The 2014 Surgeon General's report: commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the 1964 Report of the Advisory Committee to the US Surgeon General and updating the evidence on the health consequences of cigarette smoking.

The question of whether cigarette smoking was associated with lung cancer was central to the expansion of epidemiology into the study of chronic diseases in the 1950s. The culmination of this era was the 1964 report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General, a landmark document that included an objective synthesis of the evidence of the health consequences of smoking according to causal criteria. The report concluded that cigarette smoking was a cause of lung cancer in men and sufficient in scope that "remedial action" was warranted at the societal level. The 2014 Surgeon General's report commemorates the 50th anniversary of the 1964 report. The evidence on the health consequences of smoking has been updated many times in Surgeon General's reports since 1964. These have summarized our increasingly greater understanding of the broad spectrum of the deleterious health effects of exposure to tobacco smoke across most major organ systems. In turn, this evidence has been translated into tobacco control strategies implemented to protect the public's health. The Surgeon General report process is an enduring example of evidence-based public health in practice. Substantial progress has been made, but cigarette smoking remains one of the most pressing global health issues of our time.

Association between home smoking restrictions and changes in smoking behaviour among employed women.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Examine trends in home smoking restrictions among employed women not living alone and assess the associations of such restrictions with smoking behaviour. DESIGN: Multivariate logistic regression analysis of major demographic variables and household composition characteristics. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: 128 024 employed female respondents to the Census Bureau's current population survey over the 10 year period 1992 to 2002. MAIN RESULTS: The prevalence of smoke free homes has increased significantly over the past decade. This increase was evident across all demographic and household characteristics examined with the greatest rate of increase seen among smoking households. Nearly 90% of households consisting of all never smoking adult members reported having a smoke free home in 2001-02 compared with 22% of households consisting of all smokers. The extent of smoking restrictions in the home was the most powerful determinant of cessation of all the factors examined in the regression model. Odds of becoming a former smoker (any length) and quit for three months or more were seven to eight times greater among those women reporting their homes were smoke free compared with those whose homes permitted smoking anywhere in the home. CONCLUSIONS: Smoke free homes were associated with a highly significant increase in quitting (p<0.0001). However, at this time it is not clear what proportion of the observed effect can be attributed to living in a smoke free home. None the less, the significantly increased probability of quitting correlated with having a smoke free home found in this analysis, are substantially higher than the odds reported in most workplace studies published to date; additional studies are needed to elucidate this relation.

Tobacco manufacturers' defence against plaintiffs' claims of cancer causation: throwing mud at the wall and hoping some of it will stick.

BACKGROUND: In the late 1990s and the early part of this decade, the major US cigarette manufacturers admitted, to varying degrees, that smoking causes cancer and other diseases. OBJECTIVE: To examine how tobacco manufacturers have defended themselves against charges that their products caused cancer in plaintiffs in 34 personal injury lawsuits, all but one of which were litigated between the years 1986 and 2003. METHODS: Defence opening and closing statements, trial testimony, and depositions for these cases were obtained from the Tobacco Deposition and Trial Testimony Archive (http://tobaccodocuments.org/datta/). All available defence-related transcripts from these cases were reviewed and a content analysis was conducted to identify common themes in the defendants' arguments. RESULTS: After review of the transcripts, defendants' arguments were grouped into seven categories: (1) there is no scientific proof that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer; (2) the plaintiff did not have lung cancer as claimed; (3) the plaintiff had a type of lung cancer not associated with cigarette smoking; (4) the plaintiff had cancer that may have been associated with cigarette smoking or smokeless tobacco use, but tobacco products were not to blame in this particular case; (5) the plaintiff had cancer that may have been associated with cigarette smoking, but the defendant's cigarette brands were not to blame; (6) the defendant's cigarettes (or smokeless tobacco) may have played a role in the plaintiff's illness/death, but other risk factors were present that negate or mitigate the defendant's responsibility; and (7) the defendant's cigarettes may have been a factor in the plaintiff's illness/death, but the plaintiff knew of the health risks and exercised free will in choosing to smoke and declining to quit. Use of the argument that smoking is not a proven cause of lung cancer declined in frequency during and after the period when tobacco companies began to publicly admit that smoking causes disease. Corresponding increases occurred over time in the use of other arguments (namely, presence of other risk factors and "free will"). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the vast body of literature showing that cigarette smoking causes cancer, and despite tobacco companies' recent admissions that smoking causes cancer, defendants used numerous arguments in these cases to deny that their products had caused cancer in plaintiffs. The cigarette companies, through their public admissions and courtroom arguments, seem to be saying, "Yes, smoking causes lung cancer, but not in people who sue us".

Protecting workers from secondhand smoke in North Carolina.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to job-related secondhand smoke represents a significant, but entirely preventable occupational health risk to non-smoking workers. This article examines trends in smoke-free workplace policies in North Carolina. We also examine whether workers comply with such policies. METHODS: Data from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey were analyzed from 1992 through 2002. Trends for North Carolina workers are compared with workers nationally and trends are presented by age, race, gender, and type of worker. RESULTS: North Carolina ranks 35th in the proportion of its workforce reporting a smoke-free place of employment. The proportion of workers reporting such a policy doubled between 1992 and 2002. Females were more likely to reporta smoke-free work environment (72.0%, CI +/- 2.6) than males (61.2%, CI +/- 4.6%). Blue-collar (55.6%, CI +/- 5.5) and service workers (61.2%, CI +/- 8.4), especially males, were less likely to report a smoke-free worksite than white-collar workers (73.4%, CI +/- 2.6). Compliance with a smoke-free policy does not appear to be an issue, only 3.2% of workers statewide reported someone had violated their company's nonsmoking policy CONCLUSION: While some progress has been made in North Carolina to protect workers from secondhand smoke, significant disparities exist. Smoke-free policies can make a significant difference in reducing exposure to airborne toxins and their associated diseases, and these protective public health policies have not been shown to reduce business revenues. Much has been done to assure the health and safety of workers through public health policy However, opportunities to protect North Carolina workers from the health effects of secondhand smoke are limited by a preemptive state law.

Measuring progress to protect workers from job-related secondhand smoke in Texas.

Exposure to secondhand smoke is a significant public health problem, causing 38,000 premature deaths annually in nonsmokers. The two major sources of exposure are the home and work. We analyzed occupational data from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey for smoke-free policy trends among various categories of Texas workers. Nearly three quarters of white collar workers in the state are currently smoke free, but proportionately fewer blue collar and service workers enjoy this level of protection. Hispanics report lower rates of smoke-free policies than whites and African-Americans, and younger workers are less protected than older workers. Smoke-free policies increased 27% from 1992-93 through 1995-96 but only 5% over the next 6 years, indicating a significant slowing in the rate of adoption of such policies. Compliance with a smoke-free policy is not a significant workplace issue in Texas; only 2.7% of workers in 2001-02 reported that someone violated their company's smoke-free policy, down from 5.1% in 1992-93.

Disparities in smoke-free workplace policies among food service workers.

Information is lacking on which groups of workers are protected from job-related environmental tobacco smoke. Data from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey are analyzed for trends in smoke-free workplace policies among 38 major occupations. Data are also analyzed to determine the degree of compliance with such policies. Although over three fourths of white collar workers are covered by smoke-free policies, including 90% of teachers, just 43% of the country's 6.6 million food preparation and service occupations workers benefit from this level of protection. Compliance with workplace restrictions is not a significant human resources issue because only 3.8% of workers reported that someone violated a smoke-free policy in 1999, down from 4.9% in 1996. Protection for workers is increasing, but those in food preparation and service occupations are significantly less protected than others.

Occupational disparities in smoke-free workplace policies in Arkansas.

UNLABELLED: This report summarizes trends in Arkansas to protect workers from the documented harm caused by secondhand smoke. We also examined whether employees comply with smoke-free policies. FINDINGS: While considerable progress has been made to protect workers from secondhand smoke, Arkansas workers report significantly lower rates of smoke-free policies than workers nationally and ranked 46th among the states in this important area of occupational health in 2001-02. Blue-collar and service workers in the state lag significantly behind their white-collar counterparts and men report lower rates of smoke-free policies than women. Once implemented, however, compliance with a smoke-free policy is nearly universal among working Arkansans.

Distribution of daily smokers by stage of change: Current Population Survey results.

BACKGROUND: Population-based national estimates of stage of change among daily smokers are unknown. This study described the proportion of U.S. daily smokers, 18 and older, by stage of change. Selected sociodemographic characteristics were delineated. METHODS: Cross-sectional data were collected via telephone or face-to-face interview in daily smokers who responded to the Current Population Survey in 1992-1993 (n = 39,706), 1995-1996 (n = 34,865), or 1998-1999 (n = 30,153). Main outcomes included stage of change: (1) Precontemplation-not interested in quitting smoking in next 6 months; (2) Contemplation-interested in quitting smoking in next 6 months but not next 30 days; (3) Preparation-interested in quitting smoking in next 30 days and stopped at least 1 day during past year. RESULTS: During 1992-1993, 59.1% of respondents were precontemplators, 33.2% contemplators, and 7.7% in preparation stage. This distribution was similar in subsequent surveys (1995-1996; 1998-1999). Gender differences were not apparent. Whites were more likely to be precontemplators. As education and income increased, the percentage in precontemplation decreased. Rural residents were more likely in precontemplation and less frequently in preparation. CONCLUSIONS: Among daily smokers, little movement in stage of change was apparent in the United States during the 1990s. Tobacco control efforts must receive high priority to address these static patterns.