BSA and R.J.Reynolds Right Decision Right Now (RDRN)

[RememberSchiff]

I thought National had stopped accepting money from tobacco companies. Has anyone seen this RDRN program in their local councils?

 

In a letter to Robert Gates, director of the Boy Scouts of America and a former U.S. Secretary of Defense, the senators urged the organization to drop RDRN and "work with public health advocates about more effective steps you could take to discourage boy scouts from smoking than the ineffective RDRN program."

 

Deron Smith, communications director for the Boy Scouts of America, said the organization would review the senators' letter but took no position on their request.

 

"The Boy Scouts of America provides the nation's foremost youth program of character development and values-based leadership training, including helping young people live a healthy lifestyle," Smith said.

 

As part of a larger program, the Boys Scouts use RDRN "to send a clear, unambiguous smoking prevention message," he said. "Beyond that, we look forward to receiving the letter."

 

link

http://www.newstimes.com/local/artic...om-5923587.php

[SSScout]

Just a question: Does Johnny Walker sponsor any AA clubs?

[st0ut717]

No company will do anything that is counter productive to thief profit margin. By stating the this anti-smoking message was brought to you by Joe Camel is ineffect an advert for rjreynolds via brand recognition.

[NJCubScouter]

I have never heard of this program. The article is not very clear about what the actual roles of the BSA and R.J. Reynolds are in the program. If it is a matter of the BSA using educational materials produced by R.J. Reynolds, I would think the BSA could come up with its own materials about the dangers of smoking.

[packsaddle]

They could just use the anti-smoking video commercials. Those are about as gruesome as they get. Anyone who sees those things and starts anyway has some bigger problems than tobacco.

[NJCubScouter]

They could just use the anti-smoking video commercials. Those are about as gruesome as they get.

 

Well, I think that is what the controversy described in the article (linked by RS) is really about. The commercials I think you are talking about are by anti-smoking groups whose goal is to actually convince people - all people - to quit smoking or to never start. Some of these commercials are indeed gruesome and use scare tactics with the unambiguous message: Don't smoke, or you are going to end up either dead, or with horrific health problems that will ruin your life. Understandably, that is not the message the big tobacco companies are trying to promote. I looked at rightdecisionsrightnow.com and although I only looked at a few of the pages, it seems to have a much "softer" message, which is that the decision to smoke is not a decision that "young people" should make. I didn't see much of an emphasis on the reasons WHY young people shouldn't smoke. I didn't see anything about people dying and/or getting lung cancer or having their larynxes removed as a result of smoking. (That last one is the subject of a commercial I have heard recently on the radio, from the actual anti-smoking people, and I suspect there is a tv version as well, though I haven't seen it. The radio version is disturbing enough.) I assume that is what the senators who are quoted in the article mean when they that the RDRN program is "ineffective." It seems like the program isn't really trying to scare you into quitting smoking, or not starting. It's real purpose (in my opinion) is to give the tobacco companies a better public image and, possibly, to avoid further litigation. Whether it actually deters young people from smoking, I don't know.

 

The whole issue seems to be whether the message should be "don't smoke yet, because we say so" or "don't smoke ever, because it will kill you or make you very sick."

 

So, into this controversy steps the BSA, and it apparently participates in the "softer" message being promoted by the tobacco companies. Is this really a good idea?

[packsaddle]

Because I grew up in NC, I think this one is the one that resonates most for me. I remember doing my best to choke down that first cigarette and my shame at failing to pass the test needed to join as a regular member of society. Terrie, on the other hand, succeeded.

She died a couple of years later from the effects of tobacco.

This one is heartbreaking:

 

Today it angers me to see young people continuing to follow her path. It is both from the arrogance they display (or is it self-loathing?) and the continuing complacency by the people around them, condoning their slow suicide.

 

Edit: I guess I just don't see the so-called 'controversy'. This is simply the clear right thing versus absolute stupidity.

[SSScout]

The folks that "discovered "tobacco didn't have the same attitude toward it's use that modern folks seem to espouse. See http://www.tobacco-facts.net/2010/11/american-indians-and-tobacco for a reminder. Also consider the TRUTH of the matter, via Bob Newhart:

Some time in the early 20th century, the tobacco industry found many ways to improve their Market Share... additives, free samples (WW1 and WW2 the troops got free packs all the time) , getting glamorous people to use it in public (see any movie from the 30's thru the 50's) to "model" the behavior.

It went from a ritual to help secure societal connections and spiritual meaning(!) to a easy way to prey on peoples weaknesses. It's physical effects have been well known a long time, but it's addictive qualities have been exploited only fairly recently. How to separate a person from their money legally (or not so) is always a topic of discussion, yes? Whether it is in addictive behavior (tobacco, alcohol, heroin) or convincing folks that one type of car is more desirable than another, or selling ad space on websites for people with a particular interest.

For a tobacco company to create an ad campaign to ostensibly convince ANYONE, much less children or adolescents, that they should not smoke until they are "old enough to make an informed decision" is really putting the lipstick on the pig. We have laws making it illegal to drink alcohol until one is "of age". It is the same with tobacco products. If BSA is serious about "...keep myself physically strong..." then there can be no argument about accepting the promotion of a program designed by tobacco companies that ultimately does nothing but promote the use of tobacco products as an indication that the user is NOW a mature adult. BSA needs to point it's collective finger at it and say "hypocrite!" And "no thank you".

Smoking cigarettes, chew, snuff is "right for men" but not for kids. What does that really say about it's use?

My mother smoked three packs a day while I grew up. I have photos of her as a cub reporter for the old Boston Globe, holding a cig in her fingers. I was told she quit "cold turkey" while I was "in utero", but took it up again after my birth. When I was bout 10 , she asked me to go and buy her some cigarettes and I said no. Rather than punish me for disobeying her, she said, "okay". She then cut down to three cigarettes a day and eventually quit totally. She lived well and fully til her death at 79.

 

As W. C. Fields said about his alcoholism, "I can quit any time I want to. I've done it hundreds of times". Let's not ignore the need for our boys to feel grown up, but not thru tobacco use...

 

[Horizon]

For amusement, I would like to recommend the movie (and book): Thank You for Smoking. Chris Buckley (William F's son) wrote the book, and it was turned into a great movie on lobbying, press relations (some inappropriate for young Scouts, though no nudity), and how a message can be delivered.

 

Early in the movie is a scene with Aaron Eckhart and Robert Duvall where the tobacco companies have agreed to fund and anti-smoking campaign. Duvall's comment, "better not be TOO effective" is priceless, delivered with a hacking cough/laugh, and fits into this discussion.

 

http://www.foxsearchlight.com/thankyouforsmoking/