Editorial»
Where there’s smoke, there’s money from big tobacco
JAN 16 - Lung cancer, despite its 14 percent decline in California over the past decade, is as deadly as ever nationally and has surpassed breast cancer as the leading cancer killer among women. Although the proportion of people who smoke has declined in the United States, the number of those who smoke — 46.2 million people — has remained virtually the same. Smoking claims more than 400,000 lives a year in the United States. And today, Marlboro smokers are younger than ever. Even the recent four-year decline in smoking among adolescents has yet to offset the dramatic increase in smoking among this age group over the past decade.
Progress has come slowly because of a combination of things. Topping the list is that the tobacco industry has political clout and made lucrative payoffs to the very forces that should have been in the vanguard to end the tobacco pandemic — members of Congress from both parties, the media, medical organizations and academia all have been chronic recipients of tobacco-industry largess and have not been prepared to bite the hand that feeds them.
Meanwhile, the health community has bounced from one failed multimillion-dollar public-relations crusade to another, only to settle each time for voluntary agreements crafted by the tobacco industry.
The anti-smoking movement is still wandering in the desert, unfocused and splintered. Sure, there have been some advances, most notably the smoking ban on aircraft and the ban of TV, radio and billboard ads. But overall, the tobacco industry has remained in the driver’s seat during the past 40 years and has always managed to turn potential adversity to its advantage.
For example, when Congress banned cigarette ads from broadcast media in 1971, it did so at the request of the tobacco companies, whose sales had flattened because of anti-smoking commercials between 1967 and 1970 from the American Cancer Society. The ban meant the end of free air time in prime-time for the anti-smoking forces. Then the tobacco companies launched a new strategy: sponsoring sporting events that made cigarette logos a fixture of televised auto races as well as cultural events such as concerts and art exhibitions.
California has marched to its own drummer and, as a result, smoking rates and cigarette sales have fallen in the state more than nationally, according to the American Lung Association. That success can be attributed in large measure to a uniquely persistent grass-roots movement responsible for smoking bans in government and private workplaces, retail stores, child-care centers, recreational and cultural centers, restaurants and bars. In 1987, a small coalition of health organizations persuaded California voters to pass Proposition 99, a cigarette tax aimed at raising hundreds of millions of dollars earmarked for medical research, anti-smoking education and related programs.
It was a great idea, but problems surfaced over how the money should be spent. The fight against the public-health problem of smoking became a fight among umbrella health organizations trying to get their hands on the money.
Funds from Proposition 99 were, among other things, supposed to pay for the best minds in advertising to conceive and produce anti-smoking ads. Although the ad campaigns won awards, they lacked the frequency needed to have a more significant effect. Ironically, some of the best ads were not designed to counteract smoking but were developed to challenge politicians, medical organizations and others who wanted to dip into the pot of money.Posted on: 2004-01-17 04:10
Headlines
Advertisements
