Up in Smoke: From Legislation to Litigation in Tobacco Politics

by Martha A. Derthick

In a landmark report by the U.S. Surgeon General in 1964, the government warned its citizens of the adverse effects of smoking on their health and took a series of steps to discourage smoking. These steps stemmed from "ordinary politics" –that is, actions taken or authorized by legislatures. 1994 heralded a new era in tobacco of "adversarial legalism," wherein state attorneys general sued leading cigarette manufacturers for the harm they had done to public health. These law-suits culminated in the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) that directed an estimated $250 billion to state governments over the next 25 years and imposed new marketing and advertising restrictions. In her second edition, Martha Derthick introduces new evidence from 5 years of experience under the MSA to show that the states were more interested in raising revenue than in improving tobacco control, that the enrichment of wealthy tort lawyers violated the legal profession′s ethics, and that the agreement, ironically, spawned the rise of small, upstart cigarette manufacturers able to undersell the major companies. In this clearly written, fast-paced case study, Derthick concludes that the tobacco lawsuits not only produced flawed public policy that flouted the American system of checks and balances, but has done little to improve or better safeguard public health.

Genres: Nonfiction, History, Political Science

248 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2001

Reviews

[Bellolei Bibles · Rating 5 out of 5]

Remains an amazing book to read and learn about adversarial legalism. Best bit easily the quests of the lawyers and FDA crew, Kessler and his crazy behaviour was enamoring to say the least.
"The typical employees of the FDA also did not carry concealed guns, as did Light and Doyle." (82)
"William L. Dunn Jr., who has been known within the company in the 1970s as the 'nicotine kid.'" (84)
Educational and genuinely more entertaining than an only for cable tv detective show.

[Camilo Daza · Rating 4 out of 5]

Demonstrates a great interplay among the litigative, legislative, and bureaucratic processes of lawmaking through the lens of tobacco politics.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Up in Smoke" functioned as a case study of the political process for me. Specifically, it cleared up several questions I had about the role of different governments, and the interplay of power. I really don't think the framers imagined a tyranny of the minority. The alliance between tort lawyers and attorneys general overshadowed the voice of the majority of citizens and chambered legislators---this, in effect, is an infringement on the principle of federalism and the rule of ordinary politics.

[Lauren · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good read. Derthick makes a forceful case. I agree in some parts, disagree in others. I think she has a tendency (at least in this book) to make overly broad statements, and I think she underestimates the degree of regulatory capture and gridlock that currently exists in Congress. Acknowledgment of those two problems could add important caveats to an otherwise very well written book.

[Lark · Rating 2 out of 5]

Lot of history, not enough analysis. Or predictions. But then I was hoping it'd help me write this Food & Drug paper.

[Catherine · Rating 4 out of 5]

People who say that this book is "all about tobacco" or that it doesn't have enough analysis probably didn't understand the book because there's no Sparknotes version. Too bad.

[Mike Bascom · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a good unbiased as possible policy overview of smoking.