There’s a reason the History Channel has produced hundreds of documentaries about Hitler but only a few about Dwight D. Eisenhower. Bad guys (and gals) are eternally fascinating. Behind the Bastards dives in past the Cliffs Notes of the worst humans in history and exposes the bizarre realities of their lives. Listeners will learn about the young adult novels that helped Hitler form his monstrous ideology, the founder of Blackwater’s insane quest to build his own Air Force, the bizarre lives of the sons and daughters of dictators and Saddam Hussein’s side career as a trashy romance novelist.
Thu, 17 Nov 2022 11:00
Robert is joined again by James Stout to continue to discuss the Tobacco Industry.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
My name is Joshua Topolsky and I have a new podcast called What Future. But I want to tell you that I'm being forced by my producer to record a promo telling you about my show. And I'm not trying to force you to listen to it. And maybe you're not interested in internet culture and the future of life on planet Earth. And why John Carpenter movies are so good. You may just want to listen to a podcast about, I don't know, sports or whatever Joe Rogan talks about. And that's fine, you know, no judgment. But if you like what you're hearing and I know that you do, you can listen to all of what future on the I Heart Radio app, Apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. The world of chocolate has been turned upside down. A very unusual situation. You saw this taxicassion in our office. Chocolate comes from the cacao tree and recently Variety's cacao, thought to have been lost centuries ago, were rediscovered in the Amazon. There used to be no chocolate on Earth like this. Now some chocolate makers are racing deep into the jungle to find the next game changing chocolate. And I'm coming along. Okay, that was a very large crack it up. Listen to the obsessions wild chocolate on the I Heart Radio app, Apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, I'm a fear of Eisenberg. I'm a comedian and a parent of the absurdity of telling jokes late at night. And then waking up early with a small child in the morning. I have a new podcast called Parenting is a joke. I'll talk to other funny people who are also parents. Will we be laughing? Will we be crying? Find out by listening to Parenting is a joke on the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. Should really get that checked out. Cut me blowing my nose, but keep the yell. Keep the yell. It sounded like a wounded elephant. I feel like a wounded elephant. The pollen counting Oregon right now is unbelievable. I just went outside during the break between episode recordings and emptied a magazine from an AR 15 into a tree. But it does not appear to have solved the problem. Now you got to get heavy on that man. I should have used the 308. That's why they went. That's why the army is upgraded to Calibur. Yeah. You want to fuck up a tree. Yeah, you really want to move closer to that 30 caliber range. Yeah. I'm so exposed to you by 6.8 tree killer. That's 38 Lapua baby. That'll fuck up this absolutely. When I was a young man, times like this, right around near the end of the year, my friends and I would go out into the woods and we would shoot down a tree in order to have a bonfire around it. And that doesn't really relate to the subject of the episode, but we often smoked cigarettes while doing it. No, it's kind of like shooting down a tree, isn't it? Because if you're actively building consumer base, it is a bit like shooting down tree. Yeah, you just have to hope that they can grow up faster than you can shoot them. Shoot them. Yeah. So they say it's a great. And it's also what they say about the human race. Because one thing you got to give it to us is we bred slightly faster than cigarettes were able to kill us. Once again, a win for humanity. Yeah, the Titanic dub. So cigarettes did not get to have their real moment in the sun until a few years after the dissolution of American tobacco, which again, the Supreme Court knocks it out in 1911, probably somewhere under 10% of a mayor of smokers and a much smaller portion of the US population. So a pretty small fraction of the US adult population is smoking still even even a successful as a our old buddy Duke was getting people to smoke. But the thing that's going to actually start to change this and really turn around cigarettes fortunes is the first world war. Now, James, you've been a trench. Yeah, I've been in a couple of trenches. So yeah. That's no professional reasons. Yeah, their trenches are not the cleanest places in the world, especially if it's raining and their muddy. You wouldn't want to have a pipe in a trench necessarily. Like you can smoke a pipe in a trench, but stuff's going to get in it. That's kind of gross, right? That's not ideal. Yeah. And when, you know, if you're doing trench stuff, you probably don't have time to sit down and really smoke a cigar. You know, they take a while cigarettes are the depends on what rank you're at. Doesn't it? Once you right, right. If you're sitting, yeah, yeah, you get up to the, you know, the field grade offices. You find them. They have plenty of time for cigars and they have clean enough areas for cigarettes for pipes. But if you're a working man in the trenches, the best way you have to smoke in between getting murdered by German machine guns is a cigarette. And that's, that's really what causes a shitload of people to start adopting cigarettes. That's what actually makes it a mainstream thing is World War One. Now, it does go well with death, James. Sigarette adoption had crept up only gradually prior to this. And it had been met by this really active anti-smoking campaign the whole time. It's kind of worth noting that the first 20 years of, like the 20th century, basically from like the late 1890s to like 1917, 1918, there's a very active anti-smoking campaign in the United States. And it's powered by a lot of the same voices who were also fighting for prohibition. There were even bands on the public consumption of tobacco in some states. In 1910, a doctor named Charles Peace founded the non-smokers protective league advocating for a public smoking ban in America's largest city. In 1913, the New York Times published an op-ed opposing the establishment of smoking cars in the subway. Now, these people we now know are right, you know, like cigarettes, bad public smoking, bad. But they're not, they're not, again, there's not strong evidence that proves cigarettes cause cancer at this point. There's not really good scientific studies at this point. So these people are just busy bodies, right? Yeah, right. They can be right for the wrong reasons. Well, what are their arguments that they don't like it? Yeah, let me tell you, chief among the voices of non-smokers is our old friend of the pod, John Harvey Kellogg. America's Kellogg's complaint was quote, smoking has become so nearly universal among men that you non-smokers are practically ignored and their rights trampled upon. Now, that means that like by being around cigarette smoke you're having your rights trampled upon. And yes, we now know secondhand smoke is seriously bad for you. At the time we did it. And also, let's be honest here, 1917, walking around a city that's still filled with horseshit and now let it gasoline fumes from all of the cars rolling around and industrial smoke from all of the different fucking coal factories and stuff. cigarettes are not your number one health risk. Yeah, the end of the thing number one trampling on your rights either 1917. Yeah, it's just not the biggest problem. Look, John Harvey Kellogg, don't give him credit. Yeah, do not give him credit for being on the right side of history with this one. So non-smokers also, it was not again, because there's not greats. There are some of these people do are ahead of their time and are saying like, hey, this stuff has to be bad for you. And we're going to figure out like the way in which it's killing people later. A lot of them are just angry because they think it's gross and a huge chunk of them are angry because cigarettes are popular with women. Right? Because women start smoking. That's a big part of the anti-smoking campaign. In 1904, New York State passes a law that makes it a crime for women to quote, endanger the morals of children by smoking in their presence. A woman named Jenny Lashir was charged in sentence to jail for violating it. In 1908, New York City alderman passed an ordinance restricting public smoking by women from the Washington Post. Quote, the Sullivan ordinance made it illegal for restaurant and bar owners to permit women to smoke in their establishments. The stated rationale from Bowery Moralist and Political Chiefed in Tim Sullivan was that proper ladies were offended by women smoking. And it certainly wasn't any kind of attempt by a man to control women's behavior. Despite the ordinance's short duration, it lasted only two weeks. The sentiment underlying it was held by others as well. Women smoking was viewed by many as taboo associated with what Amanda Amos and Margarita Haglund have termed, Lush and LiBedness Moral Behavior. So it is a good band name. And it's interesting. One of the things that cigarettes do is they make it, they are a big part of why it starts to become okay for men and women to socialize together who are unmarried. In a lot of ways. So one of the things that is common prior to cigarettes becoming mainstream after you have like a big dinner, if you have a fancy potty, then after dinner the men will go to smoke cigars and the women will go clean up or something. And increasingly in the early 20s, or in the early 1900s, what starts to happen is after dinner, everybody has a cigarette. And women didn't smoke cigars, but cigarettes are new. And so it's not really that weird to a lot of modern people that women would smoke them. And also there's not women's cigarettes. So everyone's smoking the same cigarettes. And increasingly they start doing it in the same places together, unmarried men and women just hanging out and having a smoke and talking. This is a big part of, this is kind of in the background of the of the suffrage movement. But like cigarettes do play a significant role in the increasing acceptance of social equality for women. Because men and women spend time together to smoke. Yeah, it makes it not an on factor. Yeah. Yeah. It's definitely a time period when this generally this change in gender roles, right with women working in a first world war. And like, well, that's yeah, that's another part of it, right? It's like women are taking on men's jobs. Why wouldn't they be able to smoke? And you know, it's a it's a whole thing. So smokers also started to organize to establish more public smoking places. Tobacco dealers would often back and fund local efforts to lobby for smoking cars on trains or to allow the smoking of cigarettes on the rear platform of street cars. Within the military, there were stringuist debates as to whether or not tobacco should be legal for soldiers. In 1907, the Surgeon General of the Navy had recommended that sailors under 21 be banned from smoking cigarettes. This was outrageous to the actual men of the Navy. And one enlisted man wrote this in response. If this cigarette recommendation has made the rule and such a thing is ordered, it's going to put all us young fellows who like them on the beam. It's all right to talk about your cigars and your pipes, but cigarettes are cigarettes. And when you once get to liking the little sticks, there's nothing that can take their place. Then don't forget that life on the ocean with none of your women, folks or girlfriends around to break them in Ahtni is a lot different from life ashore. And I tell you those dream sticks help you pass away minigadriri and home stick hour. Just a bunch of Navy boys, no women around sucking down dream sticks, dreams takes a direct quote from Joe Biden speech about pardoning people with marijuana. What kind of people for dream sticks? In an unrelated note, I saw a picture of Joe Biden with a quantum computer the other day. And it just struck me as the most wrong thing. It's like looking at Winston Churchill with a game boy like no, those aren't supposed to be in the same photograph. Joe Biden should never have lived to see a quantum computer. It's like seeing a dip to docus for time. I got you hang it out. Yeah, yeah, that's not okay. That's not okay. So opposition to cigarettes in the military disappeared overnight once the United States got into World War One. Much of this had to do with black Jack Pershing, the leader of the American expeditionary force who when asked what Americans could do to support their soldiers going overseas gave this reply. You ask me what we need to win this war. I answer tobacco as much as bullets. Oh, great. It's so true. It is. Yeah. We've spoken about this before, but the universal truth of conflict journalism. If you need something and you're not sure that someone's going to give it to you, you can probably get it by giving somebody enough cigarettes. I keep packs on me every time I'm anywhere near because like, and it's not always just getting something. Some of it is like you meet people and they're standoffish because like, I don't know, they're fucking soldiers in a war zone whose daily life involves dealing with horrible trauma and they don't know you. And then you like bust out some Marbrose and you sit and smoke for like 20 minutes together and then they just start talking, you know, like that's a thing they're useful. They're, they work. Yeah, great tool for journalism. Well, they're also in terms of how they're being used that's not unhealthy by the military because cigarettes. Spoilers make you worst at everything that is important for soldiers almost everything, right? Today, US soldiers who smoke score an average of 35 points lower on PT tests cigarette smoking harms your night vision. Like it's bad for your performance. Yes, they are bad for your performance and combat. In addition to like people get shot smoking cigarettes. Yes, right? That happens to show. But one thing they do is they are a stress reliever and we can debate in the long term. It's not a great coping strategy. But if your daily job is to get shot at repeatedly, you don't care about the long term. You just want like a moment where things feel okay. Yeah, there is not a long time for a lot of people in world war. No, no, no, especially not. And the other thing that they do is as we just talked about people bond while smoking. It's a part of why men and women. It's a way in which men and women start to bond socially and a way they had not in a long time in Western society. And soldiers in the trenches bond sharing smokes. It is a thing that you do with each other. And you can't, number one, this is a thing I don't think the tobacco industry could have anticipated. Because it's just a very human thing. And it's also you can't fight this. Like there's nothing to do about it. It's just a thing that people have adopted for themselves in a difficult time. And so this is a problem for the anti-smoking people. Obviously smoking again, very bad for everything else that makes you be a soldier. But soldiers are not thinking about that in the times when they're smoking them. And in a lot of military planners cases, like they're also it's hard to argue even though you've got people who are in the medical profession for the military being like these probably aren't good for people. It's hard to argue that like a guy who you're asking to run into machine gun nest doesn't deserve to have like a cigarette. And you know, if you know America, you know that love for our military is basically the not so secret control level lever for the American mind. So cigarettes had been controversial prior to World War One. But once we start sending men in the field and pershings like we need cigarettes, organizations that had previously lobbied nationwide for smoking bands like the YMCA, prior to World War One. The YMCA is a massive part of trying to ban public smoking. As soon as the war starts, they start shipping pallets of cigarettes to reality. It's great. And the truth is so long. You can just put the support the troops stand on anything and people will love it here. It's interesting. In the cigarette century, Alan Brand writes volunteers organized smoke funds to collect donations to assure that the troops had adequate supplies of cigarettes. The Sun fund amassed 137 million cigarettes in a two month period. Tobacco may not be a necessity of life in the ordinary sense of the term explained the New York Times. But it certainly lightens the inevitable hardships of war as nothing else can do. The National cigarette service committee collected the names of soldiers without families to make sure they received cigarettes. Volunteers prepared packages for shipment to the troops under the auspices of groups such as the Army Girls Transport Tobacco Fund. That's sweet. Yeah. Yeah, amazing. I'm sure these people like we're also like dying of trench foot and would have really appreciated the new pair of socks. Yeah, socks probably also would have gone over well. Yeah, coat. I mean, I assume the military it was already attempting to provide those things. Like it is new that you would provide cigarettes as the military. Yeah. So in the early days of the war, the US War effort, I should say, the fact that most aid organizations in Europe provided cigarettes to soldiers for a fee often substantial regularly made the news back home. Soldiers are like, we're paying as much for a cigarette at the front as we have to pay back at home. Like, that's kind of fucked up. Now donated cigarettes were only able to solve a small portion of this problem. 139 million cigarettes is not a lot. If you if you know anything about cigarettes, that's not very many. Sounds like a lot. It is not. A fucking army in the field will smoke through 139 million cigarettes quicker than they'll go through that many bullets. Yeah, that is true. So donated cigarettes only, yes, solved a small number of the problems. So the war department had to make the decision to issue tobacco rations to soldiers starting in May of 1918. The New York Times wrote of the decision, quote, a wave of joy swept through the American army today. Great. And then have it. War fever means a temporary end to the anti-smoking movement. Many men who had hated cigarettes prior to the war had become addicts while overseas. They're big hygiene guys before and then they get shot at and they have a smoke in the fucking trench with their buddy. And then for the rest of their lives, they think kindly of cigarettes. And also the fact that the cigarette is now associated with a hard bit and trench fighter means that you can't attack the moral character of smokers. The anti-smoking movement, they're only smoked by criminals and not white people. And now they're like, they're part of the icon of the heroic soldier. So in 1900, again, barely 5% of the country smoked or like 1904, something like that. By 1940, and again, sorry, in the start of the 1900s, about 5% of the country who smokes tobacco smokes. By 1940, 40% of the United States adult population smokes on a daily basis. Yeah. It is a huge increase. Yeah, that is crazy. Average per consumer consumption escalated to in 1900, Americans consumed about 54 cigarettes per person per year. That's the average for the whole population. In 1963, Americans consume 4,300 cigarettes per year. Jesus Christ, what is not expecting that? That is so many cigarettes. Yeah. 4,300 per Jesus Christ. That's quite a few cigarettes. Yeah. Yeah. You're really upping the intake. They're giving us through those Pokemon calculations now. Oh, yeah. No. A lot of kids are getting a lot of baseball cards. Yeah. Yeah. Those numbers are driven up by all of the 11 year old smoking 12,000 cigarettes. He is smoking 4 cigarettes at once. Just burning through an entire carton in a day. So this new wave of smokers brought with it changes in American smoking habits largely driven by RJ Reynolds, president of the Reynolds tobacco company. Richard Joshua Reynolds had been born on July 20th, 1850 in Patrick County, Virginia. His father was a tobacco farmer and as a young man, Reynolds worked for his dad's plantation, which absolutely included a fuckload of enslaved people. RJ was just 15 when the Civil War ended, bringing with it the first tiny surge in cigarette usage. He quickly fell in love with the things and he turned his father's company into an industry leading producer. And RJ Reynolds is different from Duke in that Duke when he smokes, smokes cigars, right? He wants to sell cigarettes. He thinks they're a good business. He doesn't understand them, right? He understands how to get people to want to buy something. He's a good marketer. He doesn't really get what people like in a cigarette. There is nothing that RJ Reynolds loves more than cigarettes. This man, like you have never loved a human being in your life the way this man loves the concept of a cigarette. He is such a cigarette lover that he attempts to avoid getting into Duke's tobacco trust, right? He has his own way he wants to do things. He doesn't want to get involved in this trust. He wants to sell his cigarettes the way he wants to. He actually gets forced by Duke into the trust because Duke uses shady methods to buy two thirds of Reynolds tobacco's stock to force the company into American tobacco. And despite this, RJ Reynolds refuses to work with Duke and he even secretly helps the US government build an anti-trust case against the American tobacco. When the Supreme Court broke the trust, Reynolds had one goal to fuck over Buck Duke in his company. In 1913, he created a new cigarette, which featured a mix of American and Turkish tobacco to create a blended cigarette. He called this new cigarette the camel. Oh, there it is, camel cigarettes. Why did he choose camel? Because it's Turkish tobacco. Turkey, camels, two things that are definitely famously associated with each other. Just imagine how much better a baby just called it the turkey. The turkey, right? Yeah, it says angry Turkish nationalists love for fat to those who think so. They sound the same. They mean different things. He should have called it the Greek and then had just a drawing of the Anatolian peninsula on it. They'd be banned there to this date. Yeah, it would have been more war-situent to the Europe. I'm going to quote now from the cigarette century. To help distinguish it from its competition, Reynolds offered no promotions. Smokers realized that the value was in the cigarettes and do not expect promotions or coupons, he explained. Against Duke's earlier advertising devoted to these now traditional promotional devices, Reynolds went modern. Reynolds committed unprecedented advertising money to promote this single product, creating a national campaign to make the camel cigarette a truly national brand. In 1914, newspapers throughout the country ran ads several days in succession that announced simply the camels are coming. followed by a second wave of ads proclaiming, tomorrow there will be more in this town than all of Asia and Africa combined. Creating such expectations and their fulfillment would become a central technique of modern consumer advertising. The third ad portraying the camel cigarette package red, camel cigarettes are here! This advertising campaign and here the term campaign appropriately reflects the strategic technique met with unprecedented success. It's like an iconic brand, cigarette. There are many brands that seem to be as iconic as cigarette brands in its global industry. This is the start of that part of it, because cigarettes have started to go viral in this. Not necessarily on a brand basis. You do have some of these early brands, but every tobacco company has a bunch of different brands and they sell different brands in different regions. Reynolds is the first guy to be like, no, not only do I want my company to be the biggest, I want this one specific kind of cigarette to be everywhere. So when World War One ended, camel accounted for more than 30% of the US cigarette market. Camels came into vogue just as a new generation of female smokers came on to the scene. These women had traditionally taken male jobs, had taken traditionally male jobs from men who'd left to fight. And after helping to save the US economy, they didn't take well to the argument that them enjoying a smoke was some sort of synagased femininity. From the Washington Post. Cigarette advertising companies, which at the time primarily employed male advertising executives, quickly co-opted the ideas of independence that women began to assert at the polls and in the workplace. They targeted women, conveying the notions that women who smoked were independent, attractive, and even athletic. Lucky Strikes 1925, marketing pitch to women, told them to reach for a lucky instead of a suite. The message, smoke, and you'll be thin. Oh, great. There it is. Yeah, it's pretty fun. Yeah. One that I longed that would take. And this is number one, one thing that starts to happen in this is a whole new generation of extremely skinny female models starts to become popular because of this lucky strike ad campaign. They hope to create that whole thing, that whole trend. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. It's a body image. Now, there's a backlash to this. And there's kind of a war between cigarettes and the candy industry. And it's very funny. One of the cigarettes that will come in the market at this time, I think it might be Marbrose. Their advertising campaign is to push back at camel by being like, no, cigarettes and candy are both good for you. You should have your cigarette and your chocolate. They're a healthy treat. But no, the candy industry has to be like, the fuck are you saying about people not eating candy? Come on. We're not trying to shit on cigarettes here. Yeah, this is too nice. What do you want? What the fuck? And just when they start making candy cigarettes and really? And in this period, one of the interesting things about candy cigarettes, when they first get made, they're all made with the brands of real cigarettes. So they'll be candlesticks. Now, not legally, they're all illegal. They're all candy companies using a brand illegally. The cigarette industry makes a concerted decision to never pursue charges over it, to never go after them. Because they're like, well, if kids get used to picking up a packet of camels, that's a win for us. Yeah, there's no downside to us letting them do this. Yeah, it's a win for everyone. Great. Yeah. Now, one thing that does happen in the post-war period is that female smokers are an easier target for anti-smoking advocates than soldiers who are heroic and stuff. When the 18th amendment gets passed, banning the sale of alcohol, moral crusaders like evangelist Billy Sunday turned their attention to tobacco. Saying in one speech, prohibition is won. Now for tobacco. The Women's Christian Temperance Union issued a pamphlet title, Smoking Next. The first success in this wave of the anti-smoking movement came in Utah, which banned the sale, giving away, or other exchange of cigarettes. The bill's advocates included the WCTU and the Mormon Church, both of which emphasized the moral risks of letting women be seen smoking. Senator Edward Southwick, who wrote the bill, quoted US Surgeon General Hugh Cumming, which was his real name, as saying, if American women generally contract the habit, as reports now indicate they are doing, the entire American nation will suffer. The physical tone of the whole nation will be lowered. This is one of the most evil influences in American life today. The habit harms a woman more than it does a man. Great. Thanks you. Yeah. If you come in for a name and intellect, yeah, yeah. Real, real smart guy, real comer, Hugh. Yeah. There were other names he could have been cursed with, which could have been his first name could have been worse. Yeah. But there we go. But you know what will make you come, James? Please enlighten me. The sponsors of our podcasts. Not their products, which are asexual, but the actual people who run and unstock in the companies. In a time you ask for it. Let's continue. That's a promise. Yeah. I'll put that in the old context, but... Hey, it's Roy Wood Jr. Correspondent on the Daily Show. Did you miss the Daily Show last night? It's on Comedy Central at 11th and 10th Central. But every episode is also available as a podcast. The Daily Show ears edition, you know? It's the Daily Show for your ears. You can. Listen to Trevor Noah in the news team, including yours truly, tackle each day's biggest news and politics, pop culture, entertainment and sports. You'll hear pieces from the field, our recurring segments, if you don't know, now you know. And between the scenes, extended interviews with experts and celebrities bonus episodes and more. Listen to the Daily Show ears edition on the iHard Radio app, Apple Podcast, over whatever you get your podcasts. I'm Jordan Klepper, Daily Show contributor, Trump Rally, past holder, and as of today, my most daring title yet, podcast host. This is Jordan Klepper Fingers, The Conspiracy, an all new limited series podcast from The Daily Show. Now normally, when I hear Trump supporters bring up these, let's just call them what they are, 100% unverified banana gram conspiracy theories. We grab the sound bites, pack them in the segment for The Daily Show and move on to the next person. I feel like Kul is looking at words, we are not a cult. If you go online, there's a whole list of pedophile symbols. Really? Yes. What's on your back? Ah, Q-flag. Q and us. One of those crazy people. Now, we're doing it differently. I'm finally diving into some of the most incredible conspiracy theories that have been pitched to me at Trump rallies. Like, did you know that Osama bin Laden is a guy named Tim? Yeah, we're doing a whole episode on that one. JFK Jr. coming back from the dead, that's an episode. The deep state, that too. We're going way down the rabbit hole. Listen to Jordan Clepper fingers the conspiracy on the iHeart Radio app Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, it's Bethany Frankel. My time on the Real Housewives of New York is a few years behind me. And now I'm ready to put the real back into the Real Housewives. That's where my new podcast Wewives comes in. This isn't your typical rewatch podcast. I'm watching only the most iconic episodes from all cities. I'm sharing never before heard stories of what happened behind the scenes. And I'm not just pulling in cast members for post-game analysis. I'm doing something a little more interesting. If you've ever seen an episode of the Real Housewives, you know the drill. But beyond throwing drinks and legs, there are lessons about marriage, divorce, friendship, money, parenting, and fame. If you have the right minds, analyze and dig deeper. So, I'm bringing on unexpected thought leaders and celebrities to give their take on the chaos. This season I sit down with Elizabeth Moss, Kevin Neill, and Susie Orman, Grycon Johnson, and more. You'd think that there isn't much to learn from flipping tables and yanking wigs, but that's where you're wrong. Listen to rewives with Bethany Frankel. On the I Heart Radio app Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your favorite podcasts. Ah, we're back. We're talking about come. You know, every time I talk about come on the show, somebody gets up in the subreddit and they're like, I wish they wouldn't make juvenile jokes about come. It's not very funny. It's exceptionally funny to make juvenile jokes about come. Yeah, look, I am never going to stop making jokes about come. And I'm never going to stop telling people that when Mitch McConnell comes, all that exits his penis is a mix of dry scabs and spider legs. Well, not juvenile, it's still funny. It is, it's funny. It's true. It's exceptionally funny. Yeah, it's true. And he can serve it. We'll take him to court. Sure, sure. Sure. See evidence, Mitch. Yeah. Show us the evidence, Mitch. Show us the evidence that when you come, the dry scabs exiting your urethra don't make a sound exactly like crab scuttling on a soapstone bed. Prove it to me. Prove it to me, Mitch. I know physically and well. Would you like a cigarette? Yeah, I think I've been traumatized in a level of this. I'm a little just a fast back girl. I'd like to shorten my life. Yes. Well, why don't you reach for a lucky instead of a sweet? That will help me stay, maintain my girly physique. So as we've just come back, the surgeon general has been like, this is going to lower the moral tone of women. And again, I just so that I'm not mistaken, cigarettes are bad. Don't smoke them. These people are technically in the right, but they're in the right for the wrong reasons, usually. So fuck them. I'm going to quote again from Alan Brandt here. Another supporter of the legislation noted that the fingers of our girls are being varnished with the stains of those harmful little instruments of destruction. Just as earlier opponents of the cigarette had done, Senator Southwick argued that the use of the cigarette violated the liberties of non-smokers, which is fair, offended moral sensibilities, which is unfair and polluted public space, which is, we'll call that one mixed. We cannot bring our wives and daughters to the city, he wrote, and cannot come along without encountering tobacco smoke everywhere. Is it that saturates our clothing and nauseates us? Personal liberty, ours is as in violet or as should be as theirs. Amazing. Yeah. When like industry is ripping children's arms off their bodies. Oh, yeah. No, people are just burning pure petroleum jelly in the back of a fucking model T. Yeah, yeah, just pouring some lead into the reserve, let tank. Yeah, again, fucking 1922, your your worst encounter is not going to be with tobacco smoke in the streets of the city. The coal burning colonialism factory isn't a problem. It's women smoking that we do worry about. Now, by 1922, 16 states had banned a restrict the cigarette sales and promotion. But none of these restrictions lasted long. The disaster that was prohibition and the growing number of tobacco addicts made the anti-smoking cause untenable. A chief issue with the fight to restrict smoking was the fact that it rested mostly on moral panic grounds. Right? Again, if all of these people are saying smoking is horrible for your health and surely shouldn't be doing it. That's one thing. But a lot of them are being like, well, women shouldn't be smoking. It's bad for kids to see it. It's going to stain their hands. They don't have at this point, they don't have widely agreed upon medical evidence that smoking is bad for you. And in fact, a lot of doctors will argue that smoking is if not healthy, then not a serious harm. It was not as common in this period to have doctors be like smoking clear share lungs. But most of them tended to be like, well, it's not that bad for you. Right? It's like, it's like, it is like eating candy, right? That's what they, it's not like eating candy. Please, I'm not saying that someone's going to get really angry at me. I'm just saying, if you're a doctor in the 20s, odds are rather than saying smoking is bad for you. You're saying like, well, it's probably okay to have the occasional cigarette as part of a balanced diet or whatever. Right. And again, doctors are heavily debating as the 30s dawn whether or not smoking causes cancer. There were studies by this point that showed a correlation between self-reported smoking habits and lung cancer. And by the 1920s, rates of lung cancer had started to soar. Given all of this, it might seem easy to prove a link between cigarettes and lung cancer. But it's not all, all you've got in the 20s is that there's a correlation between the two. But obviously, cigarettes aren't the only thing that's been introduced to modern life in the early part of the 20th century, right? There's cars now, suddenly. People are getting a whole bunch of different medications that didn't use to exist, all sorts of shit is around that just wasn't before. So how do you know? How do you know? Think about this. How can you prove, if you're just a dude in 1920 fucking two, that the thing causing lung cancer in your friends is the cigarette and not the car or the fucking fluorescent light bulbs, right? Right. Like, you don't know. There's not evidence at this point, you know? Yeah, maybe it was a pot of this industrial medianistic eating dinner. Yeah, a lot has changed really quickly. And there's actually, there's some surprisingly logical reasons to question the early science. One doctor in critic over fears of cigarette use, one of the guys who's arguing against the people saying that lung cancer and smoking are correlated. One of the things he says is that like, well, when we get lung cancer patients, they have a lung and one, they have a tumor and one lung are the other. Very few of them have tumors in both lungs. But when you smoke, the smoke is drawn into both lungs equally. So if smoking is causing lung cancer, why wouldn't it be causing it in both lungs at the same time? Obviously, we know that that's just the way cancer works, right? Yeah. But again, based on the knowledge at the time, that's not a bad point to make, right? He's wrong, but you can see how a person who is not like in the pocket of Big Tobacco could make that steak. Yeah. His reasoning is not inherently unsound, right? He's wrong, but not because he's like, again, later all the scientists on the other side of this will be doing something fundamentally dishonest. These are just people trying to understand the human body in a period in which we don't have that much information about it. Other scientists would argue that the rise in lung cancer was attributed to the fact that life expectancy had risen a lot in the first quarter of the 20th century. People were getting more weird cancers they argued because people were living longer. Maybe lung cancer has always been normal once you hit a certain age and we just didn't have that many people reaching it, you know? Yeah, exactly. Again, these are not inherently illogical arguments. Now, there were, however, doctors early on who were who figured out what was happening, who knew and who put together that there was a link between smoking and lung cancer, but it took data a long time to catch up with that. For one thing, epidemiology is in its infancy in this period of time. The first small batch studies, and by the late 20s, we have studies that show a correlation between smoking and lung cancer, but there's no control group. So all they show it, so there's no group of people who don't smoke to see what their lung cancer rates are, because that's not a normal part of medical science yet. They're starting to do that. They're figuring out like, oh yeah, you should have fucking control groups in your medical studies, but it's not the thing that you just do de-regure at this point in time. It becomes it partly as result of this research. And in fact, there's a 1928 article in the New England Journal of Medicine in which that points out like it shows a link between smoking and lung cancer, but it also points out that their study and other similar studies are of little value without similar studies on individual without cancer, without control groups. So part of why that becomes more common in this period is scientists trying to figure out if there's a link between smoking and lung cancer. The scientists who write that 1928 study, Herbert Lombard and Karl Durring, carried out their own small 200 person study with a control group. And this is the first good quality study we have that shows lung cancer is, and it shows a bunch of things. Number one, I shouldn't say shows, it suggests a bunch of things. Number one, it suggests that lung cancer is not a contagious disease, which how would you have known that, you know, without scientific data? You don't know that people aren't giving it to each other, right? That it's not some weird thing that people got when they started walking in the Amazon or whatever, right? How would you know? They know they find, or at least the data suggests that it's also there's not a correlation between lung cancer and low quality housing, which was another thing people didn't know. Yeah. It's something about the way we insulate our homes, you know? They also find out that it's not associated with constipation, which was a thing that some doc, and again, we can laugh about that, but how would you know if you didn't do the study? Right. Yeah. The primary, like, damning thing the study finds is that self-reported heavy smokers are 27% likely to get lung cancer. This is the first scientifically solid evidence linking cigarettes to lung cancer. Now, 200% study with a 200% control group, that's not definitive, right? That's enough to justify further research. Sure, but that's not a huge study. The 1930s are what we're going to see. The first attempts on a large scale to document the relationship between cigarettes and cancer. The impetus for this research actually comes from one of the few industries that can rival Big Tobacco for sheer evil, the insurance industry. They are the people who are going to be for those, because they see this early research and they're like, wait a second, we're paying a shitload of money out on all these fuckers dying a lung cancer. If cigarettes cause it, we need to be charging people more if they smoke, right? Like, they're doing it for evil reasons. But it is important research. King Kong. This is Godzilla. Exactly. So one of the chief drivers of this is a guy named Frederick Hoffman, who is a statistician at prudential. And a Hoffman notice is a 1931 that a lot of fucking life insurance policies are being filled for dead lung cancer patients. If smoking was the cause, then again, you're going to need to restructure the way premiums work. A lot of money is at stake, which is obviously what interests prudential. They don't care about the cost of human life. So the thing that Hoffman notices is that in 1915, the lung cancer rate stands at about 0.7 people per thousand people, right? About 0.7 people per every thousand in the population are likely to get lung cancer. By 1920, it's risen to 1.1 per thousand. It's 1.6 per thousand by 1924 and 1.9 per thousand by 1928. That means in 13 years, the rate of lung cancer has nearly tripled. Now, Hoffman is not bound by the ethical constraints of a doctor, right? He doesn't have to wait until he has really good data to be like smoking causes lung cancer. He sees this, he puts two and two together, and he becomes the first prominent figure to publish a claim that tobacco use is associated with a heightened rate of cancer in early death. And he's doing it again to warn insurance companies. A new wave of studies follows, and as the 1930s gives a way to the 40s, the tobacco industry keeps a worried watchful eye on this emerging science. They also start exploding their advertising budgets in order to kind of make up for the increasing talk in the background about maybe cigarettes aren't so great to look for us. In 1911, prior to the bust of the American tobacco trust, the entire cigarette industry profited about $13 million a year. By 1918, the big five tobacco companies were spending more than $13 million every year just in ads. In doing so, they'd helped create the very language of American culture. And I'm going to quote from a write up in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice by Richard Poulet. Cigarette sellers were among the most enthusiastic pioneers in the use of network broadcasting for coast to coast advertising. By 1930, American tobacco, Brown and Williamson, P. Lora Lard and RJ Reynolds were all buying to network radio time. There has been no greater enthusiast for radio advertising than George W. Hill of the ATC, whose business for the first five months of 1930s surpassed all records. The company sponsors the Lucky Strike Dance Orchestra in three-hour broadcasts each week. Lucky Strike sponsored many radio comedies and musical shows such as Jack Binney and the K. K. K. Caser College of Musical Knowledge. And the best known and longest running popular musical shows, Lucky Strike's hit parade. This show started in 1928 and ran into the 1950s on television. It featured teen idol Frex and Atra when he was launching his career. So popular was this show in 1938 that a sweepstakes promotion offering free cartons of Lucky's for the names of the three most popular tunes drew nearly seven million entries per week. The Lucky Strike hit parade was the first show to rank popular music releases in an ongoing basis. This is where we get the top 40. The entire structure of the musical industry comes out of Lucky Strike's hit parade. So they gave us all those crappy Christmas number one singles and it seems like podcasts more and podcasts. We all owe a debt to Lucky Strike. Every time you read a dick, dick could advert just think of Lucky Valley more ways than what I see. Listen to this, go into this. Let's all give the good folks at Lucky Strike a solid go out and pick out a pack right now that you don't have to give it to a kid. You know, they love to smoke. Sophie, what? I'm done with my script. I'm throwing to ads now. I'm throwing to ads like the good men at RJ Reynolds and Laura Lard and the other greats of the tobacco industry taught me to Sophie. I'm honoring our ancestors. Hey, it's Roy Wood Jr. Correspondent on the Daily Show. Did you miss the Daily Show last night? It's on Comedy Central at 11th and 10th Central, but every episode is also available as a podcast. The Daily Show ears edition, you know? It's the Daily Show for your ears. You kidding. Listen to Trevor Noah in the news team, including yours truly. Tackle each day's biggest news and politics, pop culture, entertainment and sports. You'll hear pieces from the field, our recurring segments if you don't know now you know, and between the scenes. Extended interviews with experts and celebrities bonus episodes and more. Listen to the Daily Show ears edition from the IHARB Radio app Apple Podcast over whatever you get your podcasts. I'm Jordan Klepper, Daily Show contributor, Trump Rally Passholder, and as of today, my most daring title yet, Podcast Host. This is Jordan Klepper Fingers The Conspiracy, an all new limited series podcast from the Daily Show. Now normally when I hear Trump supporters bring up these, let's just call them what they are, 100% unverified banana gram conspiracy theories. We grab the sound bites, pack them in the segment for the Daily Show and move on to the next person. I feel like Kul is looking at a word. We are not a Kul. If you go online, there's a whole list of pedophile symbols. Really? Yes. What's on your back? Ah, Q-Fly. Q-NUZZ. What are those crazy people? Now we're doing it differently. I'm finally diving into some of the most incredible conspiracy theories that have been pitched to me at Trump Rally's. Like did you know that Osama bin Laden is a guy named Tim? Yeah, we're doing a whole episode on that one. JFK Jr. Coming back from the dead, that's an episode. The deep state, that too. We're going way down the rabbit hole. Listen to Jordan Klepper Fingers The Conspiracy on the IHARB Radio app Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, it's Bethany Frankel. My time on the Real Housewives of New York is a few years behind me. And now I'm ready to put the real back into the Real Housewives. That's where my new podcast, Wewives Comes In. This isn't your typical We Watch Podcast. I'm watching only the most iconic episodes from all cities. I'm sharing never before heard stories of what happened behind the scenes. And I'm not just pulling in cast members for post-game analysis. I'm doing something a little more interesting. If you've ever seen an episode of the Real Housewives, you know the drill. But beyond throwing drinks and legs, there are lessons about marriage, divorce, friendship, money, parenting, and fame. If you have the right minds, analyze and dig deeper. So I'm bringing on unexpected thought leaders and celebrities to give their take on the chaos. This season I sit down with Elizabeth Moss, Kevin Neal, and Susie Orman, Griffin Johnson, and more. You'd think that there isn't much to learn from flipping tables and yanking wigs, but that's where you're wrong. Listen to rewives with Bethany Frankel. I mean, I heart radio app Apple Podcasts, wherever you get your favorite podcasts. We're back. So how to cigarette and we're ready to go cigarettes have now just invented the modern music industry. It's a lunatic's taken over the asylum house. They're not encouraged to take an over. They have a couple of lucky strikes. They felt better and they took over the asylum house. Yeah, that's that is a lucky strike. If you ask me. So then need to capture smokers young because market research had shown that people tended to be brand loyal. Also helped to create the modern conception of ad demographics, right? Advertisers start learning how to differentiate and split. Go over the idea that like the 18 to 35 males is like the most valuable ad. That comes out here, right? Oh, wow. Yeah. Because like those are the ones that's when you got to get them fucker smoke it, right? Earlier possible. Yeah. And even to 18 is ready to keep them. Ideally, I like 11 or 12. They advertise a lot in colleges and they also it leads tobacco companies to steer more and more towards funding children's entertainment. This starts with the comics pages. The syndicated weekly pot collection called puck is like massive for cigarette ads. But as Pola writes it quickly expanded beyond that. Quote. In the 1950s, many brands used cartoon trade characters in their advertising. The ads on lucky strikes hit parade for a while featured a cute animated character called scoop, who through the then impressive technical feat of super imposition, appeared on a screen with the show star, Dorothy Collins. So that's where we get who framed Roger Rabbit, motherfuckers. Siggarett's taught us how to do that. Yeah. It gave us avatar. Philip Morris is US car Philip Morris is cartoons when advertising on I love. Philip Morris used cartoons when advertising on I love Lucy. Laura Lard created TV cartoon ads for old gold that featured the voices of their honey mooner stars. Jackie Gleason and Art Carney. This presaged the Winston spots that employ the animated hit characters from the Flintstones. A totally cartoon show they sponsored whose voices structure in sense of humor all imitated the honey mooters. And I think a lot of people are vaguely aware that the Flintstones used to have cigarette ads. You knew that, right? No. Oh, that's why it was created. The Flintstones were made as a cigarette ad. And to get an idea for how blatant this advertising was, you need to see some old episodes of the Flintstones. And I think this one includes a representative scene. You should know to understand what's happening on the screen. Right at the start of this, we see Fred and Barney kind of like hanging out in the yard on their asses. While their wives are doing like yard work in house chores. So they're like chilling out watching their wives work. Good stuff. They sure work hard. Don't they funny. Yeah. I hate going to see them work so hard. Yeah, me too. And let's go around back. Well, we can't see them. Gee, we oughta do something Fred. Okay. How's it about taking a nap? I got a better idea. Let's take a Winston-Bring. That's it. Winston's a month from the cigarette to deliver his favorite 20 times a pack. Winston got that. Bill the Flint. The year for us. Yeah. Bill the Flint makes the big taste difference and only Winston has it up front where it counts. Here ahead of the pure white filter, Winston packs rich tobacco, especially selected and specializes for good flavor in filthessful food. Yeah. That's still good. Winston tastes good like cigarette. Oh. Yeah. Wow. That is a lot of cigarette advertising. Yeah. Yeah. I was a first I was pulled by the directness of it, but then just a duration of it. Yeah. Wow. They really were committed to selling kids cigarettes. Yeah. Yeah. Winston also not a great name compared to like camel. No. It's a camel Marbro. Yeah. Just a dude called Winston with little imagination. Yeah. Wow. That was amazing. Yeah. It's the best. Yeah. That is like Alex Jones here just trying to get you should. Content your ads. Fucking Barney Rubble wants to get your ass into a pack of Winston's. Yeah. It's gonna be doing what is it fucking silver or whatever Alex Jones is trying to sell you now? Yeah. Let's see. Color it all silver. Yeah. To see this that you can shoot up your ass. I don't know. Yeah. A no do I care. I don't think I listen to shipable apps. So no one else knows either. So it's fine. No. Our listeners are buying a lot of gold now because of those gold ads running. Oh, yeah. Well, that's good. It's been successful. We have to get it back. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We love, we love the gold ad people. You know, I'm just going to I'm going to do a free ad right now. My gold, it's the cigarettes of currency. Well, actually, that's cigarettes. Gold's almost as valuable as cigarettes in a pinch. So it picks up up today. Smoke it. Why don't you, you know what, James? I have an idea. Why don't we make a lot of money? We get cigarettes grind up gold into them poor gold flakes into the cigarettes and then sell them to rich assholes who have tickles. Yeah, it's definitely. There's like a thing. Isn't that like a vault carol? So I think that has gold. Oh, yeah, there's a couple of liquors that have it. Yeah, you may see this unnecessary. So people I need to say. So many gold, gold unnecessary gold. So you know how there's, you know, you know, it's like my gold whiskey. Robert getting back to the script. Pour out some gold liquor and. Yeah. Yeah. I'm back. Rapid cigarette gold. Yeah. There was no gold, but I've got my glass of lead gold. And I'm good. Yeah. So during the late 40s to the early 50s, the science coming out about cigarettes and cancer starts to look worse and worse. The RJ Reynolds company launches a new campaign for camel cigarettes in 1946, centred around the slogan, more doctors smoke camels than any other cigarette. Yeah, good. Six years. This is like this is their main advertising push for six years. The dentists in two-spot-sangloists cigarettes. Amazing. Great. Absolutely. Yes. The cigarette that nine out of ten doctors recommend Reynolds backs up their claim that's more doctors smoke camels than any other cigarette with surveys that they said had been conducted by quote three leading independent research organizations. Now they don't name these organizations. One representative ad claims that a survey of 113,597 doctors from quote every branch of medicine had shown that camels were the brand most often smoked by doctors. That's what you want is to cigarette your podiatrist chooses. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. I want to know. Yeah. Nobody knows what you should be smoking better than a fucking proctologist. Yeah. That's who's got it down. Yeah. As an obstetrician. My neurologist chooses Winston's. Yeah. That would be quite funny. Boy, women seem to really want to cigarette after giving birth. Probably good for you. Yeah. Yeah. Why don't you ring? Uh, so RJ Reynolds assured customers that this survey, which totally existed, was an actual fact and not a casual claim. And their competitors were all doing the same thing. American tobacco president, president George Washington Hill contracted the legendary ad executive Albert Lasker. And tasked him to come up with a reason why customers should smoke his cigarettes. And I want to quote now from a right up in the American Journal of Public Health. With no real scientific evidence to back their claims, American tobacco insisted that the toasting process that Lucky Strikes tobacco underwent decreased throat irritation. In fact, Lucky Strikes' curing process did not significantly differ from that of other brands. Related campaigns emphasize that Lucky's would help consumers, especially women, their new market stay trim since they could reach for a Lucky instead of a suite. Along with these persistent health claims, a typical advertisement from 1930 boldly stated that 20,679 physicians say Lucky's are less irritating. Great. Now, James, do you want to know how they'd gotten the information that Lucky's were seen as less irritating by doctors? They sent them a packet of Lucky Strikes and also just a little bit of a spec. They should have specced on three of them. Yeah, they're advertising agency Lloyd Thomas and Logan since cigarette cartons to physicians in 1926, 1927 and 1928. And then asked them to answer our Lucky Strikes cigarettes less irritating to tend to throats than other cigarettes. And the doctors were like, yeah, I want more free cigarettes. Sure. Yeah, but why do I want free cigarette bogs? Cool. I'll take that one. Great. Good. That's how science is done. That is how science is done. Yeah. Touting the toasting process and the accompanying cover letter, advertising executive Thomas Logan pointed out the virtues of Lucky Strikes and claimed that they had quote heard from a good many people, but they could smoke Lucky Strikes with perfect comfort to their throats. American tobacco used doctors' responses to this survey in order to like push the claim that Lucky Strikes are less irritating. The toasting, as they explained, is quote, your throat protection against irritation against cough. Thank God. Thank God they figured out toasting. Otherwise these cigarettes might really hurt people. Yeah, you got to toast them. That's how you just pop it up and cigarettes in your toaster. Yeah. And then you can only. And yeah, no cancer for you. So self-reported adults smoking peaked in the early 1950s at about 45% of the population. Bint tobacco's ploy to buy up doctors had worked for a while. But in late 1953, the first irrefutable studies linking lung cancer to tobacco use were published to tremendous public interest. Major peer-reviewed journals studies had tied not just cancer, but cardiac disease and serious respiratory illness to smoking. The situation was serious enough that the head executives of the Big Five tobacco companies all came together in December of 1953 to figure out how to respond to this news. They picked the Plaza Hotel in New York City as the place to map out their strategy. And it is possible that no other location in the United States, including the Pentagon, has been used to make plans that ended with a greater death toll. The master of the moment was John W. Hill, president of the biggest PR firm in the country, Hill and Nolton. Now, John had been born in Indiana in 1890. He'd spent most of his early career working as a journalist. He's a journalist for 18 years, working his way up the ladder to become an editor and a popular columnist. In 1927, he blazed a trail that generations of soulless hacks would follow, and he decided to start a PR firm. By the time 1953 rolled around, it was the largest PR firm on the planet. Hill was worth the money. And in that hotel conference room, he laid out the bones of what would be known as plan white coat. The basic idea was to create an industry-sponsored research entity, a think tank of scientists funded by tobacco money, but ostensibly independent. This would allow Big tobacco to claim they were taking fears of lung cancer seriously, while also providing them with disinformation to muddy the waters by painting the existing studies is insufficient. I'm going to quote, yeah, it's awesome. It's so good. And no one's ever done it since. This is not the thing that's going to end all life on this planet. No, he'll not just build the apocalypse bomb. Yes, yeah, Jesus Christ. Yeah, well, they've given us everything from Pokemon cards to fucking time. Yeah, it's incredible. SIGURESC are amazing, Jim. Yes, wow. Yeah, they are something. One of the single most important inventions in the history of the planet. Yeah, God. And people die of starvation, you know, and here we are. We've made a cancer stick and we've created new and exciting ways to lie about it. It's amazing. It's so cool. I'm going to quote them who can fold it. Yeah, God, what a great product. I'm going to quote now from a 2012 article in the American Journal of Public Health. The industry had supported some individual research in recent years, but Hills proposal offered the potential of a research program that would be controlled by the industry, yet promoted as independent. This was a public relations masterstroke. Hill understood that simply giving money to scientists through the national institutes of health or some other entity, for example, offered little opportunity to shape the public relations environment. However, offering funds directly to university-based scientists would enlist their support independence. Moreover, it would have the added benefit of making academic institutions partners with the tobacco industry in its moment of crisis. Hill and his clients had no interest. Yeah, in an- Hill and his clients had no interest in answering a scientific question. Their goal was to maintain vigorous control over the research program, to use science and the service of public relations. Although the tobacco executives had proposed forming a cigarette information committee dedicated to defending smoking against the medical findings, Hill argued aggressively for adding research to the committee's title in agenda. It is believed, he wrote, that the word research is needed in the name to give weight and added credence to the committee's statements. Hill understood that his client should be viewed as embracing science rather than dismissing it. Now, again, Hill's a journalist, right? That's part of how he's ever to do this. He understands how to communicate. He understands how people read things. One of the first things he emphasized to the industry leaders was that they had to stop competing with each other, trying to move cartons by convincing customers that their smokes were more soothing or healthier than the others. This was bad, right? Arguing like lucky strikes are healthier than marbros is bad for the whole industry, so we have to stop it. The key to surviving this hill told them was collective action, and one that looked like a commitment to public welfare while actually doing everything possible to harm public welfare. The tobacco industry research committee was formed in 1954 and announced its existence with full-page ads and more than 400 newspapers. This ad, known as the Frank Statement, claimed that tobacco companies were deeply concerned about the welfare of their customers, and would pursue any end to get to the bottom of this whole tobacco equals cancer thing. Quote, we accept an interest in people's health as a basic responsibility, paramount to every other consideration in our business. We believe the products we make are not injurious to health. We always have and always will cooperate closely with those whose task it is to safeguard the public health. That's good. Great, yeah. Sure, very honest, very straightforward. So despite these high-minded claims, the TIRC's agenda was laid out by Hill before he consulted a single scientist. The executive director of the organization, W.T. Hoyt, had no scientific background. His previous job had been selling ads for the Saturday evening post. Within his first few months of operation, Hoyt and other executives of the TIRC put out a statement directly responding to studies that purported to show a link between cigarettes and disease. It is an obligation of the tobacco industry research committee at this time to provide the public of these essential points. One, there is no conclusive scientific proof of a link between smoking and cancer. Two, medical research points to many possible causes of cancer. And three, the millions of people who derive pleasure and satisfaction from smoking can be reassured that every scientific means will be used to get all the facts as soon as possible. Great. Yeah, it's going to go well, James. It's going to go really well. Yeah, I can see it's going to go well. So the first scientific director appointed to the TIRC was Clarence Cook Little, an extremely prominent biologist and geneticist who had become extremely prominent because he was a popular eugenicist. Oh, good. Oh, yeah. Fucking magnificent. Now go. It's really funny because Cook, like a little, the reason he believes that cigarettes to, because he truly believes that the people who connect them to cancer is wrong because he believes that lung cancer is genetic. So it can't be caused by an environmental factor, like an haling 4500 cigarettes a year. It's got to be, it's got to be something to do with the fact that certain races are more likely to get cancer. Oh, God. Yeah. One thing I'll have to, you got to say, for a racist, this guy probably killed more white people than any other racist. Yeah. He does drop a lot of white folks. Yeah. Yeah. Accidentally based. Well, he drops everyone else too. Yeah, true. Maybe not maybe. Unlike him, cigarettes don't discriminate. Oh, dear. God, they become a magnet for the shissest things in humanity. It is incredible. Yeah. How many terrible, yeah, it's amazing. Yeah. What's going to happen next? They're going to like stand with the turf, so something cigarettes. We just don't like weird people. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I tell you, it's probably in the Harry Potter book somewhere. Mm-hmm. Yeah. In 1954, the TIRC's budget was around a million dollars, nearly all of which went to Hill and Nolton and various ads rather than actual science. But by 1963, the TIRC was giving out close to a million dollars in grants. These funded research, actual scientific research, but they picked the kind of research carefully. So we're not going to do research into what causes lung cancer, but we'll do research into how cancer develops over time and how it grows in the body and ways to fight it and stuff. And this is important stuff so they can keep coming out with these studies funded by TIRC money that are real studies, but none of them happen to look into whether or not smoking causes cancer, right? Great. You can look at how genetics or virology impacts cancer rates, and those are important things to study. But by picking what gets funded specifically, they are very, very purposefully drawing attention away. Yeah. Putting better airbags in the no-brake, smoglover car. Yeah. So this strategy worked for decades, distracting the public and lawmakers from any actions that might negatively impact the rate at which people smoked. Key to the success of this program was Hill's understanding of how journalism worked. From that journal of public health article, Hill understood that the success of any public relations strategy was highly dependent on face-to-face interpersonal relations with important media outlets. Each time the TIRC issued a press release, the Hill and Norton organization would initiate a personal contact. The firm systematically documented the courtship of newspapers and magazines, where it could urge balance and fairness in the industry. In these treaties on behalf of the industry, the firm staffers repeated several key themes. First, they would note that the industry completely understood its important public responsibilities. Second, they would affirm that the industry was deeply committed to investigating all of the scientific questions relevant to resolving the controversy. Third, they urged skepticism regarding statistical studies. Finally, they offered members of the media a long list of independent skeptics to consult to ensure balance in their presentations. Great. The price is so responsible for the dozens of direct marketing emails I get every single day. Yes. Great. Right now I'm personally agree for this motherfucker. Yeah, cigarettes created everything. The primary independent skeptic, of course, was the TIRC's little. That's the eugenic sky. Even the pinchante of the press for controversy and its often naive notion of balance, these appeals were remarkably successful. Hill and Norton expertly broadcast their arguments, typically not based on substantive research of any kind. Of a small group of skeptics, as if their positions represented a dominant perspective on the medical science of the cigarette. In this sense, the public relations campaign advantaged two critical pieces of mid-century media practice. First, journalist-fabric reporting on controversy. Second, by providing opposing positions as if they were equal, they affirmed their commitment to balance. Yeah. Oh, yeah. That's right, baby. That's right, baby. Fuck sake. Why? piss off. Uh-huh. Yeah. No, they've invented both sides in game. They did invent both sides against it. So they gave us Donald Trump. It's what you're going to need. Yeah. They gave us Donald Trump. They gave us climate change denial. They gave us a fucking lot of the gun industries, bodyguards tactics, berry-wise. All of that shit comes from Big Tobacco. Yeah. Got it. Fucking Iraq war. All of these, all of these strategies are the things that like we're pie, like they pioneered all of those strategies. And that's where we're going to end for the day, James. Yeah, you're going to be. Yeah. No, let's stop. So I've become enraged. We will talk in more detail about the tobacco industry later. But yeah, this is, this is how they, like there's a bigger story in kind of how they kept this up as it became increasingly obvious that cigarettes caused cancer and like how they advertised to children in like the 90s and stuff and Joe Camel. There's a story and like how they tried to destroy the lives of people who blew the whistle on them like former tobacco employees. And we'll talk about all of those one day. But this is, this is the story of how tobacco invented everything in the modern world. Yeah. Great. I feel really good about all the things that we've got from it. It's cool that you can tie like Funko pops, climate change denial and the Iraq war all to trying to get people to smoke. Yes. Yeah. It's really, it's really great. And capitalism and that's nothing but good. Pokemon and medical patents all have cigarettes to think. Yeah. God. Yeah. It's just unfathomable. It's terrible. It's fucking awful. It's the nature of the system we live in. Maybe change it. It's the nature of the system we live in. Part because of cigarettes. Yeah. Yeah. Great. Good. Maybe consider a different system. Yeah. Maybe consider a system in which it's not possible to do this. The good thing is Robert that none of these issues are tied to vaping, which is fine. Yep. And totally, totally normal and good. And therefore you should just get a fruit loop. Vape. Yeah. Get a flavored vape. You know, buy some of that. I don't know. What drugs do kids like to do today? Get some of that. Get some of that. Favorite. Fentanyl. Tide pods. Mix your fentanyl and your tide pods together. Kids have a good one. Mm-hmm. So doing that on the ticking the top right now from what I understand. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. TikTok and everything that the Apple and the same thing about consequences. Is there anything like to plug? Apart from tide pods. Yeah. Let's get it. Yeah. We talked about podcast. I've written a book. It's called The Popular Front and the 1936 Barcelona Olympics. You can probably find it at the library then you won't be helping to create the system which gave us, you know, Pokemon cards and everyone having cancer. And yeah, you can find me on Twitter. It's just my name, James, like bomb, stat, light, the beer. Well, and that's all. Anarchism is the other thing I always like to plug on podcasts and maybe re-cropocon. And we're doing a Nicky tap in your livestream virtual show on October 26th. Yeah, mother fuckers. Yep. So pick up a pack of lucky strikes. I want to see all of you beautiful people smoking when we do our live show. Just really burn them down. Nothing raises the value of a house faster than smoking cigarettes in it. Yeah. Robert. Uh, bring, uh, go back to, uh, return to tradition by sticking two cigarettes up, you know, is often smoking them that way. Yeah, smoke your cigarettes the traditional way. Mm-hmm. Anyway. Yeah. Bye. We got it. Behind the bastards is a production of Cool Zone media. For more from Cool Zone media, visit our website coolzonemedia.com or check us out on the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Mo Raka and I'm back with season three of my podcast, Mo Bituaries. I've dug up even more stories about the people and things that fascinate me from the fruit that once scandalized the shape of the banana made it taboo. To the band that played second banana to the Beatles. They were lucky to come in second and the truth is they only came in second for about two months. Listen to Mo Bituaries on the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. My name is Joshua Topolsky and I have a new podcast called What Future. But I want to tell you that I'm being forced by my producer to record a promo telling you about my show and I'm not trying to force you to listen to it and maybe you're not interested in internet culture and the future of life on planet earth and why John Carpenter movies are so good. You may just want to listen to a podcast about, I don't know, sports or whatever Joe Rogan talks about and that's fine, you know, no judgment. But if you like what you're hearing and I know that you do, you can listen to all of what future on the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, I'm Mo Fira Eisenberg. I'm a comedian and a parent, the absurdity of telling jokes late at night and then waking up early with a small child in the morning. I have a new podcast called Parenting is a joke. I'll talk to other funny people who are also parents. Will we be laughing? Will we be crying? Find out by listening to Parenting is a joke on the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.