Don't let your business be used by big tobacco

A recent Everett Herald editorial was critical of the truthfulness and motives of big tobacco. The article also described the costs and harm caused by cigarettes. I gave kudos to the newspaper for the editorial, but noted a couple of problems – including asking them to look at their own advertising practices:

Kudos and Two Problems

Well, I applaud the Herald for taking a stand against:

“shameless cigarette producers (who) held firm to the company lie ... er, line: they weren't trying to create addicts, and were only marketing their products to adults”.

You also rightly point at:

“Big Tobacco -- whose products cause 443,600 deaths and almost $200 billion a year in health-related costs in the United States”.

And you correctly assert that:

“Over the long-term, choking off Big Tobacco's ability to poison Americans is an essential part of health-care reform.”

But, I have two problems with the Herald’s stated stand against tobacco.

1. The first is semantic. People who want to end the poisoning of Americans by tobacco (and the rest of the world who buy from these American purveyors) should not be referring to it as a product. The unstated premise in that term is that it is a “consumer product”. It is not a legitimate consumer product. It is a “substance” whose sale is tolerated by the government. And, addiction to this “poison” is a form of substance abuse – which often requires treatment in the form of patches, therapy or other medical assistance in order to break free of the addiction.

2. Given that this substance, as the Herald states: “eventually kills about half its users”; most thoughtful people and organizations who care about their community would avoid allowing themselves to become a part of the distribution system for this harmful substance. I’m sure that the Herald, as a community newspaper, would not think twice about rejecting an advertisement that was patently racist, libelous or lewd. Your grounds might be that while freedom of expression is an important right under our constitution – you assert your right to not let your newspaper and good name be used as the vehicle to distribute such offensive material.

Yet, there is a local tribal smoke shop that regularly advertises the availability of these “addictive” and “poisonous” cigarettes in your newspaper – complete with illustrations. By accepting such advertising, you willingly allow your organization to become part of the marketing effort of the purveyors of this harmful substance.

Yes, it is true that it is legal for business to sell and people to buy cigarettes in the United States. But, it is also true that each of us has a choice of whether we will willingly or blindly cooperate or say “No” to our own participation in activities that we know with considerable certainty will lead to addiction, serious illness and possibly death of members of our community.

I assert, that such advertising is every bit as offensive as that which is patently racist, libelous or lewd. And, just as the Herald is encouraging government to consider their budget options when there are fewer smokers paying cigarette taxes, the Herald should consider the lost cigarette advertising revenue a plus when balanced against the preservation of the newspaper’s good name and the welfare of the community which it serves.