Presents, in outline form, chronology of initiatives against public smoking. Includes extensive background on legislative and regulatory action at the federal, state, and local level; research studies; actions of voluntary health agencies; expenditures; timeline of public survey results regarding issue; and industry response to specific events. Sets stage for next meeting presenters from Tobacco Institute (TI) state activities, federal relations division, and public relations "to describe what [TI] is doing about it."
- Tobacco Institute
- Environmental tobacco smoke
- Fort Collins
- New York City
- Suffolk County
- Workplace restrictions
- Named Organization
- 1984 Roper Survey
- 1985 Surgeon General's Report
- American Cancer Society
- American Heart Association
- American Lung Association
- Blueprint for Action
- Civil Aeronautics Board
- Covington & Burling (Tobacco Industry law firm)
Tobacco industry law firm. Was involved in organizing the Whitecoat Project.
- Department of Transportation
- Environmental Protection Agency
- Group Against Smoking Pollution/Group to Alleviate Smoking Pollution? ("GASP)" (Group Against (or to Alleviate) Smoking Pollution)
A not-for-profit corporation founded in 1976 as the California Group Against Smoking Pollution (GASP). Now there are several state branches of GASP around the country.
- Group to Alleviate Smoking Pollution
- House Agriculture Committee
- House of Representatives
- Interagency Committee on Indoor Air
- National Academy of Sciences
- National Cancer Institute
- National Cancer Institute NCI
Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Cancer Institute located in Rockville, MD
- Ninth Roper Survey
- Office on Smoking and Health
- Shook, Hardy & Bacon
- Subcommittee on Health and the Environment
- Surgeon General
- Tarrance Media Gatekeeper Survey
- Tobacco Action Network
- Tobacco Merchants Association
- Presentation materials
- Named Person
- Jones, W. Rep.
- Rapace, J.
- Reagan, R. Pres.
- Steinfeld, J.
- Waxman, H. Rep.
- Economic costs
- Federal level
- Government agencies
- Health advocacy groups
- Health effects
- Industry front groups
- industry sponsored research
- Local level
- Research studies
- secondhand smoke
- State level
- clean indoor air
Page 1: 00000033
MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION
I. Public Smoking: The Problem (SDC Introduction)
A. Fourteen years ago, Surgeon General Jesse S~einfeld
launched bhe campaign "~o ban smoking in public p~aces,
noasmoker may have u~$oward effects from She pollu~:~o~
his smoking neighbor forces upon h~m. "
B. A decade la~er -- in 1981 -- 225 an~i-smokers from
~hEoughou~ ~he U.S gathered in New ~ork City ~o
develop a "Blueprln5 for Action" agains~ smokers.
Almos~ Z~ percen~ of ~heir re=ommenda~ion~ directly
address %he public smoking issue. The remainder,
of course, affe=~ i~. Le~ me give you ~ome examples~
o Work for volun%ary segregation of smokers.
o Limi~ workplace and public smoking by law.
o Promo%e litigation, including workplace
o Require all government grantees and contrac-
tors ~o protec~ nonsmokers.
o Create %ax initiatives ~o develop smoke-free
o Promote use of the terms, "involuntary" and
"forced" smoking rather than "passive."
o Publ£cize smoking as a form of indoor air
Page 2: 00000034
" MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION
o Promote research on environmental ~obacco
o In=tease the excise tax to discourage ambient
C. Most of ~hese suggestions should sound familiar.
Anti-smokers ab the federal, state and local
levels are promoting these and o~her measures
in ~heir a~emp~ ~o drive smoEers ou~ of ~he public
D. Public smoEing issue is rapidly becoming an extension
of the primary issue -- in ~he media's eye as well as
in the publi='s eye.
E. Health, of course, is the underlying reason for all
attempts to restrict the smoker's right to
1. Our ninth Roper survey last year showed a
dramatic increase in the number of respondents
who believe i5 is probably hazardous So be
around people who are smoking.
?. TEVIN 0014555
Page 3: 00000035
MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION
2. In 1974, fewer 5ban half 5he respondenSs believed
~his. Today, nearly 7 in I0 agree. And for ~he
firs% %ime, a ma~oriSy of smokers bel~eve ~ha%
ambien~ smoke is hazardous. A decade ago, only
3. If ~his ~rend -- ~oward increasing public
bance ~ha~ ambien~ cigare~%e smoke is dangerous --
conbinues, in ~us~ eighb years we will
find bhab bhe percen%age who accep~ public smoking
as a probable hazard-will equal %he percenbage who
accep~ primary smoking as a hazard.
~. Al~hough heal~h remains bhe mosb salien~ of
issues addressed by nonsmokers, 5he Roper resul~s
continued ~o reporb an increase in ~he number of
people who said ~hey found i~ annoying ~o be
around smokers. Two-thirds of nonsmokers said
%hey were annoyed. In 1970, only one-%bird
Even smokers now are reporting annoyance abou%
being around o~her smokers -- one in Sen.
Page 4: 00000036
MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION
6. A just-completed survelr of journalists shows
similar results: (here report resu!~s of Tarrance
• edna ga~ekeeper surveyS.
F. ] Coun~l a~ Shook, Hardy • Ba~on an~ Covington
Burling are seeking ~cien~i~ts and physicians able
division heads la~er in %his presentation
~. Meanwhil~, propo~al~ ~o r~s~ri~ ~moking in publi~
pla=es continue ~o increase. Mha~ began in
in Arizona in 1973 has spread a=ross ~he country --
mos~ recently ~o ~he local and federal levels.
H. You've heard She numbers. Our industry has faced
more than 1,200 smoking restriction bills
in the lass 15 years, with a better than 90
~ercent success rate.
Page 5: 00000037
Ptoduce~, =.:: - . ~,, _~.~ ~y the Court's March ~)~ .,...~~ :der in
State o! Minnesota, et al. v. Philip Morris, et aL
--~ Court File No.:" C1-94-8565
I. In 1904, we faced more than 100 bills in 20 s~ates;
four were enacted. In i~8~, our s~ate activities
division has ranked smoking restriction legislation
as a ~op priority in 3?. s~ates; number two priority
in 8 others. At the local level, we can expect to
face restriction proposals in more than 100 cities and
all of Florida
most of California
New York City
Northern and Tidewater Virginia
J. The anti-smokers" new barget, of course, is the
workplace. Five stabes and 3~ local ~urisdictions now
require private sector employers to adopt smoking
restrictions in the workplace. Two-thirds of ~hese
localities are in California. Although no state
enacted workplace smoking res~riotion~ in 1984, 15
Page 6: 00000038
PrOduced as reouired ~~lal/]~~CO LITIGATION
M~es°-~, v. Philip Mo~s, et ~.
Co~ File No.: C1-9~8565
K. A~ bhe lo~al level, workplace propos~l~ were
introduced in 30 ci~ies and counties; 1~ were
approve~, Z1 are pending.
L. Ne have 17 professional field staff battling these
proposals. They are assisted by lobbyis~s in each
state capital and in local ~urisdictions as appro-
priate. Our volunteer Tobacco Action Network now-
numbers about 8S,000; of theme, about 12,000 have
been identified as activists who can be relied upon
to act when the call for help goes out.
M. But we are badly outnumbered by the voluntary health
organizations, who can call upon more ~han 3 million
members or volunteers nationwide.
!. The American Cancer Society reports some 3,128
local chapters -- one in every county in the
country. One of every 100 Americans is an active
ACS volunteer, they claim.
2. The American Heart Association maintains local
chapters in 3,000 communities.
The Lung Association ham 1~I state and regional
Page 7: 00000039
MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION
Thab's more 5ban 6,000 ~taffed offices or unibs ~
supporting smoking restriction legislation across
the country. And I'm not including the grass rooSs
specific pieces of legislation.
N. Eighty-five ~housand-plus versus six million. If we
assume ~hat 15 percen~ of tha~ six million can be
described as "ac~ivis~," as £s t~ue with our TAN
volunteers, we are outnumbered S00,000 ~o 12,000 in
terms of individuals who are willing ~o act when
called upon. That's a ratio of 7~-to-l.
O. And ~hose numbers don'~ even ~ake into accoun~ ~he
fac% 5ha~ 5hose 75 individuals boas5 a far
credibility wi~h legislators and ~he general
~han our one.
P. Public opinion is increasingl~ on 5he anbi-smokers"
side as well. Our 198~ Roper survey found increasing
suppor~ for separate sections for smokers in public
places, especially in eabing and work places. A
decade ago, about half the public favored separate
smoEing and nonsmoking sections in restaurants.
Today, 90 percen~ do. In 1974, 50 percen~ approved
of workplace restrictions. Today, 7~ percen~ approve.
7 TIMN 0014560
Page 8: 00000040
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL MINNESOTA
"Produced as required by the Court's March 7, 1998 Orderhl
State of Minnesota, et al. v. Philip Morris, et
Court File No.: C1-94-8565
(~. That's for=ida~le opposition. And there's more.
R. The problem is no longer restricted ~o ~he state and
local levels. The federal government, ~oo, is
the ao~. For example~
I. The Office on Smoking and Health has $500,000
to conduct a literature review on health effects
of public smoking. ~e should see the resul~s
of ~his study la~er this year.
The same departmen~ plans to devote its annual
Surgeon General's report for 1985 ~o synergestic
effects of ~obacco smoke in the workplace.
8. Nob to be outdone, the National Cancer Institute
is spending another $500,000 on passive smoking
4. Air Quality studies are occupying several
agencies. Among them:
Page 9: 00000041
PRIVILECY~ AND CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL:
Produced as required by the Court's March 7, 1998 Otdatl~INNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION
~tate of Minnesota, et al. v. Philip Morr~ et ak
Couxt File No.: C1-94-8565
a. The Environmental Protection Agency, which £s
working with the National Academy of Sciences
on a $75,000 passive smoking study, also is
using $2 million appropriated by Congress for
studies of indoor air quali~y.
EPA, of course, is home to James Repace, whose
claim that 500 nonsmokers may be dying each
year from exposure ~o cigarette smoke,
recently was validated by one department
within the agQncy.
c. The National Academy of Sciences may be
doing ye~ another air quality study -- this
time for the Department of Transportation.
Legislation signed by President Reagan in
1984 authorizes a stud7 of air qualit~ in
d. Also last year, the Reagan Administration
reactivated an Interagen~y Committee on
Indoor Air, which now is coordinating research
among a variety of federal agencies. Mi~h
the wide publicity given James Repace's recen~
claims, we can expect cigarette smoke to be
given ~Io~ ~u=~i~y in muuh of ~hi5 research.
Page 10: 00000042
• " KIVILEGED AND cONFIDENTIALMarch 7,1 et o~de~aL ~t
l~ ed b the Court's _998
MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION
State ~u.rt F~e ~o.:
e. There's been ~alk of Congressional hearings on
this issue, ~oo. Las~ time, in 1978, was
in ~he House Agrlcul~ure Committee, wi~h Rep.
Hal~er Jones of North Carolina, who was
friendly 5oward 5he industry. This ~ime, we
may be facing Re~. Henry Haxman's ~ubcommi~ee
on Heal~h and 5he EnvironmenS.
Las~ year, as you know, we fought long and hard
persuade the Civil Aeronautics Board thab ~here
was no reason to further res~ric~ smoking on
board =ommeroial aircrafb. He won 5ha5 ba551e.
The CAB wen~ ou~ of business ab the end of 1984.
Bu~ mos~ of iSs consumer pro~ec~£on regulaSions,
inoluding smoking, ~ransferred ~o ~he Department;
of Transportation. He can be sure ~haS, onus
shakedown is complete a~ ~ranspor~a~ion, an~i-
smokers will be back ~rying 50 accomplish wha~
~hey failed ~o do a~ ~he CAB.
S. Hhab do these heal%h claims, 5he heightened publio
mentimen~ for smoking res~ri=~ionm, increasing non-
smoker annoyance 5oward smokers mean for ~his
lO TIMN 0014563