Do read the comments.. there are some especially interesting ones..
This information is from Waltc....(thank you Waltc I don't know how to contact you to grant me permission to use this - or thank you. I can find Blueprint for Public Health Action for 2000's but not 1990's - only lots of references to various reports mentioned in your information.)
Quote from Waltc
"This was spelled out in early TC documents. I’m quoting below from an article with no URL and I may have to (forgive me) chain post to make it clear how very “intentional” this was:
Excerpts from a 1991 US gov’t (NIH/NCI) “Blueprint for Public Health Action in the 1990′s” :
“As social beings, humans are subject to a desire to conform, to adopt the social conventions and norms of the majority, To the extent that individuals perceive their actions as deviant, there will be pressure to conform… Efforts to control tobacco use, then, should focus on creating a social environment that provides persistent and inescapable cues to smokers to stop smoking…” “.. the best way to change an individual’s behavior is to intervene through his social structures.”
Another’90′s Blueprint (sponsored by a coalition of NGO’s) maintains as a major goal: “To foster public perception that smoking is a socially unacceptable behavior.” The bulletin then adds that: “Restrictions on smoking in public places remain a keystone in the overall challenge to achieve a tobacco-free society.”
The motive behind bans, then, was not to protect the innocent from secondhand smoke but, by officially excluding them by law, to make others begin to see all smokers as unacceptable and deviant. The “desire to conform,” then, would cut both ways as the conformist nonsmoker would hop aboard the bandwagon of Public Opinion, and the now-excluded smoker would clamor to be let back in (or out, in the case of outdoor bans) to the Brotherhood of Man.
Most tellingly, one of the 9 members the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Panel (specifically selected to “independently review” the EPA’s 1992 report) included a Dr. David Burns, who openly admitted to having spent “half his time in the anti-smoking movement.” In testifying on behalf of an (early 90′s) outdoor ban that included city sidewalks and beaches in Del Mar, California, according to a Congressiona report, “Dr. Burns had made clear that his single-minded focus on promoting and supporting restrictions on the use of tobacco in any public place was to penalize smokers for their decision to smoke.”
Burns had said, on the record, that: “In order to modify smoking behavior, one needs to… create an environment in the larger society that actually discourages [smoking.] The key [is]..to change the larger environment in which [the smoker] functions to make it less conducive to using cigarettes…And to the extent that [the Del Mar ban] changes the image of the cigarette smoker and changes the psychological and sociological rewards of smoking…it contributes to changing the environment.”
FROM THE WASHINGTON POST, 9/22/97
“Many people quit smoking because it’s just plain socially unacceptable,”[said a spokesman for the American Cancer Society.]“Health risks didn’t move them…But the fact that they were social pariahs and not welcome in their own buildings did move them.”
And therefore, goes the thinking, it was well worth turning such a “Them” into pariahs.
“And then there’s the obvious backlash factor. The Inner Directed smokers have staunchly refused to quit because of the nasty pressure and have bonded into a class in such a way that their act of smoking is now a badge of their rebellion against the obvious manipulation.
Exactly what a smart sociologist might predict:
SOCIAL EFFECTS OF THE ANTI-SMOKING CAMPAIGN: CREATING A NEW CLASS
The campaign, quite predictably, binds smokers into a class:
“Dr. Howard Shaffer, director of Harvard’s Norman Zinzberg Center for Addiction Studies, warns that the (Boston) Health Department’s ad campaign ‘has an underside where it clearly ostracizes people. Groups that withdraw from the social mainstream become [a class] unto themselves with a new value structure. Splitting the society, one faction against another, has a danger. It does concern me.’
“Clifford Carr…a fierce and proven anti-smoking warrior [who] works as a tobacco-control expert at a research institution in Los Alamitos, Ca… is concerned about the stigma being created by the anti-smoking forces. ‘There is no doubt that what we are doing is creating a new class…Cigarette smokers are outcasts at this point. These people are being ostracized.”
“Dr Michael Montagne, associate professor of pharmacy administration at Massachusetts College of Pharmacy..:’While we’re trying to have an impact [on people's smoking] there could be a negative fallout. More than likely, the big impact is that people will just be nasty to each other in public places.’ “We create this mindset for the nonsmoker,[Montagne continues] that smokers are something that they’re really not. The impact would then be on interpersonal or working relationships. There could really be a problem. If smokers are portrayed as vile, people will say, ‘Well, really, I don’t want to live with this person anymore,’…whether these relations are in a workplace, a school or a home.”
And finally, this, from John Luik, “Pandora’s Box,” 1994
“By far the most morally objectionable aspect of the anti- smoking movement…is its readiness to use corrupted science to deprive smokers not only of their right to pursue their pleasure in public, but quite possibly to gain or retain their employment, or advance their prospects. Put more bluntly, it is a question of whether it is morally justified to use bad science to hurt people?….
In doing so, the anti-smoking movement simultaneously violates perhaps the two most fundamental moral principles, first by treating persons, in this case smokers, as merely means to the end of a smoke-free society…and second by inflicting substantial pain on an entire class of people without their consent and for no compelling reason.
But the question of…using corrupt science goes beyond depriving individuals of rights to something far more crucial, namely, the justifiability of depriving individuals of their moral standing through stigmatizing them as moral outcasts….In the end, this is of course, the logic- al outcome of ETS “science” to make smokers a class of moral miscreants.”