Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


1950s

Three epidemiological studies demonstrate the exponential health risks associated with smoking, leading to the introduction of cigarette filters.

1957 Congressman Blatnick gets filtered out

John Blatnick, a five-term liberal representative from Minnesota–and a devoted smoker–leads the subcommittee on government operations through hearings on the Federal Trade Commission’s oversight of cigarette advertising. Blatnick bristles as the testimony, the first ever presented to federal lawmakers on the relationship of smoking to health, reveals that the new filtered brands use stronger tobaccos, and so yield about as much tar and nicotine as the old unfiltered brands–a fact never noted in the industry’s advertising.

In the aftermath of the hearings, Blatnick introduces a bill in the House to limit the tar and nicotine yields of cigarettes and grant the FTC injunctive powers against deceptive tobacco advertising. So powerful is the tobacco industry, however, that the House not only denies the Blatnick bill a hearing but strips its sponsor of his subcommittee chairmanship and dissolves the subcommittee itself.

1959 Doctors make a deal

Surgeon General Leroy E. Burney, emboldened by the publication in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute of a 30-page article on the health risks of smoking, writes in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “The weight of the evidence at present implicates smoking as the principal etiological factor” in the increased incidence of lung cancer.

Two weeks after the surgeon general’s statement appears in the journal, the AMA shocks Burney by publishing an editorial that insists there are not yet enough facts to “warrant the assumption of an all- or-none authoritative position” on causation.

Observers believe the AMA downplays the smoking issue because it needs allies to fight the implementation of Medicare. Morton Levin, the top New associateYork state health officer, recalls attending an executive session of the AMA’s 1960 convention and hearing a trustee demand the organization remain mute on the smoking issue because “the senators from the tobacco states have threatened to vote against us on Medicare if we take any formal stand whatever–and, gentlemen, we simply cannot have Medicare.”

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate