A modified new method for estimating smoking-attributable mortality in high-income countries

Preston, Glei, and Wilmoth (2010) recently proposed an innovative regression-based method to estimate smoking-attributable mortality in developed countries based on observed lung cancer death rates. Their estimates for females, however, differ appreciably from some published estimates. This article presents a modified version of the Preston, Glei, and Wilmoth method that includes an age-period interaction term in its model. This modified version produces improved estimates of smoking-attributable mortality that are consistent with results from a modified version of the Peto-Lopez indirect method.life expectancy, mortality, smoking

Style, Substance, and the Right to Keep and Bear Assault Weapons

Assault weapons have long been a subject of intense controversy. The debate has intensified in recent years after a series of mass shootings in which perpetrators used AR-15 rifles or other military-style weapons, such as the shootings in Newtown, Aurora, San Bernardino, Orlando, Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs, and Parkland While the federal assault weapon ban has expired, some state legislatures have enacted bans. Critics complain that these laws irrationally condemn certain types of firearms simply because they have a military appearance. Gun control advocates argue that these laws are not just about superficial appearances and that the banned weapons are more dangerous than other firearms. This Article contends that even if the controversy over assault weapons ultimately stems from concerns about the look or style of certain firearms, those are not irrelevant considerations. If the military style of assault weapons increases their appeal to disturbed individuals committing the most horrific crimes, and if the intimidating look of these weapons increases the public\u27s perception of the risk of mass shootings, those are legitimate concerns that legislators and judges may take into account

A study of Shakespeare’s Roman plays in the nineteenth century English theatre

By drawing on prompt copies, newspaper articles, and the memoirs of actors, producers and theatregoers, this study sets out to supply a more detailed stage history of Shakespeare's three Roman plays between 1800 and 1900 than has hitherto been available. The first chapter asserts that there should be a fruitful partnership between the scholar's study and the actor's stage, but demonstrates that this has not always occurred. A sketch is then supplied of the changing conditions of performance in the London theatre of the nineteenth century. The next three chapters discuss every production of Coriolanus, Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra which took place at London and Stratford during this period. Some attempt is incidentally made to explain the rise and fall in popularity of each of these plays, and the relationship of this to the different styles of acting and production favoured by leading actors and by audiences. Prompt copies and acting versions of the plays are examined in some detail, and the stage life of the plays before 1800 and since 1900 is also briefly outlined. A final chapter draws together the threads, and lists some of the points which emerge: among these are the lack of faith in Shakespeare's skill as a dramatist, the actor-managers' need to show a financial profit, the impact on the theatre of prevailing moral climates and political events, the enormous importance of the talents and enthusiasms of leading actors, the influence of the new theatres established after the abolition of the Parent Houses, the increasing importance of dramatic critics, and the metropolitan contempt for Stratford productions. She aim is essentially narrative and descriptive: the study confirms the familiar picture of the nineteenth century stage, but also corrects some errors in, and supplies some omissions from, the standard works on the staging of Shakespeare's plays

Incrementalism, Comprehensive Rationality, and the Future of Gun Control

This article examines the issue of gun control through the lens of the \u27comprehensive rationality\u27 and \u27incrementalism\u27 models of policymaking and argues that incremental policymaking has been one of the major impediments to progress toward more effective regulation of guns. Gun laws are often an incoherent patch-work of provisions as new restrictions are piled atop old ones in response to particular tragedies or narrow concerns, instead of crafting bills to achieve an optimal approach to the entire problem. Political science and other social sciences literature has closely examined the \u27incrementalism\u27 and \u27comprehensive rationality\u27 models of policymaking over the past several decades, but legal scholars discuss the models much less frequently. This article describes how political scientists have identified a few exceptional types of policy problems that are particularly unsuited for an incrementalist approach. Incremental policymaking poses a special risk for firearm regulation because of the uniquely prominent role that \u27slippery slope\u27 fears play in the opposition to any new measures concerning guns. This article contends that a more comprehensive approach is vital both to achieve more effective policies and to quell gun owners\u27 concerns that moderate gun control measures will eventually lead to gun bans and confiscation. The top policy priority should be expanding background check regulations to form a more complete and coherent system limiting access to guns

Prescription for Fairness: A New Approach to Tort Liability of Brand-Name and Generic Drug Manufacturers

Over the past two decades, courts have consistently ruled that the manufacturer of a brand-name prescription drug cannot be liable for injuries suffered by those taking generic imitations of its product. This meant that a patient injured by a generic drug could have no remedy at all because in many instances the generic drug manufacturer would escape liability on the ground that it did not produce any information on which the patient\u27s doctor relied. It was a perplexing dilemma. The generic drug manufacturer made the product that the plaintiff received, the brand-name manufacturer produced all of the information the patient\u27s doctor saw, and neither manufacturer could be held liable even if each acted negligently. The California Court of Appeal recently issued a stunning decision in which it concluded that a brand-name drug manufacturer could be liable to a plaintiff who took a generic version of its product. The reaction to the decision has been overwhelmingly negative. Commentators have condemned the decision as one of the worst rulings made by any court in recent years. Judges around the country have dismissed it as a misguided aberration from the otherwise strong judicial consensus on the issue. Although the decision has been the subject of scathing criticism, this Article argues that the California court\u27s ruling actually represents the first time that a court has properly examined this issue. In addition, the Article points out some weaknesses in the California court\u27s reasoning and proposes a novel general framework for analyzing the liability of brand-name and generic drug manufacturers

A Sense of Duty: Retiring the Special Relationship Rule and Holding Gun Manufacturers Liable for Negligently Distributing Guns

In response to recent litigation brought against the gun industry on behalf of individuals and municipalities victimized as a result of the negligent marketing, design, and distribution of guns, the gun industry has argued that they cannot be held responsible for the victims\u27 injuries because they have no special relationship with the victims. Without a special relationship, gun manufacturers claim to have no duty whatsoever to design, market, or distribute guns in a reasonable fashion. This article examines the fallacies inherent in the gun industry\u27s special relationship argument and discusses the factual, legal and policy grounds that support holding the gun industry responsible for its role in facilitating the misuse of guns

The Mugshot Industry: Freedom of Speech, Rights of Publicity, and the Controversy Sparked by an Unusual New Type of Business

Matthew Creed, a young entrepreneur in suburban Kansas City, decided to start a business. He created a website called BlabberMouth featuring the names, addresses, and mugshot photographs of local people recently arrested. He then mailed letters to the arrestees, informing them about the website and offering to delete the information upon payment of a $199.99 fee. “We have already started blabbing to the world about your release from jail,” the letter declared, “[a]nd we want to make you aware of our services, as we kind of have a big mouth.” The letters added that those who failed to pay the fee might see their neighborhoods flooded with fliers further publicizing the arrests. “We will canvas the neighborhood of someone just released from jail with flyers on every residence,” the letter warned, “even if they have not gone to trial or been convicted of the crimes brought against them.” The public outcry against Creed’s business venture was intense. Local law enforcement promised to investigate whether it violated any laws. Creed received death threats. People angry about BlabberMouth’s business tactics soon discovered that Creed had once been arrested for drunk driving and that several of his relatives also had arrest records; they began posting mugshots and information about those arrests on the Internet. Just a week after the first news reports about his business appeared, Creed apologized and announced that he had decided to shut down the BlabberMouth business. While BlabberMouth was a short-lived enterprise, the mugshot industry remains alive and well, with many companies around the nation profiting from the dissemination of mugshot photos. This new type of business arouses strong feelings on both sides, with critics charging that it amounts to a form of blackmail, while the mugshot companies contend that they provide a beneficial public service protected by freedom of speech. The mugshot industry raises intriguing legal questions, and yet these issues have received remarkably little attention from courts or legal scholars to date. Indeed, the controversy surrounding the mugshot industry’s practices has yet to be the subject of any court decisions or analysis in law journals. In this article, I begin the process of exploring the difficult questions surrounding mugshot businesses. In my view, people targeted by businesses like BlabberMouth have a viable theory under which to seek legal relief, but a line must be carefully drawn between businesses that merely profit by reproducing mugshot photos and those that take the further step of agreeing not to publicize a mugshot or other arrest information in exchange for payment of a fee