Anne Landman's Collection
Anti-Smoking: the Organized Movement and Individual Orientations.
Abstract
This 89-page document found in the R.J. Reynolds collection is a comprehensive evaluation of the tobacco control movement (from the tobacco industry's point of view) from macroscopic to microscopic levels. It is dated March 1, 1989. The paper advances the theory that people who promote public health interests around tobacco have some sort of psychopathology:
[From Page 45]:
"There is considerable speculation concerning the pathological characteristics of the anti-smoker. Anti-smokers have been likened to fanatics, rigid authoritarian activists, and neurotically needful people seeking to express other concerns through anti-smoking activity. In order to test these notions, we pre-tested a number of instruments and selected appropriate measures of authoritarianism, neuroticism and extroversion, and hypochondriasis and psychosomaticism...."
The testing revealed that no significant differences were found among groups of people who opposed smoking, however.
The writers of the paper hoped to find ways to keep more people from moving into the "anti-smoker" category. Of their research, they state:
"We hope in this manner to understand the dynamics of anti-smoking and to gain insight into possible approaches that would stabilize the neutrality of the non anti-smoker."
The paper also sought to explore how people ranked tobacco as a perceived pollution threat in everyday life, and in doing so grouped some other quite potent health threats in with annoyances like "barking dogs":
From page 79:
"...Tobacco smoke and litter...are things these people seem to tolerate on a daily basis. The pair is eventually combined into a cluster with industrial ash, acid rain, toxic waste and barking dogs."
In discussing why the anti-smoking movement tends to drown out pro-smoking voices, the writer points out that "people rarely support 'pro' movements," and that "it is easier to complain than to support." The document further suggests a reason why smokers are difficult to organize and how to improve this situation:
[From page 80]:
"While smokers may identify with each other on a personal level, they do not on a group level. A major factor inhibiting the development of group cohesion among smokers is a sense of shame. One way of mitigating this sense of shame is to build on the positive functions of smoking."
In the summary, the paper cautions the industry on pushing people who are more tolerant of tobacco into the "anti" category:
"It is important not to strain the tolerance of this [more neutral] group. For example, cigarette butts are a source of aggravation. A consistent finding of our study is the association of cigarette butts and litter and the associated heaps of cigarette butts (e.g. dumped auto ashtrays) with a lack of concern for other people, selfishness, and an almost personal assault."
and...
"Other sources of potential strain include what is perceived to be the industry's appeal to young adults to encourage them to smoke. "
Finally, the document contains an appendix listing pro- and anti-smoking groups around the country, the year they each was formed, the name of the leaders and status of the groups as of the writing of the paper. The anti-smoking groups have acronyms like SHAME, GASP, ASH, BRASH, SOS, SMASH, SMOG and FANS, and the far shorter list of pro-smoking groups have acronyms like PUFF (People United to Fight Fanatics) and GROAN (Growing Resentment Over Anti-smoking Noises).
Fields
- Quotes
Long (89 page) document - see images.
- Region
- United States
- Named Organization
- Anti Cigarette League
- ACS, American Cancer Society
- American Lung Association
- American Heart Association
- ASH - Action on Smoking and Health
- GASP- Group to Alleviate Smoking Pollution
- MIT
- University of Northern Colorado
- California For Clean Indoor Air
- United States Department of Health, Education & Welfare (Branch of U.S. Government concerned with public health)
- Dallas Non Smokers Association
- Californians For Non Smokers Rights
- Alantic Richfield
- Texans For Clean Indoor Air
- Better Business Bureau
- Quality Inn
- New Jersey Dept. of Health
- Kansas City Citizens For Clean Indoor Air
- Clean Indoor Air Assn
- Northeastern University
- League of Women Voters
- TI, Tobacco Institute
- Harvard University
- Social Systems Analysts
- List of Anti Smoking Groups
- List of Antismoking Group Leaders
- PUFF, People United to Fight Fanatics
- GROAN, Growing Resentment Over Antismoking Noises
- North VA Adventist Youth Group
- Type
- DRAFT
- REPORT
- Named Person
- Detocqueville
- Gaston, L.P.
- Kennedy, J.
- Banzhaf, John F., III (Exec. Dir. Action of Smoking & Health (ASH))Executive Director of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).Professor of Law at Georgetown. Banzhaf succeeded in using the Fairness Doctrine to get cigarette commercials off television in 1968. See Banzhaf FCC, 405 F, 2d 1082 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (affirming FCC ruling that radio and television stations must devote a significant amount of broadcast time to case against smoking). His telephone number is (202) 659-4310. The big focus in past years has been to force OSHA to enforce smoking bans, per Matt Bars. ASH publishes Smoking and Health Review bulletins. "A leading anti-smoking activist" (Chic. Sun-Times 6/23/93). Action on Smoking and Health is located at 2013 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006. (Castano Expert List) See Action on Smoking a Health, TTLA Almanac - Names.
- Gouin, C.
- Surgeon General
- Story, H.
- Wilson, D.
- MIT
- Bialick, Peter (Founder of GASP of Colorado, 1977)
- Loveday, P.
- Califano, Joseph Anthony, Jr. (Sec. of U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare)Joseph Califano Jr. is the former secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (1977-1979), in Carter's administration (A 5/17/94; WP 4/3/85). He spoke against the tobacco industry on ABC's "Day One" program. He testified before the Waxman subcommittee on 5/17/94. He was an adviser to President Lyndon B. Johnson (AP 5/17/94). He was President of Columbia University's Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, circa 1994 (AP 5/17/94).
- Carlson, Regina (GASP, Founder of NJ chapter)
- Nevara, J.
- Belli, Melvin
- Arrants, J.
- Cowan, T.
- Lee, M.
- Weigum, Jeanne (Founder of American Nonsmokers Rights Assoc.. (Minnesota))
- Addison, R.
- Sweda, Ed (Massachusetts GASP, attorney,)2003- works for the Tobacco Products Liability Project at Northeastern University School of Law.
- Subject
- anti-smoking advocacy
- industry activity
- industry surveillance (Intelligence-gathering on public health forces)
Document Images
Recruitment
Financial
Establishment Involvement
Communication Between Groups
Goals and Ethos
3.4.3 Quasi-Establishment
Introduction
Organizational Structure
Goals
Strategies
Recruitment
Establishing New Groups
3.4.4 Quasi-Militant
Introduction
Organizational Structure
Goals
Strategies
3.4.5 Leader-Dependent
Introduction
Organizational Structure
Goals
Strategies
3.5 Interpretation of the Anti-Smoking Movement
3.5.1 The Two Camps: Establishment and Grassroots
3.5.2 Messianic Approach to Social Change
4.0 INDIVIDUAL ORIENTATIONS
4.1 Introduction
PRELIMINARY DRAFT Contents - 2 PRELIMINARY DRAFT
ANTI-SMOKING: The Organized Movement and Individual
Orientations
Table of Contents
1.0 SUMMARY
2.0 INTRODUCTION
3.0 THE ORGANIZED MOVEMENT
3.1 Introduction: The Anti-Smoking Movement
3.2 Historical Background
3.2.1 Europeans and Tobacco
3.2.2 Anti-Tobacco Forces in America
3.2.3 The 20th Century: The First Half
3.3 The Modern Anti-Smoking Movement
3.3.1 Introduction
3.3.2 Preparatory: The 1960's
3.3.3 Foundation and Militancy: 1970's to Early 80's
3.3.4 Foundation: The Early 1970's
3.3.5 Militancy: The Mid-70's to Early 80's
3.3.6 Quasi-Establishment: The Mid-80's
3.4 Organizations: Observational Studies
3.4.1 Introduction
3.4.2 Movement Characteristics
Location and Distribution
organizational Structure
Leaders
Members
Group Size
Meetings
PRELIMINARY DRAFT Contents - 1 PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Selection of Seating
Process of Exception
4.5.2 Propensity to Take Action
.5.3 Propensity to Act:
Propensity to Act:
Propensity to Act:
Changes in Mood Smoking
General
Comparisions
4.6 Smoking in Context
4.6.1 Issues in Today's World
Global Issues
Quality of Life Issues
Pollution Issues
4.6.2 smoking in the Context of Pollution
4.7 Summary of Findings
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
FIGURES
Figure 3.4-1:
Figure 4.2-1:
Figure 4.2-2:
Figure 4.4-1:
Figure 4.4-2:
Figure 4.4-3:
Figure 4.4-4:
Attributes of Grassroots Anti-Smoking
Groups
Distribution of Opposition
Distribution of Tolerance
Potency: Self and Smoking Related
Concepts
Evaluation: Self and Smoking Related
Concepts
Activity: Self and Smoking Related
Concepts
Purity: Self and Smoking Related
Concepts
PRELIMINARY DRAFT Contents - 4 PRELIMINARY DRAFT
4.1.1 Research Approach
Smoking concerns in relation to
other issues
Meanings and attributions towards
smoking and smokers
Responses to smoking in situational
contexts
Propensity to take action
Characteristics of the anti-smoker
4.1.2 The Sample
4.1.3 Demographic Characteristics
4.2 The General State of Opposition to Smoking
4.2.1 Total Sample
Smoking status
Demographics in relation to
opposition/tolerance
4.2.2 Regional Differences
4.3 Pathonomic Factors
4.3.1 Individuals
4.3.2 Probable Differences between Organized
and Non-organized Anti-Smokers
4.4 Attributions toward Smoking Related Ideas
4.4.1 changes Over Time: Boston in 1977 and Now
4.4.2 Attribution and Opposition to Smoking
4.5 Responses to Smoking Situations
4.5.1 How Anti-Smokers Handle Smoking
Approach
Avoidance
Non-Verbal Action
Authority Figure
PRELIMINARY DRAFT Contents - 3 PRELIMINARY DRAFT
2.0 INTRODUCTION
This study was initiated in late 1984 at the request of
the client who was interested in learning about the or-
ganized grassroots anti-smoking movement and the anti-
smoker who was not a member of the organized movement.
The client had received a number of letters from the
antismoking public and, on the basis of these and other
experiences, had developed certain hypotheses concerning
fanaticism and emotionalism to help explain the extreme
anti-smoking sentiment.
We examined anti-smokinq as an organized movement from
the early historical evidence through the modern day. In
studying the modern movement, we looked closely at the
grassroots component, a characteristic feature. Through
our analysis of the modern movement we developed a frame-
work of the phases the movement has undergone, including
the organizational types of groups and their leadership,
membership, recruitment methods, goals and strategies.
The grassroots component represented the only opportunity
for individuals to become effectively involved in the
modern movement. The establishment component, as part of
the bureaucratic structure, offered no such opportunity.
We conducted our enquiry on individual orientations to
discover the dynamics of anti-smokinV among the non-
organized. Our questions concerned issues related to
meanings and understandings with respect to smoking,
certain gathonomic characteristics and propensity to act.
The enquiry was embedded in interviews structured around
pollution issues. Concern for smoking was placed in the
context of issues of general concern and specific
pollution issues.
PRELIMINARY DRAFT 2.0 - 1 PRELIMINARY DRAFT
concepts. This can be attributed partly to a compara-
tively conflict free environment related to clearly de-
fined rules that result from Minnesota's regulatory
history.
We discovered that anti-smokers who are not members of
organized groups do not display any more pathological
characteristics than people in general. We suggest that
the expected pathology can be found among members of
organized groups and people who take radical action.
It would appear that, even among people with a strong
negative attitude toward smoking, anti-smoking actions do
not prevail. Most anti-smokers would rather avoid than
confront. When confrontation does take place it may
often be seen in the context of energy displaced from
troublesome areas that are not amenable to individual
action.
Anti-smokers attribute meanings of evil, weakness,
impurity, disorganization and estrangement to smoking and
smokers. This attribution takes place along with in-
creases in negative affect when anti-smokers find them-
selves in smoking situations.
The people who display moderate to high tolerance,
whether or not they also oppose smoking are a suitable
target for industry efforts. However, It should be noted
that there are major areas of potential strain in sus-
taining this relatively tolerate attitude towards
smoking. If strain is increased, the tolerance may dim-
inish and this group may show greater similarity with
anti-smokers.
PRELIMINARY DRAFT 1.0 - 2 PRELIMINARY DRAFT
ANTI-SMOKING: The Organized Movement and Individual
Orientations
1.0 SUMMARY
2.0 INTRODUCTION
3.0 THE ORGANIZED MOVEMENT
3.1 Introduction: The Anti-Smoking Movement
The current anti-smoking movement, in its present form as
a recognized and organized movement in US society, dates
from the 1960's. This movement represents the contempo-
rary manifestation of a long history of anti-smoking and
anti-tobacco stances. Each has been precipitated by sets
of societal conditions, including a sense of generalized
social disorganization or upheaval. Each can be seen as
an attempt of one group to control another, or to gain
control of or access to scarce resources. Over its life-
span, each movement has developed from a messianic to an
institutionalized phase.
The present movement follows this pattern; it was trig-
gered by a combination of the social turmoil and activism
characteristic of the 1960's and the participation of the
medical establishment. American society has been charac-
terized as a society with a high incidence of joining
groups formed around special interests. De Tocc,ueville
observed this during his peregrinations in America in the
mid-19th century. This predisposition, combined with the
ethos of America following World War II, offered oppor-
tune conditions for the development of various social
movements, including the modern anti-smoking movement.
3.2 Historical Background
3.2.1 Europeans and Tobacco
The earliest documented instance of anti-smoking occurred
at the first European contact with tobacco, the period of
Spanish colonization of the New World.
Tobacco, indigenous to the New World, had long been
incorporated into native American tradition. Tobacco
consumption included smoking, chewing, snuffing, eating
and drinking. The Indians considered the herb sacred and
held it in high esteem. For them, as for many other
societies that later adopted it, tobacco symbolized
welcome and unity, communication with the gods and
spirits, and the healing power to drive out disease.
PRELIMINARY DRAFT 3.0 - 1 PRELIMINARY DRAFT
ANTI-SMOKING:
THE ORGANIZED MOVEMENT AND INDIVIDUAL ORIENTATIONS
1.0 SUMMARY
We conducted a review of archival materials to develop a
chronological and interpretative history of anti-smoking
movements. The modern movement was studied through re-
ports in the press and written material from the organ-
ized groups, telephone interviews with people knowledge-
able of the movement or involved in the movement and
through participant-observation of present day groups.
six study sites were selected for participant-observation
on the grassroots anti-smoking movement. Interviews with
local residents in group and individual settings were
conducted at these sites, which included Boston, Dallas,
Minneapolis, Atlanta, Los Angeles and Kansas City.
We found historical evidence to suggest that anti-smoking
sentiment is related to certain social processes and has
often been used to reinforce class distinctions. There
has been no sustained anti-smoking movement; rather it
is cyclical and tends not appear during periods of great
social stability or when a nation is drawn together by a
common purpose, such as war.
We found that the modern grassroots movement can be
divided into three types: quasi-establishment; quasi-
militant; and leader-dependent. The quasi-establishment
type dominates the movement today and traces its ori in
to the militancy that characterized much of the 1970's,
the time when organized grassroots anti-smoking groups
began to flourish.
Individual orientations were investigated with group and
individual protocols developed in an initial phase in the
Boston area. In addition, we were able to make certain
comparisons between the 1985 Boston sample and earlier
data collected in Boston in 1977. These materials demon-
strate a definite growth in anti-smoking sentiment show-
ing that attributions to smoking-related concepts are
increasingly negative as are people's feelings in smoking
situations.
There were no significant differences in the dynamics of
anti-smoking or in the predisposition for action or res-
ponses to smoking. An exception to this is provided by
Minneapolis, which, while not significantly different on
many issues, was consistently more positive on smoking
related issues and less positive on anti-smoking
PRELIMINARY DRAFT 1.0 - 1 PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Figure 4.4-5:
Figure 4.4-6:
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
4.4.2-1:
4.4.2-2:
4.4.2-3:
4.4.2-4:
4.5.2-1:
4.5.2-2:
4.5.3-1:
Figure 4.5.3-2:
Figure 4.5.3-3:
Figure 4.5.3-4:
Figure 4.5.3-5:
Figure 4.6.2-1:
Figure 4.6.2-2:
Table 4.1.3-1:
Table 4.4.1-1:
DIAGRAMS
Order: Self and Smoking Related
Concepts
Belonging: Self and Smoking Related
Concepts
Evaluation by Opposition
Purity by Opposition
Order by Opposition
Belonging by opposition
Propensity to Act: Smoking
Propensity to Act: General
Mood Responses Over Time:
Boston 1977/Boston 1985
Situational Mood Changes:
High Anti-Smoking/Low Anti-Smoking
Mood Changes By Smoking Action
Mood Changes By Exception
Minneapolis Vs. Other 5 Sites - Mood
Relationship of Smoking to Other
Pollutants: Total Sample
Relationship of Smoking to Other
Pollutants: Middle Group
Demographic Characteristics
Differences in Attributions toward
Smoking Related Concepts
Historical Chronology of Anti-Smoking Movements:
England 1500 - 1900
Historical Chronology of Anti-Smoking Movements:
America 1500 - 1960
APPENDIX List of Anti-Smoking Groups
PRELIMINARY DRAFT Contents - 5 PRELIMINARY DRAFT
differentiate itself from a rising merchant class, made
newly rich by colonial commerce and land acquired from a
displaced and debt-ridden aristocracy. The courtiers
distinguished themselves by acquired French customs and
dress. For the court there was snuff; for the rest, the
lowly pipe.
Victorian England presented another crisis in social
values that was reflected in the uses of tobacco and in
attitudes. The Industrial Revolution repired manpower
to sustain it and the lower classes provided the labor
force of men, women and children. Denied access to the
profits of the factories, this labor force was given
unlimited access to tobacco, a pleasure that had been
reserved primarily for the merchant and upper classes.
Victorian society adjusted to this dilemma by restriction
and separation.
3.2.2 Anti-Tobacco Forces in America
In 17th century America there were modest efforts to
restrict or ban tobacco because it was perceived as
morally degrading. However, when the clergy adopted the
practice of smoking, restrictions were dropped and the
issue vanished until the late 18th century.
From the late 1700's until the onset of the American
Civil War, the medical profession and the clergy initiat-
ed several anti-tobacco movements. Tobacco, especially
smoking, was seen as related to a variety of illnesses
and undesirable behaviors. A major theme, persisting
into the 20th century, was a compulsion to draw a direct
cause-and-effect relationship between tobacco use and
drunkenness.
3.2.3 The 20th Century: The First Half
Cigarette smoking became increasingly popular in the
decades following the Civil War, as did opposition to it.
The climate of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was
dominated by the industrial expansion, drawing more women
and children into the labor force, and women's increased
efforts to participate more fully in society. The era
was characterized by reformism, including the temperance,
women's suffrage and juvenile court movements.
The anti-smoking forces, focusing on cigarettes, directed
their efforts towards saving America's youth from the
moral corruption and physical destruction associated with
smoking and trying to reinforce traditional values of the
status quo by labeling women who smoked in public as
prostitutes.
PRELIMINARY DRAFT 3.0 - 3 PRELIMINARY DRAFT
