Pringle Targets Anti-Tobacco Research, Ads

In what health groups are calling an assault on California’s heralded anti-tobacco program, Assembly Speaker Curt Pringle wants to restrict university research into the political power of the tobacco industry.

Pringle (R-Garden Grove) has pushed for the limitation during closed-door state budget negotiations. The talks in part have focused on California’s anti-tobacco program, which is funded by a state cigarette tax.

Specifically, Pringle wants to restrict how California will spend $60.4 million next year, limiting it to research into the health effects of smoking, and stating that none of the money can be used to “support research or other activities of a partisan political nature.”

At the same time, Pringle also is pushing to rein in California’s aggressive anti-tobacco advertising campaign by prohibiting the ads from singling out the tobacco industry.

As word of the proposals has surfaced, anti-tobacco advocates have mobilized, leading them to accuse Pringle and Republican lawmakers of doing the tobacco industry’s bidding.

“There are many researchers who are outraged that there could be political tinkering on research,” said Mary Adams, of the American Heart Assn. “What’s next? Prescriptions on animals used for medical research?”

The Wilson administration is resisting Pringle’s attempt to muzzle the media campaign.

“We have serious concerns about it. It will impact our ability to administer an effective campaign,” said Linda Frost, spokeswoman for Wilson’s Department of Health Services. “We just don’t think it’s appropriate that the Legislature dictate the policy regarding the administration of the media campaign.”

A prime target of the proposed restriction on research is Stanton Glantz, a professor at the UC San Francisco medical school who routinely delves into tobacco industry political contributions, Republican and Democrat.

“It’s aimed at one researcher in particular--Dr. Stanton Glantz,” Assembly Democratic Leader Richard Katz of Sylmar said of the proposed budget language. “He has researched campaign contributions, and Republicans led by Speaker Curt Pringle are trying to silence Stan.”

Glantz’s latest report, issued in April, focuses on how tobacco companies have begun giving more money to Republicans now that they are in control of the state Assembly and Congress. When Democrats controlled the Assembly, Glantz reported on the extent of tobacco industry contributions to former Speaker Willie Brown, a Democrat.

Glantz is among the most high-profile academics involved in anti-tobacco research. He gained notoriety after someone anonymously sent him a large box of internal documents from the tobacco company Brown & Williamson. He has co-written a book, “The Cigarette Papers,” explaining the significance of those tobacco company memos.

Last year, Congress attempted to deny Glantz any federal funding. That attempt failed. He continues to receive National Cancer Institute money, which he uses to research the tobacco industry’s political donations.

“I don’t think Willie Brown likes me any more or less than Pete Wilson. We just report what’s going on,” Glantz said. Referring to the restrictions on research, Glantz added: “It’s a terrible intrusion into the autonomy of this institution. It’s just not appropriate.”

Pringle’s spokesman, Gary Foster, acknowledged that under the proposed restrictions on research, Glantz’s reports on tobacco industry contributions could not be funded with tobacco tax money.

“He would be restricted,” Foster said. Pringle “feels it is good public policy and consistent with his past legislation.”

Glantz has received research funds from the 25-cent per pack state tax on cigarettes. He currently receives none, partly because the Legislature and Gov. Pete Wilson cut state funding into anti-tobacco research in 1994.

Those cuts prompted anti-tobacco groups to sue to force the state to restore money for research and education. As negotiations continue over the new state budget, Pringle is prepared to vote to restore the research money, so long as there are restrictions on how it is spent.

As it is now, University of California academics oversee tobacco tax-funded research.

The restrictions would require that UC’s decisions would have to be reviewed by the state Department of Finance, which is under the governor’s control, and a board appointed by the governor, the speaker and the state Senate.

Dr. Warren Gold, UC San Francisco medical professor, and chairman of the Committee on Research Policy of the Academic Senate, called those restrictions “unacceptable to the faculty.”

“As difficult as times are for supporting research,” Gold said, “the university should not accept responsibility for the money if those strings are attached.”

Along with the attempt to limit research, Pringle is pushing for restrictions on the content of anti-tobacco TV, radio and billboard ads. His proposal would preclude attacks on the tobacco industry.

California’s anti-tobacco ad program has stirred controversy in the past. One ad used video of tobacco industry executives denying in congressional testimony that nicotine is addictive, and concluded by suggesting that the executives thought the public is stupid. That prompted a top tobacco industry executive to demand that the ad be pulled.

More recently, a Los Angeles TV station stopped airing for a time an ad showing an actor portraying a tobacco executive fishing, with a narrator suggesting that tobacco industry hooks young smokers.

Pringle has told The Times that he opposed using tax money to single out a particular industry, and Wednesday, Foster affirmed Pringle’s opposition to such ads, saying Pringle is “philosophically opposed to using tax money to attack any industry.”

Anti-tobacco researchers contend that ads focusing on ill-effects of tobacco don’t dissuade teenagers from smoking. They do believe, however, that teens hesitate taking up the habit if they believe they are being manipulated by the tobacco industry.