reports. Sales to women increased with the implied message that ‘cigarettes keep you slim’
from Virginia Slims and slogans such as ‘Reach for a Lucky instead of a sweet’4. To break the
taboo that respectable women do not smoke, they produced advertising equating cigarettes with
freedom as a symbol of women’s liberation. Deluging society with decades of advertising on
television, in magazines, movies, radio, and billboards identified cigarettes with sex, youth,
freedom, and vitality. The tobacco companies were not only aware of the dangers of smoking
and kept it from their consumers, they coerced their customers and did so with the help of the
government.
Why do governments get involved?
Only after several years of selling addictive stimuli to consumers worldwide did the
governments finally step in and decide to take action in the regulation of tobacco. It is widely
recognized that tobacco is a major public health disaster of the twentieth century and that
spiralling rates of tobacco consumption worldwide harm the global health market at an
unprecedented rate. Scientific evidence has established that tobacco use has devastating health
consequences for the users and to those exposed to tobacco smoke. Tobacco related diseases
are the single most important cause of preventable deaths in the world. Smoking causes over
twenty different health problems including fatal and disabling disease, lung and other cancers,
and chronic respiratory diseases. Tobacco regulation policy appears to have been based for the
last twenty years upon two assumptions: first, that tobacco advertising leads young people to
experiment with tobacco; and second, that the addictiveness of tobacco turns young people into
regular smokers.5 Studies in developed countries show that most people start using tobacco
before the age of eight-teen. Recent trends show an earlier age of initiation and rising smoking
prevalence rates among children and adolescents. The number of under-age smokers is rapidly
increasing. Peer pressure, and the relatively easy access to cigarettes are the leading causes.
Many attempts to reduce the rate of teen smoking, including the new regulations that the FDA
(Food and Drug Association) are trying to pass, have trampled the civil liberties of the millions
of adults, eighteen and over, who are affected by them.6 We, as a country, need to make laws
tougher for minors who smoke, but not at the expense of millions of North Americans. There
are many places in this country where an under-aged child can walk into a gas station, or other
type of connivance store, and purchase cigarettes with no questions asked. The laws on selling
smokes are so lax, or so under enforced, that these children have extremely easy access; kids
as young as fourteen or fifteen have been known to be able to buy without a problem. This
ability to pick up cigarettes makes it easier for youngsters to smoke. Governments need to
realize that if the laws in under-age smoking were enforced on a tougher basis, it would become
nearly impossible for these kids to begin, let alone sustain, a smoking ritual.
What did they do to regulate tobacco?
In today's world there are many moral issues that take place in society as well as in the
business world. On Friday, February 4, 2000, the Washington Post printed an article titled
"Underage Smoking Fine Sought for Big Tobacco."7 The tobacco industry has fought many
moral issues with the Federal Government and the general public. This particular article written
by Charles Babington has two problems, which are, the federal government's threat to increase
taxes and fines on the tobacco industry and the industries practice in their advertising which is
targeting underage smokers.
The first problem the article states is that the Federal Government is threatening to raise
taxes on cigarettes and issue fines for any underage smoking. Fining underage smoking could be
a possible ploy for the government to raise taxes on all tobacco products. By issuing a $3,000
fine for every underage smoker, the government would generate as much as six billion dollars a
year. In addition to the fines, President Clinton also proposed to put a twenty-five-cent-per-
pack increase in the Federal tax on cigarettes.
The moral aspect of this problem is that the federal government is receiving billions off of raising
taxes on tobacco products and fines for underage smoking. This money is absorbed into the
government and redistributed into society towards other social issues. The excess money the
government collects on higher tobacco taxes and fines issued to for underage smoking should be
used to educate the general public on how the tobacco companies are providing a dangerous
product and can be extremely harmful to the human body.
This type of money hording by the government is not only seen while addressing the
United States, but also the way Canada enforced tobacco taxes. In 1986 smokers paid more
in tobacco taxes than they cost the health care system. 8 As the Canadian and American
governments raise taxes on tobacco products their income of revenue increases. Therefore,
why would governments lower taxes on tobacco when they are able to benefit from it’s sales.
In 1978 smokers in Ontario cost the government between $21.5 and $39.1 million but paid
$485 million in taxes. The government implemented this increase in taxation to pay for the
increased health care costs that smoking weighs on the government. However, it is extremely
contradictive to solely tax tobacco companies when there is scientific evidence that shows fast
food chains are also a major contributor to disease and poor health. Critics charge, however,
that "sin taxes" on products such as alcohol and cigarettes disproportionately affect low-income
and minority communities. Ed Meyers of the Washington, D.C.-based Citizens for Tax Justice
says that cigarette taxes are "very regressive" and fall "hardest upon those with the least ability to
pay." Meyers says, "We are not convinced the tax code is the place to make social or health
policy."10 There does appear to be an irony in the Canadian policy which emphasizes a focus
on tobacco companies rather than individual smokers relying heavily on consumption taxes.
Another problem that was stated was that the tobacco industry was targeting new
underage smokers. The underage smokers were targeted through the advertisements on radio
programs, television commercials, and social events that young people attend. There were three
big government interventions of the 1960’s; 1964 Surgeon General’s warning about the dangers
of tobacco use, the 1965 requirement that cigarette companies print warning on the sides of
packs, and the 1970 the ban of all tobacco advertising on television and radio.11 The
advertisements of cigarettes on television and radio commercials stopped over twenty years ago
and at that time the underage smoking did not stop. It is stated that in November 1998, the
tobacco industry agreed once again to set restrictions on how cigarettes may be sold and
marketed, barring companies from targeting youth in advertising and using cartoons in
promotions12. The cigarettes companies were also prohibited from sponsoring sports teams,
stadiums, or events such as NASCAR in which participants are underage. Accompanying this
problem is the moral issue that banning advertisements on the radio and television are not
enough to prevent underage smoking. The industry needs to reveal in their advertisements the
negative aspect of tobacco products. Every advertiser wants their advertisement to be very
attractive to the consumer. Until underage smoking is controlled, the Federal Drug
Administration (FDA) needs to continue to regulate the sales of cigarettes more carefully
because ninety percent of all smokers get hooked before the age of twenty-one. The FDA's
main focus is to discourage young people from taking up cigarettes in the first place13.
Resolving the moral issue with advertising tobacco products, tobacco companies should be
banned from all public advertisement including all sporting events unless they agree to provide
more resources to prevent underage smoking.
Similarly, in 1970 Canada followed the American’s lead in the banning of tobacco
advertisement. The Canadian House of Commons Committee on Health and Welfare and
Social Affairs recommended complete ban on tobacco advertising and promotion that led to Bill
C-248 being introduced. However, tobacco companies agreed to pull all advertising from
television and radio and they agreed to put health risks on the side of each pack of cigarettes,
consequently the bill never entered the House for debate.14 The second wave of regulations
came in the 1980’s. In 1980 the Canadian Parliament passed the first criminal prohibition of
sales to minors. 15 However, much like the present day, this policy went ignored. Once the
Canadian government began their regulations on tobacco a snowball affect tool place. Soon
after they introduced the legal age to buy cigarettes they passed municipalities by-laws, which
restricted smoking in public places. Finally, during the 1980’s taxation on tobacco were higher
than those of most other countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development.16 Through restrictions prohibiting tobacco companies to advertise their products,
forcing tobacco companies to display health risks on cigarette packages and heavy taxation,
North American governments have attempted to regulate the sale of tobacco.
Governments are not the only source of deceit when it comes to the sale and production
of tobacco. The companies themselves have proven to ignore the public interest in an attempt
to gain personally. The tobacco companies have always understood that politics is about more
than lining up votes in national legislatures. They undertake a wide array of activities to shape the
political context in which legislation and regulations may be considered. "We must attack the
anti-smoking groups and zealots more confidently than we have in the past,"17 suggests a 1985
internal Philip Morris International memo. "Perhaps we could commission a book on the 'anti-
industry industry' and show that our attackers actually make money out of their activities, a
situation quite at variance with their image today. Possibly, too, we can discredit our critics....If
we dig around, we will certainly find anomalies which we can exploit. Internationally, we will
start looking in countries where we are under severe pressure."18 Along with their considerable
economic and political clout, until recently the cigarette companies have been able to rely on the
full support of the U.S. government to help them peddle their deadly products in the rest of the
world. Official U.S. promotion of tobacco exports to the developing world started in earnest
after the Second World War. Under the guise of providing assistance to needy countries, the
federal government's "Food for Peace"19 program shipped hundreds of millions of dollars worth
of tobacco to Asia, Africa and Latin America. By encouraging tobacco addiction, this program
helped lay the groundwork for the later penetration of these countries by the tobacco
multinationals. However this pales in comparison with the assistance given U.S. cigarette
companies in Asia in the 1980s.
How did it affect society?
Tobacco is associated today with smoking of cigarettes, and to a lesser extent, of pipes
and cigars-has been popular at times for both snuffing and chewing. Indeed, until about 1870
cigarettes were relatively rare in the United States, and almost all tobacco consumed
domestically was chewed during the mid-19th century20. Whatever the preferred mode of
consumption, however, the, commodity has always been the subject of debate respecting the
appropriate governmental attitude. On the one hand, proponents of the leaf stress its social
benefits and its economic and industrial significance. Some enthusiasts even endorse its alleged
medical and psychological benefits. Opposed are those who cite the health hazards of smoking
and others who are convinced of its immorality. The motivation for regulation has come from
both sides of the controversy. Most sumptuary restrictions were fostered by the latter group in
an effort to suppress the habit. Those who seek to institutionalize and foster use of the drug
focus on the regulation of the quantity and quality of production. Though many attempts have
been made by the governments to regulate tobacco products the evidence is questionable that
government interventions have lowered the rate of smoking. It seems instead, that governments
interventions have been directed more to the punitive taxation of smokers than to their
salvation.21
In recent years, steps have been taken to discourage smoking, although there is little
conclusive evidence that consumption patterns are changing. It can be expected that official
policy and alterations in individual behavior will both evolve slowly during the coming years. The
socioeconomic impact of a sudden change in official policy would be great, a circumstance
reflecting the momentum of several centuries of intense commercial activity.
ENDNOTES
1 Fraser Institute, The History of Tobacco Regulation: Forward to the Past (Vancouver: Fraser Institute,
2000) pg. 3.
2 John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton Smokin’! How the American Tobacco Industry Employs PR Scum to
Continue Its Murderous Assault on Human Lives. Available: http://desrt.net/tw/11-22-95/cover.html. Pg.1
3 Ibid Pg.2
4 Ibid Pg.2
5 Fraser Institute, The History of Tobacco Regulation: Forward to the Past (Vancouver: Fraser Institute,
2000) pg.3
6 Nancy Annette Ross Attitudes Towards Smoking in the Community Intervention Trial for Smoking
Cessation (COMMIT) McMaster University, 1996. pg.92
7 Charles Babington, "Underage Smoking Fine Sought for Big Tobacco." Washington Post. 4 Feb. 2000. Sec A: Page
A06,07
8 Fraser Institute, The History of Tobacco Regulation: Forward to the Past (Vancouver: Fraser Institute,
2000) pg. 17
10 Holley Knaus. Targeting Corporations: Canada’s anti-smoking Program.
http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1992/01/mm0192_10.html
11 Fraser Institute, The History of Tobacco Regulation: Forward to the Past (Vancouver: Fraser Institute,
2000) pg.7
12 Charles Babington, "Underage Smoking Fine Sought for Big Tobacco." Washington Post. 4 Feb. 2000. Sec A: Page
A06,07
13 William H. Shaw and Barry Vincent Moral Issues in Business. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1998. pg 460
14 Fraser Institute, The History of Tobacco Regulation: Forward to the Past (Vancouver: Fraser Institute,
2000) pg.7
15 Ibid pg.7
16 Ibid pg.8
17 Smoking and Health Initiatives - P.M. International," Internal Company Memorandum, 1985
18 Ibid
19 Susan Motley, "Burning the South: US Tobacco Companies in the Third World," Multinational Monitor,
July/August 1987.
20 J. J Gottsegen. Tobacco-A Study of its Consumption in the United States, New York-Chicago: Pitman
Publishing Corp., 1940, 8-10.
21 Fraser Institute, The History of Tobacco Regulation: Forward to the Past (Vancouver: Fraser Institute,
2000) pg.6