12 months prior to interview. In this analysis, "success" in quitting was
arbitrarily defined as persons who had recently been regular smokers
who had attempted to quit within I2 months and who had not smoked
for at least 6 months prior to interview. Persons who smoked regularly
within 1 year prior to the interview and who had attempted to quit
during the last year but had been off cigarettes less than 6 months are
excluded from consideration in this analysis. Unsuccessful quitters
were defined as regular smokers at the time of interview who reported
having attempted seriously to quit at least once within the I2 months
prior to interview date. Interpretation of these data is complicated by
the fact that the primary brand reported for successful quitters
represents the brand smoked prior to a quit attempt, while unsuccess-
ful quitters' brands are those smoked after a quit attempt. Thus, clear
distinction cannot be made between the possible explanations. The
data show that higher proportions of smokers who use the two lowest
"tar" or nicotine cigarette products are found among the unsuccessful
quitters than among successful quitters. The proportion of recent
regular smokers who use cigarettes yielding <5 mg of "tar" is lowest
for persons who did not attempt to quit (3.8 percent), intermediate
among those who succeeded in quitting (4.6 percent), and highest
among those who failed at an attempt to quit (4.9 percent).
Grouping these smokers into larger categories by "tar" level (e.g.,
the percent smoking cigarettes yielding <lO mg or those smoking
cigarettes yielding <15 mg "tar") shows that a lower proportion of
recent smokers who successfully quit used lower "tar" products than
do recent smokers who did not attempt to quit, while smokers who
failed in an attempt to quit reported smoking lower "tar" products in
the highest proportions. Conversely, a lower proportion of unsuccessful
attempters currently smoke higher "tar" products (65.3 percent) than
is found among either nonattempters (69.0 percent) or successful
quitters (72.2 percent). A similar relationship was observed by nicotine
yield: the proportion of persons choosing the lower yield products
(<l.O mg) was highest for unsuccessful quitters, intermediate for
nonattempters, and lowest among successful quitters.
Thus, these data are consistent with the postulated tendency of
smokers to switch to lower "tar" and nicotine cigarettes following an
unsuccessful attempt to quit smoking.
The relationship between number of serious attempts to quit
smoking and the "tar" or nicotine yield of the primary cigarette
smoked is shown in Table 11. Note should be taken that the table
includes only current regular smokers who have tried at least once to
quit. For the lowest categories of "tar" and nicotine yields, there is a
suggestion of a shift in the population toward a greater number of
cessation attempts. No significant difference is observed in the
frequency distributions of smokers of other "tar" and nicotine
products.


TABLE IO.-Estimated percentage distribution of recent smokers
      by status of recent attempt to quit, by "tar" or
      nicotine yield of primary brand, July 1978 through
       December 1979*

status of
recent
attempt to
quit smoking

S-ful     4.6 (13)   5.6 (16)   17.6 (50)   63.4 (1Ea)   8.8 (35)    23  `B4
unaudlll   4.9 (152)   9.2 (286)   20.5 (636)  59.7 (1849)   5.6 (175)   25.6  8098
No attempt    3.8 (355)   8.3 (721)   19.0 (1655)   58.1 (5070)   10.9 (950)   72.1  8731
Total       4.1 (500)   8.4 (1023)   19.3 (2341)  53.6 (7099)   9.5 (1150)   100.0 l21l3

<6.5 w   0.549 mg  l.cL1.2 mg  131.6 mg   21.7 mg
% (n)    % (n)    % ho    % (n)    % (n)

Sueeesaful     4.6  (13)   26.8  (76)   48.0  (122)   25.0  (71)    0.7  (2)    23  284
unaudul    5.0 (155)   32.2  (=v   39.7 (lz29)   223  VW    0.7  (23)    25.6  30%
No attempt     4.0 (351)   29.2 (2553)   33.3 (8340)   27.1 (2368)    1.4 (119)    721  3731
Total        4.3 (519)   30.0 (362s)   38.7 (4691)   25.8 (3131)    1.2 (144)   100.0 12113

o ?*???????? ????

SOURCE: Baaed on data from the l979 Smoking Supplement of the National Health Inter&r Suvey

TABLE Il.-Estimated percentage distribution of current regular
      smokers by number of serious attempts to quit
      smoking, by "tar" or nicotine level, U.S., 1979

Tar I` PI bid    L        2          3         4       25
<5             27.3     KY     Gi     x7     iii
5-9            35.7        289        15.8        4.4        152
w-14           36.9        29.1         14.6        5.5        l3.9
15-19           38.6        26.3        14.7        5.3        l5.0
2m             37.6        23.7        14.9        5.4        18.5

Total            372        27.1        14.6        5.3        15.7

. .
m bl3)
<0.5             26.8        29.4        102        5.7        27.0
0.5-0.9          37.4        28.6        14.9        5.1        14.1
l&12          39.5        26.7        14.1        5.0        147
1.11.6          35.9        252        15.7        62        17.0
21.7            38.6        25.1        21.1        23        129

Total            37.3        27.1         14.6        5.3        15.7

SOURCE: Based on data from the 1979 Smoking Suppkment of the National Health Interview Survey.

The relationship of cigarette choice to the duration of the most
recent unsuccessful quit attempt is shown in Table 12 for current
regular smokers. Although there are large variations in the individual
durations within each "tar" or nicotine grouping, the mean durations


TABLE 12.-Mean duration of most recent attempt to quit, by
      "tar" or nicotine yield of current primary brand,
      current regular smokers, 1979*

                           Inl
<5 w           3.4             (132)
5-g mg           3.1             (20
lo-14 mg           3.8             Gw
l&l9 mg           3.5             (180
mm3           4.1             uw

  Total           3.6             mw

<0.5 mg           3.4              (W
0.5-0.9 mg           3.7              @w
l.@-l.2 mg           3.3             ww
l.sl.6 mg           3.9             (sp)
21.7 mg           6.3              (16)

   Total           3.6             (nss)

SOURCE: Bud on data fmm the 1676 Smoking Supplement of the Ndiod E~~VI Interview Survey.

do not exhibit a relationship to either "tar" or nicotine yield. The
higher mean duration of quit attempt among the smokers of highest
yield products must be interpreted in light of the small numbers of
individuals within those yield groupings.

Summay

1. Public awareness of the dangers of smoking has steadily
increased since 1965. In 1978, more than 90 percent of all
Americans believed cigarette smoking to be hazardous to health.
2. Cigarette product choice has shifted dramatically since the 1950s.
In 1979, 91.7 percent of U.S. smokers used filter-tipped ciga-
rettes, compared with 1.4 percent in the early 1950s.

3. Lower "tar" cigarettes conventionally have been defined as
yielding 15 mg of "tar" or less per cigarette. The proportion of all
cigarettes consumed in the United States that are lower "tar"
has increased from 3.6 percent in 1970 to almost 50 percent in
1979. In 1979,53.5 percent of all cigarette brands marketed in the
United States yielded 15 or fewer mg of "tar."

4. Since 1968, the "tar" content of the "average cigarette" in the
United States has declined by 32.2 percent, and nicotine content
has fallen by 25.6 percent. These declines may be partially
accounted for by lower tobacco weight per cigarette-down 23.8
percent from 1968 to 1978-and by the greater length of the
filter and overwrap of the average cigarette, which could result
in a declining number of machine puffs per cigarette.


5. The prevalence of smoking in the U.S. adult and adolescent
populations has continued to decline. In 1979,32.5 percent of the
adult population smoked cigarettes (36.1 percent of men and 29.4
percent of women). However, evidence suggests that the average
daily number of cigarettes consumed by those adults who
continue to smoke has increased over several decades. The
availability and use of lower "tar" cigarettes have increased over
recent years.
6. In 1979, 33.3 percent of adult regular smokers used cigarettes
yielding 15 mg "tar" or less. Studies show that women smokers
are more likely to use lower yield cigarettes than men are, and
white smokers use lower yield cigarettes in greater proportions
than do blacks. Smokers of higher income and education also
select lower yield cigarettes in a higher percent of cases.
7. A large national survey found that smokers in older aged cohorts
choose both the lowest and highest yield cigarettes in higher
proportions than do younger cohorts.
8. Although black smokers choose cigarettes of higher "tar" and
nicotine in greater proportions than do whites, the lower daily
number of cigarettes smoked by blacks suggests that their
average daily intake of "tar" and nicotine may be lower than that
of white smokers.
9. In 1979, 33.5 percent of adolescent smokers (age 12 to 18) used
lower "tar" cigarettes, compared with 6.7 percent in 1974. Boys
and girls smoke cigarettes of about the same level of "tar"
  content.
10. Adult smokers started smoking regularly at the average age of
18 years. One survey showed that the higher the "tar" level of the
cigarette currently smoked, the younger the reported age of
beginning smoking.
11. Evidence from a large national survey does not support a
correlation between a greater mean number of cigarettes smoked
per day by users of lower "tar" and nicotine cigarettes than by
higher "tar" users.
12. In a national survey, smokers of lower "tar" and nicotine
cigarettes more frequently reported having attempted to quit at
least once, and among these smokers, a higher proportion report
having attempted unsuccessfully to quit multiple times. The
applicability of these data to defining of the role of "tar" or
nicotine yields of cigarettes in quitting behavior is not clear in
the absence of more detailed longitudinal data.
13. Although a greater proportion of unsuccessful quitters reported
smoking the lowest "tar" and nicotine products than did recent
successful quitters in one large survey, interpretation of these
data is made difficult by the noncomparability of brand reported


(i.e., unsuccessful quitters reported the brand smoked after an
attempt, successful quitters reported the brand smoked prior m
the attempt).

14. In a large national suwey, the mean duration of the latest
unsuccessful attempt to quit shows no clear relationship to "tar"
or nicotine yields.

Addendum: Comparison of "Tar" and Nicotine Yields of
Cigarettes in 1978 and 1979

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has conducted tests of
commercially available cigarettes in the United States since 1968. The
FTC measures "tar" and nicotine yields of approximately 99.5 percent
of the brands available in the United States and issues annual reports
on these measurements.

This discussion examines the changes in cigarette yields from 1978 to
1979 as published by the FTC. The following should be helpful in
estimating to what extent the coding of NHIS brand data for 1979 by
the "tar" yields measured in 1978 might influence the results presented
above in this section.

Yields of `*Tar" and Nicotine

The cigarettes tested in 1978 (sample collected in 1977) had a mean
"tar" yield of 15.4 mg and in 1979 (sample collected in 1979) the mean
"tar" yield was 13.6. The corresponding mean yields of nicotine were
1.02 and 0.97 mg in the 1978 and 1979 FTC reports (Table 13). These
reductions in yields occurred regardless of the different parameters of
cigarette type (length, menthol/plain, package type, and fil-
ter/nonfilter). If only filter-tipped cigarettes are considered, the mean
nicotine yield declined from 0.95 to 0.90 mg. For all 1979 varieties,
there was a significant difference in "tar" yield between filter and
nonfilter cigarettes, and between menthol and nonmenthol varieties of
cigarettes. Examining filtered cigarettes only, the length of cigarette
was the only parameter that showed a significant difference in mean
"tar" level.

Correlation of Varieties Fteported in 1978 and 1979

There were 144 varieties of cigarettes marketed in both years (1978
and 1979) that were unchanged, as defined by exact variety name,
length, menthol and filter status, and package type. Despite the
identity of all five parameters, the mean "tar" level of varieties
declined over the period mentioned (Table 14). The mean "tar" level
declined from 15.3 mg in 1978 to 14.8 in 1979; for filter-tipped
cigarettes only, the mean "tar" level declined from 13.8 to 13.3 mg.
These decreases, although slight in absolute terms, are statistically
significant. The change in nicotine yields for these same brands of
cigarettes over the same period is negligible.

230


TABLE 13.-M-n yield of "tar" and nicotine of cigarettes, by type of modifier, all and filtertip varieties, U.S.,
       1978 and 1979

Type of modifier
soit
Hard

Filt.t?r
Nonfiltel:

<lo0 mm
>lOO mm

15.4      13.4
15.3      14.0

Menthol          14.0      122.
RegulW          16.1      14.4

"Tar" m

1973     1979
15.9     13.4
15.1      14.7

13.9      l2.4-
25.1      24.7

15.4      13.6

All varieties

Nicotine (mg)
1978     1979
-     -
1.03      096
1.00      1.04


095      0.90**
1.48      1.53


099      093
1.06      1.01


0.97     090
1.05      1.01


1.02      097

No. of varieties       "Tar" (mg)
1978     1979      1978      1979
138   - 149      14.0      122
29      21       13.4      13.3

145      158
22      18

99      100       126      10.9'.
68      76       15.3      14.0

58      lx
109      112

167      176

13.8      122
13.9      125


13.9      124

Filtertip varieties

  Nicotine (mg)
1978     1979
-     -
097      090
0.88     0.91

No. of varieties

1978     1979
- -
119      134

26      24

0.85      O.&F     rl      82
1.06      1.01      68      76


096      0.90      57      61
096     0.W      88      94


0.95      090      145      158

o -P <.ool.
o P <.06.

SOURCE: Federal Trade ?????????* (A, 5).


TABLE 14.-Mean yield of Yar" and nicotine of the varieties of cigarette marketed in both 1978 and 1979, by
      type of modifier, all and filtertip varieties, U.S.

Type of modifier
soft
Hard

Filter         13.8      13.3"     0.95      0.96         126
Nonfilter       25.6      24.7      1.58      1.56          18

<lOO mm       15.3      14.8'      1.01      1.02          83         a.6      121'
>lW mm       152      14.7.     1. 05      1.06          61         l6.2      14.7'

Menth01
Resulw


Total

14.0      13.4.      0.97      0.97         54         13.9      13988
16.0      15.6'      1.06      1.08          90         18.8      l3.4'

isa      14.8"     1.03      1.09         144         l3.8      18a**

  "Tar" m         Nicotine (mg)
1978      1979      1978      1979
152      14.7'.     1.03      1.03
16.5      15.0      1.03      1.05

All varieties                             Filtertip varieties

Nicotine (mg)

No. of varieties

   119
   25

"Tar" (mg)
1973      1979

19.9   ii.&
13.6      13.4

1978      1979      No. of varieties
0.96      097          1@4

O.h9      0.93          a?

0.86      0.86           66
1.06      1.06           61


0.97      0.96          63
0.94      0.96           73


0.96      0.96          126

.`P <.ool.
o P <.06.


TABLE 15.-Comparison of "tar" and nicotine yield on the
      varieties of cigarette marketed in both 1978 and
       1979, U.S.

   "Tar" yield         Mean "tar"        Mean rlimtine         No. of
    in year       difference (mg)     difference (mg)         varieties
   1978 - 1979                        -0.0157             7
   1978 < 1979         -0.6945            am829             55
  1978 > 1979          1.2366            0.0478             82

    Total             0.4958            XL0062            144

Further examination of the changes in the "tar" and nicotine yield
occurring in the same varieties of cigarettes over this period is
presented in Table 15. Of the 144 brands reported on in both periods,
only 7 showed no difference in mean "tar" level. Fifty-five brands
showed a slight increase, with the mean difference being less than 1
mg. Eighty-two brands, however, showed a decline from the 1978
reported yields to the 1979 yield. Once again, however, the mean
decrease was small, only 1.3 mg.

"Tar" and Nicotine Yields of New Brands in 1979

There were 32 varieties of cigarettes defined as new in the 1979 FTC
report (Tables 16 and 17). A "new" variety was defined as a different
name (such as a varietal name change by addition of the word
"lights"), or by a change in one of the other four varietal parameters of
filter, length, package type, or menthol status (e.g., a nonfiltered
cigarette changing to filtered). The average "tar" and nicotine yields
for these 32 new brands in 1979 were 8.5 and 0.67 mg, respectively.
Except for a single new variety, the new varieties yielded less than 15
mg of "tar," with two-thirds of them yielding less than 10 mg "tar." A
similar examination of new 1979 varieties by nicotine yield showed a
similar trend toward lower yields, with 81 percent of them yielding leas
than 0.9 mg of nicotine.

Applications to the Discussion

As noted in the body of this Report, all NHIS variety data on the
Smoking Supplement collected in interviews during 1978 and 1979
were coded to the FTC 1978 "tar" and nicotine yields. Since the
cigarettes reported on in 1978 were collected in 1977, and since the
updated measures of yield for 1979 were not available in time for their
use in coding the 1979 smoking data, the described distribution of
smokers by "tar" and nicotine yields of their cigarettes is conservative
and underestimates to some extent the proportion of smokers who use
lower yield products.

233


TABLE 16.-Mean yield of Yar" and nicotine of the new
      varieties of cigarette marketed in 1979, by type of
      modifier, U.S.

z             6` rr

soft                  8.3              0.66              30
Hard                 117              0.82               2

Fslter                 6.5              0.67              32
Nonfilter

<100 mm              6.5              0.54              17
>lOO mm              10.8              0.82              15


Menthol               7.0              0.57              11
Resul-               9.4              0.72              21


Total                 8.5              0.67              32

SOURCE Federal Trade-n (4.5).

TABLE 17.-Distribution of "tar" and nicotine yield of the new
      varieties of cigarette marketed in 1979, U.S.

            <5        5-9.9       10.0-14.9     15.0-19.9      Total

N        Y-     ic         10         1         32
5%'             21.9        43.8         31.3        3.1        100.0

    <0.49     0.5M3.69     0.7wl.89      0.90-1.09     1.10-123      Total

N   s       4         13          4         2         52
%     26.1       l2.5        40.6         a.5        6s        1lM.o


SOURCE: Fe&d Trade Commiaiia (&9.

234


References

(1) FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. Report to Cimgrsss Parsuam? to ULe Federal
    Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. Washington, D.C., Federal Trade
    Commission, June 30,1968,62 pp.
(2) FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. Report on "Tar" and N&t&e Content of
    th.e Smoke of 142 Varieties of Cigarettes. Washington, DC., Federal Trade
    Commission, July 1972.
(3) FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. Report on "Tar" and Nicotine Content of
    the Smoke of 169 Varieties of C@omtt.cs. Washington, D.C., Federal Trade
    Commission, November 1976.
(4) FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. Report ojti "Tar"and Nicotine Content of
    the Smoke of 167 Varieties of Cigarettes. Washington, D.C., Federal Trade
    Commission, May 1978.
(5) FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. Rqm& of "Tar"and Nicotine Content ofthe
    Smoke of 176 Varieties of C&r&es. Washington, D.C., Federal Trade
    Commission, December 1979,l2 pp.
(6) FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. &nor? to Congress Pursuant to the public
    Health C%garctte Smoking Act for the Year 1978. Washington, DC., Federal
    Trade Commission, December 24,1979,32 pp.
(7) GALLUP OPINION INDEX. Smoking in America, Public Attitudes and
    Behavior. Gallup Opinia Indez 155: l-36, June 1978.
(8) HAMMOND, E.C., GARFINKEL, L. Changes in cigarette smoking. Journal of
    the National Cancer In&tub 33(l): 49-64, July 1964.
(9) HAMMOND, E.C., GARFINKEL, L. Influence of health on smoking habits. In:
    Haenszel, W. (Editor). Epidcmidogdca Appvaches to the Study of Cancer and
    other chronic Diseases. NationaI Cancer Institute Monograph No. 19: 269285,
    January 1966.
(10) HAMMOND, E.C., GARFINKEL, L. Changes in cigarette smoking 1959-1966.
    Americun Juwnal of Public Health 58(l): 3645, January 1968.
(11) HAMMOND, E.C., HORN, D. Smoking and death rates-Report on forty-four
    months of follow-up of 18'7,783 men. II. Death rates by cause. JuuvnaZ of the
    American Me&xl Associution 166(11): 1294-1303, March 15,1958.
(16) JENKINS, R.A., QUINCY, R.B., GUERIN, M.R Selected Cunsttiuenta in t&
    Smokes of U.S. Corn- C+retix "Tar," Nicotine, carbon Monavi& and
    Ca.+n Diozidc. U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
    Publication No. ORNL/TM-6870, May 1979,42 pp.
(18) KOZLOWSKI, L.T., RICKERT, W.S., ROBINSON, J.C., GRUNBERG, NE.
    Have tar and nicotine yields of cigarettes changed? Se&.x 209(4464): 155&
    1561, September 26,1989.
(14) IAVOIE, E.J., HECHT, S.S., HOFFMANN, D., WYNDER, E.L. The leas
    harmful cigarette and tobacco smoke flavors. In: Gori, G.B., Bock, F.G.
    (EZdhrs). Banbury Report 3-A Saje Cipw-ette? Cold Spring Harbor, New
   York, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, 1980, pp. 251460.
(15) LEVIN, M.L., GOLDSTEIN, H., GERHARDT, P.R Cancer and tobacco
    smoking. A preliminary report Journal of the American Medical Association
    143(4): 336-338, May 27,195O.
(16) MILLS, C.A., PORTER, M.M. Tobacco smoking habits and cancer of the mouth
   and respiratory system. Cancer Research 10: 539-542,1959.
(I 7) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION. Teenage Smoking: Immediate and
   ,5vrq Term Pu&rn.r. U.S. Department of He&h, Education, and Welfare,
    National Institute of Education, November 1979,259 pp.
(18) ROPER ORGANIZATION. A Study of A&k Attitudes Toward Cigarette
   Smoking and the Tobaux Zndu&y in 1978. The Roper organization, May 1978.


(19) RUSSELL, M.A.H. The case for medium-nicotine, low-tar, lowxarbon monoxide
  cigarettes In: Gori, G.B., Bock, F.G. (Editors). Banbuw Z&q& J-A safe
  Cigarette? Cold Spring Harbor, New York, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory,
   1980, pp. 297308.

(20) SCHACHTER, S. Pharmacological and psychological determinanta of smoking.
  Annals of Intern& Me&c& @3(l): 104-114,19'78.
(21) SUTTON, S.R., FEYERABEND, C., COLE, P.V., RUSSELL, M.A.H. Adjust-
  ment of smokers to dilution of tobacco smoke by ventilated cigarette holders,
  Clinical ZVtiz- and ThempmAca 24(4): 395405, October 1978.
(22) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. To&co S&&&n. U.S. Department
  of Agriculture, Economics, Statistica, and Cooperatives Service, September

(ti) UtS964EPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. To&co situation. U.S. Department
  of Agriculture, Economics, Statistica, and Cooperatives Service, September
   1972.
(94) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. To&co situation. U.S. Department
  of Agriculture, Economics, Statistics, and Cooperativea Service, September
   198q47 pp.
(95) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE. Smoking
  and l&z.!& A RGpd of ti &qeun Gansml. U.S. Department of Health,
  Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Office of the As&ant
  Secretary for Health, Office on Smoking and Health, DHEW Publication No.
   (PHS) 7%50066,1979,1136 pp.

(2%) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE. !l7t.e
  HealUlConseguerrcesofSntolcing~Women:ARGportofUae~~Ceneml.
  U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service,
  Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office on Smoking and Health,
   1930,359 pp.

@7) U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Hearings Before a Su&com&tt.ee on
  the GmmiUee on Govern- Operrctions. False and Midmding Admrtising
   (m Tip Cigarettes). July 18,19,23,24,25, and 26,1957,795 pp.
(28) U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE. .%a&%~ and Health. w off& Advieory
  Commit& to th.e Swgeon Gened of ti Z+b& Health ,Servk U.S. Depart-
   ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for
  Disease Control, PHS Publication No. 1103,1!%4,38'7 pp.
(89) U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE. Use of Tobacco, Zhcticeu, Attitudes,
  Knowledge, and Beliefa, United St&es--Fall 1961 and Spring 1966. U.S.
  Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Clearinghouse for
   Smoking and Health, July 1969,807 pp.

(JO) U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE. The Health ckmqwnwofwng.A
  P&&c Health sentice Review: 1967. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
   and Welfare, Public Health Service, Health Servicea and Mental Health
  Administration, DHEW Publication No. 1696, Revised, January 1968,227 pp.
(31) U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE. % Health Cimsquencea of Snding, 1968.
  Supplement ta the 1967 Z%blic He&h Service Review. U.S. Department of
   Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Health Services and
  Mental Health Administration. DHEW Publication No. 1696, 1963, 117 pp.
(S9) U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE. 2% He&h ma of &ok&g, 1969.
  Suppblnent to the 1967 Pub& Health %rvice Ret&w. U.S. Department of
   Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Health Servicea and
  Mental Health Administration. DHEW Publication No. 1969-2,1969,98 pp.
(3.7) U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE. The Health Gmsequencca of Lhdcitcg. A
   Report of the Surgeun cene7al; 1971. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
   and Welfare, Public Health Service, Health Services and Mental Health
   Administration. DHEW Publication No. (HSM) `7%7513,19'71,453 pp.

236


:84) U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE. The Health Ckmsquences of smoking. A
  hkpm-t of I!& Suqeun Gcneruk 197% U.S. Department of Health, Education,
   and Welfare, Public Health Service, Health Services and Mental Health
   Administration. DHEW Publication No. (HSM) 7%7516,1972,153 pp.
18s) US. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE Teenage Smoking, Nat&al Patterns of
  Cigarette &&kg, Ages 19 Through 18, in 1968 and 1970. U.S. Department of
   Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institutes of
   Health, DHEW Publication No. (HSM) 72-X06,1972
(88) U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE. Adult Use of Tobacco, 2970. U.S. Depart
   ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for
   Disease Control, National Clearinghouse for Smoking and Health, DHEW
   Publication No. (HSM) 73-3727, June 1973,129 pp.
(87) U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE. The ffealti Gm.quem of Shaking. A
  &XN& of the &qcun Generak 1973. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
   and Welfare, Public Health Service, Health Servicea and Mental Health
   Administration. DHEW Publication No. (HSM) 73-3704,1973,249 pp.
(88) U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE. The Health Ckm.quencea of Smoking. A
   Repot of Me Suw General 1974. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
   and Welfare, Public Health Service, Health Servicea and Mental Health
   Administration. DHEW Publication No. (CDC) 74-3704,1974, I24 pp.
(89) U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE. The He&h C2mqwwaofWw.A
  Report of tAe Suw G&en& 19%. U.S. Department of Health, Education,
   and Welfare, Public Health Service, Health Servicea and Mental Health
   Administration. DHEW Publication No. (CDC) 76-3704,1975,235 pp.
(40) U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE. Adult Use of Z'd, 1975. U.S. Depart-
   ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for
   Disease Control, National Clearinghouse for Smoking and Health, June 1976.
(41) U.S. PUBLIC HJZALTH SERVICE. 2% Health Cbwequencea of smoking. A
   Reference JGiitiun. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public
   Health Service, Center for Disease Control, DHEW Publication No. (CDC) 73-
   3357,1976,657 pp.
(@) U.S. SENATE. Hearings Before the consu?ner Subannmitk of the Cbmm&ee on
   Comm.eroe. Beviewiw Rvpaa Made Twwd the Lkwlqnnent and Marketing
   of a Less Hazuniow Cigarette. Serial No. 90-52, August 23-`&I967,329 pp.
(48) WAKEHAbf, H. Salea weighted average tar and nicotine deliver& of U.S.
   cigarettes from 1957 to present. In: Wynder, EL, Hecht, S. (Editors). Lung
   Cam. International Union Against Cancer, UICC Technical Report Series,
   Volume 25,1976, pp. 151-152.

237