Puff the Electric Drag

The Mechanical Bride: Folklore of Industrial Man was a witty commentary on the effects of technology on popular culture by Canadian Professor Marshall McLuhan, published in 1951. The same theme has been echoed in other literary works such as The Love Machine, The Electric Horseman and A Clockwork Orange.

Today electronics and cybernetics dominate the culture far more than in 1951: we have e-mail, e-tickets, telecommuting, even "phone sex" (no substitute for the real thing, I kid you not!) According to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, today we also have "high-tech lynching."(1) When I was growing up in a northside Milwaukee tenement, you could see a real live mouse running about; now the only "mouse" you'll find in the typical home is connected to a computer.

So, perhaps it was inevitable that even the most visceral human activity known as smoking (that is, putting the smoke from burning leaves into your lungs, where it can do the most harm) is being challenged by an electronic substitute: the Smoking Everywhere Electronic Cigarette! (2) This gizmo is a steel tube, about the size of a real cigarette, containing a nicotine cartridge, an atomizer, a computer-chip controller and a lithium battery.

When the user puffs on the e-cig, a red light goes on at the other end and a smoke-like vapor is emitted while a nicotine-rich vapor enters the user's mouth. From more than a few feet away, the user appears to be smoking a real cigarette. The user gets the nicotine "hit" that he craves, but without the carbon monoxide, tars and other carcinogens that accompany tobacco smoke. The emitted vapor is odorless and harmless, and no ashes are produced.

The marketing materials for the e-cig claim that it can be used in places where smoking is prohibited, but I do not believe it. Allowing use of the e-cig in such places will give smokers the false impression that real smoking is also allowed, and will make enforcing no-smoking rules too difficult.

But will smokers concerned about their health accept the e-cig as a substitute? The product is too new to tell right now, but there is a real chance it will cut into the cigarette market, especially among hard-core nicotine addicts that have tried and failed to quit smoking altogether. If so, the product could have the salutary effect of reducing new cases of emphysema, lung cancer, and perhaps even heart disease. Nicotine is a powerful addictive drug, but it is far less harmful than many of the other chemicals ingested with cigarette smoke, such as hydrogen cyanide.

As someone who tried smoking (in 1959) and did not like it, I am glad I will never need the e-cigarette. But to those who are too hooked on nicotine to quit smoking anything, I say, "Go ahead and puff the new nicotine delivery device, but just don't inhale!"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) A derisive term he used to describe the sexual harassment charges made against him during his 1991 confirmation hearings.

(2) See www.SmokingEverywhere.com for details.

Smoking Gun

The US Supreme Court on March 31 let stand an Oregon verdict obtained by widow Mayola Williams, whose husband Jesse died of lung cancer, against the Phillip Morris Company. Jesse Williams started smoking in the 1950's, and was diagnosed with lung cancer six months before he died in 1997. Including interest, the amount Phillip Morris must pay is about $150 million, which will be split between the State and Mrs. Williams. (1)

There have been numerous suits filed by sick smokers and their families against tobacco companies, and the verdicts have gone both ways. The Williams verdict (originally nearly $80 million) was the largest in any smoking case up to that time. By declining to review the size of the award (after twice sending it back to the Oregon Supreme Court for review), the US Supreme Court has, in effect, allowed a state court to penalize a tobacco company more than ever before.

But is this verdict fair? Since smokers have been warned in many ways (including statements on the packages of cigarettes since 1966) that smoking may lead to lung cancer and other diseases, have smokers knowledgeably accepted these risks?

The link between smoking and lung cancer was established by the early 1950's, well before the late Jesse Williams began smoking. Cigarettes were already nicknamed "cancer sticks" at that time. The Readers' Digest used to feature an article in every issue about the health dangers of smoking. Information was also readily available from the American Lung Association and other groups at that time.

The US government, perhaps influenced powerful congressmen from tobacco-producing states, was very slow to respond to the problem. For example, through the Korean War, the Veterans Administration permitted tobacco firms to distribute free cigarettes to patients at VA hospitals. (2) Only in 1964 did the US Surgeon General issue a definitive report blaming smoking for lung cancer, other lung diseases, and cardio-vascular diseases. The familiar package warnings appeared less than two years later.

So, Mr Williams could have easily learned that smoking was known cause of lung cancer before he started smoking, but maybe he did not know. The tobacco firms were not legally required to warn him at that time, and they did not. Neither did the federal or state governments. Unlike their customers, the tobacco firms have known all along that cigarettes are highly dangerous to the health of those who smoke them, but the industry used its considerable wealth and marketing ability to convince the public that smoking was safe.

If only Mr Williams, and millions like him, would have quite smoking as soon as the Surgeon General's report came out in 1964, or even when the package warnings appeared months later, he and they might have enjoyed additional decades of good health. Although the percentage of American men who smoke has declined (from nearly 30% in 1964 to about 24% now), those who have tried to quit after starting have found it extremely difficult, and most have failed.

That is because nicotine, a key ingredient in cigarette smoke, is highly addictive. In fact, a whole new industry has grown up to fight nicotine addiction: pills, patches, even support groups. Internal memos (leaked by "whisteblower" employees) prove that the tobacco industry has known for many years how addictive nicotine is. If selling someone a harmful and addictive drug does not incur liability, then product liability must not exist.

So, Mr Williams got hooked, got sick, and died; does that justify an award that has grown to almost $150 million? In most (if not all) states, legal limits on "wrongful death" are far lower than this sum. Clearly, the verdict was a case of "punitive damages." Yet, there is no monetary equivalent to human life or suffering, and I agree with the plaintiff that this is a case in which punitive damages are justified. I cannot put a dollar-figure on just the right penalty, so I cannot quarrel with the jury's determination in Williams.

Phillip Morris will survive this verdict, but if many more verdicts anywhere near this big are entered against the cigarette makers, the domestic cigarette business will not survive. But more Americans will survive, and I like that better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Associated Press, April 1, 2009

(2) Despite the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, more veterans are being treated for smoking-related illnesses by the VA than battle injuries.