STRATEGIES OF THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY

Why has availability and use of tobacco continued in spite the medical evidence that it is a health risk?
First, people love to smoke tobacco. It is very possible that much of this is due to the stimulant received, the intoxication and the addictive property of nicotine.
Second, smoking was in-style and fashionable at several periods in time. Smoking can be termed and defined as "cool", etc.
Third, in the past many people believed that smoking could protect them from illness. This is in combination with the idea that smoking was at least not harmful. Check out for more details about cigarettes.
Finally, a nation can become 'addicted' to the revenues produced by taxes placed upon tobacco products. As noted by this quote: "As an instrument of financial policy tobacco is unique. It is not clear why this should be, but the tradition is now well established. In fact tobacco has two distinct functions, one as a consumable article and the other as a revenue earner, which at times appears to secure conflicting official treatment" (Akehurst, 1981, p15).
This paper moves beyond the history of tobacco for information and turns to the words and actions of members of the industry from speeches, booklets and handouts, the trade press and the like.
The tobacco companies have fought the opinion, data, and the interpretation of the data relating to health. They have established a set of strategies and arguments to counter the news from the medical community. How have they reacted? How have the y spent their money to continue their industry? This becomes the issue to investigate.
THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY STRATEGIES
1: SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR
The current anti-tobacco era began with medical and scientific research linking tobacco use to a variety of health problems. The first action of the industry was to dispute the research findings. This was done, and continues to be carried out, in a number of ways.
WE ARE CAUTIOUS
The image conveyed is that industry leaders are concerned professionals cautiously studying the issues. They will not let hysteria or public opinion sway or cloud their judgement. "We also believe that until scientific research can establish what actually causes the diseases with which smoking has been statistically associated, it would be unfair to advocate any law prohibiting the sale of cigarettes" (RJ Reynolds, 1987). Until these executives receive proof of the ill effects of their product they will continue as before. It is never stated, but the indications are that they operate from a classic American jurisprudence idea of 'innocent until proven guilty' view.
In spite of this open position we do see the industry avoiding some of the health issues. For example, "Tobacco Abstracts" a trade publication which offers relevant citations and abstracts to world literature on nicotiana dropped the section titled "Health" beginning with the October 1967 issue. The announcement was as follows: "(NOTE: Health section will be omitted from now on.)" No further information was offered.
MORE QUOTES AND EXAMPLES NEEDED
PROOF NEEDED
The caution shown by industry leaders makes the definition of the word "proof" crucially important. 'Proof' is the only valid basis of decision making accepted by these industry leaders. "Scientists have not proven that cigarette smoke or any of the thousands of its constituents as found in cigarette smoke cause human disease" (Tobacco Institute, 1979, p2).
Causal relationships do no more than give credence to one of several possible theories. "A hypothesis concerning the cause of disease remains merely a hypothesis until and unless conclusive laboratory and clinical proof can be found. The burden of proof must rest with those who advance the hypothesis" (Tobacco Industry, 1978, p14).
I wrote the leaders of the industry asking for a definition of proof. I was eventually told to consult a dictionary. If this is the definition that is used by the industry this is critical information since it runs in conflict with the very clear and specific definition created and defined by the authors of the 1964 Report to the Surgeon General -- and still used.
Based upon the apparent definition of cause or proof none of the 40,000 or so research studies on the tobacco and ill health link live up to the stringent requirements of industry leaders.
Statistical results are ignored as being mere numbers. They hold the position that statistics 'prove' nothing. "Smoking is a leading cause of statistics," claim those in the industry (Blair, 1979, p32). However, when it suits the argument the industry will turn to statistics.