The UK tobacco industry managed to late seventies to sell the idea that smoking was good because the cancer reduced the number of elderly dependents.
the late seventies, the tobacco industry was in a "critical moment." The evidence of the relationship between their product and lung cancer were as incontestable, and the sector was "being questioned in many directions." So to a report of the advisory Campbell-Johnson to the British Association of Tobacco (BAT). It has been 30 years since then, but it seems that some of the considerations of the text did not fall on deaf ears. Given the imminence a change in English legislation to toughen the current limits on public smoking, the National Committee to Prevent Smoking This study has revealed. Surely, some of his claims were only for domestic consumption. But that does not take away interest, although it can not be applied to the letter.
"The snuff has the social function of limiting the number of elderly dependents must maintain the economy." This consideration is contained in a document to handle public relations that the British tobacco industry commissioned in late 1978. The author himself acknowledges that "obviously" this argument "does not may be used publicly, but it develops: "With a general increase in life expectancy, we need something for people to die. In place of the effects of war, poverty and hunger, cancer, considered the disease of the rich, developed, has a role to play. " This idea, considered a" psychological factor to continue like people from smoking as pleasurable, albeit a dangerous habit, should not be underestimated. "
The text recognizes the damage it can do to the industry the association between smoking and lung cancer." The medical challenge has acted as a nuclear bomb lasting effect " for the sector, the report admits. But even then, suggests several ways to counteract its effects. Trying to deny it is "choosing to raise the battle where the opposition [to snuff] is stronger, so we have to wait:" With a tremendous advance in our knowledge of the causes of cancer or the discovery of a potent cancer inhibitor, is can transform snuff and health controversy, "he suggests. Therefore, "the industry needs to be prepared for a sudden medical breakthrough."
The other possibility suggested by the report was that the pressure on the yield to the importance snuff was taking at the time the study of breast cancer. In however, warned of another possible medical front: "The role of habit [smoking] as a major cardiac risk factor."
then-record 1978 - the industry was still a medical battle to give: that of passive smoking on the borderline of what credible. " "We have tried to define as a general health risk rather than a low risk to certain restricted groups of people."
also suggest a possible danger. Demonization of snuff that is accompanied by a relaxation to the marijuana, or association between both substances. Although snuff is a "drug of relaxation" can be "a blessing humanity in a stressful world, its association with marijuana would be harmful.
If the health protection of snuff and was taken for loss in 1978, was the social battle. "snuff smoke has a significant capacity to disturb, and the inability of smokers to take into account the comfort of others is one of the important reasons that are now used to condemn the habit, "he says.
To combat this negative image, the paper suggests several lines." There is still room to try and get that smoking is considered one of the habits that are not questionable per se, "he says. One of the actions is to promote a code of conduct among smokers that, if followed, "Ensure that defendants are not nonsmokers arrogantly assumed the right to pollute the air around them." "His tone has to be frank and positive", and one of its goals should be to "restore the image of smoking as an extroverted and sociable person, not being a neurotic, foul and painted by anti-smoking marginal."
The other is the creation - "with the blessing of the industry" - the associations of smoking. The text itself acknowledges that doing this is difficult if you want look like an independent, but adds a possible course of action: "The protection of freedom of choice of every individual adult any field (but especially smoking) "and" defense of smokers against unjust discrimination or restriction on their enjoyment of snuff. "This is one of the reasons why scientists like CNPT groups accuse of working partnerships profumo the benefit of the industry.
Source: http://ww w.elpais.com/articulo/sociedad/Necesitamos/algo/gente/muera/elpepusoc/20090812elpepusoc_9/Tes
0 comments:
Post a Comment