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).

In this 1988 speech, Tobacco Institute executives explain industry strategies for fighting clean indoor air laws, creating allies, mobilizing "grassroots" support and marginalizing public health authorities. The first speaker, Susan Stuntz (Director of Issues Management at the Tobacco Institute), explains how promoting ventilation as the sole solution to tobacco smoke pollution helps the Institute "ensure that smoking restrictions are no longer seen as the best solution to cleaning up the indoor air..."

Stuntz introduces one of the industry's more brash front groups, the "National Institute for Conflict Education," or N.I.C.E. NICE was to feature celebrity-actor Hal Holbrook as it's attention-grabbing spokesperson, and would perform "research," the pre-determined conclusions of which would be that by pursuing smoke-free indoor air, public health advocates were over-reacting to one of "life's everyday annoyances." The research would conclude that public health advocates were "anti-social," and smokers were just getting a "bum rap."

Stuntz explains,

"...We believe that annoyance is one of the keys to the social acceptability question. Smokers believe that their smoke is annoying, that they are the problem, that they are the ones who are acting in an anti-social way. Our program will demonstrate that it is the overreaction to life's everyday annoyances, including anti-smokers' overreaction to smoking, that is, in fact, the anti-social behavior. Our program would establish a broad-based coalition with a celebrity spokesperson who will cite research to show smokers that obnoxious anti-smokers are the problem... To make all of this happen, we would work with other organizations to establish a National Institute for Conflict Education...known by the acronym N.I.C.E., to conduct quantitative and qualitative research to demonstrate how normal, everyday people deal with common everyday annoyances. The organization would show that Americans as a group view smoking as but one of life's many every day annoyances...Actor Hal Holbrook has indicated that he is interested in being the spokesman for the group. He will be supported by a team of social scientists who will help interpret and communicate research findings. With Hal Holbrook in the lead, the coalition will release its research findings through advertising in national decision-maker publications, and through media tours, op-eds and feature stories. We will enlist Holbrook's help in speaking directly to smokers..."

Stuntz cites a benefit of N.I.C.E.: "It puts a respected celebrity in our camp, to offset some of the Captain Kangaroos out there.

The speech also talks about the industry's highly successful use of labor unions, how the industry worked to undermine the Cancer Society's Great American Smokeout, and says the Institute spent about $29.5 million over 18 months to implement public affairs programs like those described in the talk.