Tobacco Documents Online

Under the national tobacco settlement, all billboards must be free of tobacco advertising by April 22, 1999.The tobacco industry is the third-largest user of billboards and accounts for $200 million, or about nine percent, of the billboard business for outdoor advertising firms. Since pulling their ads from the airwaves in 1971, tobacco companies have generally secured the biggest billboards in the best locations. Stephen Freitas, vice president of marketing at Eller Media in Phoenix, Arizona, said, "They have been on those boards for 25 years, non-stop. It becomes part of the urban landscape." While the tobacco industry has found new ways to market cigarettes, billboard companies have had to find replacement business. In Mississippi, the largest outdoor advertising company lost six percent of its annual revenue when tobacco ads were pulled, and in only a year has made up half of that business.

Source: Richard Wolf, "Tobacco's Last Stands," USA TODAY, December 28, 1998, p. A1.

An editorial in the LEXINGTON HERALD-LEADER (Kentucky) urges the state to use the funds from the multi-state settlement to free "Kentucky's rural economy from its dependence on tobacco. Perhaps as much as $138 million a year over the next couple of decades will come to the state. Some of that needs to go directly into anti-smoking efforts. But it makes sense to also invest heavily in a solid plan for farm-based economic development. . . . As demand for tobacco declines, farmers and rural leaders must develop imaginative ways to process, package and market Kentucky's other crops and livestock to make them as valuable as the golden leaf. . . . Farmers, almost by nature, are conservative. Many in Kentucky have been afraid to even contemplate a future without tobacco. It will be interesting to see if rural Kentucky can summon the boldness to imagine a decent future for itself."

Source: Editorial, "Use Kentucky's Tobacco Settlement Money To Find New Directions For Family Farming," LEXINGTON HERALD-LEADER (Kentucky), December 27, 1998.

With imports of tobacco leaf reaching a record high of 41.6 percent of the total tobacco used in the US this year, many tobacco farmers are worried about what the future will bring, and are blaming the tobacco companies for not protecting them. "The real threat is that the [tobacco] industry is maneuvering itself to move offshore," said C.D. Bryant, a tobacco farmer in Danville, VA, and director of Concerned Friends for Tobacco, a nonprofit group of tobacco growers. "Obviously we can only conclude that they don't care about us." Projected cutbacks in future US tobacco leaf purchases leave farmers in "a very serious situation" says Lionel Edwards, general manager of the Flue-Cured Tobacco Co-op Stabilization Corp. in Raleigh, NC. "Some operations were cut so much that they can't meet cash-flow needs."

But Big Tobacco denies that it is abandoning the farmers. "The notion that companies don't care about [domestic] growers is simply wrong," said Phil Carlton, lead attorney for tobacco firms on grower issues. "They just get down in the dumps when their livelihood is in peril."

Source: Steven Ginsberg, "Tobacco Farmers Feel The Heat," WASHINGTON POST, January 2, 1999, p. F1.

In a letter to the editor, Russ Haven, legislative counsel for the New York Public Interest Group, writes: "The tragic deaths of three heroic firefighters (news article, Dec. 23) may have been avoidable if tobacco companies manufactured and distributed 'fire-safe' cigarettes. Cigarettes are the No. 1 cause of residential fire deaths in New York State and are responsible for more than 1,000 deaths nationwide each year. Just as the tobacco industry has fought to cover up evidence of the lethal, addictive qualities of its product and its marketing to children, it has successfully squelched legislation in Congress and the New York Legislature to regulate the fire-ignition propensity of cigarettes. . . . A study group created by Congress found it commercially and technically feasible to design cigarettes that are less likely to cause fires.New York could prevent hundreds of deaths and injuries and save millions in property taxes each year by allowing only fire-safe cigarettes to be marketed."

Source: Russ Haven, "Preventing The Next Tragic Fire," NEW YORK TIMES, December 28, 1998, p. A26.

Considering Ohio leads the nation in smoking rates among males and is third in the nation for male and female smoking rates, Richard Harsham advocates a "hurry up offense" against teen smoking. Writing in the CINCINNATI POST, Harsham gives his support to legislation, sponsored by Republican Congressman Rob Portman, that would test teens for drug abuse when they apply for a driver's license: "Under the provisions of Congressman Portman's legislation, states that elect to test teens for drugs when they seek a driver's license would receive financial incentives. Now that the landmark settlement with the tobacco industry is a done deal -- those financial incentives could prove all the more sweet. . . . If we are really serious about convincing kids not to smoke, then the consequences for their starting to smoke have to appear harsh and worth avoiding. Knowing they might sacrifice their chance to drive by smoking is likely going to deter many kids, who would otherwise smoke, not to ever start. . . . Those who'd walk a mile for a Camel will be far outnumbered by those who will drive themselves for a milk shake."

Source: Richard Harsham, "Use Ohio's Tobacco Settlement To Help Teens Stop Smoking," CINNCINATI POST, December 24, 1998.

The Republican caucus of the US House of Representatives is scheduled to meet today to elect the next Speaker of the House, and they are expected to choose Illinois Rep. Dennis Hastert. Hastert's voting record shows that he is a decidedly pro-business legislator, having received perfect 100 percent scores from interest groups such as the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business in the 105th Congress. He is particularly anti-tax and anti-regulatory. Lonnie Taylor, the senior vice president of the US Chamber of Commerce, commented, "As far as business issues, he's as close to perfect as one can get. He's absolutely terrific for the business community." On some issues, Hastert was rated as more conservative than former Speaker Newt Gingrich. Hastert is known as a quiet leader, but in 1994 he publicly threatened then-Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration David Kessler with contempt of Congress at a hearing on the agency's probe of the tobacco industry.

Sources: David Hosansky, "Hastert Wins High Marks From The Business Community," CQ WEEKLY, January 2, 1999, p. 22; Ceci Connolly and Juliet Eilperin, "Hastert Steps Up To Leading Role," WASHINGTON POST, January 5, 1999, p. A1.

An editorial in the USA TODAY argues that 1998 was a year when both parties of Congress were influenced by large contributions from private interests: "As 1998 ends, one celebration is as inevitable as it is deplorable. The folks who want government to serve their private interests capped off a banner year with a seedy carnival of pre-holiday gift giving. Tobacco giant Philip Morris presented its largest donation of the year, $250,000, to the Republican National Committee, just late enough to keep the public from finding out before the November election. The company had reason to be generous: The GOP congressional leadership blocked tobacco legislation. Over the year, the company and its executives funneled more than $2.3 million to the political parties, more than 80% to Republicans. . . . In a democracy, elections are too important to be auctioned to the highest bidder. Let 1999 be the year the sale comes to an end."

Source: Editorial, "Sold: '98 Congress," USA TODAY, December 31, 1998, p. A14.

According to the editor of ADVERTISING AGE, the magazine received many letters criticizing the magazine's inclusion of Philip Morris' Marlboro Man in its promotion of an award for the "greatest advertising icon of this century." The editor attributed the large volume of mail to an electronic "Action Alert" sent out by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids on December 16th.The magazine published three of the responses to in its January 4th edition.

Dr. Thomas Robinson, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics and Medicine at Stanford University School of Medicine wrote: "The Marlboro Man has contributed to many more deaths than Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein and all other mass murderers this century, combined. . . . If AD AGE thinks the Marlboro Man is a great advertising icon, then I think it is time for the advertising industry to take a long look in the mirror to see if it can live with what it sees."

Patricia Sherwood, Advocacy Coordinator for the Coalition for a Smoke-Free Valley in Pennsylvania, noted that "Adolph Hitler made history, too, but we don't consider his image for notable awards." Eileen Fisher, from the Iowa Consortium for Substance Abuse Research and Evaluation, suggested that "ADVERTISING AGE create a 'Worst Ad Icon' or 'Socially Irresponsible Icon,' or some other equally distasteful award for the Marlboro Man advertising campaign."

Sources: Letters To The Editor, "The Marlboro Man: An Icon Or A Villain?" ADVERTISING AGE, January 4, 1999, p. 14.

Indiana Governor Frank O'Bannon said last week that tobacco control legislation is not among his priorities this year, although he would sign a youth access bill if it reached his desk. "There will be a lot of bills, and I've only got so much time," stated O'Bannon. Last June, THE TIMES OF NORTHWEST INDIANA found that O'Bannon had accepted more tobacco industry money than any other Indiana politician. Since then, the governor has pledged to stop accepting tobacco money and said he would return any contributions from tobacco interests he received since January 1, 1998.

Source: Associated Press, "O'Bannon Says He Won't Push For Anti-Tobacco Bill," INDIANAPOLIS STAR, December 28, 1998.

Discussing the recent guilty plea by an RJ Reynolds affiliate charged with aiding a Canadian cigarette smuggling ring, the editors of USA TODAY argue: "What the tobacco industry knows but refuses to admit is that a steep tax hike remains one of the most promising ways to deter smoking, particularly among teens -- a fact revealed in its own internal documents. And that's why the industry has gone to such lengths to kill any tax hike, even to the point of becoming the smugglers' best friend." Robert Levy, of the Cato Institute, offers an opposing view: "Oozing self-righteousness, anti-smoking activists were quick to pounce on a guilty plea by an RJ Reynolds affiliate charged with smuggling cigarettes into Canada. One might have expected -- to no avail -- a parallel admission of guilt by the activists who were responsible for the huge increase in Canada's tobacco tax. . . . Ask yourself why 44 million adult consumers of a perfectly legal product should have to fork up because retailers and 1 million children break laws on the books in all 50 states banning sales to minors. The way to keep cigarettes from kids is to enforce those laws. If instead we depend on price hikes to dissuade teen-agers, we can count on illegal dealings dominated by criminal gangs hooking underage smokers on adulterated products, without the constraints on quality that a competitive market normally affords."

Sources: Editorial, "Industry Aids Black Market," USA TODAY, January 5, 1999, p. A16; Robert Levy, "High Taxes Fuel Black Market," USA TODAY, January 5, 1999, p. A16.

The Minnesota Smoke-Free 2000 Coalition last week launched a $30,000 advertising campaign to mobilize public support for allocating $655 million of the state's $6.1 billion tobacco settlement on a tobacco prevention program. The ads are running on radio and in newspapers. The Coalition's plan would put half of the state's tobacco settlement payments over the next five years into a trust fund to pay for antismoking advertising and education.Some legislators have suggested using all of the settlement money for tax relief. Bloomington, MN Mayor Coral Houle said, "It is possible that not one dime will go to prevention efforts. That would be a tragedy for everyone in this state."

Source: Conrad deFiebre, "Antismoking Forces Advertise For $655M Prevention Plan," MINNEAPOLIS STAR-TRIBUNE (on-line), December 30, 1998.

Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, Lorillard and Brown & Williamson have agreed to establish a $5.15 billion trust fund for tobacco farmers to help compensate them for losses incurred as a result of the multi-state tobacco settlement.The fund will be financed by contributions over 12 years from the cigarette makers. The money "will go directly to farmers who are losing income . . . to prevent the farmers from having to bear the burden and brunt of this settlement," said North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt. The announcement came yesterday after two days of tense negotiations between the industry and governors of tobacco-producing states. Each state's share of the trust fund will be based on its percentage of the national settlement. The states involved in the negotiations were: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Maryland, West Virginia, Indiana, Florida, Alabama and Ohio.

Sources: Associated Press, "Tobacco Fund For Farmers," NEW YORK TIMES, January 22, 1999, p. A20; Martha Hamilton, "Tobacco Firms To Aid Farmers," WASHINGTON POST, January 22, 1999, p. E3; "Cigarette Companies To Start Fund For Farmers," USA TODAY, January 22,1999, p. A3.

At a news conference yesterday, Senators Robert Graham (D-FL) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) demanded that the federal government not attempt to seize any portion of the states' tobacco settlement money. "The settlements belong to the states," said Hutchison. The Senators were joined at the news conference by various state officials, including Attorney General Christine Gregoire of Washington state, who said the states would countersue the federal government "the first time a penny is deducted" from the states. In response to the news conference, Bruce Reed, the President's chief domestic policy adviser, said that the Administration would be amenable to setting guidelines for the states to keep the money if they use it for tobacco control programs and other public health issues.

Sources: Katharine Seelye, "Some Senators Vow Fight If US Seeks Share Of Tobacco Money," NEW YORK TIMES, January 22, 1999, p. A20; "States Gain Allies In Battle Over Tobacco-Suit Funds," WALL STREET JOURNAL, January 22, 1999, p. B5.

The Justice Department is considering hiring outside lawyers to lead a task force that will file the department's lawsuit against the tobacco industry to recover the costs of treating sick smokers. According to Mississippi Attorney General Michael Moore, a group of plaintiffs lawyers, led by Richard Scruggs, has offered their services to the Justice Department for free. Scruggs has represented several states, including Mississippi, in their lawsuits against the industry. US Attorney General Janet Reno, when asked whether the department would consider using Scruggs and other plaintiffs' lawyers, said yesterday, "We would not foreclose that possibility."

Source: Milo Geyelin, "Justice Department Considers Hiring Outside Trial Lawyer For Tobacco Suit," WALL STREET JOURNAL, January 22, 1999, p. B5.

Massachusetts Governor Paul Cellucci (R) has proposed using all of Massachusetts' $7.6 billion from the tobacco settlement to improve healthcare for children, the elderly and the needy. Governor Cellucci's plan would deposit the money in a trust fund that would "become a perpetual source of revenue for health care programs and will guarantee the money is spent only on protecting and improving the public health."

Source: "Mass. Vows To Use Tobacco Windfall For Healthcare," REUTERS (on-line), January 21, 1999.

In his State of the State address yesterday, Maryland Governor Parris Glendening (D) called for a "significant" increase in the tobacco excise tax. The Governor's budget proposal is balanced assuming a $1 per pack cigarette tax increase and a 25 percent tax on cigars and smokeless tobacco. The budget has tied popular college construction projects to the tobacco tax. The Senate Finance Committee Chairman Thomas L. Bromwell was skeptical about the Governor "get[ting] everything he's asking for." Mr. Bromwell also noted that the tobacco tax traditionally "has been a hard sell in the Senate."

Source: Daniel LeDuc and Robert Pierre, "Glendening Makes Education 'The Priority'," WASHINGTON POST, January 22, 1999, p. B1.

Editorials in the CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR and the ALBANY TIMES UNION both support President Clinton's plan for taking on the tobacco industry with a lawsuit to recover federal money spent on treating smoking-related illnesses. The MONITOR wrote: "[T]he companies, though settling with the states for $206 billion over 25 years, got off a lot easier last year than they would have if the congressional tobacco-settlement bill had passed. They can pay more, and should. And the Justice Department should strive to work into any settlement some key non-monetary elements, notably federal regulation of nicotine as a dangerous drug. . . . Most important, this move by the administration, together with its pledge to seek a large increase in the federal tax on cigarettes, continues a needed battle.But the legal and tax thrust must be joined to extensive educational efforts to cut youth smoking. Then the slavery to tobacco addiction will decline even more over the long run." The TIMES UNION also supports Clinton's objectives, but warns that he must come up with a proposal that is acceptable to all parties, including the tobacco industry: "The President's objectives are laudatory. By raising the price of cigarettes, he would help discourage teenagers from picking up the habit by pricing it beyond their means. . . . There are likely to be objections that rather than earmarking the money for the anti-smoking effort, much of it would pay for various social initiatives that Mr. Clinton is expected to include in his new budget. That is sure to revive the tobacco industry's campaign portraying the cigarette tax as an added burden on working families - a tactic that worked quite well for the industry last year. . . . If the price tag [of Clinton's lawsuit] is too high, though, the tobacco industry is likely to balk again. Mr. Clinton would do well to remember that lesson, and craft a proposal acceptable to all parties involved."

Sources: Editorial, "Tobacco Battles, Rejoined," CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, January 22, 1999, p. 10; Editorial, "Round 2 On Tobacco," ALBANY TIMES UNION, January 21, 1999, p. A10.

The tobacco industry responded yesterday to President Clinton's plan to file a lawsuit against cigarette makers, by dismissing the announcement as a "political gesture," and the continuation of a "witch hunt." Industry spokespersons vowed to fight the plan vigorously, possibly with an advertising campaign similar to the one that helped defeat the McCain bill last summer. Although Clinton's announcement took many people by surprise, even some Justice Department officials, the department had considered the possibility of legal action against the tobacco industry for several years. But it wasn't until the McCain bill collapsed in the Senate last year that the issue was revived. "Since they've seen that the tobacco industry holds such sway over the Republican Congress, they don't feel there is the likelihood of any legislation being passed. So, they turned to the courts," said Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL). Lawyers involved in the Justice Department's effort believe that the goal of the suit will be to win concessions not gained in the recent state settlements, such as FDA authority to regulate cigarettes and nicotine. The actual filing of the lawsuit may not come for several months, and several lawyers expect the industry to argue that the federal government has known the health risks of smoking since the '60s, when it published the first Surgeon General's Report on smoking. One Administration official said that the White House and the Justice Department were considering introducing tobacco-liability legislation that would make it easier to argue their case in court, and several legal experts said that the federal government's legal grounds for recovery are stronger than anything the states used in their suits against the industry.

Sources: Barry Meier, "Many Are Caught Off Guard By Clinton's Tobacco Plan," NEW YORK TIMES, January 21, 1999, p. A18; David Cloud and Milo Geyelin, "Legal Advice, Politics Spur Tobacco Suit," WALL STREET JOURNAL, January 21, 1999, p. B8; Saundra Torry, "Tobacco Firms: 'Witch Hunt' Drags On," WASHINGTON POST, January 21, 1999, p. A8; Wendy Koch, "Tough Fight Ahead For Federal Lawsuit Against Tobacco," January 21, 1999, p. A8.

Kentucky's Tobacco Task Force has scheduled public meetings throughout the state, beginning January 28, to solicit suggestions on spending the state's share of the tobacco settlement.

Source: "Kentucky," USA TODAY, January 21, 1999, p. A13.

Florida Governor Jeb Bush (R) recommended putting a portion of the state's tobacco settlement into an endowment fund named for the late Governor Lawton Chiles. Gov. Bush recommended placing $1.1 billion of the state's $13 billion settlement in the Lawton Chiles Endowment for Children and Elders.

Source: "Florida," USA TODAY, January 21, 1999, p. A13.

In an op-ed for the WALL STREET JOURNAL, Michael Fumento, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, criticizes the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAMA) for interjecting the journal into political debates and bringing "new meaning to the term 'political science.'" Fumento notes that one "recent politically tainted JAMA report include[s] a retrospective study connecting smoking with hearing loss. This may seem plausible, until we note that the study bizarrely showed a stronger connection with exposure to secondhand smoke."

Source: Michael Fumento, "Medical Journals Give New Meaning To 'Political Science'," WALL STREET JOURNAL, January 21, 1999, p. A18.

The Hanes Mall in Winston-Salem, North Carolina is banning smoking in all common areas beginning Monday. Stores and restaurants in the mall will still set their own smoking policies.

Source: "No Smoking In NC Mall," WASHINGTON POST, January 21, 1999, p. A9.

The Justice Department is preparing to sue the tobacco companies to recover the costs of treating smoking-related diseases, President Clinton announced last night during the State of the Union address."Smoking has cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars under Medicare and other programs. You know, the states have been right about this. Taxpayers shouldn't pay for the cost of lung cancer, emphysema, and other smoking-related illnesses, the tobacco companies should," stated Clinton. After months of reviewing the legal issues, the Justice Department concluded it had sufficient grounds to sue the industry and recover $20 billion in costs borne by federal programs such as Medicare. "We have looked at this issue at different times in the past and have been reviewing them more actively since the failure of the comprehensive tobacco legislation. We came to the decision that there are viable grounds for recovery," stated Justice Department spokesperson Myron Marlin.

The announcement came as a surprise to Congress and the tobacco industry. Scott Williams, a tobacco industry spokesperson, criticized the plan as "a blatantly political act" and added, "The White House continues to choose confrontation over solutions." But tobacco control advocates were excited by the announcement and saw the lawsuit as a means to force concessions from the tobacco companies not achieved in the multi-state settlement.

Sources: David Cloud, "US Is Preparing To Sue Tobacco Firms To Recover Costs Of Smoking Illnesses," WALL STREET JOURNAL, January 20, 1999, p. A2; Barry Meier, "Clinton's Lawsuit Threat Shocks Tobacco Industry," NEW YORK TIMES, January 20, 1999, p. A20; Wendy Koch, "Tobacco Lawsuit Has Stiff Opposition," USA TODAY, January 20, 1999, p. A3.

Maryland's Montgomery County Council is considering legislation that would ban smoking inside all county restaurants, closing a loophole that allows restaurants to establish separate smoking rooms.County Council President Isiah Leggett (D), the bill's lead sponsor, said, "We want to be a business-friendly community, but we have a bigger objective. We want to be a community that cares about the health of our citizens." Leggett predicted the bill will pass by a slim margin, but it still faces an uncertain reception from County Executive Douglas Duncan. Business groups, including a coalition of local chambers of commerce are opposing the bill, saying it "hurts an industry that brings a lot of money into the county." [<b>Editor's Note</b>: Montgomery County does not allow free-standing bars. This legislation would affect restaurants and restaurants with bars.]

Source: Scott Wilson, "Montgomery May Ban Smoking In Restaurants," WASHINGTON POST, January 20, 1999, p. B1.

An op-ed in ADVERTISING AGE by Fred Goldberg, chairman-CEO of Goldberg Moser O'Neill in San Francisco, questions Philip Morris' use of Y&R Advertising to produce its youth prevention campaign when Y&R is the same advertising agency that it uses for its tobacco ads: "After creating ads to secure 'replacement smokers' from the ranks of the country's youth, it's got to be difficult to turn around and create a campaign that attempts to do just the opposite.What's a creative director to do? He walks from one meeting, where he has just asked the creative team to make sure the people in the ads look sexy and beautiful (oh -- and make sure the pack is nice and large), into the next, where he muses that teens need to take away that it's not cool to smoke, so they shouldn't. . . . Now, if Philip Morris was really serious about this effort to discourage teen smoking, it would have given the business to an agency (and there are lots of them out there) that, on principle, has never and would never advertise a cigarette. . . . [I]t shouldn't make any of us in the profession' wonder why advertising people are ranked just slightly above car salesmen in credibility."

Source: Fred Goldberg, "Is PM Blowing Smoke In Anti-Tobacco Ads?" ADVERTISING AGE, January 18, 1999, p. 24.