virgi17iil Cifi2v75 Cor7- 577IJICY Cour7cd, 117c., 425 U.S. 748 (1976). Wakefield M, Carrangis J, Wilson D, Reynolds C. Ille- gal cigarette sales to children in South Australia. To- lJncc@ Control 1992a;1(2):114-7. Wakefield MA, Wilson D, Owen N, Esterman A, Rob- erts L. Workplace smoking restrictions, occupational status, and reduced cigarette consumption. jourr7d of Occupatioml Medicilw 1992b;34(7):693-7. Wnll Street /ourml. Nicotine attack: cigarette regulation is formally proposed; industry sues to halt it. Wrrll Sfrwf brnnl, Aug 11, 1995;Sect A:1 (co1 6). WOII Sfrwf ]ourr7al. Brown & Williamson is subject of inquiry by justice agency. WolI Strwf lmmal, May 12, 1998;Sect B:ll. Wannamethee SG, Shaper AG, Whincup PH, Walker M. Smoking cessation and the risk of stroke in middle-aged men. /our77171 of fl7e A777rricar7 A4cdicnl AssociafioM 1995;274(2):155-60. Ward J. Tobacco-case judge warns lawyers in paper dispute. Louiwille Corlrjl~r-IOllrI?~I, Feb 22, 1996;Busi- ness Sect: 1 Ob. Warner KE. Clearing the airwaves: the cigarette ad ban revisited. Policy A17alysi~ 1979;5(4):435-50. Warner KE, Ernster VL, Holbrook JH, Lewit EM, Pertschuk M, Steinfeld JL, Tye JB, Whelan EM. Pro- motion of tobacco products: issues and policy options. ]our/7n1 of Hcwltlr Politic-s, Policy nrrd Lou1 1986;11(3): 367-92. Wasserman J, Manning WG, Newhouse JP, Winkler JD. The effects of excise taxes and regulations on cigarette smoking. /o~r?,jlnl of Htvdtlr Eco77o777icj 1991;10(1):43-64. Wail, Cofd7~7/ & Mnt7ps LLP ~1. Lorrpfreef Associates, L.P. (N.Y., N.Y. Cty. June 12, 19981, cited i77 13.4 TPLR 3.188 (1998). Weinstein H. Key tobacco witness gets immunity, sources say. Los Ar7pdcs Titnrs, July 13, 1997a; Sect A:l. Weinstein H. Suit seeking to stop UC tobacco foe is dismissed. Los AJIXLJIC~ Tinles, Dee 2, 1997b;Sect A:3. Weinstein H. Big tobacco settles Minnesota lawsuit for $6.6 billion. Los A17pdcs Tilnes, May 9, 1998a;Sect A:l. Weinstein H. U.S. accuses company of high-nicotine plot. Los Angeles Tirtles, Jan 8, 1998b;Sect A:l. Weiser B, Schwartz J. Seeking tobacco data, FBI searches home of Philip Morris ex-researcher. The Minjhin$o~~ Post, Apr 10, 1996;Sect A:12. Wells AJ. Passive smoking as a cause of heart disease. ]ozrrrznl of f/w Amcricm Colie~yc of Cardiology 1994;24(2): 546-54. Wells AJ. Heart disease from passive smoking in the workplace. ]ourrml of the A777ericnn Collqe of Cardiology 1998;31(1):1-9. West Virginia Attorney General. West Virginia Attor- ney General McGraw files historic latvsuit against to- bacco industry [press release]. Charleston (WV): State of West Virginia, Office of the Attorney General, Sept 20, 1994. White E. Today, where there's smoke, there's a neigh- bor's lawsuit. Wnll Sfrect ~ourrlol, July 13, 1998; Sect B:l. Widilick/Mnilclos ~1. Brozc~z & Willinrmot~ Tohcco Coy., No. 97-03522-CA, Div. CV-H (Fla. 4th Cir. Jacksonville 1998). Wildey MB, Woodruff S, Agro A, Keay KD, Kenney EM, Conway TL. Sustained effects of educating retail- ers to reduce cigarette sales to minors. Public Hen/t11 Reports 1995b;110(5):625-9. Wildey MB, Woodruff SI, Pampalone SZ, Conway TL. Self-service sale of tobacco: how it contributes to youth access. Tohcco Cotlttwl 1995a;4(4):355-61. Wilke JR, Lambert W. Cigarette firms' fire liability is tested. Wull Sfrcef jolrrrrnl, Mav 12, lYY2;Sect B:7 (co1 1). Wilson DH, Wakefield MA, Esterman A, Baker CC. 15's: they fit everylvhere-especially the school bag: a survey of purchases of packets of 15 cigarettes by 14 and 15 year olds in South Australia. Cottlruutlify Hmlfh Studies 1987;11(1 Suppl):16S-2%. Wilson JJ. Summary of the Attorneys General Master Tobacco Settlement Agreement, March 1999; Internal MedicitrL 1993;153(12):1485-93. Woodward M, Tunstall-I'edoe H. Do smokers of lowei tar cigarettes consume lower amounts of smoke corn ponents? Results from the Scottish Heart Health Study Brifislr ]o~t-ml of Addictim 1992;87(6):921-8. Working Group of State Attorneys General. No Sa/c Youth, Tebncco nrd Respotzsihle Retding. Developing Xc spotzsihlr R&nil Soles Prmfices md Lccgislatiotr to Redw Illepl Tobncco Sales to Mimrs. Findings and Recommen dations. Baltimore: State of Maryland, Office of the Attorney General, 1994. WJyatt, Tnrtztzt 6~ Combs v. Willintm, 892 S.W.2d 584 (K) 1995). Wynder EL, Hecht S, editors. Lzlrr~ Cnrrcer. UICC Tech nical Report Series. Vol. 25. Workshops on the Biolog of Human Cancer Report No. 3. Geneva: Internation: Union Against Cancer, 1976. Young JC, Robinson JC, Rickert WS. How good are th numbers for cigarette tar at predicting deliveries c carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, and acrolein ]ourtud of Tmirology md EtnGmwttwfal Henlfh 1981;7(5 801-8. Zimring FE. Comparing cigarette policy and illicit dru and alcohol control. In: Rabin RL, Sugarman SD, ed tors. Srllokitzg Policy: Low, Politics, rrr~d Culture. NeJ f'ork: Oxford University Press, 1993:95-109. Wolyit? ~1. Philip Morris, Inc., No. 96-1781-CIV-KING, 1997 WL 535218 (SD. Fla. Aug. 18, 1997). Chapter 6 Economic Approaches Introduction 295 Supply of Tobacco and Tobacco Products 295 Tobacco Price Supports 298 Minimum Prices, Nonrecourse Loans, and Quotas .iOO Effects of Price Supports on Market Prices 300 Assessments to Offset Federal Costs of Price Supports 307 Discussion 302 Evolution of the U.S. Cigarette Industry 3Oi7 Economic Implications of Concentrated Tobacco Production 308 High Tobacco Concentration and the Impact of Pre\.ention Policies 308 Discussion 3 7 7 Trade Policy, Tobacco, and Tobacco Products .i 77 Past Tobacco-Related Trade Polic\z ,372 Section 301 of the Trade Act of 19>4 3 17 Multinational Trade Agreements ,370 Discussion and Recent De\.elopments 378 Economic Impact of the L.S. Tobacco Industrv ,320 Effect of Price on Demand for Tobacco Products 322 Studies Using Aggregate Data 32.3 Studies Using Indi\.idual-Level Data 327 Behavioral Economics Studies of Cigarette Demand 3.15 Studies of Smokeless Tobacco Use and Price 33.5 Cigarette Prices and Other Substance Use 336 Discussion 331 Taxation of Tobacco Products 337 Rationales for Tobacco Taxation 338 Historical or Comparative Standard 338 Cigarette Taxes and Cigarette Prices 347 International Tobacco Taxes 345 Discussion 350 Fairness Standard and Optimal Cigarette Taxes 350 Equity, Incidence, and Distribution of the Tobacco Tax Burden 350 Estimates of the Costs of Smoking 352 Theoretically Optimal Cigarette Taxes 353 Cigarette Taxes and Health 355 Tobacco Taxation and Revenues 33; Conclusions 359 References 360 Introduction This chapter revielvs recent research on economic ,ispects of tobacco production and the use of tobacco products in the United States. Much of the chapter tocuses on the impact of \.arious go\.ernmentaI policies related to tobacco. As z\-as the case lvith the regulatorv effects examined in Chapter 5, the "inter\,en- iions" recounted here require a broader detinition and 2 different set of measurement tools (see Chapter 1). Supply of Tobacco and Tobacco Products The chapter first considers the suppI\' of tobacco ;1nd tobacco products. The histor\, of tobacco ancl the wolution of the cigarette industrv in the United States .ire brieflv discussed. More comprehensi\.c summa- ries can be found in the 1992 Surgeon General's report Srlwliirlg (7/1(1 H~ltll i/l flw .+~l~`rii~~; (U.S. Department of /Health and Human Services [LSDHHS] lYc)2) and in w-era1 sources cited herein. Tobacco-related suppI\.- 5ide policies are revic\ved in mow detail. In particular, the tobacco support program is cIowl\- examined, and rt5 economic implications are discussed. That section i\ follolved bv a discussion ot the impact of tobacco taxes and other prevention policies on prices in the highly concentrated U.S. cigarette markets. U.S. trade policy relating to tobacco and tobacco products is re- \ie\Yed, followed by a discussion of the domestic and international impact of these policies. Finally, the economic impact of tobacco on the U.S. economy and its implications for policy are described. In the second part of the chapter, economic stud- ies of the denland for tobacco are reviewed. Although se\ era1 factors affect the demand for tobacco products, this section focuses on the effects of tobacco prices (par- ticularI\~ as they are raised by increasing tobacco taxes) on demand. Recent econometric and other informa- tiw studies of the demand for tobacco products are described. (A more detailed re\.iewr of early studies is contained in the 19x9 Surgeon General's report RLK'IIC- iq file, Hb?lf/f c0l75c'ij111'1121'5 of .smbkiry: 25 Yt?nrs of 1'wgw+ [USDHHS lYHY].) The third part of the chapter focuses on the most important economic policv in the campaign to reduce tobacco use-higher cigarette excise taxes. This sec- tion re\,ielVs the aIternati\.e rationales for imposing cigarette and other tobacco taxes, including a histori- cal or comparati\.e approach, one based on the eco- nomic costs of cigarette smoking, one focused on the health benefits of higher taxes, and one based on the re\.enue potential of the taxes. Discussion of the ap- propriate Ie\,el of the taxes suggested by each approach folio\\-s its re\ier\-. Tobacco is a truly American plant. The first kno\ln elridence of tobacco use is depicted in car\.ings on a Mayan temple in Chiapas, Mexico, that date from 4.~2. 600-900 (Wagner 1971). Europeans \vere first in- troduced to tobacco in 1492 \z,hen American Indians presented gifts of the substance to Christopher Colum- bus. On Columbus' return home, tobacco \\`as intro- duced to Spain and throughout Europe. Tobacco \%`as widelv grown bv earlv English settlers in America and i was exported from the colonies to England, Inhere it \vas reexported to manv other destinations. Colonial tobacco exports to England grew from 100,000 pounds in 1620 to 100 million pounds just before the Re\-nlu- tionary War, making tobacco the single most important commodity exported from the colonies to England (Johnson 1984). Indeed, tobacco \vas so important in some colonies that it M'as sometimes used as the unit of account (Johnson 1984). The high tariffs imposed by England on tobacco and other imports from the colonies contributed to the start of the Revolutionary War. In the newly formed Cnitcd States, tobacco soon became the leading agri- cultural export commodity. The tobacco industry play4 a significant part in the U.S. economy of the 19th and earlv 20th centuries. Although tobacco con- sumption has declined in recent years, it is still eco- nomicallv important in major tobacco-producing states. In many kvays, tobacco is an ideal crop to gro". It gro\Vs under a \,ariety of soil and climatic condi- tions and thrives under specific but fairly co~~~n~o~~ cir- cumstances. The tobacco plant has prodigious leaf growth yet takes up relatively little field space, and the financial return for tobacco is both absolutely and relatively high compared with other agricultural com- modities (Goodman 1993). For example, in 1993, the per acre value of tobacco in the United States, 53,780, was well above the values for other crops (Grise 1995). Because of these factors, tobacco is grown in more than 120 countries and thus is the most widely grown non- food crop in the world (cotton acreage substantially exceeds that of tobacco, but tobacco is grown in about twice as many countries as cotton is). In the United States, tobacco is a highly profitable crop for other rea- sons, including agricultural price supports that guar- antee relativelv high prices; the availabilitv of loans from government, or tobacco companies, o; both; the provision of seed, fertilizer, and other agricultural in- put from external sources; and export subsidies (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 1990). Counter to these proii table arrangements, to- bacco grooving is relatively labor-intensive, demands heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides, and often re- quires the use of fuel for tobacco curing. Tobacco is a storable product, and its quality ini- tially improves with age. After being harvested, tobacco goes through several steps in a processing course, in- cluding sorting and grading (according to tvpc and quality) and curing and drying by \-arious techniques (including flue, fire, sun, and air curing). Most of this processing is done on the tobacco farm before the prod- uct is sold to the producers of cigarettes and other to- bacco products. Several types of tobacco are gr0lt.n in the United States and throughout the world. Burlev and flue- cured tobacco, the primarv ingredients in cigarettes, are the most important of the domestically grolvn types of tobacco; they account for about 93 percent of total production (Tables 6.1 and 6.2). Most burle!, tobacco is grolvn in Kentucky and flue-cured tobacco is gro\zn primarily in North Carolina. These tlvo states account for about two-thirds of domestically grolvn tobacco. Although several other types of tobacco are grown in 14 other states, about one-quarter of the to- tal domestic production is concentrated in Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Other im- portant types of domestically gro\yn tobacco include Maryland tobacco, an important component of ciga- rettes because it burns slol~ly; fire-cured tobacco, which is used in snuff; dark air-cured and sun-cured tobaccos, which are used in chewing tobacco and small dark cigars; and other types used for cigar leaf (Johnson 1984). In 1992, the United States had about 124,000 farms producing tobacco, down sharply from 330,00()1 in 1964 (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]- 1998a). Tobacco was grown on an estimated 644,000 acres in 1999, down sharply from its recent peak of 836,000 acres in 1997. In 1998, tobacco farms produced- almost 1.5 billion pounds of tobacco at a total value of approximately $2.7 billion. After inflation is accounted for, however, the value of domestically grown tobacco has fallen since 1980. More than 1.4 billion pounds of- domestically grown tobacco were used in 1998, with less than two-thirds of this used domestically, while the remainder was exported (Table 6.3). Domestic consumption of domestically grown, unmanufactured tobacco fell steadily from the 1950s through the early 199Os, from a peak of almost 1.6 bil- lion pounds in 1952 to about 900 million pounds in 1993 (Table 6.3). After rising for a few years, domestic consumption of domestically grown tobacco fell to just o\`er 900 million pounds in 1998. Declining prevalence of tobacco use is not the only-or even the main- factor behind the long-term decrease; domestically pro- duced cigarettes contain about 35 percent less tobacco than they did 40 years ago (Womach 1994b). Further- more, the use of imported tobacco in domestically pro- duced cigarettes has greatly increased in recent years. III 1950, the imported tobacco content of domes&call? produced cigarettes was approximately 6 percent. By 1993, this proportion had risen to about 40 percent. The increased use of foreign tobacco is partly due to impro\,ements in the quality of this tobacco, its rela- tively low price, reduced barriers to trade in tobacco, and the increased market penetration of lower-quality generic cigarettes, which include a higher share of im- ported tobacco. The decline in the domestic use of tobacco grown in the United States has been offset somewhat by in- creased exports of domestically grown tobacco. HoM': ever, unmanufactured exports peaked at 765 millioli pounds in 1978 and have fallen fairly steadily since; in 1998, total exports were 539 million pounds (Table 6.3), The largest export markets for U.S.-grown tobacco in recent years have been Japan, Germany, the Nether- lands, and Turkey (USDA 1998a). The combination of declining U.S. tobacco ex- ports and increased tobacco production in foreign countries (particularly Argentina, Brazil, Malawi, and Zimbabwe) has reduced the U.S. share in world to- bacco exports. In 1960, the United States' share of world tobacco exports was 27 percent. By 1997, this share had fallen to 11 percent. Moreover, in 1993, the United State: Table 6.1. Burlev tobacco woduction and value, 1975-1998 Crop year 1973 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998' Production (million lbs.) 640 664 613 614 472 558 726 777 327 673 542 420 428 468 498 592 637 700 627 568 480 516 629 590 Average price Real price to farmers to farmers* (cents/lb.) (cents/lb.) 105.5 196.1 114.2 200.7 120.0 198.0 131.2 201.2 133.2 200.0 165.9 201.3 180.7 198.8 181.0 187.6 177.3 178.0 187.6 180.6 159.7 148.4 156.5 142.8 156.3 137.6 161.0 136.1 167.2 134.8 175.3 134.1 178.X 131.3 181.5 129.4 181.6 125.7 184.1 124.2 185.5 121.7 192.2 122.5 188.5 117.4 190.3 116.7 Farm value (million $) 675.1 758.3 735.6 805.8 685.6 925.7 1,311.9 1,406.4 934.4 1,264.4 865.6 657.3 669.0 753.5 832.7 1,037.g 1,174.7 1,270.5 1,138.6 1,045.7 890.4 991.8 1,185.7 1,123.3 Real farm value* (million $1 1,254,s 1,332.7 1,213.9 1,235.8 944.4 1,123.4 1,443.2 1`457.4 938.1 1,217.0 804.4 599.7 588.9 636.9 671.5 794.0 862.5 905.6 788.0 705.6 584.3 632.1 738.7 688.9 *Real price to farmers and real farm value are obtained by dividing the nominal average price and farm value by the national Consumer Price Index; the average of 1982-1984 is the benchmark. `Subject to revision. Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture 1996,1999a; U.S. Department of Labor 1999. lost to Brazil its historically dominant position as the leading exporter of tobacco (Womach 1994b). These trends for domestically grown, unmanufac- tured tobacco have not been observed for domestic pro- duction of the chief manufactured tobacco product--the cigarette (Table 6.3). Although total annual domestic consumption fell fairly steadily from a 1982 peak of 634 billion cigarettes to an estimated 435 billion in 1999, total domestic cigarette consumption peaked in 1996. The difference is the result of large increases in the export of domestically produced cigarettes. In 1985, the United States exported 58.9 billion cigarettes. Exports peaked in 1996 at more than 240 billion cigarettes, al- most one-third of total domestic production in that year. Since 1996, however, cigarette exports have fallen, to an estimated 150 billion by 1999. Table 6.2. Flue-cured tobacco production and value, 1975-1998 Crop year 1975 lYi6 1977 lY78 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 lYX4 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 199# Production (million lbs.) Average price Real price to farmers to farmers* (cents/lb.) (cents/lb.) 1,415 1,316 1,124 1,206 Y74 1,086 1,141 994 855 850 789 667 683 796 838 920 882 901 892 X07 854 897 1,014 815 99.8 185.5 110.1 194.0 117.6 194.1 135.0 207.1 140.0 192.8 144.5 175.4 1 66.3 78.5 T- i / Y 81.1 71.9 52.7 58.7 61.3 67.4 67.3 72.3 72.h f-8.1 83.1 85.0 78.6 73.3 59.8 39.3 39.7 36.3 35.0 128.0 126.5 123.0 116.3 111.6 117.7 116.9 107.2 107.7 Farm value (million $) Real farm value+ (million $) 1,412.2 2,624.Y 1,452.Y 2J53.4 1,321.8 2,181.2 1,628.l 2,497.l 1,363.3 1,877.5 1,569.3 1 ,YO4.5 1,903.6 2JIY4.2 1,774.3 1,838.6 1,521.0 1,527.2 1,539.4 1,481.6 1,356.3 1,260.5 1,018.5 929.3 1,083.`) 954.2 1,283.9 1,085.3 1,402.g 1,131.3 1,539.2 1,177.6 1,519.7 1,115.8 1,555.l 1,108.4 1,499.5 lJ37.7 1,370.3 924.6 1,532.l 1,005.3 1,645.l 1,048.5 1,744.l 1,086.7 1,430.o 877.3 "Real price to farmers and real farm \.alue are obtained by dividing the nominal average price and farm value by the national Consumer Price Index; the a\w-age of 1982-1984 is the benchmark. +Subject to revision. Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture 1996, 1999a; U.S. Department of Labor 1999. Tobacco Price Supports Despite being such a profitable crop, tobacco, like other C.S. crops, has benefited from agricultural price supports that have been in place for much of the 20th centurv. In the lY2Os, before these supports ivere in place, iobacco cooperatives had formed in various re- and consequently raise tobacco prices and the inconw of tobacco farmers. These and other agricultural coop- eratives were largely responding to the steep reduc- tions in the prices of tobacco and other agricultur~~L products during the recession of 1921. The cooperrograms also ga1.e tobacco farmers some ability to counteract the economic powrer of the highly concentrated cigarette producers (Warner 1988). Minimum Prices, Nonrecourse Loans, and Quotas The federal program for tobacco price supports involves specific economic inter\-entions and assis- tance. To stabilize the price and quantity of tobacco produced, the program guarantee5 minimum market prices and establishes marketing quotas. Minimum (or support) prices are essentially determined by past tobacco prices adjusted for changes in cost indexes. When unable to find a pri\.ate buver at a price at or above the support level, a tobacco farmer is eligible for a nonrecourse government loan from a local price stabilization cooperati\.e. This t\.pc of loan a1low.s fol a commodity, in this case tobacco, to be used as collat- eral for the loan at the support price. Cnder annual contracts lvith the cooperati\.es, USDA's Commoditv Credit Corporation loans funds it has borro\ved from the U.S. Treasury (in the past, at less than market rates of interest [Johnson l%-!]). Each cooperati1.c` processes and stores the tobacco it has recei\,cd as the farmer's collateral, and the Commoditv Credit Corporation collects interest on the loan. The cooperati1.e then at- tempts to sell the tobacco. If the cooperatil-e can re- cei\ve a price above the support price, the proceeds arc used to repay the loan, and anv excess receipts go to the tobacco tanner. This pro&s has created the ap- pearance that tobacco farmers are not bein;; dircctl\' subsidized (Johnson 1984). Marketing quotas, determined b!r the C.S. Secre- tarv of Agriculture, are intended to be sufficient to meet th; domestic and foreign demand for U.S. tobacco at a price abolre the go\,ernment support price. Originally, tobacco could be grolvn only on land that had been assigned a quota, tvhich \vas based on that farm's pro- portion of tobacco produced lvhen the program IVES initiated (with a limited amount of new production allowed each vear). Consequently, almost the onlv rvay to begin growing tobacco \vas to buv or rent a farm that had been granted the right to gro\\' tobacco. In 1961, farmers m-ho grerv flue-cured tobacco approved intracounty lease and transfers of allotments; burley tobacco farmers followed suit in 1971. For the first several decades, these quotas were implemented through national acreage allotment systems. The acre- age allotments were replaced by poundage quotas in 1965 for flue-cured tobacco and in 1971 for burley to- bacco. The switch to poundage quotas increased flex- ibility for tobacco growers. In any given year, tobacco farmers could sell up to 10 percent more than their quota if yields exceeded expectations (because of fa- vorable weather conditions, for example). In the fol- lowing year, however, farmers would have to sell proportionately less than that quota. The opposite would apply when yields fell short of expectations. If yields fell short for several years, tobacco farmers could accumulate excess quotas up to an amount equal to their normal quota. This arrangement resulted in a more stable supply of flue-cured and burley tobacco (Johnson 1984). Every three years, tobacco farmers vote on whether to continue the price support program and whether to approve any substantive changes in the system. If the referendum is approved by a two-thirds majority, tobacco farmers are subject to marketing quotas. Effects of Price Supports on Market Prices Despite the numerous factors that affect the sup- ply and demand for tobacco, the quota and price support svstem keeps market prices at or above the support le\.el. This effect has been evident-and its correction attempted-almost from the outset. As a result of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, to- bacco prices increased almost immediately. These in- creases resulted from limits on output achieved by \.oluntarv agreement. In 1934, Congress passed the Tobacco Control Act (Public Law 73-483) to deter non-m cooperatilse tobacco farmers from overproducing and taking ad\.antage of the relativelv high prices result- ing from the reduced supplies of participating farm- ers. This act led to sharp reductions in tobacco production and consequently to a steep rise in tobacco prices. In early 1936, however, the United States Su- preme Court found sections of the Agricultural Ad- justment Act unconstitutional, which led Congress to repeal the Tobacco Control Act as well. In 1935, Congress enacted the Tobacco lnspec- tion Act (Public LaM 74-314), which required the USDA to provide tobacco grading (or quality evaluation) ser- \?ces at no cost to tobacco growers. In 1936, the Soil Conserl,ation and Domestic Allotment Act (Public Laib 74-461) was passed. This act covered tobacco, as we1 as most other agricultural products covered by the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, and rewarded farmers for diverting production from soil-depleting crops (including tobacco) to soil-conserving crops. The limited success of the Soil Conser\ration and Domes- tic Allotment Act led to the passage in 1938 of the sec- ond Agricultural Adjustment Act (Public La\z 75-430). The neIv act included quotas for tobacco and other agricultural products and imposed penalties on farn- ers \vho violated their quotas. Even ivith subsequent amendments, the tobacco price support program es- tablished by the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 is essentially the same today. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 set the support price at 75 percent of parity (ivherc paritv re- flects a\rerage tobacco prices from 1919 through 1429). At the beginning of World War II and later through the Agricultural Act of 1949 (Public Law 81-4391, this proportion ivas raised to YO percent of paritv, I\ hich was based on average prices for the preceding 10 vt'ars. In 1960, fo slow the rate of gro\\.th in tobacco irices, Congress set nell- support le\-cls based on the 1YSY le\,el and a three-vear moving al~erage of prices paid b\ farmers. Sinqilarlv, in 1980, the support prices for tlih eight loliest qualitv grades of tobacco l\.ere louvered directlv. Assessments to Offset Federal Costs of Price Supports Until new legislation \~as passed in the IYXOs, the costs to the federal government from operating the tobacco support program were substantial. In 1981 alone, the total administrative cost of the program was $13.1 million. Moreover, the federal government, through the Commodity Credit Corporation, bore all costs if the local cooperatives were unable to sell the tobacco they received as collateral for the nonrecourse loans. By April 1982, losses from unpaid loan princi- pal totaled $57 million, and interest losses amounted to $591 million by the end of 1981 (General Account- ing Office [GAO] 1982). These losses spurred opposi- tion to the tobacco support program, which Izras being threatened with dissolution. To reduce some of the costs of operating the program, in 1981 Congress amended the Tobacco Inspection Act, imposing fees on tobacco growers sufficient to cover the cost of the grading services provided by the USDA. Far more significant changes to the tobacco sup- port program were introduced by the No Net Cost Tobacco Program Act of 1982 (Public Law 97-218), which was mandated bv the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-98). The act M'as intended to reduce the losses of the tobacco support program bv imposing an assessment on every pound of tobacco brought to market under the loan program. The as- sessments \vere supposed to generate revenues suffi- cient to offset all future losses from these loans. Thus, aside from the administrative costs, the tobacco sup- port program leas supposed to operate at no net cost to taxpayers. Other changes were introduced through the act. Rather than distributing excess receipts from the sale of loan tobacco to farmers, these profits were retained bv the Commodity Credit Corpora6on. Farm- ers of flue-cured tobacco could sell their right to grow tobacco In other active tobacco grokvers in the same county; moreover, institutional owners of these rights ivere required to sell them by December 1984. Finally, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture 12ras given the author- it\, to sloiv the grolvth in the support price by allow- ing the price to increase by as little as 65 percent of the increase implied by the parity formula. These changes led four relatively small associations of tobacco groby- ers (grolt-ers of cigar tobacco in three areas) to stop participating in the support program (Miller 1994). Initially, assessments were expected to be rela- ti\el\f lo\\, because of the size of past losses. However, as a iesult of the tobacco support program, U.S. sup- port prices w'ere well above tobacco prices in world markets, lvhich led producers of cigarettes and other tobacco products to increase their use of imported to- bacco. At the same time, reductions in quotas were limited bv statute. Consequently, the quantity of to- bacco prdduced exceeded the quantity demanded at the support price, and the surplus was used as collat- eral for nonrecourse loans (Miller 1994). By 1985, with a growing stock of U.S.-grown tobacco under loan, the no-net-cost assessment on flue-cured tobacco was high: 25 cents per pound (Miller 1994). (The assessment on burley tobacco would have been 30 cents per pound but was limited to 4 cents by legislation.) The high assessments, the growing importance of imported tobacco in the production of cigarettes and other tobacco products, the increasing stocks of tobacco under loan, and the falling quotas of the early to mid- 1980s created a crisis for tobacco farmers and the to- bacco support program (Northup 1993). Congress responded by making several changes to the support program (Tobacco Program Improvements) contained in the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-272). The 1985 act lowered the tobacco support price by 26 cents per pound for both flue-cured and burley tobacco. In adciition, both buyers and sellers of surplus tobacco were required to bear part of the burden of running the program (grow- ers of other types of tobacco continued to be respon- sible for the'full assessment). These changes were meant to encourage the use of domesticall\ gro\Vn to- bacco ol'er imported tobacco in the manuiacturing of cigarettes and other tobacco products (Miller IYY1). Also as a result of this legislation, the amount of flue-cured and burley tobacco that could be sold ivith- out penaltv leas reduced from 110 percent of quota to 103 percelit. The formulas used to determine the sup- port prices ior flue-cured and burley tobacco \z.ere also changed. These prices bvere nolv based on their levels in the preceding vear, and adjustments 12-ere to be made from a fi\.e-year iloving average 0i prices and changes in the cost of production. Past prices ~,ould be given two-thirds weight, and the remainder n~oul~l be based on production costs (tvhich included general \,arinble expenditures but excluded costs of land, overhead, assessments, and other expenses not directlv related to tobacco growing). The legislation also brdught the major cigarette manufacturers into the quota-setting process, because they t~ould be annually providing the U.S. Secretarv of Agriculture M.ith their intended purchases of tob&co. These manufacturers would be penalized if they did not purchase at least YO percent of this intended amount. When these changes took place, U.S. cigarette com- panies agreed to buy all future surplus stocks Of tobacco (for the next eight years for flue-cured tobacco and the next five vears for burlev tobacco). Some of the exist- ing stocks under loan \vere sold at sharp discounts; the federal go\`ernment absorbed the losses. These changes Lvere somervhat successful in reducing surplus tobacco stocks as \vell as the amount of tobacco brought under loan in any gi\.en year. O\w the nwt ii\.e years, stocks of tobacco declined bv nearlv 10 percent, and total loan outlavs fell bv nearlv 90 percent. -To fund deficit reduction of the federal budget, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1YYCl (Pub- lic La\v 101-508) added further marketing assessments on all commociity price support programs betiveen 1991 and lYY5; the marketing assessments Ivere sub- sequently extended through 1998 (USDA 1997~). To- bacco grot\.ers and buyers each paid an additional assessment equal to 0.5 percent of the support price level. These additional assessments generated esti- mated relrenues Of more than $28 million in iiscal vear 1997 (Womach 1999). To further curb the use of imported tobacco, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Public Larz 103-66) included the requirement that, beginning in 1993, domestically produced cigarettes include a minimum of 75 percent domestically grolvn tobacco. If this lals leas violated, the cigarette manufacturer was assessed on the amount of foreign-grown tobacco used in excess of the 25-percent limit. The assessment rate \~as determined by the difference betw,een a\rcrage prices of imported and domestic tobacco. Those pro- ducers M,ho used `III excess of imported tobacco were iurther required to make up the shortfall by purchas- ing tobacco stocks under loan. The act also subjected imported tobacco to the no-net-cost assessments be- ginning in lYY4. Effective September 13, 1995, ho\%.- e\rer, the domestic content requirement was dropped as part of a presidential tariff-rate quota proclamation because of its inconsistency with the General Agree- ment on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). In general, the tobacco quotas have fallen in re- cent years, while support prices, after adjustment fol inilation, have fallen sharplv (Tables 6.4 and 6.5). A> of March 31, 1995, the principal and interest value 01 tobacco loan inventory was $1.6 billion (Robert H Miller, Tobacco loan status report, unpublished data) Mhich was down significantly from the $2.75 billior held as of June 30,1986 (Warner 1988). The no-net-cost assessment for the 2000 crop o flue-cured tobacco is 2.5 cents per pound for the pro ducer and 2.5 cents per pound for the purchaser. Simi larly, the no-net-cost assessment for the 2000 crop o burley tobacco is 3 cents per pound for both the groove and the buyer. In fiscal year 2000, the federal government bud geted approximately $14 million for administering th tobacco support program (Womach 1999). In total, tk directlv tobacco-related activities of the USDA gener ated an estimated $174 million in net revenues in fi+ cal venr lYY9. The positi1.e net revenues are the rcsu! of re\.enues generated by the loan program and var' ous assessments that more than offset the expenditure on the tobacco program and other tobacco-relate activities (including subsidized tobacco crop insurance tobacco inspection and grading, tobacco research, dat collection and analysis, and other activities) (Womac 14Y9). Discussion Selreral conclusions emerge from analyses 0i t!- tobacco support program. The program's success i stabilizing tobacco prices is particularly e\%lent ~,.hc they are compared with the prices of other agricultur commodities (including those covered by their 01% support programs). One result of the price stability that output has also been relatively stable. As Johns? (1984) notes, "growing tobacco has been as close to sure thing as one can find in U.S. agriculture" (p. 5: The quantity of tobacco grown domestical- is artiiicially 10~. as a result 0i the supply restriction created by the tobacco support program. Consequent'