A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z |     Dates
CREATED 3/20/2012


WARNING: This site deals only with the corporate corruption of science, and makes no inference about the motives or activities of individuals involved.
    There are many reasons why individuals become embroiled in corporate corruption activities - from political zealotry to over-enthusiastic activism; from gullibility to greed.
    Please read the OVERVIEW carefully, and make up your own mind.


Smoking-Gun docs.




Smoking Gun Document

Downunder conference    

Smoking-gun document

1987 Jun 24: Wednesday, PROJECT DOWN UNDER CONFERENCE NOTES 8:30 A.M. Session
    We are here to do something radical. To look at a problem. To achieve a solution. Nothing should be withheld. Lots of things have NOT been done.

    Expectations of group members.

  • . Some kind of discussion on passive smoking leading to PM or industry to come to public and change perception.
  • Come up with a way to deal with the social/legal context.
  • No expectations on outcome. Will come up with a plan, but can't predict its effectiveness.
  • Come away with consensus and a big picture plan.
  • . Action program, somewhat different from what's been done... 6. ETS not solvable with deductive reasoning. Come up with something company can get behind with $.

    Annoyance — people's noses haven't changed, perceived risk has.
    Disagree. Annoyance has changed in last 50 years. Content of tobacco has changed in last 20 years. Cigars/pipes more "annoying" than cigarettes.

    Question — not that they are annoyed, but are they prepared to do something about it. Atlanta airport example — long distance annoyance. Annoyance —- > chance to complain —- > more press coverage.

    Science of ETS.   • Our position: ETS not shown to be health hazard to non-smoker.   • People should focus on whole of indoor air, if they are concerned.   • We cannot say ETS is "safe" and if we do, this is a "dangerous" statement. ... Legal perspective... — Most laws are invulnerable to challenge (NY is an exception). — We won't be able to establish "the right to smoke." No legal basis for this "right." There are rights to privacy, union rights that do apply in limited fashion. If smokers get message that their smoke kills others, is this not something major? In U.S., ETS issue will have devastating effect on sales. E.G., parties, planes, etc. ...U.S. political perception of NO RISK to politicians on ETS issue. Therefore we have to create risk to politicians.... ...Covington & Burling get referrals on workplace cases. Frustrating. Not much can be done except bluff threats.

1987 Jun 24: Wednesday, 2:00 P.M. Session
    A.M. Where things stand. P.M. What is the problem?

  1. Problem — threatens number of smokers & number of cigarettes they smoke.
  2. How to alter public perception that ETS is damaging.
  3. ditto "
  4. ditto "
  5. Is there a different problem? (Assume that #2 causes #1)
  6. Problem for smoking population — nuisance/annoyance and risk accusations. And there are scientists, etc., who say it is a risk. How to do something for smokers. How to respond to scientists and risk issue.
  7. Big, complex problem A. Altering perception B. Changing underlying fact from "not proven" to ETS is not harmful to non-smoker. C. What are we going to do at 9:00 A.M. Monday morning? This is separate from above. Has to do with making people feel good about Philip Morris. D. How to make people (smokers and non-smokers) feel good about smokers.
  8. Problem is broader — general decline in social acceptability of smoking (includes ETS).
  9. Problem is political. Our bullets are technical. Bullets against us are lousy, but we don't have better bullets. Need long term science. What created perceptions is their science. Is there any fruitful science underway? Yes, in epidemiology and in monitoring, but next year to year and a half of science will be negative....Message has to be simple. There is no risk. That's the message.
        First question — Why are studies showing no risk not being published? Answer: 1. Peer pressure. 2. Telling people it's ok to smoke shunned by scientists. 3. Researchers don't want this grief. 4. Not going to get sympathy on our science by general scientific community.
        ...Is $100 million campaign worth an x increase in sales? Yes, if prohibition is alternative.
        But this problem is a direct outgrowth of "harm" of ETS.
        We've got to get to people on the street, but we are constrained because we can't say it's safe. What do we want to alter public perception to? A. Can't say it's good, safe, a tonic, etc. B. Can say "It is not shown to be harmful." Can you alter perception without touching on ETS? Yes. CHILL the rhetoric and bad science by SUING THEM. e.g., sue ACS for saying tobacco workers are murderers.
        Chill does not equal win. But this idea does fit with present situation of legislators being risk free.
        ...Your solution must be multifaceted: scientific, PR, advertising, legal. There may be downside to PM as consumer products company — fear of rocking corporate boat, backlash to any PM campaign. Risk would seem worth taking.
        ...The analogy of smoker discrimination and racial discrimination is hysterical, inaccurate and unfounded.

    1987 Jun 24: Wednesday, 10:00 P.M. Brainstorming Session
        Solutions to problem

    1. Develop products that reduce nuisance value.
    2. Develop products that have beneficial value to nonsmokers.
    3. Develop a free-standing menthol.
    4. Expand number of people prepared to talk about ETS objectively.
    5. Create our own expert (like Iacocca).
    6. More research — prove ETS is safe.
    7. Challenge publicly the scientific community.
    8. Need authoritative spokesperson.
    9. Look for costless areas of compromise.
    10. Talk with / challenge media leaders.
    11. Create a bigger monster (AIDS)
    12. . Make it hurt (political risk) to take us on.
    13. NRA type force for us.
    14. Greater effort to accommodate desires of non-smoker.
    15. Make non-smokers fearful of consequences of office smoking bans (drug testing, etc.)
    16. Communicate with core market.
    17. Educate core market to respond.
    18. Revisit primary issue.
    19. Chill the rhetoric.
    20. Courtesy campaign for smokers.
    21. Re-examine ETS research to make case stronger.
    22. Theatre of the absurd.
    23. Segment public to look at perceptions and target-messages.
    24. Seriously look at TV, print, other media campaigns.
    25. Re-examine what we are doing to address symptoms -taxes, etc.
    26. Identify natural allies
    27. Change nomenclature for issue.
    28. Develop public information network and network common language.
    29. Lie low
    30. Moderation campaign like beer.
    31. Endow chair for ETS research.
    32. Make sure industry goes along with our options.
    33. Create science journal.
    34. Create non-science journal.
    35. Create smokers' rights unit within law firm.
    36. Encourage grassroots organization outside of industry.
    37. Involve candy wholesalers, leaf, farmers.
    38. Create greater pressure on politicians.
    39. Infiltrate W.H.O.
    40. Educate PM employees on issue.
    41. Fix industry's irritating public face.
    42. Directly involve brand advertising in our issues.
    43. Mark packages "Please smoke courteously."
    44. Use carton inserts.
    45. Support segregated public smoking/non-smoking areas.
    46. Make preemptive gesture.
    47. Support work demonstrating corrosive impact of nuisance regulations.
    48. Vastly expand data base.
    49. Acquire major media vehicle.
    50. Develop own radio programming.
    51. Adopt end game strategy. Maximize cash flow.
    52. Develop immediate TV/radio response mechanism in every local community.
    53. Promote better room ventilation. An A/C in every home.
    54. Legislate clean air.
    55. Work with unions to develop generic workplace policies for bargaining.
    56. $2-5 million funding for CIAR now. $25-30 million per year later put into indoor air study.
    57. Establish center or grant at university to study indoor air.
    58. Internally, study need for group to study ETS.
    59. Introduce no/low sidestream smoke cigarette.
    60. Sue the bastards!
    61. Get more support from board members.
    62. Undermine Koop et al.
    63. More movies featuring cigarette brands.
    64. Get best selling novel with subtle connection to evils of anti industry.
    65. Art philanthropy — shift emphasis to literary arts.
    66. Challenge tax exempt status of anti groups.
    67. Someone outside industry to talk about integrity in science.
    68. Re-examine sports promotions.
    69. Get Nader-like group to examine anti funding.
    70. Establish a risk perspective on issue.
    71. Fund major university media resources and training center for science writers.
    72. Program for journalism and law schools.
    73. Support social research on positive aspects of smoking to society.
    74. Establish ties with libertarian and conservative groups.
    75. NRA strategy and say we did it.
    76. Lobby for cabinet level industry spokesperson.
    77. Help select next SG.
    78. Re-examine structure and role of TI.
    79. Abolish T.I.
    80. Ad campaign.
    81. Organize "spontaneous" protests on our issues.
    82. Identify persuasive mediator between us and them.
    83. Re-establish 20-years-ago network.
    84. Re-establish seniority system in Congress.
    85. New network at state level.
    86. Involve friendly and neutral legislators in our policymaking work,
    87. Provide lists to supportive legislators.
    88. Internationalize our efforts.
    89. Presidential primary initiative.
    90. Look at referendum process in key states.
    91. Enact legislation with smoking as protected activity.
    92. Repeal smoking restrictions in target states.
    93. Fund research that documents victims and costs of smoking restrictions.
    94. Look at law enforcement aspects.
    95. Collect and use articles ridiculing antis.
    96. Indoor air quality study on NY Times Building.
    97. Involve non-smoker in mystique of smoking.
    98. Refute argument that smokers incur greater medical/social/efficiency costs.
    99. Show smokers are more efficient.
    100. Tell good news better.
    101. Make use of subsidiary goodwill and power.
    102. Fund lung cancer research.
    103. Test case town or workplace.
    104. Defeat Waxman.
    105. Attack anti groups where they hurt.
    106. Fund women's unions (office workers) on general discrimination research.
    107. Discounts for smokers.
    108. Acquire an insurance company.
    109. Look at where separation of smokers/non-smokers occurs and capitalize.
    110. Do smokers have more fun?
    111. Create perception and fact of smokers as a voting, political group.
    112. Cement relationship with women smokers, e.g. child care.
    113. Create desirable restaurant for smokers.
    114. Condoms in cigarette packages.
    115. Increase frequency of PM Magazine.
    116. Increase pay for PM Mag editorial staff.

          ... Examination of 116 ideas.
          — We don't have anything to slam them with on health issue.
          THE PROBLEM SOLUTIONS APPLIED TO THE TARGET GROUPS Smokers (comfortable, courteous and active) —NRA strategy —Tell good news better —create smokers as market segment to products other than cigarettes.
          Non-smokers(non issue) —accommodation (see discussion notes) —fear of consequences of bans (drug tests, etc.) —courtesy campaign for smokers.
          Anti-smokers(isolated) —Chill the rhetoric —Theatre of the absurd —Sue the bastards —Challenge tax exempt status of antis —Get watchdog/3rd party group to investigate anti's fund allocations.
          Public officials and Policy makers(feel heat and cool) — Costless areas of compromise —Create pan-strategic monsters (indoor air, employee rights, polygraphs, slippery slope). —Make it hurt —Courtesy campaign for smokers. —"Improve"' Koop. —provide context for claimed risk of ETS. —Help select next SG. —Create industry Valenti. —Involve friendly and neutral legislators in our policy work. —Provide lists to supportive legislators. —Seek repeal of restrictions. —Develop political targets.
          Media (be objective and ideally pro us) — Expand advocates. — Create own Iacocca. — Publicly challenge scientists. — Talk to/challenge media leaders. — Consider acquiring major media vehicle. — Explore creating or buying pop. science mag. — Explore best selling book on relevant issues. — Examine economic/human costs of smoking restrictions, including law enforcement. — Tell good news better.
          Scientific Community (be objective) — Expand advocates. — More research. — Publicly challenge scientists. — Endow chairs for indoor air research. — Create scientific journal (explore) — Adequately fund CIAR — Sociological research on positive aspects of smoking. — Refute "social costs" argument (info goes to media plan).
          Family and allies(become active) — Seek out other allies/industries.

      See jpgs in Downunder file (change order in [2021502125]

      1987 Sep 2: Working Group Recommendations

      Also see



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License