June 2004 | Letters to the Editor
Huffing and Puffing
Huffing & Puffing
This is a slam-dunk — take the money and run. You need it for the magazine. It’s expensive to do business these days and, fortunately, tobacco, beer, wine, and liquor companies have money for advertising. But before running that particular tobacco ad, I would recommend the following: If you are so concerned with what your readers will think, simply put in a disclaimer saying: “This ad does not have the endorsement of Common Ground (CG) or its employees and is to be viewed on its own merit.”
—Bill
Rising Beyond Addictions
Though we can appreciate the struggle to obtain financing for CG magazine, it would greatly sadden us to see your publication undergo such a profound betrayal of your (and our) values, by accepting advertising from Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company. Your pages are filled with individuals and organizations committed to elevating humankind beyond physical and emotional addictions and compulsions, and to enhancing transformational energies now at work in our larger world. For CG and Dragonfly Media to have an active role in promoting addiction and ill health by way of this advertisement would be a great disappointment and a seriously compromise your role. Let us hope for, and work for, unadulterated sources of revenue for your enterprise.
Jason Saffer, MFT, Co-Director, The Center for Creative Growth — Counseling with Heart
A Slippery Slope
First off, thank you for sharing with readers this debate over an ad for organic cigarettes. It is a bit of a slippery slope since large corporations are invested in and own many subsidiaries of companies or products marketed as green/local/alternative-lifestyle. Yet, even though companies, as well as readers, all have distinct levels of awareness and integrity, we all have to draw a line in the sand.
I am sure the money would be nice (perhaps even crucial) for the magazine, but accepting an ad for a product that is the leading health risk AND is owned by one of the country’s largest corporations does not mesh at all with the magazine’s mission. The third strike against this ad is that it presents a weak stereotype of indigenous peoples and commodifies that image for brand marketing.
Take this opportunity to adopt, and publish, the magazine’s advertisement policies. You will gain the loyalty of readers and sleep better at night.
—Mike Persinger, Sonoma State University Masters Action for a Viable Future
Walk the Talk
WOW.... I can’t believe you’re having a problem with this issue! Of course, you don’t run ads for one of the biggest cancer causes that we know of! I think R. J. Reynolds is one of the worst businesses in America. It’s time to start walking your talk and TRUSTING. As far as making the organic part known to smokers, you have done that with your letter to the readers.
—Barbara Lee
Stay Socially Responsible
I don’t think you should put the tobacco ad in CG. I do think you should do at least some screening of the ads you do put in. If you are committed to being a socially responsible company, then you should be as committed when it comes to your ads. Part of the problem with the mainstream media is that they think their advertisers will withdraw if they publish controversial stories or information that hurts the advertiser. You must make sure your ads are from socially responsible companies.
I received this magazine for free at my local coffee shop. I think it is excellent. Why not ask your readers for donations to cover the cost of the ad? Put a place for donations on your website. I’d donate a little. If lots donate, a little it becomes a lot! Joy!
Connie Tyler, Berkeley
Well Done & Don’t Do It
You should be commended for even asking about this. That said, don’t do it. Your initial decision to reject the ad is the right one. As the proposed American Spirit ad states, “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette.” R. J. Reynolds, Philip Morris, et. al. have been using the “safer” pitch for years. Research shows that approach unfortunately works on young people by counteracting all our efforts to warn them about tobacco addiction. Tobacco maims and kills more people every year than all the other drugs, legal or not, combined.
In their ad, American Spirit offers a sample carton in the time-dishonored drug pusher’s “first one is free” marketing strategy. I called their telephone number and found they send you a form to fill out to request samples. As one can lie on a form, anyone of any age can acquire tobacco this way.
The only exception might be to use the ad revenue for a hard-hitting exposé on how tobacco companies try to pitch their toxics as healthier, cool “alternative” products.
Finally, I can’t help but wonder if Santa Fe Natural/R.J. Reynolds has any Native American executives [to provide] input into the use of their images to sell this toxic product? Yes, Native Americans have long used tobacco in very limited, spiritual settings. But Native Americans are as harmed as any other people by tobacco addiction. Again, thanks for asking, and good luck with your “new” magazine!
— Steve Heilig, MPH, San Francisco Medical Society
A Whore-able Choice?
Thank you for providing the opportunity to weigh in on this debate! It’s good to lead and encourage healthy debate. I, too, have conflicting feelings about allowing a tobacco ad in CG. It surprises me how many people smoke, especially within progressive, health-conscious communities. However, I have been pained by the patronizing and dismissive attitude of many non-smokers towards smokers. Do we believe that it’s really all that helpful to force people not to do something they have chosen (at least initially) to do? Where is the compassion? It is so easy to put up barriers and defenses, and so hard to find ways to break them down.
CG is not a children’s magazine. I would expect that most readers are adults or very advanced teenagers. Surely you can respond to these diverse needs in a way that is respectful and appropriate for a commercial/ educating/community-minded organ.
This issue is not isolated to tobacco. You need a comprehensive approach. You don’t want to set a precedent that implies approval for the advertising currently in CG.
The word “whoring” comes to mind. Let’s remember that many women who sell their bodies do so as the best means they have to support their families. Right now the only income stream CG has is advertising.
Arguably, it’s good to bar advertising for something known to be problematic. Tobacco is obvious. But what if a maker of a day-after pill wants to advertise? Here are some possible solutions:
1. Put a banner at all advertising places (display and classified listings) indicating that appearance in CG does not imply approval or support.
2. Use this as an opportunity to develop a non-advertising source of funding. Offer paid subscriptions to anyone who would pay you money just to keep tobacco out of CG. Raise ad rates — if your current advertisers want to keep tobacco out, they may need to pony up the funds to reimburse your loss.
This is your paper. You do have the right to make decisions to bar “dangerous” advertising. This debate may be a catalyst for others. Perhaps you should continue it online.
—Deborah Jue, Oakland
People Don’t Want Corp. Cops
Any magazine concerned with health and wellness should be concerned with what kind of products it advertises. Your readers care about health issues. Some are concerned with toxins, so they detoxify. Some people are concerned with supplements. Some people want to quit smoking, some care how much they smoke, others care about the content of the cigarettes themselves. They might be delighted to know about the 100% organic cigarettes that are produced by American Spirit.
I know some co-op markets that carry Thrasher magazine. Any kid who takes the hint from Thrasher and takes up skateboarding is going to get injured at least once. I guarantee it. Everyone can’t be 100% organic-raw-vegan and not everyone wants to be. Not everyone wants to have their desires policed either.
—Chris Navarro
‘Animal-Friendly’ Guns?
I want to commend you for that editorial. It shows some guts, some thought, reflects healthy values, and great integrity. I could paraphrase your editorial in a nutshell: “To sell out, or to not to sell out.” Personally I think selling cigarettes to people looking for a positive change in their lives is like trying to sell pharmaceuticals in a holistic health magazine or meat in a vegan magazine. I do not think catering to people who would put cancerous smoke into their lungs is the way to go. They have a right to poison themselves but these people should not be dictating policy to CG if the magazine wants to be taken seriously about serving such interests as self-help, personal growth, holistic health, bodywork, fitness, therapy, global change, and the like.
This doesn’t make smokers wrong for smoking. Sure organic tobacco is better than non-organic, but that goes for organic wine and whiskey. Have you heard that there are also animal-friendly guns for sale and that war gives us peace? If your business goes the way of the ordinary business, which sacrifices ideals and purposes on the altar of the almighty buck, what will be the next compromise and the next? I think you can draw the line and be selective. You can’t be everything to all people. Find your niche and go for it! I wish you guys would be rewarded for your integrity so that more people will read you because they know they can trust you, that you are for real, and that you are not flakey hypocrites or liars. I hope you continue to help people get free and to cater to those of us in this culture who want to make a positive change in their lives and health by encouraging them to do so. Good luck!
—Sahaj, San Raphael
Keep CG’s No-emissions Mission
I appreciate the difficulty of the decision you face regarding the American Spirit ad. I, for one, hope you will keep the magazine free of tobacco ads. The current ads all seem to fit the overall feel of the magazine, so I hope you will use this situation to develop advertising standards and priorities for CG. The criteria should be something like: does the proposed ad fit the CG mission?
If the ad is only for money, I think it means it’s time to seek other funding sources, like subscriptions, marketing to good advertisers, etc.
Good luck in your deliberations. I applaud your openness in sharing the dilemma with your readers.
—Joan Leslie Taylor EA
Dear Mr. Williams:
We recently read your editorial, “A Difficult Decision” (May 2004), regarding whether or not your publication should accept advertising for our natural tobacco products. Let us first say that we appreciate how difficult this decision is and we applaud your decision to put this topic out for discussion amongst your readers. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company has always operated on a simple, straightforward philosophy; (1) make the purest, high quality, additive-free natural tobacco products available, (2) provide full tobacco ingredient disclosure, and (3) provide information-based advertising to educate adult smokers about our natural tobacco products. We do not encourage non-smokers to begin smoking nor do we encourage smokers to smoke more. We operate in a highly controversial industry but, like you, believe we should conduct our business in as transparent a manner as possible.
To clarify one point in your editorial, our company was established in Santa Fe, New Mexico in 1982 and was not purchased by RJ Reynolds Holdings until January of 2002. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company continues to operate as an independent company out of Santa Fe with the same employees and the same business philosophy and commitment to excellence.
We appreciate your honesty in showing both sides of this issue and allowing your readers to make an informed choice. We look forward to hearing your decision and respect whatever direction you and your readers to decide to take.
—The People of Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company
Dear Common Ground:
I agree that the core part of the magazine is to educate. Advertising implies endorsement. Please do not stray from the quality that has made Common Ground a mainstay in Marin and SF. To the argument that you would be “disrespecting” readers, I say “BALONEY!” Such reasoning could be used for any product. There are enough outlets for such products that people can access for information. I don’t feel any disrespect from CG for not advertising tequila, which I enjoy! Continue the great service that you and your staff provide, Mr. Williams, without the ads for carcinogens.
—Michael
Recommend this page to a friend
Top Ten pages recommended to friends:
