Tobacco is tobacco is tobacco...

In his blog at the right-wing, libertarian Cato Institute site Cato@Liberty, David Boaz says that because Philip Morris is not fighting alongside their fellow tobacco companies to overturn new advertising restrictions, we should say that this is not about "Big" Tobacco, but "Medium" Tobacco.

But I think there's a much more interesting observation here: Why aren't Philip Morris fighting along with the rest of the industry? Why are they now accepting the same advertising restrictions that througohut the 1970s and 1980s they fought tooth and nail against? I hate to sound cynical, but if all advertising is banned, no-one will ever be able to take over Philip Morris's No.1 position as market leader. No wonder Philip Morris want this ban just as much as the tobacco-control advocates, albeit for completely different reasons!

Is PM's position altruism or self-interest? You decide.

Leopards never change their spots

Today I would like to thank the tobacco industry for reminding everyone how 'moral' they really are as their court case against the FDA kicks off in Bowling Green, Kentucky.

According to the tobacco companies who are the plaintiffs in the case, President Obama's Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act intrudes on their first amendment rights.

The Act, which was signed into law on June 22nd 2009, brings the US into line with the rest of the developed world in curtailing tobacco advertising and introducing graphic health warnings on pack.

There are three aspects of this case I find interesting: firstly, Philip Morris - America's biggest tobacco company, is not involved. Why not? Well, believe it or not, they actually want the legislation to be enacted. Why? Because they are the market leader by far and if advertising is banned, then that's the way it'll stay.

Secondly, the industry has chosen a Kentucky jurisdiction because as a key tobacco state, they feel it more likely that they'll get a sympathetic hearing.

Thirdly, the industry insists that it only markets to adults, and that all communication are aimed at adult smokers, trying to encourage them to switch brands. But this is clearly nonsense. Why spend billions of dollars every year competing for a sector only worth a few hundred million?

The tobacco industry has targeted kids for decades. In their own words...

"…the lower age limit for the profile of young smokers is to remain at 14."

"If you are really and truly not going to sell to children, you are going to be out of business in 30 years."

"[Brown & Williamson] will not support a youth smoking program which discourages young people from smoking."

"We have been asked by our client to come up with a package design... a design that’s attractive to kids.

"We reserve that right [to smoke] for the poor, the young, the black and the stupid."

R.J. Reynolds was once asked if they were targeting junior high school kids or younger. The reply? "They got lips? We want them."

Richard Daynard, a professor at the Northeastern School of Law in Boston and chairman of its Tobacco Products Liability Project, said: ''They want this stuff stopped in its tracks so they can keep pitching cigarettes to kids."

Business as usual then...