Big Tobacco's Conspiracy To Hide Health Risks & Deceive, They Knew & Documents Show They Knew - Here

[Magda Hassan]

Super Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5169
Joined: 9-December 04
From: Europe
Member No.: 2082



Here is one of your very interesting posts Peter. Rescued from the memory hole by some kind friends who emailed it to me. mokin::bandit:

http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/dd/dd.html

[if you go to the url above the document summaries below have links to the originals]


Ann Landman's Daily Documents
Anne Landman's Secret Document emails at Smokescreen. Unformatted, but you can reach older items here.
Anne Landman's Tobacco Document Discoveries Excellent presentations of Anne's earlier "secret" documents.

01/03/12 'Sue the bastards!' (EPA) PM, 1993
This memo from Thomas Humber of the giant PR firm Burson-Marstellar (B-M) to Ellen Merlo of Philip Morris (PM) Corporate Affairs signals the start of PM's war against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after EPA pronounced secondhand smoke a group A carcinogen. Humber emphasizes how PM needs to discredit the EPA, portray the agency as corrupt, encourage other businesses to oppose EPA, and cast EPA as an agency under siege. Humber tells Merlo PM needs to sue EPA ("Sue the bastards!") as a way to help the industry regain credibility, encourage other companies to fight EPA, and "delay or cloud" other legal actions against the company . . . The memo reveals the awesome power that major public relations firms wield in defining issues and shaping the American political landscape. Humber boasts how, using front groups "Citizens for a Sound Economy" and the "Institute for Regulatory Policy," B-M arranged a symposium where the keynote speaker was the vice-president of the U.S., then assured that the media coverage generated by the event was dominated by the corporate message of "overregulation." Humber also points out that PM could find allies in ventilation businesses, since they stand to profit from PM's stance that ventilation is the solution to problems caused by secondhand smoke (not smoking bans).

HVAC/IAQ Business and Groups: We have also previously outlined a potential approach to those businesses and groups whose economic interests would be furthered by the adoption of policies and regulations centered on total IAQ solutions rather than source control
01/02/28 BAT: 'We really need something for people to die of.' BAT, Nov 20, 1978
This document, from British American Tobacco [Campbell Johnson LTD], discusses how the industry should handle the increasing onslaught of anti-smoking sentiment worldwide, and suggests that the tobacco industry should band together to respond to these threats uniformly:
The industry's response needs, in consequence, to have many facets, but to be balanced and co-ordinated, and, above all, to be unanimous....
One chilling passage mentions the "social cost" issue, and offers an argument in favor of smoking that the industry acknowledges it could never use publicly :
...with a general lengthening of the expectation of life we really need something for people to die of. In substitution for the effects of war, poverty and starvation, cancer, as the disease of the rich, developed countries, may have some predestined part to play. The argument is obviously not one that the tobacco industry could use publicly. But its weight, as a psychological factor in perpetuating people's taste for smoking as an enjoyable if risky habit, should not be under-estimated...
The document also discusses threats that other drugs, like marijuana, pose to the industry.

01/02/26 Smoking Deaths Save Money BAT, Sep 1, 1994
The following article saying that smoking deaths save governments money was published in the Canadian Newspaper, the Ottowa Citizen, in September 1994. A copy of the report on which this article is based (by economist Jean Pierre Vidal) can be found at: http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/batco/...s/allpages.html A report commissioned by Imperial Tobacco says tobacco-related deaths are an economic advantage to Canadians because cigarettes kill people off before they become a burden to the health-Care system. Previously, the tobacco giant always denied any link between cigarettes and death.

01/02/22BAT: 'Competition from Cannabis, Glue Sniffing, Heroin'
This document, written by D.E. Creighton of the British American Tobacco Co, states that tobacco products could expect "competition from Cannabis, glue-sniffing and possibly hard drugs--heroin and cocaine," and immediately after that, "We must find a way to appeal to the young."
9. Additional contraints on delivery to include Cyanide, Acreolin, Acetaldehyde, Heavy Metals, Nitrosamies, Nitric Oxide and benzopyrene.10. Nicotine classified as a scheduled poison and sold "on prescription only" to registered users. . . High on the list of consumer needs is nicotine, which I believe to be the main motivator and sustainer of smoking behavior. . . high on the list of product requirements is an adequate level of nicotine to sustain the smoking habit. We have tried the low delivery product route with limited success. This might be because the nicotine in such products is below the pharmacological threshold of effectiveness. Smokers have dissappointed us in that they have chosen not to smoke twice as many 10mg cigarettes if they changed frm 20 mg products. Thus in order to reinforce the primary pleasures of smoking, I have proposed to make it easier for smokers to take what they want from a cigarette which might well have a low delivery when smoked by machine which overcomes current legal constraints to enhance the sensations from the first few puffs.

01/02/18 RJR: Seeking 'Replacement Smokers' RJR, Jan 1, 1989
This R.J. Reynolds document from 1989 refers to young people as "the only source of replacement smokers." It acknowledges the importance of young people to the future of tobacco industry profits. . . It also reveals that younger smokers are important to the industry's future growth because they both exhibit strong brand loyalty (as many smokers do) and because young people increase their smoking rates as they age:
The value of FUBYAS [first usual brand younger adult smokers] compounds over time due to extreme brand loyalty and rate per day increases. . . Rate per day increases 30% between ages 18 and 35.
This statement is particularly interesting in light of tobacco industry's long-time argument that cigarettes aren't addictive because smokers don't show tolerance for nicotine. Tolerance, or increasing the amount of a drug required for to achieve a "high," is a hallmark criteria defining substance addiction. The document also reveals RJR's admiration for the Jack Daniels Whiskey and Budweiser Beer ad campaigns, and considered them models for going after young people. They admired how Budweiser beer "went to work on younger adults," and noted that "the payoff was big." Clearly young people are corporate America's battleground, and especially so for the alcohol and nicotine industries. How many parents know that these corporations are drooling over young people this way? How can a line truly be drawn in an ad campaign between appealing to a sixteen year old and an 18 year old?

01/02/16 PM on the Narcotic Effect of Nicotine PM, May 24, 1972
People use cigarettes for the narcotic effect derived from the nicotine, according to this internal memo from the director of Philip Morris' consumer research department. It says:
A widely held theory holds that most people smoke for the narcotic effect (relaxing, sedative) that comes from the nicotine. The "taste" comes from the "tar" (particulate matter) delivery. Although more people talk about "taste," it is likely that greater numbers smoke for the narcotic value that comes from the nicotine.
Philip Morris' was also aware (long ago) of the link between nicotine use and marijuana use:
...This ties in with the information we have from focus group sessions and other sources that suggest that Kool is considered to be good for 'after marijuana' to maintain the 'high' or for mixing with marijuana, or 'instead.'

01/02/15 Potential Threats to Cigarettes BAT, Mar 19, 1976
In a fascinating discussion, this British-American Tobacco (BAT) document considers future product developments that may threaten sales of cigarettes.
Nearly ten years ago, a French paper ... discussed numerous plants which might replace tobacco. The only material which has received a lot of attention is marijuana... In the illicit use of marijuana, relatively large doses of the active principal are involved. If the use of such drugs was legalised, one avenue for exploitation would be the augmentation of cigarettes with near sub-liminal levels of the drug.
BAT also noted that the link between smoking and disease has not deterred most people from smoking. More of a threat to sales than the spectre of disease, they say, is the "increasing tendency to portray smoking as socially undesirable." To combat this threat, they speculate that public relations will be more effective than science:
... Taking a long-term view, there is a danger in the current trend of lower and lower cigarette deliveries - i.e. the smoker will be weaned away from the habit....if the nicotine delivery is reduced below a threshold 'satisfaction' level, then surely smokers will question more readily why they are indulging in an expensive habit.
But most chilling is the notion that they would be threatened if people could find an effective way to control their own brain activity without benefit of drugs:
...smoking (largely via nicotine) may assist people to control the level of activity in the brain to a desired level. Other means of such control represent, therefore, a rival to the cigarette. There is an increasing amount of evidence ... that subjects can control their levels of brain activity, without recourse to drugs, if they are given information on the level of brain activity (biofeedback)....such techniques might be used by anti-smoking clinics.
And last but not least is a statement both acknowledging smoke toxicity and speculating that the company could benefit because it presents them with opportunities for "cigarette designs which offer the image of 'health reassurance.' " :
...Looking further down the road, the possibility exists that, as inhalation tests are developed and accepted, then filters might offer a selective means of controlling smoke toxicity...Well before that date, however, opportunities exist for filter and cigarette designs which offer the image of "health re-assurance."...

01/02/14 Targeting Cigarettes at African Americans RJR, Dec 2, 1977
This R.J. Reynolds document shows that RJR had an interest in targeting African Americans for their products. Here a marketing specialist recommends that RJR consider designing a cigarette just for this ethnic group:
RJR's business among Blacks is underdeveloped.... Further, given their strong preference for menthol flavor, we probably need to devote more attention to Blacks than before in the development of our marketing plans...In fact, I even feel that a project designed to develop a cigarette for Blacks may be a viable business proposition.
The marketing company also noted that the incidence of smoking was dropping among caucasians but not among African-Americans, their interpretation of this being that it was a good thing, since it assured the industry of a solid cigarette market among African Americans.

01/02/13 Philip Morris ETS Strategy, 1990 PM, May 7, 1990
This environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) strategy document by Philip Morris' public relations firm Burson Marsteller reveals how Philip Morris and its PR flack perceived the ETS issue and how they developed "accommodation" as a strategy to deflect it in the 1990s. There are many pivotal lessons for advocates in this document, specifically that 1) the "...social acceptability [of smoking] is ultimately the bedrock upon which the industry's survival depends," thus accellerating the increase in the social unacceptability of smoking will help diminish the industry's future, 2) As long as we fight the tobacco industry on the issue of health--and not allow the industry to co-opt it into an argument of "free choice" or "rights of smokers" we will win, as per the following quote:
Equally, [these figures] reveal the source of the power of the anti-smokers as long as they can fight the cigarette wars on a battlefield of health....The industry stands somewhat flat-footed in response since it questions the fundamental promise (ie the existence of the health problem) -- a stance which puts it in conflict with the weight of public opinion.
...the annoyance issue is more than a health concern...The annoyance issue is as dangerous and perhaps even more dangerous than misperceptions of the health impacts of ETS. If government officials, business managers or restaurant owners feel that they want to ban smoking for health reasons, the scientific data can be mustered to show that such a ban serves no health purpose. But, as has been discovered in the battle for airline smoking, as long as the decision-maker can fall back on a "comfort" or "customer preference" argument, it doesn't matter what the science says. It becomes a question of social harmony and good customer relations...
5) We should expose Philip Morris' "accommodation" program as a strategy the tobacco industry designed purely to benefit itself, not smokers, as per the following quote:
Accommodation must be perceived to be for smokers, not for the tobacco industry. If smokers are not visible carriers of the accommodation message, it will lack credibility...
There are many more lessons to be learned from this document.

01/02/12 Marlboro Man: Losing his Cool? PM, Mar 2, 1992
Joe Camel had the Marlboro Man worried. After all, the Camel was young, hip, urban, cool,phallic-looking and had no work ethic. The Marlboro Man on the other hand, was tough, severe, serious, rural, older, and delayed his gratification. Joe was selling lots of cigarettes to young people. In the tobacco industry's war to win the hearts of impressionable, rebellious young people (who, according to this document, themselves had no work ethic) the Camel was winning. Thus, industry advertising experts recommended that Philip Morris re-make the Marlboro man into a looser, cooler guy. Have him smile and wave, they recommended, have him show his backside, appear in "Cosmo" magazine -- in short, make him less "Clint Eastwood" and more "Bruce Willis. . . Oh, and by the way, this document confirms that the Camel's nose was a phallic symbol.
WHY [THE CAMEL IS] EFFECTIVE WITH 18-24 SEGMENT:
Blatant sexuality without responsibility
Nose - phallic symbol
cigarette instrument of pleasure
women as sex objects
Identify with the rebelliousness of the Camel
Between child and fully responsible adult...
The Marlboro Man can have whomever he wants because he is at the top of the dominance hierarchy... ...Target those magazines (e.g., Playboy, Cosmopolitan) where he could be pictured with a woman... ...Show his backside and/or tipping his hat to a lady

01/02/10 Tax Increases, Teen Smoking and Beetles PM, Sep 3, 1987
This insightful Philip Morris (PM) memo discusses how the company should handle a significant excise tax increase on cigarettes. Of course the answer was to pass it on to customers, but the astonishing revelation is that PM executives knew fully well--in 1987 (and no doubt to this day)--that raising taxes on cigarettes (or a price increase in general) is a proven means of keeping teens from starting to smoke. This was something Philip Morris clearly considered a detriment (despite current PM rhetoric of not wanting kids to smoke):
Last time, of course, we increased prices five times between February of 1982 and January of 1983.....and this fact was not lost on consumers....the 1982-83 round of price increases caused two million adults to quit smoking and prevented 600,000 teenagers from starting to smoke. Those teenagers are now 18-21 years old, and since about 70 percent of 18-21 year olds and 35 percent of older smokers smoke a PM brand, this means that 700,000 of those adult quitters had been PM smokers and 420,000 of the non-starters would have been PM smokers. Thus, if Harris is right, we were hit disproportionately hard. We don't need to have that happen again.
This document also reveals that people are regularly smoking worm/beetle larvae in their cigarettes. The writer suggests that the company urge their smokers to stock up on cigarettes before the tax increase, but also that the company urge smokers to refrigerate their cigarette supply under the guise of "preserving their freshness." In reality, it's to keep beetles from emerging from the tobacco

01/02/9 Free-basing Nicotine: State of the Art RJR, Oct 2, 1973
Determined to find out why their brands were doing so poorly compared to the others, RJR chemically "deconstructed" Marlboro cigarettes with the aim of finding out just how they were different. RJR soon discovered that Philip Morris (PM) had made a "deliberate and controlled" chemical change in thesmoke of their cigarettes. PM was altering the smoke pH by adding ammonia to the tobacco, which made the smoke more alkaline.Why? Because in a more alkaline atmosphere, more of the nicotine "...occurs in 'free' form, which is volatile, rapidly absorbed by the smoker, and believed to be instantly perceived as nicotine 'kick'." Putting more of the drug into a vapor form that is rapidly taken up by thebody is known as "free-basing" a drug. This paper, marked "SECRET," discusses RJR's discovery of this sales-enhancing chemical change, and how they could mimic the freebasing technique that Philip Morris was using. Now, as the industry calls it, employing "ammonia technology" is state of the art in cigarette manufacturing. In essence, all cigarette companies now freebase nicotine, to give the user a faster, harder "kick" after lighting up. The industry calls it "increasing customer satisfaction." Others view it as markedly increasing the addictiveness of cigarettes.

01/02/08 RJR's Target: Less Educated People RJR, Apr 22, 1985
As the executive vice president of a marketing company writes to RJR:
I would like to extend our thanks to you and Jeff for your presentation on 'The Less Educated Smoker'....Clearly those people who attended college but have not graduated are the more meaningful target for us<
Also notice that the marketing executive plans to use information obtained from a "youth study" to help RJR market Camel cigarettes:
...we are currently using the learning from the Youth Study and shall be applying it to upcoming projects on Camel..

01/02/06 'Independent Scientists' Tout Substance Enjoyment Burson Marsteller, Sep 28 , 1993
In 1993 the joint global tobacco industry (through PR company Burson Marsteller) invented an "independent" group of "eminent" scientists, putting them forth as "apolitical" experts on the topic of how substance use enhances quality of life. Incredibly, they named the group "Associates for Research in Substance Enjoyment," or ARISE. ARISE held press conferences around the world at which they expressed their expert scientific opinion that substance use gives humans pleasure, thus enhances people's quality of life and health. Among the activities they listed as being beneficial were "eating food, chocolate, smoking, drinking tea, coffee and alcohol." The group did not mention that drinking tea and eating chocolate never killed anyone, but smoking has taken the lives of millions. . . ARISE held conferences around the world, released polls and sent video news releases to the media assuring the masses that substance use (including smoking) is pleasurable and harmless. . . Journalists ate the hook. In this January, 1997 Philip Morris memo, the writer bragged that,
Yolande de la Bigne, a well-known [French] journalist, covered the [ARISE Paris] conference...concluding that 'a piece of chocolate, a glass of wine, a good cigarette, you can go for it. Instead of being obsessed by health, everybody should be obsessed by pleasure which induces good health. Le Parisien also covered the conference in a lengthy feature entitled 'Pleasure is good medicine.'

01/02/05 'Youth Programs Could Reduce Sales...' TI, May 9, 1989
Here is yet another document describing the real reasons the industry has "youth programs."
This document is the result of a working session on advertising restrictions held on May 3, 1989. The recommendations were produced to address Strategy III of the Institute's public affairs plan on ad ban issues: . . .Concern: There is some risk that efforts to discourage youth smoking could decrease tobacco sales, both immediately and over the long term. This is true. However, the group agreed that, in the absence of credible industry efforts to address the youth smoking issue, various types of potential legislative and regulatory action would have a much more serious impact upon tobacco sales.
Thus the tobacco industry opted for the lesser of two evils, adopting "youth programs" being the lesser. Here industry representatives describe being forced into having "youth programs":
The youth smoking issue puts the industry in a 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' situation. Even the most sincere industry efforts cannot be expected to sway anti-smoking hard-liners, who will merely suspect that the campaign has ulterior motives. However, the potential 'damned if you don't' ramifications are serious enough to warrant actions.
According to the industry, the goals for their "youth programs" are not to reduce the number of children who become addicted to a deadly product, but rather to:
Provide ammunition to tobacco allies (legislators and others) to oppose unfair restrictions, Enhance the industry's overall ability to gain and maintain allies, Weaken a key argument of tobacco foes.

01/02/04 Job Openings at PM? PM, Jul 1, 1990
Philip Morris admires the ingenuity ofpeople in the anti-tobacco movement and would like to hire them when they get bored with the movement, according to this speech...
This may surprise you, but I would like to conclude these remarks by expressing my respect and admiration for the leaders of the anti-tobacco movement, or at least for those in the background who plot their aggressive strategy. In our business we look for people who succeed in developing new products which capture the imagination of the public. We never cease to be amazed with the ability of the anti-tobacco activists to come up with something new. No sooner does common sense destroy one of their assertions, than they are into another line of argument...

We could certainly use such ingenuity at Philip Morris and let me say here and now, we would be glad to receive the resumés of members of the anto-tobacco movement after they become bored with the cigarette and health controversy. Who knows? If they still have a problem with Merit or Parliament, perhaps we could give them a go with Crystal Light or Miracle Whip.

01/01/30 Lorillard, Jan, 1975: Smoking: Self-treatment for Aggression?
The tobacco industry took note of a number of studies that showed that nicotine reduces aggressive behavior in humans and animals. Hardly daring to consider the notion that their industry could be contributing to society by reducing crime and aggression in the general population, the writer speculates about this "benefit" of cigarettes:
No one would be so imprudent as to confer some beneficent role upon the cigarette industry in reducing crime or in quieting the raging beast in man, but the persistence with which the suggestion on an inverse relationship between smoking and aggression has laced the literature is such as to call for a concerted examination of the facts.
The paper calls for a conference to discuss nicotine's role in the reduction of aggression.

01/02/02 PM, Feb 23, 1982: Admissions of a PM Scientist
Jim Charles, Ph.D., a veteran scientist with PM's Research and Development department, frets about the landlside of public and private experts who are starting to link cigarettes with multiple organ cancers and other diseases. . .
This company is in trouble. The cigarette industry is in trouble....The anti-smoking forces are out to bury us... Their goal is to destroy the industry and any means to that end is justified (in their opinion)....

The Surgeon General's press conference was disturbing. For the first time associations between cancers other than the lung and cigarette smoking are being made in an emphatic manner. Associating cigarette smoking with 30% of all cancer deaths should make someone sit up and take notice...

Let's face the facts:

1. Cigarette smoke is biologically active.

A. Nicotine is a potent pharmacological agent. Every toxicologist, physiologist, medical doctor and most chemists know that. It is not a secret.

B. Cigarette smoke condensate applied to the backs of mice causes tumors.

C. Hydrogen cyanide is a potent inhibitor of cytochrome oxidase - a crucial enzyme in the energy metabolism of all cells.

D. Oxides of nitrogen are important in nitrosamine formation. Nitrosamines as a class are potent carcinogens.

E. Tobacco-specific nonvolatile nitrosamines are present in significant amounts in cigarette smoke.

F. Acreolin is a potent eye irritant and is very toxic to cells. Acreolin is in cigarette smoke.

G. Polonium-210 is present in cigarette smoke.

H. We know very little about the biological activity of sidestream smoke.

I. We do not know enough about the biological activity of additives which have been in use for a number of years.
Notice that while Charles at first says that the "scientific basis for the statements" about the effects of secondhand smoke on nonsmokers "is not sound," he admits at the same time that PM "knows very little about the biological activity of sidestream smoke." These confessions were written in 1982 by a top Philip Morris scientist, and were sent to the head of PM's Science and Technology Department. Yet despite this important admission from one of its most dedicated and stalwart scientists, PM continued to advertise and market cigarettes as though they were safe...

01/01/28 'Excellent Study, could be Very Damaging to Business.' PM, Mar 30, 1980: PM
[A]n important find. It demonstrates how the goal of Philip Morris' scientific affairs department was to find any means possible to dispute the findings of scientific papers that they determined "could be very damaging to our business," even if it was (as in this case) a paper that the department head himself admitted was "an excellent piece of work." The paper being reviewed here by Jim Charles of Philip Morris was by James R. White, Ph.D. and Herman Froeb, M.D. and shows that nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke suffer significant damage to the function of their small airways. The finding that bystanders were harmed by their products was of no concern to Charles, though. Rather, it is clear that his sole focus was on finding some way, no matter how small, to criticize and ultimately discredit the paper, and thus minimize the damage such an "excellent report" could cause the tobacco industry.
I have reviewed the above paper and find it to be an excellent piece of work which could be very damaging to our business. There are several things that can be done to minimize its impactNo matter who we find to rebut the paper, the ultimate response must be in the form of a legitimate criticism of the significance of the data to appear in the New England Journal of Medicine under the name of a recognized medical authority....Other than the above points I can find little to criticize. The authors have put together an excellent paper in my opinion"

01/01/26 Avoiding the Health Issue by Focusing on 'Corporate Responsbility' PM, Nov 23, 1988
In this 1988 Philip Morris (PM) document, Philip Morris Counsel Gary Long is instructing Charles Wall of PM on how to frame a speech to improve the company's public image while avoiding "the primary issue" . . Notice the out-and-out recommendation to dodge the smoking and health issue and focus instead solely on "corporate responsibility" and the "recognition of the continued necessity of research in the smoking and health area," even though PM already knows what smoking does to health:
Industry foes are concerned that Philip Morris may use this increasing economic power to attempt to downplay the public debate concerning smoking and health, by lobbying activity, by controlling internal smoking policies of its non-cigarette divisions, by its advertising decisions and by pressure on its suppliers. Perhaps the focus of the speech could be Philip Morris' recognition of the continued necessity for research in the smoking and health area as well as a statement that discussion on the issue is encouraged by the Company.
Today, PM's "foes" are still concerned with the same issues, particularly that PM is using its economic power to control the debate and pressure media not to carry anti-tobacco ads, and PM is still using the same dodging tactic of focusing on "corporate responsbility."

01/01/25 PM: Lung Disease Causes Smoking PM, May 29, 1974
In casting about for something else they could point to as the culprit that was causing lung disease in smokers, the tobacco industry came up with some interesting hypotheses. Their "carotene hypothesis" attempted to blame lung cancer on a high intake of dietary carotene. Another view, promoted for some time, was the "Constitutional Hypothesis" which claimed that a genetic defect caused some human beings to "have difficulty adapting to the problems of existence." Thus they claimed that smoking was a substitute for people's normal coping mechanisms (that is, in some lesser strain of people who suffered from being particularly inadaptable):
Smoking, then, would result not directly from a genetic predisposition, but as a response to the frustrations (flunking tests in school, etc.) which these relatively unadaptable people experience."
But one of the most bizarre was the "Reverse Hypothesis," in which Philip Morris scientists tried to substantiate the claim that lung disease was a cause of smoking.

01/01/24 RJR on 'Pre-smokers' and 'Learners' RJR, Feb 2, 1973
Here is one of the absolute worst documents revealing the tobacco industry's marketing to youngsters . . . Claude Teague of RJR's research department muses about how to attract "pre-smokers" or "learners" to smoking in a marketplace where the 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...

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.'

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....
And 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 may be an older document, the basic premises survive. We can be certain that the industry still remembers such advice from their experts, for they know (as we do) that if young people aren't attracted to smoking, there won't be any smokers!

01/01/23 M: 'Up from the Bombshelter'
These are the astounding musings of an "industry friendly" attorney who is is trying to convince members of the industry that they need to take decisive action to combat the ever-growing anti-smoking forces. To do this, he proposes that the industry take up arguments common to property rights and expression rights, and says that these concepts can be "succesfully engrafted" onto current law.
Beyond tobacco farmers, industry workers, and those in allied wholesale, retail, and related groups, tobacco lacks a highly motivated constituency. Many former smokers (and those who want to quit) look forward to prohibition. They bolster their resolve by Alcoholics-Anonymous-like "altruistic" anti-smoking involvement....

01/01/19 PM, Jun 15, 1988: A Voice of Honesty within the Industry
This document reveals a pivotal moment in 1988 when members of the global tobacco industry came together to talk about the difficulties they faced regarding the issue of envirnmental tobacco smoke (ETS). . . These are privileged and confidential minutes of a joint industry meeting held in London in 1988. Representatives of the European, Japanese, Canadian, the American and United Kingdom tobacco companies were present. . .Of particular interest are the statements of German cigarette industry scientist, Dr Adlkofer, who questioned the industry's creation of it's own "marketable science." In a stunning departure from typical industry plotting, Dr. Adlkofer stated his view that what the industry was really seeking was "good public relations material, not good science." Dr. Adlkofer further said that "real science" would be "essential if the industry was to prevail on the ETS issue." . . Dr. Adlkofer "refused to endorse a situation in which scientific research is guided by public relations needs." . . He urged the industry instead to concentrate on identifying a threshold level for risk of ETS exposure. . . Dr. Boyce of British American Tobacco (BAT) said that the "no threshold" argument would "automatically indict active smoking." Thomas Osdene of Philip Morris suggested that "a threshold level could be set, but that the threshold not be quantified." Another attendee, Mr. Westcott, said that setting such a limit would be "dangerous" because it would provide "a priori proof of causation for anti-smoking advocates,and would "indict active smoking." John Rupp, of the U.S. tobacco industry's law firm Covington and Burling, further went on to say that "the industry should continue to emphasize the lack of substantive proof of causation." To this Adlkofer responded,
Science cannot propel the industry any further on the ETS issue unless it is able to say that not one person has died from exposure to ETS.
There was nothing further added in discussion of this landmark statement. . . The rest of the document is full of descriptions of the industry's existing path of global deceit on the ETS issue. . . This entire document is worth a read.

01/01/18 Fire Safe Cigarette Would Cut into Profits PM, 1992
For many years, advocates have been lobbying for laws that would require the tobacco industry to make cigarettes that go out when left unattended. It has taken decades for the industry to come up with such a product. Why did it take the industry so long? Because such a product would cost the industry money, according to this Philip Morris document.Tactics taken by the industry to avoid producing a fire-safe cigarette included a massive plan to befriend the fire-service community across the United States by giving grants to hundreds of local fire departments across the nation. This was known as "inoculating hostiles" (the Fire Service was deemed a huge potential enemy to the industry on this issue). Another tactic taken was the production "fire safety" programs and materials aimed at convincing the public at large that is was their responsibility, not the smoker's, to be vigilant and protect people against the fire dangers that smokers caused.
Efforts by anti-smoking groups to mandate a "fire safe" cigarette could destroy the competitiveness of leading brands and increase the cost of manufacturing cigarettes. . . During the plan period, PM-USA will expand coalitions among the fire prevention community and public policy makers to diffuse support of "fire safe" cigarette legislation at the state and federal level as well as build public awareness of fire safety and prevention.

01/01/16 More on Cigarette Contaminants PM, Jul 20, 1994
Following are some ofthecontaminants in cigarettes that were listed as the sources of customer complaints in just two Philip Morris company documents: Insects ("insect infestation"), The tear tape found at a murder scene, Varnish, "Adhesive-like materials", Ink solvents, "Insect damage", Machine lubricating oils (lubricants that are used in cigarette manufacturing facilities--apparently up to 100 types of lubricants are used) , Pieces of rubber from assembly belts, Blood, Metal powder, Rubber bands, Matchheads, Pieces of wire (consistent with paper clip components), Explosive loads, Glass fibers, Mold

01/01/12 Washington Legal Foundation & Tommy Thompson WLF, May, 1998
In 1994, Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson (incoming president Bush's nominee to head the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the tobacco control functions of federal government) joined the policy advisory board of an organization called the Washington Legal Foundation, or WLF. WLF receives funding from the Philip Morris tobacco company (PM) and in turn WLF defends PM on its issues. In 1998, the WLF ran this extremely inflammatory, pro-tobacco advertisement in several large papers including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the National Journal, the CongressDaily AM, and others. Easily recongizeable in the article are many of the tobacco industry's arguments (freedom of speech, the Bill of Rights, "slippery slope" arguments about enacting "prohibition" as well as emotion-laden phrases like "anti-tobacco zealots"). . . the WLF has also repeatedly sued government agencies that oversee public health functions, like the Food and Drug Administration and the Enivronmental Protection Agency, who they sued over workplace smoking policies. Thompson's close linkage with WLF, an organization which has long proven itself powerfully hostile to tobacco control and which clearly opposes public health measures, should be strongly questioned by senators scrutinizing Thompson as a possible head of agencies overseeing tobacco control efforts in the U.S.. . .
Let me see if I've got the most recent version of this game straight. Anti-smoking zealots in government seek to simultaneously single out and punish the demonized tobacco industry while continuing to collect billions of dollars in tax revenues from tobacco sales, as they have for decades. . . --The Washington Legal Foundation --'effective advocate of free enterprise'

01/01/10 There's 40% Less Tobacco in a Modern Cigarette Lorillard, May 4, 1983
ln 1940, a commercial cigarette contained 1300 milligrams (mg) of tobacco by weight, and by the 1980s it contained only 750 mg of tobacco. The author states,
Thus, a cigarette of the 1980's would contain about 40% less tobacco... than its counterpart of 40 years ago.
Apparently, early in the 1900s, cigarette makers used just the upper one-fourth of the tobacco leaf. Over the years, though, mechanical threshing created increased waste, and labor costs kept increasing. Eventually, the industry found ways to make use of parts of the tobacco plant that were never initially intended for use, like stems. They developed ways to incorporate stems by making fillers like reconstituted and "puffed" tobacco (puffed tobacco is treated with a gas to expand it). In the long run, these cost-saving measures, combined with the use of additives, have decreased the amount of actual tobacco in a cigarette by fully 40%.

01/01/08 Tobacco Industry Zealotry TI, Dec 11, 1979
When tobacco industry representatives use their time-worn strategy of portraying members of the anti-tobacco movement as nothing more than a bunch of shrill, over-emotional zealots, pull out this wild speech by Horace Kornegay of the Tobacco Institute. Kornegay gave this speech to theTobacco and Allied Industries Division of the American Jewish Community on December 11, 1979. In the speech, Kornegay ingratiatingly likens attacks on the tobacco industry to the repression experienced by Jews, and likens the tobacco industry's struggle for survival to Jewish historical efforts to
combat] bigotry and [protect] civil rights...
He repeatedly invokes passages from "the Jewish Bible." Kornegay refers to federal health advocate Joseph Califano "Ayatollah Califano" and compares anti-tobacco supporters to axe-murderers . . . Kornegay goes on to make "dire" predictions that smoking will eventually be banned on airlines, in Federal buildings, and that the industry would (*gasp!*) have to place tar and nicotine numbers on the packages, and strengthen the health warnings, predicting that these measures will cause the industry great harm. Then, ironically, he goes on to make what we now consider to be a very strong case in favor of policies to eliminate public smoking:
Consider this: If the pressure of anti-smoking laws and regulation succeeds in stopping each American smoker from lighting up just one cigarette each day, the annual consequences are devastating: Cigarette consumption would drop by more than 18 billion units. Personal spending for cigarettes would decline by more than half a billion dollars.

01/01/05 Philip Morris Around the Globe PM, Dec 17, 1986
Written by Philip Morris' Andrew Whist, (who, incidentally, according to telephone records, maintains contact with Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson . . ) this document reads like a brag sheet:
The government in Hong Kong responded to Philip Morris pressure by narrowing the differential between duties on imported leaf and finished cigarettes...significantly benefiting Philip Morris... In South Australia, Philip Morris significantly watered down an anti-smoking tobacco products control bill... In Venezuela, we were successful in stopping a detrimental, self-regulating advertising code... Our work in Senegal resulted in a new advertising decree which reversed a total advertising ban.
This report reveals the sheer scope of global activity by Philip Morris (PM), but perhaps more importantly it also reveals the powerless state of governments before this corporate behemoth, as PM goes about restructuring countries' tax systems, repealing laws it doesn't like and blocking legislation pushed by citizenry. We can only ask ourselves how much progress would have been made around the world in reducing the spread of tobacco-related disease had Philip Morris put humanity above its own profits, and refrained from pouring so much of its resources into stopping, delaying and watering down health measures in every corner of the globe.

01/01/04 RJR's Project YAX: Well-being in a Cigarette RJR, 1983
This R.J. Reynolds document shows the psychological scrutiny that tobacco marketing departments give the psychological needs of young adults . . .
A brand that stands for serenity via tranquil/majestic settings will be perceived by younger adult smokers as contributing to their sense of well-being....A brand that stands for the joy, closeness, and sense of belonging of male/female relationships via intimate and/or romantic situations will be perceived by younger adult smokers as contributing to their sense of well-being....A brand that stands for the openness and sense of belonging of friendships via close, interpersonal situations will be perceived by younger adult smokers as contributing to their sense of well-being...A brand that stands for financial security via achievable wealth-oriented imagery will be perceived by younger adults as contributing to their sense of well-being...
So we see that RJR strove to encourage young adults to derive a sense of well-being, joy, closeness and serenity...from cigarettes -- a product which would ultimately addict and kill them.

01/01/03 Tommy Thompson & Philip Morris PM, Sep 28, 1993
The incoming president of the United States, George W. Bush, has nominated Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson to head the federal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the agency which oversees many governmental health agencies that are responsible for tobacco control activities. Governor Tommy Thompson has close ties to thePhilip Morris Tobacco Company (PM). So close, in fact, that PM has actually been directly involved in raising funds for Mr. Thompson, as reflected in the following passage from a 1994 internal Philip Morris strategy document:
In 1993, raised money for: . . Governor Tommy Thompson of WI
The document also identifies that detriment to PM profits is the major justification for PM's continuing to fight measures to restrict public smoking,
Smoking restrictions have been estimated this year alone to have decreased PM profits by $40 million...
Furthermore, a quote shows us that PM curries favor with legislators by targeting its corporate grants to areas of "special interest to key elected officials." It also shows us how PMopportunistically creates public relations value for itself from natural disasters by ceremoniously presenting state governors with checks for disaster relief:
Expand involvement of Corporate in making grants to public policy organizations and continue identifying grants that are special interest to key elected officials. Also take advantage of Disaster Relief Budget to involve governors in check presentations.
A separate item (a letter) shows that Governor Thompson attended a PM Board of Directors dinner in 1992, and while there assured PM CEO (Michael Miles) that he would have direct access to the Governor for "items of mutual interest"

00/12/30 Obituary Cig Ad Placement a Bad Idea
Giant cigarette manufacturers who insist on running newspaper ads to promote deadly products have to be extra picky about where ads get placed. It's a real bummer, for example, if your ads get placed next to the obituaries in the newspaper, as happened here to Philip Morris (ironically, over and over).
We have numerous complaints regarding Marlboro insertions that ran in your newspapers. The following details those problems: Paper Date Brand Problems
Harrisonburg New-Record, VA 10/16/84 Marlboro Lights Ad ran opposite obituaries
San Angelo Standard, TX 10/23/84 Marlboro Red Ad ran opposite obituaries
Norwich Sun NY 10/23/84 Marlboro Red Ad ran opposite obituaries
Stuttgart Daily Leader, AK 10/30/84 Marlboro Lights Ad ran backed by anti-smoking editorial...
Athens Daily Post, TN 10/23/84 Marlboro Red Ad backed by American Cancer Society ad...


00/12/28 Industry's "Youth Programs" Help Avoid Regulation TI?, Jun 10, 1985
As we have already seen, the tobacco industry's "youth programs" help the industry deflect effective tobacco control legislation, regulation and increases in tobacco taxes. Such "kids don't smoke" programs also give the industry an aura of "self-regulation" which helps curry favor with, and give political cover to legislators who serve and protect the industry from regulation. This document is essentially the transcript of a talk given by a member of the Tobacco Institute. In the talk, he is bragging about how about how the Tobacco Institute's "Helping Youth Decide" was used to help the industry avoid just such regulation:
Our representatives in New Hampshire and Maryland...used program to help head off sampling and transportation ad bans in those states respectively ... In Wisconsin, TI's Responsible Living Program was used a couple of weeks ago ... to avoid attachment of a sampling ban to a measure establishing an 18-year minimum cigarette sales age. In California ... In California, TI's Anne Browder testified, 'Helping Youth Decide' [helped] our people defeat half-cent cigarette tax increase earmarked for anti-smoking 'education' in the schools...

00/12/26 Raising Taxes Promotes Quitting, Reduces Consumption PM, Jan 12, 1990
According to Philip Morris' surveillance in California after the 1989 cigarette tax increase, raising cigarette taxes is an extremely effective way to reduce overall cigarette consumption and promote quitting. Here's what PM found:
Effective January 1, 1989, the California cigarette tax rate was increased from 10 cents per pack to 35 cents...Relative to smokers in other states, Californians reduced their cigarette consumption [and] increased their quit rates... Californians smoked fewer cigarettes per day in 1988 than others in the rest of the country and even fewer in 1989 than 1988. The difference in their consumption rates between the years is almost three times as large as the difference for the rest of the sample...Californians also quit smoking more frequently than those in the rest of the country.
So, both pro-smoking and anti-smoking forces agree that raising taxes on cigarettes is a highly effective way to promote public health--and it produces revenue for the government (or for more anti-smoking programs) to boot. This data should go a long ways towards encouraging more states to raise cigarette taxes.

00/12/25 Spinning the Info on Secondhand Smoke PM, May 26, 1987
By the 1980s, there was no longer any serious scientific doubt that exposure to secondhand smoke was detrimental to human beings. . . PM's "strictly confidential" words, previously unseen by the public, provide a stark outline of the company's frightening underlying global agenda against public health. . .
End Goals:
Resist smoking restrictions
Restore smoker confidence
Prerequisites:
Reverse scientific and popular opinion
Restore social acceptability of smoking
Preserve product liability defences.
Part of PM's routine strategy to fool the public about the dangers of secondhand smoke was to create its own independent "third party" allies who would act as "independent experts," and "spin" the issue its way in public testimony and the media. PM's intent to deceive the public is clearly revealed in this document, which says (of ACVA Atlantic, PM's "third party ventilation expert"):
ACVA must be perceived to be at arm's length from the industry, including media briefings. Its role at most should seem as yet another third party expert amongst others.
PM has never come clean about techniques like this that they have used to fool the public, nor have they publicly apologized for the damage they have done to public health by using such deceit. And yet in innumerable television and magazine ads today PM is casting itself as a socially responsible company. It was recently suggested that if PM truly wanted to be a socially responsible company, their ads would show PM employees hauling free oxygen concentrators, portable oxygen tanks, free nasal cannulas and tracheostomy supplies to the millions of sickened and homebound victims of their products.

00/12/24 Tobacco Industry says Bans are Most Effective TI
According to the Tobacco Institute itself, by far the most effective means of reducing cigarette consumption is to enact public and workplace smoking restrictions. In addition, the industry reports that in the absence of its own invasive social and cultural interference, overwhelming popular support exists for smoking restrictions in both eating and workplaces. . .
Our 1984 Roper survey found increasing support for separate sections for smokers in public places, especially in eating and work places. A decade ago, about half the public favored separate smoking and nonsmoking sections in restaurants. Today, 90 percent do.
Furthermore, the industry describes with hard numbers the extreme effectiveness of workplace smoking bans, saying that even the mildest smoking restrictions have a profound effect on the country's overall cigarette consumption rate:
Those who say they work under restrictions smoked about one-and-one-quarter fewer cigarettes each day than those who don't. That may sound light but remember we're talking about light restrictions, too. Those 220 people in our survey who work under smoking restrictions represent some 15 million Americans. That one-and-one-quarter per day cigarette reduction then, means nearly 7 billion fewer cigarettes smoked each year because of workplace smoking restrictions... That's 350 million packs of cigarettes. At a dollar a pack, even the lightest of workplace smoking restrictions is costing this industry 233 million dollars a year in revenue.
Thus there should no longer be disagreement in any sector about which measures are most effective in decreasing tobacco consumption across the board: public and workplace smoking bans.

00/12/13 Philip Morris: Discreetly Threatening, and Worse PM, Feb, 1992
This document summarizes the goals and activities of Philip Morris' European Science and Technology Unit in 1992.
Demonstrate to lawmakers that, under the changed economic climate, the pursuit of outdated socioeconomic policies could easily become politically suicidal...Discreetly assist Third World countries in denouncing WHO's misleading anti-tobacco campaigns and in demanding discontinuation of these campaigns, in view of the potential damage they may otherwise cause to Third World economies and welfare.
And even as recently as 1992, Philip Morris is shown here as bucking the common knowledge that tobacco use is bad for you, saying that one of their goals was to:
Remove the 'moral' base of anti-tobacco legislative efforts by exposing the fallacious nature of most anti-tobacco allegations.
For any who may be left who believe Philip Morris' current, far-reaching platitudes that "we've changed," the following passages reveals with crystal clarity the real reason WHY Philip Morris is trying so desperately to appear socially conscious: to taint juries who may serve in future trials against them:
The Creation and Cultivation of Goodwill for Philip Morris - (This is not a "motherhood" objective). Goodwill is essential for succeeding in crucial situations, such as litigations (need for friendly witnesses and a good image of the Company), submissions to legislators (development of mutual trust with the bosses and sympathy of the staff), public debate (again trust and mutual respect). . .
The creation of IAI, an independent international association on indoor air quality was discreetly solicited by S&T and put into effect by key ARIA members (ARIA is an association of our consultants. The name stands for Associates for Research on Indoor Air).

00/12/11 Beneficial Additives: Medicating the Masses? PM, Mar 19, 1981
In this Philip Morris document, Beneficial Additive Cigarette, scientists glibly and easily kick around the idea of medicating the general public for dental caries, reducing anxiety, cold symptoms, improving moods, etc. through cigarettes. Their frequent references to how careful they must be not to trigger FDA regulation makes one realize how important the FDA's "interference" is in protecting people from physical and chemical tinkering at the hands of the tobacco industry's "shade-tree pharmacists." . .
Cigarettes delivering therapeutic agents, physiological effects, mood changes, or reducing dental caries, anxiety, colds, etc. received much discussion. Although cigarette filler is a relatively poor delivery device, tipping paper can be coated and the agents may be delivered orally. The questions of potential FDA jurisdiction and PM's inability to advertise these benefits was raised.
Notice how ideas like introducing compounds into cigarettes that reduce oral plaque, freshen breath and reduce odors are considered good, while Idea #20, brushes off the obvious:
Additives to reduce biological acitvity are not considered worth pursing at this time....The idea might be worth pursuing when we have identified specific compounds responsible for activity.

00/12/07 Menthol and Nicotine 'Impact' PM, Mar 29, 1995
A number of documents (including this one, which relates results of a study done at Philip Morris' overseas lab for biological studies, INBIFO ) reveal that menthol enhances the sensory, or drug effect, of nicotine.
It was found that menthol increased 'impact' for the low nicotine delivery cigarette...as a function of the menthol content. . . It was concluded that menthol has a pronounced effect on nicotine-derived 'impact.'
The term "impact" when used in industry documents is frequently offset in quotes. In position papers, Philip Morris' official definition of the term "impact" is a "feeling sensation rather than odor or taste." They further compare it to the carbonation in soda pop or the spicy heat in chili peppers. People who have worked inside the industry, though, tell us that "impact" refers to the drug effect of a substance, particularly nicotine. In reading large numbers of documents, it is interesting to see that Philip Morris performed many (and what appears to be the majority) of its human biological studies internally on their own R&D (Research and Development Department) employees. What could have been the reason that PM avoided using outside subjects? What could have been the effect on the employees?

00/12/05 Control of 'Grasstops' Government PM, Mar 30, 1993
This 1993 document, Grasstops Government Relations, is a basic but very thorough description of the strategies Philip Morris (PM) uses to achieve such powerful influence over legislation in the U.S. PM has analyzed virtually every part of a legislator's world, and misses no opportunity to exert influence, even to the point of currying favor with a legislators' spouses:
We also make sure that we know the legislator's -- and his or her spouses -- favorite philanthropies and try to support them. . . We make sure legislators are aware of, and invited to, promotional and cultural events funded by Philip Morris. . . [W]e try to keep Philip Morris out of the media on issues like taxation, smoking bans and marketing restrictions. Instead, we try to provide the media with statements in support of our positions from third party sources, which carry more credibility than our company and have no apparent vested interest...we create coalitions of third party sources to help carry our baggage on issues. For example, on excise taxes, we work with state and local CARTS, the acronym for Committee Against Regressive Taxation...restaurant owners on smoking bans...retailers on the minimum age issue...and influential groups like the Association of National Advertisers on marketing restrictions. ..Finally, we try to change the focus on the issues. Cigarette tax become[s] an issue of fairness and effective tax policy. Cigarette marketing is an issue of freedom of commercial speech. Environmental tobacco smoke becomes an issue of accommodation. Cigarette-related fires become an issue of prudent fire safety programs. And so on.
[T]he long-term failure of American legislatures to enact meaningful tobacco control in the face of recognition of the current epidemic of tobacco-induced disease is testimony to the astonishing effectiveness of this one company in controlling the machinations of governments.

00/12/01 Total Ban on Advertising? No Big Deal PM, Apr, 1986
As this document demonstrates, whatever laws they may choose to enact, governments are powerless to reign in the disease-spreading activities of Philip Morris, which laughs at advertising bans, viewing them as opportunities that lead them to new and more pervasive marketing ideas, like creating Marlboro fashion wear and Marlboro travel vacations (which of course constitute not cigarette ads, but clothing and travel ads, respectively). . . Note how Philip Morris violates not only the spirit of the law, but when it deems that the risk of being caught is sufficiently low, also the letter of the law:
Finally, we even advertised in some periods when the risk of being fined was perceived to be lower.
Note the use of terms in this document like "para-advertising," "diversification" and "co-advertising" that denote ways they get around the Italian ad ban. . . Also, note the introduction of promotional techniques that are particularly damaging, like Philip Morris' new "World Tennis Championship of Doctors" featuring tennis-playing professors. . . This document is a primer on how cigarette corporations get around government regulations and in the doing, work their way even deeper into the cultures of different countries.

00/11/28 The PR War & Discontent with the Industry PM? 1990
It isn't often you get to read something that shows that fear inside the tobacco industry, but here is one such document. Ten years ago the industry noted that a former staunch ally, the Economist magazine, did a 180-degree turn, printing an article that stated that tobacco "...kills about 3M people a year around the world, and the number is rising fast" The article went on to cite the "...obvious self-interest and fraudulent arguments of the tobacco and alcohol lobbies..."and actually called these entities "lying killers." . . The paper explores the reasons for the public's "discontent" with the tobacco industry.
The pressure against us is growing at a frightening speed...Defeat, like fear, is contagious. Once people sense surrender is in the air, the collapse of the whole operation can come with enormous rapidity....The collapse of South Vietnam is a graphic case in point.
The writer then lays out a strategic plan of action to deal with the dire situation. Once again however, opposite to the industry's 1954 pledge in the "Frank Statement" that it intended to work with public health entities, their strategy consists of fanning the flames of doubt about its products, utilizing third parties to do the industry's bidding, and carrying on "offensive" media campaigns. But perhaps the most important strategic point made by this paper, is the reason why preserving advertising and sponsorship is so important to this industry. These activities buy them a host of extremely powerful supporters. Losing these supporters would devastate the industry's power base because it would drastically cut the industry's political and media clout.
If one takes the pessimistic view of present trends, the tobacco industry ...

[Peter Lemkin]

Thanks to whoever rescued that. Yes, that is an incredible source on the subject and EVERYONE of the titles of the summaries is a hyperlink to the original document!!!!! The person who maintains this site has REALLY done their homework!!

[David Guyatt]

Blimey! If there were today a Nuremberg trial for global genocide this would amount to the prosecutions case.

[Carol Thompson]

All complete and total garbage. The anti-smokers are guilty of flagrant scientific fraud for ignoring more than 50 studies, which show that human papillomaviruses cause at least a quarter of all non-small cell lung cancers. Smokers and passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus, for socioeconomic reasons. And the anti-smokers' studies are all based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, so they're cynically DESIGNED to falsely blame tobacco for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV.

http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm

They commit the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on smoking and passive smoking, and the tobacco companies have always let them. They even settled the Minnesota tobacco lawsuit when it looked like they were winning, and for more money than the anti-smokers were demanding. This proves that they have been controlled by the anti-smokers all along, probably beginning with the organization of the old American Tobacco Trust.

http://www.smokershistory.com/power.htm

The American Society for the Control of Cancer, the predecessor of the American Cancer Society, used their political pull to create the National Cancer Institute, to deliberately commit scientific fraud at taxpayer expense. Original members of the National Advisory Cancer Council of the National Cancer Institute, appointed by Surgeon General Thomas Parran in 1937: James Ewing, Director of Memorial Hospital; Dr. Francis C. Wood, Director of the Crocker Institute of Cancer Research at Columbia University; Harvard University President James B. Conant; Dr. Arthur H. Compton of the University of Chicago; C.C. Little, Managing Director of the American Society for the Control of Cancer; and Dr. Ludvig Hektoen of Chicago. In 1938, Dr. James B. Murphy of the Rockefeller Institute and Dr. Mont R. Reid replaced Ewing and Wood. (Named to Cancer Council. New York Times, Dec. 11, 1938, p. 30.) Ewing, Hektoen, Little, Murphy, Parran, and Wood were all affiliated with the ASCC.

Mary Woodard Lasker was the head of the American Cancer Society who started the open war on smokers. She was the most powerful health lobbyist in history. "For the past twenty years, Mrs. Lasker has been, in the words of one federal health official, 'the most important single factor in the rise of support for biomedical research.' In the process, she has helped the NIH budget to explode from $2.5 million in 1945 to $1.4 billion this year, influenced Presidents, immobilized Secretaries of Health, Education, and Welfare, selected health policy makers, and pushed health policy in controversial directions."

"Mrs. Lasker's network is probably unparalleled in the influence that a small group of private citizens has had over such a major area of national policy. One federal official refers to it as a 'noble conspiracy.' Gorman calls it a 'high class kind of subversion, very high class. We're not second story burglars. We go right in the front door.'" (The Health Syndicate / Washington's Noble Conspiracy. By Elizabeth Brenner Drew. The Atlantic Monthly 1967, Vol. 200, pp. 75-82)

http://tobaccodocuments.org/atc/12917276.html

And, Mary Woodard Lasker's stepson, Edward Lasker, was on the board of directors of Philip Morris for 20 years!!!!! Now, that tells you who is in control of Philip Morris.

Public Interest, Thursday, Sep. 27, 2001 interview with Judith Robinson, author of "Noble Conspirator," on Florence S. Mahoney and the rise of the National Institutes of Health (The Francis Press, 2001).

http://thekojonnamdishow.org/shows/2001-...ncis-press

[Peter Lemkin]

All complete and total garbage. The anti-smokers are guilty of flagrant scientific fraud for ignoring more than 50 studies, which show that human papillomaviruses cause at least a quarter of all non-small cell lung cancers. Smokers and passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus, for socioeconomic reasons. And the anti-smokers' studies are all based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, so they're cynically DESIGNED to falsely blame tobacco for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV.

http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm

They commit the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on smoking and passive smoking, and the tobacco companies have always let them. They even settled the Minnesota tobacco lawsuit when it looked like they were winning, and for more money than the anti-smokers were demanding. This proves that they have been controlled by the anti-smokers all along, probably beginning with the organization of the old American Tobacco Trust.

http://www.smokershistory.com/power.htm

The American Society for the Control of Cancer, the predecessor of the American Cancer Society, used their political pull to create the National Cancer Institute, to deliberately commit scientific fraud at taxpayer expense. Original members of the National Advisory Cancer Council of the National Cancer Institute, appointed by Surgeon General Thomas Parran in 1937: James Ewing, Director of Memorial Hospital; Dr. Francis C. Wood, Director of the Crocker Institute of Cancer Research at Columbia University; Harvard University President James B. Conant; Dr. Arthur H. Compton of the University of Chicago; C.C. Little, Managing Director of the American Society for the Control of Cancer; and Dr. Ludvig Hektoen of Chicago. In 1938, Dr. James B. Murphy of the Rockefeller Institute and Dr. Mont R. Reid replaced Ewing and Wood. (Named to Cancer Council. New York Times, Dec. 11, 1938, p. 30.) Ewing, Hektoen, Little, Murphy, Parran, and Wood were all affiliated with the ASCC.

Mary Woodard Lasker was the head of the American Cancer Society who started the open war on smokers. She was the most powerful health lobbyist in history. "For the past twenty years, Mrs. Lasker has been, in the words of one federal health official, 'the most important single factor in the rise of support for biomedical research.' In the process, she has helped the NIH budget to explode from $2.5 million in 1945 to $1.4 billion this year, influenced Presidents, immobilized Secretaries of Health, Education, and Welfare, selected health policy makers, and pushed health policy in controversial directions."

"Mrs. Lasker's network is probably unparalleled in the influence that a small group of private citizens has had over such a major area of national policy. One federal official refers to it as a 'noble conspiracy.' Gorman calls it a 'high class kind of subversion, very high class. We're not second story burglars. We go right in the front door.'" (The Health Syndicate / Washington's Noble Conspiracy. By Elizabeth Brenner Drew. The Atlantic Monthly 1967, Vol. 200, pp. 75-82)

http://tobaccodocuments.org/atc/12917276.html

And, Mary Woodard Lasker's stepson, Edward Lasker, was on the board of directors of Philip Morris for 20 years!!!!! Now, that tells you who is in control of Philip Morris.

Public Interest, Thursday, Sep. 27, 2001 interview with Judith Robinson, author of "Noble Conspirator," on Florence S. Mahoney and the rise of the National Institutes of Health (The Francis Press, 2001).

http://thekojonnamdishow.org/shows/2001-...ncis-press

Are you for surreal?... I don't even find your 'argument' merits countering.....your thesis [sic] seems to be that the anti-smoking advocates have paraded as the pro-smoking conspiracy....? I think perhaps you've been smoking more than just normal cigarettes.....

Also, hidden in all this is the Colby Sr. Connection.....are you unaware or a pro-Colby agent?

N.B. Colby Sr. died not too many months ago.

[Peter Lemkin]

I see that rather than addressing this thread or my post, you started another thread. Won't go there. Tell 'ya what.....just smoke all you want...but in private. As there is NO more dangerous public health threat in the realm of indoor [and often outdoor] air pollution than tobacco smoke. I just so happen to have a graduate degree in Public Health and Toxicology and tobacco toxicity and carcinogenicity was my specialty. Care to debate point for point?!

[Carol Thompson]

I see that rather than addressing this thread or my post, you started another thread. Won't go there. Tell 'ya what.....just smoke all you want...but in private. As there is NO more dangerous public health threat in the realm of indoor [and often outdoor] air pollution than tobacco smoke. I just so happen to have a graduate degree in Public Health and Toxicology and tobacco toxicity and carcinogenicity was my specialty. Care to debate point for point?!

I pushed the "Post Quick Reply" button, which to my knowledge does not start a new thread. And I did address your point, which is the fraudulent claim that Big Tobacco supposedly conspired to hide the risks of smoking. This is patently ridiculous on its face, because the vast majority of the "research" was done by the anti-smoker American Cancer Society and/or its puppets at the National Institutes of Health. Big Tobacco had no capacity whatsoever to conceal it, because their enemies did it, and their media accomplices eagerly spread their lies, while ruthlessly censoring the truth. The fact that those 50-plus studies of HPV and lung cancer have been concealed from the public is rock-solid proof of who has done all the concealing.

And DUDE, I'll be happy to debate you point for point about the supposed health risks of tobacco. Your "graduate degree in Public Health and Toxicology and tobacco toxicity" isn't worth a damn. People in your field are rewarded for their ideological purity, not their scientific competence.

[David Guyatt]

To the poster Carol Thomson. Your membership is suspended pending review over the holiday period. You may make no more posts on this forum pending that review.

Please bear with us as we get back on stream after a difficult and testing period.

[David Guyatt]

Carol, your temporary suspension is withdraw with apologies for my misunderstanding. Please free to post at your leisure.

Very happy Christmas,

David

[Peter Lemkin]

I pushed the "Post Quick Reply" button, which to my knowledge does not start a new thread. And I did address your point, which is the fraudulent claim that Big Tobacco supposedly conspired to hide the risks of smoking. This is patently ridiculous on its face, because the vast majority of the "research" was done by the anti-smoker American Cancer Society and/or its puppets at the National Institutes of Health. Big Tobacco had no capacity whatsoever to conceal it, because their enemies did it, and their media accomplices eagerly spread their lies, while ruthlessly censoring the truth. The fact that those 50-plus studies of HPV and lung cancer have been concealed from the public is rock-solid proof of who has done all the concealing.

And DUDE, I'll be happy to debate you point for point about the supposed health risks of tobacco. Your "graduate degree in Public Health and Toxicology and tobacco toxicity" isn't worth a damn. People in your field are rewarded for their ideological purity, not their scientific competence.

Your new here and have zero [it would seem] idea of my ideology. I'm a rebel and was in Grad School too. But I know that the Tobacco Industry, the USG regulators, the NIH and many others knew the dangers of tobacco for over a century and hid it...and you seem to still want to hide it. I was rewarded for nothing in my studies except whatever competance I had as a student; and had no research grants from anyone, nor with any agenda but truthful science and public health at Yale and UCLA. You're coming here with a huge chip on your shoulder and not making any friends....but it seems not to be your intention. By the way, why are you so upset about all this?....what's your motive [pure truth?] or is someone rewarding or paying you? Belong to a PR firm? Have any connections to the tobacco industry?...or just a big smoker who doesn't like it controlled? Have you looked at the full documents summarized in the first post of this thread? If so, then you have little respect for peer reviewed science. Let me guess you don't believe in human induced climate change and most assassinations were done by lone nuts; the government and large corporations know what is best for us and always look out for our interests...if we'd only stay out of they way and do as they say...all will be just fine.....am I close?joystick [The name is Peter, not 'Dude'...a crude Americanism - while anger has its place at times, you're certainly are coming here with a truckload and dumping it on anyone in sight]...but it is your right and perogative. However, to me this is like going over the driver didn't shoot JFK all over again. The issue of tobacco and cancer [and a HOST of other diseases] is extablished fact....not IMO open to question....unless someone has an agenda to do so. [Doubt for doubt sake and the benefit of the Corporations who profit by death, lies and destruction of our health and the health of the planet. Gonna support GM crops and Montsanto next?....maybe this isn't your forum of 'closest fit'.