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.
- Elders, J.
- 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
- American Medical Association Education and Research Foundation
- Operation/Project
- Accommodation
- It's the Law
- Region
- Italy
- Taiwan
- United States
- Thailand
- Bulgaria
- Canada
- China
- Taiwan
- 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
- Volstead Act
- 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
- Advertising regulations
- Brand
- De Nic
- Premier (RJR)
- Virginia Slims (PM)
- Premier (RJR)
Document Images
page ii
SMOKING RESTRICTIONS -- RESTAURANTS and PUBLIC PLACES
Executive Summary:
Some cities, and even the state of California, have passed laws banning
smoking in restaurants, hotels, outdoor sports stadiums and even shopping
centers. Philip Morris opposes such restrictions in favor of accommodation.
While business owners should be permitted to determine their own smoking, the
government should allow clearly-designated smoking and non-smoking sections
where owners, staff and patrons want them.
Philip Morris U.S.A. position:
I. Philip Morris favors accommodation of both smokers and non-smokers in
public places and in businesses serving the public through designated smoking and
non-smoking areas.
2. A large majority of Americans agree with us. A March, 1994 CNN/USA
Today poll found that 61 percent of respondents favored smoking sections in
restaurants and 78 percent favored accommodation in hotels and motels.
3. The owners and managers of individual restaurants, hotels and other
businesses serving the public are best qualified to determine the needs and
preferences of their customers. Indeed, business owners already have the option
of banning smoking.
4. Restaurant smoking bans can impose severe hardships on restaurant owners
and employees, who lose business to surrounding communities. In Los Angeles
restaurants reporting a loss of business since that city's smoking ban went into
effect, receipts are down an average of 24 percent, or $ I !,000 a month, according
to a study done by the Charlton Research Company. The survey found that 16
percent of these restaurants have had to lay off workers. The City of Los Angeles
lost $ I 0 million when the National Association of Convenience Stores decided to
hold their annual convention someplace else. And the city of Bellflower,
California, rescinded their restaurant smoking ban after local restaurants saw their
business drop by 19 percent.
5. For these reasons, Philip Morris created The Accommodation Program for
restaurant owners and other businesses in the hospitality industry. The program
provides resources and expert advice (from restaurant management consultants
and ventilation engineers) on how to best accommodate the preferences of all
customers, non-smokers as well as smokers. To date, more than 14,000
businesses nationwide are participating in The Accommodation Program. Business
owners can find out more about the program by calling 1-800-800-5197.
page 12
SAN FRANCISCO LAWSUIT
Executive Summary:
In February 1994, the San Francisco City Council enacted strict smoking
restrictions that virtually ban smoking from all workplaces, including restaurants.
Philip Morris believes the Council exceeded its authority in trying to
regulate smoking in the workplace. Suit was filed against the city and county of San
Francisco to have the regulations overturned.
Philip Morris U.S.A. position:
I. Philip Morris has joined with other businesses to bring suit against the city
and county of San Francisco, asking that the recently enacted San Francisco
smoking ordinance be declared invalid. The lawsuit charges that the San Francisco
ordinance is preempted by state and federal occupational safety and health laws,
and that the ordinance violates provisions of the California Constitution by
exceeding local authority and denying plaintiff's due process.
2. After the initial filing in February, several new plaintiffs were added to the
suit at their reques~
3. A response has been filed by the City, and the suit is moving forward.
page 13
CALIFORNIA BALLOT INITIATIVE
Proposition i 88
Executive Summary:
In February 1994, Philip Morris ioined with a coalition of California
businesses in sponsoring a ballot initiative ~hat would allow voters the opportunity
to vote for a tough but reasonable statewide smoking law. The California Uniform
Tobacco Control Act -- or Proposition 188 -- as the initiative is known, would
guarantee all California businesses the option of accommodating smokers. In
July 1994, the California State Legislature enacted a law that establishes a strict
statewide smoking policy. This law is so strict that smoking is prohibited entirely
from restaurants.
Philip Morris believes that this law is unreasonable, and is inconsistent with
the results of seyeral recent studies that found overwhelming public support for
accommodating both smokers and non-smokers in both public places.
Philip Morris U.S.A. position:
I. If passed by the voters, this initiative would create one of the toughest
statewide smoking regulations in the U.S. It would double the fine for selling
tobacco products to minors, strictly regulate the placement of vending machines
and limit workplace and restaurant smoking. Only if vigorous ventilation standards
are met could a restaurant owner choose to designate a maximum of 25 percent
of seating for smoking.
2. The law would not prevent any employer or business owner from banning
smoking completely.
3. California's smoking law, as it now stands, will have a devastating effect on
the state's tourism industry. For example, last year the National Association of
Convenience Stores (NACS), a nationwide trade association with thousands of
members, canceled plans to hold its annual conference in Los Angeles. The
reason? A decision by the Los Angeles City Council to ban smoking in most public
places, including restaurants and conference centers. Loss of the NACS
convention cost Los Angeles hotels, restaurants, and other businesses $10 million
in sales.
4. Philip Morris is supporting this initiative because we believe that the people
of California should be allowed to decide what type of smoking restrictions should
be enacted. We believe that most Californians will agree that accommodation is a
preferable alternative to an outright ban on smoking.
page 14
ADVERTISING RESTRICTIONS
Executive Summary:
Anti-smokers claim that tobacco advertising is a primary reason
why minors smoke, and use this false claim as justification for
supporting severe restrictions on cigarette advertising and sales
practices.
Philip Morris strongly opposes all attempts to restrict the right to
advertise. Tobacco is a legal product, and all truthful speech about it,
including advertising, is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution.
Philip Morris U.S.A. Position:
I. Free speech, which includes truthful commercial speech, is a foundation of
American society and one of the great strengths of our form of government.
2. Restricting or banning truthful speech about legal products would set a
dangerous precedent. Further restrictions or bans on tobacco ads would
encourage some people to seek further restrictions or bans on advertising for
other controversial products, such as alcohol, meat, sugar, sports cars, fur, and so
on.
3. Advertising does not cause people to begin smoking. Tobacco advertising is
banned in China, Thailand, Bulgaria and Italy, for example, yet those counties are
among the world's leaders in per-capita cigarette consumption. Over the last
decade, tobacco consumption more than doubled in China but declined overall in
countries where tobacco advertising is permitted.
4. The purpose of our advertising is to secure our consumers' loyalty and
attract consumers of other brands to try our products. According to a 1990
survey by the Roper Organization, as many as 23 percent of smokers switch
brands in a year, or about 30,000 a day, representing as much as $ I 0 billion in
annual sales. Advertising is one of the most effective ways to invite adult smokers
of competing brands to try our cigarettes.
5. No research has conclusively shown advertising causes people to smoke. In
May 1994, for example, the Federal Trade Commission voted against filing a
complaint about allegations that some tobacco advertising was directed at minors.
"Although it may seem intuitive to some that [some tobacco advertising] would
lead more children to smoke or lead children to smoke more, the evidence to
support that intuition is not there," a commission statement said.
page 15
6. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has said, "There is no
scientifically rigorous study available to the public that provides a definitive answer
to the basic question of whether advertising and promotion increase the level of
tobacco consumption."
7. Even Surgeon Jocelyn Elders would seem to concur that advertising does
not cause people to smoke. "Among environmental factors," she states, "peer
influence seems particularly potent in the early stages of tobacco use; the first tries
of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco occur most often with peers, and the peer
group may subsequently provide expectations, reinforcement and cues for
experimentation." (I 994 Surgeon General's Report, "Preventing Tobacco Use
Among Young People," page 7)
8. Philip Morris directs its advertising at adult smokers, just as car
manufacturers direct their advertising at drivers and publishers direct their
advertising at people who spend much of their time reading.
9. Research demonstrates that minors do not start smoking because of
cigarette advertising. In a 1994 Gallup Organization survey of smoking by minors,
over 90 percent of minors said they started smoking because of the influence of
family, friends and peers. In fact, not a single minor who responded to the Gallup
survey said that they started smoking because of cigarette advertising.
page 16
DEDUCTIBILITY OF ADVERTISING EXPENSES
Executive Summary:
Proposals are routinely made in the U.S. Congress to repeal the
deductibility of the tobacco industry's advertising expenses. Advertising
deductibility is a tax advantage used by virtually every business in this
country. Philip Morris believes that attempts to single out our industry
in this manner are unfair and illegal. Advertising costs represent
legitimate business expenses. Therefore, the tax deductibility of
tobacco advertising costs is not a "subsidy," and should be preserved.
Philip Morris USA's position:
I. Proposals to eliminate the deductibility of tobacco advertising are "back-
door censorship." Using the tax code to limit the freedom of speech would violate
the most basic American values. Truthful commercial speech is protected by the
First Amendment of U.S. Constitution.
2. Advertising costs are a legitimate business expense, as essential to industry
as salaries, plants and equipment. If tobacco advertising expenses can be singled
out for punitive tax treatment, what other business expenses will become non-
deductible? Using the tax code to enforce political correctness could open new
avenues for tyranny and de facto censorship.
3. Some anti-smokers claim that reducing tobacco advertising would reduce
smoking. No study has shown that disallowing tax deductibility for tobacco ads
would have any effect on cigarette consumption. Countries where tobacco
advertising is banned, including China and Italy, have some of the world's highest
rates of smoking.
5. More than 50 years ago, supporters of Governor Huey Long tried to tax
large-circulation periodicals to punish Long's critics in the press. The Supreme
Court invalidated the tax, calling it "a deliberate and calculated device in the guise
of a tax to limit the circulation of information to which the public is entitled."
(Grosjean vs. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 (I 936)).
page 17
SAMPLES, COUPONS AND PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS
Executive Summary:
Critics claim that Philip Morris uses samples, coupons and
promotional offers to entice people -- especially kids -- to smoke. These
false claims are used as justification for additional restrictions on these
important marketing tools.
Philip Morris' promotional programs seek to encourage brand
loyalty among our consumers and brand switching among adult
smokers of other brands. We do not allow cigarette samples to be
distributed to anyone under age 21. Our samplers are required to ask
each potential recipient if they are 21 years of age or older and if they
are currently smokers. People requesting samples through the mail
must provide certification that they are smokers and 21 years of age or
older. In addition, our contracts for outdoor advertising require that all
billboard placements be at least 500 feet away from schools,
playgrounds or youth centers.
Philip Morris U.S.A.'s position:
I. Our promotional offers are only made available to smokers 21 years of age
or older. These offers allow us to provide added value to consumers to help build
loyalty among our customers and promote brand switching among people who
smoking our competitors' brands.
2. We obtain the names, addresses, dates of birth and signed certification of
adult smokers to whom we mail branded materials or cigarettes when consumers
respond to our written promotional offers.
3. All Philip Morris offers bear a Surgeon General's warning, as required by
federal law. All offers clearly state that they are limited to smokers 21 years of age
and older. Respondents must verify their ages by including their dates of birth
with signed verification forms. Orders received without verification forms are
returned as ineligible. All verification forms are recorded and maintained on
microfilm.
4. If Philip Morris is ever notified that promotional materials have been sent to
a minor, that record is immediately coded to insure that no further materials are
sent to the minor, even if he or she makes new orders.
5. All promotional activity is conducted in accordance with Philip Morris policy
and the tobacco industry% strict, detailed Cigarette Advertising and Promotion
Code. For example, with respect to coupons, all coupons distributed at point-of-
page 18
sale or via print media include a statement that they can be redeemed only by
smokers 21 years of age or older.
page 19
POINT-OF-PURCHASE DISPLAYS AND SELF-SERVICE SALES
Executive Summary:
Legislative proposals have been introduced, primarily at the local
level -- to ban all point-of-purchase displays and to eliminate "self
service sales", which include cigarette vending machines. Supporters of
this legislation claim that self service sales make it easier for minors to
steal cigarettes, and that point of purchase advertising is an enticement
for children to smoke.
Philip Morris believes that these allegations are unfounded and
would create unnecessary hardships for retailers, would unfairly infringe
on our right to advertise, and create an unnecessary inconvenience for
adult consumers.
Philip Morris U.S.A.'s position:
I. If minors steal cigarettes from a self-service display, the store manager, not
the government, is in the best position to deal with the problem. Shoplifting is
illegal in all 50 states.
2. It is also illegal in all 50 states to sell cigarettes to minors. Before imposing
additional laws on retailers, the government should try enforcing the laws already
on the books.
3. Proposals to ban self-service displays are in direct violation of the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. This act, which established the federal
cigarette package and advertising warnings, specifically prohibits state and local
health boards from imposing restrictions on cigarette advertising and promotion
based on smoking and health allegations.
4. Eliminating self-service displays places a greater burden on store personnel.
Either more employees would have to be hired, or those already employed would
be forced to spend a greater proportion of their time making individual cigarette
sales.
S. Eliminating point-of-sale materials would also eliminate necessarily the
financial inducements manufacturers often offer to retailers in return for
prominent point-of-sale placement.
6. In addition, once the precedent is set for eliminati .ng point-of-sale advertising
for one controversial product, it is only a matter of time before other items, such
as beer, liquor and snack-food products, are also attacked.
7. Eliminating self-service displays creates an inconvenience for adult smokers.
page 20
SPORTING AND CULTURAL EVENT SPONSORSHIPS
Executive Summary:
An integral part of Philip Morris USA's marketing strategy is to
sponsor appropriate sporting events, concerts, and cultural events that
fit with the imagery of our particular cigarette brands. Over the years
we have supported soccer, bowling, women's tennis, IndyCar racing,
country musicians, jazz ensembles, rock and roll and rhythm and blues,
just to name a few.
Anti-smokers, including some members of Congress, believe that
we should not be allowed to participate in these events. Despite having
no credible supporting evidence, opponents claim that our participation
is inappropriate and causes children to smoke.
We believe that sponsorship of sporting and cultural events should
remain a.business, not a government decision, and will continue to
pursue sponsorships that fit our marketing objectives.
Philip Morris U.S.A.'s position:
I. Who should or should not sponsor sporting or cultural events should
remain a business decision -- not a government decision. Our sponsorship will
continue to be based on whether the event or program fits our marketing needs --
that is, whether adult smokers attend the events -- as well as whether we believe
we are getting good value for our sponsorship dollars.
2. Philip Morris has been a positive force in women's tennis and auto racing for
more than 20 years. In the last ten years (I 983-1993), attendance for the entire
IndyCar racing series -- including the Indianapolis 500 -- increased by 72 percent,
from 854,000 to 3,064,180, according to Goodyear. Virginia Slims sponsorship
"gave women's tennis the opportunity to thrive in the United States and around
the world," according to Billie Jean King, one of the tour's founders.
3. Without corporate sponsorship, event promoters would incur costs that
are now covered with sponsorship dollars. The quality of the events and venues
would suffer if promoters were not able to count on long-term financial support
from corporate sponsors. This would mean less-exciting events and slower
growth for the sports in general.
4. Other event sponsors produce controversial products, including beer, oil
and fast foods -- and even the cars themselves. Banning tobacco sponsorship
could lead to the banning of other corporate sponsors.
