E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Getty Images / Frederick M. Brown
Debi Austin, shown here in 2004, became an influential anti-tobacco advocate in a series of TV ads that showed the dangers of smoking.
The California woman who appeared in the dramatic 1996 anti-smoking television commercial “Voicebox,” has died after a 20-year battle with cancer. Debi Austin was 62.
Austin, who was known as California's most well-known anti-smoking advocate, died on Feb. 22, public health director Dr. Ron Chapman announced on the state's website this week.
“We are saddened by Debi’s death,” Chapman said on the site. “She exemplified the real toll tobacco takes on a person’s body.”
In “Voicebox,” Austin, who had her larynx removed, inhales a cigarette through the surgical hole in her throat. She recalls smoking her first cigarette at age 13.
“When I found out how bad it was, I tried to quit,” she says. “But I couldn’t. They say nicotine isn’t addictive. How can they say that?”
“Voicebox,” Austin’s first ad for the California tobacco control program, also aired in New York and Hawaii. Austin, the woman the state calls its most well-known anti-smoking advocate, later appeared in other commercials in which she warned of the dangers of smoking.
“Gradually tobacco took not just my health but my dreams,” she says though gasps in “Candle.” “Think about what tobacco is taking from you. Quit not before it’s too late.”
“Debi was a pioneer in the fight against tobacco and showed tremendous courage by sharing her story to educate Californians on the dangers of smoking,” Chapman said. “She was an inspiration for Californians to quit smoking and also influenced countless others not to start. We trust she will continue to touch those that hear her story, particularly teens and young adults.”
In a family statement, loved ones mourned “our beloved sister, aunt and dear friend,” and noted her 20-year struggle against cancer.
“True to Debi’s spirit, she was a fighter to the end and leaves a big hole in our hearts and lives,” the statement said. “Debi will be remembered fondly by those who love her to be caring, courageous, very funny and always there to offer advice or lend a hand. She was passionate and outspoken about what she believed in and deeply touched all who knew her or heard her story.”
Though they can be hard to watch, commercials like Austin’s are effective in spreading the anti-smoking message, said Andrew Strasser, an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania who studies the effectiveness of anti-smoking public service announcements.
“Even on just a simple level, it opens the dialog because you see how this can turn out for someone who chooses to smoke,” he said. “For youth, it might be a good method of prevention, so you don’t end up this way, and for current smokers, it’s a good reminder that it’s better to quit not and not end up here.
“Her message resonated for a lot of people, both at risk and current smokers,” Strasser said.
Strasser has used Austin’s ads in his research, in which asks people what they remember a week after seeing a public service announcement.
“Her message always scored very well,” he said. “Her story really stuck with people. It had good staying power so I think they were very effective.”
Related:
Leave a Comment:
Keep smoking it is what the republicans want. More taxes, more money for large corporations and early death which means less payout from medicare.
You are an idiot ~ whatever happened to personal responsibility ~ Oh Yeah a Liberal cannot think for themselves so it must always be someone else to blame ~ Give it a rest
Actually you both need to quit. Smoking effects all walks of life Republican, Democrat, Liberal or Conservative. Glad I never did, but I still got asthma from a smoker. Its a nasty habit. Amazes people still do it & its so expensive. I would rather go shopping on some shoes than but a carton of cigarettes. Heck its about the same price.
Oh by the way I'm a liberal and I can think for myself and walk and talk and chew gum at the same time.
Don't think G.W.Busch or Fedup-2739799 said they smoked. Just like a Liberal to make a false assumption though..
how about all you ANTI'S just shuting your mouth and leave US SMOKERS to our choice of the habit that = "JUST~MIGHT~PUT~US~OUT~OF~YOUR~LIFE~STYLE"????
obviously your life sux..... or you would find a better way to entertain self, THINK????
oldsmokerusa
On a non personal level you the smoker take up valuable health care resources, which takes away MY choice.
Also on a personal level your comment is rather selfish, don't forget the family who loves some one who smokes and wants them to be around for as long as possible, sure its their choice to smoke, and I guess that choice involves being selfish and ignorant of the wider effects of smoking.
Sorry Krestov On a non-personal level I just don't get the whole "taking up valuable health care resources from you" talking point. Isn't smoking suppose to kill you quicker? if so that sounds like it actually saves these health care resources you speak of. I mean a person who smokes like a chimney my live to 65, but a nonsmoking healthy person could live until they are ninety. That sounds like 25 more years of medicare to me. Maybe a few more stents, a bypass or two, throw in treatment for dementia and arthritis and that's starting to sound pretty pricey.
And by the way Krestoy how exactly does a smoker take health care resources from you? I mean I personally don't smoke but the last Doctor appointment I went to I paid the bill. I didn't see you there with your checkbook out! Quit trying to strip people of the Freedom!!
her new ads:
*gasp* *gasp* *flatline beeeepppp.....*
spike422
I don't recall mentioning money, nope I didn't, mention money, I mentioned resources. You know resources, the operating theater the doctor, the availability of the doctors time. Its a fact the smokers need more health resources than non, regardless of life expectancy. There are only so many resources available. Everyone regardless of whether they smoke or not have the right to equal access to health care, i firmly believe that, however when people tout they have the right to smoke freely well yeah, but that right is not free with out effecting others.
Another example is in an office when someone is sick we take over some of the work of the sick co worker, smokers on average take 1.5X longer to recover from illness compared to a non-smoker, so I have to cover their work so they can have the freedom to smoke.
Smoking does not only effect the smoker.
@ G.W.Busch
Now wait a minute. Who has been calling for higher taxes, especially on the 1%ers? Not the Republicans.
Who has been call for spending cuts, and therefor the need for fewer tax dollars? Not the Democrats.
So who is it that want want more taxes?
Also, smoking is neither addictive nor does it cause cancer.
If nicotine were addictive, then it would affect everyone the same. Anyone who ever smoked even a few cigarettes would become unable to stop without some withdrawal. I know several people who quit or went for long periods with no withdrawal. So, technically it is only habitual.
Same goes for cancer, if smoking "Causes" cancer then everyone who ever smoked would have cancer. It only increases the likelihood of cancer, that and the fact that a typical smoker has an otherwise unhealthy lifestyle as well.
But if it were up to me, I would ban the foul smelling things anyway regardless of any health concerns. It takes about 30 seconds to stink up a room and about 3 days for it to air out.
Something else for you smokers to think about, the next time you light up, especially around me, I might just spit some tobacco juice on you and see how you like it. If you can't keep your smoke to yourself, keep yourself from smoking, thank you.
Krestov Please provide links to your resources particularly smoking causing 1.5x longer to recover from illness. I'm not finding that in my research. And slick this is the U.S. resources = money plan and simple. there are many different illnesses and lifestyle choices in this country that require a substantial amount of " medical resources ". I for one do not want to be the one to tell people what they can and cannot do, can and cannot smoke, eat, drink, own, what kind of activity they can indulge in. I guess I'm one of the few left in this country that believe people should be free to make the decisions they choose. Yes, even the bad ones.
And just one more thing my liberal friend you do not have the right to equal access to health care. You have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I have gone over the constitution a couple of times now and I don't see the right to see a Doc in there anywhere. Seems to be a basic misconception among your kind...
@ spike422
Actually, in my opinion, My Right to Access to Health care is an extension of my Right Life. But then again, so is my Right to bear arms,(in self defense against anyone who would cause me harm, to include a tyrannical government) if I can afford to buy them.
The key word here is "access". I think the liberals are confusing the Right to Access with the actual process. But then again most liberals read the Constitution backwards anyway. And confuse a Right with the government's duty to supply. That is, they think it is the Governments job to ENSURE life, liberty and property, via the ACA, "Constitutional Protection" and Social Security.
The seem to fail to comprehend that we are born with our Rights and that the Constitution, aside from Creating the Federal Government, and Treaty among the Sovereign States, places limits on the Federal Government, which are spelled out in the Bill of Rights. These are limits placed on the Government, not guarantees of what the Government must provide for us. And these limits are not placed on us as Citizens. (Technically it is my Right to Discriminate against anyone I wish, if I so feel like it, and any law that violates that Right is unconstitutional, but I digress)
The Government may not deprive me of life (without due process), which means it can not deprive me of access to health care or arms. But that does not mean a fellow Citizen may deny me my Right to Health care or arms if I can not afford either one.
Since the Government has seen fit to subsidize Health care for those who can not afford it, I am wondering when they will start subsidizing my Right to Bear Arms? Maybe we could both qualify for a nice big check to go buy more guns. ;-)
Point well taken. However as I interpret the constitution the right to life means I cannot nor can the government take your life without due process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence. I fail to see where it states a right to "access" health care or that we are in titled to it in anyway. However I do believe that personal responsibility dictates that I should provide health care for myself and my family and make sure that I can pay for it to the best of my ability. Health care is (as it should be) a for profit industry. To say that we have the right to access health care is the same as saying we have a right to utility services such as electricity and gas, that's just not true. If I choose to live on a deserted island off of Hawaii it is not the responsibility of the utility company to run a power line to my hut. It's my responsibility to make my own power. The fact is that every American citizen in this country has access to health care as well as electricity. But it must be paid for and instead of the government saying "hey don't sweat it we gotcha covered" I would prefer we the people start trying to figure it out for ourselves.
Sorry wrong link this is the one I wanted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
spike422
I think we are arguing the same point from slightly different vantages.
Look at the 9th Amendment. But yes, if you understand the Declaration, then you understand that we are born with our Rights, to Life, Liberty, and Property. And the Constitution is merely an extension, or the Realization of the Declaration. And the Rest of our Rights are drawn from these Three Original Rights.
The First Amendment (the First limitation put upon our Government) is drawn from my Right to Liberty, (freedom to do as I please i.e. speak, write, worship, etc). The 2nd is drawn from my Right to Life, the ability to defend my life from those who would cause me harm (end my life). The most important thing to remember is that the Constitution only limits the Government, It places no limits on "WE the People", we are the power.
First though, I am under no obligation to give you Due Process to take your life, that is a Limitation Placed upon the Federal Government, by the Constitution. It does not apply to us. However, the caveat to that is you must first be a threat to my life or liberty, real or perceived. (But I can just shoot you, I do not need to provide you a defense or trial)
And as I said and as you mentioned "However I do believe that personal responsibility dictates that I should provide health care for myself and my family and make sure that I can pay for it to the best of my ability" and by providing health care are you not providing "Life", e.g. Your kid get the flu, you go to the Doctor, get some medicine, the kid gets better. (i.e. continues with Life) Instead of contracting Pneumonia, and dieing? This is why I say my My Right to Access, (to healthcare) is an extension of my Right to Life.
And I agree 110%, Health care is (as it should be) a for profit industry. Just as is the Arms industry. Which is why I am comparing my Right to (access) Bear, with My Right to "Healthcare", both are derivatives of my Right to Life, both are commodities to be purchased.
And I think you are falling into a similar pit fall as most of these liberals and confusing "Exercising a Right" with "Ensuring a Right".
And yes you have the Right to a utility company's product, if you can afford it. And I think this is the confusion, just because we have Right to something, does not mean we are Entitled to Something.
Of course, and here is an interesting side bar. AS far as I am concerned, if it is private business, on private property, then they can do business with, or not with whom ever they choose, based on what ever criteria they choose. Don't want any Gingers on your property, fine, NO Red Heads allowed.
The Constitution does not GUARANTEE OUR RIGHTS, it is up to the individual to guarantee his/her Rights. Nor is the job of the Government to Guarantee one's Rights.
spike422
You really need to look into your research methods more, as I found hundreds of research articles on the risks of smoking and the increase in illness and recovery time. This article is a review of other studies so there are many further links you can look at: http://www.ccjm.org/content/72/10/916.full.pdf
You made an assumption I'm a liberal I had a good laugh at that, no I have just had the misfortune of watching people suffer from diseases due to smoking.
As for there is not right to health care in the Constitution well my friend ditto for smoking. The US health care system contrary to your beliefs is not a bottomless pit, a hospital can not magically create a space in the surgery list form nothing, if a smoker requires an emergency lung lobectomy, well grandma needing a hip replacement will be bumped for another time.
Smoking is not this magical victimless pass time, it uses up resources, forces people to have to work longer to cover the smokers freedoms and rights to smoke while out sick longer due to their smoking and finally and most tragically robs friends and family of an average 10 years more time with their loved one.
She has saved countless lifes.
how bout they do an autopsy and find out if she tests positive for h.p.v. since science now knows it causes most cancers of the mouth and throat (and connected areas) as well as down below. Her "Voicebox” cancer might not have been caused by tobacco use at all since they didn't have the h.p.v. test 20 years ago
HPV testing was available 20 years ago, the types of tumors caused by smoking are relatively different to those caused by HPV, so it is possible for the pathologist to tell the difference from each.
The added complication here is if someone is a smoker and are also infected with HPV they are at an even higher risk of developing cancer through the HPV route.
I'm sorry to hear about her death - her commercial will continue to live on and influence our youth to not start smoking and save countless lives as a result. That's Debi Austin's legacy - she saved lives by revealing her mortality.
I can't understand why the product that kills thousands each year (Tobacco) is legal, but the product that has never taken a life (Weed) is illegal.
I know someone is going to say different, so do us all a favor and provide your evidence from a respected medical authority naming the time, date, and name of the coroners office that listed a cause of death as a result of using MJ. Otherwise, don't put out false, unproven information... and PLEASE don't repeat the lie that it's the "Gateway" drug. You will only get laughed at by millions of your fellow Americans.
Okee, is there a nanosecond in you're day that doesn't relvolve around marijuana? You people somehow fid a way to interject it into any topic. C'mon
Please do the same for Tobacco. Causes of death do not include the reasons why. The cause of death on Ms. Austin's death certificate would be cancer. It probably would not include how the cancer developed, even though tobacco use was most likely the culprit. I'm sure weed has caused its fair share of deaths due to car accidents of drivers being under the influence of pot. Cause of death, though, would not show pot, but something like blunt force trauma.
It is my opinion that we really don't know the health consequences of smoking grass as of yet. Since it is just now becoming legal here in Colorado it may take some time before the true effects kick in. I know many people think that smoking grass is harmless but it is a drug and most of all you do smoke it, and smoke is smoke people. I have heard that a joint has at least as much tar as a Marlboro cigarette. Maybe after a few years when grass is easily available at every drugstore, supermarket, 7-11 and sold in convenient packs we will discover the stuff kills you quicker then rat poison. Maybe not who knows.
Regardless my heart goes out to this woman's friends and family...
XCUZUMWA???
> THE "R I G H T - P E O P L E" = SMOKE WACKY WEED AND "DO-DRUGS"! =
> THERFORE ITS HEALTHY????? ROTFLMFAOOOOOOOOO........
Choices have consequences...cool at 13 dead at 62...
But did she die of cancer? How malignant could it be if you can live with it twenty years?
and their are the smokers that cant or shouldnt!
and THEN THER ARE SMOKERS LIKE ME!.... started in 1953 AND STILL PITHING THE ANTI'S OFF @ 71 = 'TODAY'!
my grandpa smoked & chewed everything he got his hands on and DIED-SMOKING @ 92, yup.
my dad smoked untill he died @ 82! .... OLD IS TOUGHER LOL.
FYI, i would rather die of "OLD~AGE~SMOKING" than being killed by a "NON-SMOKING-IDIOT-IN-A-CAR", yup.
I like your attitude oldsmokerusa!
Hey everyone reading this, how does this sound...
1) If you are an adult smoker, take extra effort not to have your smoke fly in everyone face out in public (yes even outside).
2) If you are an adult non-smoker, respect the choice that smokers make, its their choice period.
3) If you are underage, please do some fact based research on cancer rates, the cost of smoking (taxes etc...) and the time cost associated with procuring and consuming cigarettes. Do not let ANYONE, smoker/non-smoker, peer pressure you. There is information out there that lets you make up your own mind. Do so and enjoy your life.
Does anyone reading this object to these options?
NoLiberty! Bless you for bringing a little liberty and freedom of choice to this thread. If there were more folks like you our country would be in much better shape. It is the American people's right to choose for themselves even if I do not agree with their choices. That's what makes our country stand out in this world!
I don't care if they smoke or not as long as neither I nor any member of my family is downwind of them. Nor should we have to see evidence of their "the whole world is my ashtray" mentality.
Smokers smell bad - even their clothes and hair stink - which they don't know because both taste and smell is affected by their addiction. They look silly, sticking burning leaves in their mouths and sucking on them. And they're addicts. But if they want to affect their own health and that of their own family that's too bad.
Light up, losers.
If smoking it truly a choice and not an addiction then all a smoker needs to do is quit smoking. Simple as that.
No one forced anyone to take up smoking. Most started because they thought it was "cool". The blame goes both way though, to the smoker whom first started, even when shown and told of the drastic and fatal repercussions of inhaling, chewing or dipping something with NO benefits whatsoever, that has been shown to kill you. To the tobacco companies that manipulate the levels of addicting chemicals/drugs in the tobacco products which keep people hooked, how does it feel to work for a company that markets death?
If you start smoking even after you know or learn what it can, will and does do to you, then I have no pity for you. There is also the monetary factor. No even counting the health care cost, there is the actual cost of the cigarettes themselves. How much do they cost, $5.00-$6.00 a pack? I don't smoke so I'm not sure of the price tag, but even at five bucks a pack, that is a big chunk of change. 5 bucks per pack, 1 pack per day, 365 days per year, = $1825.00, not including tax or if the cigs. are actually more expensive than that! It would be better if you just took that 1800 bucks, put it in a pile and burned it. You would be getting the same thing, money up in smoke, literally! $1825.00 a years for 30 years, $54,750. HOLY CRAP!
P.S.,
You people that smoke, you stink and smell like an ashtray.
Yes sorry its hard. Smokers want to smoke anywhere they can but it impacts everyone else. I lost both my Mother and my Father to Cancer due to smoking and they both died young (60 and 58). Smoking SUCKS. It's offensive to others and most smokers I find don't care. I see cigarette butts ALL OVER THE PLACE even when there is a butt can less than 5 feet away. I confronted a co-worker about this and his snot answer was "Well im keeping the street cleaners employed". Yes even outside its quite offensive to have to walk through a cloud of smoke to get in and out of a building. Smokers STINK and they don't smell it. The "smoking" area is on the parking garage under my office and sometimes I can smell the stench. Not to mention they have to take a break every freaking hour to go smoke for 5-10 minutes but those that don't smoke aren't afforded the same luxury. It costs money/time/everything else. And while you can live to be 90 smoking it also kills at 45. George Burns was 100 and smoked cigars all the time but that's the exception and not the rule.
Personally I see more urban tumbleweeds, fast food wrappers, soda cans, dirty baby diapers than I do cigarette butts. But that's just me I guess. Pigs come in the smoking and nonsmoking variety I suppose.
If they just used this person, or if she acted on her own. I suspect someone along the way encouraged her perhaps that didn't happen.
I don't listen to tactics, scare, fear, horror, graphic, people with motives and those not always clear, telling people what to do.
That whole (negative) approach, lacking transparency, mostly puts me going the other way.
Centenial smokers, people would explode in rage if tobacco co. put them in commercials.
All these people on about the cost being shared, there are many habits costly, equally shared, not garnering the level of scrutiny shown to smokers.
Death and Taxes they say. That is a rather narrow view of things though imo.
It's horrendous what cancer does - any cancer. While my heart goes out to this woman and her family - we've known since the 1960s that cigarette smoking is linked to lung cancer, right?
I have a friend who's battling pancreatic cancer right now. I never heard of pancreatic cancer until a decade ago - now I seem to hear about it or someone suffering with it frequently. The same cancer that took the lives of Apple icon, Steve Jobs and actor, Patrick Swayse. It's awful - a lot of pain. And it's difficult for him to tell which is worse - the pain from the cancer or from the chemo treatments. I'm praying he pulls through. http://tinyurl.com/d7jr4f6
Some people simply don't care, and no matter how many of these ads they see, it won't change their mind about quitting.