Suchergebnisse

Military personnel and veterans are disadvantaged by inadequate tobacco control policies. We conducted a case study of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) effort to disallow smoking and tobacco sales in VA facilities. Despite strong VA support, the tobacco industry created a public relations-focused grassroots veterans' opposition group, eventually pushing the US Congress to pass a law requiring smoking areas in every VA health facility. Arguing that it would be unpatriotic to deny veterans this "freedom" they had ostensibly fought for and that banning smoking could even harm veterans' health, industry consultants exploited veterans' organizations to protect tobacco industry profits. Civilian public health advocates should collaborate with veterans to expose the industry's manipulation, reframe the debate, and repeal the law.

BACKGROUND: In 1990, the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT-UP) sparked a year long boycott of Philip Morris's Marlboro cigarettes and Miller beer. The boycott protested the company's support of Senator Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina), a leading opponent of AIDS funding and civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. ACT-UP demanded that Philip Morris sever its ties with Helms and acknowledge its responsibility to the LGBT community and to people with AIDS. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the boycott on the LGBT community, the tobacco industry, and the tobacco control movement; and to determine what lessons tobacco control advocates can extract from this case. DATA SOURCES: Internal tobacco industry documents and newspaper archives. METHODS: Search of tobacco industry documents websites using "boycott", "ACT-UP", "gay", and other terms. RESULTS: Philip Morris used the boycott to its own advantage. It exploited differences within the community and settled the boycott by pledging large donations to combat AIDS. Through corporate philanthropy, Philip Morris gained entrée to the LGBT market without appearing gay friendly. Many LGBT organisations, thirsty for recognition and funding from mainstream corporations, welcomed Philip Morris's overtures without considering the health hazards of tobacco. CONCLUSIONS: Unless the goal of a boycott is to convince the tobacco industry to abandon tobacco altogether, such actions invite the industry to expand its marketing under the guise of philanthropy. Tobacco control advocates should be clear about goals and acceptable settlement terms before participating in a boycott of a tobacco company.