A brief history of the War on Smokers
What began as an honest concern for the public health has, over the ensuing four decades, become a Holy Crusade, an
ideological war against one-quarter of the American public funded with public money. These activities raise important questions
concerning the propriety and legality of tax-funded politics--the use of tax revenues by special interest groups to promote one
side of a political issue. Such misappropriation of tax dollars has long been recognized as inappropriate. Doing so essentially
forces taxpayers to contribute to political causes with which they disagree--a fundamental offense against individual liberty (and
constitutional principles). And it degrades democracy, for it is an attempt by government to manipulate and manufacture the will
of the people.
In 1964 the Surgeon General's report on smoking and lung cancer was published, followed one year later by the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act which required the Surgeon General's warning be printed on each pack of cigarettes.
Twenty years later, in 1984, the Comprehensive Tobacco Education Act (Public Law 98-474) was passed. This Act created
the taxpayer-funded Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health, a partnership between the federal government and the
biggest of the non-profits, including the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, and later, the Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation. Their stated purpose was to coordinate public and private tobacco research and education
programs. This partnership laid the foundation for the non-governmental organizations' involvement in policy making and gave
them the power of another branch of government. These unelected and therefore essentially omnipotent groups are still the
basis for the War on Smokers and they're more powerful than ever...probably more powerful than government itself.
In 1985 legislation sponsored by Congressman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) was passed (over a presidential veto) that gave
Congress explicit controls over science funding by the National Institutes of Health (which includes the NCI). Waxman's bill
had the support of a large number of specialized private health organizations, including the American Cancer Society and the
American Lung Association.
On December 12, 1989, the National Cancer Institute, an arm of the federal government's taxpayer funded National Institutes
of Health wrote that using activists to reduce public tolerance of smoking was the "state of the science" and the way to go.
Later that year, in a booklet entitled "Tips for Kids," the CDC commented that smokers were, in fact, "second-class citizens"
and would eventually be treated as such. A side effect of these strategies was to contaminate the pool of jurors who would sit
on future lawsuits against the tobacco industry.
Also in 1989, C. Everett Koop as Surgeon General of the United States changed the definition of "addiction" to include
smoking, thereby also including things such as TV watching, video games, chocolate, sex, etc.
In October of 1991, the federally funded American Stop Smoking Intervention Study (Project ASSIST) was begun and by
1993, the American Cancer Society (ACS) had prepared its Action Plan, which included raising cigarette taxes, the banning of
tobacco advertising, workplace smoking bans, and more.
In 1992, the CDC (which housed the ICSH) began hosting meetings of public and private attorneys, many of whom were
heavy contributors to President Clinton's campaigns, who wanted to sue the tobacco industry. These meetings were held
behind closed doors, not available to the public or the media.
In 1993, the EPA Report on Secondhand Smoke was published, giving the anti-tobacco crusaders a very big stick with which
to beat the industry.
In 1994, after Hillary Clinton's disastrous National Health Plan, the President was searching for a cause Americans could get
behind.  Presidential advisor Dick Morris urged Clinton to take on "kids smoking" as a cause. (Although Clinton was at first
reluctant, a 'poll' paid for by Dickie Scruggs changed his mind.)
Scruggs, a Pascagoula, Mississipppi, attorney, had a novel idea: a way to sue the tobacco companies that had never been
done. He took his idea to his old college roommate, Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore. Trent Lott, Senate Majority
Leader and Scruggs' brother-in-law introduced Dickie to Presidential advisor and right hand man, Dick Morris. Morris, who
helped Scruggs pick the "right" jury for his lawsuit, Scruggs and Moore began the first tobacco lawsuit which would set the
stage for all others to follow. When the industry realized it couldn't win a lawsuit if it was no longer allowed to use the only true
defense it had--smokers knew what they were doing and chose to do it anyway--they entered 'settlement' talks. During these
talks, Hugh Rodham, Hillary's brother, was brought into one of the law firms who stood to gain the billions in fees, even though
he had no plaintiff's bar experience.
Also in 1994, and drawing on the earlier ACS Action Plan, guidelines for a tobacco control program were published in the NE
Journal of Medicine which included increased federal taxes on tobacco products,  comprehensive restrictions on smoking in the
workplace and in public, bans on advertising and sponsorship by tobacco companies,  government support for conversion of
tobacco crops to other crops, financial support for tobacco counteradvertising,  support for personal-injury litigation against the
tobacco industry, etc., most of which guidelines are now in place.
In May of 1994, Stanton Glantz received more than 4000 internal documents that had been stolen from Brown & Williamson
and its parent company, BAT Industries, by paralegal Merrell Williams, Jr.who called himself  "Mr. Butts." Possession of these
damaging documents made Glantz a hot property worth a lot of money in grants and funding.
The anti-tobacco crusaders soon realized that simply telling people their health was at risk was not getting the result they
wanted, so they decided to expand the problem--they used the EPA's faulty report to make secondhand smoke a public policy
issue. C. Everett Koop, David Kessler, Richard Daynard, James Repace, Stanton Glantz, and other activists enlisted several
politicians, notably Henry Waxman of California, to help "prove" that tobacco company executives lied in testimony before
Congress about the addictiveness of nicotine. Using modified criteria to call smoking addictive created a new 'social' definition,
without which the tobacco company executives could not be said to have lied and the anti-tobacco agenda would not be nearly
as strong.
By adding the perjorative label "addiction" to the unapproved habit of smoking, anti-tobacco forces justify intervention--for the
addict's own good, of course. If an addict doesn't understand what he's doing or can't keep himself from doing it, that addict is
a victim so others can intercede on his behalf. With or without his permission. They can take his money and use it against him,
for his own good, and society at large approves.
In July 1995 the Journal of the American Medical Association ran five long articles by Glantz and his co-workers, including
Richard Daynard, on the pirated B&W memos, later to be published by Glantz as The Cigarette Papers.
In 1998, commissioned by a Congressional cadre of anti-tobacco legislators in response to the tobacco settlement, ex-FDA
czar David Kessler and former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop hand-picked representatives from twenty-three organizations
to constitute an expert tobacco control panel. Among the representatives are some of the most zealous anti-tobacco activists in
the U.S. including  John Banzhaf, Executive Director of ASH; Michael Pertschuk, Co-Director of the Advocacy Institute; John
Seffrin, American Cancer Society; Dudley Hafner, American Heart Association; John Garrison, American Lung Association;
Julia Carol, Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights; William Novelli, National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids; Matt Myers, Center
for Tobacco-Free Kids; Jesse W. Brown, The Onyx Group; Jeff Nesbit, Science and Public Policy Institute; Thomas Houston,
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Smokeless States Prog.;Judy Sopenski, STAT; Richard Daynard, Tobacco Products
Liability Project.
They met three times and provided to President Clinton and Congress a 60-page document that is one of the most chilling
displays of disregard for American tenets in existence today. Defining the choice to smoke as a "chronic disease" and declaring
"no value" to the use of cigarettes, the panel proposed an Orwellian "blueprint" for "control" of the problem on a global basis.
The commission recommended the immedicate implementation of what clearly must be seen as totalitarian means, backed fully
by the power of police state enforcement, to achieve an almost classically totalitarian goal, a kind of mandated behaviorism. Or,
to use their own words, "the goal is to change the behavior of smokers." Everywhere in the world. Not only does every single
organization represented on the panel (and every individual representative) stand to benefit financially from the proposals in the
Advisory Committee on Tobacco Policy and Public Health Report, this blueprint gives the anti-tobacco advocacy groups far
more power than they should ever have, including the "freedom and resources to monitor and oversee government enforcement
of legislation and regulation...freedom from political "censorship" or constraints, including the freedom to advocate the
enactment of tobacco control policies, ...and to challenge the failure of government entities to carry out the law."
To enforce the proposed regulations and bans and to administer all the funding, new federal and private agencies would be
created and certain existing federal agencies would be given additional funding and additional regulatory powers. The
"blueprint" is, in fact, the quintessence of federal Nannyism with its focus on growth of the regulatory apparatus. What is even
more disturbing is its stated aim to extend its regulatory programs throughout the world and use U.S. funding and influence to
do so.
Some of the Key Players

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, endowed by General Robert Wood Johnson of international drug giant Johnson &

Johnson, funds health-related research and advocacy, especially anti-tobacco efforts. Typical of the big NGOs, RWJF shows
no respect for individual rights and the free market, their president having endorsed heavy taxes on tobacco as a "way to
generate revenue" for various of their pet projects. Johnson & Johnson produces a number of tobacco cessation devices such
as Nicotrol.
The National Cancer Institute has diverted over $100 million in recent years from cancer research to lobbying and political
activities. It funds the training of political anti-smoking activists and the development in a number of states of anti-smoking
advocacy coalitions, which then lobby for state legislative initiatives against smoking. Its partner in this diversion is the American
Cancer Society (ACS), the nation's largest and best-known health research charity. With ample assistance from the other
major health charities and smaller antismoking groups that stand to benefit from the funding, the NCI has managed to keep
much of this activity hidden from taxpayers.
The NCI has no direct regulatory function, but its research and policy pronouncements influence other agencies at the federal
and state level as well as the public. Aninsidious and alarming problem with NCI's political activity concerns issues of
accountability. Who is responsible for such spending decisions? And how are these people held accountable by the taxpayer?
Funds have been diverted towards political activity in a manner that makes it difficult to pinpoint the responsible parties. The
U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a person cannot be required "to contribute to the support of an ideological cause he may
oppose,"  but despite such legal prohibitions, tax-funded politics runs rampant at NCI.
The American Cancer Society--charity or big business? In 1988, the ACS was worth more than $400 million with $69
million in land, buildings and equipment. Of that $400 million, only 26% was spent on medical research and programs. Of the
remaining millions, 60% went for generous salaries, pensions, executive perks, and overhead. The next year, ACS's cash
reserves were more than $700 million, nearly half coming from public donations and high-profile fundraising campaigns. In the
past decade, however, more and more of the ACS budget comes from large pharmaceutical, telecommunications, and
entertainment related corporations, and more and more of their expenditures go not for medical research, but for advocacy
projects, primarily anti-tobacco.
The World Health Organization became one of the most important players in the War on Smokers when Director Gro
Harlem Brundtland signed a partnership agreement with several pharmaceutical companies in January two years ago, promising
to make tobacco control WHO's number one priority worldwide, even though this is a diversion of money and effort from
blights such as Aids, dengue fever and malaria, from new or drug-resistant diseases, and from the elimination of polio. As
Norway's prime minister, Brundtland pioneered global environmental politics and as Director of WHO, that ambition is even
stronger. Their recent $10 million conference in Chicago that brought together 4500 anti-tobacco activists from around the
world was subsidized by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and other anti-tobacco organizations.

Stanton Glantz, professor at UCSF, may best be described by his own quotes:

At the Seventh World Conference on Tobacco and Health held in Perth, Australia in 1990, Glantz gave the keynote address in

which he said, among other things:
"The main thing the science has done on the issue of ETS, in addition to help people like me pay mortgages, is it has legitimized
the concerns that people have that they don't like cigarette smoke. And that is a strong emotional force that needs to be
harnessed and used. We're on a roll, and the bastards are on the run. And I urge you to keep chasing them."
"Do you know that if you laid all smokers end-to-end around the world, three-quarters of them would drown?"

Anti-smokers are heavily invested in the idea that ETS kills. As Glantz noted in 1986, that claim allows anti-smokers to use "the

rhetoric of the environment, toxic chemicals, and public health rather than the rhetoric of saving smokers from themselves" to
further their agenda.
"...and that's the question that I have applied to my research relating to tobacco. If this comes out the way I think, will it make a
difference? And if the answer is yes, then we do it, and if the answer is I don't know then we don't bother. Okay? And that's
the criteria."
When the hospitality industry in California claimed that business was down due to the harsh smoking restrictions, and that claim
began to effect other areas of the country in which ANR (Americans for Nonsmokers Rights, founded by Glantz) was
attempting to enact similar laws, Glantz produced a "study" that showed business was up.
Dr. Michael K. Evans, a respected economist, accused Glantz of misrepresenting data (he included drive-throughs and
fast-food restaurants which were not affected by the bans as well as those who were not in compliance, as many as 67% at the
time) and reaching an unwarranted conclusion on the proposition that 100% smokefree restaurant ordinances had no negative
economic impact on the restaurant economy. He concluded that the study was flawed to the point of being unusable and
appeared to have been designed to mislead elected officials. (Even so, Glantz's "study" is the only one quoted when
anti-tobacco crusaders attempt these sweeping bans in other localities. )
A Sacramento court issued a restraining order against Glantz for destroying documents in the above case and required him to
show why he should not be held in contempt of court. It also charged him with unauthorized use of University of California
resources for political lobbying, electioneering and private political activities, and of using his time on the University payroll to
do so.
Glantz was 'Principal Investigator' on a research project of the National Cancer Institute which was conducted out of the
Institute for Health Policy Studies at the University of California, San Francisco, and sounds a lot like the basis for ANR's
"Enemies List" compiled later.  Along with other "qualitative and quantitative information," investigators proposed to
"Document the role of the tobacco industry in the creation and further development of the Smokers' Rights movement
and examine its social and ideological message and political consequences for tobacco control."
Requests for copies of the completed project under the Freedom of Information Act were fruitless, pages returned were so
highly censored they were unreadable. The "Enemies List," made up of groups and individuals who have written, spoken, or
otherwise commented on smoking in ways the ANR consider unsuitable, was found out and reported in the LA Daily News on
Dec. 6, 1999. The list was circulated--quietly--among state and local officials who may have had to decide on smoking issues.
No one on the list--whether an ordinary citizen or a respected conservative think tank--was to be given any credence.
"Since 1995, the California Department of Health Services has awarded yearly grants totaling more than $1.2 million to a
Berkeley public advocacy group, the Americans for Nonsmokers Rights Foundation, to provide community education
programs. Records show that its top priority has been collecting information on groups and individuals that the foundation
believes are secretly working for Big Tobacco. Julia Carol, the executive director of the Americans for Nonsmokers Rights
Foundation, said the group did nothing improper ...that informing local government and health agencies about "underhanded
tactics" of the tobacco industry has proven to be an effective anti-smoking strategy. "If you're fighting malaria, you go after the
vector -- you do mosquito abatement," she said.
So now we're "mosquitoes" according to Julia Carol.

John Banzhaf

In 1966, after graduating from law school and while working as a cruise-ship dancer, John Banzhaf III tried an academic

experiment--he argued to the FCC that the "fairness doctrine" required anti-smoking messages get free air time to counter
cigarette commercials. Failing to interest national charities such as the American Cancer Society, who felt the way to fight
disease was through research and education instead of litigation, he founded Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) to go after
tobacco companies in earnest.
ASH bills itself as the "legal action arm of the anti-smoking community," and provides anti-smokers with legal help in everything
from taking custody away from smoking parents to "suing the bastards."  People are encouraged on the ASH web site to file
complaints, harass smokers, and turn in parents with anonomyous tips. . "All you have to do is prove it's (shs) a nuisance and
it's an irritation," says Banzhaf. He compares these cases to suing over a neighbor's smelly cabbage. "You don't have to prove
it's a health risk, you just have to say, 'I shouldn't have to live with this stink.' "
"I've convinced judges in 12 different states,that smoking by a parent should be a factor in custody disputes. More than half a
dozen parents have lost custody because they've been smoking around children."--John Banzhaf
Memo from John Banzhaf, Exec. Dir of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
     A major national news program is very interested in immediately locating a physician, social worker, teacher or other similar
person who may have filed--or is considering filing--a complaint of Child Abuse, Child Neglect, etc., based upon exposing a
susceptible child to parental smoking (environmental tobacco smoke).
"I think restricting smoking outdoors is the next major step in the nonsmoker rights movement," said John Banzhaf.
"The law is clear that individuals maintain no legal or constitutional right to smoke, even in one's dwelling," according to John
Banzhaf loses one: On November 26, 1996, a federal appeals court rejected a requested by ASH to force OSHA to finish
their workplace smoking regulations, proposed in 1994. Banzhaf argued that the agency had broken its own deadline for rule
After the feeding frenzy that commenced in 1994 with Rep. Henry Waxman's shameful inquisition of seven tobacco company
executives, and five major grand jury investigations of the tobacco industry were under way, Action on Smoking and Health
chimed in by offering $25,000 "to anyone who provides information leading to convictions for `cigarette-related felonies.'" No
indictments were ever brought nor has the $25,000 been claimed.
ASH's "Victories":
# ASH got the support of Surgeon General David Satcher, M.D., the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], and
the Federal Trade Commission [FTC] for its proposal to require cigar health warnings.
# ASH helped uphold an important settlement for nonsmokers in Florida which has become final.
# ASH helped convince Montgomery County, MD, to ban smoking in all restaurants and bars.
# ASH has persuaded several major restaurant chains to review their policies regarding smoking.
# ASH helped prevent Liggett Tobacco Company from escaping liability for its cigarettes.
# ASH helped to formulate the legal theories behind the government's suit against big tobacco, and to prevent Senate attempts
to cut off all funding for the suit.
(ASH takes "credit" for more than 1000 municipal smokefree ordinances across the country.)


That's right.  Dozens of  tobacco class action law suits -- brought on behalf of current smokers, former smokers,

families of former smokers, nonsmokers, and other entities -- are currently pending, and could result in awards of
many hundreds of billions [YES, BILLIONS!]  of dollars.
ASH's Sue the Tobacco Companies Information -- Act NOW Before It's Too Late! This page tells you how and why you
should sue tobacco companies.
Please note, however, that this information is available only to member-supporters of Action on Smoking and Health
(ASH).  To find out how you can become a member of ASH on line, and to obtain access to this and other valuable
information for members as well as several special gifts, please click here to learn the many benefits of joining ASH
on-line, over the Internet.
Richard Daynard, (ASHRAE), Professor of Law Northeastern University School of Law. "For the past 30 years I have been
a law professor at Northeastern University School of Law. For much of this time I taught and thought about the nature of the
legal process. For the last 15 of these years I have specialized in toxic torts and complex litigation, and especially in tobacco
Daynard is one of the lawyers who received grants from the National Cancer Institute in 1995 enabling them to"research"
strategies that would help U.S. states sue the tobacco industry. Interestingly,
Daynard was instrumental in getting ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers) to
re-write its standard that suggested that with proper ventilation, safe indoor air quality standards could be met even if a certain
level of smoking was permitted. Thanks to Daynard, ASHRAE changed its mind and eliminated any reference to smoking being
permissible. Daynard brags that "This culminates a 13-year effort on my part to get the 1989 language...changed. I was a
member of the ASHRAE committee that proposed the change."
Most recently, he has gone to court against two of the country's richest and best-known plaintiff lawyers, claiming they reneged on a pledge to cut him in on a fortune in legal fees. Daynard contends that Ronald Motley and Richard Scruggs, whose law firms are to receive as much as $3 billion in fees from settlements of state lawsuits against tobacco firms, have refused to
honor a handshake deal made in 1996 to pay him 5% of any fees they might collect for handling the anti-tobacco claims of state
attorneys general. Even though he was not directly involved, he seems to feel he deserves to be paid for his "work" on the state lawsuits and the Florida case, represented by former brother-in-law David Boies. Although no better than Daynard, according to Scruggs, who has filed a motion to dismiss the case, Daynard is "a bit more mercenary than people think he is."  "He's greedy," Motley said, adding that Daynard's claim "that he had something monumental in the state lawsuits] is stupefying."

  "Smoking Devil" courtesy of James Repace, Repace Associates, Inc., Secondhand Smoke Consultants--along with Ichiro Kawachi, PhD, Associate Professor, and Stanton Glantz, UCSF.

Repace worked for the non-smoking EPA (he actually called for the EPA's report on shs), but "personal health problems"

 culminated in his having to work at home (rather than at the office). When he absolutely had to go into the building for
mandatory meetings, he wore a gas mask. According to his curriculum vitae, Mr. Repace is singlehandedly responsible for
everything that is known about the dangers of shs. He discovered it.
(from hearing before Montgomery County, MD, Council on proposed smoke ban) "Repace bragged that he has been
called as an expert witness in several class action lawsuits, including one brought by casino workers in Nevada against tobacco
companies. He then proclaimed that he knew more about second hand smoking than just about anyone else in the whole world.
But when asked a question by one member of the council, he made the assertion that it would take winds of at least 300 miles
per hour to clear an indoor dining area of the toxins generated by cigarette use."
William Novelli, the founder and president of Tobacco Free Kids, is a consummate public relations maven who also owns a
large private PR firm, Porter Novelli, which represents some of the largest and richest of the Big Pharmaceuticals who make
nicotine replacement drugs and devices. His 'pro bono' work for the Big Nonprofits like the American Cancer Society and his
profitable ties to the National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has resulted in millions of
dollars in funding for the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids.
"I believe in marketing as an engine that can move goods off the shelf, promote organizations and candidates, change social
behavior, advance causes and ideas and help make America a healthier and better place." --William Novelli, President,
Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids

"The demonization of smokers is one of the most remarkable ethical changes in American society in the 20th century. It has

transformed what was once a bad habit into an outright sin."  --Arthur Caplan, Director, Center for Bioethics, University of
According to "The Weekly Standard," a conservative weekly magazine, the anti-tobacco crusade is doing more harm than
tobacco itself, that it is promoting victimization rather than personal responsibility. "The only conceivable consequence of
equating hard drugs, which can destroy the mind and soul, with tobacco, which can actually have positive effects on the mind
and has no deleterious effect on the soul, is to lessen the fear of real drugs among young people... The truth is that tobacco
doesn't interfere with the soul, mind, conscience or emotional growth of a smoker." (July 20, 1998 issue)