Eradicate the Tobacco Industry?

The group Airspace ASH has been doing one of these informal online polls, "Should the tobacco industry be eradicated?" My reply of course is Absolutely! Or if I may restrain my enthusiasm suggest that removing the opportunity for massive profit could accomplish the same. The tobacco industry is an historical anomaly. No industry receives such freedom from regulation and none causes as much inherent disease, death, and correlate health care cost. None. None accidentally. None incidentally. None.

Yet the tobacco industry retains blue chip status in stock markets around the globe.

The challenge to tobacco must include opposition to the bizarre economics of permissive tobacco policies subsidizing the rogue capitalism and complexity of nicotine addiction. That is why incremental approaches to de-normalizing tobacco, (taxes, tobacco free space, market reform) are considered effective. Prohibition is not effective prevention. But prohibiting means of profitably marketing nicotine may well be. Hence, the increments.

In an age of transnational corporations it is perhaps oversimplified to call for the eradication of the tobacco industry. They have a tendency to morph and are as aggressive as the most pernicious cancer in pursuing profit. But it is most certainly a worthy goal to remove the profit for which these corporations exist. It is this predatory profit that drives the pandemic.

I do take issue with those that suggest more accessible nicotine is an appropriate response. One need not eradicate tobacco to de-normalize the popularity of nicotine addiction. But it may well be possible to regulate nicotine delivery, access, marketing, etc. to the point where tobacco use is much less desirable or socially acceptable.

Tobacco corporations are archetypical in their amorality. As we slowly inch our way toward a tobacco free society in more developed nations they open new markets on the Pacific Rim and in Africa. Talking about snus and nicotine vapor is counterproductive when transnational corporations are recruiting share croppers and new markets in the rest of the world. We will be successful in our challenge to tobacco someday but it will not be expedited by ignoring the global accommodation and predation for which the tobacco industry continues to distinguish itself.

Industry collaboration

“We cannot continue allowing hatred and disdain towards tobacco companies to interfere with and trump efforts to achieve our fundamental goal of rapidly reducing the leading cause of disease, disability and death (i.e. cigarettes). Its daily cigarette smoking that is killing millions of people, not nicotine, tobacco, or tobacco companies.”

Bill Godshall, Pennsylvania

Mr. Godshall’s exemplary missive conveniently ignores the fact that daily cigarette smoking would not occur were it not for addictive nicotine. Nicotine is inherent to tobacco. Tobacco use would not be prevalent were it not for tobacco companies, and tobacco companies would not market nicotine were it not for the profit.

Our esteemed colleague, Dr. K. H. Ginzel has noted that harm reduction is analogous to Allied forces negotiating w Hitler on the beaches of Normandy for how many lives we can accommodate for the Nazis to remain in power. Collaboration, whether complicit or duplicate, is still culpable.

It most certainly is the tobacco companies that are killing people. Tobacco has not been a benign weed on the side of the road for 400 years. Without the predatory capitalist promotion of an addictive deadly product there would be no pandemic. To assume that tobacco companies are going to rectify this with new nicotine products is ludicrous.

We already have ‘harm reduction’ policies proven to reduce the harm of prevalent use: taxes, tobacco free space, and marketing reform. And criminal proceedings for corporate executives seems promising. The best we can hope for with Reynolds, or any tobacco company, in producing NRT products is a perpetuation of the misdirection that warranted a federal conviction in a U.S. court for fraud and racketeering. A corporations’ only obligation is to profit and the tobacco industry’s profit is incompatible with the public health.

One of the best gauges of the effectiveness of tobacco free advocacy is how the industry behaves. This dubious flirtation with NRT and the incredibly overhyped E cigarette should do little more than question the efficacy of either to actually reduce use. The tobacco industry has had decades to reduce the harm they cause and have responded with fraud, smuggling, endless litigation, manipulation of policies and politicians, and an ever increasing mortality rate in the developing world.

An alliance with the tobacco industry is just that. Don’t expect any applause.

harm reduction or criminal distraction

The recent acquisition of cessation products manufacturer Niconovum by Reynolds American International reveals much in the way prevention advocates should treat a harm reduction perspective and provide greater emphasis on challenging the rogue capitalists that market nicotine. Mr. Ezekwesiri Eluchie has quite astutely pointed out that the industry is once again setting the agenda within which tobacco control advocates find themselves.

The acquisition of Niconovum displays just how much harm reduction is of necessity product centered and by definition unconcerned w the corporations that profit from the spread of nicotine addiction. Harm reduction advocates do little more than collaborate with sophisticated marketing strategies that subtly shift the onus of addiction back to the user. Until advocates can unite in recognition that it is not merely tobacco, but the rogue capitalism practiced by nicotine profiteers we must challenge, they will continue to set the agenda.

As well this casts umbrage on those that profit from NRT and pharmacological solutions to nicotine addiction and unfortunately raises questions about funding from these companies for tobacco control. Given how woefully and comparably underfunded advocates are I have no immediate solution. But Mr. Eluchie’s suggestion that we fully acknowledge the magnitude of death and disease from tobacco as simply criminal seems a very good place to start.