Conscious Choice: Your Responses on Running American Spirit Cigarette Ads

June 2004 | Choice Feedback

Your Responses on Running American Spirit Cigarette Ads

(See CEO’s letter, May ‘04 , “A Difficult Decision” & “An Affirmation of Values” this month)

THE SUGGESTION that organic makes tobacco better is good for a laugh every time I read CC. Maybe the cancer will be organic.

Mari Mortensen, Oak Park, Ill.

I THINK it’s a no brainer as to the decision you should make regarding taking on “organic tobacco” ads. I (and many others) look to Conscious Choice as a guide to living a healthy lifestyle in this world of unhealthy options. I understand your dilemma, but if you take the ads what separates you from the others who mislead us with their claims of “organic,” “natural” and “hypoallergenic,” etc?

You must make a conscious choice! Perhaps readers can contribute to a fund to help you through this quandary.

Waymond Smith, Chicago

AS A READER of your magazine (who almost never writes letters to the editor) I write to encourage you to accept the advertising for American Spirit tobacco. There is a difference among cigarettes. As a smoker of Sherman’s natural cigarettes, I have encouraged many smoking friends to change to tobacco products that are much less harmful because of all the chemical additives they don’t contain.

American Spirit tobaccos are also much purer and better for smokers than the usual commercially available cigarettes, and I believe your readers deserve to be informed about this choice. You will do them — and your publications — a service, by accepting this advertising.

Maiyim Baron, Internet

I APPLAUD the understandably difficult decision to turn down advertising from the so-called “natural” cigarettes. I hope that Conscious Choice will stand by that decision. In looking through the latest issue, I cannot find any other instance of advertising or copy that is not health related. I do not think it would be inconsistent to turn down the ads on this basis. Even so-called “natural” cigarettes are not healthy.

As far as getting information to consumers, you have done your job by publicizing this controversy. As far as the economics of the situation — I suppose there are any number of ads that you could accept that would be profitable but compromising to your mission. Since I see Conscious Choice as a publication with a mission, not just for profit, I hope the mission will win out. If not, I do think the publication will be compromised.

Say no to R.J.R. and smoking — it’s about time someone did. I am impressed that your publication took this stand.

Pat Magierski, Chicago

PLEASE REFRAIN from being our “gatekeepers” in your decision on organic tobacco advertisements. Too many gatekeepers have suppressed the masses — religion, health, government, etc. — for far too long, thereby preventing valuable knowledge from surfacing (i.e. rosemary, added to tobacco is helpful for lung conditions). The “tobacco wars” were but a prelude to the greater problems we have with our food, air and medicine.

L. Koesh, Internet

GOOD FOR you. Your decision truly reflects your mission statement, not purely economics. Thank you. You and your publication are truly a breath of fresh air.

Joe Palczynski, Internet

IN REGARD to your call for reader’s comments on tobacco advertising, I support your interim decision to not run the ad. Tobacco kills and R.J. Reynold has a dubious history regarding promotion of its products. I understand your financial situation, but I believe your credibility would be seriously undermined if you ran cigarette ads. The slippery slope argument is ridiculous because cigarettes are such a unique product in its effects and its history.

Charlie Turnerjoy, Internet

YOUR MAGAZINE should accept advertising that’s appropriate to its audience (for example you probably wouldn’t run an adult phone line ad). And the percentage of your readership who smoke is probably small. So I say, take their money ... by refusing it, you won’t be damaging the evil corporation, but you’ll be able to keep CC operating. In fact, you should try to milk out a few extra grand to sweeten the deal. Basically, you have plenty to gain by taking their money and not a whole lot to lose.

S. Hell, Internet

AFTER THINKING deeply about this, it seems to me the only way to go is to turn down the ads. Even if the company was owned by Native Americans, I would still say the same thing. Running them makes it come across as if smoking’s OK and this is not good for young folks who read the publication.

Please understand that I’m a former smoker who supports smokers’ rights to smoke outside or in the privacy of their homes. But to run ads for cigarettes isn’t something I believe in, especially in this wonderful publication. Let me know what I can do to help, my friend, if you do decide to continue not running the ads. If we have to host a fundraiser or something, you have my talent, time, and treasure.

Yossi Lopez-Hineyn, Chicago

AS YOU might know, Utne Magazine just faced the same question (and chose to run the tobacco ad), but I’m not sure they put the question out to their readers. I love that you have.

I didn’t know that American Spirit was owned by R.J. Reynolds! One of my biggest concerns about American Spirit ads appearing in progressive magazines is that it further helps the “brand” distance itself from the tarnish of the corporate name. I have a lot of political friends whose biggest reason for quitting smoking — or switching to American Spirit — had to do with not wanting to support big tobacco (not about concern for their own health!). To be honest, if American Spirit wasn’t owned by big tobacco I wouldn’t have much problem with running the ad. In fact, I’d side with the argument that it gives a better alternative to those who do smoke, or are trying to quit or cut back.

Anna Lappé, Internet

FIRST LET me say how much I enjoy Conscious Choice magazine, both for its investigative journalism and its emphasis on a healthy lifestyle.

It seems that there are two dilemmas — one moral, the other economic. I think that the moral dilemma is easier to resolve. Your magazine clearly stands for certain beliefs, and anyone who chooses to read it understands this. You didn’t run a cover story on Jack Ryan for Senate. You wouldn’t run an ad for Disney, even if it had the characters from “Lion King” asking us to save the rainforest, because Disney is an exploiter of labor. Why would you run an ad for a cigarette, albeit organic, when even the ad indicates the cigarette is no safer than others?

The second dilemma — economic, is in a way more difficult. How can you get your message across, if you can’t generate enough income to publish your excellent magazine? As a reader, I hope that you could find a way not to run the “American Spirit” ad. However, I can certainly understand that economic necessity might compel you to do so.

Although I am a teacher (which is synonymous with not much spare cash), I’d be interested in learning about investment possibilities in the magazine. There might be other readers who would help, if given the opportunity.

Regardless of your decision, continued success with Conscious Choice, it is a point of light as our country struggles through the dark, tangled thickets of the “Bush.”

Ron Levitsky, Internet

I’D SAY no to tobacco ads. Saying yes diminishes the value — indeed, the heart — of your publications, and undercuts credibility. It would be talking out of both sides of your mouth, one side saying no to smoking and other bad things, while the other side is saying, “Yeah, we think smoking is bad, but if you give us enough money we’ll sell out and help promote the stuff.”

Bob Perlongo, Internet

Recommend this page to a friend

Top Ten pages recommended to friends: