Bliley PM
[Philip Morris USA Position Statements]
Abstract
Includes "executive summary" and "Philip Morris U.S.A. position" statements on: "Smoking and health; Consumer excise taxes; Federal excise tax and health care; Earmarking excise taxes; Using the tax code for social engineering; Charges of nicotine 'spiking'; Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS); Proposed OSHA workplace smoking ban; Smoking restrictions - workplace; Smoking restrictions - Restaurants and public places; San Francisco lawsuit; California ballot initiative (Proposition 188); Advertising restrictions; Deductibility of advertising expenses; Samples, coupons and promotional materials; Point of purchase displays and self-service sales; Sporting and cultural event sponsorships; Marketing to youth; Youth smoking initiatives; Marketing to women, minorities, special groups; Solid waste and packaging; Tobacco under-regulation; Fire-safe cigarettes; Exports; Job discrimination and privacy; Tobacco price support program; Divestment; Product placement; Tobacco prohibition; Social costs; Addiction; Class action lawsuits; Child custody cases; [and] Ingredients. Contains extensive editing and comments in marginalia - some topics have multiple copies with editing by different individuals (similar to Bates 2041235140).
Fields
- Company
- Philip Morris Cos., Inc.
- Type
- Draft material
- Position paper
- Named Person
- Califano, J.
- Elders, J.
- Hooks, B.
- Kessler, David A., M.D., J.D. (Former FDA Commissioner)appointed FDA Commissioner by President George Bush in December 1990.
- King, B.J.
- Koop, C.E.
- Long, H.
- McMillen, A.
- Sullivan, L.W.
- Ward, S.
- Waxman, H.
- Named Organization
- ABC
- American Medical Association Education and Research Foundation
- Charlton Research Company
- CNN
- Congress
- Consumer Reports
- Day One
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Labor
- Environmental Protection Agency
- EPA
- FDA
- Federal Trade Commission
- FEMA
- Fire Administration
- Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association
- Food and Drug Administration
- Federal Trade Commission (Enforcement agency for laws against deceptive advertising)Enforces laws against false and deceptive advertising, including ads for tobacco products. Ensures proper display of health warnings in ads and on tobacco products;collects and reports to Congress information concerning cigarette and smokeless tobacco advertising, sales expenditures, and the tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide content of cigarettes.
- Gallup Organization
- GAO
- General Accounting Office
- HHS
- NAACP
- NACS
- National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
- National Association of Convenience Stores
- National Cancer Institute
- National Institute of Drug Addiction
- National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (An addiction research center in Baltimore, MD)An addiction research center located in Baltimore, MD
- National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NIOSH (NIOSH)National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is NIOSH.
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Held hearings in 1994 to ban smoking in workplaces)OSHA opened hearings in September 1994 on a proposal that amounts to a virtual ban on smoking in every workplace in the nation
- Peat Marwick
- Price Waterhouse
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
- Roper Organization
- Surgeon General
- Time Magazine
- Tobacco Working Group
- United States Customs Service
- USA Today
- Wharton School of Economics
- Operation/Project
- Accommodation
- It's the Law
- Region
- Italy
- Taiwan
- United States
- Thailand
- Bulgaria
- Canada
- China
- Keyword
- V-Wear Catalogs
- Volstead Act
- BKG Youth Survey
- Child custody
- Cigarette Advertising and Promotion Code
- Class action
- Dependency
- Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1986
- Federal Radon Act
- First Amendment
- Health care
- IAQ
- Indoor Air Quality
- Indy car racers
- Lifestyle factors
- Marlboro Adventure Team
- Marlboro Country Store
- Nicotine yields
- Point of Purchase
- Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People
- Prohibition
- Proposition 188
- Restaurants
- Risk Assessment
- Self-service displays
- Senior High School Survey
- Sick Building Syndrome
- Smoking bans
- Surgeon General's Report
- USA Today/CNN Poll
- Subject
- Additives
- Advertising regulations
- cigarette design
- economics
- Ethnic groups
- #18526 (event sponsorship)
- Federal level
- Fire safe cigarettes
- Government agencies
- industry response
- Industry sponsored prevention programs
- international trade
- Lawsuits
- legislation
- Legislatures
- marketing
- Minimum age
- nicotine
- Nonsmokers
- public relations
- Referendums
- Regulations
- Sampling
- secondhand smoke
- Smuggling
- State level
- Taxes
- Women
- youth access
- addiction
- Brand
- De Nic
- Premier (RJR)
- Virginia Slims (PM)
Document Images
SMOKING AND HEALTH
Executive Summary:
Philip Morris acknowledges that smoking is a risk factor for
certain human diseases, and we believe consumers are aware of these
potential risks. Consumers are entitled to choose to smoke, just as they
are entitled to make other lifestyle choices that may present potential
health risks. Some 50 million American adults make the informed
decision to smoke.
Philip Morris U.S.A. position:
I. Each year, the Surgeon General issues a report on some aspect of cigarette
smoking. Since 1964 many such reports have dealt with the health effects of
smoking. Each report lists the scientific articles it relies upon. We do not agree
with all the conclusions in the reports, but we do recognize cigarette smoking as a
risk factor for certain disease.
2. There is considerable evidence that smokers seem to make their smoking
decision with knowledge about the health risks of smoking. Consumers
understand the potential health risks associated with tobacco use. Warning labels
have appeared on every cigarette pack since 1966 and in every advertisement since
1971.
3. Consumers are entitled to choose to smoke just as they are entitled to
make other lifestyle choices that may present potential health risks. Some 50
million American adults make the informed decision to smoke, and they do so
because they enjoy smoking.
page 2
CONSUMER EXCISE TAXES
Executive summary:
Smokers currently pay more than $13 billion annually in taxes on
cigarettes. Despite this, efforts are made each year to impose even
higher .excise taxes on cigarettes.
Philip Morris strongly opposes cigarette excise taxes for several
reasons. Excise taxes unfairly single out one group of consumers to pay
for government services that are everyone's responsibility. Excise taxes
are highly regressive: they take a much larger percentage of income
from working people than from the rich. Excise taxes also cost jobs, as
higher prices drive down sales and production.
Philip Morris U.S.A. position:
I. Excise taxes cost jobs! As excise taxes drive up the price of the product
being taxed, sales of that product decrease. This in turn results in job loss. For
example, based on an analysis of a Price Waterhouse study, a 75-cent-per-pack
increase in the federal excise tax on cigarettes could result in the loss of 275,000
jobs nationwide in core and related industries.
2. Excise taxes are unfair. Excise taxes single out one group of consumers
to pay the costs of government that are everyone's responsibility. Smokers pay
more than $13 billion in federal, state and local cigarette taxes each year, taxes
that non-smokers do not pay.
3. Excise taxes hurt lower-income people hardest. A 1993 study by the
accounting firm of Peat Marwick found that 54 percent of all American families
earn less than :$30,000 annually. While these families account for only 19 percent
of all family income earned in the U.S., they pay a staggering 54 percent of all
excise taxes.
4. High cigarette excise taxes encourage violent crime. Canada is a
perfect example. Until February 1994, the Canadian government imposed
cigarette taxes that were so steep that the price of a pack of premium cigarettes
was roughly $4.70 [Canadian]. The result was a surge in violent crime related to
cigarette smuggling, theft and black market sales. The problem became so
extreme, that Canada's federal and provincial governments lost a combined C$2
billion last year due. to smuggling. Finally, the government was forced to respond
to the growing crime problem and lowered the excise tax by C$5.00 per carton.
5. Cigarette taxes are an unreliable source of revenue. Excise tax
revenue fluctuates from year to year because it is tied directly to sales of the taxed
page 3
product. Since higher taxes tend to reduce sales, the revenue from cigarette
excise taxes is never as high as proponents project it will be. Often, this leads to
additional increases in other forms of taxation to cover the shortfall.
THE FEDERAL EXCISE TAX AND HEALTH CARE
Executive Summary:
Although Philip Morris strongly supports the goal of health care
reform, relying on cigarette taxes to fund such a program would be
unfair and unwise.
Philip Morris U.S.A. position:
I. Health care reform is a worthy goal. We believe it would be wrong,
however, to single out one group of consumers -- smokers -- to pay the costs of a
new government program that will presumably benefit all Americans.
2. Spending more money on health care will not solve our health care
problems. According to Consumer Reports, the United States spent $817 billion on
health care last year. Of that amount, at least $200 billion was wasted on
unnecessary tests and bureaucracy. Congress needs to bring existing expenditures
under control before considering tax increases.
page 4
EARIVIARKING EXCISE TAXES
Executive Summary:
In some instances, elected officials and special interest groups try
to increase cigarette excise taxes to pay for specially "earmarked", or
"pet" projects. For examples, smokers in Cleveland helped fund
construction of a new baseball stadium for the Cleveland Indians.
Smokers in Massachusetts and California are now funding multi-milllon
dollar anti-smoking campaigns.
Earmarked taxes of any kind are unfair because they force one
group of consumers to pay for government programs that serve all
citizens. In addition, earmarking makes government less flexible and
less able to respond to changing budgetary needs.
Philip Morris U.S.A. Position:
I. Excise taxes are an unreliable source of revenue. Government services
such as health care and public education should not depend on the number of
cigarettes sold in a given year.
2. Earmarking prevents comprehensive budgeting. It reduces fiscal flexibility,
making it more difficult for the government to adapt a budget to changing
economic conditions.
3. Earmarking, by removing expenditures from review, makes the budgetary
process arbitrary. Inefficient or obsolete programs may be continued simply
because they are financed by earmarked revenues. Responsible fiscal policy
requires that programs should be evaluated periodically and funded on the basis of
their necessity, efficiency and success.
4. It is unfair to force smokers to pay for government services that benefit the
entire community. Services such as education, highway maintenance and health
care are everyone's responsibility. These programs should be funded with fair,
progressive, broadly-based taxes.
page 5
USING THE TAX CODE FOR SOCIAL ENGINEERING
Executive Summary:
Anti-smokers, including some elected officials and regulatory
officials, support increases in cigarette excise taxes as a way to prevent
minors from smoking, force people to stop smoking, or inflict economic
punishment on people who continue to smoke. This is a blatant misuse
of our nation's tax system. The tax code is designed to raise revenue,
not to engineer social change. The government should not use tax hikes
to modify the private, lawful behavior of adults.
Philip Morris U.S.A. Position:
I. Taxes should be used to raise revenue, not to impose moral standards.
Taxing people to force them to change their legal behavior amounts to social
engineering -- an inappropriate and inefficient use of the tax code. Many everyday
pleasures, such as high-fat foods and recreational driving, present potential health
risks to the people who choose to enjoy them. Obesity allegedly "costs" $49
billion a year (American Medical Association, "Factors Contributing to the Health
Care Cost Problem," March 1993), and softball injuries produce an annual "cost" of
:$2 billion in medical expenses and lost work days (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report, March 25, 1988). It would obviously be wrong for the government to levy
special taxes on high fat foods or bats and balls.
page 6
CHARGES OF NICOTINE "SPIKING"
Executive Summary:
In February 1994, Food and Drug Commissioner David Kessler
sent a letter to a national anti-smoking organization, alleging that
tobacco companies intentionally manipulate the level of nicotine in
cigarettes. Those charges were repeated and expanded upon in
subsequent weeks by ABC-TV's "Day One" program.
These charges are totally false. Philip Morris does not "spike"
cigarettes with extra nicotine. The cigarette manufacturing process
actually lowers the amount of nicotine in raw tobacco. Nicotine levels
appear in every advertisement for cigarettes. Average cigarette
nicotine levels have been falling steadily for decades.
Philip Morris U.S.A. position:
I. Philip Morris does not "spil<e" its cigarettes with nicotine. The substance
occurs naturally in tobacco. There is nothing in the processing of tobacco or the
manufacture of cigarettes by Philip Morris that increases the nicotine in our
products above what is naturally found in tobacco. In fact, nicotine levels in raw,
unprocessed tobacco are higher than those found in the finished cigarette.
2. In response to consumer preferences, the overall nicotine content in our
cigarettes has declined by more than 50 percent over the last 40 years.
3. We manufacture products covering a range of tar and nicotine levels. These
levels are published in all of our advertisements so consumers are aware of the
nicotine content of their cigarette.
4. Philip Morris has spent hundreds of millions of dollars attempting to develop
a reduced-nicotine cigarette that appeals to consumers. So far, we have been
unsuccessful.
5. In March 1994, Philip Morris initiated a $10 billion libel suit against ABC. In
the complaint Philip Morris charges that ABC knowingly made a number of false
allegations against Philip Morris and that both Philip Morris Companies Inc. and
Philip Morris U.S.A. have been severely damaged by the false and defamatory
statements made by ABC.
6. Philip Morris has, and will continue, to cooperate fully with Commissioner
Kessler's investigation. FDA researchers were given complete access to our
Richmond manufacturing facilities, and were impressed both by the openness of
our manufacturing operations and by the candor of our research personnel.
ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE (ETS)
Executive Summary:
In January 1993 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
issued a report claiming that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is a
cause of lung cancer in non-smokers. The EPA report was based upon a
review and statistical analysis of selected research studies. The EPA
report .continues to receive considerable media attention, and has been
the basis for lawsuits against the tobacco industry, legislative and
regulatory efforts to restrict smoking, and private employers' decisions
to ban smoking.
Philip Morris believes the EPA report is riddled with
inconsistencies and inaccuracies. We believe that even before the EPA
set out to do this research, the researchers involved had already
decided that the report would conclude that secondhand smoke is a
carcinogen. Philip Morris has joined other tobacco industry groups in a
federal lawsuit to have the entire report declared null and void.
Philip Morris U.S.A. position:
I. The researchers who conducted this investigation did no original research
but instead selectively sorted through existing research and included only those
studies that supported their pre-determined conclusion that secondhand smoke is
dangerous to non-smokers.
2. For example, the EPA chose to omit from its report the largest study ever
conducted on this issue, funded in part by the National Cancer Institute, which
reported no increased incidence of lung cancer among spouses of smokers.
3. Of the 30 studies that were included in the EPA report, 24 also showed no
statistically significant risk for lung cancer among non-smokers. But the EPA took
these studies, and simply manipulated the data to support its pre-conceived
notions. The six that did show a statistical association did not take into
consideration compounding factors including cultural and environmental influences.
4. The EPA's actions violate the Federal Radon Act, as the agency does not
have the regulatory authority to issue a classification on indoor air.
5. In June 1993 we joined with other tobacco industry groups, including our
competitor R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, in filing a lawsuit in federal court to
have the entire report declared null and void. In July 1994 the federal district
court rejected the EPA's motion to dismiss the industry action. This ruling by the
page 8
court permits the case to proceed toward trial for a full review of the merits of
our claims.
6. More recently, we launched a nationwide advertising campaign to point out
the serious errors in the report, and also to point out to the American public that
the nation's media was less than diligent in confirming the EPA% conclusions. The
focus of this advertising campaign was an article, "Passive Reporting on Passive
Smoke," by Jacob Sullum, which presented a comprehensive overview of the EPA's
risk assessment.
7. Some people are bothered or annoyed by cigarette smoke in the air, and
Philip Morris supports their right to choose not to be exposed to it. That's why
we support the principle of accommodation of both non-smokers and smokers,
and why we created The Accommodation Program, which now has more than
14,000 member businesses across the country.
page 9
PROPOSED OSHA WORKPLACE SMOKING BAN
Executive Summary:
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), a
division of the U.S. Department of Labor, has proposed a regulation
that would effectively ban smoking in all public buildings and indoor
work places, including restaurants and bars. The proposal is so broad, it
includes home offices and homes if there is a hired individual such as a
plumber or electrician present. Philip Morris believes the OSHA
proposal is unnecessary and overly broad, and that business owners,
employees and customers should be permitted to develop workplace
smoking policies that suit their own particular preferences, without
government interference.
OSHA conducted a public comment period, during which more
than 100,000 letters were received from consumers and business
owners in opposition to the proposed smoking regulations. OSHA will
conduct public hearings on this issue, beginning in September 1994.
Following the hearings, a revised regulation will be issued. Whatever
national smoking policy OSHA decides to implement will, in all
likelihood, not take effect until late 1995 or early 1996.
Philip Morris U.S.A. position:
I. The OSHA proposal is unnecessary and overly broad. There are no
exceptions to the proposed rules.
2. There is little public support for draconian smoking restrictions. In a USA
Today/CNN/Gallup poll in March, 1994, two thirds or respondents opposed
workplace bans. A Time/CNN poll in April, 1994, showed that 64 percent of
respondents believe that smokers and non-smokers should be accommodated in
the workplace.
3. OSHA's proposed regulations are not supported by science. In the scientific
literature as a whole there is no conclusive evidence that exposure to
environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace and other public places causes
disease in non-smokers.
4. Severe smoking restrictions will not solve indoor air quality problems. Only
2 to 5 percent of "sick" buildings investigated in the U.S. and Canada were found to
have indoor air quality problems attributable to tobacco smoke, according to The
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). NIOSH also
reports that more than 50 percent of indoor air problems result from poor
ventilation. Many times tobacco smoke in the air is just a symptom of poor indoor
air quality and adequate ventilation is the solution.
page i0
SMOKING RESTRICTIONS -- WORKPLACE
Executive Summary:
Many employers are choosing to voluntarily ban smoking from the
workplace. Philip Morris believes that while employers should have the
right to forbid smoking, designated smoking and non-smoking sections
are preferable to outright bans. In no case, however, should the
government impose workplace smoking bans or interfere in employers'
workplace smoking policy decisions.
Philip Morris U.S.A. position:
I. Philip Morris favors accommodation of both smokers and non-smokers in
the workplace through designated smoking areas. We believe a smoking policy
that provides for well-maintained and easily accessible smoking areas is the fairest
and most efficient way to settle smoking conflicts.
2. An overwhelming majority of Americans agree with us. A March, 1994, USA
Today/CNN/Gallup poll found that 68 percent of respondents favor workplace
smoking policies that provide smoking accommodation.
3. Philip Morris acknowledges that smoking may be bothersome or annoying
to some people, and that is why designated smoking and non-smoking sections
work best-
4. Smoking bans may infringe upon collective bargaining agreements. In
general, the courts have rejected unilateral smoking bans where collective
bargaining agreements are in effect. (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v.
Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 459 A.2d 452 (pa. Commw. Ct- 1983), Johns-
Manvile Sales Corp. v. International Ass'n of Machinists, Local Lodge 1609 (62 I
F.2d 756 (5th Circ. 1980), Etc.). A federal agency's office smoking ban was struck
down because the agency "refused to bargain" over smoking bans (Department of
Health and Human Services Family Support Admin. v. Federal Labor Relations
Authority (920 F. 2d 45 (D.C. Circuit 1990) ).
5. Workplace smoking policies often fail to address the real source of
employee discomfort -- inadequate ventilation. Building ventilation systems can
become choked with fungus, mold and other allergenic substances. Tobacco
smoke lingering in the air is the symptom -- not the cause -- of some indoor air
problems. In fact, tobacco smoke has been found to be the cause of indoor air
quality problems in only two percent to five percent of the buildings studied,
according to The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.
