Http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=HEN-RY

Bold text

FREE and Found at http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/17/3/306

was this PDF document showing HEN-RY from Burson-Marsteller (excerpts below)

=
============================================================================================

European Journal of Public Health, Vol. 17, No. 3, 306–313 � The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association. All rights reserved. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckl244 Advance Access published on October 25, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Smoking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘We will speak as the smoker’: the tobacco industry’s smokers’ rights groups Elizabeth A. Smith*, Ruth E. Malone* Introduction: The tobacco industry usually keeps its commercial and political communications separate. However, the images of the smoker developed by the two types of communication may contradict one another. This study assesses industry attempts to organize ‘smokers’ rights groups,’ (SRGs) and the image of the smoker that underlay these efforts. Methods: Searches of the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, the British American Tobacco documents database, and Tobacco Documents Online. Results: 1100 documents pertaining to SRGs were found, including groups from across Europe and in Australia, New Zealand, and Hong Kong. From the late 1970s through the late 1990s they were active in numerous policy arenas, particularly the defeat of smoke-free laws. Their strategies included asserting their right to smoke and positioning themselves as courteous victims of tobacco control advocates. However, most SRGs were short-lived and apparently failed to inspire smokers to join in any significant numbers. Conclusion: SRGs conflated the legality of smoking with a right to smoke. SRGs succeeded by focusing debates about smoke-free policies on smokers rather than on smoke. However, SRGs’ inability to attract members highlights the conflict between the image of the smoker in cigarette ads and that of the smokers’ rights advocate. The changing social climate for smoking both compelled the industry’s creation of SRGs, and created the contradictions that led to their failure. As tobacco control becomes stronger, the industry may revive this strategy in other countries. Advocates should be prepared to counter SRGs by exposing their origins and exploiting these contradictions. Keywords: civil rights, tobacco industry, tobacco smoke pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The tobacco industry develops promotions directed both broadly and at specific target markets.1–7 The industry also creates communications to counter tobacco control policy measures (e.g., op-eds, political advertising).8–13 However, industry commercial and political messages have largely been separate. Previous research suggests that blending them is commercially ineffective.14 This study examines industry efforts to organize smokers’ rights groups (SRGs) to oppose clean indoor air laws, which involved persuading smokers qua smokers to act politically, rather than by buying cigarettes. Social theorists suggest that in consumer capitalism, goods ‘place a person in society,’ and aid self-definition.15 Image advertising does not describe specific aspects of its subject, but displays ‘images that one may gain and project by using the product.’16 Such advertising suggests that this product will taste good, remove stains, or cure colds, and satisfy profound psychosocial needs. Cigarettes are usually promoted with image advertising. (The exceptions are ads for ostensibly safer cigarettes.)17,18 The tobacco industry has repeatedly identified two ‘needs’ cigarettes can fulfill: easing social interactions (e.g., promoting confidence or popularity),19–21 and relieving stress (e.g., promoting pleasure).2,21 Many cigarette ads use these themes: thus Marlboro ads project masculine independence, while Capri ads suggest ‘a moment of escape.’2 Despite such advertising, many smokers find their own smoking problematic,22 and as many as 70% say they would like to quit.23 In situations of conflict over smoking, many smokers ‘disidentify’ with the category ‘smoker.’24 The tobacco industry has attempted to assuage smokers’ discomfort through product design21,25 and advertising;2,14 e.g., developing ads to reassure smokers that they were not ‘social outcasts’ because of their smoking.2 Furthermore, smokers frequently support tobacco control policies.26–31 The level of support depends on the country, culture, and specific policy: in Japan support for and compliance with smoke-free policies rose with the policy’s comprehensiveness.30 Some smokers, particularly those from countries with weak tobacco control policies, find smoke-free laws ‘discriminatory.’32 However, experience in California and other jurisdictions with strong clean indoor air laws shows that, once implemented, support for such policies increases, even among smokers.33,34 This article shows how the identity proposed by SRGs conflicted with that conveyed in cigarette advertising, exposing contradictions that highlighted the changing social position of smoking. Methods Data were collected from the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu), BAT Documents Archive (http://bat.library.ucsf.edu), and Tobacco Documents Online (http://tobaccodocuments.org/) which hold millions of company documents released in response to litigation. We began with search terms such as ‘smokers’ rights’ and names of organizations. Searches were extended using a ‘snowball’ strategy. Further information on sources and methods is provided in earlier work.35,36 Searches on the Internet Archive (http://www.archive.org/index.php) for past SRG sites, and web searches for current sites were also performed. Documents were sorted chronologically and thematically. This study is based on a review of �1100 documents and 7 websites. We excluded North America from our analysis, since previous work has focused on US groups.37 We also do not discuss the organization Fight Ordinances and Restrictions to Control and Eliminate Smoking (FORCES; http://www.forces. org/) as there is no definitive evidence to date that it is funded by the tobacco industry.38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . California, San Francisco Box 0612 San Francisco, CA 94143, USA Correspondence: Elizabeth A. Smith, e-mail: libby.smith@ucsf.edu Results Since 1979, the tobacco industry has created or planned SRGs in at least 26 countries worldwide (See table 1). Realizing that public acceptance of its messages about second-hand smoke (SHS) depended on the source of those messages, Philip Morris proposed adopting a variety of personas: ‘sometimes we will need to speak as independent scientists, scientific groups and businessmen; at other times we will talk as the industry; and, finally, we will speak as the smoker.’1 Organized and predominantly funded by tobacco companies, the SRGs’ purposes were to maintain ‘controversy’ about SHS in the social arena39 and to focus debate on the smoker rather than the tobacco industry or the smoke. SRGs opposed clean indoor air laws and policies on transportation, in workplaces, and in other public spaces,40 and sometimes took on other Table 1 Smokers’ Rights Groups mentioned in tobacco industry documents Country Name Founded/first mentioned Details Currently active
 * Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of

Denmark Hensynsfulde Rygere (Hen-Ry) 1987 Exposed as industry front, 2000; website not available

SRGs worked to persuade the public that tobacco control policies caused ‘futile contradictions,’126 ‘tension,’114,127 ‘intolerance and confrontations,’84 and even ‘war. . . between smoker and non-smoker.’69,128 But it was SRGs that incited conflict: some provoked, threatened, or applauded noncompliance with smoke-free regulations. SRB (Netherlands) implied that smoking in toilets on smoke-free flights was necessary, saying it was ‘a shame smokers have to hide in such Tobacco Industry Smokers’ Rights Groups 309 small places.’129 FOREST supported riders who set up ‘customer designated smoking areas’ when smoking was banned on trains.130,131 The Smokers’ Rights League (Australia) also proposed ‘A mass ‘smoke-in’ on trains’ in response to a smoke-free policy.Røykringen (Norway), was ‘included on the consulting list for tobacco legislation’ by the Minister of Social Affairs.142 In Sweden, the SRG became ‘a recognized entity representing smokers,’ consulted by government commissions.104 A Hen-Ry (Denmark) publication on implementing smoking policies included ‘a foreword by the Minister of Labour;’ the ‘main unions have indicated that they intend to use the booklet as a model.’137 143 Today, in Britain, the BBC links to FOREST’s website as a source of information on tobacco issues ‘from the smokers’ point of view.’144

Discussion the claim of SRGs to represent smokers is false, in terms of both membership and political position. SRG rhetoric also failed to ‘represent’ smokers in the sense of creating an effective identity for them. SRG rhetorical strategies—demanding rights, offering courtesy, suggesting segregation, claiming victimization—all implicitly contradicted the image of smoking and smokers that tobacco advertising promotes. For example, tobacco ads propose that smoking makes people desirable. The call to organize for rights presupposes that this is not the case, that in fact smoking (unjustly) makes people outcasts. Similarly, positioning smokers as victims emphasizes that smoking does not make them more attractive, but rather makes them disliked.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Patricia McDaniel, Teresa Scherzer, and Irene Yen for comments on this paper. Work on this study was supported by NCI grants no. CA90789 and CA09589 and the California Tobacco Related Disease Research Program grants no. 11RT-0139 and 13KT-0081. Some of this work was presented in a different form at the World Conference on Tobacco or Health, Helsinki, Finland, August 7, 2003 and the American Public Health Association Conference, San Francisco, CA, November 18, 2003. Conflict of interest Ruth E. Malone owns one share each of Altria (Philip Morris) and Reynolds American stock for research and advocacy purposes. No other conflicts are declared. Key points � Starting in 1979, the tobacco industry created and supported smokers’ rights groups (SRGs) in countries around the world to oppose clean indoor air laws and maintain the social acceptability of smoking. � SRGs conflated legality with rights to promulgate the idea that there was a right to smoke that was violated by tobacco control policies. � These groups sometimes achieved temporary policy successes, but were unable to gain significant membership or support due to the inherent contradictions between the image of smoking disseminated in tobacco ads and that demanded by smokers’ rights activism. � Although few SRGs are now extant, the tobacco industry may revive this strategy, particularly in countries with strengthening tobacco control policies and developing rights-based discourse. Tobacco control advocates should be prepared to expose SRG-industry ties and the falsity of the claim to a right to smoke. References 1 Newsflow Strategic Overview. January 1989. Philip Morris. http://legacy. library.ucsf.edu/tid/jok46e00.