Adam Smith Institute

The Adam Smith Institute (ASI) describes itself as “one of the world’s leading think tanks”.¹ Its website states that: “The Institute is today at the forefront of making the case for free markets and a free society in the United Kingdom”.¹

Background

ASI has strongly opposed tobacco control regulations and there is evidence that it has accepted money from the tobacco industry.²

In 2016, ASI was rated “highly opaque” by think tank watchdog group Transparify. ASI was one of only four think tanks of the 200 surveyed in the UK that refused to reveal the identities of their donors.³⁴ Open Democracy, an independent international media platform, has also given ASI the lowest possible ranking for transparency.⁵

ASI is a partner of the Atlas Network.

Received Funding from Tobacco Companies

In June 2013, The Observer revealed that ASI and another UK think tank, the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), received funding from transnational tobacco companies.² Both Japan Tobacco International (JTI) and Imperial Tobacco (now Imperial Brands) defended their donations to the think tanks.

A spokesperson for Imperial told the newspaper:

“We believe the contributions of organisations like the ASI and the IEA are very valuable in an open and free society. We respect their work and share their views on many issues”²

In a statement JTI said:

“We work with the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Adam Smith Institute as their economic and behavioural expertise help us better understand which tobacco regulation measures will work and which will not.”²

A spokesperson for Philip Morris International (PMI) confirmed its membership of the IEA, but refused to provide any details on links to ASI.²

In June 2023, The Observer again reported that ASI had accepted sponsorship from JTI .⁶ A spokesperson for JTI said that “We do provide donations to a number of thinktanks, but we do not disclose details of our financial support”.⁶

Both ASI and IEA have a history of criticising tobacco control regulations, such as plain packaging and the indoor smoking ban, arguing that they represent an attack on civil liberties. See also ASI: History of Close Ties with the Tobacco Industry and Mark Littlewood.

No disclosures on funding

The ASI does not disclose its sources of funding on its website, or the price of membership.

In 2013 ASI confirmed to the Observer that 3% of its funding came from tobacco firms, although it declined to reveal the total figure. A spokesman told the Observer it had a policy of capping private donations, but declined to reveal the level of the cap. The Observer noted: “However, the latest available company accounts reveal that Adam Smith Services Ltd had an income of just under £750,000 in 2011, which suggests that it received around £24,000 from ‘big tobacco’.”² Around that time ASI offered subscriptions costing GB£150 for individuals, GB£500 for companies and institutions, and “partner memberships” for more than GB£1000 per year. “Patrons” of the organisation would need to give GB£5,000 or more a year.⁷

The ASI does not publish a list of its subscribers, partners or patrons, but it has admitted funding from “a couple” of tobacco companies in the past.

Tobacco company subscriptions

In February 2012, the Institute published a report written by ASI and IEA fellow Christopher Snowdon, which echoed industry arguments against plain packaging.⁸ When Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) claimed that the tobacco industry’s “invisible hand” was behind the report,⁹ the Institute responded (as quoted on Snowdon’s blog):¹⁰

“We commissioned this report ourselves because it reflects our free market, libertarian ideology. Indeed, the Adam Smith Institute does not do commissioned research.

“However, there are a couple of tobacco companies that have corporate subscriptions at the Institute. The revenue from this – while welcome – is not terribly significant. It amounted to less than 3 percent of our 2011 income. Moreover, neither of these companies has played any role whatsoever in the production or editing of this report. We take our independence very seriously.”

Two months later, the Financial Times reported that ASI had received GB£9,000 from tobacco companies in 2011.¹¹

Criticised WHO FCTC and COP

ASI has criticised the World Health Organization, the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), and the Conference of the Parties to the WHO FCTC (COP).

In 2021, ASI’s head of programmes, Daniel Pryor,¹² authored a submission to a “COP enquiry” on e-cigarettes, organised by the APPG for Vaping.¹³ Pryor argued that the WHO FCTC position on e-cigarettes “undermine[s] the UK’s harm reduction approach to e-cigarettes”.¹³ In 2023, Pryor left ASI to work for PMI (see below).

In October 2021, ASI hosted a session on harm reduction “in partnership” with JTI at the Conservative Party Conference.¹⁴ The speakers listed included JTI’s fiscal and regulatory affairs director, Chris Snowdon (ASI/IEA), Mark Oates (We Vape), and Daniel Pryor.¹⁴ The event page stated:

“On the international stage, our representatives at COP-9 later this year have the chance to push back against the World Health Organisation’s deadly campaign against vaping and promote the superiority of the UK’s more liberal, effective approach to tobacco harm reduction.”¹⁴

ASI and organisations founded by its fellow, Mark Oates (see below), were active in the run up to and during the COP 9 meeting in November 2021. ASI promoted anti-WHO and anti-tobacco control messaging on Twitter. In an article in The Express, Oates stated that COP “is where countries’ Governments, aided by the World Health Organisation, make secretive decisions regarding tobacco and smoking”.¹⁵ Oates’ organisation We Vape also drove a small lorry bearing the slogan “COP9 A COP OUT” around the UK Parliament during the week of COP.¹⁶

ASI, Oates, We Vape, and the Snus and Nicotine Pouch Users’ Association (also run by Oates), were also active around COP 10 and COP 11. Between 2023 and 2024, Oates’ consultancy company received payments of over US$800,000 from the Consumer Choice Center,¹⁷¹⁸ which receives funding from tobacco companies. See Consumer Choice Center and We Vape for details.

People

For an up-to-date list of current staff members and leadership, see the ASI website.

As of December 2025, the following were listed:¹⁹

• Dr Madsen Pirie, Co-Founder and President
• Dr Eamonn Butler, Co-Founder and Director
• James Lawson, Chair
• Maxwell Marlow, Director of Public Affairs, previously Director of Research. Has been listed as a Fellow at the Consumer Choice Center.

Previous staff and leadership

• Daniel Pryor, author of the 2021 APPG “COP enquiry” submission, was head of research until May 2023, when he began working for PMI as external affairs strategic research manager.²⁰²¹

• Duncan Simpson, executive director from February 2023 to February 2024.²² He previously worked for over five years at the Taxpayers Alliance, as well as in roles in parliament.²²²³

Fellows

The ASI website also lists its fellows, including:

• Christopher Snowdon, head of lifestyle economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA)²⁴²⁵

• Mark Oates, director of We Vape and the Snus and Nicotine Pouch Users Alliance (SNPUA)²⁴

Previous Activities

Criticised plain packaging regulation

In 2013, ASI’s report on plain packaging, authored by Christopher Snowdon, argued that:⁸

• “There is no solid evidence of [plain packaging’s] efficacy or unintended consequences”
• “The public does not believe that plain packaging will stop people smoking”
• “It is hard to think of a policy that could delight counterfeiters more than standardising the design, shape and colour of cigarette packs”
• “Plain packaging is an infringement of intellectual property rights and a violation of international free trade agreements”
• “It limits information and restricts choice”

Debates organized by Forest

The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) and Adam Smith Institute (ASI) took part in a series of debates about civil liberties, risk and freedom, organised by Forest through its campaign The Free Society, in June 2011.²⁶ In October 2018, ASI hosted a series of panel discussions and debates at the Conservative Party Conference on e-cigarettes with a speaker from the UK Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA) and Martin Cullip.²⁷

Letter to the Daily Telegraph

In March 2011, Eamonn Butler, ASI Director, was one of a number of signatories of a Letter to the Editor to the Daily Telegraph attacking the Government’s position on tobacco control and arguing against further restrictions.

AmendTheSmokingBan.com

Save Our Pubs & Clubs: AmendTheSmokingBan.com was a “coalition of groups and individuals who believe that the public smoking ban introduced in Scotland in 2006 and the rest of the United Kingdom in 2007 is excessive and should be amended.”²⁸

The website listed the following partners, along with the Adam Smith Institute (ASI):

• Forest
• Working Men’s Club and Institute Union
• Progressive Vision
• Manifesto Club

Tobacco Products Directive

In late 2010, ASI’s Research Manager, Sam Bowman, submitted a pro-tobacco response to the European Commission’s consultation on the possible revision of the Tobacco Products Directive, arguing that the EU ban on snus should be lifted as it ignored “the issues of civil liberties”.

Bowman furthermore suggested that all EU-wide regulations on cigarette packaging should be removed, allowing member states to make their own regulations, and argued against an EU-wide reporting format for tobacco products. Bowman’s submission was also highly in favour of tobacco product innovations, arguing that “tobacco is nonetheless a popular substance that many EU citizens enjoy consuming. Innovations that enhance enjoyment of tobacco should not be stifled unless the innovations themselves are directly harmful”.²⁹

Articles and blogs

On 10 March 2011, Tom Clougherty, a senior fellow at ASI, wrote an article on the ASI website calling the government’s proposal to ban the display of tobacco in shops and to consider plain packaging “fundamentally illiberal”.³⁰ Repeating the same arguments put forward by the tobacco industry, he claimed: “Neither is justified based on the evidence… and both will create all sorts of unintended consequences (display bans will cost shopkeepers thousands of pounds, plain packaging will severely exacerbate existing problems with counterfeiting).”³⁰ He added:

“It seems to me that tobacco is at the coalface of a much bigger cultural battle, in which capitalism, individualism and rationality are all coming under relentless attack by the enemies of freedom.”³⁰

On 18 December 2010, ASI senior fellow Tim Worstall wrote a blog on the ASI website, citing Christopher Snowdon‘s blog Velvet Glove Iron Fist. He claimed that people who argue that smoking bans reduce heart attacks are “lying to us”, and that the “various controls and bans on smoking in Ireland have actually increased smoking”.³¹

Sam Bowman wrote on 27 October 2010: “A new report released today by Forest, the smokers’ lobby, shows the extent to which the government has been funding groups like Action on Smoking and Health and No Smoking Day and continues to do so.” He called for abolition of “anti-smoking quangos”.³²

Relevant Links

• Adam Smith Institute website

Tobacco Tactics Resources

• ASI: History of Close Ties with the Tobacco Industry
• Letter to the Editor
• Atlas Network
• Forest
• Institute of Economic Affairs
• Consumer Choice Center
• We Vape