Tobacco's Hold on Minority Health

An Overview

One search for tobacco advertisements from the eighties or nineties will reveal old, snappy slogans, promises of the best cigarette, and a person of color on nearly every poster. Starting in the 1950’s, the industry had set its sights on a new market for their products to be advertised and sold to: minorities. Over the past few decades, as the impact of tobacco marketing on youth has been challenged it’s important to view how advertisements to female, Black, Hispanic or LGBTQ+ communities have changed addiction patterns to this day and shaped tobacco priority populations.

Starting with the simple statistics; the CDC states that African American communities have higher rates of tobacco usage, with 19.4% of non-Hispanic Black adults using any form of tobacco. African American people are more likely to suffer from the adverse effects of tobacco use. The NIH states that one of the three leading causes of death for African American people is heart disease and the CDC adds that African American smokers are more likely to die from smoking-related diseases. Then, in a study of LGBTQ+ smokers, UCSF states that lesbian, gay or bisexual smokers have higher rates of nicotine dependence and queer youth are twice as likely to smoke compared to heterosexual peers. There is an overlap between the tobacco usage as well; Black, Hispanic and queer populations use largely menthol tobacco.

All these statistics paint an incredibly concerning painting of the effect that the tobacco industry holds onto the health and habits of a population- so it’s important to examine how it’s come to this point.

Tobacco & African American Politics

Photo courtesy of the Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco 

Tobacco has a major influence on African American history and on health. This cycle has to begin with the industry gaining positive connections that allow them to begin profiting; they do this through donations. Examining Lorillard Tobacco, one of the biggest producers with the Newport menthol cigarette, it is visible how supporting Black leaders allowed the tobacco industry to be disregarded despite all the harm. Lorillard Tobacco donated to over half of Black Congress members at the time. The independent journalism website, Mother Jones, puts it this way, “black lawmakers—all but one of whom are Democrats—were 19 times as likely as nonblack Democrats to get a donation.” The tobacco industry’s connections go farther than Lorillard however, with companies like Altria (producer of the Marlboro cigarette) donating to Congressional Black caucuses. 

Tobacco & LGBTQ+ Activism

Similarly, LGBTQ+ organizations have received donations from tobacco industries, but the community's views changed radically during the AIDS crisis from the 1980s to 1990s. In 1990, the infamous Act Up organization targeted Philip Morris’ Marlboro cigarettes and a year-long boycott went into effect. This happened due to the company’s support of a senator who opposed funding for HIV & AIDS (one of the biggest public health upsets where a community lacked support and research for a deadly, stigmatized disease). Philip Morris took the boycott as an opportunity to connect with the LGBTQ+ community. He gave donations to organizations supporting the health of gay men and turned the perspective around. 

Yet, the fact of the matter remained that Philip Morris continued to support right-wing politicians while publishing in magazines his support for the LGBTQ community. Thus, in the words of LGBTQ Minus Tobacco, “This gave the false impression of supporting the community while the company continued to give significantly larger donations to Helms and other right-wing anti-gay politicians.” In any case, it created a pattern where a community felt supported by the industry that still benefited off of addiction. This led to acceptance of advertising when magazines such as Gay Chicago would make statements such as, “...barriers are beginning to fall. It says ‘we respect you as consumers and we want your business.’ I would gladly accept tobacco advertisements.” That statement was from 1982, and in the twenty-four years since, advertising to queer adults and youth has not relented. 

Photo courtesy of the Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising

This brings us into Project SCUM in 1995, targeted towards San Francisco. Project Subculture Urban Marketing detailed the R.J Reynolds Tobacco Company’s plan to target gay youth in San Francisco’s districts. The company’s plans directed tobacco retailers into areas like the Castro district, placing products in areas that were populated by LGBTQ youth, such as head shops. The company’s plans were released and are now kept in the UCSF Research archive.

Similarly, with Black communities, tobacco advertisements were published in Black newspapers and magazines, billboards were put up in predominantly Black areas and brands chose to share their products at company events and use culture in their advertisements. 

It’s important to remember that 80.9% of African American smokers, according to Truth Initiative, smoke menthol products. The American Lung Association reports that over 50% of lesbian, gay and bisexual smokers use menthol. In 2009, following the ban of flavored tobacco, menthol wasn’t banned- a large factor was Black Democrat congressional officials who depended on the money from the tobacco industry. A menthol ban would create the criminalization of African American and queer communities where the product is heavily used, adding to a cycle of addiction and dependence.

Future Policies

Policies have certainly changed from the 1980s- outdoor advertisements being banned and a serious look into the predatory nature of tobacco industries and youth has all culminated from the activist efforts of recent years. Yet, when we observe the nature of the industry over several decades, it’s clear a more direct approach is necessary. Tobacco kills, and the way that companies and advertisers have worked have caused the industry to kill minorities. 

Conversations on the ban of menthol will continue in the future; it’s important to view them with an understanding of the history of tobacco and these communities. 

References

“Big Tobacco Targets the Lgbtq... | Lgbtq Minus Tobacco.” 2024. 

CDC. “African American Communities Experience a Health Burden from Commercial Tobacco.” 2024. “How Big Tobacco Targets Lgbtq+ Communities.” 

Levin, Myron. “This May Be Why Few Black Leaders Are Talking About One of the Community’S Biggest Killers.” 17 Nov. 2015. 

“Lgbtqia+ Populations.” 2024. 

Limbong, Andrew. “How the Tobacco Industry Targeted Black Americans with Menthol Smokes.” NPR.Org, 29 Apr. 2022, 

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/29/1095291808/tobacco-industry-targeted-black-americans-with-me nthols. Accessed 24 July 2026.

Offen, N, et al. “From Adversary to Target Market: The Act-Up Boycott of Philip Morris.” Tobacco Control, vol. 12, no. 2, June 2003, pp. 203–7, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12773732/, 10.1136/tc.12.2.203. Accessed 24 July 2026. 

Sabado-Liwag, Melanie, et al. “Current State of Unhealthy Living Characteristics in Black/African American and Latino Populations: Tobacco Use.” Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases, vol. 71, Mar. 2022, pp. 27–36, 10.1016/j.pcad.2022.04.009. 

“Srita – Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising.” Stanford University. “Tobacco Control Archives - UCSF Library.” 20 July 2022. 

“Tracing the Racist Tactics of the Tobacco Industry.” 16 Oct. 2020. 

Turner, Amanda. “Black History Has Taught Us That Big Tobacco Is Not an Ally.” Tobacco 21, 15 Feb. 2023, https://tobacco21.org/big-tobacco-black-communities-reject-donations/. Accessed 24 July 2026. 

Washington, Harriet A. “Burning Love: Big Tobacco Takes Aim at LGBT Youths.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 92, no. 7, July 2002, pp. 1086–1095, 10.2105/ajph.92.7.1086.