Tobacco Documents Online

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).

This is the first draft of a social engineering book about courteous smoking behavior, "Cigarettiquette," written for R.J. Reynolds by Rogers and Cowan (a public relations firm). Its purpose was to use light humor to instruct smokers on how to courteously handle their nicotine addiction, without ever telling them they have an addiction. The manual features a fictional couple named Betty and Bud, one an addicted smoker and the other a nonsmoker, and illustrates how the couple has learned to live with Betty's addiction, and how they deal with her smoking around their children, friends, family, etc. The book suggests that children of smoking parents be taught that smoking is part of life, and that they be told that "they can try [cigarettes] if they want to, when they get older." The manual suggests that babysitters should be instructed not to talk to the children about smoking, and when the children ask Mommy and Daddy why Mommy smokes and Daddy doesn't, the manual recommends telling them that Mommy smokes because Mommy enjoys it, "Just like Betty likes cake and Bud prefers pie."

This is a proposal from the William Esty advertising company to provide information on trends among high school juniors and seniors regarding cigarette smoking incidence, consumption, brand preferences and brand switching. The survey questions ask youth respondents about their smoking behavior and brand preferences. The proposal is dated 1964. Ironically, cigarette companies continue today to do such marketing research on childrens' smoking behavior right in front of the public. Today Philip Morris' web site states openly that PM continues to perform "comprehensive, ongoing" surveys each year of 20,000 children ages 11-17, having researchers call their homes and ask about "their activities, interests, attitudes about themselves, parents and school, and cigarette smoking behavior." They call it their "Teenage Attitudes and Behavior Survey." Information on Philip Morris' ongoing yearly study of thousands of children and teens can be accessed through their corporate web page at http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/policies_practices/ysp/teenage_study.asp

Thus tobacco companies today continue to openly perform comprehensive marketing research on the smoking behavior, attitudes and preferences of children as young as 11 years old. The only difference is now they do it under the guise of their "youth smoking prevention" programs.

From the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJR), here is one of the most compelling documents describing efforts to market cigarettes to youth. In this document, Claude Teague of RJR's research department muses about how to attract "pre-smokers" or "learners" to smoking in a marketplace where the company cannot do so overtly:

"It should be said that we are presently, and I believe unfairly, constrained from directly promoting cigarettes to the youth market..."

"Realistically, if our Company is to survive and prosper, over the long term, we must get our share of the youth market. In my opinion, this will require new brands tailored to the youth market..."

Teague discusses how RJR can exploit the psychological needs of youngsters by developing a new cigarette brand tailored specifically for this age group:

"Pre-smokers learn to smoke to identify with and participate in shared experiences of a group of associates. If the majority of one's closest associates smoke cigarettes, then there is strong psychological pressure, particularly on the young person, to identify with the group, follow the crowd...This provides a large incentive to begin smoking...Thus a new brand aimed at the young smoker must somehow become the 'in' brand and its promotion should emphasize togetherness, belonging and group acceptance, while at the same time emphasizing individuality and 'doing one's own thing.' "

Amazingly, RJR considers how it's deadly products can be used to help enhance the "fragile, developing self-image of the young":

"C. Self-Image Enhancement - The fragile, developing self-image of the young person needs all of the support and enhancement it can get. Smoking may appear to enhance that self-image in a variety of ways. If one values, for example, an adventurous, sophisticated, adult image, smoking may enhance one's self-image...."

Finally, RJR gives us a dismal reminder at how health education, and even warning labels, can serve to actually drive youngsters TOWARDS smoking:

"The smoking-health controversy does not appear important to the group because, psychologically, at eighteen, one is immortal. Further, if the desire to be daring is part of the motivation to start smoking, the alleged risk of smoking may actually make smoking attractive. Finally, if the 'older' establishment is preaching against smoking, the anti-establishment sentiment discussed above would cause the young to be defiant and smoke. Thus, a new brand aimed at the young group should not in any way be promoted as a "health" brand, and perhaps should carry some implied risk. In this sense, the warning label on the package may be a plus."

While this is an older document, it provides an enduring and important lesson that is key to understanding the tobacco industry's need to recruit young smokers. Since adults rarely begin smoking, if the companies don't continue to recruit young people to smoke, one day there will be no more smokers.