Calif. bans smoking in cars with kids

[mcjane]

Radon is a major cause of lung cancer & that's in millions of homes & another of the biggest indoor polluters is burning candles (most wicks have lead centers too) Air, water & food are polluted is that also from cigarette smoke. I don't think so, try fossil fuel.

COPD, lung cancer & allergies are on the rise. Almost every kid I know has allergies & smoking is way down from what it was 20 years ago. When I was young I never knew any kid with allergies, etc & almost all our parents smoked, so what's causing it. Could it really be from cigarettes.

I don't think so.  It's because of fossil fuel we burn & we are not doing much about it either, but we are sure spending millions on stop smoking campaigns. OK so we give up cigarettes, but who's going to give up that second car or SUV which is the real culprit.

So before we come down hard on smokers lets look at everyone else & put the blame for our sick children where it really belongs & it's not the smokers.

[Ken Shelmerdine]

I dont think pregnant mothers should smoke...but I do not think the government should be the moral police. When the government starts protecting us from ourselves...civil liberties are threatened and taken away. Is it a violation of a womans rights to force her to be on birth control if she's a smoker? what about a forceful abortion if she gets pregnant while being a smoker?  where does it end? Does that mean some women will make a bad choice? yes. glad they are still free to make a bad choice- before you know it the government will make all our choices for us, so we don't make the 'wrong' ones.

Well said Glitter, exactly the point I am trying to make. I just wish the supporters of smoking regulations would see the bigger picture of whats really going on here. The next step is to restrict hospital treatment for smoking related diseases. And when next section of society to be persecuted are  the overweight, wouldn't it be ironic if any of the anti smoking zealots who happen to be also overweight get refused hospital treatment on the basis of some kind of wildly exaggerated anti obesity propaganda.

[Ken Shelmerdine]

Of course human rights are being violated. If this law against smoking in cars with kids was just about the protection of kids then it's justified but it's not. It's part and parcel of the militant propaganda campain against those who choose to smoke.

Breathing smoke free air is a natural primary right and supersedes the secondary right to smoke and dirty air up.   So no right is truly being violated because since smoking is secondary it gets trumped as a right when compared to a primary right.

What started out as a sensible restriction of smoking in certain public areas has now become an attack on smokers generally. How else can you justify for instance the the prohibition of smoking in certain open air public spaces. How can secondary smoke when it becomes diluted in air be of any risk. For God's sake  recognise a hoax when you see one or would you prefer to endorse it because it suits the purely selfish stance which the anti smoking lobby take in their efforts to crucify all who choose to smoke?

Yes I am quite sure there are claims secondary smoke does not kill.   Just as it was has claimed for decades that tobacco causes no cancer and leads to no other help problems.   Hell it was even claimed they were healthy and good for you at one time.

OK if we put aside the fact that there's no real evidence that passive smoking is harmfull and even less evidence  that passive smoke in open public places is harmful, and just support the legislation on the basis that it is a 'primary right' for you to breathe clean air, would you call for a ban for example on barbeques because the smoke from a neighbour's barbeque happened to drift into your yard however small and diluted? Would you call for a ban on cars down your highstreet because the exhaust fumes are restricting your right to breath clean air? Would you call for a ban on firework displays? All these things restrict what you feel as your primary right. Why then just target smokers who are causing you far less air pollution than for instance the second example (car exhausts) Do you think it's fair that one section of society who are creating the least air pollution should be the only ones persecuted and harrangued and stripped of their freedom to enjoy tobacco when there are many more sources of greater air pollution to be considered.

The argument that because there was no evidence in previous decades that primary smoking caused lung cancer and coronary heart disease then creates a pemise to suggest that  passive smoking is harmfull because one day we will have evidence of it is another ludicrous leap of faith and a vain clutching at straws. The same modern day techniques and resources which proved conclusively that primary smoking causes a certain type of lung cancer have failed to show that passive smoking poses the same danger. But who care's if smokers are penalised bases on falsehoods?!

The plain fact is (and I wish the anti smoking brigade would be honest enought to admit it instead of producing spurious propaganda to justify themselves) that they just have an irrational hatred for smokers and they delight in making life as difficult as possible for smokers. They will present any 'evidence' however dubious they can lay their hands on to further their cause and bury anything they find that doesn't. The whole militant anti smoking network is a kind of social Stalinism, a mine of disinformation which so many of the general public have fallen for.

[JBLadyB]

If we are so worried about second hand smoke from smokers than we had really do something about industrial smoke stacks, car exhaust, etc.  But that is big business that has a lot of PAC money to hand around.  Next you will be fined for weighing too much.

[paddbear0000]

Next you will be fined for weighing too much.

Some employers and insurance companies do by either reducing your pay or by increasing your insurance premiums. I saw something on TV about this recently. I think it was Dateline or 60 Minutes. It's because they feel that overweight people have more health problems, thus they cost the employer and insurance company more. This higher cost then gets passed on to everyone, so they figure that by charging the employee/customer who is overweight, that will be more apt to lose the weight. They even said some companies offer discounts or increased pay if the employees and/or insurance customers participate in a gym or some sort of fitness program.

[JBLadyB]

Then because it cost insurance companies and Medicare going broke, the powers that be decide who should live and who should die, because it would just cost to much to keep one person alive and not another.  Some hospitals are already turning away uninsured patients.  I have Medicare and Supplemental, but because a nurse decides who goes first, I sat over 6 hours in an emergency room because my kidneys had completely shut down. The dr.'s said they were surprised I was still talking and making sense, when they got around to seeing me, guess I wasn't bloody enough LOL.

[okarol]

I don't want to see kids stuck in a car with a smoking barbeque either. 

[angela515]

I don't know what hospital you go to, but I have been to TONS, in different cities, states... never once been to an ER where they don't see a patient based off the medical status/situation they are in when seen in triage. Hope you complained to someone above, and didn't go back to it. 

[BigSky]

OK if we put aside the fact that there's no real evidence that passive smoking is harmfull and even less evidence  that passive smoke in open public places is harmful, and just support the legislation on the basis that it is a 'primary right' for you to breathe clean air, would you call for a ban for example on barbeques because the smoke from a neighbour's barbeque happened to drift into your yard however small and diluted? Would you call for a ban on cars down your highstreet because the exhaust fumes are restricting your right to breath clean air? Would you call for a ban on firework displays? All these things restrict what you feel as your primary right. Why then just target smokers who are causing you far less air pollution than for instance the second example (car exhausts) Do you think it's fair that one section of society who are creating the least air pollution should be the only ones persecuted and harrangued and stripped of their freedom to enjoy tobacco when there are many more sources of greater air pollution to be considered.

No, you claim its not harmful.  That is despite evidence that others have shown it is harmful.  The fact is it has been shown that those who have been exposed to second hand smoke at least1 hour per week tend to have 20% more thickening of the carotid artery wall vs people who have not been exposed to it.

Rights always boil down to natural law. Primary rights ALWAY supersedes a secondary right.  As such, anytime government or the people want to restrict one of those secondary rights when it infringes on a primary right they can.  That doesn't make it discrimination or taking of rights.  For if it did one could claim just about anything was a right and being taken from them. 

Your argument is flawed because it is essentially saying if we ban one thing we should ban all or none.   

 

The argument that because there was no evidence in previous decades that primary smoking caused lung cancer and coronary heart disease then creates a pemise to suggest that  passive smoking is harmfull because one day we will have evidence of it is another ludicrous leap of faith and a vain clutching at straws. The same modern day techniques and resources which proved conclusively that primary smoking causes a certain type of lung cancer have failed to show that passive smoking poses the same danger. But who care's if smokers are penalised bases on falsehoods?!

Actually there was tons of evidence that smoking was harmful.  The tobacco industry hide it and paid other members of the science community off to lie about it.  Hence the multi billion dollar settlements and appearances before Congress where the industry lied.

The plain fact is (and I wish the anti smoking brigade would be honest enought to admit it instead of producing spurious propaganda to justify themselves) that they just have an irrational hatred for smokers and they delight in making life as difficult as possible for smokers. They will present any 'evidence' however dubious they can lay their hands on to further their cause and bury anything they find that doesn't. The whole militant anti smoking network is a kind of social Stalinism, a mine of disinformation which so many of the general public have fallen for.

 

[Ken Shelmerdine]

.

No, you claim its not harmful.  That is despite evidence that others have shown it is harmful.  The fact is it has been shown that those who have been exposed to second hand smoke at least1 hour per week tend to have 20% more thickening of the carotid artery wall vs people who have not been exposed to it.


Your argument is flawed because it is essentially saying if we ban one thing we should ban all or none.   

 

I repeat there is no conclusive evidence that passive smoking  is harmfull. Show me the statistics of deaths through passive smoking. You can't because there aren't any! Name three people who have died as a result of passive smoking.

As for your reaction to the last paragraph of my previous post.....Well I rest my case.

[Ken Shelmerdine]

If we are so worried about second hand smoke from smokers than we had really do something about industrial smoke stacks, car exhaust, etc.  But that is big business that has a lot of PAC money to hand around.  Next you will be fined for weighing too much.

Couldn't agree more 

[paddbear0000]

http://quitsmoking.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=quitsmoking&cdn=health&tm=7&f=10&su=p247.3.140.ip_p726.2.152.ip_p284.8.150.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.epa.gov/

Statistics:

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

[okarol]

http://quitsmoking.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=quitsmoking&cdn=health&tm=7&f=10&su=p247.3.140.ip_p726.2.152.ip_p284.8.150.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.epa.gov/

Statistics:

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

The first link didn't work for me. I think, if possible, it's better to copy and paste info as links are often broken or expire.

[paddbear0000]

http://quitsmoking.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=quitsmoking&cdn=health&tm=7&f=10&su=p247.3.140.ip_p726.2.152.ip_p284.8.150.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.epa.gov/

Statistics:

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

The first link didn't work for me. I think, if possible, it's better to copy and paste info as links are often broken or expire.

Hmm. I don't know why. Okay, I'll post it all, but it's a lot!
From the Centers for Disease Control:

Fact Sheet
Secondhand Smoke
(updated September 2006)
Definition of Secondhand Smoke

    * Secondhand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke, is a complex mixture of gases and particles that includes smoke from the burning cigarette, cigar, or pipe tip (sidestream smoke) and exhaled mainstream smoke.1
    * Secondhand smoke contains at least 250 chemicals known to be toxic, including more than 50 that can cause cancer.1

Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke Exposure

    * Secondhand smoke exposure causes heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults.2
    * Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their heart disease risk by 25–30% and their lung cancer risk by 20–30%.2
    * Breathing secondhand smoke has immediate harmful effects on the cardiovascular system that can increase the risk of heart attack. People who already have heart disease are at especially high risk.2
    * Secondhand smoke exposure causes respiratory symptoms in children and slows their lung growth.2
    * Secondhand smoke causes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more frequent and severe asthma attacks in children.2
    * There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure. Even brief exposure can be dangerous.2

Current Estimates of Secondhand Smoke Exposure

    * Exposure to nicotine and secondhand smoke is measured by testing the saliva, urine, or blood for the presence of a chemical called cotinine. Cotinine is a byproduct of nicotine metabolization, and tobacco is the only source of this marker.2
    * From 1988–91 to 2001–02, the proportion of nonsmokers with detectable levels cotinine was halved (from 88% to 43%).3
    * Over that same time period, cotinine levels in those who were exposed to secondhand smoke fell by 70%.3
    * More than 126 million nonsmoking Americans continue to be exposed to secondhand smoke in homes, vehicles, workplaces, and public places.2
    * Most exposure to tobacco smoke occurs in homes and workplaces.2
    * Almost 60% of U.S. children aged 3–11 years—or almost 22 million children—are exposed to secondhand smoke.2
    * About 25% of children aged 3–11 years live with at least one smoker, compared to only about 7% of nonsmoking adults.2
    * The California Environmental Protection Agency estimates that secondhand smoke exposure causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700–69,600 heart disease deaths annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States.4
    * Each year in the United States, secondhand smoke exposure is responsible for 150,000–300,000 new cases of bronchitis and pneumonia in children aged less than 18 months. This results in 7,500–15,000 hospitalizations, annually.5

References

   1. National Toxicology Program. 11th Report on Carcinogens, 2005. (PDF–219KB) Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Sciences, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 2000 [cited 2006 Sep 27]. Available from: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=03C9B512-ACF8-C1F3-ADBA53CAE848F635
   2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006 [cited 2006 Sep 27]. Available from: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/.
   3. Pirkle JL, Bernert JT, Caudill SP, Sosnoff CS, Pechacek TF. Trends in the Exposure of Nonsmokers in the U.S. Population to Secondhand Smoke: 1988–2002. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2006;114(6):853–858 [cited 2006 Sep 27].
   4. California Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Final report, September 29, 2005, approved by Scientific Review Panel on June 24, 2005 [cited 2006 Sep 27]. Available from: http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/ets/ets.htm.
   5. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders.* Office of Research and Development, EPA/600/6-90/006F, Washington, D.C., December 1992 [cited 2006 Sep 27]. Available from: http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=36793.
      *Also published as: National Institutes of Health. National Cancer Institute. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders: The Report of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph Number 4. NIH Publication No. 93-3605, Washington, D.C., August 1993.

[BigSky]

I repeat there is no conclusive evidence that passive smoking  is harmfull. Show me the statistics of deaths through passive smoking. You can't because there aren't any! Name three people who have died as a result of passive smoking.

As for your reaction to the last paragraph of my previous post.....Well I rest my case.

Let me get this straight.  You are now claiming that thickening of carotid artery walls (heart disease) is not considered harmful?  So the fact that its been shown to harm children, infants and reproductive health through acute lower respiratory tract illness, asthma induction and exacerbation, chronic respiratory symptoms, middle ear infection, lower birth weight babies, and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome means nothing?


You say name 3.   Talk about a bogus propaganda question.  Its completely illogical.

First off death certificates list disease conditions as cause of death, not if one died from second hand smoke or let alone even smoking for that matter.  So no matter the names listed, you would always claim that there was no proof they died from second hand smoke. 



BTW  U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona called the evidence of the effects of passive smoke "indisputable" and said:  "The science is clear: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard that causes premature death and disease in children and non-smoking adults.".

Tobacco smoke has been shown to be responsible for indoor particulate matter  levels far exceeding official outdoor limits.  So indeed tobacco smoke is far worse than that barb b que.

[Ken Shelmerdine]

Let me get this straight.  You are now claiming that thickening of carotid artery walls (heart disease) is not considered harmful?  So the fact that its been shown to harm children, infants and reproductive health through acute lower respiratory tract illness, asthma induction and exacerbation, chronic respiratory symptoms, middle ear infection, lower birth weight babies, and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome means nothing?


You say name 3.   Talk about a bogus propaganda question.  Its completely illogical.

First off death certificates list disease conditions as cause of death, not if one died from second hand smoke or let alone even smoking for that matter.  So no matter the names listed, you would always claim that there was no proof they died from second hand smoke. 



BTW  U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona called the evidence of the effects of passive smoke "indisputable" and said:  "The science is clear: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard that causes premature death and disease in children and non-smoking adults.".

Tobacco smoke has been shown to be responsible for indoor particulate matter  levels far exceeding official outdoor limits.  So indeed tobacco smoke is far worse than that barb b que.

The American Environmental Protection Agency published a report that was said to demonstrate the link between passive smoking and ill health in non-smokers. In 1996 however a US federal court ruled that the EPA had completely failed to prove its case. It was found not only to have abandoned recognised statistical practice, but to have excluded studies which did not support its pre-determined conclusion, and to have been inconsistent in its classification of ETS compared with other substances.

Most recently of all, an explosive new study that seriously questions the impact of environmental tobacco smoke on health was published by the British Medical Journal (16 May 2003). According to the study, one of the largest of its kind, the link between environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

The analysis, by James Enstrom of the University of California, Los Angeles and Geoffrey Kabat of New Rochelle, New York, involved 118,094 California adults enrolled in the
American Cancer Society cancer prevention study in 1959, who were followed until 1998. Particular focus was on the 35,561 never smokers who had a spouse in the study with known smoking habits.

The authors found that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, was not significantly associated with death from coronary heart disease or lung cancer at any time or at any level of exposure. These findings, say the authors, suggest that environmental tobacco smoke could not plausibly cause a 30% increased risk of coronary heart disease, as is generally believed, although a small effect cannot be ruled out.

[BigSky]

The authors found that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, was not significantly associated with death from coronary heart disease or lung cancer at any time or at any level of exposure. These findings, say the authors, suggest that environmental tobacco smoke could not plausibly cause a 30% increased risk of coronary heart disease, as is generally believed, although a small effect cannot be ruled out.

 
Notice they did not say "was not associated".  As such, it does mean it is associated with some death.   

Glad you posted that because it disproves your claim: "that there's no real evidence that passive smoking is harmful"  Right there at the very least it proves it is harmful.

[okarol]

 
American Nonsmokers Rights Foundation
2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite J • Berkeley, California 94702 • (510) 841-3032 / FAX (510) 841-3071
www.no-smoke.org • anr@no-smoke.org
            Defending your right to breathe smokefree air since 1976

RESPONDING TO THE ENSTROM AND KABAT STUDY ON SECONDHAND SMOKE
November 2004
 
The tobacco industry has a long history of trying to cast doubt on the science of secondhand smoke. In
its latest attempt, the industry has funded a new study, published in the British Medical Journal. The
study, written by researchers funded by the tobacco industry, misrepresented data from the American
Cancer Society (ACS), and used flawed methodology to come to the inaccurate conclusion that
secondhand smoke does not cause an increased risk for lung cancer and heart disease. Don’t be fooled
by Big Tobacco. Secondhand smoke kills.
 
“The study is fundamentally flawed.” 
–British Medical Association1
 
The British Medical Journal published a study in its May 2003 issue entitled, “Environmental tobacco
smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-1998,” which was
authored by Dr. James E. Enstrom and Dr. Geoffrey C. Kabat. The study claimed that no causal
relationship was found between secondhand smoke and tobacco-related mortality, after analyzing data
from 35,351 adults over a period of thirty-eight years. As one might expect, the study generated an
enormous amount of media attention. Speculation abounded that the unanimous conclusion of public
health officials and medical practitioners, that secondhand smoke is hazardous to health, had been
premature. Big Tobacco and its allies hailed the study as proof that the adverse health effects of
secondhand smoke are greatly exaggerated. Under closer scrutiny, the inevitable was found to be true:
the Enstrom and Kabat secondhand smoke study was largely funded by tobacco industry dollars,
conducted by industry allies, and riddled with methodological errors. 
 
Although the Enstrom and Kabat secondhand smoke study has now largely been discredited, the
tobacco industry and its allies attempt to use the study to cast doubt upon the science of secondhand
smoke. This document provides some basic information regarding the study, its funding, and its
authors, and should help to counter any attempts to use the study to undermine the established body of
research confirming the health hazards of secondhand smoke. 
 
 
THE STUDY
 
 “The editors believe that this opinion piece is full of speculative assumptions of doubtful scientific
value. We could not judge the merits of your criticisms because your own data and methods were so
inadequately described. I should add that your article contains pejorative comments that should
have no place in responsible scientific discourse.”
—Letter from the Journal of the American Medical Association to James E. Enstrom2
 
The data and design of the Enstrom and Kabat secondhand smoke study has been widely criticized.
Even the British Medical Association, the publisher of the journal that printed the study, described the
research as being “fundamentally flawed.”3 The misuse of data and flawed methodology are two very
significant faults in the study.
 
Enstrom and Kabat did not gather original data for their study. Instead, it drew on data from the ACS’s
Cancer Prevention Study (CPS-I), and used only a small subset (approximately 10%) of the total CPS-I
data. Researchers at ACS repeatedly warned Enstrom that the data from CPS-I could not be used to
determine the health effects of secondhand smoke, and they spoke out against the study upon its
release, stating that their data had been misused.4 
 
The study used cohort methodology to look at the rate of mortality from heart disease and lung cancer
in nonsmokers who were married to smokers, covering a time period from 1959 to 1998. A severe
error in the study was the failure to establish a control group of nonsmokers who were unexposed to
secondhand smoke. Other critical methodological flaws include not measuring for secondhand smoke
exposure from any source other than the spouse, including workplace (where smoking was extremely
prevalent at the time); not taking into account either spouse’s smoking status after 1972, though the
study continued for 26 more years; and classifying the nonsmoking spouse as still exposed to
secondhand smoke in that 26 year period, during which time the “smoking spouse” could have quit
smoking or died, not to mention that they could have divorced or separated. 
 
 
THE FUNDING
 
“A substantial research commitment on your part is necessary in order for me to effectively compete
against the large mountain of epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the
health effects of ETS and active smoking.”
-- Dr. James E. Enstrom to Philip Morris Research Center5
 
The Enstrom and Kabat secondhand smoke study was initially funded by a grant from the Tobacco
Related Disease Research Program, an organization that manages funds generated by the Proposition
99 California state cigarette tax. After the program’s scientific, peer-review panel, denied continued
funding for the project, Enstrom sought out financial support from other sources. In 1997, he submitted
an application for,6 and ultimately received, $210,000 from Philip Morris and the Council on Tobacco
Research (CTR)7,8,9, a front group created in 1954 by the tobacco companies to fund research on
smoking and health.10 It became well known over the years for sponsoring flimsy scientific research
that promoted tobacco industry positions. 
 
 
THE AUTHORS
 
“For the past three years, I have done consulting and research on passive smoking for Jeffery L.
Furr of Womble Carlyle on behalf of RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris.”
-- Dr. James Enstrom to the Center of Indoor Air Research11
 
• Dr. James E. Enstrom: Enstrom has played down the support that he has received from the
tobacco industry, but his involvement with the industry can be traced back for many years. As
early as 1975, Enstrom solicited the CTR for $50,000 to “assess the possible role which other
factors besides smoking play in the etiology of cancer.”12 The Competing Interests section of
the Enstrom and Kabat secondhand smoke study states: “In recent years [Enstrom] has received
funds originating from the tobacco industry for his tobacco related epidemiological research
because it has been impossible for his to obtain equivalent funds from other sources.”13
Although the CTR, the Tobacco Institute, and Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR) are all
now defunct, Enstrom continued to contract with Philip Morris.14,15
 
• Dr. Geoffrey Kabat: Kabat’s connections with the tobacco industry over the years have been
well documented. A search of internal industry documents finds Kabat’s name listed as an
industry resource more than 7,000 times, showing his involvement with, among others, Philip
Morris, R.J. Reynolds, American Tobacco Company, and CIAR.16
 
CONCLUSION
 
Enstrom and Kabat’s substantial methodological flaws, combined with the tobacco industry’s funding
of the study, and other studies supported by the tobacco industry, can help you to inoculate others
against this misinformation. Over one hundred independently funded, peer-reviewed studies show that
secondhand smoke exposure causes serious disease and death in nonsmokers. Don’t let this one study
undermine the body of solid science that confirms the hazardous health effects of secondhand smoke
exposure. For more information on Enstrom and Kabat or other studies that challenge the credible
science of secondhand smoke, please contact us at (510) 841-3032 or at anr@no-smoke.org.
 
www.no-smoke.org/pdf/enstrom_kabat.pdf

REFERENCES
 
                                                 
1
 [n.a.], “BMA response to BMJ paper ‘effect of passive smoking on health’,” British Medical Association, May 16, 2003.
2
 Rennie, D. “[Letter from JAMA to James E. Enstrom re: published study.],”  Philip Morris, August 23, 1996, Bates No.
2073788479. Accessed on November 17, 2004. Download at http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kiv85c00. 
3
 [n.a.], “BMA response to BMJ paper ‘effect of passive smoking on health’,” British Medical Association, May 16, 2003.
4
 [n.a.], “American Cancer Society Condemns Tobacco Industry Study for Inaccurate Use of Data,” American Cancer
Society, May 15, 2003. 
5
 Enstrom, J., “Proposed Research on the Relationship of Low Levels of Active Smoking to Mortality,” Philip Morris,
January 15, 1997, Bates No. 2075873003. Accessed on November 17, 2004. Download at
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dfk37d00. 
6
 Ibid., 1997.
7
 Carchman, RA., “Principal Investigator @ D James E. Enstrom, PhD, MPH, Grant Title @D ‘Relationship of Low Levels
of Active Smoking to Mortality’,” Philip Morris, January 30, 1998, Bates No. 2063654067. Accessed on November 17,
2004. Download at http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hyf67e00.
8
 CTR, “CHECK TRANSMITTAL FORM GRANT NUMBER: 3333AR2,” Council for Tobacco Research, February 11,
1998, Bates No. 40001768. Accessed on November 14, 2004. Download at http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dlx89c00. 
9
 CTR, “CHECK TRANSMITTAL FORM GRANT NUMBER:333AR2,” Council for Tobacco Research, July 11, 1997,
Bates No. 40001771. Accessed on November 17, 2004. Download at http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ilx89c00. 
10
 Glantz, SA.; Slade, J.; Bero, L.; Hanauer, P.; Barnes, D., The Cigarette Papers (University of California Press: Berkeley,
Los Angeles, London) 1996. 
11
 Enstrom, J., “Proposed Research on Passive Smoking,” Brown and Williamson, July 15, 1996, Bates No. 566944402.
Accessed on November 17, 2004. Download at http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tww91d00. 
12
 Enstrom, J. “[Letter re: funding for tobacco study within Mormon community.],” Council for Tobacco Research, June 3,
1975, Bates No. 50207891-7892. Accessed on November 17, 2004. Download at http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ldi79c00. 
13
 Enstrom, J.; Kabat, G. “Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of
Californians, 1960-1998,” British Medical Journal, Volume 326, May 17, 2003. 
14
 [n.a.], “WSA / INBIFO Project Milestone Status Report 000519 – 000615,” Philip Morris, June 22, 2000, Bates No.
2505591306/1310. Accessed on November 17, 2004. Download at http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mqb19c00. 
                                                                                                                                                                       
15
Nelson, BL, “[Letter re: speaking opportunity.],” Philip Morris, May 18, 2000, Bates No. 2073736520. Accessed on
November 17, 2004. Download at  http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vrx85c00. 
16
 [n.a.], “[Search in American Legacy Tobacco Documents Library re: Kabat.],” http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu, November
17, 2004. 

 
www.no-smoke.org/pdf/enstrom_kabat.pdf