Bliley TI
I. Public Smoking: The Problem (SDC Introduction)
Abstract
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."
Fields
- Company
- Tobacco Institute
- Named Person
- Jones, W. Rep.
- Rapace, J.
- Reagan, R. Pres.
- SDC
- Steinfeld, J.
- Waxman, H. Rep.
- Rapace, J.
- Named Organization
- 1984 Roper Survey
- 1985 Surgeon General's Report
- American Cancer Society
- American Heart Association
- American Lung Association
- Blueprint for Action
- CAB
- Civil Aeronautics Board
- Congress
- Covington & Burling (Tobacco Industry law firm)
Tobacco industry law firm. Was involved in organizing the Whitecoat Project.- Department of Transportation
- Environmental Protection Agency
- EPA
- 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
- NAS
- 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
- TAN
- Tarrance Media Gatekeeper Survey
- Tobacco Action Network
- Tobacco Merchants Association
- 1985 Surgeon General's Report
- Type
- Outline
- Presentation materials
- Keyword
- Arizona
- Boston
- California
- Counsel
- Dallas
- Detroit
- Environmental tobacco smoke
- ETS
- Florida
- Fort Collins
- Memphis
- New York City
- Non-smokers
- Philadelphia
- Seattle
- Suffolk County
- Virginia
- Workplace restrictions
- Boston
- Subject
- demographics
- Economic costs
- Federal level
- Government agencies
- Health advocacy groups
- Health effects
- Industry front groups
- industry sponsored research
- Lawsuits
- legislation
- Legislatures
- lobbying
- Local level
- Regulations
- Research studies
- sales
- secondhand smoke
- State level
- Taxes
- clean indoor air
- Economic costs
Document Images
• PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
lhoduced as required by the Court's March 7,1998 Order ~ CONFIDENTIAL:
State of Minnesota, et al. v. Philip Morris, et al. MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION
Court File Noo: C1-94-8565
i. Lower sales, of course. The Tobacco ~(erchants
Association took a look a~ smoking restriction
legislation and cigarette consumption beSween
1961 and 1982. The conclusion: ~hat restrictive
smoking laws accounted for 21 per=en~ of 5he
variation in cigarette consumption from state re;
s~abe during thab time.
Our 1~84 Roper data gives us another clue. 859
persons of our 2,500 adul5 sample said bhey were
smokers. Of ~hese 85S, 333 said they were
employed, wi~h 220 saying they worked with some
form of smoking restriction, mos~ of ~hem minor.
Those who say ~hey work under resSric~i~ns smoked
about one-and-one-quarter fewer cigarettes each
day than those who don't. Tha~ may sound light,
but remember we're ~alking about light
restrictions, ~oo.
3. Those 220 people in our survey who work under
smoking restric%ions represen~ some 15 million
Americans. Tha~ one-and-one-quarter per day
=igare%~e reduction then, means nearly 7 billion
fewer cigarettes smoked each year because of
workplace smoking resSri~ions.
TIMN 0014564
" " PRIVI~ - /'.~D CONFIDENTly.
.Produced as requL~ea uy tae Court's March 7, 1998 - ,' CONFIDENTIAL:
Orderx'MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION
State of Minnesota, et a/. v. Philip Morris, et aL
Court File No.: C1-94-8565
4. That's 350 million packs of cigarettes. At a
dollar a pack, even the lightest of workplace
smoking restrictions is costing this industry
233 million dollars a year in revenue. How much
more will it cost us with far more restrictive
laws such as those in Suffolk County and Fort
Collins now being enacted?
T. But Łt's more than our sales that are affected. Our
customers, too, are feeling the strain of living with
an increasingly vocal nonsmoking population. Smokers
are harassed with kazoos, water pistols, repellant
sprays, even handguns. They even are told they are
bad parents -- abusing their children by smoking in
their presence.
U. It's a difficult problem -- without a doub~ the most
difficult this industry faces. And now tha~ I've laid
the facts on the table, I'm going to turn the program
over ~o ~he state activities division, ~he federal
relations division, and public relations...to describe
what the Institute is doing about i~.
TIMN 0014565
