• It is crystal-clear that the tobacco industry as a whole has bent over, politically.
• It is crystal-clear that some tobacco multinationals (such as Philip Morris) are openly endorsing antitobacco frauds and politics.
• It is crystal-clear that the tobacco industry suffers no financial damage because of bans. The opposite is often true, in fact, because smoking bans do not decrease the consumption of cigarettes but rather tend to increase it.
• It is crystal-clear that the industry, perhaps with mixed emotions, supports the bans; just look at what is happening in the US: PM lobbies for bans everywhere.

Everyone knows that money has a price: obedience. A BT-SRG expands immediately in response to the money available (so to 100% dependence) and, ultimately, it must primarily represent the interests and the will of the financers more than those of the smokers it is supposed to represent. It follows that, inevitably, BT-SRGs must induce smokers to accept as inevitable the political deals that the industry has made with "public health" authorities — and those deals are never in favour of smoking and smokers.

The fundamental philosophical error a large amount of smokers make is to assume that smokers' interests and those of Big Tobacco coincide as they have cigarettes in common. They do not. In fact:

• Big Tobacco deals with the powers-that-be and perceives a top-down approach.
• The powers-that-be are now controlled by antismoking organizations and by the pharmaceutical industry, both also perceiving a top-down approach.
• Both antismoking groups and BT see smokers as "consumables" - nothing else - thus, in their eyes, smokers cannot interfere with their plans but only be subject to them.

Thus both BT and the antismoking gangs do not want:

• Smokers to organize politically, thus have a weight in political and social decisions.
• Smokers to become fully aware of the scientific frauds on active and passive smoke, but rather to recite the useless "smoking-is-bad-but..." thus digging their own social grave.
• Smokers to become aware of their economic power and to become a force to deal with. After all, that may affect the companies' market shares, which is the one and only issue BT cares about.

On its side, the antitobacco establishment correctly perceives any form of effective smokers' organization in their own defence as a great political threat. Any smoking population in any country is larger than any party in that country. Even the slightest "awakening" of the enormous smoking masses would be sufficient to destroy the national or international structure of the largest scientific and political fraud ever implemented in history and utterly clean it out.

Hence tobacco-funded SRGs:

• Take meek approaches based solely on rights with the full knowledge that the rights issue can only win after the scientific frauds on passive and active smoke are exposed on a major scale. For that reason, these groups never directly and forcefully fight those frauds, and often try to persuade everybody that fights against the bans based on passive smoke, for example, are a "losing proposition" whilst the bans, officially and vociferously, are based solely on passive smoke.  But for BT-SRGs, at most, the passive smoke fraud is a "touch and go" issue in the general scheme of a vague and steadily losing strategy. The systematic defeat of the meek BT-SRGs arguments helps to set in stone the conviction that "times are changing" thus the acceptance of total tobacco and behaviour control by "public health".
• Must offer the illusion of representation to encourage the stagnation of the smoker by providing false hopes while nudging him to accept an ever more limiting status quo.

This has been true all along -- even for BT-SRGs that no longer exist. In short their function is — and has always been — to be crowd control of the consumables, to be used as tools and marionettes of BT on one hand, and by Big Pharma and "public health" on the other.

Those are the reasons why it is impossible, for an organization like FORCES, to actually work with BT-SRGs to the same ends.

• We want power, respect and cultural identity. We want those who are responsible for the frauds punished, and expect the restoration of the freedom and dignity of the smoker. We are also stimulating smokers to take back what was wrongfully taken with whatever means are necessary.
• They want obedience and the acceptance that "public health" can command personal lifestyles. Thus they want smokers gradually to accept that "smoking is no longer a socially acceptable behaviour".  In that way, the "reasonable restrictions on smoking" gradually expand to 100% without smokers lifting a finger to actually stop the process -- other than some token barking, that is.
• They absolutely do not want a political or social mobilization of smokers and even less a challenge to authority, especially that of "public health".
• We want exactly that.