Tobacco companies reframed health regulation as an attack on individual liberty

Evidence

Millhiser commented on how advertising could turn Nader’s initiative to ban smoking in airplanes into a prosmoking individual right exercised aloft: “Rather than react negatively to Mr. Nader’s proposal, inherent in this memo is the suggestion that we seize the initiative at the outset in supporting what the public sees as being in their interest” (Millhiser, 1970). … American Smokeout held annually on the third Thursday of November (Sabatino, 1986). It stressed the importance of “emphasizing the rights of smokers to use a legal product.” A video showed a celebrated actor smoking a cigar while extolling the importance of “freedom of choice.” Bennett and Di Lorenzo (1997) likened tobacco regulation to fascism and communism masquerading as the public interest: “And there certainly is nothing new about governments seeking more control over people’s lives. Recall, however, that the two major ideological political movements of our century, Fascism and Communism, sought just this while claiming the best interests of the governed peoples—with tragic consequences” (Bennett & Di Lorenzo, 1997). — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 1636

Categorization

• XREF: The reframing of harm as individual rights and freedom-of-choice parallels the author’s ‘Complaints About Immodesty Go Way Back’ piece on moral panics as signaling — here the reverse, industry manufacturing rights-talk.
• SEED: Angle: how industries weaponize liberal vocabulary (rights, freedom, choice) to launder harmful products — from tobacco to junk food to social media.