reading matter, including "anti-ETS" articles. The\
are asked for a genuine opinion as independent
consultants, and if thev indicate an interest in pro-
ceeding further a Philip Morris scientist makes
contact. Philip Morris then expects the group of
scientists to operate ivithin the confines of dcci-
sions taken by PM scientists to determine the gen-
eral direction of research, r\,hich apparentI\. \I-ould
then be "filtered" L7y la\vyers to eliminate areas of
sensitivity (p. 3).

   As this obserlw notes. "Although the industr\. is
in great need of concerted effort and action in the, <TS
area, the detailed strategv of Philip Clorris lca\ es smm-
thing to be desired. The escessi\.e iii\-ol\~emcnt of cx-
tvrnal law,vers at this \-er\' basic scientific Iv\.el i>
questionable" (Boyse lYW,`p. 27-l. Chapman (IWT)
has described this 198X memo as one that "pr~~mi5e.s to
blo\v apart the facade that the tobacco industr\ carries
out neutral research into passi1.e sniokins" (p. I S6Y).

  A study published in Ma\- IYYK in tht> /~~1/~.~~111 cli
t//c ArrwriiIT,! -Mdiid .-\~sclillllj~ll,-(Bdl.nt"; and Bern 1 `NX)
concluded that of the 31 percent (3`) out of 106j oi ar-
ticles re\.ie\ved that concluded that ETS is not harmful
tn health, 7-l percent (2Y out of 39) of these \\ere \\.ritten
by authors ivith tobacco industrv affiliations. In this
surve!; the authors included articles \vhose stated or
implied purpose \zas to re\-ie\\- the scientific cx.idencc
that ET5 is associated mith one or more health outcomes.
rirticles were excluded if thev did not focus specificnll!~
on the health effects of ETS or if thev \sere not \vritten
in English. The authors noted, "In Inultiple logistic rc-
gression analvses controlling for article qualit!; ptw
revierv status,-article topic, and year of publication, the
0nlv factor associated ivith concluding that paisi1.c
smoking is not harmful leas Lvhether an author \j'as
affiliated \vith the tobacco industrv" (p. 1566). The au-
thors also found that the "conclusi& of re\.ie\v articles
are stronglv associated with the affiliations of their ELI-
thors. Authors of re\ie\v articles should disclose pu-
tcntial financial conflicts of interest, and readers should
consider authors' affiliations i\,hen deciding ho\z. to
iudge an article's conclusions" (p. 1366).

Other Idusty-Syorrsored Oyyositiolr to Stntc
Tobacco Control lllitiativrs lzmi Advocates

  Tobacco interests have used the courts
proactively against other measures to prel'ent smok-
iilg. The proliferation of third-rvnve litigation against
the tobacco industry has been matched by a more ag-
:$essive use of litigation bv tobacco interests. For VY-
alnjple, the industry and iis allies filed a prccmpti\-t`
~lldllenge, on state constitutional gro~~iids, 10 the

  Arguably,, the most s\veeping litigation measure
taken by, the tobacco industry ~vas initiated on August
IO, lYY?, \vhen Philip Morris and others filed suit to
block the FDA from regulating the sale, promotion, and
distribution of cigarettes to minors. Discussed earlier
in this chapter (see "Further Regulatory Steps"), the
suit challenged the agenc\r's authorit\ to regulate ciga-
rettes under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
The la\rsuit further charged that the proposed regula-
tions \vould violate the tobacco companies' freedom
of speech and xvould impair their ability to compete
(Collins lYY5b).

  Tobacco companies ha\,e also used litigation tac-
ticdllv to iimpede the flon- of darnaging information.
Bro\v~n & Willianxon Tobacco Corporation brought suit
against a paralegal aide accused of stealing confiden-
tial and potcntiall~~ incriminating documents ilVj/flft,
Torrilrlf & COIII~S 7'. h'ilh7777s, 8Y2S.W.2d 5X4 [Kv. lY%]).
The documents, scxme of xhich w'ere ultimately ob-
taintvl Lx. members of Congress, ha\ t` sho1z.n that the
tob,\ic~~-m,,nui,lc~tu~-t'r~ not c~nlv knc\v of both the
addiiti\,tx and the ial-cino;gtwic prc~yerties i>f t<jbacco


use but also concealecl the e\-idencc for decades
(Shapiro lYY1b). R.J. Reynolds brought suit (R.1.
Rqrwld~ Tr)lwrrc~ Ccl. il. /O/J~T DOPS, Y5-CVS-5867 [N.C.,
Forsyth Cty. 19941, iitc~rl ill 9.4 TPLR 2.95 [lYY4]) to stop
the solicitation of damaging information from tobacco
insiders (Nntior~nl Ll7w IOUUI~T! 1991). In March 1994,
Philip Morris filed a $10 billion libel suit in Virginia
circuit court against the American Broadcasting Com-
pany (ABC) tele\,ision net\\-ork, a reporter, and a pro-
ducer of the network's magazine program 017,p OIIC,.
The suit concerned a broadcast segment that focused
on Philip Morris' chief competitor, R.J. Reynolds To-
bacco Company, and that accused R.J. Reynolds (and,
in effect, the entire tobacco industry) of increasing the
levels of nicotine in cigarettes to cause addiction among
smokers (Chamberlain 1994; Janofsky lY94b). R.J.
Reynolds subsequently filed a similar suit. In August
1995, after a siege of unusually aggressi\,e disco\,ery
(Frankel lY95), ABC agreed to apologize for its "mis-
take" in accusing the manufacturers of "spiking" nico-
tine and to pay for Philip Morris' legal expenses,
reportedlv some $15 million (Freedman et al. lYY5).
ABC preferred to avoid the rigors of further litigation
e\`en though "the nettvork's onn la\\-yers felt they had
a 65 percent chance of lvinning the case" (Landler
1995). Philip Morris subsequently took out full-page
advertisements in the New firrk i'?rrft?, Wl75/JiJJ$tOJJ fosf,
Wr?I/ St,cct /wr.,wl, and other nelvspapers, proclain-
ing ABC's capitulation. That Philip Morris chose to
respond to the nelzs report rvith legal action, rather
than mounting an aggressi\,e ad\w-tising campaign as
it has done in the past, is seen as reflecting the
company's decision to turn o\.er responsibilitv for
public relations to its la\v);ers (Landler 14%).

  Tobacco companies ha1.e hea\,ily funded organi-
zations that oppose smoke-free 1aIvs and policies. The
National Smokers Alliance (NSA), for example, pur-
ports to be a membership organization on behalf of
smokers. When NSA's Senior Vice President Car\
Auxier ~vas asked M.hy his organization, rvhich boasts
that it is "a nonprofit, grass-roots membership organi-
zation ivith more than 3 million members," in fiscal
vea;- 1996 collected only $71,000 from dues (enough
ior 7,100 members) \j,hile its total receipts lvere more
than $9 million, Auxier chose not to ans!ver (Leek
1998). The NSA has vigorously attacked the smoke-
free bar la\v in California, including publicizing bar
ow'ners lvho ha\.e engaged in ci\-il disobedience (PR
Ne\cs\vire 1998b). Regarding this and other media-
attracting actions, Morain (1998) points out, "Assist-
ing that group is one of the world's largest public
relations firms, Burson-Marsteller. The company has
a long-standing account writ11 the tobacco industrv and

is renoivned for its ability to generate news coverage.
As the organizers tell it, they're merely tapping the
grass roots of the body politic, giving a voice to every-
day people. Opponents deride the [supposed grass-
roots] campaign as `Astroturf' " (p. A23).

  In opposing a lawsuit based on harm from ETS,
Philip Morris tried to subpoena scientific researchers'
raw data that support epidemiologic research on the
link bettveen ETS and lung cancer. A state judge re-
jected the company's attempt to get the raw data, citing
a 1990 Louisiana privacy law. The court found that "en-
forcement of the subpoenas would leave the research-
ers with the knowledge throughout continuation of their
studies [that] the fruits of their labors had been appro-
priated by and were being scrutinized by a not unbi-
ased third party whose interests were arguably
antithetical to theirs" (Iu w Pl~ilip Morris I)Jc., 706 So. 2d
665, 1998 La. App. LEXIS 138 14th Cir. Jan. 28, 19981).

  One important industry tactic is to attack the in-
tegritv of leading tobacco control researchers and ad-
vocat& (Sweda and Daynard 1996). For example, a
group called Californians for Scientific Integrity (CSI)
sued the University of California in 1997, in part, over
Dr. Stanton Glantr's 1994 study on the economic im-
pact of smoke-free restaurant laws. Public officials
around the country have used that study to support
passage of clean indoor air laws in their cities and
tol+w. Funded by the NSA (Sullivan 19971, the CSI
lawsuit alleged that public funds were used improp-
erlv in supporting the study. Earlier in 1997, the NSA
had paid SlO,OOO to Michael Evans, clinical professor
of managerial economics at the J.L. Kellogg Graduate
School of Management at Northwestern University, to
kvrite a report that attacked the Glantz study on smoke-
free restaurants (Price lYY7). In November lY97, Sac-
ramento Countv Superior Court Judge Joe S. Gra)
dismissed the CSI la\vsuit, saying that "there M'ere no
grounds for the case " (Weinstein 1997%). A lawyer for
the university \\-rote in a brief that led to the dismissal
that the "true agenda of this action was patentlxr
ob\,ious-to muzzle scientists lvhose research publi-
cations and speech on subjects relating to tobacco, to-
bacco control and the politics of tobacco have been a
thorn in the side of the tobacco industry for decades"
(Weinstein lYY7b).

lrlrlzrstr?/-Spolrsor~~ Litigation Agnirrst Local
Tohcco Control Efforts

  The tobacco industry has used litigation, as ~vei
as the threat of litigation, to try to thwart local mea
sures to reduce tobacco use. Forexample, R.J. Reynold
Tobacco Company financed a 1991 larzrsuit filed by Ic
cdl restaurant wvners in Puyallup, Washington (Suttt


Anticipatory Effects
  La\\. \\-orks not only by coercilre imposition but
also bv signals about authoritati\,e (and potentially
ch~~ngeable) norms and about the potential disposition
of legal coercion. Litigation may have an effect not
onl\. cw those \vho are parties to it but also on other
p&ntial legal actors (plaintiffs, defendants, and at-
tome! s \\.ho learn about the litigation) (Galanter 1983).
Dt>ptmding on the outcome of a litigation, similarly
situ~ilted injurd parties, for example, may abandon or
mcdih-or con\-ersely, inay decide to continue-their
ri5h-cl'edting beha\.ior or may be either encouraged to
make ~~ Iq+il claim or discouraged from claiming. Law-
I crs ma\ be encouraged to mount or discouraged from
&ountii;;: claims or defenses. Unin\,olved actors (such
ds pi>tcn&l business partners) 1~1~0 anticipate dealing
11 ith parties or potential parties may respond to liti-
CT ition signals b\, mdif\ing (or e\`en terminating) their
h`
dc,ilin;ls \\.ith those parties. Such signals may be de-
r-i\ cd not onI\- from ,iuthoritati\.c decisions but also
frc>m the pro&s of the litigation itself, Lvhich may ex-
hibit ad\.antages to be gained or costs to be a\,oided.
For example, iie\\`s organizations \.ielving the fierce
and e\pcvisi\.e industr\f response to critical depiction
ni;1\. hesitate to yortrav industrv practices negatively
(Fr&dtmnn and Ste\.e& 1995). .
  Xlore often, third-,,,d,.e tobacco litigation pro-
\-ides dramatic e\.idence of the indirect, dnticipatory
effects of litigation on reducing tobacco use. In early
1995, three pron-tinent manufacturers recoiled from
business dealings \vith cigarette makers to avoid the
rish of getting embroiled in liability litigation. The
.M~in\~illc Corporation sued R.J. R&nolds Tobacco
Company for a declaratory judgment that the corpo-
ration does not have a contract to supply fiberglass
for cigarette filters (Appleson 1995). A fexv days later,
Harlev-Davidson, Inc., responding to a 1993 suit by
the Lorillard Tobacco Company to enforce an agree-
ment licensing the rnoforcyclc maker's name for a
brand of cigarettes, countersued, alleging that tobacco
liability risks reduced Lorillard's ability to fulfill
its contract (Rose and Hlvang 1995). Papermaker
Kimberly-Clark Corporation (which had been named
a dct'endant in the West Virginia health care provider
suit), the x4,orld leader in tobacco papers, decided to
sell its cigarette paper business. The company denied
that liability fears or shareholder acti\%m played any
part in its decision, but anal>`sts said that such con-
cerns tvere dominant factors (Collins 199_?a). Other
companies, such ds Pfizer, ha\,e dopted policies "pro-
hibiting units from doing business tlrith Big Tobacco
dnd its suppliws" (Mallory lc)93, p. 39).


  .~llL3tllty set ot ,liti~rs rt5ponsi\ c` to 5ignal5 about
liability arc in3urer5. I'rt5ulllabl~~, \ irtuall!, ,111 of the
suppliers and professionals \\-hco ser\`e cigarette mak-
Cl-S Ccll-n` liaI?ilit!* insurance. Pht? tOhCC0 lll~1lllfZlCtLl~-
crs themsel\.es ha\-e been insured for at least some
liability risle, altllougll the iilllOullt 0t' insurance co\`-
erase of the tobacco companies is unkno\z.n (Reidv and
Carter lYY5). lf an!; of these insured parties are found
liable for promoting or sellin, 0 tobacco products, the
il7t;Llrers ccjil be e\pt~cted to contest Cot erase, using aS
defensty against liability to the insured llldllv of the
same arguments that plaintiffs use to establish the li-
ability of the insured. If, tor example, liability involves
attribution to the industry (It I\llLliVldgc Of a CZlLlSill
link to disease or concealment of that information, then
to defeat col'erage, the insurer ma\' likelvise claim that
the insured had \\~ron#ullj~ and kilo\\-insly obtained
co\-el-agf fL)r J business practice lvhose dangers xvere
concealed from the insurer. "In effect," note tivo ana-
Ivsts, "the insurance industrv L\.ill ha1.e to pro1.e the
\`erv thing the polic\.holder -is trying to deny in tile
tobacco-related suits" (Reid,, andCarter 1995, p. S38).
Thus a "breakthrough" bv tobacco plaintiffs may lead
to a "second front" of liability battles bet\Veen tobaCC0
defendants and their insurers.

  Indeed, in lC)Yh. Imperial Tobacco Limited (No.
j00-05-01~08~-Yh~ [Canada S. Ct., Pro\. of Quebec,
Dist. of Montreal Jan. 12, IYYhl, c-lfc'ti irk 11. 1 Tl'Lli 3.3`1
[ IYY~]) filed suit in the Superior Court of Queb~i
a g a i ii s t  t iv 0 To r 0 ii t 0 - I2 a 5 e d I i d b i 1 i t \' i n 5 u r rl n 5 t'
comy~l~~ies-A~~~erii;ln Home Insuranic Cr)mpan\,
and Commercial Union Assurance Cornpan\, of
Cai7ada-demandi~~~ that the!. pa>' legal CO~tS~dllcI
any damages arisin;; from a clays action suit filed
against Imperial in Ontario b\. \,tr. Da\-id CapLIt<) and
three other persons in IYYj. The Canadian class I1c-
tion suit, \\,hich has not Fct beell resol\-ed, See!+ ~ldlll-
ages on behalf of nicotine-acidicted persons \t.hr-, ll~l\Y
suffered because of their addiction to nicotine. lrnpe-
ria[ claims to ha\.e hacl policies issued b\, the insurers
obligating them to reimburse Imperial for ICgdl i,)StS
incurred in the class action and to pa\' dll\' turther cost4
thev may incur in this matter. The tobacco compan!.
is, in essence, asking the Superior CoLlrt of QLIebec ford
declaration that the ti\-o named insurance companies
must pav all of Imperial's It,`
              )`711 ices and all SLlI-llS
a,-ardeJ b\i an e\.entual finding of liability b\, the
Olltario co& c fih~ccc~ f'r~~f~rcf~ Lifr;<crficl\r &`/JL~!?c'/~ 11)%b).
  Finally, the investment communit!, is greatly in-
terested in the potential effects of legal liabilit>, 011 the
jLttLil-e profitability and sol\,enc\. of the tobacco COIlI-
patlies. T&~,lcco cases are close]\, tracked bi, ini.est-
ment an,il\,sts, and "t'\.en intcrinl-e\.rnt5 in pi`ripheral

cases can propel share prices in one direction or an-
other" (Orcv 1495, p. 7'0). The overhang of potenti,il
liability cas;s a shadow on tobacco stocks. Opinions
differ about just hovv much these stocks are discountecl
for liability, but there is general agreement that the re-
mo\.al of the liability shadow would be worth man\!
billions in increased stock value. This volatile corubj-
nation of possible liability and latent value means that
any breach in the previously impregnable liability,
ramparts ~~oulcl inaugurate a period of pronounccci
instability among tobacco investors. Some analysts
imagine a zone of agreement that would locate a com-
prehensive settlement, which would in turn unlocl\
the unrealized value of tobacco stocks while provid-
ing generously for the victims of tobacco. Howetrer,
because present litigants cannot preclude future
plaintiffs, it remains unclear whether litigation can
provide the finality and closure that a comprehen-
sive settlement would require. Litigation can set off
ramifying effects and in general advance a formerlk
sluggish or obstructed state of affairs, but it is not
clear whether it can contain these effects or design
an all-encompassing resolution or policy.

Criminal Proceedings

  Another arena in which attention is being given
to the acti\,ities of the tobacco industry is the criminal
justice system. Since lYY5, the C.S. Department of Jus-
tice has conducted an ongoing investigation of the al-
lt>ged \.ioIation of federal criminal laws by tobacco
companies, tobacco company executives, tobacco
inclListr~-sLlppclrted trade and scientific associations,
and other entities that have conducted business M'ith
the tobacco industry.

The Justice Department initiated a formal in\,es-
tigation of the tobacco industry in response to the fil-
ing in 1YY-l of a comprehensil~e legal analysis, referred
to as a prosecution memorandum, by Representative
Martin T. Meehnn (D-MA) kvith the U.S. Attorney Gen-
eral (t-lohler 1YY-I; Mallory 1991, 1993; Meehan lY91;
Schlvartz 1c)Y-l; Miga 1995; Reuters 1996; Rodriguez
and Taylor lYY8). The prosecution memorandum pe-
tition& the Justice Department to consider allegations
that tobacco companies, tobacco company executi\.es,
and others had \.iolated multiple criminal la\vs by pro-
\-iding false information to the FDA and the U.S. Sur-
geon General (18 U.S.C. section I001 ), committing
perjury- in testimony before Congress (18 U.S.C. sec-
tion IQ1 ), perpetrating mail and \Vire fraud (18 ti.S.C.
sections 1341 and 1313, respectix.ely), engaging in de-
cepti1.e ad\.ertising practices (15 ti.S.C. section 52), and


\.iolating federal conspiracy and racketeering law,s (18
L .S.C. sections 371 and 1962, respecti\.ely) (Meehan
1994; Shane 1997; Cor/70r0f[~ Crirlti, Rf~prff~r 1998;
Clifford E. Douglas. The criminal in\,estigation of the
tobacco industry. Speech to the 13th Annual Confer-
ence of the Tobacco Products Liabilitv Project; Mav 31,
                             -
1998; Boston; unpublished data).

Nature, Extent, and Focus of the Criminal
Investigation

  The Justice Departmtnt'q in\.estigation began `as
a preliminar~~ inquire focused on nlleg?d perjur\. ari>-
ing out of testimonv deli\ wed under o;lth b\, Se\.t'tl
:obacco comp nv execu tiws l\,ho stated before a con-
gressional subc&mittee on April 14, 1994, that the\,
did not believe that nicotine is addicti1.e. The initi;ll
inquirv was later expanded to a formal grand jurv in-
\.estigation to address broader allegations that tobacco,
companies had, among other things, \iolatcd 1 S L .L;.C.
section 1001.

  Section 1001 prohibits the making ot f,3lsc stc3tc-
men& to agencies and officials of the federal go\.erii-
ment (Hilts 1995; Novak and Freedman 19Y5; Appleson
1996; Blum 1996; Freedman 1996; Thomas and
Sch\vartz 1996; Stohr 1 YY7). In contrast to the le\,cl of
proof required for a she\\-ing of perjur); section 101) 1
does not require a sho\2%ig that a person ktio\vingl\r
lied under oath. It alsoallo\vs prosecution for the witI;-
holding of information. Besides addressing potential
section 1001 \riolations, the in\,estigation continues to
focus on other allegations of criminal conduct, includ-
ing fraud, conspiracv, and racketeering (Cole and Tay-
Ior 19%; Car-pwatr Ct'irw Rcprfcr 1998; Da\,is and Duff!
1998; Douglas, unpublished data; Duffy and Taylor
1998; Meier 1998~).

  As of mid-1998, txvo federal grand juries \vere con-
sidering evidence of alleged tobacco industry \vrong-
doing. One grand jury was assigned to hear evidence
presented by prosecut& from the Fraud Section of the
Justice Department's Criminal Division regarding the
broad allegations of criminal misconduct described
abo\,e. The second grand jurv \\`as assigned to review
information presented bv the b.5 attornev for the East-
ern District of Ne\v York: The \vork of thesecond grand
jury concerned a related criminal in\Testigation Lvhose
focus is an alleged conspiracy by major tobacco manu-
facturing companies to suppiess legitimate medical re-
search and promole biased research through the
itldustrv-sponsored Council for Tobacco Research. The
Justice department coordinated these complementar);
investigations (Cohen and Gevelin 1996; Thomas and
Schrzartz 1997; Da\,is and Duf;v 19%).

  A third criminal investigation was begun in 1995
to determine \vhether a major cigarette manufacfur-
ing company may have committed securities fraud by
failing to disclose all it knew about nicotine. Under
securities lal\-s, companies are required to disclose sig-
nificant information that may affect their stock price.
The third in\.estigation was initiated by the U.S. attor-
ney for the Southern District of New York, following
the publication of an investigative news article that
reported that, based on a revie\\r of 2,000 pages of pre-
\-iwtsl\, undisclosed documents, Philip Morris Com-
panic; Inc. had conducted many years of secret
rescarih into the pharmacologic effects of nicotine on
the hut31~3n brain and central nervous system (Freed-
man and Lambet-t 1995; Hilts and Collins 1995). The
securities frc3~td in\.estigation subsequently was con-
\olidated \\.ith the main Justice Department investi-
gation (Philip Morris Companies Inc. 1998).

  Federal prosecutors have interviewed witnesses,
compiled comprehensi\-e company dossiers, and is-
suej subpoenas, all under the supervision of the U.S.
.Attorne\. General. Selw-al of the major cigarette manu-
tdituriiig iomptiies, such as R.J. Revnolds Tobacco
Cornpan!. and Philip Morris Companies Inc., as well
as others, confirmed publicly that they are the subject
of Wet-al criminal investigations relating to the mat-
ters described abo1.e and that employees of the com-
panies ha\,e recei\.ed requests for information,
including orders to produce internal documents and
subpoenas to testify before the grand juries (Goshko
1995; Hilts 1995; Miga 1995; Associated Press 1996a,b;
Bloomberg Business Nexus 1996a,b; Federal Filings-
Do\\ Jones Nc\z,s lW6; Johnston 1996; Jones 1996;
Reuters 1996: Thomas and Schwartz 1996; Tribune
Ke1z.s Ser\,ices 1996; Weiser and Schwartz 1996; Shaffer
1997; Philip Morris Companies Inc. 1998).

  In an April 1998 announcement that it had
reached a cooperation agreement with a cigarette
manufacturing company in support of the criminal
in\,estigation, the Justice Department identified five
main subject matter areas on which it was focused (U.S.
Department of Justice 19%). These were industry
kno~~ledge of the health consequences of smoking
cigarettes and the addictive nature of nicotine; the tar-
geting of children and adolescents by the industry; the
manipulation of nicotine by the industry; control of
research by the Council for Tobacco Research, includ-
ing special projects conducted under the auspices of
the council; and la\v);er involvement in directing re-
search or crafting false or misleading statements by
any of the tobacco ckmpanies to the Congress, the FDA,
and the American consumers concerning the above.


  The announcement ot the cooperation agreement
leas interpreted by legal experts as a sign that the crimi-
nal inr,estigation \vas accelerating and the Justice De-
partment \vas likely lo file broad conspiracy charges
against major cigarette companies in the future (Cole
and Taylor 19%; Cor/wrufv Crir~rc Rqwrfcv, IYY8; Dou-
glas, unpublished; Duffc and Tavlor IYYK; Keil 1YY8;
Lwin and Ostrotz. 1998;~Sch~vart; 1998a).

Key Sources of Evidence

  The gathering of evidence by the Justice Depart-
ment was advanced by the increased availability of an
array of outside resources. These included the results
of the exttnsi\re in\,estigation of the tobacco industrv
conducted by the FDA from 1991 to 19%. The FDA's
administrative record and investigative files lyei-e
made al.ailable to the Justice Department, pro\.iding
prosecutors and in\.estigators w.ith a significant hod!
of information concerning tobacco manufacturers'
knowledge of the addicti1.e nature of nicotine and of
the manipulation and control of Ihe substance (Fc~l~~r-~rl
RC~ijff'f 1995b, lYY6).
I
  Another important source of information for JUS-

tice Department officials \vas the \.oluminous hearing
record procluced o\.er a l&month period in IYYJ bv
the Subcommittee on Health and the En\~ironment &f
the Committee on Energy and Commerce in the U.S.
House of Representati\.es (19Y5a,b,c,d). The subcom-
mittee, chaired bv U.S. Representati\,e t-lenr!, A.
Waxman (D-CA), yield numerous hearings in \\.hich
testimony \vas obtained from a \-arietv of ~vitnesscs,
including the commissioner of the FDA, other federal
government health officials, experts in nicotine addic-
tion, tobacco company representati\ es, and former
tobacco company scientists, among many othc23. In
addition, Representative lVaxman made available bun-
dreds of prer-iously secret nicotine research docume:i ts
from the largest cigarette manufacturer by reading
them into the public record on the floor of the House
of Representatives in Julv 1995 (Associated Press 1995;
C~~)~gw.ssio,lr~/ RrTiclr[l lYY%a,b; Schlz-artr lY)c)5).

  A third significant source of e\,idence in suppwt
of the Justice Department's criminal inx~esfigation
lvas the emergence of internal tobacco companvhx-
ments and testimonv obtained in pri\,ate lal\.suits
brought against tobacco industry defendants. Start-
ing in 1994, these civil cases xvere initiated by state at-
torneys general, private classes of allegedly addicted
and injured smokers, and individual plaintiffs, as de-
scribed earlier in this chapter (see "The Third Wa1.e of
Tobacco Litigation"). The simultaneous litigation of
numerous civil suits and the Justice Department's

pursuit of its criminal investigation have produced a
notable synergy. Millions of pre\riously undisclosed
tobacco industry documents that were obtained
through the discovery process in civil lawsuits became,
in many instances, readily accessible to federal pros-
ecutors (Curriden and Rodrigue 1997; Geyelin 1998;
Meier 1998~; Rodriguez and Taylor 1998; Scherer and
Ryba k 1998; Schwartz 19%~).

Initial Results of the Criminal Investigation

  The Justice Department's ongoing investigation
resulted in a first conviction in 1998. Under the terms
of an agreement with the government, a biotechnol-
ogv company, DNA Plant Technology Corporation,
pliaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of conspir-
ing to break a law that had made it illegal to export
tobacco seeds. The company was found to have cl>-
gaged in such unlawful conduct in cooperation with a
leading cigarette manufacturing company, identified
as an unindicted coconspirator, with whom it had
contracted to patent and develop a genetically altered
tobacco code-named k-l, M-hich contained appioxi-
mately twice the nicotine of ordinary tobacco. Accord-
ing to the Justice Department, the prosecution
memorandum submitted by Representative Meehan,
and the FDA, one of the goals of the cigarette con-
pany in conspiring with the biotechnology company
~\`as to de\,elop a reliable source of supply of high-
nicotine tobaccos that could then be used to control
and manipulate the nicotine levels in several popular
cigarette brands (Meehan 1991; Failers/ Rqi.sfcr 1995b,
1996; Meier 1998d; Neergaard 1998; Schwartz 199Pb;
Schn'artz and Connolly 1998; Taylor 1998; Taylor and
Rodriguez 19%; Weinstein 1998b).

  Beginning in 1997, the threat of criminal liability
led certain individuals associated lvith the tobacco in-
dusty, such as Thomas S. Osdene, Ph.D., former Di-
rector of Research for Philip Morris Companies Inc.,
and Roger R. Black, current Director of Leaf Blending
for Bran-n & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, to
decline to anslver questions under oath, choosing
instead to invoke the Fifth Amendment right against
self-incrimination (Gevelin 1997; Meier 1997; Weinstein
1997a; Anderson 1998). Some officials sought immu-
nity from prosecution in exchange for their coopera--
tion. Such offers \vere met with mixed responses from
the Justice Department. Typically they were rejected,
but in one publicized instance a request for immunity
\vas granted (Geyelin 1997; Stohr 1997; Weinstein
1997a). The Justice Department granted immunity to
Janis A. Brax.0, a scientist formerly with DNA Plant-
Technology Corporation and coholder of the patent for


a high-nicotine tobacco plant called Y-l, del,eloped for
Bro~-n & Williamson Tobacco Corporation.

prognosis for Future Actions Through the Criminal
Justice Process

  Federal prosecutors possess considerable discre-
tion both in terms of bringing charges against alleged
r2-rongdoers and, in the t\rent a strong case is dew-
aped, in seeking concessions from criminal targets in
the plea-bargaining process. In light of these options,
the Justice Department may seek to require tobacco
manufacturing companies to modify their ad\,ertising
ancl marketing practices so as to render them unap-
pealing to young people, stop manipulating nicotine
or using nicotine-enhancing chemicals, pay the fed-
eral government significant monetary penalties, and
submit to regulation by the FDA (C~/X~JX~~~ C~irlw RI,-
IwrYtlr 1998; Douglas, unpublished data ).

  Gi\ren the breadth and complesity of the crim-
nal investigation of the tobacco industry, as \vell as the
substantial burdens of proof that prosecutors must
satisfv pursuant to the federal criminal statutes noted
abov;, it is not possible to predict the outcome of the
current criminal investigatik.e process. From its incep-
tion, the investigation \vas anticipated to be a lengthy,
complicated operation, in part because of the
government's responsibilitv to process and re\.itw
millions of pages of documents obtained from the to-
bacco industry and other sources (Thomas and
Schwartz 1996).

  With the Justice Department's accumulation of
a growing bodv of evidence, including company
documents and-grand jury testimony, as well as the
cooperation of the Liggett Group Inc. in support of
the government's investigation, some legal experts
have described the investigation as likely to result in
further action (Cole and Taylor 1998; Cor/~or,atc CrirlltT
Reporfr~ 1998; Douglas, unpublished data; Duffy and
Tavlor 1998; Keil 1998; Levin and Ostrow 1998;
Schwartz 1998a). One recent indicator that the issu-
ance of indictments might be near was the delivery
by Justice Department officials of letters to Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corporation and its officials, for-
mally notifying them that they are the targets of a
criminal investigation and that they face possible
prosecution (Davis and Duffv 1998; Meier 1998~; Milrll
                       '
Stwrf ~ollrr?n/ 1998).

  Further criminal action against the tobacco in-
dustry also raises the likelihood of diluting the influ-
ence of the industry's political lobby, thereby
strengthening the abilitv of public health proponents
to advocate for more `stringent regulation of the

manufacture, sale, distribution, advertising, and pro-
motion of tobacco products (Douglas 1998).

Comment

  After 40 years in lvhich two waves of product
liability litigation proved unavailing, there has been a
recent upsurge of in\,estment and innovation in to-
bacco litigation. This third \vave of litigation departs
from its predecessors in various wavs:

. It mo\`es away from exclusi\,e reliance on smokers
as plaintiffs, because so many cases have been de-
cided against them as the victims of their own, in-
formed behavior choices. Plaintiffs now include
states, cities, pension funds, priaiate health care pro-
\,iders, and persons exposed to ETS, none of whom
can be blamed for smoking in the face of warnings.

o It multiplies the range of legal issues. Instead of
focusing exclusively on common-law tort doctrine,
third-\va\~e litigation also invokes various statutory
claims under consumer, antitrust, and other pro-
tecti1.e legislation.

o It expands from the classic private lawsuit by a dis-
crete plaintiff to the class action device.

o It expands from solely seeking monetary damages
to including claims for injunctive relief, medical
monitoring, and the recovery of attorneys' fees.

o It shifts from a pure model of private law to mixed
strategies in lvhich private law is used to effectu-
ate public policy by defending public fiscal inter-
ests and by enhancing the performance of statutory
and regulatory controls of tobacco.

.

It enlarges the roster of claimants' lawyers from
those M'ho specialize in representing individual
plaintiffs in personal injury cases to include mass
tort specialists and entrepreneurial securities class
action 1aMyers. These attorneys, who typically
practice in larger firms than individual plaintiff at-
torneys and have greater financial resources, are
joined in more complex coalitions, including alli-
ances M'ith government lawyers.

  Considerable uncertainty surrounds each of the
several third-wave litigation initiatix-es and their
potential contribution to reducing tobacco use. The
prospect of using private law in these ways has cap-
tured attention only recently. In a wide-ranging 1993
revie\\, of tobacco policy (Rabin and Sugarman 1993),
virtuallv all of the attention to private law was devoted


to smokers' product liability litigation. The ne\ver le-
gal theories that are no~v a\.ailable to plaintiffs have
considerable potential. Just ho\~ these initiatives will
fare depends both on developments within the legal
system and on forces outside it.

  Normally, la\z incorporates and reflects public
opinion. In a setting Mhere smoking declines and be-
comes disreputable, particularly among the educated
and influential (Zimring lYY3), where smokers are in-
creasingly \,iewed either as victims of coercion and
addiction or as a minority group becoming more dis-
tanced from others (Gusfield lYY3), and where evi-
dence accumulates that the tobacco companies
aggressively recruit new smokers and suppress knowl-
edge of harmful effects of smoking, the law can be ex-
pected to respond to pressures to extend accountability
and to provide remedies, if not to smokers then to those
who are otherwise adversely affected by smoking.

  However, other forces are working against an
enlarged role for the civil justice system in the effort to
reduce tobacco use. Important groups, displeased with
the expansion of legal accountability, hai.e mounted a
protracted and influential campaign to curtail the civil
justice system and \\Teaken the position of claimants
within it (Galanter 1993, 1994). Apart from these ex-
ternal constraints, the \Tery magnitude of tobacco
injurv-the vast number of potential claimants
involved-raises apprehension about the courts' in-
stitutional capacities to respond. Driven by the desire
to conserve their scarce resources, courts \vill find \vavs
to ration the judicial attention bestolled on any &
able set of related cases (Sanders 1992). As the size of
the potential victim class increases, the chances tor
individualized judicial resolution clecrease. It has been
argued that the litigation about Agent Orange, the

Conclusions

Bhopal disaster, and asbestos-related injury should be
viewed as instances in which the sheer number of
claims "simply overwhelm[edl the capacity of legal
institutions to meet victim compensation needs" and
led to improvisation of formulaic administrative solu-
tions (Durkin and Felstiner 1994, p. 159; cf. Henderson
and Twerski 1991, on judicial aversion to such mas-
sive projects).

  A balanced assessment of the possible contribu-
tion of private law initiatives to the effort to reduce
tobacco use must consider not only the costs and ben-
efits of the various initiatives but also the likelihood
of accomplishing similar results by other institutional
means (Komesar 1994). Typically, private law involves
high transaction costs (Galanter 1994). Private law is
by definition the creature of independent actors whose
operations are not centrally managed and are at most
partially and intermittently coordinated; each actor is
trying to maximize its own gains as it defines them.
No single initiative or the sum of such efforts will nec-
essarily produce an optimal policy to reduce tobacco
use. Yet private law may be a valuable component in
reducing tobacco use precisely because it is an arena
in Mhich multiple courses of action are advanced bv
energetic champions who are open to new ideas ani
~.ho, independent of government, can undertake in-
novative and even risky initiatives without securing
official approval or competing for priority with other
political commitments. Such initiatives may thus be
able to stimulate and shape policy solutions. Other
than as an agent or catalyst, however, it seems unlikely
that the judicial forum, in a setting involving politi-
calls powerful actors and an unpredictable number of
inclioate future claimants, will itself provide the ulti-
mate policy resolution.

Aduertisiug and Promatiou

7.  Since 1964, numerous attempts to regulate ad-
  vertising and promotion of tobacco products
  have had only modest success in restricting such
  activity.

7 &.  Current regulation in the United States is con-
  siderably less restrictive than that in several other
  countries, notably Canada and New Zealand.

3 .  Current case law supports the contention that ad-
  LJertising does not receive the protections of free
  speech under the First Amendment to the Con-
  stitution that noncommercial speech does.


Product Regdrztiorr

Minors'Access to Tobacco

1.  Warning labels on cigarette packages in the
  United States are lveaker and less conspicuous
  than those of other countries.

7
-.  Smokers receive very little information regard-
  ing chemical constituents when they purchase a
  tobacco product.  Without information about
  toxic constituents in tobacco smoke, the use of
  terms such as "light" and "ultra light" on pack-
  aging and in advertising may be misleading to
   smokers.

3.  Because cigarettes \vith 10~. tar and nicotine con-
  tents are not substantiallv less hazardous than
higher-vield brands, co&umers may be misled
by the implied promise of reduced toxicity un-
  derlying the marketing of such brands.

4.  Additives to tobacco products are of uncertain
  safety Cohen used in tobacco. Kno\vledge about
  the impact of additi\,es is negligible and lvill
  remain so as long as brand-specific information
  on the identitv and quantitv of additives is
  unavailable. .

5.  Regulation of tobacco product sale and promo-
  tion is required to protect young people from in-
  fluences to take up smoking.

Clear1 indoor Air Regulation

1.  Although population-based data sho~v declining
  ETS exposure in the workplace over time, ETS
  exposure remains a common public health haz-
  ard that is entirely preventable.

? -.   Most state and local laws for clean indoor air re-
  duce but do not eliminate nonsmokers' exposure
  to ETS; smoking bans are the most effective
  method for reducing ETS exposure.

3.  Beyond eliminating ETS exposure among non-
  smokers, smoking bans have additional benefits,
  including reduced smoking intensity and poten-
  tial cost savings to employers. Optimal protec-
  tion of nonsmokers and smokers requires a
  smoke-free environment.

I.   Measures that have had some success in reduc-
  ing minors' access include restricting distribu-
  tion, regulating the mechanisms of sale, enforcing
  minimum age laws, having civil rather than
  criminal penalties, and providing merchant edu-
  cation and training. Requiring licensure of to-
  bacco retailers provides both a funding source
  for enforcement and an incentive to obey the law
  \2Then revocation of the license is a provision of
   the 1aM.

3 -.  The effect of reducing minors' access to tobacco
  products on smoking prevalence requires further
   e\,aluation.

Litigation Apyronches

1.  Tlz-o historic \vaves of tobacco litigation were ini-
  tiated by private citizens, were based largely on
  theories of negligence and implied warranty, and
   17ere unsuccessful.

7 A.  A third \va\`e has brought in new types of claim-
  ants, making statutory as well as common-law
  claims and using more efficient judicial proce-
  dures. Although several cases have been settled
  for substantial money and have yielded public
  health provisions, many other cases remain un-
   resolved.

3.   Private law initiative is a diffuse, uncentralized
  activity, and the sum of such efforts is unlikely
  to produce optimal results for a larger policy to
  reduce tobacco use. On the other hand, the liti-
  gation actions of individuals are likely to be a
  valuable component in some larger context of
  strategies to make tobacco use less prevalent.


Abramson J. Tobacco industry steps ~tp flow of catw
paign money. NL~ ki~rk Tiirrcs, Mar 8, 1998; Sect 1:l
(co1 5).

As~I~s, f,rc. ~7. Ahtt~, 710 A.2d 914 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.
1998).

Adkins LW. A Minnesota councilwoman's crusade to
ban cigarette machines. rZLlil'c,L'k'i Markt>tir~~q Wwk
1989;30(43):2.

Alexander HM, Callcott R, Dobson AJ, Hardes GR,
Lloyd DM, O'Connell DL, Leeder SR. Cigarette smok-
ing and drug use in school children: IV-factors asso-
ciated \lith changes in smoking beha\iour. l~tfc'rllnfi~~lwl
/u~fr!ud of t`[JiifCH?iO/tJ$,l/ 1%+3;12(1):5'?-66.

Alm B, Milerad J, Wennergren C, Skjaeri,en R, Oyen
N, Norvenius G, Daltveit AK, Hellveg-Larsen K,
Markestad T, Irgens LM. A case-control study of
smoking and sudden infant death syndrome in the
Scandina\?an countries, 1992 to 1995. The Nordic Epi-
demiological Study. Arilrl'i~c~s 0f Diwl.w irl Ci?i/[lrc,rl
1998;78(4):329-34.

Altman DG, Carol J, Chalkley C, Cherner J, DiFranza
J, Feighery E, Forster J, Gupta S, Records J, Slade J,
Talbot B, Tye J. Report of the tobacco policy research
study group on access to tobacco products in the
United States. Ptxx-co Cnr~trwl 1992;l (Suppl):S35-S51.

Altman DC, Foster V, Rasenick-Douss L, Tye JB. Re-
ducing the illegal sale of cigarettes to minors. /o/lrrlnl
of fh Amcuict~r~ MtIiiical &wiafiorl 1989;261(1):80-3.

Altman DG, Rasenick-Douss L, Foster V, Tye JB. Sus-
tained effects of an educational program to reduce sales
of cigarettes to minors. Americnr~ /arrnnl ofPublic Fhltlz
1991;81(7):891-3.

Altman DG, Wheelis AY, McFarlane M, Lee H, I
Fortmann SI? The relationship between tobacco access
and use among adolescents: a four community study.
Social Scitp~~ce &- Medicirw 1999;48(6):759-75.

hwricntz Adswfisi~~g Fc&ratiorr zl. Kessler, Civil Action
No. 2:95CVOO593 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 10,1995), cifpd ~JI 10.5
TPLR 3.401 (1995) (Complaint for Declaratory Judg-
ment and Injunctive Relief).

American Health Foundation. Corunrtvzts OII Tubncco
Atftfitizw. Valhalla (NY): American Health Foundation,
1990.

American La\%, Institute. R~sfnft~nrtv~f ufth Law (Third).
fijrts: Pmfucts Linllilify. Tentative draft no. 2, 5 2: cat-
egories of product defect. Philadelphia: American La\\
Institute, 1993:12-127.

American Medical Association House of Delegates.
Rqwrf of Rt~ft~rtvlrt~ Coruruiftce D. Chicago: American
Medical Association, 1995.

American Pharmaceutical Association. Professional
Affairs. 2. Smoking and health. ]otlrrznl L7ffl7e Amcricnrr
Pl~h~~~~n~~~~~fiC~71 Associnfiorz 1971;NSll(5):270-1.

Anderson C. Sealing refused for deposition in tobacco
case. Nw Lijvk Lnsl ]o~rrrzrrl, Feb 2, 1998:l(col 3).

Anderson HR, Cook DG. Passive smoking and sud-
den infant death syndrome: review of the epidemio-
logical evidence. Thorax 1997;52(11):1003-9.

Andrews JL Jr. Reducing smoking in the hospital: an
effective model program. Chest 1983;84(2):206-9.


Appleson G. Harley-Davidson, Man\.ille unlikely pair
in tobacco lvar. Rc~rtrr B~rsirw+ Rc/~r)r?, Mar 23, 1995.
,-1\,ailable from Dialog(R)F 611:Reuters.

,\ppleson G. Justice shifts focus of tobacco probe:
source. Reuters (news Loire), July 11, 1996.

Associated Press. Tobacco studies detailed. ~"V'C~:P 1ilr!i
Ti~w, JLI~~ 25, 1995;Sect B:7.

.Associated Press. Philip Morris alerts emplovees to
government probe. Apr 6, 1996a. Availablt from
Dialog(R)F 258:Associated Press.

Associated Press. Report: Philip Morris esecuti\,es sub-
poenaed. Aug 29,1996b. Available from Dialog(R)F
258:Associated Press.

+.ssociated Press. Judge orders fi1.e California tobacco
larvsuits consolidated for trial. Jul\. 21,lYYti. A\.ailable
from Dialog(R)F 258:Associatei Press.

:iustralian Ne\ys Network. Smoking council \2-elcomes
court decision. T/w Austrnlior~, Julv 24, 1998.

Kr7dillo i'. Auit>l.itmtl Tohiro Co., No. CV-N-97-00573
DWH (D. Nev. 1997).

Rqgeft cl. Sutlwlmi, No. CA 88-224, 1989 \/vL 5399
(Ark. App. Jan. 25, 1989).

Baile WF, Gibertini M, Ulschak F, Sno\v-Antle S,
Hann D. Impact of a hospital smoking ban: changes in
tobacco use and emplovee attitudes. Alldictiw B&z'-
/or.5 1991;16(6):419-26. .

Bn~~hnf 71. FCC, 405 E2d 1082 (D.C. Cir. 1968), r-c')+ rlf,-
rlirti, 396 U.S. 842, 90 s. Ct. 50 (1969).

Barnes DE, Bero LA. Why review articles on the health
effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions.
jo~~rrml of f/w hwicnu Medic-rrl Associafiorl 1998;279
(19):1466-70.

hrr~t~ il. A/trc7,,iiflil ~hflico CO., NO. 96-5903 (E.D. Pa.
Aug. 22, 19971, vacated 176 F.R.D. 479 (1997), cifed i?z
12.1 TI'LR 2.227 (1997).

Becker DM, Conner HF, Waranch HR, Stillman F,
Pennington L, Lees I'SJ, Oski F. The impact of a total
ban on smoking in the Johns Hopkins Children's Cen-
ter. ]o~~.rlnl c~f t\w A~rc~ricnrl Mdicnl Associntior~ 1989;
262(6):799-802.

Beede I', Lal~son R. The effect of plain packages on
the perception of cigarette health warnings. Public
Hcl7ltl7 lYY2;106(43:315-22.

Benowitr NL, Hall SM, Herning RI, Jacob P III, Jones
RT, Osman A-L. Smokers of low-yield cigarettes do not
consume less nicotine. hi~wl Er~~~/n~lil /olrrrwl CJ~ Mrdi-
iiricl 1983;309(3):139-42.

Beno\vitz NL, Henningfield JE. Establishing a nicotine
threshold for addiction: the implications for tobacco
regulation. Nw Erl~ln,zil jolrrlwl of Meiiicirw 1994;331(2):
123-5.

Benolvitr NL, Pinney J. Nicotine preparations in smok-
ing. In: Korting HC, Shafer-Korting M, editors. T/w
Bcrlc~fit/Rijk Rntir~: A ~~7~7d~JOOk f@!' f/l? Raji~fln/ Use 0f
Pof~~rzti~7ll~/ Hazn,~llolr~ Dr!rg.s. Boca Raton (FL): CRC
Press, 199X:307-18.

Bernstein Research. Tobacco litigation: turbulence
ahead, but stocks still overdiscounting risks. Reiterate
outperforms [memorandum]. New York: Sanford C.
Bernstein & Co., Oct. 12, 1994.

Bero LA, Galbraith A, Rennie D. Sponsored symposia
on environmental tobacco smoke. jo~rrrnl o,f f/7~ Amcri-
cl7!7 Mtdiml i2mcinfior1 1994;271(8):612-7.

Biener L, Abrams DB, Follick MJ, Dean L. A compara-
tive evaluation of a restrictive smoking policy in a gen-
eral hospital. Am~icnr7 Jourr~nl of Public Hmlfh 1989;
79(2):192-Z.

RjL~f710i11 7'. Vir;yijlif?, 521 U.S. 809 (1975).

Blasi V, Monaghan HP. The First Amendment and ciga-
rette adlrertising. ]o//rjw1 c$ f/w Aj~c>r,icnlj Mcdirnl Asso-
cir7ticur lYXh;256(1):50-9,


Bloomberg Business News. Philip Morris employees
get subpoenas. RitTzll I'(]& Tirr~cs, Sept 4, 1996a;Sect D:2.

Bloomberg Business News. Philip Morris executives
ordered to testify before a federal jurv. Riczcl I'& Tinw,
Aug 31, 1996b:22 (co1 5).

B/W cross alrd Blue Shield of Neicl Jcrscy ~1. Philip Movris
(E.D.N.Y. Apr. 29,1998), cifed i/l 13.2 TPLR 3.51 (1998).

Blum A. Justice Dept. reportedly changes tack vs. to-
bacco. hinfior~nl Lazl1 Jo~lrr~nl. Sept 16, 1996;Sect A:7.

Board of Tr1rsfecs C)f the state U17iiwsify of New York i'.
Fox, 492 U.S. 469 (1989).

Boddewyn JJ. There is no convincing evidence for a
relationship between cigarette advertising and con-
sumption. British \@I/YJI~~I of Arftlictior~ 1989;84(11):
1255-61.

Borland R, Chapman S, OIven N, Hill D. Effects of
workplace smoking bans on cigarette consumption.
Amvk-n~~ ]~w,id of Pub/ii Hmlfh 199Oa;80(3):178-80.

Borland R, Owen N, Hill D, Chapman S. Changes in
acceptance of bvorkplace smoking bans follo\ying their
implementation: a prospective studs. Prwfvftiiv~ Mrdi-
cI)~c 1990b;19(3):314-22.

Borland R, Orven N, Hocking B. Changes in smoking
beha\riour after a total rvorkplace smoking ban. .41/s-
tralian ]o~fiwnl of Puldic Hci7lti7 1991;15(2):130-4.

Borland R, Pierce JP, Burns DM, Gilpin E, Johnson M,
Bal D. Protection from en\.ironmental tobacco smoke
in California: the case for a smoke-free \vorkplace.
~ourrzal of the .4n~erici7r? Medical Assoc-iaticul 1992;268(6):
749-52.

Bourque K. Union pension funds and asbestos com-
panies join in fight against tobacco companies. T~11~17cco
on Trial 1997:6:6-9.

Boyse S. Note on a Special Meeting of the UK Industry
on Environmental Tobacco Smoke, Feb 17, 1988,
London;<http:/l~~~~cz~.g:ate.net/-jcannon/documents/
880217bl .txt>; accessed: February 15,1999.

Brenner H, Mielck A. Smoking prohibition in the work-
place ,md smoking cessation in the Federal Republic
of Germany. Pv~ocrllive Medicirze 1992;21(2):252-61.

Breo DL. Kicking butts-AMA, Joe Camel, and the
"black-flag"war on tobacco. Jolrvnal of tlzc Atuerica~~
Medica/ Associatim 1993;270(16):1978-84.

Bridges RB, Combs JG, Humble JW, Turbek JA, Rehm
SR, Haley NJ. Population characteristics and cigarette
yield as determinants of smoke exposure. Pharmacal-
ogy, Bioclrrrnistry ar?d Behavior 1990;37(1):17-28.

Broitz zl. Fhiliy Morris Cos., No. 92-1405 (Fla., Dade Cty.
Mar. 15, 1994), cifd in 9.1 TPLR 2.1 (1994).

Broir~ 7'. Pl7ilip Morris Cos., No. 91-49738 CA (22) (Fla.,
Dade Cty. Feb. 3, 1998), cited in 13.1 TPLR 2.79 (1998)
(Order Granting Verified Petition for Final Approval
of Settlement and Payment of Attorneys Fees and Costs
by Settling Defendants and Final Judgment).

Broirl z'. Philip Morris IIIC., No. 91-49738 CA (22) (Fla.,
Dade Cty. Oct. 9, 1997), cited in 12.6 TPLR 3.397 (1997)
(Settlement Agreement).

Brown LJ, DiFranza JR. Pharmacy promotion of to-
bacco use among children in Massachusetts. Amrim
Pharmacy 1992;NS32(5):45-8.

BrOtLltI ~5 Willinumrz Tobnccn Corp. z'. Cnrtrr, No. 96-4831,
1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 7477 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. June 22,
lY98).

Brrxu)l G Willion~sol~ Tobacco Car;?. z'. Food 0 Drug ,4d-
nlirzistratiorl, No. 97-1604 (4th Cir. 1998).

Brownson RC, Alavanja MCR, Hock ET, Loy TS. Pas-
sive smoking and lung cancer in nonsmoking women.
,4~~~c~rjc11/1 /olir/~nl of Pzrb/ic &~/t/z 1992a;82(11):1525-30.

Brownson RC, Davis JR, Jackson-Thompson J, Wilker-
son JC. Environmental tobacco smoke awareness and
exposure: impact of a statewide clean indoor air law
and the report of the US Environmental Protection
Agency. %&co Coiltrol 1995a;4(2):132-8.

Brownson RC, Jackson-Thompson J, Wilkerson JC,
Davis JR, Owens NW, Fisher EB Jr. Demographic and
socioeconomic differences in beliefs about the health
effects of smoking. Ameriarrr Jurtrrrul of Publir Hmlflr
1992b;82(1):99-103.

Branson R. Miss. near tobacco payments should go for
health. i% Cnn~r?~rri-inl Appca/, July 8, 1998;Sect B:l.


Reducing Tobacco Use

Brownson RC, Koffman DM, Novotny TE, Hughes RG,
Eriksen Ml? Environmental and policv interventions
to control tobacco use and prevent cardiovascular dis-
ease. Hraltlr Etfltcnfion Qlrnrfrrl!/ 1995b;22(4):478-98.

R~irkir~~har~~ il. X.1. Rcyrm1d.s Tobacco Cu., 713 A.2d 381
(N.H. 1998).

Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. Cigarette maker settles
FTC charges of false ads regarding health effects. .-\!I-
rifrmf Ovid Trnde Rqulntinr~ Rt~pr't 1990;58(1471):964.

Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. S/r~)kj/?x i/r flzo work-
I~II~cL~: 1991-SHRk-BNA Slrr.~,~/ No. 375. Bulletin to
Management. Washington: Bureau of National Affairs,
Inc., 1991.

Hufkr ~1. Anwrirn77 Tdmi-co Co. (Miss., Jones Cty. May
12, 1994), rifcll i,~ 9.3 TPLR 3.335 (1994) (Amended
Complaint).

HI~~[L'I. ~1. Philip Morris I77c., Civil Action No.: Y4-5-53
(Miss., Jones Cty. Mar. 4,1996), cited irl 11.3 TPLR 3.307
(1996) (Second Amended Complaint and Request for
Trial by Jury).

Byrd GD, Robinson JH, Cald\vell WS, deBethizy JD.
Inter-individual variation of nicotine uptake among
smokers. Poster presented at the International Sym-
posium on Nicotine; July 21-4, 1994; Montreal.

Calabresi G. TIJP Custs ofAccidents: A Lep~ IJJII~ Ecnrmmir
14rznlysis. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press, 1970.

Caldwell MC, Wysell MC, Karachi I. Self-service
tobacco displays and consumer theft [letter]. T&~cro
Cor~tr-01 1996;5(2):160-1.

California Environmental Protection Agency. H~~olfll
EJfrcfs of E.r.poswe to E77i~iro77777rr1tnl Tuhncro S777okc. Fi-
nal Report. Sacramento (CA): California Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment, 1997.

cfllifonlifl ~1. PhikpMon'is IX., ,No. BC194217 (Calif., Los
Angeles Cty. July 14, 1998), cifrd jjz 13.4 TPLR 3.195
(1998).

Campbell WI. Rq~rlntioll o,f Tobnrro (Pnrt I): Heavirlgs
Befow the S~rlmmnzittec~ 077 Hmlfh md the El~z~ironmetzf
of thr Horrsc conrrui~trr @II Erlergy nrrd Co77rnre7'cc, 103rd
Congress, 2nd Sess. 542 (1994) (statement on behalf of
Philip Morris, Inc.).

Cnpitol Rrmdcmti~~g Co. z'. AcfillX Affmq General, 405
U.S. 1000 (1972), otf'd sub 770777. Cnpifnl Bvondcasfirlg Co.
i'. Mitchell, 333 F. Supp. 582 (D.D.C. 1971).

Cardenas VM, Thun MJ, Austin H, Lally CA, Clark
WS, Greenberg RS, Heath CW Jr. Environmental to-
bacco smoke and lung cancer mortality in the Ameri-
can Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Study II.
Cu~~ier Ci7rrws urd C~J!lff'd 1997;8(1):57-64.

Carol J. It's a good idea to criminalise purchase and
possession of tobacco by minors-NOT! Tohucro COJI-
trr1/ lYY2;1(4):296-7.

Castam il. Anw7i~r7r1 Tolwccu Co., No. 94-1044 (E.D. La.
Feb. 17, lYY5), citcll ill 10.1 TPLR 2.1 (19951, vezfd 84
F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996).

Celebrezze AJ. Agency reports. In: United States Code:
Corlcqressio~u71 aj~i( Adulrrlistrntirle Ncxls. 89th Congress-
Firsf Srssiarl, 1965. Vol. 2. St. Paul (MN): West Publish-
ing Co., 1965:2356-61.

Centers for Disease Control. Passive smoking: beliefs,
attitudes, and exposures-United States, 1986. Morbid-
ity f~/rrl Mar-tolity Weekly Report 1988;37(15):239-41.

Centers for Disease Control. Cigarette advertising-
United States, 1988. Morbidity nr~d Murtnlify Weekly
RqJorf 1990a;39(16):261-5.

Centers for Disease Control. Cigarette sales to
minors-Colorado, 1989. Morbidity Qud Mortality
w~ckly Rqort 1990b;39(44):794-5, 801.

Centers for Disease Control. Evaluation of an employee
smoking policy-Pueblo, Colorado, 1989-90. Morbid-
ity nml Mortality Weekly Rcporf 199Oc;39(38):673-6.


Centers for Disease Control. J'ublic attitudes regard-
ing limits on public smoking and regulation of tobacco
sales and adi.ertising-10 U.S. communities, 1989.
Morbidit!/ O/I& Mar-fn/iQ h'wk/!/ R~~/wrf 1991;40(21):
344-5,351-3.

Centers for Disease Control. Accessibility of cigarettes
to youths aged 12-17 vears-tinited States, 1989. MOP
biifity ilrrd Mortnlity L&k/y Rcpi-t 1992a;41(27):485-8.

Centers for Disease Control. Discomfort from environ-
mental tobacco smoke among emplovees at worksites
with minimal smoking restriction&Lnited States,
1988. Morbidift/ (7r1d Mor~falif~/ Week/~/ Report 1992b;
41(20):351-1.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Minors'
access to tobacco-Missouri, 1992, and Texas, 1993.
Morbidif~~ lrrltl Mr)rfc7/ify Wwlil~/ Rc/wrt 1993a;42(7):
125-8.

Centers for Disease Control and Pre\w~tion. Smoking
cessation during pre\ious year among adults--United
States, 1990 and 199 1. ,V!c)&litq r7/!(1 Mortality W~dl!/
Reprt 1993b;32(26):XI-l-7.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Attitudes
toward smoking policies in eight states--United States,
1993. Mnrllillity 171711 Mortolify Wwkt~/ Rc;wrf 1YY4a;
33(13):786-Y.

Centers for Disease Control and J're\.ention. Changes
in the cigarette brand preferences of adolescent
smokers-United States, lY8Y-lYY3. Morlliififl/ 1717d Mor-
fn/ifl/ Wwk/l/ R~/wrt 1994b;43(32):577-81.

Centers for Disease Control and Pre\,ention. Medical-
care expenditures attributable to cigarette smoking-
United States, 1993. Mort~i~fity nr~[f Morfnlify Wwkll/
Rrporf 1994c;43(26):-l69-72.

Centers for Disease Control and I'rel~ention. Assess-
ment of the impact of a 100'; smoke-free ordinance on
restaurant sales-West Lake Hills, Texas, lYY2-19%.
Mar-tlidity n/d Mortality ihJwX.1,~~ Rqwrt 1 Y9Sa;l-l( 1 Y ):
370-2.

Centers for Disease Control and I'rel-ention. Trends in
smoking initiation among adolescents and l~/oung
adults--United States, 1980-1989. Morllilfifi/ l~r~ll Mar-
fillit!/ W&/I/ RL'/JOY~ 1995b;44(28):521-5.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessi-
bility of tobacco products to youths aged 12-l 7 years-
United States, 1989 and 1993. Morbidity orrd Mortmlity
Weekly Rqmt 1996a;45(6!:125-30.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Estimates
of retailers willing to sell tobacco to minors-
California, August-September 1995 and June-July
1996. Mar-hitiify nrrd Morfalify Weekly RPporf 1996b;
45(50):1095-9.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. State To-
IJIICCO Corztrol Hjg/rli,@zts--1996. Atlanta: Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for
Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion,
Office on Smoking and Health, 1996~.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tobacco
use and usual source of cigarettes among high school
students-United States, 7995. Morhirlify~~~?d Mortality
W&l!/ Rq~ort 1996d;45(20):413-8.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette
smoking among adults-United States, 1995. Morbid-
if!/ 1717d Mortalify Wwk/!/ Rqmrf 1997a;46(51):1217-20.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smoking-
attributable mortality and years of potential life lost-
United States, 1984. Mar-llidity nrd Mortnlity Week/!/
Rcpwf 1 YY7b;16(20):434-5 I,

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preemp-
tive state tobacco-control laMs-United States, 1982-
1998. .Mor/liiIif~/ nl~[l Mar-fcllify Wwkly Rcpwf 1999;
47(51-52):1112-4.

Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer for Minis-
terial Council on Drug Strategy Tobacco Task Force.
fff'il/fll !`%17itlS5 17,711 CO!lff'f?t~ hhdh73 017 fih7CC~J hd-
l/its. Melbourne (Australia): Anti-Cancer Council of
Victoria, 1992.

Centre for Health Promotion. Effccfs cf PIni11 Cignwttc
I)w$;i\~,~ il,rwrr~ huflr. Toronto: University of Toronto,
1993.

Chaloupka FJ, Grossman M. Price, toh~co corzfrol ~~oli-
c-iil.s 171711 youth sflrokirzg. Working paper no. 5740. Cam-
bridge (MA): National Bureau of Economic Research,
1996.


Chaloupka FJ, facula RL. Limiting youth access fo to-
bacco: the early impact of the Synar Amendment on
\routh smoking. Paper presented at the Third Biennial
Pacific Rim Allied Economic Organizations Confer-
ence; Jan 11, 1998; Bangkok (Thailand).

Chamberlain E. Philip Morris sues ABC for 510 bil-
lion. T&ix (~f7 Trio/, Apr 29, lYYJ:3-5.

Chapman S. Industry dolvn again dn\vn under [let-
ter]. fi&7cco Cor7trd lY95;4(1 ):17-8.

Chapman S. Tobacco industry memo rcx.eals passi1.c
smoking strategv. Kriti5/7 Medic-nl ]c~71rr7~7I 190/;31 1
(7093):156Y. _

Chapman S, Borland R, Hill D, On.en N, Wood~~~ard S.
LVhv the tobacco industry fears the passi1.e smoking
issue. 1/7tc~777iltiOl7l7/ ]Olll'llili Of Ht'i71fli Sf'l.i'iiC'5 lYOO;20(3):
41 i-27.

Chapman S, Wilson D, Wakefield M. Smokers' under-
standings of cigarette vield labels. Mdit-[7/ /0711.7717/ of
.,llisfro/in 1986;145(8):3?6, 378-Y.

Cheadle A, Wagner E, Koepscll T, Kristal A, Patrich D.
En\+ronmental indicators: a tool for e\,aluating com-
munitv-based health-promotion programs. A77c7.ic7777
]olirmj of Pww77fiw Meill'rirtc, 1992;8(6):345-50.

Chetwynd J, Brodie RJ, Harrison 1~. The influence of
adveriising on tobacco consumption: a reply to
Boddewyn. Brifislr ]0111.7701 of Arldicfiorl 1989;84(11):
1263-j.

Cl7iglo ~1. City of Prcstm, 9OY E Supp. 675 (D. Minn. 1995).

Chr&ien J. Gozvrr7777~~~7f Actio~~ P/1717 OII S7~77rg~qli77~y.
Ottawa (Canada): Office of the Prime Minister, House
of Commons, 1994.

Cismoski J. Blinded by the light: the folly of tobacco
possession laws against minors. Wiscor7sirr Akdiiirl~17117~-
77lll 1994;93(11):591-8.

Cismoski J, Sheridan M. Availability of cigarettes to
under-age vouth in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. Wisn~w
si77 Medirn/)n~ml 1993;92(11):626-30.

Cismoski J, Sheridan M. Tobacco acquisition practices
of adolescents in two Wisconsin communities. Wisco77-
5i17 Mc~ifiihl ]077r77fll 1994;93(11):583-91.

Cl\mer A. Addiction center sees Medicare imperiled
b!r-rising bill for smoking and drinking. Nw yuior-k Ti~rcs,
Mav 17, lY9-i;Sect A:14 (co1 1).

Coalition on Smoking OR Health. Classification of low
tar and 101~ nicotine cigarettes as drugs under the Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act (petition before the Food and
Drug Administration). Washington: Apr 25, 1988.

Coalition on Smoking OR Health. Classification of all
cigarette products as drugs under section 201 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (petition be-
fore the Food and Drug Administration). Washington:
Mar 7, lYY4a.

Coalition on Smoking OR Health. Stntc Lcgi';Iflfcil Ac-
fi~r/r.> 077 ~hr~-c-o I~-I,P~. Washington: Coalition on Smok-
ing OR Health 19Y4b.
           ,

Coffee JC Jr. Understanding the plaintiff's attorney: the
implications of economic theory for private enforce-
ment of la\v through class and derivative actions.
C~~lr7777/~in Law Rwirxl 1986;86(May):669-727.

Coffee JC Jr, The regulation of entrepreneurial litiga-
tion: balancing fairness and efficiency in the large class
action. Ulfiwrsi(t/ of C17imcqcl Lm RCD~P 1987;54(Sum-
mer):877-937.

Cohen JB. Research and policy issues in Ringold and
Calfee's treatment of cigarette health claims. \o~~P~z~/ of
Plllllic Policy 1717d Mnrkctir7g 1992;11(1):82-6.

Cohen JB. Consumer/smoker perceptions of Federal
Trade Commission tar ratings. In: The FTC Cigarefte
Test M~~thod joI- Drf~7~77i~7i77g Tir, Nk-nfi~~, nr7d Cnrbm
Mo~7osidc %>lils of U.S. CiSarl'ttcs. Report of the NCI Ex-
/VI? Pn~wl. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph
No. 7. Bethesda (MD): US Department of Health and
Human SerxTices, Public Health Service, National
Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute,
lYY6:127-34. NIH Publication No. 96-4028.

Cohen LP, Geyelin M. Probe reopens into nonprofit
tobacco group. Wnll Street /o~~rrud, Feb 8,1996;Sect A:3.

Cole J, Taylor J. Liggett to cooperate in tobacco probe.
Wc7ll Stwt~f /011~7~7l, Apr 29, 1998;Scct A:3.


Collins C. l'apw maker to spin off tobacco units. Ntw
Ywk Tirm~, May 10, 1995a;Sect D:l (co1 5).

Collins G. Teen-agers and tobacco: the reaction; com-
panies sue to prevent control of cigarette sales. N~lio
Yc~rk Tiflws, Aug 11, 1995b;Sect A:18 (co1 5).

Collins G. Tobacco suit's plaintiffs suffer a court set-
back. Nw York 7`i/lrc,s, May 16, 1995c;Sect D:l (co1 2).

Cnugressioml Record. 104th Gong., 1 st Sess., 1995a,
141 :H7470-H7476.

Corrgrc5siorral Record. 104th Gong., 1st Sess., 1995b,
141:H7646-H7683.

Conlisk E, Siegel M, Lengerich E, Mac Kenzie W, Malek
S, Eriksen M. The status of local smoking regulations
in North Carolina folloiving a state preemption bill.
]o~m~l of 117~ AIIIU;SIII~ Medirlrl Assoiiafiorl 19%;273
(10):805-7.

Co77/7rrfir7if il. Philip Mwris IRK., No. CV 9601534105
(Corm. Oct. 9, 1996), citr~if ill 11.7 TI'LR 2.238 (1996).

Connolly GN. The marketing of nicotine addiction by
one oral snuff manufacturer. rC)Oflccc~ Cof7tml 1995;
4(1):73-Y.

Cor~rmr 7'. X.1. Rqr7olds Tutmio Co., No. 95-01820~CA,
Div. CV-H (Fla. Cir. Du\.al Cty. May 5, 1997) (jury \`er-
diet for defense).

Cooper H. Tobacco litigation: a comparati\,e analysis
of the United States and European Community ap-
proaches to combatting the hazards associated rl-ith
tobacco products. Biookl!/~l lorlrrral c$ I77tn,rrlrfic,7717/ Lm~
1990;16(2):275-303.

Co7yo1.17f~~ Crier Rcprfcv~. Indictments against tobacco
companies, executives to be handed down Lvithin
months, Douglas predicts. Co~[~omtc' C7'ir77c kp~~t'f~7
1998;12(19):1, 12-16.

Cotton I? Tobacco foes attack ads that target women,
minorities, teens, and the poor, ]OUIYUI~ of !/I? AHW~M/I
M~`dim1 Associnfiorz 1990;264( 12):1505-6.

Coughlin PJ; Janecek FJ Jr; Milberg, Weiss, Bershad,
Hynes & Lerach LLI? A Review of R.J. Reynolds' In-
ternal Documents Produced in Marq-itzi us. R.]. Rcyr7oltis
TtJbm-~~ Cwz/`fl/ly, Civil Number 939359-The Case that
Rid California and the American Landscape of "Joe
Camel"; <http://galen.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/
mangini/report/index.html>; accessed: February 18,
1999.

Coultas DB, Stidley CA, Samet JM. Cigarette yields of
tar and nicotine and markers of exposure to tobacco
smoke. Americn)l Reuieur of Respiratory Disease 1993;148
(2):435-40.

Council Directive 90/239/EEC of 17 May 1990, 1990
officifl/ ~(JlW77d offhe !%f'CJ/JPfUZ Conll?lur?ify (L 137) 36.

Council Directive 92/41/EEC of 15 May 1992, 1992
Official ]oma~ of f17c Euroyenn Col?zmunity (L 158) 35.

Coyr7e~ R~d7777, Ix. P. Food md Drug Adn7i~~istratior7, No.
2:95CVOO591 (N.C. Aug. 10, 19951, cifed in 10.5 TPLR
3.379 (1995) (Complaint).

Coytrc> Benhtu. 177~. c U.S. Food 6 Drug Adnzitlisttvtiou,
966 F. Supp. 1374 (M.D.N.C. 1997).

Cummings KM, Coogan K. Organizing communities
to prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors. 111~
fcr.rfilfior7n/ Q7rarfrr/y ~,f Commurlify Health Edl~cntior~
1992-93;13(1):77-86.

Cummings KM, Hyland A, Saunders-Martin T, Perla
J, Coppola PR, Pechacek TF. Evaluation of an enforce-
ment program to reduce tobacco sales to minors. Ameri-
cc777 ~07rrr7nl of Public Henlth 1998;88(6):932-6.

Cummings KM, Markello SJ, Mahoney M, Bhargava
AK, McElroy I'D, Marshall JR. Measurement of cur-
rent exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. i\r-
C/I;ZW of E~7i~im7mer7fal Hrnltlr 1990;45(2):74-9.

Cummings KM, Pechacek 7, Shopland D. The illegal
sale of cigarettes to US minors: estimates by state.
At7wricnrz Jwrr7nl qf P~rblic Healfh 1994;84(2):300-2.

Cummings KM, Saunders-Martin T, Clarke H, Perk J.
Monitoring vendor compliance with tobacco sales
laws: payment vs no payment approaches [letter].
An7cvicar7 ]ozrr-77cd (Jf Public Hcolfh 1996;86(5):750-1.


Cummings KM, Sciandra E, Pechacek TF, Orlandi M,
Lynn WR, for the COMMIT Research Group. Where
teenagers get their cigarettes: a sur\`ey of the purchas-
ing habits of 13-16 year olds in 12 US communities.
fiJhCC0 Cor~trd 1992;1(4):264-7.

Cummings KM, Vito D, Gabrel C. Tobacco, alcohol,
and other drug use behaviors among adolescents in
Erie County, Ne\v York. /olrr,rlfll c$ P~blii H~wltlz Mi7)1-
n,ymwt Pm-fiCC 1995;1(2):23-30.

Curriden hLI. Hurdle cleared for tobacco suit. .%lrcv,ic-frr/
h7r Awcintic~r7 ]OllJ'JJO/ 1995;81 (Mav):22-3.

Curriden M, Rodrigue G. State's tobacco suit aids
criminal probe. Federal inquirv focuses on roles plaved
by industry la\\, firms. Dnl/il> Mo,~rrir7;< ,"\jwts, O;t 6,
1997;Sect A:l.

Davidson L, Slade J, Stang CL. Knolvledge and atti-
tudes about tobacco among pharmacists who do and
\vho do not sell tobacco. In: Aoki .M, Hisamichi S,
Tominaga S, editors. SnJoX-ir~~y i7/Jd H~v7/t/J 7 98;: /`ro~-c~`~f-
ill;;5 Of th i;f/J i'%;oJ'/d ~O,J~cWJJiC O/J SlJJdilJ;< i7JJd tfrYl/f/l,
E?kyo, 9-12 No~vJJJ~~I. 191;. Amsterdam: Excerpta
Medica. 1988:343-5.

Da\,is A. Guatemala sues tobacco firms to reco\`er
health-care costs. WnII Stwc? ]017rr7n/, May 13, 1998;Sect
&13.

Davis A, Duffy B. Double trouble? Criminal probes
dogging industry. Wnll Sfrwf ]OllJ'JJn/, July 10, 1998;Sect
B:l.

Davis RM, Healy I', Hawk SA. Information on tar and
nicotine yields on cigarette packages. A/TJU~COH ]orir-
11171 Of~d& HfVlf/J 1990;80(5):551-3.

Daynard RA. Tobacco liability litigation as a cancer
COlltrOl strategy. ]@111.1217/ of f/J? Nflfior~n/ Car~ccr IlJstifllfc
1988;80(1):9-13.

Daynard RA. Filter tips: more ways to smoke the to-
bacco companies; litigation. 1/Vns/JilJgfwl MoJ~thly 1993a;
25(1-2):lS.

Daynard RA. Smoking out the enemy: new develop-
ments in tobacco litigation. E.io1 1993b;29:16-23.

Daynard RA. Catastrophe theory and tobacco litiga-
tion. fijbacco COIJ~YOI 1994a;3(1):39-64.

Daynard RA. The third \vave of tobacco products
liability cases. Trinl 1994b;30:34-40.

Daynard RA. Litigation by states against the tobacco
industry. Tobacco 01 Trial 1997;3(Aug):3.

Daynard RA, Morin L. The Cipollone documents: fol-
loning the paper trail to tobacco industry liability. Trial
1988;24:50-4.

Department of National Health and Welfare. Tobacco
products control regulation. Car~orla Gaxrttc, Port II
1989;123(2):64.

Department of National Health and Welfare. Tobacco
products control regulations, amendment. Cnr~dn Cn-
zc+tc', P177.t II 1 YY3;127(16):3277-84.

Dieter M. Impact of Wiley case on other suits argued;
tobacco industrv sees other M-ins, but foes disagree.
Lo~~i~~~//l~~ Co~rl.ir,;,-/o~ir,rln/, Mar 21, 199X;Sect A:l.

DiFranza JR. Sonar regulations. ~~lwcco At-cuss Laz
jvw;, No\. lY93;21:1.

DiFranza JR. Sabotaging enforcement efforts. %!JMCO
Ai(~c'.i~ Lo:l' ~"V'LUV, May 1994a;24:1-8.

DiFranza JR. Synar update. Tobncrc~ AcTL'~~ LOW NCWS,
Ott 1994b;26:1-8.

DiFranra JR. The empire strikes back. ToEncro Access
Lw Ntws, July 1994c;25:1-8.

DiFranza JR, Carlson RF', Caisse RE Jr. Reducing youth
access to tobacco [letter]. TO~~CCU Coufrol 1992;1(1):58.

DiFranza JR, Celebucki CC, Seo HG. A model for the
efficient and effective enforcement of tobacco sales laws.
hWk7lJ ]0111.1Jd Of PJib/iC HrV/flJ 1998;88(7):1100-1.

DiFranza J, Godshall B. Tobacco industry lobbies to
sabotage Synar law. Tdmcco-FYW Youtlr Rcporfcr 1994;
6(3):7-10.

DiFranza JR, Lew RA. Effect of maternal cigarette
smoking on pregnancy complications and sudden in-
fant death syndrome. ]oJivfrrr/ of fn/?Jil PmtiCe 19%;
40(4):385-94.

DiFranza J, Librett J. State and federal revenues from
tobacco consumed bv minors. /iJiJf'J'iCnJf /OJ,J'JJf7/ off uh-
lif tlclnltl7 I YYY;89(7):i 106-P.


DiFranza JR, Nor\\-ood BD, Garner DW, Tye JB. Leg-is-
lati\re efforts to protect children from tobacco. \(lrirrrill c$
f/w .-2mrk~7~1 Mrdic~l .4ssorinfio/l 1987;257(23):3387-9.

DiFranza JR, Richards JW, Paulman PM, Wolf-Gillespie
N, Fletcher C, Jaffe RD, Murray D. RJR Nabisco's car-
toon camel promotes Camel cigarettes to children. \0~1r-
Jfd ,lf fh illll~').;ifl11 h4t'diifl/ ,`hCJiil7tiOJl 1991;266(22):
3149-53.

DiFranza JR, Savageau JA, Aisquith BR. Youth access
to tobacco: the effects of age, gender, vending machine
locks, and "lt's the La\%-" programs. AIIwiC1711 ]olrr.,Inl
c,fP~rtdic Htvltl~ 1996;86(2):221-4.

Djordjevic MV, Hoffmann D, Glynn T, Connolly GN.
US commercial brands of moist snuff, 1994. I. Assess-
ment of nicotine, moisture, and pH. fi~hcco Cor!ttd
1995;4(1):62-6.

Douglas CE. Criminal action against the tobacco in-
dustry: serving the public health. In: Ahtr27rt5, 126th
Annual Meeting and Exposition; NOI, 15-18, 199X;
Washington, DC. Washington: American Public Health
Association, 1998:l.

Drug Abuse Ad\isorv Committee. Abuse liabilitv as-
sessment of nicotine nasal sprat. Transcription of meet-
ing no. 27 of the US Food anj Drug Administration,
Center for Drug E\.aluation and Research, Drug Abuse
Advisory Committee; Aug 1, 1991; Sil\,er Spring (MD).

Duffy B, Taylor J. Liggett's cooperation kvith invcsti-
gators changes politics of tobacco legislation. !N1711
Slm? ~orrrrrd, Mav 1, 1998;Sect A:16.

Durkin T, Felstiner WLF. Bad arithmetic: disaster liti-
Lyation as less than the sum of its parts. In: Jasanoff S,
h
editor. L1~7r1ri~7~q fmrrr Dk~~h~~: Risk M[rrrn~~cv/rL~fr~ ofto.
R/w~wI. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
1991:158-79.

Dillorlii/I il. Po!cJ/, Y3 Ohio App. 36 383, 638 N.E.Zd 636
(Ohio Ct. App. lYY4).

Dybing E, Sanner T. Passive smoking, sudden infant
death syndrome (SIDS) and childhood infections. Hrf-
m7fr Esprrirmvrflr/ EJricrdr~~~y 1999;18(4):202-5.

tcorwrlrist. The tobacco wars: looking for a landmark.
Eco~m~i~t, July 11, 199X;Business Sect:&.

Edell MZ. Risk utility analysis of unavoidably unsafe
products. S&w Hlrll Lnw Rwim~ 1987;17:623-55.

Edillnrrls ~1. GMXI, Ijlr., No. 119S93 (Md., Montgomery
Cty. Nov. 26, 1997), cited i\r 13.1 TPLR 3.1 (1998).

Eiwr!/ il. Cnrniwr~ of Dueaw, 11zr., 879 F. Supp. 640 (N.D.
Tex. 1995).

Emmons KM, Abrams DB, Marshall RJ, Etzel RA,
Novotnl TE, Marcus BH, Kane ME. Exposure to envi-
ronmental tobacco smoke in naturalistic settings.
A~r~crl'car~ ]o~rnml of Prrtdic Hmlfh 1992;82(1):24-8.

Emont SL, Choi WS, Novotny TE, Giovino GA. Clean
indoor air legislation, taxation, and smoking behaviour
in the United States: an ecological analysis. `iXwc<c~
Co/rfml 1993;2(1):13-7.

E/r,qlc ij. R.1. Rcyt~~ltfs ~~J~JOCC-o Ccl., NO. 94-08273 CA (20)
(Fla., Dade Cty. May 5, lYY1), <ifeLf irl 9.3 TI'LR 3.293
(1YY-I).

EU<~k i'. R./. Rqrrolrfs Tol~acrr~ Co., No. 94-08273 CA (201
(Fla., Dade Cty. Oct. 31, 199-l), cif[lif irk 9.5 TPLR 2.117
( 1991) (Order Granting Motion for Class Certification).

&`ir;:/c P. R.1. Rcy!rdrfs Tdmc-c-c Co., No. 94-08273 CA (20)
(Fla., Dade Cty. Oct. 31, 19941, cited ilr 9.5 TPLR 2.117
(19'311, flif'll672 so. 2d 39 (1996).

En\ironics Research Group Limited. Ai~v7r~~/rc~~~ c!fHallt/r
Hi~:nr[Is Dw to S/ifokirl~~. Toronto: Environics Research
Group Limited, 1991.

Environmental Protection Agency. Rc~s/~itvtory Hri7lfk
EfffvAs of Pnssiit~ Sn7okirlg: Llri~~y Cam-u nrd 0th Dibkw
I~L'~s. Washington: Environmental Protection Agencv,
Office of Research and Development, Office of Air anil-
Radiation, 1992. Publication No. EPA/600/6-90/006F:


Epstein E, Russell S. Campaign \z.atch: Wilson blasts
tobacco firm's ballot initiatil-c. Sr7ri Fmriiixcl CI7m77ic-/c,
Julv 22, lYY1;Stct A:5.

Ernster VL. Women and smoking [editorial]. .qjl~c*r-
ii717 ]olw77i7l of Plrldii- H1vltl7 1993;83(Y):1202-4.

E\.ans N, Farkas A, Gilpin E, Berry C, Pierce JI'. Influ-
ence of tobacco marketing and exposure to smokers
on adolescent susceptibilitv to smoking. ]07tr.r7i7/ oi t/7(,
Vi7ti01717/ Ci7fii~`r I,rsfitrllt, lYYj;H7(20):153X--1.;.

~i7/iw ~1. ,47r7~v~;inr7 7ohiic~ Co., No. Y/-CL'-7640 (E.D.N .I'.
Dec. 31, 1997), c`itc'if ir7 13.8 TPLR 3.504 (lYY7).

Federal Filings-Do\\ Jones Ne\l,s. RJ Re\,nolds gets
subpoened bv D.C. grand jur\.. Federal Filin:;s-Do\\
lones Ne~vs (;lc\vs\vire), Aug ih, 1YYb.

P~~~:c~rn/ Rr,;;isf~,r-. US Department of Health and Human
Services. Substance abuse prtx~ention and treatment
block grants: sale or distribution of tobacco product>
to indi\.iduals under 18 vears of age (45 CFR Part %),
3 F-cd RL~s. 451 56 (lYY3j.

~`~~I~c~Q/ R~`~zqi~t~r. US Department of Labor, Occupational
Safetv and Health Administration. lndoor air qualit\-
`29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1926, and 192X). 59 FnI RL~,<.
I5968 (1994).

Fc,lfcra/ Rc~~istw. US Department of Health and Human
Ser\,ices, Food and Drug Administration. Analysis re-
LTarding the Food and Drug Administration's jurisdic-
&n over nicotine-containing cigarettes and smokeless
tobacco products, 60 Frail. Rq. 41433 (1995a).

~c~L~c~~/ Rt;yisfn,. US Department of Health and Human
Services, Food and Drug Administration. Regulations
restricting the sale and distribution of cigarettes and
smokeless tobacco to protect children and adolescents
(21 CFR Parts 801,803,804, and 897),60 f`p(I. Rq. 11311
( 1995b).

~(x[/~lr~l Rqistrr. US Department of Health and Human
Services, Food and Drug Administration. Regulations
restricting the sale and distribution of cigarettes and
smokeless tobacco to protect children and adolescents
(21 CFR Parts 801, 803, 801, 807, 820, and X97). 61 Fta,1
J+`y. 41396 (lYY6).

F&P~~~/ R~~gi~tc~r~. L:S Department of Health and Human
Ser\,ices. Notice regarding requirement for annual sub-
mission of the quantity of nicotine contained in smoke-
less tobacco products manufactured, imported, or
packaged in the United States, 64 Fed. Rq. 14085 (1999).

Federal Trade Commission. kpv'f to COI~~I~L'SS: f'urs~i-
n,7t to r/~t~ Fcdml Cigawttc Lnbchg ilrrd Ahcrtisir7g Act.
Washington: Federal Trade Commission, 1967.

Federal Trade Commission. Rcprf fo Cortgwss: Plluszr-
orrf to ti7c Fcdrwl C;p7rcftr, Lnbdir~g ar7d Adwfisir7~ Act
ti)r tl7c 1inr 1987. Washington: Federal Trade Commis-
sion, 1984.

Federal Trade Commission. RqmY to Co77~~wss for 7 99.3:
P7ir~;lll7lrt fc1 f/7(, Fdml Cigilwttc LdJdiJ7~ 171711 AlfWfi!+
irl;; .-2(-t Washington: Federal Trade Commission, 1995.

Fcighcrb, E, Altman DG, Shaffer G. The effects of com-
bining education and enforcement to reduce tobacco
sales to minors: a studv of four northern California
communities. ]07,r770/ of tl7c Ar~wicnr7 Mcdicol Associn-
ticlr7 lYY1;266(22):3168-71.

Ferris RI'. The role of smoking behaviour in product
de\-elopment: some observations on the psychologi-
cal aspects of smoking behaviour. Paper presented at
the Smoking Behaviour-Marketing Conference; July
9-12, 1984; Montreal.

X-58 Cn;~7s/xmwgl7 Stwef Realty Tnrsf 7'. Rem nt7d Kristy
Hnillx, No. 98-02279, Boston Housing Court (1998).

Fischer S, Castonguay A, Kaiserman M, Spiegelhalder
B, Preussmann R. Tobacco-specific nitrosamines in
Canadian cigarettes. ]wr~2fi/ ofG?rlrrr Rwnvrh m7d Cli77i-
ii7l @l?`Ol"<~.`l 1990;116(6):563-8.

Fischer PM, Schwartz MI', Richards JW Jr, Goldstein
AO, Rojas TH. Brand logo recognition by children aged
3 to 6 years: Mickey Mouse and Old Joe the Camel.
jorrrr7(7l of tlw .4,ncrii-n/7 Mcdicnl Associatiorr 1991 a;
266(22):3135-8.


Fishman JA, Allison H, KnoM.les SB, Fishburn BA,
Woollerv TA, Mars WT, Shelton DM, Husten CG,
Eriksen -Mr. State lalvs on tobacco control--United
States, 1998. Morbidif!/ 011~1 Mort~~lif!/ h'wkl!l RC/JOV~
1999;48(SS-3):21-62.

Floridn 71. hwi~-~~~~ Tolv7c~ Co., No. 951466AO (Fla.,
Palm Beach Ctv. Feb. 21, 19951, iitcii irz 10.1 TI'LR 3.1
(1995) (Complaint).

Floridly ~1. .4r~1uicn~~ 7i~hico Co., No. CL 95-1466 AH (Fla.,
Palm Beach Cty. Sept. 16, 1996) (Order Granting, in
Part, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss).

Florid17 T. A~~wricflrl fi~b~lcrn Co., No. CL95-1166 AH (Fla.,
Palm Beach Ctv. Oct. 18, 1996), i-it~rl irk 11.7 TPLII 2.236
(1996) (Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Strike
Plaintiffs' "List of Medicaid Recipients").

Flor-i& 7'. AIII~~~~T~~~~ Tolwizcl Co., Civil Action No. 95-1466
AH (Fla., Palm Beach Cty. Aug. 25, 1997) (Settlement
Agreement).

Fontham ETH, Correa I', Reynolds I', Wu-Williams A,
Buffler PA, Greenberg RS, Chen VW, Alterman T, Boq;d
P, Austin DF, Liff J, Environmental tobacco smoke and
lung cancer in nonsmoking Lvomen: a multicenter
studv. ]ollml OF t/l? Allli'l.iil?ll Mcifici7l Ai.5ocil7tior7
lw-l:271(22):17;2-Y.

Forster J, Wolfson M, Claxton A, Murray D. Perceived
tobacco availability and minors' purchase success in
fourteen Minnesota cities. Paper presented at the an-
nual meeting of the Anzevica~ Plrblic H~nlth A~~nciatio~~;
Ott 29-Nov 2,1995; San Diego (CA).

Forster JL, Hourigan M, McGovern P. Availability of
cigarettes to underage youth in three communities.
Pwwtlfiw Mcdicirzc 1992a;21(3):320-8.

Forster JL, Hourigan ME, Kelder S. Locking devices
on cigarette vending machines: evaluation of a city
ordinance. Av~euirnrz /o~rr~irl uf Public Health 1992b;
82(9):1217-9.

Forster JL, Klepp K-l, Jeffery RW. Sources of cigarettes
for tenth graders in two Minnesota cities. Hdth Eil~-
cxtior/ R~w~rcI~ 1989;4(1):45-50.

Forster JL, Komro KA, Wolfson M. Survey of city ordi-
nances and local enforcement regarding commercial
availability of tobacco to minors in Minnesota, United
States. Tr&ncco Corlfuol 1996;5(1):46-51.

Forster JL, Murray DM, Wolfson M, Blaine TM, Wagen-
aar AC, Hennrikus DJ. The effects of community poli-
cies to reduce youth access to tobacco. Awricr7rr ]or~rrral
of Pliblic tJPi?/fll 1998;88(8):1193-8.

Forster JL, Wolfson M, Murray DM, Wagenaar AC,
Claston AJ. Perceived and measured availability of
tobacco to youths in 14 Minnesota communities: the
TPOP studv. AI~IL,~.;c~~J~ /w~r~al of Pwwt~fiiv Medicim~
1997;13(3):i67-74.

Fourkas T, editor. Tcb~vc(~ Corrlrc~l irr CnliJovrzin Citirs: A
Gi~idc iw Aztio,z. Sacramento (CA): California Depart-
ment of Health Services, 1992.

Frankel A. Blowing smoke. TI7e Anwricat7 Laqt~r 1995;
17(6):68-77.

Fraser G. Strength of warnings on tobacco use reduced
by lobbying, group charges. Gl& arlrl Mnil (Toronto1
June 26, 1989;Sect A:1 (co1 1).


Freedman A. Consolidated U.S. tobacco probe focuses
on companies' statements. Wn/l Stwrt ]olrrr2nl, Sept 3,
1996;Sect B:8.

Freedman AM. Juiced up: how a tobacco giant doc-
tors snuff brands to boost their "kick." l&/I Sftwf \o~[Y-
IM/, Ott 26, 1994;Sect A:1 (co1 6).

Freedman A, Jensen E, Stevens A. Why ABC settled
with the tobacco industry. Wnll Strwf /011r11fl/, Aug 24,
1995;Sect B:l (co1 3).

Freedman A, Lambert W. Tobacco probe examines se-
curities aspect. Will/ Sfk'flf /0lirlml, Julv 27, 1995;Sect
B::.

Freedman A, Stevens A. Philip Morris is putting TV
journalism on trial in its suit against ABC. Wo11 Sfwf
/mcrrlal, May 23, 1995;Sect A:1 (co1 6).

FTC: WATCH. FTC closing its Camel cigarettes ini,es-
tigation without action. FPC: L%%TCH 1994;414:2-3.

Galanter M. Why the "haves" come out ahead: specu-
lations on the limits of legal change. Llw & Sot-irfy RP
ilicu 1974;9(1):95-160.

Galanter M. Reading the landscape of disputes: \1-hat
lve know and don't know (and think we know) about
our allegedly contentious and litigious society. UCLA
hcl Rtview 1983;31(4):4-71.

Galanter M. Case congregations and their careers. Lnill
h Society Rruiw 1990;24(2):371-95.

Galanter M. News from nowhere: the debased debate
011 civil justice. DAISY Uniwrsify Lnw Rwiew 1993;71(1):
77-113.

Galanter M. The transnational traffic in legal remedies.
ln: Jasanoff S, editor. Ltwr~ri~~~ Frr)~~r Di.mfu: RiskMm-
;~,~~`nwnt After Blropnl. Philadelphia: Universitv of Penn-
sylvania Press, 1994:133-57.

Gallup Organization, Inc. for the American Lung As-
sociation. Sllrwl/ of f/w Plrblic's Affifudes Toz4u77d Smok-
~/IS. Princeton (NJ): Gallup Organization, 1992.

Gallup Organization, Inc. for the Coalition on Smok-
ing OR Health. Tlrc Public-4 Affifdes TOmrd Cipreffc
Adwrfisir~cq 011[f Ciprcttr Tnr Ir7cveasc. Princeton (NJ):
Gallup Organization, 1993.

Gangarosa RE, Vandal1 FJ, Willis BM. Suits by public
hospitals to recol'er expenditures for the treatment of
disease, injury and disability caused by tobacco and
alcohol. F0rd1w111 Llrbn,l Ln:cl ]ourrm/ 1994;22:81-139.

Garner DW. Cigarettes and welfare reform. Emory La7u?
~~1.11a1 1977;26:269-335.

Gemson D, Moats HL, Watkins BX, Ganz ML, Robin-
son S, Healton E. Laying down the law: reducing ille-
gal tobacco sales to minors in central Harlem. Amrrical~
/olrrjlul of Pl(blir Hcwlfll 1998;88(6):936-9.

Gerlach KK, Shopland DR, Hartman AM, Gibson JT,
I'echacek TF. Workplace smoking policies in the United
States: results from a national survey of more than
100,000 workers. ~~l~ncr-o Corlfrol 1997;6(3):199-206.

Gersten R. St. Peter gets tough on cigarette sales to
vouths. Marrkoto Frw Pwss, Dee 13, 1994:15 (co1 1).

Geyelin M. Tobacco companies are set back by actions
in Florida, Mississippi. Wnll Strerf jourrm1, Feb 22, 1995;
Sect B:l (co1 4).

Geyelin "VI. Former researcher at Philip Morris sought
immunity. WoII Sfrrcf jolrrru-rl, May 16, 1997;Sect B:13.

Geyelin M. Release of tobacco documents ordered. Wall
Sfrwf ]olrrrmI, Mar 9, 1998;Sect A:3.

Giovino GA, Schooley MW, Zhu B-P, Chrismon JH,
Tomar SL, Peddicord JP, Merritt RK, Husten CG,
Eriksen MI'. Surveillance for selected tobacco-use
behaviors-United States, 1900-1994. Modidity ad
Marfolif{/ WLYJ~~JI RP/JCJI? 1994;43(SS-3): 1-43.

Gallup Canada, Inc. for the Canadian Cancer Society.
Fhl Rrporf 077 a Szuiy/ of Ci777ndil7rrs' K77oi4Mp~ ofn/7d
,-\ififudrs Toiclnrd fllc Hn;w7$4/ Effccfr of.S~~roki~~~y. Toronto:
Gallup Canada, 1988. "


Giovino GA, Tomar SL, Reclcl~~ MN, I'cddicord Jr', Zhu
B-P, Escobedo LG, Eriksen Mb. Attitudes, knowledge,
and beliefs about lot\.-vield cigarettes among adoles-
cents and adults. In: T/w FTC Cj:+~wt~( Test Mctld for
Dfwri7irrirr~ Tnr, .Nicotil7f~, (7/7d Crllh~ll Mf~77f~.YidL Y&s
of U.S. ci$nreftc~. RqJorf of t/w i"v'cf ~`.YJJc',? Cmlluiiftw.
Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 7.
Bethesda (MD): US Department of Health and Human
Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of
Health, National Cancer Institute, lY96:39-57. NIH
Publication No. 964028.

Gitlin R. Minnesota bans spur cigarette machine Icars.
A~rcn'cnr~ Aufmnfic Mcrc-hrrtfiwr. 1991;33(10):12-6.

Glantz SA, Smith LR. The effect of ordinances requir-
ing smoke-free restaurants on restaurant sales. .4777f~r+
if711 ~Olim7l of PlfbliC HL'i7ltl7 lYYd;P4(i):1081-5.

Glantz SA, Smith LRA. The effect of ordinances requir-
ing smoke-free restaurants and bars on rc\`enues: a
follow-up. ilwl.ic~~i~ ]w).1lfl/ c$ Pill~lic Hco/fh lc)Y;;87( 10):
1687-93.

Goldstein AO, Fischer I'M, Richards JW Jr, Crcten D.
Relationship betlveen high school student smoking
and recognition of cigarette ad~~ertisements. /oilr-r777l Of
Pedifltlics 1987;11O(3):388-Y 1.

Goldstein AO, Westbrook WR, Ho~vell RE, Fischer PM.
Hospital efforts in smoking control: remaining barri-
ers and challenges. /f1111.1717/ ofFf7mily Pn7t-fit-c 1YcC;31(6):
729-31.

Gori GB. Consumer perception of cigarette yields: is
the message relevant? f&`Sr//i7lfJr-u fix!c(l/qq/ f777d f/717,--
1ililcoIl~<yy lYYO;12(1):64-8.

Gori GB, Bock FG, editors. A 57fc Ciprcttc? Banbury
Report 3. Cold Spring Harbor (NY): Cold Spring Har-
bor Laboratory, IYKO.

Goshko J. Federal grand juries to investigate testimony
by tobacco firm officials. T/w W&liflgto/r Post, July 26,
lY95;Sect A:5.

Gottlieb NH, Eriksen MP, Lovato CY, Weinstein Ri',
Green LW. Impact of a restrictive work site smoking
policy on smoking behavior, attitudes, and norms. /olru-
im1 of Ocmpticmd MeiIicirw 1990;32( 1):16-23.

Go11~hi17 i'. Socicfc Nnfiorm(c f~`~X~JhJik7fiOlZ ~udustuid~c
llcs 7obnc.s rt AIlf/~wff~~ (SEXA) (Tribunal de Grandc
Instance de Montargis Dec. 19,1996), cifd in 11.8 TPLR
3.1073 (1996).

Gray N, Daube M, editors. Guiddirws for Smkirz~~ Cm-
/ml. 2nd ed. UICC Technical Report Series. Vol. 52.
Geneva: International Union Against Cancer, 1980.

Green MD. Tribute-Dean John 1%`. Wade: the schizo-
phrenia of risk-benefit analysis in design defect litiga-
tion. C'n77rlc7~bi~f Lnz Rci+m) 1995;48(Apr):609-29.

Greising D, Zinn L. Where there's secondhand
smoke. Bllsillcss Wwc;, Aug 8, 1994;3384:43-4.

Gro\v D. Legislation is lesson in felling giants of to-
bacco. Mi/7/w~/w/j~ Star Trib7rr7r, Apr 1, 1990;Metro/
State Ne\~,s Sect:1 B (co1 1).

Gusfield JR. The social symbolism of smoking and
health. In: Rabin RL, Sugarman SD, editors. Sli~oX-ir~g
f'o/ii,y: Lnu, Politics, n~7d Cultlrrc. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1993:49-68.

Hcrirrf~ ~1. L.ig+~tf Group, Inc., Civil No. 84-678 (HLS)
(D.N.1. 19Y2), ritcd irl 7.1 TPLR 2.1 (1992).

Gorovitz E, Mosher J, Pertschuk M. Preemption or pre-
vention?: lessons from efforts to control firearms, al-
cohol, and tobacco. ]f1177-r7t7l of Puldii Hfv7lfl1 Polic-y 1998;
19(1):36-50.


Hamilton JL. The effect of cigarette ad\.ertising bans
on cigarette consumption. III: Steinfeld J, Griffiths W,
Ball K, Taylor RM, editors. .S,rmkirz;:oruf Hm/fh. II. Hmlfl~
Cor~scl~fL'~J?"s, Etfmfior7, CLY%fiOfl Artiilific~s, illIll Gail-
(-rJ7JJrivrft71 Aitiorl. Proceedings of the 3rd World Con-
ference on Smoking and Health, June 2-5, 1975, Ne\t
York. Washington: L`S Department of Health, Educa-
tion and Welfare, Public Health Service, National In-
stitutes of Health, National Cancer Institute,
1976:X29-40. DHEW Publication No. (NIH) 77-l-113.

Hammond SK, Sorensen G, youngstrom R, Ockene JK.
Occupational exposure to en\.ironmental tobacco
smoke. ]0111~17171 of fht, .4rrzc~r~i~-~r1 !2/1(Yfi`-i7/ ,45~cJc-;l?fic)rr
1995;274 12):956-60.

Hanauer I', Slade J, Barnes DE, Bero L, Giant/ SA. La\\--
ver control of internal scientific research to protcit
against products liability lalvsuits: the Bro\\.n and
Williamson documents. /;liir,rli?l 0f t/w .-Illf~`i~jiilli .Pl~l(`~lj-
(171 AhwiinficIrl 1995;271(3):731-40.

Hanson JD, Logue KD. The costs of cigarettes: the ECO-
nomic case for ex post incenti\,e-based regulation. )ilI~,
Lox ~11l1r11171 1998;107:1167-361.

Hayes AS. Ex-smoker's small-claims suit could light a
litigation fuse. tif~11 Strwf /OUUU~~, Mar 24, 1993;Sect B:l
(co1 4).

Health Canada. W/w17 PacknLycs Catz'f S/7cwk: Possible
hljJ"CfS of PInin nrd Ger~cric k~cka<yiq of ~~hcco PI-~-
lcits. Expert Panel Report. OttaLva (Canada): Health
Canada, 1995b.

Hecht SS, Carmella SG, Murphy SE, Akerkar S, Brunne-
mann KD, Hoffmann D. A tobacco-specific lung car-
cinogen in the urine of men exposed to cigarette smoke.
~Ncicl EJ1,3lar7d ]owr~nl ofMrdic;rw 1993;329(21):1543-6.

Hclliq it'. McKi~zrzey, 113 S. Ct. 2475 (1993).

HC'lJJ7 il. H&u, 01 -A-O1 -9209-CH00365, 1993 WL 21983
(Term. App. Feb. 3, 1993).

Henderson JA Jr, Twerski AD. Stargazing: the future
of American products liability law. Nvw E'ork Ur~iwr-
Sif!/ LIITL~ RL'ilit'il' 1991;6t;(N0\`):1332-42.

Henningfield JE, Kozlowski LT, Benowitz NL. A pro-
posal to develop meaningful labeling for cigarettes.
/l~li1~1111/ of f/If, nlli~~rirL7rl MCLfiCL7l AssociL7tior7 1994;
`72(1):312-A.

Henningfield JE, Radzius A, Cone EJ. Estimation of
a\.ailable nicotine content of six smokeless tobacco
products. filj~iiio CoJlfJ-ol 1995;1(1 157-61.

Hensler DR, Peterson MA. Cnderstanding mass per-
sonal injurer litigation: a socio-legal analysis. Brookly~r
111;~' R~~i'ic~i~' 1993;79(33:961-1062.

Hill D, Grav N. Australian patterns of tobacco smok-
ing and related health beliefs in 1983. Co~~mz~~~ify Hmlfll
StliLficY lW-l;8(3):307-22.

Hilts I'J. Little smoke, little tar, but full dose of nico-
tine. Nw Yi~r,h- T~III~Y, I\jov 27, 1994;Sect A:1 (co] 3).

Hilts I'J, U.S. turning to grand juries to scrutinize to-
bacco industry. Mc'il' ti>rk TilJl~`5, July 26, 1995;Sect A:l.

Hilts I', Collins G. Documents disclose Philip Morris
studied nicotine's effect on the body. New York Tinws,
June 8, 1995;Sect A:l.

Hinds MW. Impact of a local ordinance banning to-
bacco sales to minors. Plrblic Hcnltl7 Reports 1992;107(3):
355-x.

Hafer I, Nil R, Battig K. Nicotine yield as determinant
of smoke exposure indicators and puffing behavior.
P/laJ,rJn7ccJlogl/, Bi~c-h~,~fisf~~/ nr~d Bchnuinr 1991;40(1):
139-49.

Hohler 8. Alleging tobacco conspiracy, Meehan to urge
US grand jury inquiry. Bosforl Globr, Dee 14, 1994;3.

Hohler B. Clinton offers own plan on tobacco. Bostorz
Globr Sept 18, 1997:Sect A:3.

Holding Ii. Taking a break-outdoors lawsuit challenges
S.F. smoking ban. Snr~ Fw~cisro Cl~rwziclc, Feb 2,1994;Sect
A:15.

Hollie PG. Segmented cigarette market. New Yo& TiJJWS,
Mar 23, 1985;Business Day Sect:29 (co1 3).


Ho~lo~~v~~ ~1. Bristol-Mycrs Cur/j., 485 E2d 986 (D.C. Cir.
1973).

Hotqcr P. Stnttlq Ttrlcltirl Aswci~trs. lttc., No. 95 C 4439,
1995 WL 683614 (N.D. 111. Nov. 17,199s).

Homyer i'. Sfanlty TnIiIzit~ Assorii7f~`s, fnr., 91 F.3d 959
(7th Cir. 1996).

Hoppock KC, Houston TP. Availability of tobacco
products to minors. /(wr-~al ofF~~lil!/ Pracfrct~ lY90;30(2):
174-6.

HormGtz P. Lori1lot.d Tolwcco Co., No. 965-245 (Super.
Ct. San Francisco Cty. 1995), ii>/`t. ~lc,l&f, 118 S. Ct. 1797
(1998).

Howard DJ, Ota RB, Brigs LA, Hampton M, Pritsos
CA. Environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace
induces oxidative stress in employees, including in-
creased production of 8-hydrosy-2'-deoxyguanosine.
Cfitlcer Epidtwiolq~~, Biottmrkcrs b Ptwvtztiott 1998;
7(2):141-6.

Howatt G. New challenges in tobacco case; ,Medica,
HealthPartners sue to recover health costs. Mirrr~r~/lo-
/is Sfar Tribu/w, Mar 12, 1998;Sect 1:,4.

Hudzinski LG, Frohlich ED. One->,ear longitudinal
study of a no-smoking policy in a medical institution.
Clwst 1990;97(5):1198-202.

H\vang SL. Florida legislature moves to cripple tobacco
lawsuit. fi'nll Sfrwf ]01ir17nl, h4ay 9, 1995a;Sect B:6
(co1 5).

Hwang SL. Library search hints of electrifying ne\vs
from big tobacco. Wrll Sftwl /o~~rrrlrl, Feb 6, 1993b;Sect
A:1 (co1 4).

Hrvang SL. Tobacco memos detail passive-smoke
attack. Inin Str'srf ]ouuto/, Apr 28, 1998;Sect B:l.

Hwang SL, Ono Y. Companies crush out ties to ciga-
rettes. Wnll Sfwct /~~1[~1~~1, Apr 3, 1995;Sect B:l (co1 4).

IMPACT Research. Cli~~\rl Sfurl!/, Pnsk Brotrrl, Fiw-
Cipwffe Pock: Results. Quebec (Canada): IMPACT
Research, 1993. File 13-4092H.

~~npcria~ fic,bacco hnitcd u. COlll/liPt'~~ia~ urrkv7 Assurancp
CO. of Corrrrdil, No. 500-05-014084-964 (Canada S. Ct.,
Prow of Quebec, Dist. of Montreal Jan. 12, 19961, cifrlj
in 11.1 TPLR 3.39 (1996).

I~J rc Atrhttcho~, 913 P.2d 221 (Kan. Ct. App. Mar. 22,
1996).

111 w Cjgnrettc Cases (Fla., Duval Cty. Jan. 23,1996), citecf
irl 11.1 TPLR 2.3 (1996).

ltz re Cow William Tobacco Co. (Miss. S. Ct.), cited irt 12.1
TPLR 2.1 (1997).

ItI re Kirk Fordice as Gomwm ofMississippi (Miss. S. Ct.),
ritrlf ill 12.1 TPLR 2.5 (1997).

112 re Philip Morris kc., 706 So. 2d 665, 1998 La. App.
LEXIS 138 (4th Cir. Jan. 28,1998).

Itt rc Pitnkertort Tuhacco CO., 115 F.T.C. 60, 1992 F.T.C.
LEXIS 35 (F.T.C. Jan. 9,1992).

ItI VP X.1. Reyttolds E)hacco Co., Docket No, 9285 (F.T.C.,
May 28, 19971, citcii it1 12.3 TPLR 8.1 (1997).

ltt rc Uttiott Carbide Corp. Gns Plarrf Disaslrr nf Bhopal,
Itdia ~IJ Decert~brr, 7984,634 F. Supp. 842 (S.D.N.Y. 19861,
uff'd i/l purl 809 F.2d 195 (2nd Cir. 1987), cert. dertk!,
184 U.S. 871, 108 S. Ct. 199 (1987).

111 w Wilh- ~7. Wilk, 781 S.W.2d 217 (MO. App. 1989).

Jacobson I'D, Wasserman J, Raube K. 7%~ Political Em-
1l~fiott of Ajlfi-snwkitzg Lqi~[~fiotl. Santa Monica (CA):
RAND Corporation, 1992.

Janofsky M. Big tobacco watching a small-claims court.
Nczc, l'ork Times, June 21, 1993;Sect D:3 (co1 1).

Janofsky M. Ailing smokers sue the tobacco industry
h'w x~c,rk Ti!lws, May 7, 1994a;Sect 1 :ll (co1 1).

Janofsky M. Mississippi seeks damages from tobacco
companies. New York Tillws, Mav 24, 1994b;Sect A:12
(co1 5).

Janofsky M. Philip Morris accuses ABC of libel. New
York Titttes, Mar 25, 1994c;Sect A:15 (co1 1).


Jar\.ik ME, Henningfield JE. Pharmacological adjuncts
for the treatment of tobacco dependence. In: Orleans
CT, Slade J, editors. Nit-otirw ,%ldirtin,l: Prirlc-if~I~~s niilj
!2;~arri-rgf,rlrf~r~~. NervYork: Oxford Uni\,ersit); Press, 1993:
315-61.

Jasanoff S. Remedies against hazardous exports: com-
pensation, products liabilitv and criminal sanctions.
In: Ives JH, editor. Trnrlsrmtio,m/ Cor;~rotio/rs nrld Ejwi-
i.~~~lwvlf~l Colltlol I~SI~CS: T/w Es/wt of Hll:nnl. Boston:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 19X5:113-60.

Jason LA, Ji I'Y, Anes MD, Birkheacl SH. Acti\.e en-
forcement of cigarette control la\vs in the pre\.ention
of cigarette sales to minors. ]our/7f7/ (IF t/k .Arfk~riiofr
A,ldiii7l .q~%lCiilfi(lf? 1991;266(?2):315`)-61.

Jrffcry RW, Kelder SH, Forster JL, French SA, Landn
HA, Baxter JE. Restricti1.e smoking policies in the
[yorkplace: effects on smoking pre\.alencc and ciga-
rette consumption. PI.cTilcTrlfii,l' M~~~1ici1l~~ 19Y31;23( 1 ):
78-82.

Jenks S. LoM-tar cigarettes pose hidden health threat,
panel says. ]uur-rln/ of ti7v N17tio1717l Cfitiif,t. lrf5litifif~
I 995;87( 1): 15-h.

Jinot J, Bayard S. Respiratory health effects of passi\.e
smoking: EPA's weight-of-evidence analvsis. ]07~r~r7~7/
of c/;J7icic'l Epiffcfr7iull?<ql/ 1993;`l7(8:339-19:

lohnston D. Federal thrust against tobacco gets ne\\
\-&or. NPiL' Ywk Times, Mar 18, 1996; Secf A:].

Johnston LD, O'Malley PM, Bachman JG. Sv~oXifrs,
Drir7hg, nrd Illicif Dvn<q use f7117ufI`y AIfWiCf712 S~Tor7~f-
171y Srl?ool StldrJzfs, COllLyy Sfllffl'Jlf~, nrd YofIJJ<y Arfult5,
79ij-1991: vO~fI/i?C 1, .5CC~J77d(7/`7/ SC~lOC~i Stllrit'/it.i.
Bethesda (MD): US Department oiHealth and Human
Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of
Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1992. NIH
Publication No. 93-3480.

Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Or-
ganizations. .4rcwditnth7 Mi7~77u71 for Ho5pitnl.~. Vol777~7~~
1: Stcld~7rd~. Oakbrook Terrace (I<): Joint Commission
on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, 1992.

Jones C. Former research official to testify: grand jury
probing the tobacco industry. Ricl1~7077d Tirllc,s-Di.sfffltcl~,
scpt 16, 1996;Sect A:l.

Joossens L. The influences of advertising on tobacco
consumption: comments on Boddewyn & Chapman.
Rrifid ]~wJ~I/ of Ahlirtim 1989;84(11):1279-81.

Kagan RA. Adversarial legalism and American gov-
ernment. ]oI~~I~o/ of Policy ,417nlysis RII~ Malznge~~zerlt
lYYl;lO(3):369-406:

Kaiserman MJ. The effectiveness of health warning
messages. 7obnuo Co17trol 1993;2(3):267-9.

Kaiserman MJ, Rickert WS. Carcinogens in tobacco
smoke: benzo[a]pyrene from Canadian cigarettes and
cigarette tobacco. Amcri~ar7 ]olrrr~nl c~,f Pllblic Herzlth
lYY2;X2(7):1O23-6.

Kamin AZ. Pharmacy dean opposes tobacco. Nw York
Tirf/crs, No\. 27, lYY4;Nexv Jersey Weekly Sect:8 (co1 4).

Kann L, Kin&en SA, Williams BI, Ross JG, Lowry R,
Hill CV, Grunbaum JA, Blumson F'S, Collins JL,
Kolbe LJ. Youth risk behavior surveillance-United
States, lYY7. MorI7idity nr7l-l Mortn/ity Wwkly Rcpt 1998;
17(SS-3):1-89.

iWbir1v7yY il. R.]. R1y7old~ fifbnccc~ Co., No. 95-04697-
CA, Dii,. 0-H (Fla. Cir. Duval Cty. Oct. 31,1997) (jury
\.erdict for defense).

Karter MJ Jr. Fire loss in the United States in 1992. Nn-
tio~1r71 Fire Proferfior7 Asociotiof7 /ourffal 1993;87(5):
78-87.

Kaufman DW, Palmer JR, Rosenberg L, Stolley P,
Warshauer E, Shapiro S. Tar content of cigarettes in
relation to lung cancer. Af77crira~f ]our~fol of E@enliol-
qq/ 1989;129(4):703-11.

Karachi I, Colditz GA, Speizer FE, Manson JE, Stamp-
fer MJ, Willett WC, Hennekens CH. A prospective
study of passive smoking and coronary heart disease.
Cir~-~/liltic~r~ 1997;95(10):2374-9.

Kc17rr7q ~1. P17ilip Morris Cos. (D. Mass. May 11, 19921,
c-ifl'[l irk 7.2 TPLR 3.65 (1992) (Complaint).