The primary purpose of this case study is an in-depth analysis of the tactics and resistance of tobacco companies in the United States against public health policy, focusing on the period between the 1950s and 2000s. Tobacco companies have carried out a half-century long manipulation through mass media and false scientific reports, causing addiction and death of millions of people. The political process on health will be examined, looking primarily at the decades, while the decision-making process and political agenda of this issue was controlled by the cigarette companies. For the purposes of this case study, structuralist theory will be examined and applied to explain the political process. It will draw on the work of Steven Lukes, who has accounted for the structurally embedded nature of power in political processes. The theory will explain the dominance of business, examining latent class conflicts and the relationship between economic and political power. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The structuralist perspective of the political process is often described as Marxist theory, as it emphasizes economic determinism and latent class conflicts. Latent class conflict exists when there would be a conflict of desires between those who exercise power and those who are subject to it, if the subjects became aware of their own interests. It refers to the fact that subjects of power are often unaware of their preferences, as they are influenced by those in power in a way that is contrary to their interests. This is described as thought control and its main forum is the mass media. The mass media are proven to influence the public agenda and are often described as powerful agenda setters, including government policy agendas. Using the power of the media, influencers are able to attract attention and create the desired ideology, which helps them prevent or place topics on political agendas. This indicates that power is not equally distributed but accumulated among a smaller number of powerful actors, who are able to marginalize the interests of excluded groups, such as the mass population. This social structure of capitalist society is described in classical Marxist theory as two opposing classes: the bourgeoisie, which owns the means of production, and the proletariat, which works for the bourgeoisie. Therefore, the theory emphasizes that businesses have a structurally dominant role in the political process. This dominance arises from the fact that large multinationals perform economic functions for the entire society; they provide employment to numerous people and contribute significantly to the country's GDP. Therefore, businesses play a prominent and powerful role in the overall policy-making process, using their power and capital accumulation as a means to influence the political process to their advantage. The strong relationship between economic power and political power can be observed by also examining the role of government. The Marxist position suggests that the capitalist state is an executive committee of the bourgeoisie, or in other words, an agent of powerful groups. The main function of the state is to assist the process of capital accumulation by providing the conditions under which capitalists are able to promote the production of profit. Furthermore, the government acts to maintain order and control within society, but primarily serves the long-term interests of the capitalist class. It suggests that policy choices are preordained to deliver resultsbenefits for elites, whose preferences prevail in conflicts over political issues. The previously mentioned points of structuralist theory will be used later in the case study when examining the political process and explaining it, linking the elements of the structuralist perspective to the political process. Key topics of the review will include explaining how latent class conflict was present in the case of tobacco companies and the public in the United States. We will also address the ways in which these societies have exercised thought control and manipulated the mass population to act against their real interests. Understanding the social structure of society as dominant and subordinate groups will present evidence of unequally distributed power. Importantly, the structurally dominant role of businesses will be presented throughout the case study, while highlighting the marginalized interests of subordinate groups and the dominant role of vested interests. The role of the government will also be analysed, considering its non-intervention for more than half a century, which provided tobacco companies with advantageous conditions in which they could continue to accumulate profits. Finally, the evaluation of the results of the political process will support the thesis of the structuralist notion; that political choices are predetermined. Tobacco represents a serious health hazard and an important economic asset. This last characteristic has led manufacturers and, in fact, even the American government, to ignore the harm caused by cigarettes for decades. This part of the case study will analyze the health policy process in the United States from the 1950s until 2000. The central actors in the policy process are tobacco producers, the US government, scientists, the mass media and the most numerous but above all oppressed group, the public. Tobacco companies and the public had extremely opposing interests, since although tobacco was harmful to health from the dawn of production, citizens were not aware of it due to diversified manipulation, and consumption over time led to addiction. In the early 1950s, cigarette sales declined due to health problems, but the tobacco industry took reassuring steps; paid for the “Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers” to be published in hundreds of newspapers across the United States. This claim was the first step in a half-century-long campaign to mislead the American public about the harmful effects of smoking. Although the harmful health effects of tobacco were understood by the industry from the earliest days of production, the industry engaged in a vigorous effort to silence critics, distort science, influence public opinion, and coordinate its strategy to prevent public policies from damaging balances. Interestingly, the US government did not conduct its own scientific research on the issue when it first became a concern in the early 1950s, but simply accepted the manufacturers' claims. It is debatable whether the government's interest was the health of its citizens or the capital generated by the sale of cigarettes. The “Frank Declaration” declared that public health was the industry's primary concern and promised a series of good faith changes. These changes have been used to open up new markets and influence more people. The industry has introduced new cigarettes, presented as safer, offering health-conscious smokers an alternative to quitting. These new cigarettes were filtered and flavored and were advertised with theexplicit message that the filters removed dangerous substances, preserving the aroma. They were marketed aggressively, however, the advertisements were false. Tobacco industry chemists knew that the filters did not remove tar or nicotine, but added another dangerous substance - asbestos into the filter, but this information was prohibited by the industry. It was not only direct advertising that changed people's interests, but the tobacco industry's multimillion-dollar advertising budget enabled commercial collaboration with major Hollywood film studios. Smoking in films has been associated with smoking initiation among teenagers and young adults, and sales have increased. Therefore, between 1970 and the mid-1990s, public health experts called on the film industry to eliminate smoking from future films. Accessible to young people, however the industry resisted, arguing that tobacco images were an integral part of the art of American cinema. Public health experts may achieve minimal success; tobacco remained an important part of films. The media was not the only tool for influencing public opinion and avoiding public politics. Economic power is an important source of political power, as it enables the purchase of expertise to generate information instrumental in the political process and liaison agents to convey this information to relevant policy makers. Tobacco companies acted accordingly; After the 1954 Frank Statement, manufacturers declared their determination to work closely with those working to protect public health. In fact, manufacturers have used this situation to their advantage and have adopted voluntary codes and preventative laws. The industry asserted self-regulation rather than government legislation, and the government approved. The industry purchased scientific documents attesting to the less harmful nature of smoking than it actually was, and self-regulation was ineffective in terms of providing truthful information to consumers. However, the industry lobbied for preventative legislation and agreed to the introduction of warning labels on cigarette packets in the 1970s. It was a consensual decision by the industry, as the labels warned about the risks associated with smoking, so it could be said that smokers agree to damage their health if harm occurs; it was a protection against lawsuits. We could also see the opening of international markets through trade sanctions with government intervention. Tobacco companies in the United States pressured Japan and other countries in the Western Pacific region to remove trade barriers to imports of foreign cigarettes, and state intervention occurred in 1986. The U.S. government took effective measures with international trade to remove tariffs and other restrictions on petroleum products. foreign cigarettes. This represents cooperation between government and business, underscoring the government's vested interests. Government cooperation was dominant, as industry agents occupied different positions among state decision makers. The government gave the tobacco industry veto power over the composition of the advisory committee that ultimately produced the overall reports on smoking and health, including the first surgeon general's report in 1964, which turned out to be a manipulated consensus. The tobacco companies also enlisted the support of some of the most prestigious law firms and gained the allegiance of a significant portion of Congress. In terms of policymaking, there have been no significant policies produced by the government, featuring industry-state cooperation and the dominance of vested interests. In 1999, WHO advanced the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which also impacted tobacco use in the United States. The FCTC has considered challenging the industry's freedom to continue doing business and has promoted anti-smoking measures. In the United States, tobacco control policies were introduced after 1995, which included an increase in excise taxes on cigarettes, which led to an increase in cigarette prices and discouraged those who were sensitive to this. Restrictions on smoking in public places and private workplaces were introduced, and by 2000 it was clear to people that cigarette consumption was harmful to health. The industry has not taken responsibility because of the steadily developing agenda that has directed the behavior of industry-friendly industry executives, lawyers, scientists, and government officials. It presented itself as a source of income, a provider of jobs, a patron of the arts and sports, a defender of freedom and a dispenser of pleasure. Although cigarette sales had declined since the introduction of public policies, the company managed to develop a multibillion-dollar business during the unregulated decades. Many consumers have become addicted and smoking still affects millions of people. This section of the case study will evaluate whether the previously discussed structuralist theory can explain the events of the tobacco case. It is worth mentioning that the most dominant sections of the concept were latent class conflict, which originates from classical Marxist theory, and economic determinism. Latent class conflict has been explained as two classes, which in this case are the tobacco producers and the American public, who are in conflict due to their different interests. The word 'latent' refers to phenomena which, even if there is no comparison between the classes, do not explain their similar interests but simply the fact that those subject to power are not aware of their interest. In the case of the tobacco industry, this perception is relevant, as the cigarette industry has been manipulating its consumers by developing media campaigns and heavily marketing its message for decades. This was based on a false or manipulated consensus and the direction of public attention towards ideological values ​​of smoking, suppressing fear of health problems. The huge marketing campaign following the introduction of the new filter cigarettes is a case in point. Filtered cigarettes were described as safe and were aggressively marketed with attention to the gender divide; produce advertising aimed separately at men and women, acquiring consumption from both sexes. Smoking was associated with admired characteristics, such as athletic ability, sexual attractiveness, professional success, self-actualization, or adult sophistication; all were a feature that people wanted to obtain, increasing their desire to smoke and suppressing the fear of harm to health. The theory explains that the result of this way of advertising was to make consumers unaware of their real interest. The structuralist perception emphasizes the dominant role of business, which is comparable to the political process examined on health, especially the influence of business to prevent tobacco from emerging as a political issue and to avoid public policies harmful to their main goal; to maximize sales. Businesses not only had a structurally dominant role in.