From: anne@tobaccodocuments.org
Date: Fri, 09/09/05
Anne LandmanPosting Date: Thursday, September 8, 2005
FOREST's Future Strategy: A discussion
Company/Source: R.J. Reynolds
Document Date: 19890400
Length: 7 pages
Bates No. 507652779/2785
Document Images: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tvs28c00
NOTE: Since this document is currently unavailable on TDO, it cannot be added to
the Landman and so will not have its own URL. Document images are available at
the Legacy site.
This strategy document was written in 1989 by Chris R. Tame, the director of
the British smokers' rights group FOREST (Freedom Organization for the right to
Enjoy Smoking Tobacco). In the report, Tame concedes that any medical or
health-based argument about secondhand tobacco smoke is lost before it begins,
and that smokers and the industry cannot win as long as the argument is held on
the grounds of health. Tame plots how to get around this, and suggests a
strategy that has actually long been used by the industry and its supporters in
many countries. The strategy was to equate public health efforts around smoking
with fascism and authoritarianism. Tame says,
"The only way that the right to smoke can be preserved is to link it up with
the freedom of lifestyle position, and with the broader libertarian critique of
'health fascism' and the paternalism and authoritarianism of the medical
establishment. Our 'special interest' can only be viably defended as part and
parcel of broader coalition. We have to shift the focus of the debate from the
enemy's strong ground--health--to our strong ground--freedom of choice and
individual liberty.
Quotes
Although we can, and do, vigorously refute the passive smoking hysteria, the
primary health argument has been lost. There is no way any feasible public case
can be argued in medical terms. While there are clearly perceivable
psychological benefits from smoking, evidence of risk to personal health is
difficult to challenge. Further, since the general population recognize these
dangers our argument that smokers do exercise an "informed choice" is much
stronger.
The only way that the right to smoke can be preserved is to link it up with
the freedom of lifestyle position, and with the broader libertarian critique of
"health fascism" and the paternalism and authoritarianism of the medical
establishment. Our "special interest" can only be viably defended as part and
parcel of broader coalition. We have to shift the focus of the debate from the
enemy's strong ground--health--to our strong ground--freedom of choice and
individual liberty.
There are signs that sectors of the industry recognise this. In Australia,
for example, Anti-Nanny State Conferences, with academic/intellectual
participants are being sponsored.
Moreover, the freedom case also proactively strengthens us if the worst should
happen: if it were conclusively, scientifically demonstrated that passive
smoking constituted a major health threat in normal social circumstances. The
libertarian case already argues, to use the jargon of the economists, that
"externalities" are best "internalized" by the voluntary means of property
rights, and not by coercive state intervention. In other words, it would be up
to individual property owners to establish smoking rules on their property, not
for the state to set down an absolute law applicable to all places.
...The Left's increasing use of health issues as a disguise for their
political agenda in fact gives us a further opportunity to target the
anti-smoking movement. That movement is at present an alliance between doctors
who are genuinely concerned about health, and anti-capitalists who are concerned
to destroy capitalism first, and to safeguard health strictly as an
afterthought. In this respect, the anti-smoking movement resembles to so-called
"peace movement," which was an alliance between people who really cared--in a
sentimental and confused way, but genuinely--about peace, and those whose number
one concern was to enable the Soviet Union to win the Cold War. Peace was
merely a tactical disguise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Company
R.J. Reynolds
Author
Tame, C.R.- Director of the British smokers rights group FOREST
Recipient
Unknown
Region
United Kingdom
Named Organizations and Persons
FREEDOM ORGANISATION FOR THE RIGHT; FOXLEY NORRIS C; EYRES S; WAUGH A;
HARRIS; CONSERVATIVE PARTY; INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS; ADAM SMITH INSTITUTE;
HOUSE OF COMMONS; ANTI NANNY ST CONFERENCES; LABOUR PARTY; KINNOCK; ASH; LAWSON
N; RUTGERS UNIV PRESS; DAVIS C; UNIV OF READING; DAVIES S; MANCHESTER
POLYTECHNIC
Litigation
MINNESOTA 1RFP93; USDC SUBPOENA RFP1 19961112; LANE RFP12 20000511; SCOTT
1RFP26; SCOTT 1RFP27; SCOTT 1RFP30; SCOTT 1RFP29; SCOTT 1RFP35; SCOTT 1RFP1-9;
SCOTT 1RFP16-17; SCOTT 1RFP21; US COMPREHENSIVE REQUEST 140; US COMPREHENSIVE
REQUEST 47; US COMPREHENSIVE REQUEST 414; US COMPREHENSIVE REQUEST 201; LONGDEN
INT12; MINNESOTA 1RFP93 MINNESOTA 1RFP110
Type
Report
Subject
secondhand smoke strategy (Corporate strategy to deal with ETS issue)
Front groups
Smokers rights groups
industry strategy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This service is provided by Anne Landman Research, Consulting and Communications
and Tobacco Documents Online.
The Doc-Alert archives can be accessed at
http://smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages
Anne Landman
Tobacco Document Research and Consulting
3301 Irving
San Francisco, CA 94122
(970) 216-9842
anne@tobaccodocuments.org
| 
