Cyber Threats, Death Threats—and Still, She Held the Line

From being mocked by tobacco-funded groups to receiving a death threat online, Sheila Duffy faced a form of harassment aimed at making her walk away. But the tactics failed. The threats were documented. She stayed credible. The industry lost.

Targeted Online and in Public: How Sheila Duffy Withstood Intimidation While Scotland Led on Tobacco Control

Sheila Duffy, Chief Executive of Action on Smoking and Health Scotland (ASH Scotland), has led Scotland’s push for strong tobacco control for over three decades: display bans, smoke-free laws, and Article 5.3 protections. Under her leadership, Scotland committed to banning disposable vapes and won the WHO Award in 2018. From 1990 to 2021, around 7,074 lives* were saved due to tobacco control measures.

Sheila is also a collaborator for the Global Tobacco Industry Interference Index (GTI), producing the civil society report on Article 5.3 Implementation for the United Kingdom.

*Lives Saved Estimate: The estimate of lives saved is based on a comparison of Global Burden of Disease (GBD) data. The number was derived by comparing the number of deaths attributed to tobacco use as a risk factor in 1990 with those reported in 2021, as reported in the GBD dataset.

Targeted Online and in Public: How Sheila Duffy Withstood Intimidation While Scotland Led on Tobacco Control

The Tactic: Ridicule, Legal Warnings, and Online Violence

Reported tactics included alleged public ridicule by industry-linked groups, legal threats* over press quotes, and a violent online message* posted anonymously targeting her name and workplace.

*Based on documents in Sheila’s private archive (not independently verified by GGTC/author)

The Incident: Public Insults, Legal Threats, and a Death Threat

The Incident: Public Insults, Legal Threats, and a Death Threat

Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco (FOREST) and Scottish Licensed Trade Association (SLTA) reportedly were the main opponents to smoke-free laws, with the former describing health advocates as ‘health nazis’* during Scotland’s smoke-free campaign (2003–2006). Also, in 2013, Sheila alleges that Will O’Reilly (contracted by PMI) engaged in a legal threat* over a press quote describing his story as “dodgier than a pack of Jin Ling”. In 2023, a pro-vape account posted “500 points for a head shot”* with Sheila's name and office location.

*Based on documents in Sheila’s private archive (not independently verified by GGTC/author)

The Response: Addressing Legal Pressure, Documenting Threats, Sustaining Advocacy

Sheila, on behalf of ASH Scotland, removed the quote upon legal advice but explained the reason for the amendment in a footnote to the press release*. The death threat was reported to police and formally documented*. Throughout, Sheila continued to lead without retreating or giving in to intimidation.

*Based on documents in Sheila’s private archive (not independently verified by GGTC/author)

The Outcome: Advocacy Sustained, Credibility Intact, and Policy Progress Uninterrupted

None of the threats stopped her advocacy. Scotland maintained strong policies and leadership. Sheila’s credibility was not affected, and her organization remains respected globally.

Why It Matters

Why It Matters

This case highlights how intimidation isn’t always through lawsuits—fear, ridicule, and online threats are modern tactics. Sheila’s case proves that documented resistance can protect individuals and public health gains.

Disclaimer

This case study is based on publicly documented legal rulings, media reports, organizational statements, and other publicly available sources. It also relies on information provided by civil society actors who are not affiliated with the tobacco industry. All references to individuals and organizations are based on their publicly known affiliations and roles in documented proceedings. This may include accounts of alleged misconduct grounded in private documentation retained by individuals involved. All materials are presented as reported by the source and conveyed in the public interest. This is not intended as definitive legal conclusions but is shared for educational and advocacy purposes, in line with responsible reporting standards and applicable law.