Bliley PM
Re: Los Angeles Public Smoking Hearing December 8, 1983
Abstract
Reports on public smoking and health hearing held before the Los Angeles Public Health Commission to study the smoking ordinance enacted in the city and county of San Francisco and to recommend whether a similar ordinance should be enacted in Los Angeles County. Discusses hearing procedures and details concerning speakers. Notes the main issue concerned ambient tobacco smoke. Mentions letter sent to Gloria Allred, an attorney with the Women's Equal Rights Legal Defense and Education Fund "from the tobacco industry encouraging her to testify against an ordinance." Attaches copies of hearing procedures, witness list, sample invitation letter, transcript of the hearing prepared by Cerrell Associates for TI and statements submitted to the commission by Drs. Schrauzer, Colucci, Solmon and Bick. (Attachments missing)
Fields
- Type
- Memorandum
- Author
- Davidson, Michael S. (Jacob Medinger & Finnegan)Defense
- Recipient
- Witt, Samuel B., III (CTR and RJR Director & Gen. Counsel)Held various executive positions for RJR and Council for Tobacco Research
Defense
Dr. Bing worked for Counsel for Tobacco Research -- U.S.A. He was a member of CTR's committee which reviewed grant applications in 1974 (UCSF000134). Bing was on the CTR Scientific Advisory Board from 6/6/58 to present. (N.M.'s Who's Who) (UCSF B&W 1012.01)
Voluntary health organization concerned with fighting lung disease, promoting lung health and advocating clean air, indoors and out.
The U.S. Surgeon General's office has found since 1964 that tobacco use causes disease in humans.
The purpose of the Institute was to defeat legislation unfavorable to the industry, put a positive spin on the tobacco industry, bolster the industry's credibility with legislators and the public, and help maintain the controversy over "the primary issue" (the health issue).
Document Images
December 30, 19.813
Memorandum to: S. B. W~tt III, Esq.
Re: Los Angeles Public Smoking Heari!ng
December 8, 1918!3
Th~s memorandum summarizes the proceedingls! before the
Los Angeles. Publilc Health Commission on December 8:.
The hearing was opened at 9:301 a.m.. by the
Chairperson, Gera~idine Dun'n., who informed the audience (about
3i0-40 people)and the media that the hearing' was being'
conducted! pursuant to a motion made by Kenneth Hahn, a m~mber
of the Los Angeles County Board of SUpervisors, which requested
the Public Health Commission to
"study the city and county of
San Francisco's smoking, ordinance, and
recommend to the Board of Supervisors
whether similar action should[ b:e. taken, in
Los! Angeles County to~ safeg!uardl the rig.his
of non-smokers in public places, of work andl
assembly.."
The Commission cons~sts..~f five members, includin~g a
med!ical doctor and[ a psycholog~ist. I~n introducing the members.
Page 2
o~f the Co~mm~ission, the Chairperson idientified each. Commissioner
with. the Supervisor who had appointed him~ or her.
The hearing was v.ery tightly run. Each speaker was
lim~ited to a five-minute presentation. The Chair:person stated
that the Commission would consider written comments receiv.ed by
January 12. A copy of the hearing, procedures, the. list of
witnesses and': a sample., invitation letter is attached. Also.
attached i!s a transcript of the. hearing prepared for the TI by
Cerrell Associates. The. transcript is of poor qual.ity, but iit
conveys the. f~avor of the hearing.
The fir:st speaker w.a.s Dr. Martin Finn, an employee of
the Los Angeles Department of Health Serv{~ces, who announced
tha,t he, would not be testifying for or against an ordinance,
but would be merely stating "the scientific facts." His
recitation of "the facts." was, to say the least, o~n~e,sided and
included general comme~nts about smoking and health as well a~s:
specific comments on ambient tobacco smo~ke. He. stated that
although the Hirayama study do~es not demonstrate a relationship.
between ambien,t tobacco smoke and lung cancer, it is sufficient
"'to raise a concern..:" Dr. Finn also claimed "there is.
speculation tha,t smoking, increases accidents."' He stated, in
conclusion, that these were the scientific "facts" and the only
issue before the Commission was ~h~ether legisla~tio,n, should be
enacted.~
Page 3
The second spea~ker,, who was i'nvited by D!r. Fi.nn to.
ad.~ress the scientific issu~es, was Dr. Thomas Mack of the
Uni~versity of Southern California School of Medicine. Dr.
Mack's review of the. c.~aims made regarding smokin,g and health
was similar to Fin~n's. With, ~espect to ambient tobacco smoke,
he commented that it i.s difficult, epidemiologically, to.
measure its effect beca~use most people have. smoked tobacco at
some time. Dr. Mac~k. conceded that there is no "established
scientific truths" that ambient tobacco smoke causes, lung
cancer, but. it is his personal wiew that "it probably has an.
effect" and he thought there would, be. evid~ence to support his
view in a few years.
There followed several speakers desig!nated a~s.
"proponents" of am, ordinance, all of whom assumedi that ambient
tobacco smoke is harmfui~ to the health of non.-smokers. Charles
Mawson, th,e legi.sla~tive, director' for Californians For
Non-Smokers' Rights,. displayed for the cameras a computer
print-out which h,e described, a:s. containing~ a list of some 300
studies on passive smoking.
The speaker from The American Lung.. Association stated
tha,t ambient tobacco smoke affects the health of children,
pregnant women, and individual.s, with respiratory illness. It is
Page 4!
int~er,esting to note, that: he: did! not claim that amb,ient tobacco
smoke is otherwise: the cause of any, disease.
The speaker f:rom the Heart A:sso~ciatio:n, referred only
to the 191813 Surgeo~n. General's Report on smoking and heart
disease (which,. of! course,~ does. not contain a~ny claims about
ambient tobacco, smoke)and then proceeded to discu:ss the merits
of d~fferent types of public smoking ordinances.
Gloria~ Allred, an attor:n,ey with the Womens Equal
Rights. Leg.a~l Defense and. Education Fund, prefaced her remarks
with the~ statement that she was very angry at having received! a
letter from. the tobacco industry encouraging herl to. testify
again:st an ordinance. The letter sugg.estedl that an ordinance
would be discriminatory as! to women andl minorfties who are less
likely to have private offices. She claimed! to be angered at
what she characterized as am~ attempt to m~sus.e the civil rights!
movement by toba~cco ~nterests and! argued that discrimination
against smokers is permissible because it' is not "arbitrary".
Those speaking in opposition, to: a, San. Fran~cisco-type
ordinance included Tom Howardl of the. Tobacco Institut~ and
representatives of various business and trade o~g.anizations.
Tom Howard urged the Co:mm~ssion to. contact scientists who have
Page 5
information contradicting the claims being made regarding the
health consequences, of ambient tobacco smoke. Of the. four
scientific witnesses who were prepared to testify, only Dr.
Gerhard SChrauzer was able to speak. Because of prior
commit'ments,. Drs. Solmon, Colucci and Bick could not appear
before 11:30 a.m.. and, unfortunately, the Chairperson couldl not.
be co,nvinced to, schedule time in the afternoon for scientific
witnesses. At ll:0i0~ a.m~. the list of speakers who were, present
was exhausted a,nd the Cha,iirperson concluded the hearing.
Dr. Schrauzer. tes£ified regard!ing, studies pertaining
to the alleged! relationship between ambient tobacco smoke and
lung~ cancer. While there was no questioning~ of any of the
speakers by the members of the Commission, it appeared, that the
Chairperson was especially attentive to the statement of Dr.
Schrauzer. She made a point of asking, him, for his written,
comments as he was not able to complete his statement within
the t~me alloted.
Attached is a copy of Dr. Schra~uzer's statement
together with the sta.~ements o~f Drs. Colucci, So]~mon, and Bick
which have been submitted to the Commission. Statements are
Page 6
being, prepared by DES. Lebowitz and! Bing~; copies w:ill, be sent
to: you shortly. We will also, forward! copies of the statements
being prepared by Drs. Cosen~ino and! Nyden, when we receive them
from Pat Sirridge.
MSD/pab
Enclosur es
Michael S. Davidson
