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.