Ex-tobacco insider says companies target blacks

A former tobacco industry executive said Friday in Charleston that cigarette companies have targeted black people in America.

[Charcom]

In her comments, La Tanisha Wright, National States Director for the National African American Tobacco Prevention Network makes a number of rhetorical claims about tobacco companies.

Unfortunately for her and her organization, her claims are simply wrong. As the maker of Newport cigarettes we should know. The facts are important – and here they are.

In the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) with the state Attorneys General, Lorillard agreed to severely limit its marketing practices, including an agreement not to directly or indirectly market our products to youth. The agreement, among other actions and measures, has achieved the lowest level of youth smoking in recorded history.

Lorillard and all of the other major tobacco companies stopped advertising on billboards, in arenas, stadiums, shopping malls, or on other large signs more than a decade ago. Ms. Wright simply has it wrong when she says we are posting billboards in African American neighborhoods to induce youths to smoke. Just because she says we are doesn’t make it so. The fact is that youth smoking rates are down and that African American youth smoke at a much lower rate than white youth.

It’s time to set the record straight.

Posted on behalf of Lorillard Tobacco Company

[DRM]

Charcom wrote:

In her comments, La Tanisha Wright, National States Director for the National African American Tobacco Prevention Network makes a number of rhetorical claims about tobacco companies.
Unfortunately for her and her organization, her claims are simply wrong. As the maker of Newport cigarettes we should know. The facts are important – and here they are.
In the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) with the state Attorneys General, Lorillard agreed to severely limit its marketing practices, including an agreement not to directly or indirectly market our products to youth. The agreement, among other actions and measures, has achieved the lowest level of youth smoking in recorded history.
Lorillard and all of the other major tobacco companies stopped advertising on billboards, in arenas, stadiums, shopping malls, or on other large signs more than a decade ago. Ms. Wright simply has it wrong when she says we are posting billboards in African American neighborhoods to induce youths to smoke. Just because she says we are doesn’t make it so. The fact is that youth smoking rates are down and that African American youth smoke at a much lower rate than white youth.
It’s time to set the record straight.
Posted on behalf of Lorillard Tobacco Company

Facts do not interest people in the anti smoking groups, only opinions, most of which they claim as fact.

[u cannot own me]

does the the National African American Tobacco Prevention Network get millions and millions in funding from the RWJF aka J&J who funds anti smoking and profits from their own nicotine products?

[u cannot own me]

here is one..should have known LOL its all about funding/money

http://www.rwjf.org/programareas/grant.jsp...

http://rwjf-grants.blogspot.com/

[discusseded]

Oh, and of course she MUST not be honest because Lorrilard says she isn't.

Get real.

[DRM]

discusseded wrote:

Oh, and of course she MUST not be honest because Lorrilard says she isn't.
Get real.

Honesty is something you know nothing about. You are the one who needs to "get real".

[amazed]

u cannot own me wrote:

here is one..should have known LOL its all about funding/money
http://www.rwjf.org/programareas/grant.jsp...
http://rwjf-grants.blogspot.com/

surprise, surprise...not.

[Freedom]

discusseded wrote:

Oh, and of course she MUST not be honest because Lorrilard says she isn't.
Get real.

Did you follow "u cannot own me's" links?

Get real.

[Freedom]

DRM wrote:

<quoted text>
Honesty is something you know nothing about. You are the one who needs to "get real".

Perhaps one of us could get one of these "regulationists" to explain to the casual reader just what other forms of smoke have "no safe level"?

*snicker*

[Former US Marine]

Charcom wrote:

In her comments, La Tanisha Wright, National States Director for the National African American Tobacco Prevention Network makes a number of rhetorical claims about tobacco companies.
Unfortunately for her and her organization, her claims are simply wrong. As the maker of Newport cigarettes we should know. The facts are important – and here they are.
In the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) with the state Attorneys General, Lorillard agreed to severely limit its marketing practices, including an agreement not to directly or indirectly market our products to youth. The agreement, among other actions and measures, has achieved the lowest level of youth smoking in recorded history.
Lorillard and all of the other major tobacco companies stopped advertising on billboards, in arenas, stadiums, shopping malls, or on other large signs more than a decade ago. Ms. Wright simply has it wrong when she says we are posting billboards in African American neighborhoods to induce youths to smoke. Just because she says we are doesn’t make it so. The fact is that youth smoking rates are down and that African American youth smoke at a much lower rate than white youth.
It’s time to set the record straight.
Posted on behalf of Lorillard Tobacco Company

Lorillard,

All of La Tinisha Wright's nonsense aside, why did you and the other two major tobacco companies fold like cheep lawn chairs on the whole horrid, virtually snuck-in, government enforced FSC cigarette issue?

This situation seems like it would be an attorney's dream come true - can't your lawyers do anything to stop this particular genocide?

[discusseded]

Frankly, I am not convinced that there is more than a misunderstanding or misquote involved here. The reference to the billboards is in the midst of a statement regarding what USED to happen, and the shift of tense in mid-quote is suspect.

As to the basic premise that predominantly-black neighborhoods are subject to different marketing tactics than are predominantly-white neighborhoods, the industry rep did not address this.(The denial is only of using billboards.) Do signs play a bigger part in one neighborhood than in the other, disregarding the SIZE of individual signs?

If so, why would that be? What would make the graphic approach seem more useful in eliciting purchases among black communities? Is this similar to suggesting that comic books would capture a bigger market share in those communities?

Is there a history of different smoking rates between these two communities? If so, why WOULDN'T the industry be trying to get more black kids started? An under-tapped market is an opportunity, isn't it?

[DRM]

Freedom wrote:

<quoted text>
Perhaps one of us could get one of these "regulationists" to explain to the casual reader just what other forms of smoke have "no safe level"?
*snicker*

That would requier them to make an honest statment, something they can not do because they have no proof of their statments only opinions.

Rabid anti-smoker= My opinion is fact, no proof needed.

[DRM]

discusseded wrote:

Frankly, I am not convinced

Frankly i dont give a damn!

[Yolanda]

Who cares? All producers and sellers of products target anyone who will lay their money down to buy the product.

[a little wisdom please]

Dear Lorillard Tobacco,

For myself, and 40-55 million American smokers, this question merits an official, legitimate answer:

Former US Marine wrote:

<quoted text>
Lorillard,
All of La Tinisha Wright's nonsense aside, why did you and the other two major tobacco companies fold like cheep lawn chairs on the whole horrid, virtually snuck-in, government enforced FSC cigarette issue?
This situation seems like it would be an attorney's dream come true - can't your lawyers do anything to stop this particular genocide?

[abbagoochie]

a little wisdom please wrote:

Dear Lorillard Tobacco,
For myself, and 40-55 million American smokers, this question merits an official, legitimate answer:
<quoted text>

as in all companies no race is a target in anything. as it always is IT IS A CHOICE to do anything in life but it is so easy to place the BAD CHOICES folks make on someone else so sometime in the future they can sue and get a "freebie paycheck" to deflect their own personal responsibility. i do not smoke,drink,or drag a big belly or big bottom around,not because i didnt see all those "target ads" as many claim there are. i hear and see them just as all others do. I CHOSE not to do these things that cause health problems. race or gender have nothing to do with any of this,it is the WRONG CHOICES people make in their lives plain and simple. it is folks for the most part have little standards,character or control in their lives and cant face the facts that THEY ARE THE CAUSE for their own destruction not some silly ad.

[discusseded]

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/documen...

Check this one out. At the bottom of the page you can navigate to other pages in the document.

On page 21 you will find this item:

"The brand will utilize outdoor advertising exclusively to deliver its advertising, including many unique placements to distinguish it from other brand (e.g., paint ads on walls of buildings)"

and, under "rationale":

"Blacks are most effectively reached through outdoor advertising due to their low involvement with other media forms."

In other words, "blacks don't read much."

Are you sufficiently insulted by the racial stereotyping?

[DRM]

discusseded wrote:

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu /action/document/page?tid=ixf6 3a00&page=20
Check this one out. At the bottom of the page you can navigate to other pages in the document.
On page 21 you will find this item:
"The brand will utilize outdoor advertising exclusively to deliver its advertising, including many unique placements to distinguish it from other brand (e.g., paint ads on walls of buildings)"
and, under "rationale":
"Blacks are most effectively reached through outdoor advertising due to their low involvement with other media forms."
In other words, "blacks don't read much."
Are you sufficiently insulted by the racial stereotyping?

This is from the UCSF.(University of California San Francisco)
An Anti smoking study, And you should be "sufficiently insulted" by the racial stereotypeing, You're anti smoking groups do it all the time. But those are the people you choose to follow.

[discusseded]

DRM wrote:

<quoted text>
This is from the UCSF.(University of California San Francisco)
An Anti smoking study, And you should be "sufficiently insulted" by the racial stereotypeing, You're anti smoking groups do it all the time. But those are the people you choose to follow.

It is from RJReynolds. We should be sufficiently insulted by your ignorant assertions, and YOU should be humiliated at having trotted that ignorance out like that.

The courts made the company expose this along with millions of pages of other internal industry documents. UCSF only digitized and catalogued those papers so that anyone who wants to can use those papers for whatever study they choose.

Your phobic response to freedom of information is noted.

[DRM]

discusseded wrote:

<quoted text>
It is from RJReynolds. We should be sufficiently insulted by your ignorant assertions, and YOU should be humiliated at having trotted that ignorance out like that.
The courts made the company expose this along with millions of pages of other internal industry documents. UCSF only digitized and catalogued those papers so that anyone who wants to can use those papers for whatever study they choose.
Your phobic response to freedom of information is noted.

I am well aware of who it,s from. that does not dissmiss the fact that it,s the UCSF Posting it (For our benifit of course). Funny how out of the "millions of pages" only certain pages are posted and not others. UCSF is and always has been pro anti smoking, and putting out numerous preconcieved opinions and studies against smoking. And i wont even mention how guilty they are of race bateing. I realize you're to stupid to admit this But the rest of us are not. You post this link as if it just came out today. When in fact it,s 19 yrs. old.what was you're point of posting it?
Was it soppose to prove some point of yours?

Humiliated? You wish. Coming from a bigotted hypicritical lier such as yourself is not even close to humiliating, but humorous.
You're ignorance is legendary. You twist, spin, duck and dodge everyones questions. Claim outdated "studies and research" as up-to-date- facts, refuse to agknowlage any actual research or study that does not fit you're opinions. And you have the balls to try and critisize others? You have been guilty of this on this topic and many others, How many people have asked you to provide proof of you're "facts and did not? Mr. Mj McFadden still awaits you're response. But i know you're to much of a coward to respond.

My "phobic" response to freedom of information is noted by whom? You? Is that soppose to mean something? Buddy, you should be ashamed of yourself. But lack the caricture to do so.
I will admit at reading you're many attemps at educated posting,s
that i cant help, they are always so amusing and so easy to disect. Ever wonder how many people laugh behind you're back?