Comments on: Cutler and Glaeser on Why do Europeans Smoke More Than Americans? Part II

By: Hank Roberts

Hank Roberts — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 18:10:41 +0000

’s’OK. If I didn’t have the flu I’d try to find you the references at tobaccodocuments.org. I hope you get Dr. Glantz to participate here.

By: Roger Pielke Jr.

Roger Pielke Jr. — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 16:21:07 +0000

Hank, sorry for the typo …

By: Roger Pielke Jr.

Roger Pielke Jr. — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 16:11:48 +0000

Hnak- Thanks much.

By: hank

hank — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 15:54:52 +0000

Roger, I’m saying if you haven’t talked to Stanton Glantz, you should pick up the telephone and call him. This isn’t an obscure, unstudied area. Asking the Internet to do research is too naive.

By: Roger Pielke Jr.

Roger Pielke Jr. — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:25:52 +0000

Hank, Eli- Thanks for your comments. But you grossly misread my post if you think that I am trying “to argue that nothing happened as a result of the long battle to dig out the fake science.”

Let’s be clear — I am not trying to argue this point. I am trying to understand WHAT exactly has been the effect on societal outcomes of the long battle over smoking science. Cutler and Glaeser take a swing at part of this question, imperfectly in my view. So I am looking for more science on this subject. It seems from the literature I have seen that this question has not been rigorously answered.

From your replies it appears that you don’t have the answer either. But if you do come up with specific references to peer reviewed literature, please do share them.

Thanks!!

By: Hank Roberts

Hank Roberts — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 03:57:50 +0000

You ought to just ask Stanton Glantz directly. I’m pretty sure what you’re looking it is a tiny slice of the process by which the tobacco industry transferred its marketing and sales effort away from the US to the Third World around 1970, staying ahead of the public health people by about ten years — it’s been well documented.

This is cherry-picking to try to argue that nothing happened as a result of the long battle to dig out the fake science. Anything under Google Scholar with Glantz as a coauthor will get you started understanding this rather deep and wide area of public health research. The British Medical Journal is a good place to search as well.

By: Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 03:32:40 +0000

I have provided some rather long and detailed answers to questions about tobacco mortality http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/04/tobacco-mortality.html and the effectiveness of the tobacco companies responses http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/04/effective-tobacco-advertising.html.

By: Roger Pielke Jr.

Roger Pielke Jr. — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 02:33:17 +0000

Eli- You write, “there are many studies which show that it had more than a marginal effect.”

Good. Some citations to these studies would be most useful. Thanks.

By: Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 02:21:51 +0000

Hi Roger, you might start by reading the documents at http://tobaccodocuments.org/ Let us put it this way, there was an impressive FUD campaign and there are many studies which show that it had more than a marginal effect.

By: Roger Pielke Jr.

Roger Pielke Jr. — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 01:54:47 +0000

Eli- Thanks much for this link, good stuff. One response, you write, “For the effects of denying the harm of tobacco …”

How do you know cause (denial) and effect (trends in societal smoking outcomes)?

Thanks.