Tobacco Center Faculty Blog

January 3, 2012

Stanton A. Glantz, PhD

Jobs is the argument for subsidizing smoking movies in California. As part of another research project, I obtained some statistics on job creation by spending on various industries in California from the US Department of Commerce (known as RIIMS II multipliers). Here are the number of jobs created by $100 million:

Elementary and secondary schools              2609
Museums, historical sites, zoos and parks    2387
Higher education                                           2185
Civic, social and professional organizations 1971
Advertising and related services                   1508
Scientific research and development            1391
Motion picture and video industries               1123

I included Museums, historical sites, zoos and parks and the education sector because they have suffered huge cuts in California and affected millions of lives and the three categories Civic organizations, Advertising, and Scientific Research because they comprise California's tobacco control program.  All of these activities produce many more jobs per dollar spent than putting money into the big (mostly out-of-state) media companies that own Hollywood.

(You can get your state multipliers at

January 2, 2012

Stanton A. Glantz, PhD

Reiner Hanewinkel and colleagues recently published a comparison of the presence of smoking in youth-rated films in Europe with the ratings of the same films in the USA.  Because the European film rating authorities are more tolerant of adult language (the f word) and sex than the MPAA is in the USA, many films rated R in the US get youth ratings in Europe.  Because R rated movies in the US tend to be smoky, the result of these different rating practices is that 85% of movies with smoking were youth-rated in Europe compared to 59% of the same films in the US.  

This result is comparable to what we concluded in a study comparing the effects of rating practices in the UK vs the US and that Jonathan Polansky found in a study published for Physicians for a Smokefree Canada found in Canada.

December 27, 2011

Stanton A. Glantz, PhD

Allan Brandt has a wonderful paper in the January 2012 issue of American Journal of Public Health, "Inventing Conflicts of Interest: A History of Tobacco Industry Tactics," that pulls all the pieces together to show how, over the years and with great care, tobacco industry PR experts have shaped the way that scientists, to say nothing of policy makers, the public and the media, think about science and what it takes to "prove" something in science. While I knew most of the details in this paper, it was very nice to see them all pulled together and placed into context in one place.  People who write important documents like Surgeon General reports should pay particular attention to this paper so see how skillfully they have been steered into ever-increasing standards of proof.

December 25, 2011

Stanton A. Glantz, PhD

Heikki Hiilamo and I just published a paper in Tobacco Control that uses the previously secret tobacco industry documents available in the UCSF Legacy Tobacco Documents Library to investigate the linkages between the local Nordic tobacco companies and the big multinationals. 

Beginning in the 1970s, the Nordic countries were early adopters of tobacco control initiatives, including advertising bans, health warning labels, purchase age limits and smoke-free laws. By 1986, Philip Morris officials in the USA were concerned that this activity could spread to America and other developed countries. Europe’s first product liability case against the tobacco industry was brought in Finland in 1988 when an individual smoker sued Rettig Oy (a local company that licenses R.J. Reynolds (RJR) brands) and Suomen Tupakka Oy (a British American Tobacco (BAT) subsidiary), claiming that their products caused his illnesses. The companies prevailed in all courts, including the Supreme Court, 13 years later in 2001.