Tobacco Documents Online

C_ampaign, Plan, cont~ d. Do ~NDUSTRIAL ALLIES AN~ FRIENDLY VOTERS The InitiaTive will have a major impact on. other industries in the State. Their financial resources and access to employees could substantially aid the cmmpaign. Additionally, there are large employee groups:-- particular}y those in, public service -- which may rebel against massive office space reallocations or blanket smoking prohibitions. The campaign will solicit contributio:ns from indus- trial allies and sympathetic employee groups. It will attempt to advance campaign arguments in company and employee association/union newsletters, trade publications, etc. A major Speakers Bureau effort will be undertaken to reach allied industrial and friendly voter groups at th,eir places o~ employment, trade shows, civic and social meeting.s, etc. Through the use of modern polling and '"cluster group analysis~'.. Zechniques, neighborhoods can be identified throughout the State which, have greater likelihood. of voting against the Initiative than the population at large:. These neighborhoods will be targeZed for heavy concentrations of computerized direct mail. Persons whose political affiliation,s or ethnic he#ditage indicates probable sympathy ~o, our cause .~ill be selected ~or targeted direct mail appeals. Ethnic groups will also be reached Through some ethnic rad:io and newspaper advertising. THE PUBLIC, THE MEDIA AND: THE LEGISLATURE OMerlaying all elements of the cmmpaign, there must be sensitivity to the long-term political~ impacts of campaign activities. Specifically, campaign actions must not damage industrial credibility with the med~ia, legislators, or State ~dministrators who will make the future ~inal decisions on ~aws or regulations to implement the Initiative, should our campaign fail to. defeat it. -5-

Campaign. Plan,. cont'd While the 1980 Initia~iwe does. not contain many of the inconsistencies and weaknesses o~ it's 1978 predecessor, ~t is still an unnecessary, costly and unfair law. The pub%ic must be convinced that the issue is bro~der and more important than the question, of "clean air". The gen,eral population, the media an,d the Legislature must be made to see the Initiative as an, erosion of civil liberties, and as an unfair and divisive law. To accomplish this, there will be a broadening of the previous pool of contributors to the an,ti-regulation campaign. ~ajor efforts will be undertaken to obtain small contribu,tions from private ind:ividmals. Addition- ally, employee organizations and companies who are unrelated to the tobacco industry will be encou.raged to participate in the funding effort. A consistent !o~-key press relations operation will be commenced, stressing the key weaknesses of the law. Specific weaknesses are- The voters hav.e already voted~ against anti- smoking laws once before, at great expense to taxpayers ~or prin~ting of bal~ots and related election costs. This. measure establishes special rights for one class o~ citizens, a contradiction of the basic premise o~ our ~o~ernment system. The In,itiative will bring harm, and incon- venien,ce to. small companies, restaurants and many employees ~whether or not they smoke). The. measure is ~n, abuse of the Initiative process; for rather thmn allowing citizens the ability to, over-r±de ~he Legislature, it takes control away from the peoples' elected representaZfves andl gives complete contro,l to. appointed public employees, who are no~ accountable directly to taxpayer/ voters.. The only remedly people wi~l have ~o~ unfair or inept enforcement of the Initiative would: be another expensiwe initiative campaign, in future years, as the Californ~ia ConstituTion prohibits the Legislature from enacting laws which nullify statutes adopted by Initiative. -6-

_Campaign Plan,, Cont'd As part of the effort to en,sure an on-going legis- lative environment conducive Io fair consideration, of industry positions, a program of legislative communication wil~ be developed. This communication will be preceded by "focus group" interviews conducted in appropriate settings by research professionals. ~t will help establish the main areas of agreement and disagreement between key legislators and California industry. These focus groups will also seek to identify the techniques and semantics which are most likely to strike respond- sire chords with, legislators and their staff. -7-

V. CAMPAIGN BUDGET RESEARCH A. Focus Groups B. Polling C. Prior Vote Analysis $&O,O00.. 30,000. 10,000:. Research Subtotal ............... I Ij . CO~MHNICATION A. \;olunteer Programs I. Doorhangers (200m) 5,000,. 2. Point-of-Sale Brochures (imm): 20:,000.. 3. Matchbooks (lmm) 15.,000. 4~. Bumper Stickers (5m) 2,000. Volunteer Contact Sub¢o,tal ...... So DSrect Nail I. Fundraising Solicitations (300m) 65,000. 2. Consumer Contact (180m) 45,000. 3. V'oser Contact (2.4! ~o 3.2*mm)450,000. Direct Mail SubtoZal ............. IIl. ADMINISTRATION Ao E. F. G. H. I. Salary Legal and Accounting Management Travel Headquarters Rental Telephone Supplies Furniture & Eq:u,ipmen~ Payrol$ Taxes 92,000 20,000. 50,.000. 24,000. 12,000. lO,O00. 9,000. 6,000. 5,000. Administration Subtotal ......... TOTAL ............ $50,000. $42,000. 560,000. 228.,.000. 880,,000. Depending on Non,Profit Postage -8-

Vl. CONTINGENCY The limited budget which has been. consid~ered for this campaign can defeat the Iniliative if public opinion begins to. change in our favor outside of th.e control of our campaign,. Activities of the proponents, a spontaneous assault by the news media, or public rebellion aEainsz another attemp~ to: further regulate a complex society., could all conZribute to such a favorable climate. The campaign will mon.i~or public opin,ion through a series of tracking s~ud~ies to be conducted during August and September. IZ public opinion begins to dramatically shift before the major direct mail expenditures of September and October, it may be prudent to s~gnifican~!y in,crease the campaign budge~ for ~ddi~iona! ad~ertising or direct mail communications. It is possible ~h,at these late expenditures cou,~d occur pri- marily during ~he period between September 25 and October 20; so ~hat the proponents w,ou,ld be unaware of an ~ncreased lev,el of campaign activity until the required spending reports are filed on October 23. This would be too late for ~h~e proponents to effectively reac~ ~o an increased level o~ campaign activity,. -9-

~ V APPEN~D I CES Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Organization CharZ Direcz Hail DeZail Cashflow i iii

Appendix 1 CAMPAIGN ORGANIZATION CHART Press Coordinator] I Assistant I ] SecretaryI Northern California Coordinator l,, I~'Steering Committee 'I Robert Nelson & Associates Campaign Manager I Campaign Coordinator Administrative Assistant Secretary Coordinator Direct Mail production Speakers Bureau Coordinator Secretary ~ssenger

Appendix 2: DIRECT'MA~L DETAIL Funidr~isingSolici~ations - TAN Members - Libertarians - Union.s, Associations ~embers - NFIB, Chamber of Commerce, etc. - Realtors - Restauranteu,rs - Graphics, etc. ~30m) (20m) ~ 130m ) (30r~) ( 2:0m ) (~0m) $: 6,000. 5,00:0. 35,000. 8,000. 4,000. 2',000. 5.,000. Fun,draising Subtotal .... $. 65,000:. ConsumerContact Mai~ Three letter to 60m Premium~con,test respon- dents Graphics, copy research, etc. 40,000. 5,000'. Consumer Contact Subtotal ........... $ 45,000. ¸. Voter Contact Mail - Access 500m:Mass Media names - Data Consu,lting - Match, file-to-~ile; selec~ Im target voter HR - Three letters to 800m - 1.~mm target voter HH - Graphics, research, copy $. 1,000. 4,000. 17,000. 4i18,000. I0,,000. Vo~er Contact Subtotal ......... $4i50,000:. DIRECT MAIL TOTAL .............. $56.0,000,.

Appendix 3 RESEARCII A. Focus Groups B. Polling C. Prior Behavior II. COMMUNICATION h. Volunteer Programs 1. Doorhangers 2. Point of Sale Brochures 3.: Matchbooks 4. Bumper Stickers CASH FLOW TOTAL 6/t-7/25 $10,000 30,000 $10,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 20,000 15,000 2,000 B. Direct Mail t. Fundraising Solicitations 65,000 2. Consumer Contact 45,000 3. Voter Contact 450,000 IV. ADMINISTRATION A, Salary 92, B. Legal and Accounting 20 C. Management 50 D, Travel 24 E, lteadquarters Rental 12 F. Telephone 10 G. Supplies 9 H. Furniture & Equipment 6 I. Payroll Taxes 5, PERIOD TOTAL CUMULATIVE REPORTING TOTAL 15,000 t5,000 10,000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 17,000 4,000 10,000 6,000 6,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,ooo 108,000 108,000 (Reporting Periods) 7/25-9/23 9/24-10/20 $ 8,000 20,000 5,OOO $ 2,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 2,000 25,000 50,000 25,000 15,000 ].50,000 37,000 8 000 20 000 9 000 4 000 5 000 4 000 3 000 2 000 210,000 318,000 25 000 4 000 10 000 6 000 2 000 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 000 270,000 588,000 !0/21-1t/30 $ 5,000 15,000 240,000 13,000 4,000 10,000 3,000 1,000 1,ooo 292,000 880,000

° C~mpai~n Plan, cont'd. Do INDUSTRIAL ALLIES AND FRIENDLY VOTERS The Initiative will hav.e a major impac~ on other indu,stries in the S~ate. Their financial resources and access to. employees could substantiall'y aid ~he campaign. Additionally, there are large employee groups -- particularly those in public' serv.ice -- which may rebel against massive office space reailocations or blanket smoking prohibitions.. The campaign will solicit con~ribution:s from, ~nd,us- trial allies and sympathetic employee groups. I~ will a~temp,t to advance campaign arguments in, company and employee association/union newsletters, trade publications, etc. A major Speakers Bureau effort will be undertaken ~o reach allied industrial and friendly voter groups at th,eir places of employment, trade shows, civic and social meetings, etc. Through the use of modern polling and '"cluster group analysis" techniques, neighborhood~s can. be identified throughout the State which have greater likelihood of voting a~ainst the Initiative than the population ~ large. These neighborhoods will be targeted ~or heavy concentrations: of computerized direct mail. Persons whose political affiliations or ethnic heritag.e indicates probab%e sympathy to our cause will be selected! for targeted direct mail: appeals. Ethnic groups will also be reached ~hrou~h some ethnic raddo and newspaper advertising. TKE PUB~IC~ THE MEDIA AND THE LEGISLATURE Overlaying all elements o~ ~he campaign., there must be sensitivity to the long,term political impacts o~ campaign activities. Specifically, cmmpaiEn actions must not damage industrial credibility with the media, legislators or State administrators who will make ~he future ~inal decisions on laws or re~u.lations to implement the In,itiative, shou~Id our campmign: fail ~o defea~ it. -5-

THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE 1875 ! S'FREET. NORTHWEST WASHINGTON. DC 20006 202/457-4800 • 800./424-9876 ]OLIN D. KELLY: Senior, V;.ce President; State Act'irities June 41 19 8 0 MEMORANDUM v/ TO: Messrs. Stevens,; Pepples; Scott; Tucker; Dey FROM: Jack Kelly'S-.... Attached for your inform,ation is a copy of the proposed "Uniform Clean Indoor Air Ordinance of 1980" d,rafted by, the Range committee as an, altern- a:tive to the adoption of the Dade County initia- tive. Also attached is a newsclip from the ~!~iami Herald reporting on the presentation of this pro- posal before the Dade County Commissioners on June 3. We would appreciate your thoughts as to accepta- bility of this proposal. The Dade County Com- mission is not expected to act on this proposal before June 17th. J.Ko JK/a Attachments, C.C : Greg Scott Roger Mozingo John Bankhead Doug Sessions

UNIFORM. CLEAN INDOOR AIR OKDINA/iCE 'OF ~980I" ' (i) Citation: This ordinance may be ~ited as the Uniform clean Indoor Air Ordinance of 1980. (2) Findings o~ Purpose: The purpose of this ordinance is to recognize and protect the rights of smokers and non-smokers. The County finds that the possession of lighted smoking materials in public places is a nulsance,'and is ha~zardous to the public health, safety, 'comfort, convenience and. indoor environment. The further purpose of this . ordinance is to protect the public by restricting the possession of' lighted smoking materials to designated~ smoking areas within public pl, aces. (3) Restrictions : (a) Except a~s provided in subsection' (b), below, the possession of lighted smoking materi~als in any form, includi, ng but not limited to the possession of lighted cigarettes, cigars, pi, pes or other tobacco products, is prohibited ~n any of the following places us~ open~ to the public: any commercial establishment, including but not limited, to retail stores, restaurants, banks, office buildings and offices; any vehicle' of public transportation, including but not limited~ to trains, buses, limousines / for hire, taxi_cabs, and ferries; (±) (iii) elevators; (iv) (v) libraries, educational facilt~es, museums, a~ditoriums, and art ga~lleri?s; . iny public area of a health-care facility, .including but not limited~ to laboratories associated with t~e re~d~tion of hea~th-care treatment, hospitals, rest homes, doctors' offices, and dentists' offices;. (vi) (vii) (viii) any indoor place of entertainment or recreation, includingbut not limited to gymnasiums,,," theaters, concert halls, arena~s and swimming pools; any other enclosed indoor area used. by ~he public or serving as a place of work; any indoor waitingiine, including but not limited to ticket lines, transportation~ boarding lines, theater admission lines, or sports events admission lines. apply to: The restrictions of subsection (a) shall not (i) areas which are specifically designated as smoking~ areas in accordance with section (~4).of this act; . (ii) an entire room or hall which, is used for private social functions, provided that the seating arrangements are under the control of the sponsor of the function and not of the proprietor or person in charge of eh~ ~.

(iii) limousines for hire and taxicabs, where the driver and a~ passengers affirmati, vely con,sent to smoking in ~uch vehicle; (.iv) a private, enclosed~ office, occupied exclusively. by smokers, even though such office may be visited by nonsmokers, provided that this exception shall not be construed to permit smoking in the reception areas of lobbies or offices; except:.in designated~ smoking areas; (v) any private~ enclosed office not occupied exclusively by smokers, provided that non- smoking persons nor~alil~y occupying said: office affirmatively consent to smoking there; (vi) factories and warehouses-r not usuallly~frequented- ' by the general public,~ where the owner or. management has established rules to restrict or prohibit smoking in those places of work where proximity of workers or inadequacy: of ventilation may cause smoke pollution detrimental to the health, comfort or convenience of non-smoking employees; (vii) performers upon the stage; (viii) any room, restaurant, facility, office, or building which has installed mechanical air filtration devices (i.e. electronic precipi- tators) that meet the following requirements: (a) Certification by the Metropolitan Dade • • countY Buildingl Department. (b) Promineh~ visible display'within 10 feet~ of the main entrance to the room, restaurant,. facility, office or building of an emblem~ or certificate issued by Dade County, which certificate or emblem must be .no less than 8 1/2 x ii inches in, size. Certification by Dade County shall be granted.onlM upon 'meeting the following requirements: Minimum standards for certification: .. (American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air Cond~itioning Engineer (ASHRAE standards.) " . and any subsequent amendment thereto. (ix) Any restaurant with less than fifty (50) seats maximum seating capacity as defined by the Fire Marshal. (x) Any public place described in section except stores selling food for off-premises consumption, where: (1) the total physical contiguous area under common management, owner- ship, operation or control (2) which encompasses single or relatedl activities and (3) which does not. exceed 1250 square feet of floor space. i4) D~signation of Smoking Areas: (a) Smoking areas may be designated by p~oprietors or other persons in charge of places within section. (3.)(a), except places in which smoking is otherwise prohibited by the fire marshal, or by other statute, ordinance or regulation..

(b) The immediately preceding subsection, shall not be construed to require persons in. charge of places .within section (3)(a) to. provide smoking areas. (c) Where smoking areas are designated~, existing barriers, physical separation and ventilation systems shall be used to minimize the irritating and toxic effects of smoke in adjacent no-smoking areas. (dl) No public place described in section (3) (a), other than a bar or lounge shall be designated as a smoking area in its entirety; provided that, if a bar is designated as a smoking: area in its entirety, this designation shall be conspicuously posted on all entrances normally used by the public. (e) Notwithstanding any other provisionof this section (4.), where smoking: areas can be established in any governmentally owned, or.operated facility without subjecting the public to the hazards and inconvenience of ambient smoke, the person in charge of said public place shall designate smoking areas in accordance with the provisions of section (5). (5). Responsibility of Proprietors: The proprietor or other person ha~ing control of a p~ace within section (3)(a) shall: (a) arrange seating to provide a smoke-free area in accordance with. section (3), and provide a seat in a smoke-free a~ea for all persons requesting Such a seat; and, (b) prominently post a"Smoking Prohibited By Law" or international no-smoking symbol sign br signs in sufficient numbers so as to be'easily visible from all sections of the no-smoking area. "Smoking Prohibited By Law" or international no-smoking symbol signs shall be no smaller than eight (8)" inches by ten (,l0) inches, with lettering no smaller than one (i), inch. The letters shall be of a color contrasting..with the color of the background of the sign; and (c) request persons smoking in violation of this ordin- ~ance to stop~ (6) Discrimination Against Employees or A~plicants: Noperson shail discharge, refuse to hire, intimidate, threaten, harrass, or in any manner discriminate against any e~ployee or applicant for employment because such employee or applicant exercises on behalf of himself, or herself, or others, any rights afforded him or her bythis Ordinance. (7) Penalties[: (!a) Any person who willfully violates theprovisions of section (3)~ shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and sha~ll be punished by a fine of not less than $10 or more than $i00 for each. offense. (b) Any person who willful~y violates the provisions of section (!5)~ "or section (6) of this act shall be guilty of a misde- meanor and shall be punished by a fine of not less than $25 nor more than $250 for each offense. (c) Enforcement proceedings under this section may be initiated by the sworn complaint of an. aggrieved citizen, or by citation by an police officer or public safety department officer. The County may establish procedures for the payment of fines by mail. (7) Cumulative Nature of Statutory Remedy: Any right of action created under this ordinance shall not impair any other right to. relief which exists under common law, or under any other statute,, ordinance or regulation.

(8): InjuAction: D~rector, Dade County Department of Public Health, the State's Attorney, or any affected party may institute an action, to . enjgin repeated violations of this ordinance. (10)~ Severability: • ~ T~e provisions of this ordinance are severable, and it is intended that if any part of this ordinance is held to be in violation of the state or federal constitution or county charter, then the remaining parts shall remain in.full force and effect. (ll) Repeal of Ordinances: The following Dade County Ordinances are hereby repealed: Ord&nances 64-44, Ordinance 7'3-41, Ordinance--73-42, Ordin&nce 74-46. (12)i Amendment of Ordinahce: Ordinance 72-61 is hereby amended to delete the w~ord "smoking" wherever it appears therein. --4¸--

---

THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE 1875 I,STREET. NORTHWEST W.\SHINGTON. DC 2l)00~; 20E 457-41:?~00, Boo 424-!11~7.1i; GREGORY R. SCOTt Legislative .\'ffair:s .\ssistant 202, 457-9341 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM : RE : June 4, 1980 Jack Kelly Greg Sco.tt~%" Dade County-- GASP Initiative and Rang.e Committee Proposal Accordin.g to Doug Sessions, Mrs. Range presentedl her committee's proposal during the "Citizen's Presentation," section of yester- day's regularly scheduled meeting of the Dade County Commissioners. The Citizen's Presentation section of the agenda is a grievance period, where any citizen can present an, issue or proposal before the Commissioners. Doug sai4 that her proposal was more or less passed over, that no action was taken by the Commissioners, meaning that the Commissioners did not agree to formally consider Mrs. Range's proposal. Two out of the five Commissioners, however, did state that they would study her proposal. Secondly, the County Attorney sa, id he would review the proposal for legal sufficiency in case it was form:ally accepted by the Commissioners for consideration in the future. Mrs. Range, who evidently is a local political heavy-weigh,t (vis. was on "Meet the Press" on the recent Miami riots -- she is bl--~-~k), said she would consult each Commissioner individually. It would appear that she intends to. push for consideration of her proposal and will present it again for consideration by the Commissioners. The next meeting of the Commissioners is June 17. Doug also men,tioned that, according to the County Attorney, if the Range proposal should be consideredl and adopted and if the smoking restriction initiative is approved by the people, That th,e: most recent proposal would supercede. The initiative proposal, therefore, would stand as the law. Thirdly, if GASP we:re to obtain fifteen percent over the required number of signatures, thereby allowing the County Supervisor of Elections to randomly certify the forms, and if this certification process was to be challenged, thereby requiring, that each signature be verified, and if this. challenge resulted in GASP n,o:t meeting the deadiline for th,e September 9 election, then the question would: appear in the next regularly scheduled general election, which would be the October 7 run-off election. Due to legal advertising requirements.,

however, the County Supervisor's Office is of the opinion that GASP would not qualify for the October 7 election. Hence, it appears that if the above scenario materializes and GASP does not qualify for the September 9 election, the questionwould be presented to the public on the November 4 Presiden.tial election ballot. Dou~ said he is mailing a letter today to you regarding the Dad:e County situation. cc" Roger Mozingo

! 8 2 8 L $ T R Ir E To N. W.. S U i T E 9 0 0, W A S H I H G T O N. D. C. 2 0 0 2 6 2 0 2 -- 4 6 6 ° 2 8 0 0 JOHN DECONCINt INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT March ii, 1980 Mr. Stanley S. Scott Vice President Public Affairs Philip Morris U.S.A. 100 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017 Dear Stan,: Enclosed please find: resolutions on "Anti-smoking campaigns" that were recently passed by the AFL-CIO Executive Council and the Executive Boards of the AFL-CIO's Food &. Beverage Trades Department and. the Union Lab~l & Service Trades Department. Feel free to publicize passage of these resolutions as you see fit. I am planning on running an article on them in the next issue of the BC&T News. Very truly yours, Carolyn J. Jacobson Director of Public Relations CJJ:bkp Enclosure

PHILIP MORR:IS U.S.A. INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE 100 Park Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017 To: From: Subject: Distribution StanLey S. Scott~ AFL-CIO Opposition to Anti-Smoking Campaigns Date: March 13, 1980 Our Iong-term labor agreement continues to work for us. The attached resolutions in. opposition to anti-smoking campaigns represent a big breakthrough for our industry. The resolutions should assi,st us in our New York efforts against the Grannis BilL. SSS: bg Attachment Messrs. R.R. Millhiser C.H. Goldsmith H. Cullma:n S.P. Pollack J.C. Bowling J. 3. Morgan W.W. McDowell F; J. Laux J.B. Robinson Informational Copies Messrs. G. Weissman J.F. Cullman 3rd

Statement by AFL-CIO Executive Council on Anti-Smokin~ Campaign Bal Harbou~, Fla. February~, 1980 Anti-smoking campaigns have in many instances gone to extremes which infringe on ind~ividual rights. Such c~mpaigns have recently t~ken the form of pressures by employers upon ~ions to. adopt con- tracts containing clauses outlawing smoking, or segregating, smokers from non-smokers~ and ~p!oyers have also attempted to impose no~-smoking campaigns on their emp!oyee~ without their consent or cooperation. Some e~!oyers have exploited scientific sSudies of the effects of smoking with occupational exposure to toxic substances and conclud~ that it would be unnecessary to control exposure of these ..sub~tanc~s, if workers stopped smoking. The AFl, CiO is opposed~ to any coercive e£~orts to. infringe on individual rights of individuals who smoAe or o~ ~hose who don't. We also oppose misuse of scientific data concern~n~ smoking and exposure to toxic substances to serve as a rationale for failure to take necessary step~ to prevent worker exposure-to toxic s~st~nces in the workplace, which are shownto adversely affect their healSh. We support common sense, tolerance and courtesy for the ri~s of both smoker and non-smoker, a~d urge all union members to keep informed on data relating to smoking andl health,. ###

RESOLUTION NO. 24: OPPOSITION TO ANTI-SMOKING CAMPAIGNS .Submitted by the Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco: Workers International Union WHEREAS: WHEREAS: WHEREAS: WHEREAS: WHEREAS: WHER~EAS: WH~EREAS: Anti-smoking grou,ps have bombarded the public with. an increasing attack on cigarettes for more than two. decades; and These groups have declared "war" against smoking and smokers, which, includes a propaganda campaign aimed at making tobacco prodlucts unpopular and hard-to-get and at making smoking "socially unacceptable"; and These groups have proposed and continue to propose ordinances on all levels of government to restrict the freedom of individuals.to choose to smoke where th.ey want; and These proposals not only are an abridgement of individual rights, bu.t also the costs of implementing. and enforcing them a:re excessive; and Companies have pressed unions to accept contract provisions outlawing smoking, o.r segregating smokers from non-sm~okers; and The tobacco industry has a major impact on. the U.S. economy. Tobacco is grown, in 22 states on some 400,000 farms and is th,e fifth~ largest cash crop. The U.S. is the leading exporter of tobacco and the third largest tobacco importer, resulting in a positive net contribution of more than $1 billion ~ per year to the U.S. balance of payments; and ~ The Bakery, Confectionery an.d Tobacco. Workers, ~ an affiliate oF this Department, represents a ~ significa:nt n.u~mber of workers who are employed in ~ the tobacco sector as do many oth.er affiliates of ~

the Department in industries supplying material to: the tobacco industry; therefore be it RESOLVED : RESOLVED: RESOLVED: RESOLVED: That the Food and Beverage Trades Department goes on record in opposition to the ongoing, demogogic anti-smoking campaign that is based on fear and misinformation and opposes all proposed, ordinances and management attempts to restrict smoking and segregate smokers; and be it further That the Food and Beverage Trades Department goes on record in support of common sense, courtesy and tolerance for the rights and preferences of both smokers and non-smokers; and be it further That the Food and~ Beverage Trades Department advises its affiliates of the importance o.f this resolution. and urges those affiliates to inform their members about the issue; and b:e it further That the Food and Beverage Trades Department urge the AFL-CIO to go on record in support of the intent of this resolution. Referred to Executive Board

OPPOSITION TO ANTI-SMOKING CAMPAIGNS (Submitted by ~]akery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers international Union, AFL-CIO, CLC) WHEREAS, Ant~-smoking groups have bombarded the public with an increasing attack on cigarettes for .more than two decades, .... ~~:~~;~-~= _-- ; and WHEREAS, These groups, including government agencies, be- cause of their preoccupation (although inaccurate) that smoking has been conclusively found to cause cancer, have diverted sub- stantial funds from research to "educating" others to this opin- ion; and WHEREAS, These groups have declared "war" against smoking and smokc~rs, which includes a propaganda campaign aimed at makin~ tobacco products unpopular and hard-to-get and to mak- ing smoking "socially unacceptable"; and WHEREAS, These I~roups have proposed and continue to pro- pose ordinances on all levels of I~overnment to restrict the free- dom of individuals to choose to smoke where they want; and WHEREAS, These proposals not only are an abridgement of in- dividual riEhts, but also the costs of implementing and enforcing them are excessive; and WHEREAS, Comoanfes have pressed unions to accept contract provisions out-lawing smoking or segregating smokers f;om non- smokers; and ,. WHEREAS, The Iobacco tndus~y has a major Impact on the U.S. economy. Tobacco is crown in 22~tates on some 400.000 farms and is Ihe fifth larl~est cash crop.. The U.S. is the leading exporter of tobacco and the third largest tobacco Imoorter, result- ing in a positive net contribution of more than $1 billion per year to lhe U.S. balance of payments; and WHEREAS, The Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers, an affiliate of this department, represents a significant number of workers who are employed in the tobacco sector as do many other affiliates of the department in industries supplying material to thf~ tobacco industry; therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Union Label and Service Trades Depart- ment goes on record in opposition to the ongoing demogoglc anti-smoking campaign that is based on fear and misinformation and opposes all proposed ordinances and management attempts to restrict smoking and segregate smokers; and, be it further RESOLVED, That the Union Label and Service Trades Depart- ment goes on record in support of common sense, courtesy and " tolerance for lhe rights and preferences of both smokers and non- smokers; and, be it further RESOLVED, That the Union Label and Service Trades Depart- ment advises its affiliates of the importance of this resolution and urges those affiliates to inform their members about the issue; and, be it further RESOLVED, That the Union Label and Service Trades Depart- ment urges the AFL-CIO to go on record In.support of the Intent of this resolution. . .... Union Label & Service Trades Department, AFL-CIO Adopted February 16, 1980

• AN ORDINANCE TO A frIEND CH:% ~F.H, i4 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FALI~g CHURCH. VIRGINIA, EI~LE.~ "HEALTH A ND SANITATION" BY THE A D.O~TION OF NEW ARTICLE IiI, ~NT~LED "SMOKING IN PUBLIC P~CES" (TS0- i) ,8, ~, POLL.ACK THE CITY OF FALLS CBTJRCH~ VIRGINL~0. EEREBY ORDALNS th~t 2 3 4 Chapter [4 of the Code of the City of Falls Church he ~mended by addia~ a new A r~tcLe III as toLLows~ ,.. " " ARTICLE III. ~OK~NG IN ~BLIC PieCES G See. [4-9 ..... Defiaitioas. 6 For the purpose of this article, e.he following words sod phrases shall have ? 8. the meaniogs respectively ascribed to them by this 9 tO ind.~.viduaL care or treatme-t of diseases, whether physical, mental or emotional, or other medical, ph~siological or psychological co:'ditiocs iacluding b=t II Hmited to hospitals, cli-ics, oursing h~mes, home5 for ~he aging or chroaical.l~y laboratories, offices of any physician, dentist, psycho~.ogist, psychiatrist,, }.3 L4 15 L6 phTsictogist, podi:atrisL optometrist or optic Persoo shall meaa a~y person, com~,ay or or~anlza~o~ of any kind. Public me~tin~ shall mea~ a~y meeti.~ ~r a~embly ~e[d i. a ~bllc ~7 bu;l:d,:r:g or building leased for a public 9urpose whic.,~ is op:.=n to the public for the 18 " L9 ~:~)~d~:¢t of the ~ff~irs: of, and ~he transaction of bus[n~s ,by., ac.y legislative or a.:hninistrative body or age.acy of the ~..=,3 of F~Ils CLt'.rch~. including boards, 202585t334

F~ge 2 of (TS0-1) 3 5, 9 tO L[ L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 18 2L. 22 com,.n/salons, au'.:.horities, councils, cemmiRees~ subcom.:~RLees, and other subordinate groups thereof, receiving oz- expending ;:.:~d supporLed in whole part by public f~n~. " Rot,all s, tore..,, shall mean any es~blishment w;..,:,se prir.nary pu~-pose is t~. sell Or 0£t'er for sale to consumers0 not for resale, ~ny goo~s, wares, mer,--hsncRse, articles or other tb.in~s aRd a|,L activities, operatior~s and services connected there~ith or inc£dent-.L thereto.. Retail stor? shall nat £ncl:-.de hotels, restaurants, and those restaurant facilities which ~:¢~e an integral p~rt of a retail store, bars. Loueges, catering establishments and other siznit.ar facilities. Smokin~ or to_ smoke shall meR.~ the act of s~a~kin~ or carrying a Lighted or smo,-aermg ci[ar, cigarette or pipe o.t say kind cr Lighting a cigar,, cigarette Or pipe o£ ~ny kind. .Theater, shall mean any indoor facility, open to the public, which is primarily used for or designed for the ~urpose o£ ~ .... e~:;~tbtttng any motion pictu.re~ 3tags dz'ama, musical recital, dance, Lecture or oilier similar performance. Sec. t4-10. Smoking prohibited ir~ certai~z areas. It sLtal.', be unlawful for any persos t~ smoke in a~xy of the following areas.', Sec' 14-LO. L. in aa elevator, regard, te~s o£ ca:pec£~:3",, e.~cept in those elevator's in siP_gte-fami~y dwellings; Sec. t~-LOo 2. any retail store; ~ny health care ~ac~t-;Ly, regardless o£ capacRy; 3ec. ti-lO. 4. is tony public meeting att~nde~, by me,re than eight (8) persoa.~;

t 2 3 4 5 6 8 tl t2 iS t5 L6 17 L8 20 21 22 23 Sec. 54-[0.5. in any thea~-er0 except s::aohing by ,re .:~.orrf,=¢:..~s at, part o~ the pro.dnction; Sec. L,t-LO. 6. any art gallery, librai.~y0 museum:, or s~-,-~i;lar cultural 5acili~y, suppo~"..:ed in whole or ia part wi~h pubiic rue:is; Sec. L,~:,-L0.7. in any elemeQtary or secondary echoer buitdLag whether public oz private;. Sec. t~-t0.8. in any indoor facility used for recreatioa~l purposes, supporr.ed in whole or in part with public ~un~s, S_ec. t4-lL _ Exceptions~._ The prohibitions of this article sh~LL not apply ~,o the following: Sec. L.,~-LL L. in Zaw~uLLy designated smoking areas~ See. td-tl. :3. !o those areas of enclosed shopping cente~ys or malls that are entersat to "the re~ail stores and are used by custome, rs as a route of t~oave[ from one store to aaothero and that con~st prlmari',.y o~ waLkways and seatlag ~:rra r~g eme nts: ' Sec. L_~:-LL. 3. in an area of a theater co~oct~y reL~,;~red t!~ as a Lobby physically separa~.ed from the spectator area; Sec. l{-tt. in the o,¢fices or wore area ~ot enter.-.;-,,~ by ~h~ pubRc in the normal co~.'se o£ busic,~s;~ or use oi~ the prem$,s~s; See., t~-L1.5, du~iog the hours i~ which :'~b.~ part~.cu. ~.,r bus~ness or £astitutioe is ao~ o~n to the p~bLic; Sec. td-tt. 6. ~n ~=uy tobacco shop %r suture pr~r~.? ~oac~rned wi~ selling tcbacc:~ and smoking- LmpLements;

4 5 6 10 11 12 16 18 20 Page 4 of (TSD-I~ Sec., L,~!~.?. in the £n-patient s[eepinzquarter of any h~'~Lth care faci[iLy~ excep~ hospitals. Each such ~aciLi~y s'.mLL m.ake a ~"~as~n~b[e eflcrL Lo ~ssJgn patients ~o s[eepin~ rooms according to the pa£ien~'~ [ndi~iduaL non-smokin~ or smoking preference; Sec~_L4.-[L~ 8~ ~he sLeep~n~ q~arters of non-a~buh~tory h~spiLa[ patients.: when the physic/an w~ites an o~der im the paL£esL's ~ecord aLLowin~ the patient to s~oke. Each such facility s~L[ ma~e a reasonabte effort to assign ~tie~ts to steeping rooms according to the patiest's indivbi'ust no~-smokiag or smoking preference. Seg. J4-!2.. ,~esignated smokin~ a,rea:. The o~er or person [a c~r~e of any buRdisg, st~-ucture, space, p~ce or area in which smoking ~s proh~ited may designate separate rooms or areas in which s.moRisg is permitted, provided that: ~S~ [4-[2.~!. designation of such rooms or areas shat~ be reaso.~bty separate fr~):r, those rooms o~- areas entered by the pu:btic it~ the normal course of a~e o~ the ~Rrticu~ business or institution: Sec~ 14-~. 2. in designated smokinEareas, existing physicat barriers ~nd ventilation systems shaft be nsed when possibte ~o ~in£~ize the toxic effect of smoke in adjacent n.on-smokin~ areas; Sec. [4-[2~ 3. the smoking area shaLL be ~,o more ~;;n t~,~, ~n~y-five Fez cen': (25%) of the entre ~rea in which smokin~ [s pr,~hib[ted.

2 3 5 6 8 9 12 L4 15 S~.c. ~.:~-l:3. Posti,ng oE signs.: A ny person who ow.ns, manages o~- otherwise .z,.,.n~r¢~l~ any.building, .,acthty, roam, area, or ptace in which smoking £s prohib.~.ted, ia required to post or cause to be posted coaspicuousty, which read: signs at least ~ve (5) i~,.c!.~es in height, signs NO SMOKING City Ordinaace Prohibits the Carrying of Lighte~ Tobacco. Products of Any Kind $25, Fine The letters is the words "No Smoking" (t t/2} inches in height. shalt be a~. least one and one-h.~If 4 Any person viot.-,tlng a'ny oE the provisions of tl~Is art!cle shah be ~iaed up to tweat~-~ive dol~rs ($25. O0}. Each d.~y a vlo|~.£oc o~ ~his ar~i::~ shr-U. coatin,~e constitutes, a separate First ~e~ciing January 14. 1980

PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A. INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE 100 Park Avenue, N~w York. N.Y. 10017 To: From: Subject: Dis tribution Stanley S. Scot~ Minnesota Cigarette Sales Date: December 14, 1979 Per your request, attached is a report on the effects of the Minnesota Clean Air Indoor Act and that state's cigarette sales. SSS:b,g Attachment Messrs, R.R. Millhiser C.H. Goldsmith J.C. Bowling T.F. Ahrensfeld A. Holtzman cc: H. Cullman S.P. Pollack Informational Copies : Messrs. G. Weissman J. F, Cullman 3rd

To: From: Subject: Mr. J.J. Morgan Jon N. Zoler PHILIP MORRIS INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE 100 ~ Avenue, New York, N.Y. 1,0017 Minnesota Cigarette Sales Date: December 1.1, 1979 .We have updated the report on the effects of the Minnesota Clean Aiir Indoor Act (which went into effect on August l, 1975) on the state's cigarette sa;lles. The findings are essentially the same as when last reported on February 21, 1979. Attachment l detail!s tax-paid cilgarette pack sales per capita (total population) from 1973 through 1979 for Minnesota and To~al U.S. In the fiscal year. ending June 30, 1975 (before the Act was passed), Minnesota had Ill.5 tax-paid!c~garette pack sales per capita versus 134.9 for Total U.S. The index of Minnesota to U.S. was .827. For ~he year ending June 30,, 1979, the index of Minnesota to U.S. was .852. This indicates that there has, in fact, been a sligh~ improvement in Minnesota versus. U.S. per capita sal!es since the passage of the Act. Attachment 2 provides indexes of Low Tar, lO0's, Menthol and P.M. Shares for the Twiin Cities trading area - which covers virtually all .the state of Minnesota, vs. Totall U.S. from 1975 through the first six months of 1979. NOtice that the pa~terns of development have remained constant during this time period. The Twin Cities were and still are heavily dlevel!oped in terms of Low Tar (126), Total P.M. Share (ll6), and under-developed for lO0's (93). and Menthol (79). Attachment 3 shows a comparison of the Twin. Cities and its neighboring trading areas' indexes in. 1979 for Low. Tar, lO0's, Menthol and Total! P.M. Shares. In general, the Twin Ciities have category development patterns similar to those of the neighboring markets. The exception is that Total P'.M.Share is significantly higher. In sum, there has been very Iittl~e change in Mi:nnesota's tax-paid cigarette sales per capita, category development indexes, or P.M.':s market share index since th~ passage of the Clean Air I.ndoor Act. o Let me know if you need any additional information. J.N. Zoner JNZ:hg Attachments

MINNESOTA AND TOTAL U.S. TAX, PAID CIGARETTE PACK SALES PER CAPITA (Year Ending June 30) Index Total Minnesota to Minnesota U.S. Total U.S. 1973 106.8 135.1 .791 1974 110.6 141.7 .781 1975 111.5 134.9: .827 (Minnesota Clean Air Indoor Act went into effect August l, 1975) 1976 I16.7 145.3" .803) ) I!977 I17.2 138.9 .844) I!978 I18.9 1401.9 .844 1979 I18.3 138.8 .852 .8241 * U.S. sales inflated due to inventory building in anticipation of production strike. Source:. The Tax Burden on Tobacco; Tobacco Tax Council, 1979 ATTACHMENT l

TWIN' CITIES 1975-7g INDEXES OF LOW TAR, ]O0's, MENTHOL AND. P.M. SHARES IO TOTAL U.S. Low Tar lO0's Menthol P.M. 1975 125 ~2nd half of year) Is~ half unavailablie) 95 81 118 1976 115 92 82 117 1977 121 94 78 119 1978 125 92 80 117 1979 (6mos.) 126 93 79 ll6 Source: M.S.A. Market Shares ATTACHMENT 2

TWIN CITIES AND NEIGHBORING TRADING AREAS 1979 (6 MONTHS) INDEXES OF LOW TAR~ I, O0'~'S~ MENTHOLAND P.M. SHARES TO' TOTAL U.S. Twin cities (Minnesota) Low Tar 126 lO0's Menthol P.M'. 93 79 If6 Dakota 127 81 81 l (]5 Green Bay ll6 80 109 87 Des Moines ll6 95 91 I02 Source: M.S.A. Market Shares ATTACHMENT

PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A. INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE 100 Park Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017 TO¸: From: Subject: Mr. Joseph. S. Deiss Stanley S. Scott Indiana H. 1540: Date: March 30, 1979 As I'm sure you know, the Indiana public smoking, bill, H. 1540, is dead for the year. The attached article describes how the llegislation was killed by Senator Edwards and Senator Nierneyer. Most bills of limited scope like H~ 1540 receive lit-tie or no opposition and once passed give the an~ismoking forces a "foot in, the door" to achieve their ultimate goal of banning all smoking in all pub- lic places. The House vote on H. 1540 proved that this bill was no ex- ception, but thanks to you. and: your volunteers:, we were able to con- vince the Senate tha, t this was an unnecessary infringement on the rights of individuals. I'm confident, as I hope you are, that we will continue to. s~and up and be counted when we face th.ese challenges. Your involvement was, and will be, the key to our success. SSS:hz cc: Messrs. H. Cullrnan S, P. Pollack J. M. Frye

Edwards kills smoking ban bill n, vet )(~lil lhe chamlx~r lh, re would liP,us(. R)tl l~(): warn app~+w~ ~+41 Althou#~ N~vmeyeP t+k res~,nmbH++ ~v for kdlin~ :h. hdl, some oh~er~ ,,f D'n Maim K. E(hva~ds, preside))l: pro tom+ Edwards, a c~gar smoker, earlv~r ~id~ he "didn't much c:~re • '1 d)d not s~aR to lhe pro l,~m~ or (;OP ~eademtnp.'" Niemeyer ~Jd "H~w c~uld we ever ~y we hel~ a pr~lem by pa~ing a~ uneeforeea- hie law2' he sa:d. "T:bere's na way ~h+, hd] would hav~ g)ven, IEe m~s:oner of )he Indiana tlealti~ l~Hmenl Ibe at]lhonly Io D)sI a {it~ VioialioB w~Id have ~,en a Johll Je~.ett, I, residen, (4 Sqtl,q're Arena in lndt:mrll)+fli-;, against tlm hill, sayi,.:R, "It +ts enf(,rceable; why ~ave ~)." lt)l'Ceclbl(P and would t+~ly l+'ad I,. lice harassment chartres. Repubhcan Seas..htm-s ~utch,Pr, Kokomo. and William Dunbar. Terre Hauie, Senate sponsors t,f lh,' htli,i sam the intent, i'; not to d)scrimmale a~ii~lstl Ibe ~r:~on wanting Io smoke~ They' &~ the mt~t was Io prohib=t SlllOkm~ j~ a]t'a£ where +t cnuid harmful l~ Butfhef was critical ol Nt~:meyer for rite way l~e Imndh~J~ the "ll hi" had tlns l}OSlll+lll, why did have lhe ~l,a~lll~ ~i~(I~ ma~t, ..tm~+.. tlS walt," Rutt?h(,r CUml)l.v~rl~d. +'I MOSt 0[. the lt~;ltnli)nv l,~r lht, hllll c,mte~l ar+ilmtl the ~osl r++oi.ni ~4tir, 5,,n k~,?haridi Shank; R~V.IRhart, a j+~p~:: and entrant in next inonth:s liO:;,(:'i~ Matathonl.baukffll the bill "In ()rde~ Io ~ efhcle~l, ] c~ll:l tolerate ~,~.- <:a)~,un monnxtde on m¢ lungs, it' sh)w+ m(P down. ~moke oil tl+e olher . +t)<.ll ()fl lh, +:lltart, lle is ~o safer," lie ' " . ~t,rry Pehlol', attorney f~ the Indi- nnn~ Tolx,cco Disirl~tors, said tmn cente~ w~ldiobj~t tO having to m:~,.re~n;e smoking convenlmnee~ and the state would ultimately le~ busi- D:r. David Gobble of~ ~lll State Uni- Vpr:SItV. %aid. "People wvh heart pro~ lem,; are pulling l~e~r hv~ in other ~ ~:; :' er Ilie7, wlitll lO, risk their Iiv~ '+lh." o)nlirol of eiK~retie smokinl~ t',it); +J{) llilire 1o prevent %d;l:m. rha. man off tl~,ahh and Safely I',hl[;al;l(lil at l)urdue Uilive~ity. +.+,ll,,,J .,)) i))l~+S lhr<JhEho~;l Hie mc~,t.?~,: +:lJC: + " 2025851345

S,HEPARD P. POLLACK I FOR YOUR INFORMATION PLEASE HANDLE PLEASE DISCUSS WITH ME [] RETURN ~ DO NOT RETURN []

THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE I77fi K STREET, NORTHWEST/WASHINGTON~ D.C. 20006, 202/457-4800 OUR TOLL FREE NUMBER IS: 800/42~-9876 MICHAEL 1. KERRIGAN' D/rector o.f:Fidd Activities 202/457.-4889 TO': FROM: SUBJECT" March: 9, 1979 Messrs. McCarty, Dey, Judge, Goldsmith, Hobbs, Leitao Mike Kerrigan March. 9, 1979 Minneapolis City Council Action on Ordinance Prohibiting Free Cigarette Distribution Proposed Ordinance: Distribution of free cigarettes prohibited. No person in the business of selling or promoting, cigarettes, or agent or employee of any such person, shall distribute cigarettes free to any person within the City of Minneapolis. Council Action: The City Council passed: out an amended ver- sion of the above ordinance. The amended version deleted the term "within the City of Minneapolis" and substituted "on the public malls, sidewalks or pedestrian concourse." The scenario of Council action was as follows: A motion was made to postpone consideration until a more detailed City Attorney opinion could be obtained. This action was in response to a memo- randum developed by Joe Robbie and A1 Lerner and was sent to the Council members on behalf of the Minnesota Candy and Tobacco Distributors Associa- tion. The memorandum delineated the potential unconstitutional and discriminatory aspects of the ordinance. The motion to postpone failed by a 5-6-1 vote (one member abstaining and one member being out of town). Aldermen De Mars, Hoyt, Daugherty, Schulstad and Green voted to postpone. Alderman Hoyt then proposed amending the ordinance because of the "legal implications" of imposing an ordinance placing a distribution ban on a product throughout the City of Minneapolis.

March 9, 1979 Page two The same five aldermen voting to. postpone expressed support for the ordinance in principal, but.again stated: their concern regarding (!i) its legality and (2)i their doubt if the intent of the ordinance (i.e., protecting minors from cigarette smoking:) could be achieved. The amending motion passed by a vote of ii-i with Alderman Dziedzic (the sponsor) voting no. The obvious intent of the amendment was to limit the distribution ban in hopes of averting any potential legal problems. The Council then passed the amended version by a unanimous vote of 12-0 of those present. It is important to note that while the intent of the ordi- nance (protecting minors from cigarette smoking) enjoys unanimous support among the Council members, concern still remains among the five supportive aldermen regarding the legal implications of even the amended ordinance. MJK: stub CC: Messrs. Pepples, Stevens, Scott, Tucker, Edward~, Cherry, ~ Rogers, Bewley, Robinson, Wells, Kelly, Oliverio, Lerner, Robbie

---

p~.7~ ~ U.S.A. S[~J~LT: Grannis Bill 120 PARK AV~HE, N~Y~RK, N.Y. 10017 DATE: May 30, 1985 RECEIVED JUN $ ]985 FR K £ RF.SNIK New York Assemblyman Pete Grannis again has his anti-smoking bill before the New York General Assembly. We anticipate defeat~_ng it again (for the seventh. time.) In addition to a lot of personal contact and hard political work, being very effectively directed and led. by Mike Irish,, we have this year employed a new technique to help generate letters of opposition to members of the Assembly and Senate. Because we are forced to call on New York ~t~loyees so frequently, our percentage of participation has dropped (quite frankly, it is akin. to burnout) o In order to ~ the response rate to Action Requests among headq)a~ters employees living in New York frc~ its current i0 percent, we inaugurated a new mobilization technique known as "lobby letters." Lobby letters, which w~re used extensively in Project Apodosis, are multiple text letters directed to the individ1~a]'s legislator. They are designed to appear as if they w~re written by individuals. Mak/ng use of the mainframe ou~uter in Richmond and the advanced word processing system in PM USA Corporate Affairs, we are able, to create these lobby letters. Each includes the person's name and. address, as well as the names ar~ addresses of his/her state senator and assemblyperson. To produce these lobby letters, we start with 12 cc~npletely different texts. We then vary the type face, margins, paper size, paper type and paper color randcmly as the letters are produced. Enclosed with the letters is a pre-addressed, st~c~ed envelope. Thus, all the employee has to do is sign the letter, insert it into the envelope, and mail it. The employees are sorted to minimize the likelihood that one legislator would receive an identical letter fi-~-~-~ two persons. In all there are about 240 variations in the letters. It is, of course, possible that the same legislator will receive the same letter fr~ two individuals. We anticipated this possibility and, based upon our best political judgn~nt, concluded that the effect of the letters w~uld not be significantly diminished. This is true because by signing the letter, the employee is endorsing the position expressed in the letter and as a constituent, the legislator must respond to that endorsement. It would be naive to think legislators either are unaware that political campaigns are organized or that they discount well-organized: lobby campaigns.

There are ii00 ~loyees who got a lobby letter. We anticipate 600-700 signing and mailing them (or one of their own), generating an average of 5 per Assemblyperson and i0 per Senator. Attached; are the basic texts, which, include misspelling and poor granmar by design. Attachment CC : H. Maxwell J. A. Murphy H. Cullman, S. S. Scott W. I. Campbell M. A. Serrano F. Laux H. Steele

• s (itr TO: ~iftit ~iffnm ~ifmnm ~iflnm DATE: May I$, 1985. FROM: K. Michael Irish S~BJECT: New York State's Clean Indoor Air Act, A. 2926/S. 21381 The New. York Assembly will consider A. 2926 shortly, a bill introduced by Assemblyman Alexander "Pete" Grannis, that would regulate or prohibit smoking in public places, work places and public meetings. There are fines, penalties and court proceedings provided for in, this bill for anyone who is "caught smoking." Assemblyman Grannis has introduced similar legislation in each session since 1979. In. 1982 the bill was defeated by. the Senate Health, Committee, and in both 1983 and 11984, it was defeated in the Assembly. No Senate action was taken in either 1983 or 1984. We need your assistance in opposing this legislation. With your help we can defeat it again. Please write to your legislators and tell hiN/her that you oppose the legislation. TO MAK~ IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO SEND A LETTER, WE ~A~E ENCLOSED PRETY~ED LETTERS TO YOUR LEGISLATORS. ALL YOU ~ DO IS SIGN T~E LETTERS A~D HAlL TH~H TO YOUR LEGISLATORS. If you prefer to write your own letter, attached is a sample letter format, suggested points to make andl names and' addresses of your New York State Assemblyman and Senator. Please remember to use your own stationary or plain paper, NOT PHILIP MORRIS LETTERIIKAD OR ENVELOPES. Please sendi me copies of any letters sent to or received from your legislators. This request has been reviewed and approved by senior management at 120 Park Avenue, New York. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions, please feel free to call me at (800)522-5663. Many thanks. cc: S. Scott L. Glennie J. Bartek A. Holtzman G. Powell M. Faulk G Smith V. Buccella~o R. Mozingo J. Breedlove N. Gold B. Buckley A. BerlLn R. Scanlon,

~ir00'3 ~irlna: Suggested Format The Honorable ~iffnl ~ifmnl State Assembly. Legislative Office Bldg. Albany, NY 122418 ~iflnl The Honorable ~iffa:2 ~ifma2 ~ifla2 State Senate Legislative Office Bldg. Albany, NY 12247 Dear Assemb&yman/Senator (last name): Open hy clearly stating your opposition to the legislatiou. I am opposed: to A. 2926 and S. 2138, bills that would regulate or prohibit smoking in public p~aces, work places andi public mee£ings. State your reasons for this opposition. * The cost to government and private business to attempt to comply with these measures will translate into h<gher costs and increased prices for the consumers. * Government control is not the answer to the public smoking issue. The answer lies in courtesy by smokers and; tolerance by nonsmokers. * Laws that attempt to restrict or segregate smokers in public places are of such low priority to the police that they receive little or no. attention. Lack of attention, by the police erodes confidence in our law enforcement agencies. * This measure only creates a~ larger bureaucracy to handle a matter that already is handled by citizens without outside interference. Clo.se your letter by asking for the legislator's cou~nents on this issue. For example: I am ~-xious to hear your views on this matter. or Please let me kno~ your position on this issue. Sincerely, Your name BE SURE TO USE YOUR O~N STATIONARY OR PLAIN PAPER AND ENVELOPE AND INCLUDE YOUR RErURNADDRESS. PLEASE NAKEYOURCOk~ENTS IN YOUR O~N LANGUAGE (i.e., DONWT COPY EXACT WORDING OF THE ABOVE SUCGESTED PO,II~rS).

~ifOOe ~ifOOf ~ifOOg ~ifOOh ~ifOOi ~ifOOj , ~ifOOk ~ifO01~ Dear Assemblyman ~iflnm : I am and have always been a~ firm believer in getting government of~ the backs of the people. In the past few years, we've made a io~ of progress in, dioing just that, deregulating major industries and being less likely to pass a law the minute somebody comes up with an objection to somebody else's behawior. I'm writing, to you to express my firm conviction that the last thing we need is another set of ~aws governing private behavior, such as smoking. If people want to smoke, they'll smoke, and adults can work out such things as where and when to smoke among themselves. They don't need the government telling. them how and when to do it. If restaurant owners or office managers can't work out a solution to a minor problem like this, then we're all in a pretty sad state. How do you feel about it? I'd be interested to know. Very truly yours, H0norable ~iffnm ~ifmnm ~ir001 Assemblyman State Assembly Legislative Office Building Albany, N.Y. ~ifzip

~ir003 ~ir004 ~ir005 ~ir006 ~ir007 ~ir008 , ~ir009 ~ir010, Dear Senator ~if00a : I am and have always been a firm believer in getting government off the backs of the people. In the past few years, we've made a lot of progress in doing just that, deregulating major industries and being less likely to pass a law the minute somebody comes up with an objection to somebody else's behavior. I'm writing to you to express my firm, conviction that the last thing we need is another set of laws governing private behavior, such, as smoking. If people want to smoke, they'll smoke, and adults can work out such, things as where and when to. smoke among themselves. They don't need the government telling. them how and when to do it. If restaurant owners or office managers can't work out a solution to a minor problem like this, then we're all in a pretty sad state. How do you feel about it? I'd be interested to know. Very. truly yours, Honorable ~if00b ~if00c ~ir002 Senator State Senate Legislative Office Building Albany, NY ~if00d

May 18, 1985 ~iffnm. ~ifmnm ~iglnm State Assembly Legislative Office Bldg. Albany, New York ~ifzip Dear Assemblyman ~irO01 : Crime is a major problem, especially in our cities, todmy. I don't think smoking is one the same level at all. ~f we're going to ask the police to enforce the laws, let's stick to importan£ laws, like those that prohibit murder, rape, and robbery. We don't need another set of laws telling us where to smoke. The po~ce don't need another set of silly laws to: enforce. You d you job--and don't pass such laws--and you'll help the police to theirs. Sincerely, ~if00m ~if00e ~if00f ~if00g ~if00h ~i~00i • if00j , ~if00k ~if001

May 18, 1985 ~if00a ~if00b ~if00c Senator State Senate Legislative Office Bldg. Albany, New York ~if00d Dear Senator ~ir002 : Crime is a major problem, especially in our cities, today. I don't think smoking is one the same level at all. If we're going to ask the police to enforce the laws, let's stick to important laws, like those that prohibit murder, rape, and robbery. We don't need another set of laws telling us where to smoke. The police don't need; another set of silly laws to enforce. You d you job--and don't pass such laws--and you.'ll help the police to theirs. Sincerely, • IrOll ~irO03 ~irO04 ~irO05 ~irO06 ~ir007 • ir008 , ~ir009 ~ir010

~ifOOm ~ifOOe ~ifOOf ~ifOOg ~ifOOh, ~ifOOi ~ifOOj , ~ifOOk ~ifO01 May 19 The Honorable ~iffnm ~ifmnm ~iflnm Assemblyman State Assembly Legis. Off. Bldg. Albany, N.Y. ~ifzip Dear Assemblyman ~ir001 : Americans need less not more laws, and we don't need any more laws about how to act in our private life. We don't need a law tellingus that we can't smoke in this or that p~ace. We don't need any more government than we already have. Please reply. Sincerely,

~IrOll ~irO03 ~irO04 ~irO05 ~irO06 ~irO07 ~irO08 , ~irO09 ~ir010 May 19 The Honorable ~if00a ~if00b ~if00c Sena:tor State Senate Legis. Office Bldg. Albany, N.Y. ~if00d Dear Senator ~ir002 : Americans need less not more laws, and' we don't need any more laws about how to act in our private life. We don't need a law telling us that we can't smoke in this or that place. We don't need any more government than we already have. Please reply. Sincerely,

May 15, '85 ~ifOOe ~ifOOf ~ifOOg ~ifOOh ~ifOOi ~ifOOj , ~ifOOk ~ifO0~ Dear Assemblyman, ~iflnm. :i I don't even smoke, but even I think that we don't need another set of laws telling, people what they can and can't do in public or private places. I think that when problems arise about smoke bothering somebody, most of us can take care of it ourselves without shedding blood or costing anybody any money. When someone's smoke bothers me, I tell them. Usually, they do: something about it. ~ don't think it's necessary to put people like me behind a~barrier in a restaurant or in a special section of an office. For many years now, businesses or institutions tha~ think it's important to forbid smoking in some part of their building have done so all by themselves. Why do they needi the government to take care of them now? If you have a goodi argument for this kind of legislation, l'~d love to hear it. Yours truly, ~iffnm ~ifmnm ~irO01 State Assembly Legislative Office B~dg. Albany, N.Y. ~ifzip

May 15, 1985 • ir003 ~ir004 ~r005 ~ir006 ~ir007 ~ir008., ~ir009 ~ir010 Dear Senator ~if00a : I don't even smoke, but even I think that we don'~ need another set of laws telling people what they can and can'~ do in public or private places. I think that when problems arise about smoke bothering somebody, most of us can take care of it ourselves without shedding blood or costing anybody any money. When someone's smoke bothers me, I tell them. Usually, they do something about it. I don't think it'~s necessary to put people like me behind a barrier in a restaurant or in a special section, of an office. For many years now, businesses or institutions that think it's important to forbid smoking in some part of their building have done so all by ~hemselves. Why do they need the government to take care of ~hem now? If you. have a good argument for this kind of legislation, l'dl love to hear it. Yours truly, • if00b ~$f00c ~ir002 Senator Legislative Office Bldg, Albany, N.Y. ~if00d

Honorable ~iffnm ~fmnm ~iflnm Assemblyman State Assembly Legislative Office Building Albany, N¥ ~ifzip Dear Assemblyman ~r001 : Why pass laws on where people can and can't smoke. When this country tried Prohibition, the people found out that not only did Prohibition not work, it brought a whole lot of other problems along with it -- like the rise of bootleggers. Government and ordinary citizens foundl out that it was impossible to legislate against and enforce laws on drinking. New England's blue laws have had the same fate. Nobody even bothers to enforce them most of the t~me. Haven't we already learned that nobody can legislate personal behavior? All that happens is that the government spends a lot of time and money; and the police have another item to add to the list of things they don't have time to do. In this case, they couldn't do it even if they tried. Don't we ever learn from the past? What's the point of passing another piece of useless legislation? I'd like to know. Respectfully, • i~OOe ~ifOOf ~ifOOg ~ifOOh ~i~OOi ~i~OOj , ~ifOOk ~ifO01

Honorable ~if00a ~if00b ~if00c Senator State Assembly Legislative Office Building. Albany, NY ~if00d Dear Senator ~ir002 • Why pass laws on where people can and can't smoke. When this country tried Prohibition, the people found out that not only did Prohibition not work, it brought a whole lot of other problems along with it -- llke the rise of bootleggers. Government and ordinary citizens found out that it was impossible to legislate ag.ainst and enforce laws on drinking. New England's blue laws have had! the same fate. Nobody even bothers to enforce them most of the time. Haven't we already learned that nobody can legislate personal behavior?! All that happens is that the government spends a lot of time and money; and the police have another item to add to the list of things they don't have time to do. In this case, they couldn't do it even if they tried. Don't we ever learn from the past? What's the point of passing another piece of useless legislation? I'd~ like to know. Respectfully, • ir003 ~ir004 ~ir005 ~ir006 ~ir007 • irO08' , ~ir009 ~ir010

May 17, 1985 ~if00e ~if00f ~if00g ~if00h ~if00i • if00j , New York ~if001 Dear Assemblyperson ~iflnm : A couple of years ago, I remember seeing a letter to the editor from a man who said he'd like to see a law passed that would outlaw crying babies on airplanes, in restaurants, and in. theaters. He said, he wanted the law passed because those babies annoyed him and he wanted them stopped. Seems to me that the idea of passing a~ law about where people can smoke is just about as good an idea a~s outlawing crying babies. Aren't we all adult enough to work these things out among ourselves without another law. on the books? I'd be interested; to know if you feel the same as I do -- or how exactly you do think about this question. Your constituent, ~iffnm ~ifmnm ~ir001 Assemblyman State Assembly Legislative Office Bldg. Albany, NY ~ifzip

May 17, 1985 ~ir003 ~ir004 ~ir005 ~$r006 ~ir007 ~ir008 ,New York ~ir010 Dear Senator ~ifOOa : A couple of years ago, I remember seeing a letter to the editor from a man who said he'dl like to see a law passed that would outlaw crying babies on, airplanes, in restaurants, and; in ~heaters. He said he wanted the law passed because those babies annoyed him and he wanted them stopped. Seems to me that the idea of passing a law about where people can smoke is just about as good an idea as outlaw±ng c~ying babies. Aren't we all adult enough to work these things ou~ among ourselves without another law on the books? I'd be interested to know if you feel the same as I do -- or how exactly you dO think about this q~estion. Your constituent, • if00b ~if00c ~ir002 Senator State Senate Legislative Office Bldg. Albany, NY ~if00d

May 191, '85 Hon. ~i~fnm ~ifmnm ~iflnm Assemblyman State Assembly Legislative Office Bldg, Albany, New York ~ifzip Dear Assemblyman. ~ir001 : I see no reason for legislation on, where people may and may not smoke. If there is a problem between smokers and non-smokers in a restaurant or an office or any public space, can't the owner of the place decide if the space should be divided or not? Laws that are unnecessary should not be passed. I hope you feel the same, and I would be interested in, hearing your position on the issue. Sincerely yours, ~ifOOe ~ifOOf ~ifOOg ~ifOOh ~ifOOi ~ifOOj , New York ~ifO01

May 19, 1985. ~ifOOa ~ifOOb ~ifOOc Senator State Senate Legisla£ive Office Bldg. Albany, New York ~ifOOd Dear Senator ~ir002 : I see no reason for legislation on where people may and may not smoke. If there is a problem between smokers and non-smokers in a restaurant or an, office or any. public space, can't the owner of the place decide if the space should be divided or not? Laws that are unnecessary should not be passed. I hope you feel the same, and I would; be interested in hearing your position on the issue. Sincerely yours, ~ir003 ~ir004 ~ir005 ~ir006 ~ir00,7 • ir00B , New, York ~ir010

~ifOOt ~ifOOe ~ifOOf ~ifOOh ~ifOOi ~ifOOj , NY ~ifO01 ~ifOOg May 16, '85 Hon. ~iffnm ~ifmnm ~iflnm State Assembly Legislative Office Building Albany, NY ~ifzip Dear Assemblyman, ~ir001 : As a smoker, 1 9ind it funny that government would insist on regu~lating where and when I can smoke. Along with drinkers, we'~re the most heavily taxed segment of the American population. Every time the states or Washington needs a little more money, they pass another tax that adds to the cost of a pack of cigarettes. If you keep on passing laws forbidding, us to smoke anywhere where we work or in ~estaurants, how will you legislators get back those taxes you've piled on us? Come on, let's be realistic. The last thing anyone needs -- smokers and non-smokers ~- is more government in our life. With best wishes,

~ir0tt ~ir003 ~ir004 ~ir006 ~ir007 ~ir008 , NY ~ir010 ~ir005 May 16, '85 The Honorable ~if00a ~if00b ~if00c State. Senate Legislative Office Bu~iding Albany, NY ~if00d Dear Senator ~ir002 : As a smoker, I find it funny that government would insist on regu&ating where and when I can smoke. Along with drinkers, we're the most heavily taxed segment of the American population. Every time the states or Washington needs a little more money., they pass another tax that adds to the cost of a pack of cigarettes. If you keep on passing laws forbidding us to smoker anywhere where we work or in restaurants, how will you legislators get back those taxes you've piled on us? Come on, let's be realistic. The last thing anyone needs -- smokers and non-smokers-- is more government in our life. With best wishes,

May 15, 1985 Honorable ~iffnm ~ifmnm ~iflnm Assemblyman State Assembly Legislative Office Bldg. Albany, NY ~ifzip Dear Assemblyman ~ir001 : Just a couple of days ago, there was a ~ong report on TV about children starving right here in the U.S. Every day, we hear abou~t how all kinds of programs like Social Security and Food Stamps have to be cut because the government is running such a big deficit. So, you tell me, what is the point of spending a lot of money on regulating where people can smoke or not smoke in public or in restaurants and offices? This is one of the stupidest wastes of money I've ever heard of. I hope you feel the same. Let's not spend another dime on another lame-brained set of laws. Yours wery truly, ~ifOOe ~igOOf ~ifOOg ~ifOOh ~ifOOi • ifOOji , ~ifOOk ~ifO01

May 15, 1985 The Honorable ~if00a ~if00b Senator State Senate Legislative Ofgice Bldg. A~bany, NY ~if00d ~if00c Dear Senator ~ir002 : Just a couple of days ago, there was a long report on TV about children starving right here in the U.S. Every day, we hear about how all kinds of programs like Social Security and Food Stamps have to be cut because the government is running such a big deficit. So, you tell me, what is the point of spending, a lot of money on regulating where people can smoke or not smoke in public or in restaurants and offices? This is one of the stupidest wastes of money ~"ve ever heard of. I hope you feel the same. Let's not spend another dime on another lame-brained set of laws. Yours very truly, • ir003 ~ir004 ~ir005 ~ir006 ~ir007 • ir008 , ~ir009 ~ir010

• if00t ~if00e ~if00f ~if00g , ~f00h , ~if00i , ~if00j , ~if00k ~if001 May 14, I!985~ Honorable ~lffnm ~fmnm ~iflnm Assemblyman State Assembly Leg. Oft. Building Albany, N. Y. ~ifzip Dear Assemb&yman ~r001 : I don't liike that ugly drab green that they use in state or federal buildiings. It annoys and offends me. So woul:d anybody pass a law to forbidi all public places from being painted ugly green? I doubt ~t. This current idea to pass laws to regulate where, and when, people can, smoke strikes me as in the same league with my idea. If we can pass a: law to regulate anything that annoys anyone, then I'd like my laws passed first. They'd make as su~ch sense as trying to legislate against one set of adults annoying another set of adults. I say, ~et people settle this among themselves. Let owners of buildings or workers in offices decide how they want to handle the smoking issue. Most of them have already workedl it out, without any help from the government. Thanks for the opportunity to sound of~. I'd like to hea~ a response. Yours truly.,

~irOlO ~irO03 ~irO04 ~irO05 , ~irO06 , ~irO07 , ~irO08 , ~irO09 ~irO,ll May 14, I'985 Honorable ~ifOOa ~ifOOb ~ifOOc Senator State Senate Leg. Ofc. Bldg.. Albany, N. Y. ~ifOOd Dear Senator ~ir002 : I don't like that ugly drab green that they. use in state or federal buildings. It annoys and offends me. So. would anybody pass a law to forbid all public places frombeing paintedlugly green? I doubt Zt. This current idea to pass laws to regulate where and when people can smoke strikes me as in the same league with my idea. If we can pass a law to regulate anything that annoys anyone, then. l'd like my laws passed first. They'd make as such sense a:s trying to legislate against one set of adults annoying another set of adults. I say, let people settle this among themselves. Let owners of buildings or workers in offices, decide how they want to handle the smoking issue. Most of them have already worked it out, without any help from the government. Thanks for the opportunity to sound off. I'd like to hear a response. Yours truly,

national black pol!ice asr, ociatio,r~ "~ REMARKS BY JIMMY HARGROVE TO THE NATIONAL BLACK CAUCUS OF STATE LEGISLATORS FIRST ANNUAL NORTHEAST REGIONAL CONFERENCE JUNE 7, i'985 "BLACKS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM,: SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW" Educating Police and the Community: a salute Io progress

JIMMY HARGROVE NBCSL .. JUNE 7, 1985 BLACKS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW WE'RE LIVING IN THE AGE OF THE NUISANCE LAW, NUISANCE LAWS HAVE BEEN DEFINED IN SEVERAL WAYS, A DEFIN!ITION~ I PARTICULARLY LIKE IS, A NUISANCE LAW IS ONE THAT IS DESIGNED TO DISRUPT OR BAN WHAT OTHERS CONSIDER ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR, THESE ARE NOT LAWS PASSED TO GUARANTEE CIVIL, POLITICAL OR ECONOMIC FREEDOMS, THEY ARE PASSED TO PUT THE POWER OF THE LAW' BEHIND ONE SET OF TASTES AND OPINIONS AND TO OUTLAWANOTHER,, BY EXTENSION, YOU COULD APPLY THAT DEFINITION TOGROUPS OF PEOPLE, AND, IN SO DOING, GIVE JIM CROW ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO REAPPEAR,, NUISANCE LAWS ARE DETRIMENTAL TO OUR LEGAL AND LEG,ISLATIVE PROCESS BECAUSE THEY ERODE RESPECT FOR:THE LAW', ~HIS EROSION TAKES PLACE NOT ONLY AMONG THE PUBLIC, BUT AMONG THE PEOPLE ASSIGNED TO ENFORCE THE LAW~,, THE SAME POLICEMAN! WHO TAKES PRIDE IN PREVENTING A ROBBERY OR RAPE IS MADE TO FEEL SILLY ISSU~ING A SUMMONS TO, A MAN JOGGI~NG WITHOUT A SHIRT (A,S I,S THE CASE IN PALM, BEACH) OR TO PEOPLE EATING COOKIES ON THE BEACH AT FIRE ISLAND IN NEW YORK,

2 WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO GO INtO A LONG LIST OF NUISANCE LEGISLATION, B=~ I"D LIKE TO USE A,S A CASE IN POINT WHAT SEEMS TO ME A PARTICULARLY DANGEROUS FORM OF THIS KIND OF LAW, I AM TALKING ABOUT THE PROLIFERATION OF THE SO-CALLED "CLEAN AIR" LAWS THAT PROHIBIT SMOKING IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS OR SEGREGATE SMOKERS FROM NON-SMOKERS IN RESTAURANTS. THESE LAWS ARE I~VARIA,BLY PROMOTED BY PEOPLE WHO OBJECT TO SMOKERS AND TO CIGARETTE SMOKE, BUT SEEM RELUCTANT TO ASK SOMEONE TO PUT OUT THAT CIGARETTE. AS A RETI~RED NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER:AND A,SFORMER DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY OF THE BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY,, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO POINT OUT TO YOU A,S LEGISLATORS THE CONSEQUENCES OF NUISANCE LAWS LIKE THOSE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST SMOKERS. AND I,~DLIKE TO GET YOU TO THINK AS BLACK EEGISLATORS ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF ANY LAW THAT OFFERS THE OPTION' OF SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT. LET'S FIRST LOOK AT THE LOGI~STICAL AKD= PROCEDURAL IMPRACTICALITIES OF EN'FORCI~NG LAWS A,GAIN!S~ PUBLIC SMOKING,. FI~RST. . . WHO, ENFORCES THE LAW? A' POLICE OFFICER CAN'T AC~ ON A VIOLATION!, INDEPENDENT OF A, PLAINTIFF, ~HAT DOESN'T OCCUR IN HIS PRESENCE. IF SOMEONE LIGHTS A CIGARETTE I~N THE NO-SMOKING SECTION' OF A RESTAURANT, WHO WI, LL BRING A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE OFFENDER? A WAITER? A, CUSTOMER? THE OW~ER? A'ND: IF A~I A~REST I~S MADE, WILE THE COMPLAINANT BE ABLE TO S~ARE THE TI!ME TO GO TO: COURt?

SECOND, , , ARE YOU AS LEGISLATORS WILLING TO, REQUIRE ALREADY OVERBURDENED POliCE" DEPARTMENTS TO ASSIGN OFFICERS TO SMOKING PATROLS WHEN THEY COULD BE OUT OK THE STREETS OR IN NEIGHBORHOODS PREVEf~TING OR INVESTIGATING SERIOUS CRIME? THI, RD. , . IF THERE IS A COMPLAINT AGAINST A SMOKER IN A, RESTAURANT,, HOW DOES THE COMPLAI~KANT CALL THE POLICE? CAN YOU PICTURE SUCH!CALLS GOING, TO 91~I? IT SOUNDS ABSURD, SINCE 911 DISPATCHI SYSTEMS ARE THERE TO RESPOND TO LIFE-THREA,TENING EMERGENCIES. BUT SOMEONE WANTING TO -- AS WE SAY IN POLICE PARLANCE -- COLLAR A SMOKER WILL HAVE TO ACT FAST SO THE OFFENDER WON'T HAVE A CHANiCE TO DESTROY THE EVIDENCE BY SNU:BBIN, G OUT THE CIGARETTE., FOURTH. . . HOW MUCH FORCE CAN BE USED TO DETAIN A SUSPECT, ESPECIALLY IF THE POLICE AREN'T PRESENT? AND,, MORE IMPORTANT, ARE YOU READY TO: SPEND THE TIME AND MONEY TO, EDUCATE THE PUBLIC IN THE LAWFUL USE OF FORCE? FIRTH. .... IT COSTS $400 TO, PROCESS AN ARREST IN NEW YORK CITY, AND, PROBABLY NEARLY AS MUCH IN OTHER LARGE CITIES. AND, SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE POSSI, BILI~TY OF ARREST OR SUMMONS I:N LIEU OF ARREST FOR SMOKING IN PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS, ARE YOU READY TO SET ASIDE NO-SMOKING CELLS FOR SUSPECTS WHO DEMAND A SMO,KE-FREE ENVIRONMENT? ARE YOU PREPARED, TO FIGHT LITIGATION BY' INMATES WHO INSI~S~ ON NO-SMOKING CELLS? A'S YOU SEE IT CAN REACH RIDICULOUS, EXTREMES.

LET ME TELL YOU OF AN, INCIDENT RELATED TO ME BY A POLICE OFFICER FROM A YOWN IN SUFFOLK COUNTY IN NEW YORK. IT SEEMS HE AND ANOTHER OFFICER HAD BEEN OUESTIONING, A SU~SPECT -- WITHOUT SUCCESS -- FOR OVER AN HOUR, FINALLY THE PRISONER SAID, "OK, I'LL TELL YOU WHAT YOU WANT TO KNOW, BUT FIRST LET ME HAVE A CIGAREITE." ON!E OF THE POLICEMAN GAV'E HIM A CIGARETTE. JUST A,S HE LIGHTED IT, A SERGEAI~T BUR:ST INTO THE ROOM AND SAID, "DON'T YOU SEE THE NO SMOKING SIGN,? PUT OUT THAT CIGARETTE!" THE SUSPECT CLAMMED UP, AND THE INTERROGATI:ON: HAD TO START OVER. THE FOREGOING PROBLEMS, WHILE PRACTICAL, ARE ALSO, SUPERFICIAL. LET'S LOOK AT A MORE SERIOUS SIDE OF THIS KIND OF NU!ISANCE LEGISLATI;ON. THE VERY NATURE OF r~UISANCE LEGISLATION' CALLS FOR SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT -- THAT IS, ENFORCEMENT AGAINST A PARTICULAR GROUP., ~HAT'S WHERE JIM, CROW'BEGINS TO REAPPEAR, TO SOME POLICE OFFI,CERS, SELECTIVE ENFORCEME~IT TRANSLATES INTO LICEF!SE TO DISCRIMINATE. ARREST RECO;RDS IN SEVERAL CI~IES SUPPORT A V, IIEW IN M:IN!ORIT¥ COMMU~IiITIES, THAT SUSPECTS, MOST FREQUENTLY ARRESTEDFOR VIOLATIONS OF ILL-THOUGHT-OUT AND HASTILY ENACTED ANTI~-SMOKI~G STATUTES ARE BLACK OR HISPANIC., ~HEMO,S~ INFAMOUS EXAMPLES OF DISCRIMINATION! RESULTING EROM SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT COME OUT OF THE H!IGHL¥ P'UBLIICIZED -- AND SUBSEQUENTLY DI~SCREDITED -- "SMOKERS' COURT" IN CHICAGO.

SMOKERS~ COURT WAS ESTABLISHED OSTENSIBLY AS A DETERRENT TO SMOKING ON SUCH'hUBLIC CONVEYANCES AS BUSES AND SUBWAYS. IN REALITY, THE POLICE USED ANTI-SMOKING LAWS AND APPEARANCES IN SMOKERSw COURT AS A PRETEXT FOR LEGALLY QUESTIONABLE SEARCHES AND ARRESTS. A, ONE-MONTH: SURVEY MADE WHILE THE SMOKERS' COURT WAS IN EXISTENCE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. OF 279 PERSONS ARRESTED FOR SMOKI~NG,, 25S WERE BLACK, 12 WERE WHITE AND SEVEN WERE HISPAN!IC. THE STENCH OF DISCRIMI~NATION WAS OVERPOWERING INi A COURT ESTABLISHED TO UPHOLD LAWS PROMOTING CLEAN AIR, THE POTENTIAL FOR HARM!OF FRIVOLOUSLY PASSED ANTI-SMOKING LAWS GOES BEYONDTHE BLATANT BIGOTRY OF SMOKERS~ COURT. THESE LAWS CREATE, WITTINGLY OR UNWITTINGLY, A MECHANISM FOR DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT AND HOU!SING. WE MIGHT SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, WANT-ADS STATING THAT SMOKERS NEED. NOT APPLY, OR APARTMENTS FOR RENT TO NON-SMOKERS ONLY. IS THE APPLICANT WHO IS REFU~SED A JOB OR AN APARTMENT REJECTED FOR BEING. A SMOKER OR BEING A BLACK? MY PURPOSE IN RAISING. THESE POINTS ABOUT NUISANCE LAWS IS TO REMIND YOU TO. THI~NK OF THEIR ABSURDITY AND UNENFORCEABILITY AND, THEIR POTENTIAL FOR DISCRIMINATION THE NEXT TIME ONE OF YOUR COLLEAGUES SPONSORS SUCH A BILL. AGAIN, I USE SMOKING ASA CASE IN! POINT BECAUSE SO, MUCH ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION IS BEING PROPOSED OR IS ON THE BOOKS. | ALSO REM,IND YOU AS BLACK LEGI~SLATORS THAT ANY LAW CATEGORIZING PEOPLE -- AS SMOKERS, AS BEER-DRINKERS, AS DEER HUNTER:S -- SHOULD BE YOUR FIRST CLU~E THaT JIM CROW IS BACK IN TOW.N.

120 PARK A'v'~tt~ ~ YO~K~ N.Y. 10017 Distribution. Allene Roberts. National Black Police Associati,on Annual Convention, Luncheon, Thursday:,: August 29, 1985. Hyatt P,u-~enc~" Hotel Mic~-:i, Flori~. ~ATE: August 16, 1985 (NBPA) For your information, USA' Corporate Affairs is sponsoring! the NBPA Convention Luncheon, i2:00 noon, Thursday, August 29~, 11985, Hyatt Reg.ency Hotel, 400 Southeast Second Avenue, Miami, Florida:. The guest speaker is the Honorable R. Eugene Pinch, am, Justice of the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District. Justice Pinch~m wi;~ll share his ex%geriences in, and vie%~ on: the crimir, La~ justice syst~ relative to the concerns of law enforcement professionals. F~-~iliar wi~J. the ~egenda~- Chicago "~ker~ court" con~rovers~, Justic< Pinch~m will provide a ~nilqae perspective on~ the impac~ of selective enforcement of nuisance ~eg_isl!ation on the minori~ty ccmmunity. My r~marks at the luncheon %ili include greetings on behalf of P~ilip Morris and the introduction of Justice Pinch~m. At the 1983 PM sponsored luncheon, Stanley S. Soott was the guest speaker. The subject of his remmmks was "Black Police: Crime Prevention and Ca,~,~nity Support,'. Last year"s guest speaker was Gerald Lynch, President, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York. His remarks explored the "Partnership for Justice: The Police, Business, and. t~e University". With 92 affiliates in 25 states representing 35 major metropolitan areas, the NBPA is a non-profit organization %~ose indivic%da! m6m%bers consist of 35;000 N~PA has issued the attached resolution opposing restrictive ~-~okLnc laws as "nuis=_nce" lecislaticn. If you ~mve tony Lnterest in a~tending the l!t~ncheon or %ish additio.~m! Lnfo'.~etlon, ~.lease !~et ~ ~now- X3752. APJndji Distribution: S. Scott M, Tabris O:. Smith W. M~rritt K. Sass L. Gle.~nie G. B~'gess G. P~II J. Dc~'!ing CC: G. Smith J. l:rye C. Johnson J. Kochevar D. Flori.o H. Jobmson B. Quinb5" A. M~l~!er T. Walls M. ~rish M. Taylor

national black police associatio.n~~'~ 7 w, girard ave., philadelphia, pa. 191,30 • (215)232-3040 January 30~, ]985 ~ereas, restrictive smoking legislation is "nuisance" legislation and' its enforcemen£ would, be a waste of the public '~s resources, ~nereas, there is evidence that restrictive smoking: is, enforced "selectively," discriminating against minorities and poor peopl,e to a greater degree than others, Be it resolved; that the National Black Police Association~ believes t_hat smoking restriction legislation is unnecessary, ~,e.~o~.~am=e a~nd ~nequitahle; ~nd that it wou~a put ~n additiona~ burden; on ~un already overburdened justiice syste~n. R6na Id H~mpton National Cha ±rm~n

120 PARK AVE~, ~ YC~K, N.Y. I0~17 TO: Alan Miller Jinmy Hargrove Briefing Re: NYC Council Hearing April 12, 1985. NBCSL Northeast Region Conference June 7-8, 1985 Newport, Rhode Island DATE: April 5, 1985 Jin~y Hargrove of the National Black Police Association is scheduled to meet here at 1'20 on Tuesday., April 9 at 10:00 a.m, for a briefing to help prepare him for the April 12 City Council Hearing and assist with his remarks at the NBCSL Conference. To further assist Jinm~ we agreed that Ric Scanlan and Paul Briar or Nick Cavataro should be present for the City Council briefing; and Steve Blickstein for the NBCSL discussion. Bud has advised Steve of the meeting. I'm not certain if Ric, Paul or Nick have been formally requested to sit in. Let me know if there are any schedule changes that will interfere with this meeting o CC : J. Kochevar M. Irish B. Quinby M. Taylor S. B~ickstein

P~.~ M~RRIS U.S.A. 120 PARK AV~dE, N~Y(~K, N.Y. 10017 TO: John Kochevar DATE: April 23, 1985 FR£M: Alan Miller ~~ S~J~CT: JL,,,~ Hargrove of the National Black Police Association (NBPA) I w~uld like to rec~,end that we put Jinmy Hargrove on a $I,000 per month retainer fee through the end of 1985. Allene and I agree that Ha/grove could. be of assistance to us in our governmental affairs and constituency building activities. As you. ~mow, Hargrove had agreed to testify in. behalf of our position re: the current City Council ordinance. Although he was not neededl on April 12, w~ may want to ask him to testify at future hearings. Hargrove has also agreed to speak on the subject of smoking restrictions at next June's. National Black Caucus of State Legislatures New England conference in Newport, RI. Beyond this, Hargrove has strong contacts across the country among Black law enforcement officials which should be useful to our overall public affairs and public relations activities. Finally, he has indicated awillingness to continue supporting oureffortby writing articles for the Black press on how anti-smokinq laws impact on minorities and lawenforcement priorities. If you and Guy agree that we should proceed, Allene and I will proceed in drawing up a contract for Jim Breedlove to review. AM/ndj cc: G. Smith B. Quinby M. Irish A. Roberts

' liWh {,s ". iiHappen _ ,in Ii'Murder City" cops e, ,.., _ mos~ places, lt~is ~he smr~ of~a city +~ I merit that takes the concepts of community mseires control and decentralization seriously. Ulti, BY FRANK VIVIANO These are not the best: of times for the city of Detroit. At, rush hour, the four expressways feeding workers inlo downtown are al- most free of traffic; The Dqtroit News, which serves a metropolitan population of four million; carries jusv one and one-half columns of "help wanted" ads--many of~ them lor jobs elsewhere. Hundreds of peo- ple line up outside drugstores for a look at the fat classified sections of newspapers im- ported from Houston and Los Angeles. the great magnets lor the growing exodus of Michigan's unemp]0yedL LaVerne Jones of:the Institute for, Labor Research estimates that almost 350,000 worl~ersin the Detroivarea face permanent job]essness because of plummeting car sales and slructural changes in the auto industr),: In the long unemployment lines and onthe sluggish assembly lines, most understandi as Mayor Coleman Young puts it, "that we will never return to the g!ory days of the past in terms of automotive production., Yet something unprecedented has.hap- • pened in recenl years which makes this far from the worst of times for.Detroiter,s. With national'paranoia over lawlessness soaring, Detroit seems lohave beaten its own crime problem, ~hieh was once the nationrs most acule: Its ove~'a]l crime rate is down 30,per~ cent from,three years ago. In one special targevarea,.robbery has dropped by 56 per cent., breaking-and-entering.by 61 per cent,. rape by60 per cent. It was in search of an explanation for these astonishing statistics that bfound my- selfi walking the streets eL that target: area one da.v lasl spring: What I discovered there suggests much from v, hieh other American cities: can learn. But the lessons may ~ ell're, quite chapges that few municipal govern- mately; in fact, it is a:story ofieommunity it- selI: how Detroit lost it and found it again, • and what happened in,betweem Like much of Detroit, the 152~block neighborhood known as Chandler Park burst into existence almost overnight, in the sudden~ explosion, of street~-paving and house-buildingthat accompanied ithis cit y'~ emergence as the Twentiet~h~ Century American dream factor)'. In 1910, Detroit had been a: relatively sleepy commercial town that drew its Iiving from the timber, agriculture, and manufacturing trade of:the Great Lakes, a transshipment poinl con- veniently localed halD.,ay between lhe iron ore of the Mesabi range and the steel mills of Pittsburgh and Cleveland. By 1925~ however, when Chandler Park was fully inhabited, Detroit was already' pushing.toward a population of~ 1~.5 million.. The present~ physical limits of the city. taken shape, and with them a Lvmbolic landscape: Perhaps more than anywhere else in, America, Detroit,s configuration summed up social! and economic realities that gave the lie to familiar assertions that the United States wasa clt~ssless society. Around the old commercial core of the city~ the new neighborhoods.spread in con- centric rings. Firsti came tight ranks of shabby apartment buildings where the tran- sient newcomers to Motown passed! their initial months. Next stretched--almost endlessly' it seemed--the two-story frame cotlages and duplexes.constructed by the auto magnates expressly for their assembly, line workers. Lasts, save for the maffsions of Grosse Poime beyond ~he boundaries, rose the brick Cape Cod~ ~here the middle m.qnagers and p~ofes- sionals of the auto ind~stry rai~;ed their families. [~etroit v,',as all of!a piece in 1925~ constructed so rapidly thai ~ts rcspc,.ttve shox~L~d ',ir:tuall'~ ~o: ar~hiiec- rural variation, ju< as their ~c>pccti~e in- habit,ants showed virtually no so- cioeconomic di'eergence. The job status and income ofi a Detroiter could be assessed simply'by asking two questions: Where did she or he live. andin what sty.le of house? It really was thav simple, andi for the rues: part, it remained that simple for, thirty years. Over those years, a mute, common un- d.erslanding ruled Detroit--an understand- ing that certain residential barriers were not to be viotated~ Whatever the ¢galilarian rhetoric of the culture at; large, Detroiter~ were born and raised in an atmosphere in ~,'hich class consciousness was a palpable thing. Consequently; crime---omnipresent. terrifying streel crime of~ lhe sorv that characterizes Amer,ican life today-- remained under control, as it does in societies where people know their, place and/ where community feeling (for better or: for worse) runs deep in ever3.' neighborhood. But there was a fly in the ointmem of strict:class analysis in Detroiv. the same that, buzzes through e~ cry assessmenliof so, cial and economic conflict in America. The tlywas race, andin the years between 1950 and I974 it made life in Detroit an,unre- lieved nightmare. As the postwar consumer age prodbced; ever greater demand~ on the auto:irides::'3. Detroit's ,woriking, population, grew reaching a high,of just under, 1.gmiIIion in 1950---still packed:into those blocks.,a,hicb half a, million, fewer people had, home twenty-five years earlier. And the lot of the 400,O00~of those cramped ci~izen~ who v.'ere btack was by far the v,,orst,.as: t'r,e.~ were forced to remain in: the tiny £hetto. near downtown which had alread.~ been, dubbed "black hot'tom" long.before W!ar II labor needs had doubled and ~hen tripled;the black population. Suburban de- velopmcnt could relieve lhe crop, cling whi~e neighborhoods, but for blacks ~he cr,o~ding crea~ed grealer pressures with each passing ),car: It \~as. in short, an intoler,ablc ~!~ich the subscqucnt history of: Dtetr,,i: re- vealed in~ brutal fashion, piifing uor; :>z-_ class whiics againsl work ing-dass bl.<k~ a neigh bu~ ttood;b),- n c i.gt~bor hood for Ii~:ing ,.p:lce. ~wru~crc Iwo did, c< wl",ite populalion fr:t,m ll"lt~rlc Ill;in, 1.5 0Z5851386

'Everyone on our block--absolutely everyone was robbed one year;. even ta/vo policemen' ' lion to 350,000 by 1978; ~nd a phenomenal level of crime--not bemuse the city'had be- come black, but because its neighborhood ~ability had been shattered. In: the years . which ,saw Detroit descend into its "'Murder" City" period, itwas a metropolis almoslien- tirely gi~'en over to:transience. The sense of, community feeling.is difficult to pr~ser~e in a forest of "for sale" signs. That brings us to the bottc;m of the abyss--the blood): 1967 riots that killed at least forty-three Detroiters and left,much of the city a smoking ruirr. For the Chandler Park area, which until that year was racially. divided bythe park 0fthe same name, the. riots opened, a truly unpleasant half- decade. Black and while familiesaltke were " viclimized by gangs.operating out of the nelghborhood's hundreds of abandoned houses, despiie a massive investment in p~- lice manpower and tactical mobile units, which~only seemed to exacerbate the prob- lem: From 1970'to 1974, burglary, larceny .... and auto theft, increased by 61.6 per cent. "'Everyone on our bl~ck--absolulely every- onewwas robbed one year," remembers Alice Szawicz,.one Chandler Park resident. "Even two policemem" Nevertheless,: the bottom had been reached, for the simple reason that Chandler Park, like the city that sur.. rounded it, was no longer racially divided. In,effect, the riots broke down the bar- riers which had once kept Detroit'S classes--and later its races--separat'e: In 1966~ the city had three sorts of neighbor- hood: black, becoming, black, and all- white. By 1,978 there was not~ a single all- white neighborhood~ The, riots, had: accelerated white flight to the suburbs and blacks had moved into disintegrating v, hire neighborhoodS;i later, white flight slowed, Violence in Detroit: A Bleaker View The police unit called STRESS (Stop ,the Robberies and EnjoySafe Streets) came into existence in Detroil in,1971, and in two short years had l-wenty-two killings to its credit. Similar to SWAT in Los Angeles and Atlanta and BOSS in New York City. STRESS accounted for l,percent of the more than 5.500 Detroit police officer,s, but it soon~had the highest per capita number of civilian kill- ings by an)' urban police department in the country. STRESS officers them- selves v, ere responsible for 2.5 per cent of De~roit's homicid~ ra~e in 1~71. Despite r,allies, demon~ m~ns. and communiI) meel~ngs held in p~olcsl of STRESS's bloodshed and repression: was ~ot ugli] 8 shoot-ou~ between STRESS and off-d~l} deputies from the Wayne Coumy Sheriff's Department that public indi~nation~over STRESS'~ goD: activities ~ as fully arous~dL After the smoke had cleared from the shoot- out. ~hich began wit,h a case of "mis- taken identity;" it: was, discovered that forty-four shots had been fired~fo~v- one of them by STRESS officers. L'nNke the slaughter of black 3 b~ STRESS, the shoot-out bct~een.law enforcement officers could not ~e ig- nored or buried in tlic back pages of the paper. Before the ~vinler of 1972 was over,, STRESS was once more in the nc~:s. ~is: time STRESS,offkcrs ~ere involved in a shoot:-ou~ ~v.it~ l:hree young. ~ell-ar~mcd blac~ men,: J~hn Pert3 Boyd. Hayward~Bro~ n. and Mark had been waging a private war against " heroin dealers in theiri neighbor~hood when they apparently stumbled upon a pay,off between dealers and undercover officers of STRESS. In the shoot-out. that followed; four STRESS officers v, ere wounded; Boyd, Brown, and:Be- thune escapedi Three weeks later, the three would have another encounler: ~ith STRESS; this.time one officer ~'as slain and one was wounded In Januaryi 1973; Hay, • ward Brown was captured. Boxd: and Bethune'~cre later killed in a shoot~out~ with Atlanta police. Bro~n, brought to:t~al, became the fulcrum of the drive to abolish STRESSL Jurors, acquitting Brown of all charges, expressed the sentiments of, the commu- nity: STRESS had to go. To quiet the ~rowing criticism, the police Deparl~menl gradually tr, ans- formed S~RESS. renaming it~the Felbnv Prevention Squad. But in general things remained the same and much of the energy from the Detroiti Police Office~ Association (DPOA)~as Oven o~er Detroit Police Commissioner John, Ni- chols and his,bidifor the Emer Coleman Yotfng. For, }ears a:mcanin~f~ul~ force as a~ Male senalor in Lan>ing. in turned to Del,roit lo: na,,unl a ma',ora] campaign 1o keep the city. out: of[ Nichols'S hands, h~ung pr,,mqsed to "turn De~:roi~ a~ouDd"- t~ pt~l ;m end to STRESS and impv>e ~igh~cr con~r,o',s on the police. After his narrow'victory, "foung ira, mediately set: about changing the racial composition, of the city's police force: The city of Detroit had a majority black population and the mayor was deter- mined that the Police Department. would reflect that ratio. "Ibis meant dras, tic change would have to occur, since women and minorities had never ac- counted for more than a token 10 per, c/mr of the. depar~tment. .Quite narurall~', the racist DPOA was angered by these plans and chal- lenged the leg~lttLv of the mayor's affirmative action program, ~A!hile the is- sue s~e~ed~in,court. Young ~ent:ahead with his plans and by 1977 it was esti- mated thal between 26=and 28 per, cent the dep~rlmenl,'s officers were either bla~k or female. Later,. just before massive lasoff of 709 officers, the figure was put at35 to a0:pcr, cent minorit~. ~e new ratio vasl])~ improved p~- lice-community relations and definflelv reduced the number of civilian com- plaints broughl agains~ the police. ~e presence of~ minority officers.al~o pu: a check.on the racis~ demeanor of c, fficers. With a black officer on scene of an arrest, especially l~he of a black suspect, the likelihood <~f cx- cvssiVe force and;bru~alkv was nzini~ mized. But lo monflor or cr:~dlcare p-.~ce [~rulaliI)7 andlnaisco,~ducl c~mpl~ Ze]~ r,e- quires far more than ~hc :,ddi:io~ "of a: aO ' SEf'TE,',IB£R l?Sl

and the staggering, difference between housing cmts in the inner: city and the sub- m'bs began to'draw some young whites into neighborhoods that had once been entirely h]ac'k. Detroit had entered 1967 as one of the most thoroughly segregatedl cities in the United Slates. When, il finally emerged from the ashes of that year's riots a decade later..it was perhaps the most full), inte- grated of the nation,s cities. Slowly, a con- sensus began to .emerge out of the ashes' as weih Race wasn't the problem, any more; crime was. And in the eyes of many Detroit- Board of Police Commissioners. in- stalled in 1973 to review alllcitizen com- plaints against police officers, or the vigi- lance of the Guardians of Michigan, a 500-member statewide black police officers association founded to counter, the racist polic) of the DPOA. there are still not enough eyes to walch and curtail the abusive, improper, and brutal be- havior of Detroit's white policemen. In one terrible week in the summer of 1980. for instance, white police officers fired on seven suspects, criticall). wounding three. Earl)'. lasl year a young Nack mamdied after being tortured bva white officer using a cattle-prod. And'in May of that year three female relalives of the mayor '.,,'ere illegatl)harassed and strip-searched after being arrested b.v: white officers. However, through June of 1981 there had been, only one serious breach of conduct, by a white police officer against a member, of the black community. And as for the relalionship. bet~,een~t~e mayor and the police de- partment, the DPOA did throw its last~ minute support lolho ma~or's recent re- quest, for am increase off the city income lax; ~hich votcr,s approved. ]t:s a;,good ~ues~ tha~ the nc~'. detente ~illl!ast for a ~vhile. --Hr~B BOYD (Herb Bo3 d is a contributi,rg editor of the Detroit Metro Times., This article: was od, v~ted, from a lon~.er vcrr/on in The B,'ac~ SCh~dar, Jam.;, v-f~br:,,;rv I~SI, I ers, the police were demonstrably not the solution. police Departiment spokesman, Fred Williams. a twenty-five-year veteran of, vhe force, .quickly agrees that there was something wrong with,the police--and with police pol- icy.--in those years. "Basically. we used;to just tell peopie what v, as w.rong, and ho,,v we're going to take care of it,, he says. "But the more police had their way, the more the)', alienated the community: And in the meantime, the crime rate kept rising." With, the I974 election, of Coleman Young, the city's first black mayor, came the first important steps toward a different approach. Young had run on a specific promise to the black community: He would get rid of Detroit's STRESS squad,~ the "SWAT'Mike decoy unit which many blacks regarded as a legalized death squad, licensed to kill teen-aged blacks involved in petty property crimes. Young kept his promise and improved on it, establishing an" aggressive affirmative action program to re- cruit black officers into the predominantly' white police force. The program soon be- gan to payoffin improved:trust between:the department and the entire community: "Detroit's like a big, big little town,"' says Fred Williams. "Once the racial makeup of the police force reflected lhe realtty of the population, nearly everybody had a friend or a relative in law enforce- ment. It wasn,t 'them! an`. more: if: 'us.' ""BUt that still wasnrt enough. Late in 1976, Young named William L. Hart police chief, with a mandate to study the problem of crime in Detroit and make ~hatever changes were necessary to meet it.. Hart reached some drastic conclusions about his department: Even wilh the im- proved racial climate, nothing seemed to work. "Traditional police practices." he flatly states. "'will not reduce crime." In fact~, Hart told the mayor, the police themselPes could do very little once crimes had actually been committed. I,f crime ~vas to be reduced al all, "the citizens in tlie community must; be actively in'.~.qved." Community invoh'cment, of course: is not a: ne~ phrase in the vocabulary of Anwrican crime-fl~hfin~. But what ~]arti had in mind v,asnlt a paper program,lhat amounled to little morie than a public rtqa- fions pitch for better c,~opcralion, wiih l~e old! ;',o~{cc n',cthods. ]{¢ ',~as out to ere:tie a rlc~ ~ay. 11¢ ~as out. in cffecl., tO thro~ a',~a} lhe old police book on crime -and to leti the people of Detroit's neighborhoods rewrite it. "You could say that we decided to be revolutionaries," says Williams. "We be- came communityorganizers." The process startedwith a decentralizing scheme that saw fifty police "mini~s~ations" open,all over town~ staffed not only with po- lice but also with some 2.000 tr~ained volun- leers, residents of the neighborhood who, acted as links between the police and the lo- cal population. More important, per,haps. Hart shifted the emphasis of departmental policies away from "reactive" or after-the- fact police action, and toward actual pre- vention, of~ crime. Commander James L. Humphrey; a specialist in prevention, methods, was put in charge of a massive ef- fort to implement lhe new policy: Then the reallchanges began. " Those changes are evident in the way po- lice officers George Preston and Herbert Kaltz spend their workday in Chandleri Park, where I joined them lasv spring. The old:days wouldihave found Preston. a for- mer narcotics officer, and Kahz, who worked the.tactical mobile unit. patrolling these blocks in a squad car. Today Preston: and Kaltz---one black, one white---operate froma quiet office in the basementiof Em- manuel Lutheran Church; and the)', are most likely.to be found in a backyard or liv- ing room, somewhere in the neighbor,- hood,--not solving crimes but talking IO. people about their, li;'es and needs. In a neat brick bungalow on Philip Street., eight:blocks from the church, retired tire-plantiworker John Petross tells the officers about the time he opened his front~ door one evening fi'.e )ears ago and found a rifle pointed at his~belly.. Petross.decided it was time to leave Detroit. "I just:canTt Eve with this," he remembers thinking: But the next, day; Pelross changed his mind~ "My wife and,l were driving down Philip:when hit me: We panic and gi,.e our homes away. That,s exactly ,.vhat~s.wrong: The thing to do was clean the neighborhood up~ not leave'it., A few blocks to: the south,. Alice. Sza- wicz,.a beau~i,:ian, says she once came home from work and disoovered a burglar in: her living room. Like Pctr,oss, she' thou_eht about Iba~ing. But alst)like Pe- tross. Sza~icz isa fighter: she dbcsn~t give up easily. mn~,:cs the diffcrcnc.: b: I'.~ con xzrib:,rl THE ,r'RoG,RL /,SI~,'E .

iI . !i In one target area, ever), break-in nvolved .a home not part II of the Neighborhood Watch. "! " lem around here, but we can4 it alone, Prevention Program. "'They indicate that and we can,t really lead;the way~ It,s up Io the block is organized, thatithes¢ people are folks like Alice and John; the natural notieasyvictims. leaders on the block• Our job is tO make it But this is where the crucial catch ap- possible for them to:take responsibility, for plies. Neighborhood: Watch only goes past their own situation." the second meeting if 50 per cent of the For the city:s ] 12 crime,prevention blockTs residents actively participate: In the officers, that:jobhas:meantcanvassingdoor east-side target; area where Preston and; to door on foot in search of neighborhood leaders to host block meetings. ]tlhas meanv getting leaflets to every household, con- dueling 4,000;residential and business secu- rity surveys to advise on, precautionary equipment--locks, bars, alarms--and speaking to 500~000,Detroiters in,7,000 dif- ferent community meetings since 1976. After the first meeting, which is primar- ily social the officers hegira a detailed dis- cussion of prevention~ strategies, ranging from ways to frustrate burglary, to self- protection in the street. "Neighborhood Watch" and the larger program built around it are meant to serve as much more than inducements for neighbors to watch, out for suspicious strangers. On each block, the program functi0ns:as ageneral clearing- house for information relating.tO "safe ban living.7 A1 regular intervals, the police make free "security surve,vs" of individual: homes, on appointment, and provide coun- sel on changes in locks, windows,.or shrub- bery: In the city's two target areas, senior citizens ~ere given equipment necessan' to effect such~changes, and the equipment ;~'as installed by local merchants, neighbors, and the area~s.crime preventi0n,unit police, " men. Block residents and •police meet from time to time to discuss other measures con- tributing to, personal safety. In recent months, for: example, meetings have been held or brochures dislributed to provide tips on preventing rape, avoiding muggings, reporting crime, and spotting confidence operations. Again and again, police repre- sentatives make the point at these meetings that neighbors, not cops. are the onl.v effec, live crime preventers. Police officials do take pains to,emphasize thatitheir, program is designed to make it difficult to,commit crimes--not to empo~er citizens to soh,e or respond;to,them, h's up to ciiizens to lake responsibilily for them~eh es, and up to po- lice to help them do i1 wiseh and safely. Whom the training ends, large signs bearin~ the name.of the c(~mmunity organi- zation ar¢ erected al each end of tt',¢ Block. The signs are "psyctlolo~ica} barriers agains! c~ime.;" says Lieulcnant NorBL-rl Kozlc~ki:. assi~lanl diriector of the Crime Kahz ~ork. some 100:blocks have failed to meet the 50 per cent involvement require- ment. "We musl have citizens who,accept responsibility and get involved,," insists Chief Hart. So far. 3,500 Neighborhood Watch or- ganizations have been incor,porated in:the city, and police have strong evidence in sup- ,port of their, effectiveness. In the first two andlone-half years of the program in another special target area,on the west side; crime fell overall by 65 per cent. Andiwhen a follow-up *earn looked into the area's burglary total for the last )'ear, t discovered an even more remarkable fact: Every breakqn involved a home Ihat was noti ac- tively participating: in Neighborhood Watch. But for those ,xhich do,panic pate, the benefits often far exceed improved:security: "'The idea is making a better, place in as man)' ways as possible," says Preston. The by,products of~ community organization in Preston's district range from a neighbor, hood van service for senior citizens to a noticeable reduction of "for sale'"signs on, front lawns. There are, of course, risks in all of this--for city officials and for less carefully organized constiluents. An organized citizenry is pro, pared to do more than keep its eyes open for muggers and second-stoo', artists.. It is also much more likely to complain about in- a.deq.uate public services, agitate for expen- sive Improvements, and; vole Io toss the bums oul if the ',,,ill of the eDclorate is too blithely ignored. I~ is a teslamenti to Coleman Young's: skill that, he has v, eathered the pol!tical storm thus far, despite the debacle v,.hich has brought down olher Dc'moc~ats too closel', associatcdl v, ilh, the forlunes of Jimmy CarIer. In J'iune. De~roiicrs e~en voled 1o raise., lheir own municipal taxes al the mayor's request. The ~ey here se,:m~ tO hc that:they'tat, te lhc citv'~ commitment to: corvH'~:tlrlity con- Iro!s at filCL' ~, ;*.]H(.% Progra|]l:, ]ike Neighbor- hood XValCh ha'.e been exi,,.mled to olher. cities ~ithout achiexing the same rc>ults, in 42 /SEPTEMBERlO81 pan because the underlying inlent of the ' programwas not as clear as it appears to be in Detroit. Los Angeles. for example, has not succeeded in~ allay.ing some citizens! fears that its own Neighborhood;Watch will serve as a means for police Io prosel,vtize for laa-and-or,der political issues and: candi- dates. Detroit did~ have the benefit of addi- tional changes in its police force-~changes which might have made other Neighbor~ • hood Watch programs functi0mmore effec- tively. The word you hear eyer2,.'where in Detroit is "community," from police and residents alike: It is what Neighborhood Watch,is really all about there. And in De- troit, police are literally part of the commu- nit,v: By municipal law; they must be De- troit residents. That law, in combination wilh Mayor Youngrs achievements in inte- gratin~ the police force, is a crucial element in the success of Detroirs community, based fight against crime. That isnot to say that all cops are im clined, like George Preston and Herb Kaltz,.to move out of their patrol cars into neighborhood organizing. The Detroit Po, lice Officers' Associat on, which, generally reflects the views of the depar,tment's ~ hire old guard; supports the crime prevention efforts, for example, but opposes man), of the racial hiring guidelines and the residen- tial requirement which make Neigh~or- hood Watch~work. Neverlheless, the general response to the changes in policing amongpolice is en- thusiasm, for, an obvi0us.reason: Cops in Delroil were roundly' despised:by many: De- troiters a decade ago. Today. they are more likely robe regarded with.sympa(hy and ac- cordedlcooperafion. And so,ironically, while the auto com- panies continue their descent,into,economic oblMon, taking, the city's economy with, them, life for, Detroi~ers has in some ~ays improved visibly: Over lhe long term. of ' course, tihat isa rather sad irony: A fierce clas:s di',ision hcl6 the Motor Cily in its grip, for dcoades, before evoh'ing into:a race di,. ision, whM~v.'as, if:anything, e',en more tramnatic~ v. hich. in Par:n has cased jus:l: as . the ccv)nomic induc,.:.n'mnls for lhing in De- troll t~a',e cr:umbled. Detroit. may: die vet. But it v.c,n'i die By its.o~vn collective hand--;rod for those ~ho lived here, as I did, tl'~rou,gh the king dr~fi: of the 1950~, into the lcri~ihlc xio!:nce of the 1960s and llte ",klu~dcr Cil,,'" (]/iks ~,f the early' 1970s, tha'~ is sxm~clhing 1o be pr.m roundly t,Y, !n~. fu If.~r, ~

Ion th.e iiMarg n Atlanta i,,s n0tthe only whece black childcen are dying BY FRANK BROWNING Late one AuguSt afternoon, a truck pulled up to the corner of Tracey and Clinton Avenue. It was~a hot,. humid~ suffocating day; the mer- cury' would~ not drop b~low the 90-degree mark until well past sundown. Tired, dripping with, sweat and grime, the boys jumped down from the back of the truck into the street. The five--Randy Johnson, sixteen; Alvin; Tuner, sixteen; Melvin Pinman,~ eighteen; Ernest Taylor. seventeen, and Michael McDowelL six- teen. buddies for several,years--had been, ,~orking all,day for the dri'~er, ofithe truck, a mover and contra/:t painter. Now the job was over. He had paid them off, and they each had a few bucks in their pockets as they headed down the pleasant tree- lined streeti toward their parents" homes. Glancing in his rear-view mirror~, the driver shifted into ]o'~. gear as he sag' the last boy' hit the pavement. He drove down Clinton Avenue. and. he says, that is the last time he saw any of them. Tha: night, most of tbe boys came home for supper. There was nothing, unusual, about those who didn't: high school kids of- ten stay out late with their friends in the summer months. It was not until the next af- ternoon that all five families, realized that something unusual had happened, for by then all!five boys had vanished. That was three )ea~s ago this summer. Since then, no one, not lheir parents~ not lheir, friends, not their contractor boss, not even the police investigators, has heard a word from them or found an)' trace of what happened. In,the words of one poli~e detec- Frunk Browning is the author~ with John Gcms~i~ of" The American Way of Crhne'" and,an a.~_~ocia~e editor at, Panic New~ Serv- 34 / SEPTEMBER 1981 tive, "It's as though the earth opened up and swallowed them alive." Another episode in the grizzly tale of Atlanta's disappearing black children? Not at all! These kids were all from a respect- able black neighborhood in Ne~ark. Jersey,:justacross the river from New York City: And they, like scores of others who have died or vanished from, the streets ot Boston, Buffalo, Salt Lake City, and: Oakland are victims of what some investi~ gators fear, is a national epidemic of violence committed against young, black Americans. The fate of Atlantars twenty-eight young blacks has capt~ured the attention of the tire world~ Newspaper editors on every con- tinent have watched carefully for the latesti wire report of another body dredged, up from some stagnant. Georgia stream. The British,even entered the act when the detec~ tive responsible forcatching the Yorkshire Ripper hopped the ocean, a jet-set, Sherlock Holmes, ready tohelp solve the most gruesome series of crimes in the city'S history. Atlanta, first city of the American South, has taken its turn as the first city of American Macabre. But as John,Galen; a black New York detective,:told me recently, "'Killings, mug- gings, and :disappearing kids have been com- monplace for us for a long time.'" ~,~,rhat Ga~ lea was sa,ving is that while blacks in Atlanta had reason to fear, for their childrenrs safety; the threat ofd~ath and violence may be just, as great in mosl other, large Ameri, can cities~ For young black males~ the brutal fact~of life is that murder is the leading.cause of death. Arecent report; from the Wash- ington~based Children'S De~ lense Fund outlines the grim profile_ One of every seventeen nomvhile men and one of every ~hirty,two nomvhite women bel~een ages sixteen and, ninctecn~are the victims of a serious crime each ~ear. For every white male teen-ager, murd'ered in America. five young_ non- xvhites are killedi Almost flit)' of every 100,000 non~.hite youngsters under the a~e of nineteen are mar&red--and ahnost seven.of every ]00~000 nonwhiic chikfren under the' age of four are murdered. according to.a ]976 report, of the Department of Health, Education and Wdfare. Since then, police officials say; the figures have only grown worse. "'You've goti to. start with the fac~ thal more young blacks are the victims of homi- cide than of heart disease, cancer, and the other-major diseases combined.-" says 7immy Hargrove, president of the National Black Police Officers Association. "There were mor~ black youths killed lastyear, than all the blacks killed in the Viemam war." In a voice mixed with both sorrow and anger, Hargrove said that for several months suburban, Atlanta police depart- ments had disregarded the young corpses. that were discovered~ The local police had performed sloppy, prelimina~ investiga- tions and in, some cases had lost valuable evidence. "'Had those initiali bodies, been white, we believe the action would have been takenquicker and more intensely.7 he said. If Atlanta-area police initially failed to find anything unusual in, the murder of young blacks, they were nov the only ones. John Schaffner, managing editor off The Atlanta Constitution. told public television interviewer blodding Carter, °'It was not~ immediately recognized as being a ~errible problem because of the facl thai five or deaths among that community . ..... among children even in that communit), in, that given year or in a given .vear's period of time .... is not necessarily considered an abnor- mal number.~ In retr,ospect Schaffner's admisqon seems callous and incomprehensible. In fact. it is standard operating pr,occdure on most metropolitan dailies. Unless they are spectacular, ghetto killings--blacks k~lling blacks---are almost never, considered acres. In the vernacular of the city: xoom; blsck violence--so long as it does nm involve whites--is "'cheap crime." A: nes~paper colleague gho began his career at the lib- eral LouL~ville CouHcr-Jourtml rcc;dk-d re- ccntN.! howin lgfiSpolicc-bcat r,cport~,rs al- wa)'s couns¢ Ird hi~ not to xx~rr), :,,bout~the ""black shoots" or, the "black slabs." "'If somebod)i died~ the) v, cr.e ~xo~lh a graf o~ tv, o. If nobody died. you jusr didn'i do the Mary: I't, ',?,as like the fender-benders thai big city papcr.~ ne~er rcporl."': From Louisville in tg&5 to Aili~uta in 1981 .liule ha,. changed Later in his PBS in- tep,-iew~ the Coaxtiz,,tion's Schaffncr told!

Hodding Carter, "I would like to probably say that we hopefully will do a better job of covering the more disadvantaged black community'of Atlanta. There are a lot of things that we've got:to consider in that. Number one. these people don't read news- papers in the first place. They don't watch TV for that much.., to that extenL They do listen to-radio but not generally to radio news. They don't really care that much about the news. For the most part these people are not what l--'and i~'s probably " not a good tern'P~but what I term creative newsmakers." Life on the m~argin ~ay be cheap and dangerous, but for the modern newspaper~ editor it is clearly not creative. Yet for the nation's press, Atlanta has not been the story, of, life on, the margin. .From time to time there is mention~ that nearly all the victims have come from, the city's poorest section. But the single fact that has turned Atlanta into a~Big Story is that it is psychologically exotic. Like the no- torious Zodiac killings on the sidewalks San Francisco, the brutal murder of;young women in New York City by: the "'Son of Sam." or the sexual assaults of the Los Angeles Hillside Strangler, Atlanta'S child killings fall into a familiar American saga of grotesque real-life crime dramas. Soon there may be a major motion picture--but if so it probably will not note that there are twenty other American cities whose youth murder rates are higher than Atlanta's. That would not be news any more than it was news when,the statistical!office of the U.S, Department of Justice reported this spring, that the violent crime rate against children twelve to fifteen years old was 56.5 per thousand---eight times the rate against the elderly. Those figures do not include murder, but data gathered by the National Center for Health Statistics show a similar, pattern. Youthful victims, the Justice De- partment: confirmedi are fal: more likely to be black and poor than white and affluent. The same thinggoes for, the vast numbers of children who simply disappear each year. According to.Hargrove and other police authorities, there are avleast 50~000 missing or runaway kids a year in,the United States. Thousands disappear in New York alone each year. "'Say we find a skeleton in,some lot up in the South Bronx," says Jimmy Hargrove. "'We mighv know that it'S a twelve- or thirteen-year-old black girl. But is she a runaway from Detroit.'? Was she kid* napped in Miami? Did;her parents abandon her? There's no waywe can check it 9ut~. AI] ge know is that the problem is getting v, orse, thal thekind of stuff:we've had for a long time is starting to show up in ',he rest of the country~" ~ n the wake oflthe Atlanta killings~ c~n- cern about dis:appearing children~i~ be- ginning to rise in other cities as the enormity of the pr~oblem becomes more clear. 36/SEPTEMBER 1981' Before he became director of the Na- tional Network of Runaway and Youth Services in Washington. Stephen Rorke. an Episcopa.1 priest, operated a shelter for run- aways in Buffalo, New York. One sixteen- year-oi.d girl came to the shelter to escape ,, crime ring into which she had fallen. Even- tually she led police to the head ;of the ring, a young man in his twenties possessed of al, most hypnotic powers. In a contemporary variant of Oliver Twist, children thirteen years old: or younger were trained to,steal Social: Security checks from old people and food~ stamps from the poor. Adolescents were taught how to cash the checks and re-. turn the money to the leader. For the kids, it was a chance at sura'ival ina world where many did not survive. Rorke believe~ that the estimate of 50~000 missing children per year is low. In 1980 alone, he says, there were two million missing, juveniles--l.6, million of whom turned themselves in within seventy-two hours of.disappearing. If his figures are cor- re~, severalJhundred thousand may simply have vanished~ And, say black police officers, it is increasingly likely that those who stay. lost are from black or Hispanic communities in impoverished neighbor- hoods. The police are pessimistic abouv their ability either to find or to save many of these thousands of missing or "lost" children when "they t/ind tbem~ Despite the fact that the Federal Governmem maintains acom, purer-based national crime information sys- tem, the system is not designed to locate missing persons. "'If somebody stole your car," says Hargrove, "you could put all the information you wantedqnlo the computer about that, serial numbers, license plates, style,~ model and color, the dents and all. Face it: in "this country there's a lot more ~mphasis on saving property than there is on,saving human life." One Washinglon agency., the Federal Youth Development Bureau, targeted for~ elimination by President Reagan. does col- lect:information,on missing youth and rum aways. It estimates thatbetween 1~.3 and 1.8 mi/lion children were listedl as missing in 1980; 36:per cenl of these cros~ed state lines and were beyond the jurisdiction of state and local pol~ce agencies. "Kids have become a,low-priority itemC" complains Richard Moran. director of a shelter for runaways in Miami. Florida. where almost 700 children and juveniles were tat~en in last year. "'Our ", alues are all scre~sed up. lfi we had one million cases of chicken pox in this nation, the government~ ~vould be going cri~ckcrs to come up with a new serum to stop the spreading epidemic: bul this national tragedy• of more lhan:one million missing children remains a minor priority." Ten 3'ears ago~ children who werv miss~ ing from their homes won national ;~ttem tion as a sidesho~ of hippie counterculture: they ~ere mostly, white middle-clas:s teen- agers who were "dropping out" of their parents" suburban: lives. Missing black children, were ~ldom di~ussed But ac- cording to the U.S. Census Bureau,: black children under the age of eighteen are thr~.¢ • times more likely than white children to be living away from their families; they aie times as likely to be living in iinformal groups, barracks, communal apartments, or abandoned industrial buildings. . The reasons black children leave home.• are legion. The most basic is money. There • is not enough money to support the whole family, and;stresses are too severe. About 30 per cent of all¢ black children in the United States come from families in which. neither parent works• One of the dilemmas facing patents in Atlanta; and elsewhere is that they cannot keep their children at home---even youngsters of six: or seven-- because the children must work to bring money into the family. If the children~ can'ti work (land in De- troit,, estimates of black youth~ unemploy- ment' range from 56 to 80 per cent)~--if they can't earn money: carrying groceries at the supermarket~ shining shoes, or collecting soda cans for recycling centers--then the whole family suffer,s. Or. worse, the children .leave home. Most of: the children who have been found dead in Atlanta: lived with families. They cannot be takenm i:solati0n~ however, from what Black Enterprise editor Joel Dreyfuss describes as the all-out "war on black children." That war. he argues, is the assaull of a society which is willing to:let its black youth disappear,, die of disease, or generate into criminal gang violence v, hich almost certainly brings death or~ imprison- ment before adulthoodi ~ore and more black adoles- cents are discovering that:they are marginal member=s of American- societiv: With parents unable to support them. they leave home or show up, rarely. Denied jobs, or even the prospects of jobs. the,, find. the best way that they can,to survive, often as not in the street gangs that have become re- surgent from New York's South Bronx to the Chicano barrios of Los Angeles. Two years ago Nato, an eight-year-old be,, in the South,Bronx, told:Ianthe Thomas of Pacific News Service ,,,,:hat it was like to be a black survivor. His gang was called the Savage Nomads: "'I beem raised in the gangs~ Like my, brothers were. only the.v're in jail nc,x~ and one got on,junk [heroin] so my mother said re's: dcadi Gangs are tire f~m~.ilies, Like brothcr,s and sisters all tort ther. \Ver, cmble cause you have to, show blood. B!oc, d is stren~th~ ]n the Bronx. there's a io: of bitted. "Pccq:~e say ga~gs is b,4d. Not to me. G~.mgs help each, olbe~, but "~.~e fi~ht if there's .,,latic. This iS j~',,l hey, ~c live. School don't mean m.~H,ing. The3 don't

s 5o,qoo.oo L D YOU SAVe. MAY BE YOUR OWN, Police .Sp( cial i.ask F0rce".. '-. For young black males, murder is the teach your head for jobs and for living, Schools don't teach your head to eat: "You asked me who ]iam. I am some- body: Down East 139th Street~they say, 'No t~oubl~ i~ stores." ~en they lhrow you out;. So mayb~ we burn ~hem. ~en lh~y gone. We still here~ We still somebody. -"My mother ~o]d me my father lives in~ Jem~y: I was goin~ =o see him [one day]. . Mayb~ he had some money for me. ] didn't find him sol just:walked around in those big pa~ks,over ehere. , "'~at's when I= joined'4he SaVage No- made. Big Man took me in. He speaks Hke law tNnker, does 'cause he done heavy lime. He don't want the ~angs to fight and he don't let no cJiqu~sfight. He say~ t~at while people want us to figh¢ each~oth~r then they don't have ~o deM with us. "Sometimes I t~in~ this is wrong. ~at'S it. It's justiwrong~ Not for me 'caus~ I'm man. Bu¢ for Htde child[en, growing up her~. ~ey ~ee nothin~ anti,then t~ey feel noehing I ~now ~at mine people have money and cars and food. Tbcn xou think:, 'Why can't I have thatT Bu~ w~at good does ~hinking do? "I b~en r~i~ed here flora the time buildi~g~ ~ere more preuy and parks lrcc~. Now ~ c don't havo an~thin~ But,you ~ct ~ilh~vour, cl~ue and xou lalk and party and ~el h~. You can feel ~ood ILik~ som~- body:" lOn~ remain ~ %omcbodv,." M~rc likely he leading cause of death, • will go to jail as his brothers have, or like "8,621 other children in New York last year, he will disappear onto the missing persons -list• Indeed he may already have disap- peared since he gave his interview in his motheFs waterless flaL These are the children ~ho see no future for themselves, who see American society at war with them and~see themselves avwar with society. They are like some ofi the children murdered in Atlanta, unlike 'others. They are per~haps more desperate, just as,the ~outh Bronx is more desperate than even the worst districts of Atlanta• Yet what unites gangs lille the Savage Nomads and: the Atlanta murder victims is their proximity to death, their visceral knowg edge that one of every'2,000 young black males will be murder'ed before he cele- brate~ihis twentieth birt,hday. The rising death rate of, American blacks--one receni Chicago siudy found a 300 per)cent increase in black homicides, be- tween 1964 and, 1973--has spawned new fears among= blacks throughout the nation. And within the lastiyear alone a spate o.f ap- parently racial killings in a half dOzcmcities, has,brought the le~ el oflfkar andlparanoia to new heights. In Buffalo. five black h~en,were viciously murdered, apparently at random, in one three-week period last fall Two had: their chests carved open and their hearts ripped out. More rccentl)nearby Rochester Dqice hrought, a sea lcd,'indict mr_ nt a g;fi n.',t, a ~ hire " (, BRYCE FL,YNN ~ PICTURE GROUP man who was overheard in Georgia boast- ingof bla~ks be had killed in that northern city. In Cincinnati,:two black:teen-agers were shot down by amunknown assailan: with a .44 c.aIiber carbine. In Indianapolis last January, two men were murdered by sniper, fire as the) stood before large plate glass store windows: In Salt Lake City, two: young joggers were shot and; killed while the.v were out running. Their killer, convicted this spring; is a self-confessed white supremacist who was also questioned in connection with the ' ,shooting.last year of Vernon Jordan, presi. dent ofithe National Urban)League: In several suburban communities sur, rounding Oakland; California~ black fami- lies have been subjected to gunfire, fir~ bombings, and open assaults on their children in the public schools.. The cumulative effect of these renewed anti-black attacks, of~the rising death rate among black teen-agers, of resurgent Ku Klux:Klan,activity, and of the mot,bid litany pouring out of Atlanta, has been profound. it/is tile scott of all-pcrvasi,, c fear suggestedl by' Kcnnei Jackson,, a black historian at Stanford Univ,ersity: "XVhen you pick up the nc'xspaper and read about t'his black be, ing killed here and another, black being killed tftere, it does somct~ting to )our psy- che. something bad. It leads ~o tl-le percep- ilion ~laat iCS suddcnl.~ hunling season, on blacks agaim" I THE PROGR:£SSIVE 137

PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A. INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE T20 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y~ IOO1:7 TO: Hugh Cullman and Shepard Pollack DA~E: May 3, 1984 Stanley S. Scot~ ~ .... , .r.~ F~M: SUSJ~T: Grannis Bill -- NY Clean Indoor Air Act (A.2746) .. In anticipation o:f an Assembly vote on the subject legislation on Monday, May 7, our.department -- working with the Tobacco Institute and its lobbyists -- has made a number of initiatives (see attachment) in an effort to defeat this anti-industry bill next week. /cc Attachment

PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A. INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE TO: Stanley S. Scott ~ FI~K).: Dale J. Florio ~ J' "~. SU~T: "New York Clean Indoor Air Act'" (A.2746) Philip Morris U.S.A. Public Affairs Activity Report 120 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017 DATE: May 2, 1984 Outlined below is the department's collective internal and external outreach effort to defeat the Grannis Bill as of Wednesday, May 2. P~ease note the department's personal contact sheet and. expected vo~e tally in anticipation of the vote on Monday, May 7. (see TAB A) ~ ~nternal Request New York 120 Park employees and New York Sales Force to write letters and participate in phone banks. Send S. Scott memo to all department heads asking that they rem~nd ~heir employees their letters '"do make a difference." II External - Selected members from the following organizations have received letters from either PM USA or the Tobacco Institute (TI) asking them to voice opposition to A. 2746. (see TA~ E) • New York Chamber of Commerce • New York Board of Trade • PM USA Hit List • Interboro Chambers of Commerce • Government Affairs Professionals (GAP) • Miscellaneous businesses and associations NOTE: Follow-up phone calls are beingmade to the above mentioned organizations and their members by PM USA and TI personnel. - H. Poole and G. Hibbard sent letters and made follow-up phone calls to major New York banks requesting support. - Department members have made personal contact w£th individual legislators (see TAB A). All legislators receiving political contributions from PM USA and PM Industrial were contacted in addition to New York members of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the New York Black and Puerto Rican Caucus.

-2- -PM USA and the TI have received over 40 endorsements of the industry position. (see TAB D) III Attachments TAB A # Department contacts and vote tally (unofficial) • Official vote tally.s from 1979, 80, 81, 82', 813 TAB B • New York Campaign Contributions List TAB C (internal) • New York Action Request • S. Scott memo to department heads TAB D Organizations supporting industry position TAB E (external) • New York Chamber of Commerce • New York Board;of Trade • PM USA "Hit List", Interboro Chambers of Commerce,. GAP, Miscellaneous businesses and! associations. TAB F (external) • New York Black and Puerto Rican Caucus TAB G • Press clippings on A.274~6 (all members of the Assembly have received individual copies of the press clippings as they were released;). IV' Tobacco Institute - As you know, the TI sent two additional staff to work with Ric Scanlan in upstate New York and one person to work with our staff in New York City. Their mission was to generate third- party support for defeat of A.2746. The list of supporters in TAB D are a reflection of that effort. We still have requests for support pend;ing with several organizations. J'. Kochevar M. Irish B. Qulnby J. Nelson M. Herrera A. Roberts K. Thompson

.~..~ "~ ~

1984 PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A. PERSONAL CONTACT WITH NEW YORK LEGISLATORS - A.2746 Barnett, William (R-Katonah) B_Boyland, William (O-Brookl)'n) ~Burrows, Gordon (R-Westc.h.ester) Bush, William (R-CamilIus) Che~bro, Ray (R-S7racuse) Connell7, Elizabeth Cooke~ Audrey (R-Rochester) D'~ato~ A~and ~R-B~ldw~n) Dante,s, Geraldine (D-Hanhat~) Davis, Gloria (D-Bronx) Dearie, John (D-Bronx) Dtaz, Hector (D-Bronx) *New17 Elected DelToro, ~elo (D-Bronx) Eve, Arthur (D-Buffalo) Far~e11, Be~an (D-Hanhat~an) Supports Opposes ~eaning Against Undecided X X X X X X X X X X 1983 Vote PM Contact Nay Irlsh Nay Roberts Nay Irish Nay Irish Nay Irish Yea Thompson N~y Irish Nay Irish Nay Roberts Nay Roberts Did Not Vote Irish Newly Elected Herrera Did Not Vote Herrera Did Not Vote Roberts Did Not Vote Roberts Cont'd...

Page 1984 PHILIP HORRIS U.S.A. PERSONAL CONTACT NITH NEW YORK LEGISLATORS ~ A.2746 Supports 0pp?~e~ Leaning Against Undecided 1983 Vote PH Contact Gantt, David (D-Rochester) Graber, Vincent (D-Buffalo) Green, Ro~er (D-Brooklyn) Greene. Aurelia (D.Bronx) Griffith, Edward (D~Brooklyn) Harmon, K~mP (p.Ga~den City) Healy, Phi11p (R-Hassapequa) Hevesi, Alan (D-Queens) Jacobs. Rhoda (D.Brookl~n) Jenkins, Cynthia (D-Queens) Zuhl, John (R-Bath) X X X X X X X X Roberts Irish Did Not Vote Nay Yea Nay Yea Roberts Roberts Roberts Irish Irish Yea Yea Yea Nay Roberts Roberts Roberts Irish Cont'd...

Pase 3 o¢ ~ 1984 PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A. PERSONAL CONTACT WITH NEW YORK LEGISLATORS - A.2746 Supports Opposes Leaning Against Undecided 1983 Vote PH Contact Lane, Clarence (R-Windham) Larkin, William (R-New Windsor) Levy, Eugene (R.Nyack) Marshall, Helen (D-queen§) McPhillips, Hary (D-Newburgh) Nadler, Jerrold (D-Hanhattan) Newburger, May (D-Great Neck) Nq~gan, Clarence (D=Br?oklyn) Nozzolio, Hichael (R-Seneca Falls) Passannante, William (D-Manhattan) Patton, Barbara (D~Hempstead) Paxon, William (R-East Aurora) Perone, John (R-R~e) X X X X X X Nay Nay Did Not Vote Excused Yea Excused Absent Yea Nay Absent Yea Nay Irish Irish Irish Roberts Irish Herrera Irish Roberts Irish Irish Roberts lrlsh Irish Cont'd...

,Pa~e 4 4 1984 PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A. PERSONAL CONTACT WITH NEW YORK LEGISLATORS - A.2746 Supports Opposes Leaning A~ainst Undecided 1983 Vote PH Contact ~RappleTea, Clarence (R.Norwich) Rettaliata, Antonia (R-Huntington) Rivera, Jose (DrBronx) Robach, Roger (D.Rochester) Robles, Victor (D.Brooklyn) Schlmmin~er, Robin (D-Ke~nmore) Serrano. Jose (D-Bronx) Spano, Ni.ck (R-Yonkers) Straniere, Robert (~,.Staten Island) Sullivan, Peter (R-White Pla.ins) Vann.~ Albert (D-Brooklyn) Walsh, Dan (D~Buffalo) Waldon, Alton (D-queens) X Nay Absent Yea Nay Yea Absent Yea Did Not Vote Nay Nay Did Not Vote Did Not Vote Irish Irish Herrera Irish Herrera Irish Herrera Irish Irish Irish Roberts Irish Roberts TOTALS 16 14 19 O0 I,S iSZOZ

NE~ YOP~K STATE ASSEMBLY VOTING RECORD ON SMOKING-RESTRICTION (GRANNIS) BILLS--pase I ^SSEMBLY HE~EI~ (PARTY-DISTRICT) 1979 1980 1981 1982 I--Edward Abrmnson (0-32) Y 2--Frank Barbaro (D-47) ¥ Y A ¥ 3--Henry Barnett (R-89) .... 4--Thomas BarraEa (R-7) .... 5--Gregory Becket (R-21) .... 6--John Behan (R-2) N N N N 7--Lawrence Bennett (D-96) - - - - 8--Icillo Bianchl (D-3) Y 9--William Boyl~and (D-55) .... 10--M~chael Bragman (D-118) - - N N ll--John Branca (D-88) - - Y Y 12--Richard Brod~ky (D-86) .... 13--Gordon Burrows (R-84) ¥ N N N 14.-Wil~lam Bush (R-I19) N N N N 15--Denls Butler (D-36) Y Y Y Y 16--Anthony Casale (R-113) N N N N 17--Thomas Catapano (D-54) .... 18--Ray Chesbro (R-If7) - - l~9--3ohn, Cochrane (R-8) N N A N 20--Elizabe~h Connelly (D-58) Y Y Y Y 21--Richard Conners (D-I04) N N! N ¥ 22--Robert Connor (D-92) .... 23--Audre Cooke (R-132) N 24--Richard Coombe (R.98) .... 25--Armand DtAma~o (R-119) N N A N 26--Robert D"Andrea (R-IOS) Y Y 27--Geraldine Dan~els (D-70) - - Y N 28.-Gloria Davis (D-78): - - N N KEY : Y=YE$ N=NO A-ABSTAIN/ABSENT * = Vote of 4120/83 "-"-STATUS UNKNOWN

NEW ¥OEE STATE ASSEM3.L¥ VOTING I~CORD ON SMOKING-ItESTI~ICTION (GRANNIS) BILLS--paEe 2 ~SSEI4BLT MEMBER (PAI~TY-DISTRICT) 1979 29--Jolm Dearie (D-75) 30_.Anselo De1 Toro (D-68) 3l--Jolm Vuane (D-25) 32--Eileen DuEan (D-5,2) 33--Eliot Engel (D-81) 3&--Arthur Eve (D-I~I) 35--Herman Farre11 36--Daniel Feldman, (D-45) 37--3oseph Ferris (D-51) 38--SCsnley Fink (D-9) 39--John FlaneSan (R-9) ~0--Louis Freda (D-~9) ~l--~orse Yr~edman (D-79) ~2--Dav~d GanC~ (D-133) ~3--~lph Goldsce~n (D-30) ~5--V~cenc Craber (D-~8) ~7--Ale~nde~ Grannis (D-65) ~8--~rel~s Green ~9--~o8e~ Greene 51--Patrick Halpin (D-I1) 52--~p Rannon (R~17) 53--Paul 8arenberg (-) 5~--Glenn Harri~ 56--~ilip Rezle7 1980 1981 1982 1983" T • ¥ A Y ¥ ¥ A - Y Y A A Y Y Y Y A Y A N N N A - N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A Y Y Y Y - - ¥ N N Y Y Y Y Y T Y Y Y Y - A Y N N Y Y Y Y - Y N A Y Y Y Y Y N N ~ - y Y Y N~ N N A N N N N Y Y Y Y Y-YES N-NO A-ABSTAIN/ABSENT * - Vote of 4/20/83

NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY VOTING RECORD ON: SMOKING-RESTRICTION (GRANNIS) BILLS--pase 3 ASSEMBLY HERBER (PARTY-DISTRICT~ 1979 57--Alan Hevesl (D-28) 58--Dov Hikind (D-48) - 59--Maurice Hinchey (D-101) Y 60--Michael Hoblock (R-103) N 61--George Hochbrueckner (D-4) - 62--William Hoy~ (D-144) Y 65--Rhode Jecobs (D-42) Y 64--Cynthia Jenkins (D-29) Y 65--Richard Keane (D-145) N 66--Nell Kelleher (R-100) N 67--Ollver Koppell (D-80) Y 68--Arthur Kremer (D-20) Y 69--John Kuhl, (R-127) - 70--Ivan, Lafayette (D-34) 71--Clarence Lane (R-102) 72--Willlam Larkin (R-95) N 73--Howard Lasher (D-46) Y 74--Vincen~ Lelbe~1, (R-90) - 75--Joseph Len~ol (D-50) N 76--Eugene Levy, (R-93) N 77--Gerdl Lipschu~z (D-23) N 78--Hugh MacNell (R-125) Y 79--George Madison (R-22) N 80--Vincen~ Marchiselli (D-82) Y 81--Helen Marshall (D'35) - 82--Nettle Mayersohn (D-27) - 83--James McCabe (D-123) 84.-John McCann (R-Ill) - KEY : ¥'YES N=NO A-ABSTAIN/ABSENT * " Vote of 4/20/83 1980: 1981 1982 1983" Y Y Y Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A A N Y N N N N N N N N Y , Y Y Y N N Y N - N N N Y Y Y Y A A N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y N N N y Y Y A Y Y N Y Y N Y N ¥ Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y ¥ Y Y "'-"'STATUS UNKNOWN

YORK STATE ASSEM3L'~ VO~ING RECORD ON SMOKING-RESTRICTION (GRANNIS) BILLS--pa~e 4 ASSEMBLY MEMBER (PARTY-DISTRICT) 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983" 85--Michael McNulty (D-106) .... 86--Mary McPhillips (D-94) ..... ¥ 87--Hymen Miller (R-121) N N N N: N 88--Melvln Miller (D-44) A ¥ ¥ ¥ Y 89--Michael Murphy (D-139) N N N N N 90--John Mur~augh (D-72) - - 91--Jerrold Nadler (D-67) Y Y Y Y A 92--James Nagle (R-135) A A A A 93--May Newburger (D-16) y Y ¥ Y A 94--Lou~s Nine (D-74) ¥ Y ¥ N 95--Clarence Norman (D-43) .... 96--H. Nor~z (R-If4) N N N N N 97--Michael Nozzollo (R-128) ..... N 98--John O'Nell (R-If2) - - N N N 99--Angelo Orazio, (D-15) A Y Y 100--WilllamParment (D-150) .... N 101--Frederick Parole (R-14) Y Y Y 102--Willaim Passannante (D-61:) Y A ¥ ~ A 103--Barbara Patton (D-18) .... ¥ 104--L., Paxon (R-147) .... N lOS--John, Perone (R-85) N N N N N 106--JT Pillitere (D-138) Y Y A Y Y 107--FranclsPordum (D-146) .... N 108~-Gary Proud (D-131) Y Y Y Y Y I09--C. Rappleyea (R-122) N! N! N N N l'10--Antonia Rettal~a~a (R-IIO) y y y Y A lll--Jose Rlvera (D-77) .... Y ll2--Roger Robach (D-134) A N N N N KEY: Y"YES NfNO A-ABSTAIN/ABSENT * - Vote of 4/20/83 "-"-STATUS UNKNOWN

NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY VOTING RECORD ON SMOKING-RESTRICTION (GRANNIS) BILLS--pase $ ll3--Victor Robles I14:--Richard Ruggiero (D-I16) I15--And~ewRyan (R-I, IO) ll6--William Ryan llT--Steven Saland (R-97) llS--Steven Sanders (D-63) llg--Joseph Savicki I20--Robin Schimm~nger (D-140) I21--Frederick Schm~dt (D-~8) 122--William Sears (R-IIS) 1,23--Anthony Seminerlo (D-31) 124--Jose Serrano (D-73), 125--Louise Shaughter (D-130) 126--John Sheffer 127--Mark Siegel (D-66) 128--Sheldon Silver (D-62) 129--Nicholas Spano (R-83) 130--Leonard S~avisky (D-26) 131--Robert Stranlere (R-60) 132--Edward Sullivan (D-69) 133--Peter Sullivan (R-87) 1,34--3ames Tallon, (D-124) 135--Frank Ta~omle (R-129) 136--James Tedisco (R-107) 273--PD TONKO (-I) 13~--Alber= Vann (D-56) 138--Erlc Vltallamo (D-59) l'39--Alton, Waldon (D-33) KEY: 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983" ¥ Y Y ¥ _ - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N A y y Y Y A N N N N! N y y Y X N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y y y Y Y A N N N N A Y A Y Y - - N N N Y Y Y X Y A A A N Y Y Y Y Y _ - Y Y Y X A X N A Y-YES N-NO A=ABSTAINIABSENT * = Vote of 4/20/83 "-"'STATUS UNKNOWN ASSEMBLY MEMBER (PARTY-DISTRICT)

NEW ¥OPJ~ STATE ASSEMBLY VOTING RECORD ON SMOKING-RESTRICTION (GRANNIS) BILLS--page ASSEMBLY MEMBER (PARTY-DISTRICT) 140--Glenn, Warren (R-99) 141--Helen Wetnsce£n (D-41) 142--Saul Weprin (D-24) 143--Robert Wertz (R-6) 144--R~chard Wesley (R-136) l&5--Cllf¢on Wllson (D-137): 146--George Winner (R-126) 14,7--Lewls Yevoli (D-13) 148--Melvin Zimmer (D-120) 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983" ¥ Y Y Y Y ~ ¥ A Y A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y-¥,ES N-NO' A-ABSTAIN/ABSENT * - Vote of 4/20/85, "-"'STATUS

202~85~407

( lons Thr h F~ster List of Political Co~~ibut~ : _ oug 4/19/1984 (Page i) New York Recipient Democratic Assmb Cmpn Crate (D} NY County D~n Campagin Cmt (D) NY Dem Assembly Campaign ~nt (D) NY Dem Assembly Campaign C~t (D) NY State Senate Dem Cmpn Cmte (D) NYS Senate Democrats ' 84 (D) Bogues, Leon (D) Daniels, Geraldine(D) Dearie, John(D) DelToro, Angelo (D) Diaz, Hector (D) Eve, Arthur(D) Farrell, Herman (D) Galiber, Joseph (D) Graber, Vincent (D) Kr~.er, Arthur(D) Markowitz, Marty (D) Norman, Clarence (D) Passannante, William (D) Patton, Barbara (D) Rivera, Jose(D) Robach, ~r(D) Schi~ger, Robin (D) Vann, AI(D) Con~ibution Target Office Sought Amount Date Source $500 1/13/1984 USA $200 5/1/1984 IND $500 5/1/1984 IND $500 2/1/1984 INC $i000 1/13/1984 USA $200 5/1/1984 IND Senator $200 5/1/1984 IND Assemblyw~man $200 3/1/1984 IND Assemblyman $250 3/26/1984 USA Assemblyman $200 3/1/1984 IND Assemblyman $200 5/1/1984 Assemblyman $500 3/1/1984 IND Assemblyman $200 3/1/1984 IND Senator $250 4/5/1984 USA Assemblyman $200 3/i/1984 IND Assemblyman $500 3/1/1984 IND Senator $200 5/1/1984 IND Ass~nblyman $200 5/1/1984 IND As~lyman $250 4/5/1984 USA Assemblyw~man $200 3/1/1984 IND Assemblyman $200 5/1/1984 IND Assemblyman $200 5/1/1984 IND Ass~!~~ $200 5/1/1984 IND Assemblyman $200 5/1/1984 IND Beq~estor Irish CulLman(per)* Irish Roberts Roberts Roberts Status DISBURSED P~D~WG PENDING DISBURSED DISBURSED P~DING P~DING DISBURSED DIS~ DISBURSED P~qDING DISBURSED DISBURSED DISBURSED DISBURSED DISBURSED P~DING PENDING DISBURSED DISBURSED PENDING PENDING PENDING NOTE: (per) =personal contribution

Master List of Political Contributions: Through 4/19/I~984 (Page 2) Waldon, A1 (D) Walsh, Daniel (D) C~te for P~publican Assembly(R) NY Senate Republican Camp ~ (R) NY State Senate Rep Cmpn Crate(R) NYS ~te Republican Camp ~nt (R) Smithtown Town Republican Club (R) Barnett, Henry(R) Surrows, Gordon (R) Bush, Willian (R) D' Amato, Armand (R} Harmon, Kemp (R) Johnson, Owen (R) Kehoe, L. Paul (R) Kuhl, John (R) Larkin, William(R) Ixmabardi, Tarky (R) Marchi, John (R) Nozzolio, Mike (R) Paxon, William (R) Perone, John (R} Rappleyea, Clarence (R} Rappleyea, Clarence (R) Rettaliata, Antonia (R) Spano, Nick(R) _Straniere, Robert (R) Sullivan, Peter (R) Assemblyman $200 51111984 IND Assemblyman $500 31111984 IND $i000 111311984 USA $500 2/1/1984 INC $500 1/13/1984 USA $500 5/1/1984 IND $200 5/1/1984 IND Assembl~ $250 5/1/1984 IND Assemblyman $200 3/1/1984 IND Assemblyman $200 3/1/1984 IND Assemblyman $200 3/2/1984 USA Assemblyman $200 3/1/1984 IND Senator $200 5/1/1984 IND Senator $200 3/1/1984 IND ~semblyman $250 5/1/1984 IND Ass~nb~ $200 3/1/1984 IND Senator $300 3/1/!984 IND Senator $500 5/1/1984 IND Assemblyman $200 1/3/1984 USA Assemblyman $200 1/3/1984 USA Assemblyman $200 3/1/1984 IND Senator $200 5/1/1984 IND Assemblyman $500 3/1/1984 IND Assemblyw~man $200 3/2/1984 USA Assemblyman $200 1/13/1984 USA Assemblyman $250 1/13/1984 USA Assemblyman $200 5/1/1984 IND Irish Cullman(per)* Irish Irish Irish Irish Irish Irish Irish P~DING DISBURSED DISBURSED DISBURSED DISBURSED P~qDING P~qDING PENDING DISBURSED DISBURSED DISBURSED DISBURSED P~DING DISBURSED P~qDING DISBU~-~ED DISBURSED P~qDING DISBURSED DISBURSED DISBURSED PENDING D ISBURSED DISBURSED DISBURSED DISBURSED P~qDING NOTE: (per) =personal contribution

M~ster List of Political Contributions: Through 4/19/1984 (Page 3) Wertz, Robert (R) Winner, George (R) Assemblyman $300 3/1/1984 IND Assemblyman $200 3/1/1984 IND Total .......... $16,000 DISBURSED DISBURS~ NOTE : J. Cullman contributed $500.00 each to the New York Democratic Assembly Campaign Committee and the New York Republican Senate Campaign Committee. NOTE: (per) =personal c~ntribution Ol:g,l: ;ZOZ

2025851411

-. IIlIJKKI 120 Park Avenue, New York, N.Y, 10017 TO: FEOM: SUBSECT: Allene Roberts NEW ¥OP, K ASSEHBLY BILL NO. A2746A "New York Clean Indoor Air Act - The Gray.is Bill" DATE: March 9, 1984 For ~he seventh consecutive year, the New York State Assembly viii consider a comprehensive, restrictive smoking bill sponsored by Assemblyman Alexander "Pete" Crannis (D-65- Manhattan). ~ne measure could be considered for a vote by the Assembly during the month of March. The bill would restrict smoking in public places including restaurants, museums, meeting roo~s, libraries, arenas, retail 8torts and workplaces like factories and offices, (e.g. .I00/120 Park Avenue). The bill would also mandate barriers segregating smokers from ~on-smokers, special ventilation systems and no-smoklng 81Ens. Proprietors of establishments subject to the law would be responsible for enforcement and be liable for a $25 fine for the first offense and $I00 for each succeaslve offense. If enacted into law, the bill would require the creation of separate smoking areas in all but the smallest commercial offices. This would require the relocation of office equipment, disrupt work rou¢$nes, as well as decrease efficiency and work productivity. Last year, for the first time since 1978, ¢he "Grannis Anti-S~oking Bill" failed to obtain enough votes to pass out of the New York Assembly. In a last ditch effor~ Assemblyman Grannis "laid the bill on the table" which in effect gives him one more opportunity to seek passage of this bill during the 1983/1984 legislative session. ACTION REqUESTED Your efforts last year made an i~pact; but we need to keep ~he pressure on ~n order to defeat the bill once again. all employees, including TAP/TAN volunteers living in ~ev York, who. agree We encourage that the "Grannis Restrlcrlve Smoking Bill" should be defeated to do the followlnE: Write your Assembly~n / Assembly~oman im~ed~ately to. express opposition to the ~ "Crannls Restrictive Smoking Bill." ~ Participate, if asked, in a phone bank, calling other TAP/TAN volunteers to encourage the~ ~o write letters. This phone campaign will be coordinated by Ric Scanlan, The Tobacco Institute Regional Vice President through Public Affairs USA. PM USA Tobacco A~'tion P~ogram

NEW YORK A2746A Page 2 APPROVAL This request has been revieved and approved by senior management at 120 Park Aveuue. Attached is a sample letter vith suggested points to make. The name and address of your Assen~lyman / Assem~lywoman is indicated below. Please use the enclosed pre-addressed envelope to send copies of letters you write, as well as letters received from your State AssemSlyman / Assen~lywoman to the Philip Morris USA Public Affairs Department. IN PP~EPARING YO~ LETTER, PLEASE USE PLAIN PAPER OR PERSONAL STATIONERY AND' PLAIN ENVELOPE. DO NOT USE PHILIP MORRIS LETTERHEAD: OR ENVELOPES. If you have any coennents or questions, please contact me on the TAP Hotllne: ~22-5663; Office: (212) 880-3752; Home (212) 585-5670,. Thank you for your prompt response to this request. Your Representative in New York 18: (800) ADDRESS: Mender of the Assembly State Capitol Albany, NY 12247 AR: J'F Laux Buccellato. Holtzman HCole~an Scott Clenuie Breedlove Robinson Irish Mozlngo Kerrlgan Scanlan [Puder]i

S~GG~STED FOI~T ~ear As semb iyman/ks semb lyvoman Open by clearly stating your opposition to the bill: I wish to express my opposition to A2746A, the "Crannis Bill", that would restrict smoking in public places. State reasons for your position: • The "Grannie Bill" is an unenforceable piece of leglslatlon that would cost taxpayers ~uch more than it is worth. • Smoking lee matter of personal choice and. an activity that is best governed by common courtesy. Citizens are already the victims of too much government regulation. At a time of soarin~ crime rates and limited state and local monies, implementing the "Grannis Bill" would clearly be a waste of fiscal and human resources. * Another lawthat proscribes personal habits is unwelcome. * Any real or imaglnar~ problems that exist between smokers and non-smokers can be resolved by common, sense, tolerance, and courtesy. Close your letter by asking for the legislator's comments on the issue. For example: I am anxious to hear Four view onthis matter. or Please let me know your position on thls issue. Sincerely, Your BE SURE TO USE YOUR 0~ STATIONERY OR PLAIN PAPER AR~ ENWELOPE A~ INCLUDE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS. PLEASE MAKE YOUR CO~ENTS IN YOUR LANGUAGE (I:.E., DON'T COPY EXACT NORDING OF THE ABOVE SUGGESTED POINTS).

PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A. INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE ;o: AI 1 Department Heads FROM: Stanley S. Scott~~ SU~ET: Letter-wrlt;Ing Campaigns i!n New York 120 PARK AVENUE,: NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017 411161'84 In the past; three weeks, we have asked headquarters employees l iv.ing~ iin, N~/: York State to write their State Assembly Represenr.at;Ives about- the Grannls ~noklng restriction bill or~ If t;hey live in Suffolk County, the County Executive on Suffo]k's smoking restrict, ion ordinance. We recognize t;hat every year employees are asked ~o writ-e t-o public officials on issues of vit;al concern to Philip Morris. Once again~ we need your help ~o generat;e a renewed legisl~a~ive effort i!n, Albany and:in Suffolk County. We would personal'ly appreciate a verbal reminder t;o your st;all members--exempt- and non-exempt--that their letters do make difference. HE~/ever~ in no event are we asking you, to prepare any memo or other written matter for your staff on this issue. If t;hey agree that- these bl!lllls are unfair andI unnecessary~ t-hey should--if t;hey live in Suffolk Coun~y--wrl!~e to Count;y Execu~live Pet;er Cohalan~ and: urge him t;o vet;o t-he smoking ~es~rlict-ion bill. A fac~ sheet Is at;t;ached providing all the information t-hey need. If t;hey live elsewhere in New York St;a~em t;hey should w~it;e t;heir St-at-e Assemblyman or woman, and urge him t;o vote a~alnst t-he Grannls smoki:ng: rest;rict;i~on blll!. A fact- shee~ for ~hat; lett;er Is also at-t;ached. If t;hey don't know thelr represen~atlve~s name,, t;hey should cal!l Allene Robert;s (X 3752) andlshe wlll be glad to Ident;lfy t-~eir ~epresentat;ive. Please ask for copies of the l!etters your people send: out- and forward t;hem t;o Public Affairs. Al!so please remind t;hem~ not t;o use Philip Morri!s letterhead or envelopes. ~hank you for your help. jms attacll~ent cc: G. Welssman H. Maxwell d. Murphy H. Cu1!Iman R. Murray S. Po111!ack d. BC~l!Ing ~. Campbell

TAB D 202~851416

Asse~ly Bill: 2746-A by Assernbly~nan Grannis restricts s~noking in public places-- including restaurants, places of ~rk, hotels and motels, arenas, convention centers and many other areas. A~nong assoclations and organizatlons ~ich have filed against A. 2746-A: New York State Hotel & Motel Association, Inc. Ne~ York State Public Employees Federa~i'on Fraternal Order of New York State Troopers, Inc. The Business Council of New York State Ne~ York State Associat ion of Count ies Ne~ York Hotel and Motel Trades Council Hotel, Motel, Restaurant, Cafeteria;, Luncheonette and HOspital En~l:oyees Union The Tobacco Institute Ne~ York State Restaurant A~soc iation Ne~ York Convention & Visitors Bureau, Inc. New York Ch~nber of Con3~erce and Industry New York State Federation of Pol ice, Inc. Nat i onal Assoc fat ion of Tobacco Di st r i.butors Retail. Tobacco I~ealers of America, I~nc. New York State Association of Chiefs of Police, Inc. New York State Bo~l Ing Proprietors Association, Inc. Manufacturers Association of Central New York Capital DIistrict Bowling Proprietors Associationp Inc. Nat ional Licensed Beverage Assoc iat ion Clgarette Merchandisers Assoclat Ion, Inc. Hotel, Motel & Restaurant En~loyees & Bartenders Union, Local 471 HOtel, Restaurant & Club En~loyees and Bartenders UnIion, Local 6

-2- New York St.ate Automobile Dealers, Inc. Hotel Associal~.lon of New York City, Inc. Smokers United United Restaurant, Hotel, Tavern Association of New~ York St.at~e New York State Association of Tobacco and Candy Distriibut.ors,. Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers I'nternational Union Buffalo Tobacco and Candy Tabl!ep Inc. W.N.Y. Coin. Machine Operators Association~ Inc. l~he Innkeepers As~soci:ation of Western New York, Inc. Buffalo Area Chamber of Corrrnerce New York State Food Herchants Association Nat ional Federat ion, of Independent Business National Black Pol iice Associ~ation Erie County Liquor Licensees Association Service Systems Corporation Nat ional Organizat ion Of Black Law Enforcement Execut ives Natlonal Association of Negro Business and Professional Womens. C l ub. New York State Hispanic Chamber of Co~lnerce New York Who|esalers Assoclat.[on New York Local Teamst.ers Union 805 Sloan~s Supermarkets Inc. [nc.

20~.%851419

PHILIP MORRIS April 20, 1984 Mr. Jean Lindberg Executive Vice President New York Chamber o.f Commerce & Industry 200Madison Avenue New York City, NY 10017 Dear Jean: On behalf of the tobacco industry, thank you for your interest in helplng to defeat A 2746, the restrlcclve smoking bill pending before the New York Assembly. Through your efforts and Chose of your colleagues George Cooper and Lou Venech, we have been able to significantly broaden our contact base. Enclosed is an informational packet containing the followlng items: A suggested cover letter that could be sent from the New York Chamber co a select llst of your members encouraging their participation in a letter writing campaign against A 2746, a proposed draft of a letter opposing the leglslacion that could be mailed from these businesses to the New York Assembly, a llst of businesses chat would be appropriate for you to contact. The bill is likely co come up the week of April 30 or May 7. Obviously, the sooner we can generate these letters, the better. Please let me know if I can be of help in facillcacing the Chamber mailing. I may be reached at 2121878-2477. ~ ~t~N&I.I~.,O~I=-~ M[RrI' VlRGINIA~JM~ I~AY-rJ~ pM~L4/dF.NTUGHTS SA/~TOGA ~ .4Uql~ MULT1FILTE.q

Mr. Jean Lindberg Pase 2 April 20, 1984 Follow-up phone calls to these businesses rill be made by Philip Morris and Tobacco Institute people to reinforce the importance of this effort. Asaln, thank you for your help. Sincerely, girstlnD. ~ompsou Public A~falrs Specialist Philip Mozris USA KDT/ems ATTACHMENTS

-3- SUGGESTED DgAFT LETT~ TO There is a bill no~ in Albany.whlch would require that any "place of wor~' or "indoor area open to the public" have separate areas set aside for people who smok~. Called the "Clean Indoor Air Act," it is expected to be voted on by the full A~sembly as early as April 27. According to the bill, restrictions would be ~nposed in all government buildings, post offices, convention facilities, bus and air terminals, bingo halls, bowllng alleys, enclosed arcades, shopping centers, sports arenas and many more areas. Close to 40 organizations in New York State have filed "Memorandums in Opposition" to this bill, which they feel is discriminatory. The issue of smoking versus non-smoklng more often than not is solved by courtesy and common sense. Some of the ma~or reasons to oppose this bill include: o It is unenforceable - according to the New York State Federation of Police, "it would be the ultimate irony for the Legislature to send police officers into restaurants, bo~ling alleys, etc. to issue a cigarette summons to a decent citlzenwhile simultaneously seeking. more effective ways to deal with real criminals." l__~Is costly - studies show that retail stores, restaurants, arenas and other facilities would incur a significant increase in expenditures to conform wlth the proposed legislation. In businesses, work areas would have to be redesigned to accommodate non-smoklng employees and ventilation systems would have to be changed. Separate non-smoklng areas in all facilities open to the public would have to be constructed. It is a burden on state and local sovernment - local government would have to add staff to promulgate regulations, hold hearings for waivers and interpretations, etc. I have enclosed a list of organizations already in opposition to A 2746 and a suggested memorandum. Please use your own words in composing your letter. If you agree with this stand, please send a memorandum to Albany in opposition. Use your organization's letterhead and send me a copy of your letter. Sincerely, (your signature)

-4¸- SUGCESTEDMEMORAI~UM ~ OPPOSiTiON This letter is in opposi~iou ~o k 27&6, a bill to regulate smoking £n public. As a member of the b~siness community of ~e~ York, we find this type of legisla~iou cos~ly and discr~natory. The bill would necessi~ate a to~al reorganization of our facilities and would detract from productivity and efficiency. New York has mote pressing legislation to deal with. This issue can be handled throuKh courtesy and cooperation. Please vote "~0" ~hen¢ousiderin~ A ~7&6.

LIST OF NEW YORK CHAMBER MEMBERS k~tO WILL RECEIVE LETTERS FROM JEA~ LINDBERC Mr. ~illiam Rubin Mr. Alan S. Painter PresidenC Director, Corporate Affairs Bouwit Tell~r Allied Corporation Ms. Gillian Swanson Employment Counsel Bo,ok-of-theMonth Club Hr. ~omas M. Macioce President Allied Stores Corporation Mr. John M. Harris Executive Vice President Booz b~len & Hamilton Inc. Mr. Lee S. Appleton Regional Vice President Allis Chalmers Corporation Ms. Diane Kelthly Computer Analyst Borden Inc. Mr. Leon Hess Chairman Amerada Hess Corporation Mr. Jack Schwartz Vice President Bowery Savings Bank Mr. John J. Tobin General Manager American Airlines Ms. Marilyn L. Gruber Corporate Comptroller Bristol-Myers Company Mr. Robert F. Ivey Corporate Secretary American Bank Note Company Hr. R. E. H. Knight, Jr. Secretary Brooklyn Union Gas Company Mr. Walter R. Brown Partner Brown Brothers Harriman Mr. Charles A. McLendon Executive Vice President Burlington Industries Inc. Mr. Marvin Edelstein District Manager Burroughs Corporation Mr. G. Wallace Bates President Business Roundtable Mr. Harry I. Miller, Jr. General Manager Corporate Insurance Aetna Life & Casualty Inc. Mr. Edmund G. Langhorne Manasing Vice President & Regional Director Alexander & Alexander of NY -I- Ms. Ellen M. Woodruff Comptroller, Communications American Brands Inc. Mr. Peter Cusack Vice President Human Resources American Broadcasting Company Mr. S. H. DoggeCt Assistant to the President American Cynamld Company Mr. T. L. Nye Personnel Supervisor American Electric Power Svce Mr. James: D. Robinson III Chairman American Express Company Ms. Carol G. Emerling Secretary American Home Products Corp

LIST OF NE~ YOP~ CHAHB~R MEMBERS ~0 WILL RECEIVE LETTERS~JKANL~BERC Mr. Norman Nescler Director, Personnel American IneCiCute of CPA's Mr. Arthur R. Taylo,r Chairman Arhcur Taylor & Company Ms. Theresa C. Braun Personnel Eanaser American Institute of PhTsics Ms. Rose 5. Schwing Controller, Administration Asarco Incorporated Mr. Lawrence M. Zipp,in Executive V~ce President American Insurance Association Mr. Joseph 5. Schu~, Jr. Vice President, Secretary Associated Dry Goods Corp Mr. Eobert M. McGraw American International Group Ms. Lucy Galletta Controller American Paper Institute Mr. Edwin Colon Manager, Development Administration American Stock Exchange Mr. R. T. Albano Vice Preslden~, Marketing A~lan~ic Bank of New York Mr. John J. Mackowski President Atlantic Companies Mr. Joseph V. Votterlak President Avis Rent-A-Car Inc. Mr. Robert Ehinser Secretary & Controller American Telephone & Telegraph Company Mr. Ro.cco Pocanovar, Jr. Director Corporate Communications AMF Incorporated Mr. Ronald W. Wolsey Amoco Oil Company Mr. Johann Brinckmann General Manager Amscerdam-Ro.cterdamBank Mr. Donald L. Thomas Chairman Anchor Savings Bank Mr. William R. Brennan, Jr. Chairman Apple Bank for Savings Mr. B. E. Litton Managing Partner, New York Arthur Andersen & Company Ms. Mary Ann Dirzis Manager Government Affairs Avon Products ~nc. Ms. Marian C. Baer Executive Officer B Airman & Company Mr. RenaCo Guadagninl Senior Vice President, Manager Banca Nazlonale De~ Lavoro. Mr. L. Troni Director Bauca Popolare Di Milano Mr. Jose M. Caballo Executive Vice President Banco de Bilbao Mr. Juan X. Aqulrre Representative Banco De Credlto ERipotecarlo Mr. Dardo A. CarOler Senior Vice President & General Manager Banco. De La Naclon Argentina -2-

Nr. Robert R. Brina President Bank of Commerce Mr. Stephen A. Lacoff Director Personnel Bea~ Stearns & Company Hr. Shafiqur R. Khanher GeneralManaser Bank of Credit & Co~nercial Investment S. A. Mr. Data D. Avari Senior Vice President Bank of India Hr. AklraKanuo Representative The Bank of Japan Mr. R~chard L. Reudrie Vice President, ~arketin~ Beefsteak Charlie's ~nc. Mr. David Shapiro President Betadyne Corporation Mr. 5. Do Scott Agent Csnadlan Imperial Bank of Co~merce Representative Bank of Korea ~ou. Carl H..Pforzhelmer, Jr. Senior Partner Carl H. Pforzheimer & Company Mr. J. Carter Bacot Chairman Bank of New York Hr. John W. Kiermaler Vice President, Public Affairs CBS Inc. Hr. E. D. Hunter Assistant General Manager Bank of Nova Scotia Mr. Peter H. Conze Vice Chairman Celanese Corporation Mr. Jean-Marie Wery Chief Representative North America Banque International a Luxembourg Mr. John P. Richardson First Vice President Barclays Bank International Lid Mr. Lew Riggio, President Barnes & Noble Bookstores Inc. Mr. Axel K. A. Hans£ns Executive Vice Presidenc & Manager Bayerische Hypo Bank Hr. A. I. Caplow Managing Agent Century-Paramount Hotel Ms. Katherine D'Alessio President Chanel Incorporated Mr. Irwin S. Chanln President Chanln Management Inc. Mr. Willard C. Butcher Chairman Chase Manhattan Bank Ms Marian Z. Sterm Assistant Director Chemical Bank -3-

LIST OF NEW YO~K C~M~BEE MEMBERS WHO: WILL RECEIVE Mr. K. Lightcap Vice President, Public Affairs ChesebroughmPond's Inc. Mr. Patrick J. Walde, Jr. Partner, New York Deloltte Hasklns & Sells Mr. Thomas J. Volpe Vice Pesident & Treasurer Colgate-Palmolive Company Mr. George K. Fink Executive Director Dewey Ballautlne Bushby et al Mr. Karl V. Lynn Director Personnel Administration Colt Indusrrles Inc. Ms. Susan B. Gare111 Management Development Columbia Pictures Mr. glans-Peter Jacobs Executive Vice President Commerzbank AG Mr. Oscar Burchard Chairman Commodity Exchange Inc. Mr. Harold G. Meyer Vice President Conde Bast Publlcatlons Mr. E. W. Livingston Vice President Government Communications Consolldated Edison Co of NY Mr. George O. Goldner Group Manager Coopers & Lybrand Mr. Amory Houghton, Jr. Chairman Coming Glass Works Mr. Robert T. James Vice President Crompton & Knowles Corporation Mr. Bertram F. French Vice Chairman Cushman & Wakefleld Znc. Mr. John B. Pelllng Vice President Dean Wirier Reynolds Inc. Mr. Wilmot F. Wheeler, Jr. Chairman Dollar Dry Dock Savings Bank Mr. Richard H;. Jenrette Chairman Donaldson Lufkln& Jenrette Mr. Gerard Toner Vice President, Counsel Doubleday & company Inc. Mr. Michael Frltzsche Executive Vice Presiden~ Dresdner Bank AG - NY Branch Mr. J. A. Vi~anza Senior Executive Vice Preslden~ Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc. Mr. Peter Grleb Manager, Corporate Office Dun & Bradstreet CorporaClon Mr. Robert L. Woods, Jr. Attorney E. I. Du Pont Bemours & Company Dr. Austin S. Murphy Chairman & President East River Savings Bank Mr. William Wallace III Chairman, Ebasco Services Inc. Mr. Jerome W. Gottesman Vice President Edison Parking Corporation Mr. William McCafferty Secretary Emigrant Savings Bank -4-

LIST OF NEW YORK CHAffER ~MBERS NliO WILL RECEIVE LETTERS FROM JEAN LINDBERC Mr. Hugh McGr~a Regional Vice President Employers Ifisurance of Waueau Ms. Marian Banken Director Management Planning Equltable Life Assurance Society Mr. T. B. Moorhead Vice President Estee Lauder Inc. Mr. Thomas J. Shanahan, Jr. Vice President European-Amerlcan Bank & Trust Ms. Mary A. Bartenope Assistant Secretary Ex-Lax Pharmaceutical Hr. Raymond. A. Schroder Vice President Tax Counsel Exxon Corporation Mr. Marvin Feldman President Fashion Institute of Technology Mr. Dennis Stlma Regional Manager Federal Express Corporation Mr. Thomas M. Timlen First Vice President Federal Reserve Bank of NY Mr. Kurt Barnard Executive Director Federation o,f Apparel Manufacturers Mr. Bill W. Ehlers Regional Vice President Fireman's Fund Insurance Company Mr. Harlow A. Nelson Vice President First Boston Corporation Mr. Leonard Kaiser Chief Vice President First Nationwide Savings Bank Mr. Leonard H. Yablon Executive Vice President Forbes Magazine Mr. John D. Cameron Manager, Public Relations Ford Motor Company Mr. Thomas A. Martinek President Fourth Federal Savings & Loan Mr. Tab Buford President Freedom National Bank of NY Mr. Mark J. D'Arcangelo. Vice President General Electric Company Mr. Thomas D. McCanu Director, Corporate Research General Foods Mr. Hugh V. Cochrane Senior Vice President Gimbel Brothers Inc. Mr. Jose Unanue President Goya Foods Inc. Ms. Marilyn J. Brown Manager Grand Hyatt New York Mr. Ernest W. Austin Vice President Great Lakes Carbon Corp Mr. Frank Wille Chairman Greater New York Savings Bank Mr. Ernest G. Thowdls Vice President First Federal of Rochester -5-

LIST O~ NEW YORK CKAMBER MEMBERS W~O WILL RECEIVE LETTERS F~OM JEAN LINDBE~G Mr. Donald Mitzner President Group W Cab.re Me. Anna Melie General Affairs Hitachi America Ltd Mr. Desmond J. Ryan CommunityAffairs Grumman Corporation Mr. John J. Welsh, Jr. Home Insurance Company Senior Vice President Mr. Gerald Ortsman Manager Corporate Planning Gulf & Western Industries Mr. Kenneth C. Nichols President Home Life Insurance Company Ms. Muriel Rindzumer Assistant Director PE Harper & Row Publishers Inc. Mr. Willlan Prensky Vice President Harry Gitlln Lighting Mr. Joseph B. Stevens, Jr. Chairman Harry M. Stevens Inc. Mr. William A. Pestrltto Assistant General Manager Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Mr. J. J. Lusnar Executive Assistant Hearst Magazines, Division of Hearst Corporation Ken Patton Helmsley-Spear Inc. Mr. Edward Perry IBM Corporation Mr. Wilbur A. Lavln President Independence Savings Bank Mr. Tatsuo Yoshida General Manager Industrial Bank of Japan Mr. Dana G. Mead Vice President & GP Executive International Paper Co. Mr. Edward J. Gerrity, Jr. Senior Vice President International Telephone & Telegraph Mr. Peter Crawford Vice President Irving Trust Company Mr. Donald L. Gilles Senior Vice President Hertz Corporation Mr. William R. Howell Chairman J,. C. Penney Company Inc. Mr. John W'. Neary Executive Vice President Hill & Knowlton Inc. Mr. Benjamin E. Hailer, Esq. Hill Baits &Nash Mr. lames R. Franklin Director Corporate Public Relations J. P. Stevens & Co. Inc. Mr. Steve Bowen Executive Vice President & General Manager J. Walter Thompson Company Mr. Axel Velden Director Executive Division Johnson & Johnson International -6-

LIST 01~ lqEg YORK CHAMBER HEMBERS nO WILL RECEIVE LET~EIS FROM JEAN LIlql)BERG Mr. Richard J. Schwartz President Jonathan Lo,~an Inc. Mr. Peter McDonald Manager H& T Bank Mr. Edgar Bronfman Chairman Joseph E. Seagram & Sons Inc. Mr. Eric Ridder Publisher Journal of Commerce Mr. David A. Nerblin Chairman Madison Square Garden Corporation Rr. Henry C. Heppen, St. Vice President Naldenform Inc. Mr. A. E. Riley K Mart Mr. Junichi Ishikawa General Manager Kyowa Bank Ltd. Mr. George Ames General Partner Lazard Freres & Co. Mr. Lewis Gllckman Chairman Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb Mr. Humphrey Sullivan Public Affairs Director Lever Brothers Company Mr. William. C. Demas Executive Vice President, Finance Lord & Taylor Mr. Leon Nackenson Secretary Louis Dreyfus Corporation Mr. Stephen J. Lovell President Lowell Safety Management Company Honorable Burton B. Adelman Chairman & President M. H. Lamston Inc. Mr. John Gault President Manhattan Cable Television Inc. Mr. Michael Therry Executive Vice President Manhattan Savings Bank Mr. William R. Crosbie Vice President, Corp. Marketing Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. Ms. E. Lynne Pou Vice President, Human Resources Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. Ms. Kathleen L. Leonard Associate Administrator McGraw-Hill Inc. Mr. Richard J. Pedrick Director Personnel McKinsey & Company Inc. Mr. George Hallenbeck Personnel Director Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Mr..George W. Duncan: Vice President, Radio Metromedla Inc. Mr. Peter J. Doris Senior Vice President Metropolitan Savings Banks Mr. Roger Milliken President Milliken & Company -7-

LIST OF NEW YORK CKAMBE~ MEM~!~__~ WHO WILL RECEIVE LEETERS 1~.0~ ~ LII~)BERG Mr. Atsuo Hirano General Manager Mitsublshl ~ank Ltd. Mr. Taizo Nakamura Director & General Manager Mitsul Bank Lid, NY Branch ~. Roger O. Lawrence National Westminster Bank USA Mr. Ahmed S. BanaJa Director National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia Mr. E. P. Hennelly Govermnent Relations Mobil Oil Corporation Ms. Margaret M. Mahon Administration Manager NCR Corporation Mr. Robert F. Longley Senior Vice President Morgan Guaranty Trust Co of NY Mr.Alan Schleeper Sales Representative New York Air Ms. MiriamMurray Manager Morgan Stanley & Company Mr. Craig Walsh General Manager New York Athletic Club Mr. T. J. McNamara Treasurer Motion Picture Association of America Mr. Eugene G. Wagner Northeast Regional Representative Hotor Vehicle Manufacturers Association Inc. Hr. James E. Devitt Chairman Mutual of New York Mr. William F. Boland Representative National Bank of Nigeria Ltd. Mr. Saeed Akhtar Executive Vice President National Bank of Pakistan Mr. John SalagaJ National Car Rental Mr. Ramsey E. Joslin Vice President & Treasurer National Distillers & Chemical Mr. Norman R. Jarritt President National Westminster Bank Ltd. Mr. John F. Lee Exeuctive Vice President New York Clearing House Assoc. MS. Carol J. Reuter Managing Corporate Supervisor New York Life Insurance Co. Mr. M. Robert Delaney Vice President, Director of Finance New York News Mr. Barry Mann Executive Wice President New York Peuta Mr. William C. Ferguson President New York Telephone Company Mr. Leonard R. Harris Corporate Relations New York Times Mr. George R. Green, President New Yorker Magazine Inc. -8-

LIST 0¥ NEW YORK CHAMBER MEMBERS W~O WILL RECEIVE LETTERS FROM J~l~ LINDBERG Mr. Mark M. Edmlston President Newsweek ' Mr. Edmund T. Pratt, Jr. Chaiman Pfizer Inc. Mr. Kenlchl Hara Chief Representative Norinchukin Bank Mr. Samuel J. Rozel Secretary Executive Management North American Philips Corp Mr. Robert Seaman Secretary Phelps Dodge Corporation Mr. Robert J. McGuire Chairman Pinkerton's Inc. Mr. Barnett Prager President NYMetropolitan Insurance Brokers/Agents Association Mr. Richard Rowe Controller Oleg Cassinl Inc. Mr. Nathan Gan~cher President Oppenheimer & Company Mr. ~ernanPoza, Jr. Manager, International Owens-llllnois Inc. Mr.J. Philip 8ughes Managing Director Plaza Hotel Mr. Philip Robinson Division Manager Procter & Gamble Mr. Louis Cella Vice President Prudential Insurance Company of America Mr. John A. Jacobs Chairman Prudential-Bathe Securities Mr. Alfred J. Baldwin Senior Vice President, Treasurer Oxford University Press Inc. Mr. Richard Wall Senior Vice President & Controller R. H. Macy & Company Inc. Ms. Jeannle Nelson Corporate Comptroller Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis Mr. Thomas F. O'Neill Chairman R K 0 General Inc. Mr. Richard Barkle Director Public Relations Pan American World Airways Inc. Mr. Seymour S. Greenfield Chairman Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade Mr. Samuel M. Convissor Staff Vice President RCA Corporation Mr. Richard F. McLoughlln Publisher Reader's Digest Association Mr. John Schlltt Partner Peat Marwlck Mitchell & Company Mr. Robert Nathan Reed Robert Associates Inc. Mr. J. K. Courtenay Vice President, Route Development Republic Airlines Inc. -9-

LIST OF NEW YORK C~BER MEMBERS W~O WILL RECEIVE LETTERS FROM JEA~ LINDBERG Mr. Walter Weiner President Republic Na~ion~l Bank of 8Y Mr. Malcolm R. Hill Representative Reserve Bank of Australia Mr. Herbert M. Viertl Reuben H. Donnelley Corp. Mr. Roger Shelley Vice President Corporate Affairs Revlon Inc. Chris Kennan Rockefeller Center Inc. Joseph Morley Securities Industry Association Mr. Charles Murray Personnel Director Shearman & Sterling Mr. Sanford I. Weill Chairman Shearson/Amerlcan Express Mr. Klaus R. Ottman Vice President, Area Manager Sheraton Corporation Mr. Gerald Schoenfeld Chairman Shubert Organization Mr. Serge Ravailhe General Manager Roosevelt Hotel Ms. Maureen T. Robertson Assistant Vice President Silverstein Properties Inc. Ms. Mary Santaromith Assistant Vice President Roosevelt Savings Bank Mr. Walter T. Moodie Vice President Royal Bank of Canada Mr. John A. Orb Chairman Smith Barney Harris Upham & Co. Ms. Dolly Christian Director Civil Affairs Sperry & Hutchinson Co. Mr. Theodore W. Lowen President Savings Banks Trust Company Mr. Edward Pechar Director Schenley Industrues Inc. Mr. J. Penn Kavanagh President Schleffelin & Company Mr. G. F. Stoddard Vice President Employee Relations SCM Corporation Mr. E. Virgil Conway Chairman Seamen's Bank for Savings, FSB Mr. J. Paul Lyet Sperry Corporation Mr. Brett Harwood Executive Vice President Square Industries Mr. John T. McNamara Assistant Secretary Squibb Corporation Mr. William A. Haselton Chairman St. Regis Paper Company Mr. W. H. Collett Civil Affairs Sears Roebuck & Company - I0-

LIST OF NEW YORK CHAMBER MEMBERS WliO WILL RECEIVE LETTERS FROM JEAN LINDBERG Mr. Kenneth S. Russell Secretary Sterling Dr~g Inc. Mr. Hans Rudolfkuchler Senior Vice President Union Bank of Switzerland Mr. J. A. Carter, Jr. Vice President Stone & Webster Inc. Mr. James H. Barton Director General Services Union Carbide Corporation Mr. R. K. Martin Office Manager Sulllvan & Cromwell Mr. James H. Evans Chairman Union Pacific Corporation Mr. Tokuyukl Onorl General Manager Sumltomo Bank Ltd. Ms Virginia K. Smith Assistant Secretary Unlroyal Inc. Mr. Flavlan E. Zeugln First Vice President Swiss Bank Corporation Mr. John M. Philip Special Assistant United Airlines Mr. Duane W. Ragasdale Vice Chairman Ted Bates & Company Inc Mr. Charles B. Bear Group Vice President Time Incorporated Mr. Thomas J. Garrison Treasurer Times Mirror Magazines Inc. Mr. Robert V. Tishman General Partner Tishman Speyer Properties Mr. William T. Seitz President Title Guarantee Company Mr. Stephen J. Slade Director Government Relations Transworld Airlines Inc. Mr. J. T. Loretan Manager Travelers Insurance Company Mr. Anthony Barone TFRManager Warner Lambert Company Mr. Abdullahl Mahmoud United Bank for Africa Ltd Mr. Thomas W. Browne Director Transportation United Parcel Service Inc. Mr. James F. Whelan Executive Vice President United States Trust Co. of NY Mr. Kenneth T. Schmidt District Sales US AIR Ms. Joanna T. Bronskl Coordinator, Public Affairs W. R. Grace & Co. Mr. Albert F. Absy Vice President & Comptroller Waldorf-Astorla Hotel Mr. Edward King Government/Public Affairs Walgreen Inc. Mr. James G. Mortar Senior Vice President & Gen. Mgr. Wells Fargo Bank International -If-

LIST OF NEW YORK CHAHBER 14EHBERS ~0 WTLL RECEIVE ~ LETT'E~q I~ON JEAN LINDBERG Hr. Rovard J. Thomas Vice President Westinghouse Electric Corp. Merrell E. Clark, Jr., Esq. Winthrop Stimson Putnam Robert Mr. Mark Stroock Senior Vice President Young & Rubicam International

PUBLIC RELATIONS COUNSELORS '150 EAS1 35thlSTRE[i / I~F'W, YORK. N[W YORK 10016 / 2'12 MU 99500 STARLEY S. SCO'F]" MEMORANDUM To= Stanley S. Scott From:: Nick Cavataro Subject: A - 2745; Grann~s bill! New York Board of Trade Attached is a copy of a letter from Bill![ Sloboda, President of New York Board of Trade, in opposition to A - 2746., sent to 506 members of his organization. Also attached is a list of members. NC:smb cc: K. M. Irish .) PRESS; GOVERNMENT, CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS COUNSELORS

NEW YORK BOARD OF TRADE 358 Fifth Avenue. New York. N.Y. 10001 Telephone: (212) 661-6300 , H:ERS April 30, 1984 ; ,~tDENTS ~_-- ~ .....:_-~ ;.::, & TREASURER -~; , , . - . :.~'~RALCOUNSEL EN Dear t~ember : There is a bill now in Albany which would require that any "place of work" or "indoor area open to the public" have seperate areas set aside for people who smoke. Called the "Clean Indoor Air Act," it is expected to be voted on by the full Assembl.y as early as next week. Close to 40 organiza¢ionsin New York State have filed "Memorandums in Opposition" to this bill, which they feel is discriminatory. The issue of smoking versus non-smokingmore often than not is solved byl courtesy and common sense. Some of the major reasons to oppose this bill include: It is unenforceable - according to the New York State Federation of Police, "it would be the ultimate irony for the Legislature to send police officers into restaurants, bowling alleys, etc. to issue a cigarette summons to a decent citizen while si.multaneously seeking more effective ways to deal with real. criminals." It is costly - studies sho~ that retail stores, restaurants, arenas and other facilities would, incur a significant increase in expenditures to conform with the proposed legislation. In businesses, work areas would have to be redesigned to accomodate non-smoking employees and ventilation systems would have robe changed. Seperate non-smoking areas in all facilities open to the public would have to be constructed. It is a burden on state and local government - local government woul.d have to add staff to promulgate regulations, hold hearings for waivers andlilnterpre- rations, etc. I have enclosed a list of organizations already, in opposition to A-2746, and a suggested memorandum. "If you can, please use your o~n words in composing the letter. If ~ou agree with this stand, please send the memorandmn to the Speaker of the Assembly on your letterhead, and a copy to me. 2025851437

NEW YORK BOARD OF TRADE l~on. Stan]og ¥ink Speaker New York State Assemblg State Cap/to1 Albang, New York 12224 Si ncerel g, Wiilliam J. Sloboda President WJS: mad Enclosure

PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A. INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE 120 PAIIK AVENUE, NEW YOIII[, N.Y. 10017 OA~: 4120184 GRJV~|S BILL OPPOSITION LETTERS BASED ON PM-USA CONTACT LISTS, GAP CONTACTS, INTERBORO CHAMBERS, BUSINESSES A~) ASSOCIATIONS Here Is a c~-ollatlo~ of Indlvlduals and associations who wI11 receive a letter signed by Rlc Scanlon asking for help In defeating A 2746. Included with Rlc's cover letter will be: o A proposed draft of a memorandun opposing the leglslatlon. that could be mailed from these co~tacts to the New York Assembl y~ o a 11!s~ of businesses already conlnltted to opposing the b111. PM-USA and the Tobacco Institute w111 make follow-up phone calls to these buslness associates to, enforce the Importance of these efforts. The malllng wlll be done by PM-USA early In the week of 4/23. KDT/ems ATTACFIVIENT S cc: S. Scott B. OJlnby D. Flor I,o d. Ne I: son M. Tay lot A. Roberts

PHILIP MORRIS April 25, 1984 ~If Not EWty±TITLE~TITLE~ ~End Ill--FIRST 8AHE~ ~If Not Empty~_MIDDLE_~AHE~Iq4IDDLE_ EV ~End If~T N~If No~ E~ty,JR ~C~, V~T~End If~ ~If No¢ E~y~POSITION~OSITIO~ ~End ~I f ~ot E~ry~ORG~IZAT~O~RG~ZA~O~ ~End I f ~If Not E~ty,~D~SS_I ~End I f ~If Not E~ty,~D~SS_2~D~SS_2V ~End I f~ ~If Not ZZP~ZIP~ ~End If~ Dear ~S~LUTATIOW: There is a bill now in Albany which would require that any "place of work" or "indoor area open to the public" have separate areas set aside for people who smoke. Called the "Clean Indoor Air Act," it is expected to be voted on by the full Assembly as early as May. According to the bill, restrictions would be imposed in all government buildings, post offices, convention facilitles, bus and air terminals, bingo halls, bowllng alleys, enclosed arcades, shopping centers, sports arenas and many more areas. Close to 40 organizations in New York State have filed "Memorandums.ln Opposition" to this bill, which they feel is discriminatory. The issue of smoking versus non-smoklng more often than not is solved by courtesy and common sense. Some of the major reasons to oppose this bill include: o It is unenforceable - according to the New York State Federation of Police, "it would be the ultimate irony for the Legislature to send police officers into restaurants, bowllng alleys, etc. to issue a cigarette summons to a decent citizen while simultaneously seeking more effective ways to deal with real criminals." It is costly - studies show that retail stores, restaurants, arenas and other facilities would incur a significant increase in expenditures to. conform with the proposed leglslatlon. In businesses, work areas would have to be redesigned to accommodate non-smoklng employees and ventilatlon systems would have to. be changed. Separate non-smoking areas in all facilities open to, the public would have to be constructed. I_~_t i_~s ~ burden on state and local government - local government would have to add stair to promulgate regulations, hold =earings.for waivers and interpretations, etc.

I have enclosed a list of organizations already in opposition to A 2746 and .a suggested memorandum. Please use your own words in composing your letter. ~f you agree with this stand, please send a memorandum to Albany in opposition. Use your organizatiou*s letterhead and seud me a copy of your letter. Sincerely,

ENTRIES IN GENERAL FILE--I I (HIT) (CBCS) Mr. David J. Anderson Resional Manager State Covern~ent Relations TRW Inc. 150 State Street Albany, N~ 12207 Dear Mr. Anderson Sex: M Party: Phone: 518/449-1336 2 (BIT) (NYCPF) Mr. R. Howard Annln Vice President - Northeastern Reg. General Electric Company. 570 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Dear Mr. Annin Sex: M Party: Phone: sl (~T) (ZDT) Mr. C. Blaser Executive Director Masters Assn. Metal Finishers 799 Broadway Room 437 New York, NY 10003 Dear Hr. Blaser Sex: M Party: Phone: 212/:475-7070 7 (m~T) (CSGSOA) Mr. Thomas Block Vice President Irving Trust Company One Wall Street New York, NY 10015 Dear Mr. Block Sex: M Party: Phone: 3 (H~TNL) Mr. Lee Archer Vice President General Foods Corporation 250 North Street White Plains, NY 10625 Dear Mr. Archer Sex: M Party: Phone: 914/335-2623 4 (HITNL) (NYCP) Mr. Kurt Bernard Executive Director Fed. of Apparel Mfgs. Inc. 450 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10123 Dear Mr. Barnard Sex: M Party: Phone: 212/594-0810 8 (HI%) (CSGSOA) (CBCS). Mr. Joseph H. Boyd, Jr. Pmnager, State Government Relations Pfizer Inc. 235 East 42rid Street New York, NY 10017 Dear Mr. Boyd Sex: M Party: Phone: 212/573-2249 80 (HIT) (KDT) Mr. Sidney W. Campa Vice President & Area Manager Pepsi Cola Bottling Group 4600 Fifth Street Teteboro, NJ 07608 Dear Mr. Campa Sex: M Party: Phone: 212/392-0500 5 (HZZ) (NYCP) Mr. William M. Batten Chairman. and Chief Exec. Officer New York Stock Exchange II Wall Street New York, NY 10005 Dear Mr. Batten. Sex: M Party: Phone: 6 (Hiz) (CBCS) Mr. Richard Biondo Director, Governmen~ Affairs Avon Products, Inc. 9 West 57th Street New York, NY 10019 Dear Mr. Biondo Sex: M Party: Phone: 212/546-7604 9 (HIT).(~EH) Ms. Alice Cantwell Mgr. Reg. Gov't Affs. Ford Motor Co. III Washington Ave., Suite 206 Albany, NY 12210 Dear Ms. Cantwell Sex: M Party: Phone: 10 (H~T) Hr. Thomas A. Chlzmadla Manager Public Affairs CIBA-GEIGY Corporation 444~ Sawmill Road Ardsley, NY I:0502 Dear Hr. Chlzmadla Sex: M Party: Phone: 914/47B-3131

ENTRIES IN GENERAL FILE--2 Ms. Dolly Christian Director, Civic Affalrs Sperry and Rutchlnson Company 330 Madison Avenue New York, N~ 10017 Dear Ms. Christian Sex: F Party: Phone: 212/983-7962 16 (H~) (m~) Ms. Mary Ann Dirzls Manager, Government Affairs Avon Products, Inc. 9 West 57th Street New:York, NY 10019 Dear Ms. Dirzis Sex: F Party: Phone: 212/546-7602 12 (BIT) (CSGb0A) Mr. Robert J. Colllshaw Senior Vice President Chemical Bank 277. Park Avenue 14th Floor New York, NY 10172 Dear Mr. Collishaw Sex: M Party: Phone: 13 (HI~) Mr. Thomas D. Connelly D~rector, Government Affairs Briston ~aboratories P.O. Box 657 Syracuse, NY 13201 Dear Mr. Connelly Sex: M Party: Phone: 17 (BIT): Mr. Leo A. Doran V~ce President Hill and Knowlton, Inc. 420 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Dear Mr. Doran Sex: M Party: Phone: 18 (HITNL) Mr. Herb Douglas Community Affairs Schleffelln and Company 30 Cooper Square New York, NY 10003 Dear Mr. Douglas Sex: M Party: Phone: 14 (H~,~) (CBCS) Mr. Samuel Convissor Staff V.P. For Corporate Relations RCA 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10020 Dear Mr. Convlssor Sex: M Party: Phone: 212/621-6000 15 (HITNL) (CSG50A) (CBCS) Hr. Patrick Crossman Vice President, Corporate Affairs Bristol-Meyers Company 345 Park Avenue New York, NY 10154 Dear Mr. Crossman Sex: M Party: Phone: 212/546-4304 82 (HIT) (KDT) Mr. James L. Dlckman New York Shipping Association 80 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Dear Mr. Dickman Sex: M Party: Phone: 212/747-3705 19 (HIT) (CSGb0A) (CBCS) Mr. Leonard K. Dovlak Manager, N.Y.S. Public Affairs General Electric Company Building 41 Room 219 Schenectady, NY 1234:5 Dear Mr. Doviak Sex: M. Party: Phone: 518/385-4559 83 (HIT)~ (KDT) Ms. Joan Faherty NY Assn. of Consulting Engineers 60 East 42nd Street New York, NY 10165 Dear Ms. Faherty Sex: F Party: Phone: 212/682-6336 20: (H~T) (CBCS) Mr. Max Fenson Director of Government Affairs Air TransportatlonAssoclatlon c/o American Airlines 40.5 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10174 Dear Mr. Fenson Sex: M Party: Phone: 212/557-3368

ENTRIES IN GENERAL FILE--3 21 (H~) Ms. Dianne Ferencsik Assistant Secretary Manufacturers Hanover Corporation 270 Park Avenue,--16th Floor New York, NY 10017 Dear Ms. Ferencsik Sex: F Party: Phone: 86 (HIT) Ms. Charline S. Glowitz Executive Director NYS Assn. of Career Schools, Inc. 269 West 40th Street New York, NY 1,0018 Dear Ms. Glowltz Sex: F Party: Phone: 212/869-9080 22 (HIT) (CBCS) Mr. Charles E. Fitzgibbou Director, State & Local Gov't Rel. Eastman Kodak 343 State Street Rochester, NY 14650 Dear Mr. Fitzgibbon Sex: M Party: Phone: 716/724-4000 25 (H~) (KMD Ms. Jeanne M.. Golly VP, Corporate Communications American Standard Inc. 40 West 40th Street New York, NY 10018 Dear Ms. Go~y Sex: F Party" Phone: 212/840-5200 84 (HIT) (KDT) Mr. Albert A. Formicola President Hotel Association of New York City 40 West 30th Street New York, NY 10018 Dear Mr. Formlcola Sex: M Party: Phone: 212/869-4600 23 (HIT) (CSG50A) Ms. Leslie E. Freed Marine Midland Bank 140 Broadway New York, NY I001~5 Dear Ms. Freed Sex: F Party: (CBCS) Phone: 26 (:HIT) (KHI) Mr. Dennis Griesing Director of Government Relations NY State Food Merchants Assoc. Inc. 303 South Broadway Tarrytown, NY 1,0591 Dear Mr. Grleslng Sex: H Party: Phone: 914/631r4100 27 (H~TNL) Mr. AI Gutlerrez Equitable Life G.P.O. Box 580 New York, NY 1,0001 Dear Mr. Gutlerrez Sex: M Party: Phone: 85 (HIT) (KD~) Mr. Joseph French President Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce 26 Court Street Brooklyn, NY 1,1!242 Dear Mr. French Sex: M Party: Phone: 21,2/875-I~000 24 (HIT) Mr. Joseph M. Gigllo Bear Stearns & Company 55 Water Street New York, NY [0041 Dear Mr. GigOlo Sex: M Party: Phone: 212/952-7921 87 (HIT) (KDT) Mr. John Hammon Executive Vice President Nat'l Customs Bkrs. & Fdwrs Assoc. 1 World Trade Center Suite 11;09 New York, NY 10048 Dear Mr. Hammon Sex: M Party: Phone: 212/432-0050 28 (HI~) (NYCP) Mr. Leon Hess Chairman of the Board Amerada Hess 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Dear Mr. Hess Sex: M Party: Phone:

ENTRIES IN GENERAL FILE--4 29 Ms Elizabeth H~nes American Broadcasting Company 40 West 66th Street New York, NY 10023 Dear Ms. Hines Sex: F Party: Phone: 212/887-470,1 89 (HIT) (KDT) Mr. John F. Lee Executive Vice Preslden~ New York Clearing House Association 100 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Dear Mr. Lee Sex: M Party: Phone: 212/943-2200 30 (HIT) (CSG50A) Mr. Stephan Hopkins V.P., Government Relations Citlbank, N.A. 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Dear Mr. Hopkins Sex: M PartY: Phone: 35 (HIT) (CSG5OA) Mr. Robert Lewton Legislative Affairs Analyst Merrill Lynch 165 Broadway New York, NY 10080 Dear Mr. Lewton Sex: M Party: Phone: 31, (HIT) (CSG50A) (CBCS) Mr. Peter Hunt Director, Government Affairs Brooklyn Union Gas Company 195 Montague Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 Dear Mr. Hunt Sex: M Party: Phone: 212/403-2530 88 (HIT) (KD?) Mr. Richard Irwin Staten lsland Chamber of Commerce 130 Bay Street Staten lsland, NY 10301 Dear Mr. Irwin. Sex: M Party: Phone: 212/727-1900 36 (HIT) (CSGSOA) Mr. Parker Lindberg Director, Government Relations Sperry & HutchSnson 330 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017 Dear Mr. Lindberg Sex: M Party: Phone: 37 (BIT) (CBCS) Mr. Edward Livingston V.P., Government Relations Con Edison Of New. York 4 ~rving Place NewYork, NY I0003 Dear Mr. Livingston, Sex: M Party: Phone: 212/460-4:600 32 (HIT) (NYCP) Mr. Howard C. Kau~fmann President Exxon Corporation 1251 Avenue of the Amer$cas New York, NY 10020 Dear Mr. Kauffmann Sex: M Party: Phone: 34 M~. Dallas ~. Kersey Director, Communications Peat, Marwlck, Mitchell & Co. 345 Park Avenue New York, NY 10154 Dear Mr. Kersey Sex: M Party: Phone: 90 (HIT) (KDT) Mr. Dave Long Executive Vice President Greater NY Auto Dealers Association 1~ Manson Place Room I~21'2 Brooklyn, NY 11:243 Dear Mr. Long Sex: M Party: Phone: 212/783-2900 38, (H~T~TL): (CSGSOA) (CBCS) Mr. Ralph C. Loomts Director, Public Affairs Ciba Geigy Corporation 444 SawMill River Road Ardsley, NY 10502 Dear Mr. Loomls Sex: M Party: Phone: 914/478-3131

ENTRIES IN GENERAL FILE--5 39 (B~Z) (CSGS0A) Mr. David V. Lustlg Public Affairs Manager Lever Brothers Company 10 East 53rd Street Suite 2400 New York, NY 10022 Dear Mr. Lustlg Sex: M Party: Phone: 45 (HIT) (MEH) Hr. 5ames T. HcCrory Corporate Director, Public Affairs Borden Inc. 277 Park Avenue New York, NY 10172 Dear Mr. McCrory Sex: M Party: Phone: 40 (HIT) (N~CP) Mr. Frank J. Macchlarola President and. Chief Exec. Officer New York City Partnership, Inc. 200Madlson Avenue New York, NY I0016 Dear Mr. Macchlarola Sex: M Party.: Phone: 46 (HIT) (CBCS) Mr. Chris McGrath Assoc. Dir., Gov't Relations N.Y.S. Petroleum Council 551 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10176 Dear Mr. McGrath. Sex: M Party: Phone: 518/455-3171 4~I (HITNL) Ms. Carolota Maduro Director, Community Relations Consolidated Edison 4 Irving Place New York, NY 10003 Dear Ms. Maduro Sex: F Party: Phone: 212/460-6914 42 (H~T) (CBCS) Ms. Doreen Malloy Manager, Civic Relations General Foods Corporation 250 North Street White Plains, NY 10625 Dear Ms. Malloy Sex: F Party: Phone: 91.4/335-25d0 91 (HIT) (KDT) Mr. T. J. McNamara Treasurer Motion Picture Assoc. of America 533 Fifth. Avenue New York, NY 10036 Dear Mr. McNamara Sex: M~ Party: Phone: 212/867-1200 92 (HIT) (KDT) Ms. Gloria Mellone Personnel Manager National Association of Accountants 919Thlrd Avenue New York, NY 10022 Dear Ms. Mallone Sex: F Party: Phone: 21.2/754-97:31 43 (NIT) (MEH) Mr. John Manfredi Director of Public Affairs General Foods Corporation 250 North Street White Plains, NY 106:25 Dear Mr. Man.fredl Sex: M. Party: Phone: 44 (HIT) (CSG50A) Mr. James C. May Director, Government Relations PepsiCo, Inc. 700 Anderson Hill Road Purchase, NY 10577 Dear Mr. May Sex: M Party: Phone: 47 (HIT) (INYCP) Mrs. G. G. Michelson Senior V. P., External Affairs R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. 151 West 34th. Street 13th Floor New York, ~ I:0001 Dear Mrs. MCchelson Sex: F Party: Phone: 33 (H~T), (CBCS) Ms. Madeline Millman Administrator, Government Relations Blue Cross & Blue Shield of NY 3 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 Dear Ms. Millman Sex: F Party: Phone: 212/481-4035

~r. Daniel P~blie ~elations ~irector Revelon ~ncorporated 767 5th Avenue New York, NY IO153 Dear Hr. Moriarity Sex: M Party: Phone: ENTRIES IN GENERAL FILE--6 Mr. David Oats Director of Community Relations Queens Chamber of Commerce 29-15 Queens Plaza North Long Island City, NY ill01 Dear Mr. Oats Sex: M Party: Phone: 212/784-7700 93 (HIT) (KDT) Mr. Joseph F. Morley Vice President Securities Industry Association 120 Broadway New York, NY 1'0271 Dear Mr. Morley Sex: M Party: Phone: 212/425-2700 51 Ms. Nancy C. O'Connor Assistant Treasurer Banker's Trust Company 1775 Broadway New York, NY 10072 Dear Ms. O'Connor Sex: F Party: Phone: 94 (HIT) (KDT) Mr. Justin Murphy Downtown-Lower Manhattan Assn. 61, Broadway Suite 2401 New York, NY 10005 Dear Mr. Murphy Sex: M Party: Phone: 212/269-9100 49 (HIT) (MEH) Mr. Antonio Nay&fro S.V.P., Public Relations W.R. Grace and Company 1114: Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Dear Mr. Nay&fro. Sex: M Party: Phone: 52 (HIT) (WSGNLC) (CSGSOA) Ms. Beth Peacock Manager, St. & Local Gov. Relations Genera~ Foods Corporation 250 North Street White Plains, NY 1.0625 Dear Ms. Peacock Sex: F Party: Phone: 914/335-91~12 53 (HZT) Mr. Richard W. Pendleton, Jr. S.V.P., Public Relations Phelps Dodge Corporation 300 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Dear Mr. Pendleton, Sex: M Party: Phone: 78 (HIT) (KDT) Mr. Norman Nestler Director American. Institute of CPA'S 1211= Ave of the Americas New. York, NY 10036 Dear Mr. Nestler Sex: M Party: Phone: 212/575-4200 50: (H~T) (CSG5OA) Mr. Robert Newman VP Corporate Communications The Continental Corporation 80 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Dear Mr. Newman Sex: M Party: Phone: 54 (HIT) (CBCS) Mr. Carl H:. Pforzhelmer, Jr. Senior Partner Carl ~. Pforzheimer & Company 70 Pine Street New York, NY 10270 Dear Mr. Pforzheimer Sex: M Party: Phone: 212/422-5484 55 (~I~) Ms. Mary Ann Pires Texaco Incorporated 2000 Westchester Avenue New York, N~ 10650 Dear Ms. Pires Sex: F Party: Phone:

ENTRIES IN GENERAL FILE--7 Mr. Mike Pocost Metrop.. NY Retail Merchants Assn. 393 Seventh Avenue New York, NY I0001 Dear Mr. Pocost Sex: M Party" Phone: 2121947-3747 99 (HI~) Mr. Arthur R. Schrameck Vice President Magazine Publishers Assoc., Inc. 575 Lexington Avenue New York, I~ 10022 Dear Mr. Schrameck Sex: M Party: Phone: 212/752-0055 97 (HZT) Mr. Barnett Prager President NY Metrop. Ins. Bkrs. Agent Assn. 67'-12 Yellowstone Blvd. Forest Hills, ~rY 11375 Dear Mr. Prager Sex" M. Party: Phone: 212/459-4221 59 (BI~rL) Mr. Willlam. Sloboda President New York Board of Trade 358 Fifth Avenue New. York, NY 10001 Dear Mr. Sloboda Sex: M. Party: Phone: 212/661.-6300 56 (~T) (~cP) Mr. Lewis Rudin President Rud£n Management Company, Inc. 345 Park Avenue New York, NY 10154 Dear Mr. Rudln Sex: M Party: Phone: 60, (HIT) Mr. Freeman H. Smith Dir., State & reg. Affairs CornlngGlass works Houghton. Park, CB-2 Cornlng, NY 14831 Dear Mr. Smith Sex: M Party: Phone: 98 (HIT) (KDT) Mr. Fred G. Sampson Executive Vice President NY State Restaurant Association 250 West 57th. Street New York, NY I0~07 Dear Mr. Sampson. Sex: M Party: Phone: 212/246-3434 61 (HIT) Mr. Phillp T. Smith Vice President, Government Affairs Marine Midland Bank 140 Broadway. New York, NY 10007 Dear Mr. Smith Sex: M Party: Phone: 57 (HIT) (CSGSOA) Mr. Herbert Schmertz Vice President Public Affairs Mobile Oil Corporation 150. East 42nd Street New York, NY 10017 Dear Mr. Schmertz Sex: M Party: Phone: 58 (~IZ) (MEg), Ms. Ida Schmertz Vice President America Express 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Dear Ms. Schmertz Sex: F Party: Phone: 62 (HIT) (MEH) Mr. Talbot Smith Government Affairs Manager Pfizer Incorporated 235 East 42nd Street New York, NY 10017 Dear Mr. Smith Sex: M Party: Phone: 63 (HI?) (MEH) Mr. Stephen Stamps Vice President, Public Relations Exxon Corporation 1,251 Avenue Of The Americas New York, NY 10020 Dear Mr. Stamas Sex: M. Party: Phone:

64 (SIT) Mr. Joseph T. Stewart, Jr. S.V.P., Publlc Relatlons Squibb Corp. 40 N. 57th St. .. New York, NY 10019 Dear Mr. Stewart Sex: M Party: Phone: ENTRIES IN GENERAL FILE--8 70 (HI~) (N~CP), Mr. Rarvin S. Traub Chairman and Chief Exec. Officer Bloom~ngdale's 1000 ~hird Avenue New York, NY 10022 Dear Mr. Trsub Sex: M Party: Phone: 65 (HIT) (NYCP) (CBCS) Mr. Percy E. Sutton Chairman of the Board Inner City Broadcasting Corp. 801 Second Avenue New York, NY 10017 Dear Mr. Sutton Sex: M Party: Phone: 212/953-0300 71 (BIT) (CSGSOA) Mr. Eugene J. Tunney Vice President Equitable Life Assurance Society 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Dear Mr. Tunney Sex: M Party.: Phone: 66 (HITNL) (CSG50A) Mr. Eugene F. Swanzey V.P., Corporate Communications Chase Manhattan Bank I Chase Manhattan Plaza New York, NY 10081 Dear Mr. Swanzey Sex: M Party: Phone: 212/552-54~91 67 (HIT) Ms. Nancy S. Tickton Vice President Bankers Trust Company 1775 Broadway New York, NY 10017 Dear Ms. Tickton Sex: F Party: Phone: 72 (HIT) (CGS50A) Mr. John W. Vandervort Vice President, Public Affairs Carrier Corporation Carrier Tower PO Box 4:800 Syracuse, NY 13221 Dear Mr. Vandervort Sex: M Party: Phone: I00 (HIT) (KDT) Mr. Chlco Vejar The Bronx Chamber of Commerce 226 East Fordham Road Bronx, NY 10458. Dear Mr. VeJar Sex: M Party: Phone: 212/367-7200 68 (HITNL) (CBCS) Ms. Sandra L. Timpson Asst. Vice President, Public Aff. Bank Of America 335 Madison Aven~e New York, NY 10017 Dear Ms. Timpson Sex: F Party: Phone: 212/503-7356. 69: (HIT) (MEH) Mr. Charles Tower Vice president, Government Affairs Dun and Bradstreet Corporation 299 Park Avenue New york, NY 10017 Dear Mr. Tower Sex: M Party: Phone: ioi (H~T) (KDT) Mr. Mac Victor Executive Vice President Metropolitan Garage Owners Bd. 299 Broadway Suite 403 NewYork, NY 10007 Dear Mr. Victor Sex: M Party: Phone: 212/406-3590 73 (HITNI~) Mr. Ira Wa~dbaum. President Waldbaum Incorporated Hemlock Street & Boulevard Central Isllp, NY I1722 Dear Mr. Waldbaum Sex: M Party: Phone:

ENTRIES IN GENEKAL FILE~9 Ms. Geraldine Warren Manager, Public & CoBmunity Affairs Westinghouse Broadcasting & Cable 5120 Broadway Suite 700 New¥ork, ~ 10034 Dear Hs. Warren Sex: F Party: Phone: 75 (HIT) Hr. D. K. (Don) Weaver Div. Hgr., Public Affairs A. T. &T. 195 Broadway New York, NY 10007 Dear Hr. Weaver Sex: M Party: Phone: 76 (H~T) (NYCP) Hr. David A. Werblln President and Chief Exec. Officer Madison Square Garden Corporation. Two Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10121 Dear Mr. Werblin Sex: M Party: Phone: 77 (HITNL) Mr. Joseph Wiscovltch Assistant Vice President Banco de Ponce I0 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY I'0020 Dear Mr. Wiscovith Sex: M Party: Phone: 212/246-4900 79 (HI,T) (KDT) Mr. Lawrence M. Zippln Executive Vice President American Insurance Association 85 John Street New. York, NY 10038 Dear Mr. ZIppin Sex: M. Party: Phone: 212/433-4400

---

CAUCUS MEMBERS 1983 SENATOR LEON- BOGUES Harlem State Office Building 163 West 125th SCree~ New York, NY 10027 (212) 678-235,3 ~ASSEMBLYMAN ANGELO DEL TORO- ~2112 Second Avenue New York, NY 10029' (212) 860-8405 Legislative Office Building Room 606 Albany, NY 12248 (518) 455-2665 Legislative Office Building Room 844 Albany, NY 12'248 (518) 455-4781 .~ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAM BOYLAND 16361Pitkin Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11233 (212) 498-8681 ~ ASSEMBLYMAN HECTOR DIAZ 1045 Southern Blvd. Bronx, NY 10459 (212) 893-0202 Legislative Office Building Room 65.4 Albany, NY ~2248 (518) 455-4466 ~/~AS.SF~IBLYWOMAN! GERALDINE DAN~ELS Harlem State Office BuSldin~ 163 West 125th Street New York, NY -10027 (212) 666-8880 Legislative Office Building Room 529 Albany, NY 12248 (518) 455-5253 ASSEMBLYMAN ARTHUR O. EVE ~1373 Fillmore Avenue 2nd Floor Buffalo, NY 14211 (716) 895-2464! Legislative Office Building Room 641 Albany, NY 12248 (518) 455-4521 Legislative Office Building Room 736 Albany, NY 12248 (518) 455-500.5 OASSEMBLYWOMAN GLORIA DAVIS 6361 East 169th St~_Keet ~ B ronx, NY 10456 (212) 589-1070 Legislative Office Building. Room 419 Albany, NY 12248 (518) 455-5,273 ASSemBLYMAN' HERMAN D. FARRELL 4060 Broadway New York, NY 10032 (212) 568-3033 Legislative Office Building Room 424 Albany, NY 12248 (518) 455-5491

UCUS MF.MBERS I 83 (2) JOSEPH. GALl BER. Bronx, NY 10473 (212) 8,28-9303 ~ENATOR ANNA V. JEFFERSON ~1360 Fulton Street Brooklyn, NY 11216 (212) 622-3233 The Capitol Building Roo~ 414 Albany, NY 12224 (518) 455-2061 Legislative Office Building Room 615 Albany, NY 12248 (518) 455-3444 ~/0 ASSEMBLYMAN DAVID GANTT 569 Chili Avenue Rochester, NY 14611 (716) 328-7280 ~2SSEMBLYWOMAN CYNTHIA JENKINS 26-18 Merrick Blvd Laurel~on, NY 11413 (212) 978-1201 Legislative Office Building Room 528 Albany, NY 12248 (518) 455-5606 ~//ASSEMBLYMAaN: ROGER L.. GREEN 235 De Kalb Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11205 (212) 857-1881 Legislative Office Building Room 650 Albany, NY 12248 (518) 455-4451 ~SSEMBLYWOMAN HELEN MARSHALL 2574 98ch, Stree~ East Elmhurst, NY (212) 458-4272 11369 Legislative Office Building Legislative Office Building Room 441 Room 433 Albany, NY 12248 Albany, NY 12248 (518) 455-5323 ~SSEM~LYWOMAN AURELIA GREENE,,~~/SENATOR OLGA MENDEZ 1188 Grand Concourse 2130 Third Avenue Suite D New York, NY 10035 Bronx, NY 10456 (212) 860-0893 (212) 538-2000 Legislative Office Building Legislative Office Building Room 555 Room 302 Albany, NY 12248 Albany, NY ~2248 (518) 455-5671 .I~<~q (518) 455-3361 ~O/~ASSE21BLYMAN~ EDWARD GRIFFITN i\~ ,~ASSEMBLYMAN CLARENCE NORMAN, JR. ./ 270 Broadway 854 Nostrand Avenue New York, NY 10007 Brooklyn, NY 11225 (212) 587-5569 (212) 756-1776 Legislative Office Building Room 738 Albany, NY 12248 (518) 455-5911 Legisiative Office Building Room 432 Albany, NY 12248 (518) 455-5118

CAUCUS MEMBERS 1983 Ps~ (3) ~ 126 N. Franklin Street Hempstead, NY 11550 (5.16) 489-6610 Legislative Office Building Room 833 Albany, NY 12248 (518) 455-4851 ASSEMBLYMAN JOSE RIVERA o and Concourse Suite 325.3 Bronx, NY 10468 (212) 295-1238 Legislative Office BuiLding Room 324 Albany, NY 12248 (5118) 455-54:54 ~SENATOR ISRAEL RUIZ, JR. 1375 Jerome Avenue P.O. Box ~3!I Bronx, NY 10452 (212) 681-4440. Legislative Office Building Room 617 Albany, NY 12248 (518) 455-3395 ~SS___~L_.___~__N_N !O__S~ SERm~NO 322 East 149th Street Bronx, NY 10451 (212) 993-3711 Legislative Office Building Room 836 Albany, NY 12248 (518) 455-4717 ~ASSEHBLYMAN ALBERT VANN 1360 Fulton Streec Room 519 Brooklyn, NY 11216 (212) 783-2400 Legislative Office Building Room 422 Albany, NY 12248 (518) 45.5-5474 ~SSEMBLYMAN ALTON WALDON, 97-01 Springfield Blvd. Queens Village, NY 11429 (2:12) 479-2333 JR. Legislative Office Building Room 834 Albany, NY 12248 (518) 455-4711

---

THI~ NEW YORK TIMES, TUESDAY~ MAY I, 1984 Cigarette Etiquette The litany followed by those who do and doa't smoke cigarettes is absolutely m~varyin~. The nonsmoi~r starts by informing the smoker that he is ki,lling himself. He talks about blackened lungs and a heart that's tick~ng only out of loyalty. The smoker responds by telling him to mind his own business. Now the nonsmoker escalates. "Maybe you don't care about your health," he says, "'but you've got no r/ght to ru/n mine." The smoker repUee by summol~ tlp all evil bigger than both of them. "The air we breathe," he says, "is a lot more letha~ than one of my cigarettes." Often, the argument gets steadily more beated and less courteous -- unless it occurs in a ~ulated envtrmme~. Where smokers are prohibited or seg- regated, rules are st,¢¢_,~__*ful substitutes for cour. tesy. But where there are no rules-- the restaurant, say, or the elevator or the office m there, are only bad feelings. To a smoker, being asked to.put out his cigarette is harassment. To a nonsmoker, having to smell it is torture. Still, how many of us would really welcome more rules and more laws to sovern behavior? Where smoking sections are pract/cal -- as in planes and trains -- they're a happy soluUon. Fail- ing them, have we so far transcended tolerance that a simple "Do you m/rid if I smoke?" is a thoroughly improbable cluesUon? And the occasional "Not at all" an inconceivable answer?

War on smoking: one puff at a time ~eder~L m ~ud m~t~4p~J ~

DAI NEWS EDITORIALS Son~ people love ¢igA~A some hate them. between the two camps a~t-multipl:yin| in UIe wake of reseat=~ that indlctt~s br~thin| someone e[se"s smoke be ttarnfful to the nonsmoker. A tougl~ problem--but the solutloa is hoe the pass~e, of bars),, unento~esble laws. and ~ One in pat*titular that is projressin8 through the ,~ssembl~v flies in the face of all common sense. It would mandate the creation of smoking and uousmol~8 areas in evew-'placeof work" and "indoor are8 open to the publlc." The Ltt~e.A- categov/includes ju.~ abo~ eve~ place imagin, able--lobbies, res~aur'aa~, classrooms, baaks, bowlla~ alle,/s. e~c. The bill pezmi~ excep~lous for small areas, but o~heL-,vise i~ requires seSre~a~on neari~ everyw),ere. brow,~ obv~usb" ~e rule ~ work in some si~a~ous, but in most cases the division of people besed oaly on their smokiaK habits will cres~e ~ighm~-ish problems. - Even more ~'oublin|, who is to eator~e ~s law? Will cops .be puJ,led off crime-fighting? r. res~uraa~s, will wa~er~ have ~o-ordat" a nonsmoklng w~e-to slt apar~ her husband, the smoker?. If she refuses, mus~ the chef appear ~ith_cleaver in band :~ compel her? The Daily News is no fan of cigar~.5, aad we suppor~ reasoaabI~ measures ~o ~e~ addlc~ ~o. shake ~e habit. Persuasion is-one thin8~ however: a hammerheaded law is anott~er. This .bill. should, be de~ea~ed.

THI~ NEW YORK~..TIMRS, FRIDAY, APRIL Suffolk Executive Vetoes Antismoking Bill, Charging h Would Be Unconstitutional HAUPPAUGE, L.I,, April 26 -- ~e Suffolk C~tY Ex~t!ve t~Y vet~ an antls~inR ~ tha~ w~ld ha~ ~ ¢~ t~ m~t r~tflctive in t~ ~ ExPire, ~ter F. Cohalan • zid in ~ ~o ~ge t~t the bill, wh~ ~s ~ 13 to 5 by t~ C~ty ~latu~ I~ m~th, was ~tlt~l~l a~ i~ff~tlve. He ~ to ~lp d~ a ~ bill "~t ~ ~r ~ ~ ~er: ~,~ ~ ~ I have set ~ ~ MII'8 ~ ~, M~e! M: 8. He ~ld ~ e~ ~ ~ of lemon. Fmr of t~ m~ legjsla o~ who smoke pmvide,d the original mar- gin for passaAe. Effe¢t on Nonsmokers The measure would require employ- ers with more than 75 workers in of- fice~ to .~eRreRate smokers and non- smoker~. 11 would also direct ownersof r~taurants that seat ~ patrons or more to set aside one-third of their tables for nonsmokers and prohibit smoking in public restrooms, in jury rooms and in line~ at public place~. Supporter~ of the bill said their inlent w~.~ to protect no~smokers from ad- verse health effect~ caused by smoke Indoors. Mr. Cohalan said that there was no c-~nc]u~tve evidence that Indoor tobacco smoke was harmful and no a~ sur~mce that the bill would ~dtl('e the smoke it in any event. Mr. Cohalan said the bill, in imposinR "arbitrary and irrational classifica- lions" in reslauranls and work places, violated equal-protection Ruaranlees in the F~eral and Slate Constit.tion~. He said it plac~ an unfair ~onomic bu~en on IhP ownP~ of m~ium-size ~tauranls, "which are the back~ne of the restauranl indust~ i. Suffolk C~nty," ~ause unfill~ lables in n~smokin~ s~lioos would lower rev~ nu~. M(~ office workers would ~nefit, he said, ~nus~ ~ Suffolk husin~se~ employ fewer Hmn 75 ~ pie. E~oHs by R~iauraleu~ Mr. Cohalan, ~ ~m~ral. als~ n~ that Ihe Republican<untmll~ I.e~isla. lure had alh~l~l no funds for mere, by the ('ounty DopRrtmPnl of Health ~wicPS. The bill wouhl provide $Z5 ftue~ for violalur~ ~ml would ~, forceahle only by Ihe Ih,;dth Depart. ment. The pre~ident of Ihe LonR Island chaptPr of lhe New Vurk ~t~l~ RP~tau. raul Ass(wt:~lion, Iimulhv W. Archde~. co~. s3id phm~ were, un(h.r w:ty c~m~iRn Io sustain Ih~ win. going Io do evel~lhi~ we can h) them f~m over~din~.' he ~:~id ~r. Archd~a('ml snid a sl~dv c~m- missin~ by the as~¢wi~li()l; Ihal was rs~i ~vPnues m Suffolk wouhl (b.clin. ~.5 million a yenr if the hill w:~,; ~. He al~o s~id r~lmlrnt~.~=r,~ wprP ~tRHmR R volulHRry pl(~l.lfD l~l ;l('. comm(Klate non~moke¢~ Ih;tl wmdd after to h('ll) w~ il *r*l~ ~ nr,w bill "II little ton I~te." he said. "He should have I~n out front on thi~. He trod his chance. ' "llow can it be unconstitutio~al to ~llow ~ple to b~at~ cle~ I~r air in ~muranls?" Dav~a H~. pml- dent of Suffolk O~ S~kinR, ~ East I~llp Romp, a~k~. "H~ can ~ fiRht so vigo~ly to p~t t~ ~bllc ~alth and ~f~ty ~ t~ S~m ~ Pine Ba~ns issue. ~ ~ d~y h~ ~sibillty to pmt~t ~ ~bllc h~lth a~ ~fety in t~ matter ~ I~ d~=r smoktn~ Mr. C~lan ha~ I~ a ~ ~ ~ny from ~rating t~ S~m n~ clenr ~)w~r plant ~ h~ mB~ w~le~h~ in cent~l ~ ~tem Suf- folk ~ high pfio~ly.

Suffolk Leader Vetoes Anti-Smoking Bill " ~t it ~ ~e~ ~ ~i~tio~lly ~ ~s. Michael ~ for ~ overdo ~ ~ mm~mi~, e~tive for ~il~g ~ the hill. "He ~t me in a position to have no other choice but to override," lYAndm mid. "Why should I talk to him now?" Twvlve votes ars required to enact the law, and II l~islators said yesterday that they would vote to override. Two others who vot~i with the majority on March 27 -- Patri©k Heaney (R.Hampton Bays) and Joseph Rim (R-islip Terrace) -- said they needed to study Cohalan's veto message before deciding how to VOte. The bill would require all offices with 7§ or move employees to segregate smokers from nonsmokers. Rm- tsurants with 35 or more seats would have to sot aside one-third of the soats for nonsmokers. And smoking would be banned in swimming pools, bank lines, public restreoms and libraries, joining such places as health care facilities, classrooms and foed stores where it is already illegal. Cohalan said he would not support legislation re- qulrlng restaurants to set a~ide ~:~'iflc numbers of no- smokin~ seats, because some might then be fo~eed to turn away etmtomem during busy mealtimes. He also said it is "arbitrary and irrational" to exempt smaller restaurants ~whore the effects of smoking on nonsmok- ere would be more amcentrsted." And sines mest Suffolk btmine~e~ employ fewer than 75 workers, "the pmpoecd local law fails to achieve its fimdamontal objective of providing protec. tion to the vast majority of the nonsmoking workers of Suffolk County," Cehalan said. But an eapert on antismoking laws stmffed at Coha- lan's argument. ~11~e's never been a successful con- stitutional challenge to any nonsmokers' rights law; the argument is crazy," said John F. Banzhaf II1, a law pmfesoor at George Washington University in Wash- ington, D.C., and executive director of Action on Smok- ing and Health.

THE WALL STR£~F JOURNAL, MONDAY, APRIL 30, 19~4 • REVIEW OUTLOOK Blowing Smoke Here is a piece of real news:. To- ~.day is the 10Oth anniversary of the g~etr producUis.a malignedinnocent, bi~ of the modern cigarette, so ~tnd by any reasonable standards the -what, you ask? We will tell you, In .~vidence is overwhelming, ' ~* We have responded to this growing ~this age of health boosterism and drug ~.. scares, the cigarette is well worth, knowledge in modem American fnsh- .--contemplating, At the very least, It provides a mirror of the way our cul- :lure handles its problems of risk and benefit. The invention of the cigarette as we know it today is itself a grand, old 'American story. A large work force of human "rollers" used to produce the :article by hand. One James Bonsack, after years of labor, developed a ma- chine to do the job, In a test on April ~; 1884, the machine finally ran suc- :¢essfully for an entire workday. Ciga- • ,r, ettes then could be produced for the masses. The weed became our most characteristic vice and a central sym- • - Tw6nty years ago our relationship to the cigarette became a cultural ~tory of a very different kind. Even earlier. of course, the popular culture • l].ad dubbed cigarettes "coffin nails." But La 1964 the Surgeon.General~ pub- fished a report saying in unambiguous and authoritative terms that smoking ~ immensely bad for you. . .. Since then, evidence has mounted • on the connectionof cigarettes to dis, ease. They are particularly implicated in lung cadcer, which is showing a dramatic increase while mc~t other types of cancer are steady or even de- clining after adjustment for the age ~f the poptdation, This year, lung can- L~r probably will surpass breast can- ~¢er a.s the leading cause o~ cancer deaL, s among American women• And • ~igarettes also are implicated in heart ,*disease. an even more. common kiIler ~an cancer. The latest Surgeon Gen- eral's report labels smoking "the :l'#rgest avoidable cause of death and :~isability in the United States." ;:- Interestingly. science still has not '~rovided unchallengeable evidence; :eigarette companies can still protest :~at a lot o! the research ignores other 2factors that play a role in the develop- : tnent; of disease. But industry advo- :~¢ates haven,t convinced anyone that ion. We are changlng our attitudes. andmaklng new laws and rules. Air- lines put smokers in the back of the bus. People tell strangers to put out their cigarettes. Hosts will not allow their house gues~ to light up. City or- dinances establish nonsmoking sec- tlons in restaurants, Anti-smoklng congressmen have not managed to kill the tobacco price-support program. but they trove succeeded in making to- bacco growers pay more of the cost out of their own pockets. Yet we are uneasy about the more blatant forms of harassment, and stop short of any real attempt at prohibi- tion. This restraint reflects sane American reasons, something in us still rebels against the busybody who won't leave ~e neighbors alone and insists they have to be nagged and harried for their own good. We recog- nize that smokers, too, kave rights. And despite the clear risks, in the end we recognize people must be allowed responsibility' for .the conduct of their own lives. If we can adjust to social complex- ity in the case of the lethal cigarette, why can't we do the same with sub- stances whose threat to us is more re- mote and whose benefits may be sub- ~tantial? In recent years, public pol- icy has been nothing less than hysteri- cal about chemicals in the environment. A pesticide ts said to damage laboratory animals. The movement to ban it starts rolling at once. even if we don,t yet know an equally successful way to keep insects out of the food supply. Or a study says that an anti-nausea drug for pregnant wom~n just may be dssociated with birth defects. Other studies and years of use may deem the drug safe. But the medicine is forced off the market. leaving many women suffering and unable to function normally..

nt~ mmt~sm ~an~ ~t ao ms¢ m ,.~t~t m ~mmt qmsm.mm ~mN .~o1~ I

THE N£W YORK TIME~ SATURDAY, APRIL OBSERVER Fire Under The Nose By Russdl Baker

THB NEW YORK TIMES, TUESDAY, APRIL i

U.S. NEW & WORLD REPORT, APRIL 30, 1984 Second-Hand Smoke: The Myth and The Reality Many non-smokers a~ ~ ~ ~:iga~txe smoke. This is a i~,,~lity that k been w~th us |or a long time. i~ly, Ix~vever. many non-smokers have (ome to believe that cigare~e smoke in dm air can actually cause disease, Bu£ refit, the~ is little e~idence-and certainly .o~ing which pmt~ ~cienti.6caily-lhat cigare~ smote causes disea~ in non- smote~. We know th~ ~atement may. seem biased. But it is supported by findin~ and view~ ol independent scientists--including some of the l~w~nce Garfinkel otr the American Cancer Societg for exam- ple. Mr. Garfinkel, who is the.,.Society~ chief s~Usdcian, published a study in LqSI covering over 175,000 Ix'ople, and ~eported that "pas~ve $~ing" had "wry little, if any" effect on lung cancer rates You may have seen mport~ stating that in the course of an e~nin& a no~-unoker could b~athe in an amount of smoke equivalent to ~eve~ cism'ttes or mine. But a ~ientific study by the HarvaM School of Public Health, conducted in vario~ pubic places, found that non-smokers might inhale mywhere f~4 lllO00t~ to lllOOtk o/ o~e .filter cigar~ hour. At lhat rate, it would take you at least 4 da>~ to inhale the equivalent of a single, cigarette, Often our own concerns about our he,'dth can ~ke an unproven claim and magnib/it out of all pe~or~ion: ~o, wl~t begins as a misconception turns into a frightemnR n~3h. Is "second-hand u~oke~ one of the~e myths? We hope the information we've o ffe~,d will help you sort out some of the realities. _R.J. _R.¢.vnolds _Tobacco Comity TIME, APRIL 30, 1984 Second-hand smoke: Let clear the mr. Can cigarette smoke in the air cause disease in non-smokers? That,;an emotional question for smokers and non-smoke rs alike. So we'll try to set the record straight in the most direct way we know. There is little evidence-and certainly nothing which proves scientifically-that cigarette smoke causes disease among non- smoke~. You don't have to take our word for it. U.S. Surgeon General Julius B. Richmond--who was no friend of smoking--said in his 1979 Reix)rt: "Healthy non-smokers exposed to ogamtte smoke have little or no physiologic response to the smoke, and what response does occur may be due to psychological factors: And in the 1982 Report. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop could not conclude that passive smoking is a cause of cancer in non- smokers. The director of the National Heart. Lung and Blood Institute. Dr. Claude L,enfant. has been one of the tobacco industry. !~ sharpest critics. Yet Dr. Lenfant stated in 1980 (and we believe it remains true today) that "the evidence that passive smokin~ in a general environ- ment has health effects remains sparse, incomplete and sometimes unconvincing: We've decided to speak out on passive smoking because there is so much rumor and rhetoric on this subject loclay And we intend to continue, from time to time, to speak out on other topics of concern to you and to us. Our critics may try to discredit these messages as ~If.serving. In a .~nse, they ~vill he right. We will challen~e alle.t,,ations that ,'we unproven and attacks we think are unfounded. If that is self-serving, so he it. The questions that surround smokin~ raise many imporl,'mt i~ues. We l-~lieve that you're entilled I~ hear all sides of these cont n ~w,rsies. R .J. ~R e ~o_1_~ .T_o~ P--~Y

U.S. NEW & WORLD REPORT, APRIL 30, 1984 Second-Hand Smoke: The Myth and The Reality Many non-smokers a~ ~ ~ ~:iga~txe smoke. This is a i~,,~lity that k been w~th us |or a long time. i~ly, Ix~vever. many non-smokers have (ome to believe that cigare~e smoke in dm air can actually cause disease, Bu£ refit, the~ is little e~idence-and certainly .o~ing which pmt~ ~cienti.6caily-lhat cigare~ smote causes disea~ in non- smote~. We know th~ ~atement may. seem biased. But it is supported by findin~ and view~ ol independent scientists--including some of the l~w~nce Garfinkel otr the American Cancer Societg for exam- ple. Mr. Garfinkel, who is the.,.Society~ chief s~Usdcian, published a study in LqSI covering over 175,000 Ix'ople, and ~eported that "pas~ve $~ing" had "wry little, if any" effect on lung cancer rates You may have seen mport~ stating that in the course of an e~nin& a no~-unoker could b~athe in an amount of smoke equivalent to ~eve~ cism'ttes or mine. But a ~ientific study by the HarvaM School of Public Health, conducted in vario~ pubic places, found that non-smokers might inhale mywhere f~4 lllO00t~ to lllOOtk o/ o~e .filter cigar~ hour. At lhat rate, it would take you at least 4 da>~ to inhale the equivalent of a single, cigarette, Often our own concerns about our he,'dth can ~ke an unproven claim and magnib/it out of all pe~or~ion: ~o, wl~t begins as a misconception turns into a frightemnR n~3h. Is "second-hand u~oke~ one of the~e myths? We hope the information we've o ffe~,d will help you sort out some of the realities. _R.J. _R.¢.vnolds _Tobacco Comity TIME, APRIL 30, 1984 Second-hand smoke: Let clear the mr. Can cigarette smoke in the air cause disease in non-smokers? That,;an emotional question for smokers and non-smoke rs alike. So we'll try to set the record straight in the most direct way we know. There is little evidence-and certainly nothing which proves scientifically-that cigarette smoke causes disease among non- smoke~. You don't have to take our word for it. U.S. Surgeon General Julius B. Richmond--who was no friend of smoking--said in his 1979 Reix)rt: "Healthy non-smokers exposed to ogamtte smoke have little or no physiologic response to the smoke, and what response does occur may be due to psychological factors: And in the 1982 Report. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop could not conclude that passive smoking is a cause of cancer in non- smokers. The director of the National Heart. Lung and Blood Institute. Dr. Claude L,enfant. has been one of the tobacco industry. !~ sharpest critics. Yet Dr. Lenfant stated in 1980 (and we believe it remains true today) that "the evidence that passive smokin~ in a general environ- ment has health effects remains sparse, incomplete and sometimes unconvincing: We've decided to speak out on passive smoking because there is so much rumor and rhetoric on this subject loclay And we intend to continue, from time to time, to speak out on other topics of concern to you and to us. Our critics may try to discredit these messages as ~If.serving. In a .~nse, they ~vill he right. We will challen~e alle.t,,ations that ,'we unproven and attacks we think are unfounded. If that is self-serving, so he it. The questions that surround smokin~ raise many imporl,'mt i~ues. We l-~lieve that you're entilled I~ hear all sides of these cont n ~w,rsies. R .J. ~R e ~o_1_~ .T_o~ P--~Y

THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE 1075 I STREET, NORTHWEST WASHINGTON, DC 20006 2021457-..t800 * 800)',424*9876 ROGER L. MOZ1NGO Senior Vice President* State Activities April 16, 19:84 RECEIvIS~ APR : U 1984 FROM : W. E. Ainsworth, Jr., Esquire James R. Cherry, Esquire Mr. K.v.R. Dey, Jr. Roger L. Mozingc~ Ernest Pepples, Esquire Mr. Shepard P. Pollack Here are the final six ads appearing in the Albany (NY) Legislative Gazette against the Grannis smoking restriction bill. Even though A 2746 is now ready for consideration in the New York Assembly, we feel the advertising program has been a positive part of our overall strategy on this legislation. It has enabled the industry message to be constantly in front of legislators and staff since early last month. Ri/4/d le attachment CC : Mr. Samuel D. Chilcote, Jr. Mr. Martin Ryan Haley Mr. Michael J. Kerrigan Mr. William Kloepfer Mr. Hurst Marshall Mr. Roger L. Mozingo Mr. William A. O'Flaherty Mr. Stanley S. Scott Stanley L. Temko, Esquire J. Kendrick Wells, III, Esquire

THE TOBACCO, INDUSTRY COUNTY BY COUNTY --a vital cornerstone of New York's economy .major source of New Yorkers' livelihoods COUNTY TOTAL CONTRIBUTION* • Employment; Wages " Cattaraugus . Cayuga Chautauqda . Chemung - . ":.:Essex " " " "Franklin Hamilton ....... Lewis Li.vingstor~ .... •Madison "' - ": .Montgomery: • Niagara Ontario .. Orleans _ Oswego . Otsego Putnam Rensselaer Schohar,ie-. • - Schuyler Steuben Sullivan " Tioga ' " Tompkins. Warren ..... . "- ...... ~" :WashingtOn Wayne . Westcheste~ Wyoming Yates . 214 • 500 370 923 763- ' 276 34g 164 304~ 357, 183 15 21 226, 213. ..... 310 405 152 529 244 236 674 73 66 " 63Z 313 41 500 3,112;000 7,149;000 5;264;000 3,364i000 1, ~ 39,000 4,036,000 4,966,000 2;328,000 2;157,000 4i374,000 5,261,000 2,453;000 184,000 192,000 3,258,000. 2,925,000 4,395,000 26i547,000 5~943,000 2,162,000 7;627,000 3,426;000 3,164,000 9,577,000 991,000, 948,000: 9;270,000 4,412,000 374,000 7,539,000- 430 .......... . ........... ~,237..000 ....... 240 3,504,000 439 6,252,000 -- 8;361 122,830,000 - 162 2,259,000: 87 1,2t4,000 Total taxes paid to New York State: and New York City in !983 was $593 million Totali direct and indirect c~ntributions to New York. State in 1979: was 159,230 employees and $2.4! billion in personallcompensation* The: Tobacco Insti:tute

THE TOBACCO COUNTY BY COUNTY, A CORNERSTONE OF NEW YORK'S, ECONOMY INDUSTRY: COUNTY Albany . Bronx Broome Col umbia Cortland Delaware Dutchess. Erie Herkimer Jefferson Kings Mon ~roe Nassau : New York Oneid'a O~ondaga Orange - Queens Richmond ' ' Rockland : St. LawrenceL Saratoga Schenectady Seneca Suffolk Ulster TOTAL CONTRIBUTION Dii'ect and Indirect Employment 2,572 4,627 1,812 ..... 216 268 .. 249 1,839 8,730 386 486 9i.643 7,879. 1~1,259 ~ 52,299: : 4,455. 1~,31~3. 11,12t. 1 ,.075 1,348 , 627 551 - 150 6,751 863 Wages 38,372;000 65,49&000 26,927,000: 3,041i-i000 3,910,000 3,560,000: 27,493,000 -130,706,000 5,570,000 6,922:,000 li37,978,000 li20,710,000 163;712,000 811,949,000 21,872,000 67,232,000 li8~611,000. 165,425,000 15,03&000 .19,694,000 9,067,000 7,737;000 ' 24,337,000 2,276,000, 96,852,000 12,601,000 The Tobacco Institute The Legisla,tive Gazette, April 2, 1198'4

t~ L~G'~LATI'VE ~AZ~'TT~* MARCH We'd like to call the following editorial to: your attention: DAI LY._~ NEWS Sunday. March 18, t984 !' :" ". | 'O ~ ~ ,~onS. their The Tobacco InstitUte

THE LEGtSLATIYE GAZETTE. MARCH PAGE= We'd like to call to the following your attention editorial Reprinted From SATURDAY, F~BFIUARY 25, 1984 Editorials Government should butt out A bill now In Albany would require thai any '*place ot work" or "indoor area open Io the public" have separate areas ~.q slide for people who smoke.: These places would include all federal, lille and municipal buildings, poll offices, convention facilities, all bus and sir terminals, bingo halls bowling alleys, en¢ used arcades, shopping ('enter~ and sports arenas and more -- lhe llsl is.endless. Any legislation requiring that lhere be eiiKer no smoking or separale smoklnR areas would prnv[de an. eoforcemenl nlghlmare. F.ven more disastr,~us, it would atlemp! to make policemen out of rcstauranl nwm.rs, relail store clerks, college leachers,, Iheatre owners, and anyone else who works in an ares where peogle c(mgregal~'whlrh is the vasl majority of businesses and places of public accommodations in Ihe slate. ill Is likely that the great maJoril)~ nr p~opl, who dine in restauranls, and Ro to shopping mails and .~portinR events have more concern, aboul the qual|ly and price ol': prnducls Ihey Ire purchasing lhsn whether snmenne near them in smoking. And if someone n~'ar Ihem i~ x,noklnR and ~t~ t~:it is clea~y ac~plabl~n ou~ ~rly to ju:l ask thm~lo put il out. ' • ' ' * ' ' II se~ no purple Io se~gale ~ople on: the hast* smoking, or ~n-smnkJng. The ~ghts of citizens In I~lr own ~r~nal ~havior. In ¢onside~llon o[ ~the~, Is I~ only w~ t'~ tss~ of smoking ¢.n ~ handled ~irly. Fu~her. If ~ss~, Ibis bill would have a devnslaling eff~t on the To~ InduM~, an Indusl~ which ~¢h ~ar, a~o~Jnx to a 1979 study by the Wha~on Applied Res~h ~enler al t~ Untidily of Pennsylvania. p~vldes New York SIaI~ with ~ than 159.~ Jo~. 82.4 billion In combustion and ~au~ Ihe int~m~lale dislrlhullon and ~lailing a~d vending s~o~ of the industry a~ among la~es: In I~ nation, adds m~ than $R76.5 million I~ Mate and f~l Ireasurien to ~nefit all New Yo~ke~. ~moke~ and non,nm~kers alike. Ciliate .e ts i matter o( choice. Empll~yem and custome~ to f~d ~iulinns and ~l~ies thai ~ pr, hl=m while sl ill ~tng pra~llral ,nd fair. WHAT GOOD IS THE 'NO SMOKING' LAW IF IT'S UNENFORCEABLE, CREATES EXPENSES, INCONVENIENCES AND CAUSES CONFRONTATIONS? That kind of law hurts all "iaw.

THE L [GL~LATIV[ PAGET Waron Even the federal government goes onJyso faras to print a warning on cigaret packs that the Surgeon, Oener~[ has de, ermined that cigaret smoking is dangerous to your health. The proposed Clean indoor Air, Act which is b~ing pushed in the State Legislature would go much farther~ It would require any "place of "work" or "indOor a~ea open to the public" to have smoking: One puff at a time separate areas for smoking. It would: impose restrictions on all federal state and murdcipa~; buildings, post offices, convention facflities~ bus and air terminals, bingo halls, bowling centers, enclosed arcades., discos, restaurants, hotel lobbies, shopping centers and sports arenas. It is one thing to impose smoking restrictions in confined areas--buses, subway cars0 airllnzrs. even theaters---quite another to take on the world. (Editorial reprinted from Weonesoay. 1984 edition of,tl'le New York The Tobacco Institute

The. Legislative Albany, New York March 5, 1984 Gazette NO SMOKING LEGISLATION AN ENFORCEMENT NIGHTMARE -- IN CALIFORNIA, it was estimated that if only one summons was issued in each California county each day for anti'smoking, violations, it would •cost taxpayers more than $1 million a year -- CHICAGO'S attemptto enforce smoking prohibitions on its public transportation cost its taxpayers $100 per arrest -- NEW'JERSEY'S Conference of Mayors put a price tag of $400 on the arrest and prosecution of just; one individu.al who smoked in a restaurant's non-smoking section -- ILLINOIS' state health director said it would cost; mo~e than $4 million to:add inlspectors to enforce a pending public smoking law DON'T LET IT HAPPEN IN NEW YORK

TEI,~COP'Y TO ." Mr, Shepa~rd P. Polh~c~#/ M~, Stanl~ey S. Scet t MEMORA.~DUM TO : Mr. $~.E. Ainswor~h, Jr. 3ame~ Cherry, Esq. Mr. K.,v.R. bey, Jr. Mr. Shepard P, Pollack[ Mr. S~ S. Scott Ric.hard E. Scanlan Report o~ ~eekly Activities Concerning Intro. Res. ii~8-84, Restrictive Smoking Le~slatlon in. Suffolk County The ~ollowln@ will report on activities of the week of 4~2-6.~84 to impact ~he o~flce o[ County Executive, Peter Y.-Co~lan., he veto: In:re. Res, i158-84. ACTIVITIES -%¸ COIgtENTS A. D~RECT LOBBYING OF COUhrl-~' ~CECUTIVE I. Interview, retain, and educate s~ec!ai counsel Z.. Nigh coun~el:, meet with Met, with and retained Robert Ryan of Ryan & RFan, P.R., Inc. Executive. Met ~i:~ and Conlon to. impact the Executive. A ,~ee~.In~" has been scheeuled with r.he J, 5tier Deputy ~d As~i~an= Count}, Counsel

4. Coordinate key contacts who might be able to impact, the County Execu- tive Joseph Carl%,no l~as spoken with members o~ ¢he LeqCsla~ure and othe~ local of~i:~als, Phl;l£p, Morri~ has contacted the G~umman: Corpoca~ion [or the$t tire, ~taCe and local county officials. Roger Mczin~o has con:~aeted American Brands re~ard~n~ ~helr /nvolvemen~ ~nd their nacional e~for~. Ric Scanlan has contacted Brook- haven To~ Supervisor Acampora. Orumman Corpo~'at~on has communi- cated Co ~he LIA that the 5!A ~ill ~estlfy on 419/B4. ,, B. l~I~ LOBBYING OF COUNTY ~~I~X !, ~velop and coordinate industry Dr. $chafe~, ~alker Herryman an~ witnesses ~o attend 419184 p~llc Joseph Carlino ~ve been ~rlefed head!n9 In their ~e~pective areas for 2. Develop and coordinate hea~%n~ Joseph Carllno fo~ his rev:ew as ~o the Legi~iature. Y~ed Sampson cf the Nev ees~aurant a~cclation. Gr'~mman Ccrpo~a:!c.n to u~r~e ~,~

telephone calls ¢o ~e CounW dlstrlbutlcn pr~ram to impact hea~ing. Tobacco Union The Huntington Cham~er of hearing. Executive, mailed and w!~l be completed 414-5184:, Teie~ho~e Dan~ efforts have ~een coordinated with nh, e res:aurant Executive, County Executive from ¢omple~e~. ~e Ch.e County Executive fycm reprezenta~Ive~ ~o im~iemen~

5. Coordlnace, legislate.re member ~mpsey) has been contracted ~o, secure 20,000 s~.cnatu~es b~ Brooke Chene~ ~nd Je=ry Kuprls ~mve dis~rlbu~ed fliers an~ . petitions to restaurants, bowling centers, taverns, ho~els, vending cospanies an~ 12 fetal% ou~%ets.. Ric Scanlan ~%as met with Legis- lators Beck, LaBua, Howard Caracappa to cor~fir~ their con~inue~ opposition. Z;. GRASS~0OTS A. IM~~ATION OF T~T ACTION R~UEST i. Brooke Cheney and Jerry Kuprls to meet wi~h member c~mpanles sales force to explain the program and pe~itlons and fl~er d.~stri~utlon. Co=plete~ assignment: and wiZl con~lin.ue working wi~h membe~ comFan~!es through 4[9/84. 2, ~rooke Cheney and: Jercy Kupri~ Me~ber company te£ephone banks ~ere ini~i~ed 4/~.184 and: coordination will be on-golng. 3. Brooke Cheney ~nd Jerry Kupr!s ~o cocrdlna~e a~:endance of 5 hearing Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Loci!lard and Liggett & Myers have been c~s;ac~eC ~o ~ave their employee~ attend the 4:~9/S4 public he~ri:ng. ~helr o~ employees to a~tend. PROGRAM OF COALIT}ON 5E"..'IT..R h~.:IT!NG AND TELEPHONE I. Restaurant A~socia.tzon, Chambers er~, Lon~ i~land Assc¢ia:iono 5ake~y Csn~ec:~cnerF a.n~ T~b~cc~. Nor~¢e:r~. have been in~iated. 2, Gecrge Ellcof~n and Tiny a,.ies

Lewis Helfstein of Golden Tobacco is providing assistance on the dlssrlbutor level. C. DEVELOP PRINT AND MEDIA SUPPORTPROGRAM Program ~ni:tlated. his coordination at the 4/9/8~ public hea~Im~, of N~4$DAY has been inlt~a=ed ~o 2. ~iker He~ryr~n to give press interviews and briefings at public hearing Walker Merry.an, has been con-, tarred and briefed and w~l~ public heating, 3. Richard $~anlan ~o promote coalition me~!a activity Have drafted ~its with coall- ti~ns for media at publi~ hea~in:g D. ACTIVATE THE BUS~NESS .~.~D RESTAUR.~T LgDUSTRIES: TO MORE FULLY OPPOSE THE LEG~$LAT~0R to ~ollow u~ 4/I/84 mail!ng to 250, businesses in th~ county with 75 o~ more employees to insure letter wr~tlnq Foll.o~-up ~h,onin~ has been Ini=!a~ed on4/5,/84 ques~ letters and testimony. Several ~us!neSs~en have cared: tha~ they ~:~,ll attend the pu~l~c hearlnq in ad, d~Ion to writing le~e~, 2. Brcoxe Cheney and Jerry Kuprls ~o ~ake one-on-one contacts with Program on-gc~!ng, Res~auran~ and several wi:l.i tez~ify. Morris to impact the LZA a= =he public hezrSng:. v~.c,.. ¢[ l:~=r~. Ees. I~5@-~4. by Suffolk Contr. Ezecutive P'etez" Ctba ln~ sh0ul.2 a veto b,y him occur, th~s offloe ,.~ill implement

will Be s~bmi~te~ to you fo:~ ¢onslderatlon shor~.ly. J, cseph F. Ca~lino, K. M~chael Irish Michael J. Kerrlgan Roger L. Mozlngo Howard J. Rubenstein Bernard J. ~u~gierl

PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED INTER-OFFICE CO:RRESPONDENCE 120 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y. IOO17 TO: FROM: SUBJECT.. Mr. Stan S. Scott Frank A. Saunders The "Grannis Bill" DATE: March 14, 1984 As you know, I was included in the program a~t the presentation of the New York State Governor's Arts Awards in Albany last night and spoke on. the stage of the theatre in the Empire State Institute for the Performing Arts (."the Egg"). Following the awards, I was approached by Senator Tarky Lombardi at the reception we held, and he made the following points concern.ing the "Grannis Bill"- I. The State Health Commissioner addressed Tarky's committee yesterday on the subject of the "Grannis Bill" and! smokilng legislation.--.obviously in full support of Grannis. 2. Tarky says "they're going! to get something this year, now it's not j~ust Grannis, it's the State Health Commission~er too." 3. Therefore, Tarky suggests that we move toward a compromise and support a b~ll embracing a new public policy regarding smoking in work places which would, in effect, legislate the employer's right to determine the conditions to be set his employees. Tarky thinks that this approach ~s the sanest and surest and that we could get good: support for it in the Legislature. I've spoken to J~m Bowling about this issue, and: I'm sending copies of thins memorandum to Hugh, Shep, and Jim. Incidentally, both Mike Irish and Dale Florio were talking to Tarky after I left, and he may have made the same point to them. FAS-bmt cc: Messrs. Hugh Cullman Shepard Pollack James Bowling

TobaccoAction Network, 1,875 Eye Street; N: W.I WashinEton;, D.C., 20005 800.424-9875 February 23, 1984 TO : FROM : RE : W.E. Ainsworth, Jr., Esquire James R. Cherry, Esquire Mr. Steven C~ Cohen Roger L. Mozingo Grannis Clean Indoor Air Act Mr. Stanley S. Scott J. Kendrick Wells, Esquire RECEfVED, FEB BACKGROUND Assemblyman Alexander "Pete'" Grannis' Clean, Indoor Air Act, A.2746A, carried, over in 1984 but must go back to the Assembly Committee of origin,, i.e., Health Committee. On 2/7/84 the Assembly Health Committee approved the bill by a vote of 18-2-2 and referred same to the Assembly Codes Committee which will schedule consideration shortly. This legislation (Exhibit A) passed the New York Assembly in, 1982 by a vote of 84-59 and was defeated by the Senate Health Committee by a vote of 6-2. In 1,983, this bill was defeated; by a 62-57 vote (76 YEA votes being necessary for passage). No Senate action was taken during the year. Because early legislative action is expected, it is necessary that opposition, to the Assembly membership be expressed; as early as possible. ACTION REQUESTED Your permission for the Vice President of Region II to write to TAN activist volunteers to request that they write letters to members of the New York State Assembly (Exhibit B) in, opposition to this legislation. It is suggested that these letters commence immediately. The attached sample letter (Exhibit C) will be sent to activist enrollees along with Exhibit D. Your permSssion for the Vice President of Region II to request selected company TAN activist volunteers to participate in a telephone bank effort prior to consideration of the Grannis Bill after normal business hours ~n company or other appropriate facil~ties. Your permission for the Vice President of Region II to request selected company TAN activist volunteers to participate in a letter-to-the-editor program in selected media areas. Key activists will be requested to participate in this effort.

ACTION REQUEST February 23, 1984 Page Two Your permission for the Vice President of Region. II to request company TAN activist volunteers to initiate m~eet-your-legislator meetings in selected areas. Where necessary, these meetings may take place during normal business hours. Your assistance in contacting companies with whom you do business in New York (suppliers, advertisers, subsidiaries) in order to secure their early opposition to this legislation. Should this bill pass the Assembly and move to the Senate for consideration, your permission for the Vice President of Region II to request company TAN activist volunteers to participate in each of the above requests with regard to members of Senate (Exhibit E). After review of the New York Lobbying Law, Covington & Burling has advised that this request does not require registration or reporting on the part of the TAN volunteers. If you have any questions relative to the above, please feel free to contact M~chael~Kerrigan. RLM/dle Attachments Mr. Larry Bewley Robert Bishop, Esquire James T. Breedlove, Esquire Joseph F. Carlino,. Esquire Mr. Samuel D. Chilcote, Jr. Mr. K.v.R. Dey, Jr. Mr. H~ugh W. Foley Mr. Michael J. Kerrigan Matthew H. Mataraso, Esquire Mr. William A. O'Flaherty Ernest Pepples, Esquire Mr. Shepard P. Pollack J. Bernard Robinson, Esquire Mr. H.oward J~. Rubenstein Bernard: J. Ruggieri, Esquire John P. Rupp, Esquire Mr. Richard E. Scanlan

Date" 23 Feb ~!984 1552-EST From: CDEFFENBAUGH To" RJ-REYNOLDS, LIGGETT-AND-I#YERS,PHILIP~MORR'IS,BROWN-AND-WI~LLIAMSON oc" TI~NMAN S,.rbJeot: IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR YOUR E>~ECUTIVES NAMED BELOW Fe~ruarx 23, IS84 TO~" FROMi~ W!.E. Ai.nswort~, J~#., Esmui're James R'. C;herry, Esquire Mir. Steven C. Cohen Ro.~er L. Mio,zi.n~o G:rannis Clean Indo.or Air Act M!r. Stanl~er S. Sco~t J. Kendlri;cK Well~s, Esquire ~ACK:GROUND~ Assembl.~man Alexand:er "Pete" Grannis' Clean Indoor Ailr Ao~, A.2748A, oa:rried o~>er in 1884 but must ~o back to the Assembl~ C;om~|ilttee oF origin,, i.e., Health Committee. On 2/7/84 the A.sse~,~.bl~ Heal~h Com~li'~tee aPProved th.e bill by a vote oF 18-2-2 and referred s~ame ~o. ~he Assem~blx-Codes Co,~.ittee ~hich will sohedu,le oonsilderation shortly. Th~is lemilslation (Exhibit A): massed the New, York Asse~blr in 1882 bY a vote oF 84-58 and wms defeated b~ the Sename Hlealth Co~imilttee b.~ ~ vote oF ~-2. In I~83:, this bill was defeated b~ ~ B2-5:7 v.o~e <78 YEA votes beins. necessarx Fo,r ~assa~e). No, Senate motion was taken durin~ ~he ~ear. Because early legislative action is expected, it ils necessarx that oeeosition~ to the Assem~blvmembershie be exeressed: as earl~ as Possible. ACTION REO.UESTED~ Your Permission For t~e Vice President oF R'e~Jon II to wr~te to TAN a.cti.~.,isz volunteers to re~u:est thus the)' write letters ~.o (~le(,~b.ers oF the New, Yor~ State Assemb.lx ('Exhibit B)~ in oeeosition to this lesis.lation. It is sussested that these letters co~l:,ence im|:lediatel)'. The attached le~ter (Exhibit C). will~ be sen,t to aoti;uist enrollees alons with Exhib.i~ D.. Your e.erm~ission: For the Vice P'~esident oF Rem~on II to re~ues~ selected co|~leanx TAN activist volunteers to mar~ioi~a~e in a ~elemhone bank e~Fort e~ior to consideration oF the Grannis Bill after normal busin~ess hours in o.omPan~, or o~Her aPPro.eriate Facilities. ~our eermission For thee Vice President oF Remion II so re.~ues~ selected o:o,~eany ~AN ac:tilui'st volunteers to ParticiPate in a letter-to-the-editor e'rosra~, i;n se]'eo~ed ~-2"~t~ ,,1.edia areas. Key a;cti~,i, sts will be ~;to ear~o:ima~e~ in this eFFort.

AC]ION REQUEST February 23, I~8i4 Paee Two 4. Your Permissi:on For She V£ce Presiden~t oF Re~on II to ,~,~. company TAN actiu,ist volunteers to initiate ~ meet-~'our-le~islator meetings in~ selected: areas. Where necessary, these meetinss ~.ay take Pl:ace dur~n:~ normal business hours. '='our ass istance in contact i:n~ cold, Pan i e,s wi th w=hof~) you ,Jo business in New ~ork (suPPlliers, advertisers, su0,sidiaries) in order So secure their earl)" oePosi~,~on t.o this, l'e~i s I a:t i on. Should this bi;ll Pass the Assembly an~ move so thee Senate For consi, deration, your eerm[ssio,n ~or the Vilce President oF Re~ion IIi to reguest company TAN activist uol:unteers to ea:r~icieate in each oF She above reauests ~rith re,~ard to ,~embers oF Senate (Exhibit E). AFter review oF She New Yor~; L~bbyin~ Law, Coving:ton ~ Burlin~ has advised ~hat this request does not require res£stration ~r reeortiin~ on the Pars oF She TAN volunteers. IF You have any ~uestions relative So the above, P]lease Feel Free So contact Mi, chael Kerri~an. RLM/dle At~acha~ents cc-" ~r. Larry Bewley Robert BishoP, Es~,uire Jam,es T. Breedloue, Esquire Joseph F. Car]ino, Esquire Mr. Samuel. D. Chilcote, Jr. Mr. K.,).R. Dev, Jr. Mr. Hus:h W. Foley Mr. Michael J. Kerrisan Mat~he~ H!. Mataraso, Esquire Mr.. Wi!!~iam A. O'Flahers~ Ernest PeePles, Esquire Mr. Sheeard P. Pollack J. Bernard: Robi:nson:, Esquire Mr. Howard: d. R'ubenstein Bernard J. Ru~ieri, Es~uilre Joh~n P. RueP, Esquire Mr. Richard E. Scanlan SAMPLE LETTER EXHIBIT C Alber~ Ruscitc Jr. 443 PiPe Stave Hollow Road Miller Place, New YcrK 11764 Dear Mr. Ruscito; YOU are a member oF She Tobacco Action Netw~orK (TAN)...YO~ are concerned w£th Protectin~ Personal= Freedoms F~om souernment interference and~ restrictive re~ul'atio.ns...YOU have acti:vely helped before to Prevent she enactment o,¢ a major ]a~ ~n Ne~ Yor~ tha~ ~ould seuerely restrict smoKin~ in. Public el.aces.

AC]ION REQUEST February 23, I~8i4 Paee Two 4. Your Permissi:on For She V£ce Presiden~t oF Re~on II to ,~,~. company TAN actiu,ist volunteers to initiate ~ meet-~'our-le~islator meetings in~ selected: areas. Where necessary, these meetinss ~.ay take Pl:ace dur~n:~ normal business hours. '='our ass istance in contact i:n~ cold, Pan i e,s wi th w=hof~) you ,Jo business in New ~ork (suPPlliers, advertisers, su0,sidiaries) in order So secure their earl)" oePosi~,~on t.o this, l'e~i s I a:t i on. Should this bi;ll Pass the Assembly an~ move so thee Senate For consi, deration, your eerm[ssio,n ~or the Vilce President oF Re~ion IIi to reguest company TAN activist uol:unteers to ea:r~icieate in each oF She above reauests ~rith re,~ard to ,~embers oF Senate (Exhibit E). AFter review oF She New Yor~; L~bbyin~ Law, Coving:ton ~ Burlin~ has advised ~hat this request does not require res£stration ~r reeortiin~ on the Pars oF She TAN volunteers. IF You have any ~uestions relative So the above, P]lease Feel Free So contact Mi, chael Kerri~an. RLM/dle At~acha~ents cc-" ~r. Larry Bewley Robert BishoP, Es~,uire Jam,es T. Breedloue, Esquire Joseph F. Car]ino, Esquire Mr. Samuel. D. Chilcote, Jr. Mr. K.,).R. Dev, Jr. Mr. Hus:h W. Foley Mr. Michael J. Kerrisan Mat~he~ H!. Mataraso, Esquire Mr.. Wi!!~iam A. O'Flahers~ Ernest PeePles, Esquire Mr. Sheeard P. Pollack J. Bernard: Robi:nson:, Esquire Mr. Howard: d. R'ubenstein Bernard J. Ru~ieri, Es~uilre Joh~n P. RueP, Esquire Mr. Richard E. Scanlan SAMPLE LETTER EXHIBIT C Alber~ Ruscitc Jr. 443 PiPe Stave Hollow Road Miller Place, New YcrK 11764 Dear Mr. Ruscito; YOU are a member oF She Tobacco Action Netw~orK (TAN)...YO~ are concerned w£th Protectin~ Personal= Freedoms F~om souernment interference and~ restrictive re~ul'atio.ns...YOU have acti:vely helped before to Prevent she enactment o,¢ a major ]a~ ~n Ne~ Yor~ tha~ ~ould seuerely restrict smoKin~ in. Public el.aces.

Once asain I mus~ asJ~ For ~'our suPPOrt a~ainst the Grannis 14o SmoKinm bill (A. 2746A) still Pendins in the state lesislature. This meas~ire, as you Know, would Prohibit smoKin~ in most Public elates <restaurants, bowfins alleys, banK:s, offices and many others), and uiolators who smoke i;n the wron~ Place coul, d be Fined $100! The ]e~sl~ature w~l,l be considerins the Grannis b.iill in the next Few weeks. Th,ere is a brief Fact sheet enclosed ~ith my letter exPlainins the ~roble~s associated with this ~Pe of restrictive legislation. So~e ~uotes about She lesilslation b~ other or~ani~ations are al~so in~ludled Fo~ your information. IF you a~ree that this legislation is uncalled. For, I urge you~ so w~iite ~nd oall~ your Assemb.lym~n~ ~oday. Mere ils the name and eh~one number oF ~our Assemblyman~ Assemblxman JosePh SawioKil, Jr. Room ~21i- LOB Alban~, New York 12247 (51!8) 455-4804~ Your le~isl~asor needs to hear Fro::~ cons~itcle~,ts before v,o~in~ on this important issue. Please take the time to write and call TODAY. IF )~our Assembl)~m~n responds So )'our message, I w,oul~ aPPreciate re~eiuin~ a O0'PY. ThanKs For ~our help in Fishtins %his restricti~ve iesi:slation. LETTER DOES COUNt! Y~IR Sinoerel)~, Richard. E. S.canlan

PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A. 12OPARK AVENUE, NEW YORK. N.Y~ 10017 RECEIV|I~ J. B~_-'~.,~._~.D ROB~I~O~ May 4, 1983 Dear Charlie: Shep Pollack recently had the opportunity to read the recommendation in opposition to A2746 (Grannis Anti-Smoking Bill) submitted to the New York Leg- islature by the New York State Food Merchants Association. He asked me to communicate his ap- preciation to you for this support. Many thanks. Let's visit soon. Sincerely, BR/ks enclosure Mr. Charles S. Mack President and Chief Executive Officer New York State Food Merchants Assoc±ation 303 South, Broadway Tarrytown., New York 10591

Bernie Robinson INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE SUBJ[-Cf, 120 PARK AVENUE. NEW YORK. N:.Y. 10017 D^TE~ April 28, 1983 13~3 Attached is the compendium on New York A2746 submitted to the New York Legislature by The Tobacco Institute. Note Item 33, the position taken by the New York State Food Merchants Association. Your phone call to Charlie Mack was effective. I saw Charlie's top politica~ person, Dennis Griesing, Tues- day night in Albany, and he mentioned that he thought your call was key to kicking this poSition statement loose. Many thanks. BR/ks attachment S. S. Scott J. Nelson

PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A. INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE TO: FROM: SUBJECT= 120 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y. IOO17 DISTRIBUTION STANLEY S. SCOTT NY A. 2049 (:Sampling) DALE: 5/2/83 R E CEIV E D As is indicated in the attached correspondence, our Tobacco Institute lobbyists are attempting to work out a compromise with Assemblyman Pete Grannis on his legislation to ban cigarette sampling. Jim Morgan has given his O.K. to include an amendment to the sampling code. You should know that we are not impacted since the provision Grannis is seeking is already in PM's sampling policy. Att. H. Cullman S. Pollack/ J. Bowling J. Morgan B. Robinson M. Irish A. Holtzman F. Newman

TOBACCO I NSTi TU TE R~:-- wili~ng ~ ac~ ~n sccordance wi~h the request. ~ ~~-~ to ~r. Gran.nis once I've received am ~dust~" consensus. .--- /rob - cc: ~-!essrs. ~uiicote, Kelly, ~.Roh~.on~ Y.upp, ~o!d

ALBANY

STKNL~Y S. SCOT~ PUBLIC AFFAIRB Dear Tarky : PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A. 120 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK. N,Y~ 10017 January 13, 1983 The New York State Legislature will consider several bills that, if enacted:, will have a dramatic and adverse impact on the economy of New York State, on. those individuals whose livelihoods are d:irectly or indirectly linked to the tobacco industry, and on the freedoms enjoyed by the citizens of the Empire State. Specifically, we would appreciate your consideration of our industry position on the following tobacco- related measures which are pending:: Assembly Bill No. A. 11805 and Senate Bill No. S. 9233 would prohibit the sale of any cigarette that is not "self-extingu:ishing" within the state. This measure requires cigarette manufacturers to employ technology that does not exist. In fact, no satisfactory process or patent for a "fire-safe" cigarette has been identified by the federal government. Senate Bill No. S.. 2400 and S. 9234. would restrict smoking in certain public places, such as elevators, restaurants, public meetings, etc. In addition, Assembly Bill No. A. 358~A would prohibit smoking in "schoolhouses," except in certain designated; areas. The tob&cco industry believes that there is no need: for restrictive legislation such as Senate Bill No. S. 2400 and S. 92:34. Bot~ measures infringe on the rights of responsible adults. Common sense, courtesy and tolerance for the preferences of others have been, and should~ remain, the only elements needed for a cooperative relationship between smokers and nonsmokers. With regard to Assembly Bill No. A. 358-A, the tobacco industry firmly believes that smoking is strictly an adult custom. The enactment of this bill, however, may have unintended effects, such as breaching collective bargaining agreements of some employee organizations.

Honorable Tarky J. Lombardi, Jr. January 13, 1983 Page 2 Assembly Bill No. A. 10530 would prohibit the sampling of cigarettes within the state. Not only would this unwise bill result in loss of jobs and revenue, it disregards tobacco manu- facturers constitutional rights to free speech and equal protection under the law. Assembly Bill No. A. 11896 would require ciga- rette manufacturers to disclose the chemical additives in cigarettes. The tobacco industry believes that significant action has already been taken on this issue at the federal level. The manufacturers are optimistic that the questions that have been raised: with regard to cigarette ingredients will be resolved at this level. Enactment of this bill would encourage a confusing array of similar proposals in other states and as many as 50 different ways of com- plying with such measures. In view of the action already taken at the federal level, there is no reason for duplicative discussions or the spend- ing: of additional resources at the state level. Taken singularly, the introduction of these bills may be interpreted in a laudable way. However, the cumulative effect of these bills clearly indicates that the aim of some sponsors is to prohibit legiti- mate marketing (A. 10530), manufacturing (A. 11805 and S. 9233), as well as thnduly restrict when and where the consumer may enjoy the use of this product. The weight of this evidence clearly reveals the motive of some sponsors is to prohibit the sale or use of tobacco in New York State.

Honorable Tarky J. Lombardi, Jr. January 13, 1983 Page 3 Clearly, the enactment of any of these proposals would be disastrous for the State of New York, its citizens and the business community. Accordingly, we urge your support in defeat of such an ignoble experiment. Sincerely, Stanley S. Scott SSS:dh STAN SCOTT Honorable Tarky J. Lombardi, Jr. New York State Senate Legislative Office Building Room 612 Albany, NY 12247 bcc: H. Cullman S. P. Pollack~ J. C. Bowling J~. B. Robinson K. M. Irish M. Kerrigan January 17, 1983 F.Y.I. The attached letter was sent to the following legislators: Senator Tarky J. Lombardi Senator Ronald B. Stafford Assemblyman William. F. Passannante Assemblyman Arthur O. Eve Assemblyman Stanley Fink Assemblyman Angelo DelToro Assemblyman Albert Vann Senator Joseph L. Galiber Senator Leon Bogues Assemblyman Herman D. Farrell, Jr.. Assemblyman Roger L. Green ~ Assemblywoman Gloria Davis '

PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A. INTER-OFFIICE CORRESPONDENCE TO~ FROM: SUBJECT: 120 PARK AVENUE. NEW YORK. N:Y. 10017 Distribution Stanley S. SCO~~, New York State Senate Bill 2400/A.B. 2746 "New York Clean Indoor Air Act - The, Granni{ Bill" DATE: May 18, 1982 RECEIV~ MAY i :~ 1982 In a 6 to 2 vote today, the New. York Senate Health, Committee defeated a restrictive smoking bill originally sponsored; in the Assembly by Assemblyman Alexander "Pete" Grannis (D-68- Manhattan). The bill would have restricted smoking in most public places, including restaurants, plaices of work (i.e., 120 Park Avenue), retail stores, public transportation, schools, hospitals, auditoriums, theaters, libraries, museums, arenas, meeting rooms and elevators. The New York State Assembly approved this bill on March 29, by a vote of 84 to 59. This is the fourth consecutive year that the Grannis bill has passed in the Assembly. SSS:dh Distribution: Messrs. H. Cullman S. P. Pollack~/ J. C. Bowling J. B. Robinson K. M. Irish H:. B. Coleman A. Holtzman E. D. Blandford J. T. Breedlove

LF ISLATIVE BULLETIN Igl(l(i PUIBLIC AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT 100 PARK AVE. N.Y., N.Y. li0017 NEW YORK STATE SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE REJECTS "GRANNIS" BILL May't9, 1982 On Tuesday, May 18, the New York State Senate Health. Committee considered S.2400/A.2746, the "New York Clean Indoor Air Act", originally sponsored by Assemblyman "Pete" Grannls (D-68-Manhattan).. The Senate Health Committee rejected S.2400/A.2746 by a vote of 6-2. The bill would have restricted smoking in public places including restaurants, places of work, retail stores, public transportation, schools, hospitals, auditoriums, theatres, libraries, museums, arenas, meeting rooms, and elevators. The Senate Health Committee's vote on S.2400/A.2746 was as follows: Voted Asainetll S. 2400/A. 2746 Senator Tarky Lombardl (R-50-Syracuse) Senator Abraham Bernsteln (D-33-Bronx) Senator John: Flynn (R-35-Yonkers) Senator Paul Kehoe(R-52-Wolcott) Senator Charles Cook (R-48-Delhl) Senator Howard Babbush (D-16-Brooklyn) Voted In Favor O~ S.:2400/A.2746 Senator Gary Ackerman Senator James Lack (D-12-Flushing) (R-2-East Northport) The restrictive smoking measure had passed the State Assembly by a vote of 84 to 59 on March 29 for a fourth consecutive time. Many thanks ~or your outstanding support in defeating the '"Grannis'"bill!

PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A. INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE 120 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y. IOO17 TO: Distribution FROM:~ Stanley S. Scot~ su~L LeglslaZive Update DATE: 5'/21 /8 2 DISTRIBUTION H. Cullman J.C. Bowling S.P. Pollack J.J. Morgan R.H. Cremin R.N. Beane H.B. Coleman M.A. DeMita A.G. Easton A. Holtzman G.H. Lodder J.P. Jeb Lee R.D. Robertson F.A. Saunders G.L. Smith A. Whis~ D.J. Aller R.H~. Bockman J.T. Breedlove V.R. Clephas J.M. Frye P. Gibson R.J. Moore E:.P. Quinby J.B. Robinson C.R. Williams R.M. Delaney C.P. Johnson M.W. Murphy

4/29/82 STAN SCOTT ~-~ r I V ~.~ FYI: MESSRS. HUGH CULLMAN SHEPARD P. POLLACK / JAMES C. BOWLING J. BERNARD ROBINSON, SAMUEL D. CHILCOTE JOHN D. KELLY MICHAEL J. KERRIGAN' BERNARD J. RHGGIERI, ESQ.

PUBLIC RELATIONS COUNSELORS '150 L A.¢;| :.l!ilh,S]'l.~[ I I / NLW Y, ORK, l'JI W Y(')I~K: 10[1~1(; /' 21 April 28, 1982 MEMORANDUM To: Stanley S. Scott From: Nick Cavataro Subj: City Council; "Clean Indoor Air Act" A surprise move by Councilman A.t-Large Henry J,. Stern, (:Lib-Mn)i to have the New York City Council endorse the Grannis bill and the companion bill in the State Senate (S-2400)was beaten back yesterday (rues),. ~nstead:, the proposed measure was sent to the Health Committee. Stern chose an unusual and exceptionally busy meeting day of the Council. The agenda (copy attached) was heavy with routine matters. In addition, all attention--including: that of the media--was focused on consideration of a highly controversial new plan of redistricting. Stern. had slipped in his resolution late the day before--virtually unnoticed. Stern. included the key words: "Immediate Consideration." If, during the rapid calling of ordinary business, the item drew no objection, the measure would be considered approved. No roll call was necessary. No action by the Mayor was required. In this case, the New York City Council would be on record as memorializing the State Legisla:ture to act affirmatively on the "Clean Indoor Air Act." We received word ea:rly, a~nd went immediately to City Hall. We learned--not unexpectedly--that no City Counci~ member, other thwart the co-sponsors, wa:s aware that the item was on the agenda. Even the leadership--preoccupied with the redistricting matter--was little concerned with just another resolution. The CouncZl convened at 2:00 p.m. We remained at City Hall. Stern's measure was called at 5:50 p.m. An objection was made and recorded. Resolution~ referred to Committee on Health. PRESS, GOVERNMENT, CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS COUNSELORS

Res. No. R/3SOLUTION CALLING UPON THE NEW YORK STATE. LEGISLATURE TO PASS A.274'6/S.2400, THE CLEAN INDOOR AIR ACT, WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT SMOKING IN CERTAIN PUBLIC PLACES AND AT PUBLIC MEETINGS EXCEPT IN DESIGNATED SMOKING AREAS. By Council Member Stern; also Council Members Friedlander, Greitzer, Leffler, Messinger, Michels, Steingut and Wallace. Whereas, the Surgeon General, in his latest report found cigarette smoking, to be the "chief preventable cause of death in our society;" and Whereas, smoking causes approximately 30% of all cancer deaths and is the major cause of cancers of the lung, larynx, oral cavity and esophagus, and a contributory factor to cancer of the bladder, kidneys and pancreas; and Whereas, smoking will cause approximately 130,000 cancer deaths this year; and ~ereas, each year approximately 12,000 New Yorkers die prematurely due to smoking with more than 6,500 of these deaths from lung cancer; and Whereas, recent studies of the effects of smoking on the non-smoker show that second hand smoke is a legitimate health hazard that increases the non-smokers chances of getting cancer; and Whereas, one such study of cancer among: non-smoking women with smoking husbands showed that there was a markedly higher incidence of lung cancer among these women than among women with non-smoking husbanHs; and Whereas, New Yorkers, as residents of a densely populated state are involuntarily subjected to tobacco smoke in public places that have become highly toxic environments; and WhYream, ih~--~qn. Indoor Air Act still permits smoking in designated areas but at the same time protects the non-smoker from being exposed to a hazardeous health situation; and Whereas, the Clean Indoor Air Act passed the State Assembly on March 29, 1982; now, then, so be it Resolved, That the Council of the City of New York ca~is upon the State Legislature to pass A.2746/S.240~, the Clean Indoor Air Act, which would prohibit smoking in certain public places and at public meetings except in designated smoking areas; and, be it further Resolved, T~at the, Clerk of the Council forward a copy of this resolution to. each member of the State Legislature.

STAN SCOTT A.pril 12, 1982 FOR YOUR INFORMATION': Messrs. H. Cullman S. P. Pollackv J..C. Bowling

EXECUTI~E COMMI~TTEE Edward A HorriBan, Jr., Chairman (RJR) Charles A. Tucker, Uioe Chairman (RJR) ~,'3ames C. Bow,lin~ (Philip Morris) v/Hu~h Cul~Iman (Philip Morris) K.u.R. Dey, Jr. (Liggett & Meyers) W. &, Brooks Georse (Larus & Bro.) I. W. Hushes (B&W) Curtis H. Judse (Lorillard)i Ba;rry J. Nova (US Tobacco) Ernest P'ePPles (B&W) Robert B. Seidenstic~er (Lis~ett GrouP) Arthur J. Stevens (Lorillard) APril 1;2, li982 MEMORANDUM! TO: FROM: RE : Members oF T.I. Exeoutiue Comm~Jttee Samuel D. Chiloo.te, Jr. New Yo.rK Assembly Bi;ll 274S - Grannis Public Smo.k:inm Restriction DesPite a disaPPointin~ vo=te in she N;ew York Assembly whi:ch conoerns u;s ~reatly, this is to adui:se you tha:t steps ~;ere immediatel~ taken to PrePare our lobbyin~ team to aPProach this broad Publiic smokin~ resCriotion measure with Partioular vi~or in the Senate. I, and members oF m.y staFF, met l~st Wednesday with our New York team (Messrs. BishoP, Carlino, Masaraso., and Ru~i~ieri~ to review lessons ~rom th~e reoent Assembly vote and then to move o.n Plannins our stratesy For the Senate. We have arrived at seue?al stratesies to defeat this restrictive ~easure. SimPly stated, our most viable option is to ~a~e certain this bill remains blocked in the Senate Health Committee. IF there is Further action on this proposal, the likely timin~ is bet~'een late APril and early June. We will be in oontaot to ask you to siue us the same stro.ns suPPort ~hat you have in ~he PaSt. IF the PreFerred s~rate~y does not succeed, we ~il~l Put alternate Plans ~nto action. We remain deeply oonoerned about several other restrictive measures ("selF-extinguishing" oisarette le~islati:on, samPlins ban, etc.) currently also under oonsideration in the New York Eesislature. He assure ~ou that the entire resources oF ~he Instiltute a~e bei;ns. u~ilized ~o defeat these PrO.Posal~.

THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE I875 ! STREET. NORTII~VEST WASH1NC, TON. DC 21)(}O~i 202'457~4800:o bR}O 42,I-qlIZI]i April 12, 1982 SAMUEL D. CItlLCOTE, IR. President RECEIVED ~. P, POLLACI~ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE : Members of T.It. Executive Committee Samuel D. Chilcote, Jr. New. York Assembly Bill 2746 - Grannis Public Smoking Restriction Despite a disappointing vote in the New York Assembly which coBcerns us greatly, this is to advise you that steps we:re immediately taken to prepare our lobbying team to. approach, this broad public smoking restriction measure with particular vigo.r in the Senate. I, and members of my staff, met l~ast Wednesday with our New York team CMessrs. Bishop., Carlino, Mataraso, and Rug.gieri) to review lessons from the recent Assembly vote and then to move on planning our strategy for the Senate. We have a:rrived at severa:~ strategies to. defeat this restrictive measure. Simply stated, our most viable option is to make certain this biZl remains blocked in the Senate Health Committee:. If there is further action, on this proposal, the likely timing is between late April and early June. We will be in con.tact to ask you to give us the same strong support that you have in the past. If the preferred strategy does not succeed, we will put alternate plans into action.. We remain deeply concerned about severa~ other restrictive measures ("self-extinguishing" cigarette legislation, sampling ban, etc.) cu~rrently also under cons±deration, in the New: York Legislature. We assure you that the entire res.ources of The Institute are being utilized to defeat these proposals. SDC:dlt w/CC: State Activities Policy Committee

STAN SCOTT I~ E C E I V I~ I:]i APR I z 1982 ;lB. P. POLLACK April 12, 1982 FOR YOUR INFORMATION:: Messrs. H. Cullman S. P. Pollackv/ J..C. Bowling W. W. McDowell J. J. Morgan M. A. DeMita J. B. Robinson. S. D. Chilcote J. D. Kelly M. J. Kerrigan B. J. Ruggieri J. F. Carlino

MEMORANDUM TO::: From :: Subject : Mr. Stanley S. Scott Nick Cavataro Grannis Press Conference 4./12/82 Date: April 12, 1982 Assemblyman Grannis today joined by ~ssemblyman Branca challenged the tobacco industry to. produce cigarettes wh,ich would extinguish within 2-3 minutes. He was supported by City Controller Harrison J. Gold,in and officials of the New York City Fire Department at a press conference held. at New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center. Grannis sa:id that he and Branca and State Senator Emanuel Goldl would introduce legislation in Albany within the next several weeks which would prohibit the sale of cigarettes which would not extinguish themselves within 2-3 minutes. Grannis said.the industry would be given: three years to comply with the provisions. During the press conference, in the Uris Auditorium, about a dozen lighted cigarettes smoldered in ashtrays before Grannis and other participants. Grannis pointed out that two brands, the More cigarette and a cigarette made by Shermans, had extingu,ished themselves with,in a matter of minutes while the others, all popular brands, continued smoldering .... .. Controller Goldin said that rather than State action, he would: prefer Federal laws which would mandate self-extin- guishable cigarettes. He said that three years ago he had urged New York State Congressmen to take action. Chief John Fogarty said that the, Fire, Department enthusi- astically supported the Grannis legislation, pointing out that 1/3 o~ all fire deaths were caused' by careless smokers. Branca emph,asized that while legislation was going to be introduced, "this is a cha~llenge to the Tobacco Institute to produce a fire-safe cigarette," adding what he said~ was an appeal to the industry "have you no con- science?". Part of the press conference included viewing a film, "Sleeping Date," an excerpt from KRON-TV (NBC affiliate in San. Francisco), which depicted fires and victims of fires allegedly by careless cigarette smoking. Grannis concluded by accusing the tobacco industry of deliberately refusing to eliminate chemicals which would cause cigarettes to burn longer, he said, "it can be done. The Europeans ha~e cigarettes that extinguish within minutes. Cigars go out. Pipes go out. This is an. issue

Mr. Stanley S. Scott April 12, 1982 Page 2 that has been around for 30 years. It's time the tobacco industry uses the technology that exists." The press con- ference was covered, among others, by the Associates Press, United Press International, The DailY News and the New York Post, and NBC and CBS-TV. NC:dh FYI cc: N. Cavataro

From Assemblyman Pete Grannis ASSEMBLYMAN ,JOHN R. BRANCA 88th ASSEMBLY DISTRICT Community OffiCe. 1672 Firsl Avenue. New York. New York 10028, Telephone (212) 860-4906 Now York State Assembly.State Capitol, Albany, New York 12248, Telephone (518) 455-S$76 For Release: April 12, 1982 Contact: Beverly DeSoto. Albany: (:518)455-5685 (,21~2)488-4836 (,212)860-4906 STATE ASS~BLY REPOP.T .REVEALS CIGARETTES EU~ER OE CAUSE OF KILLER FIRES IN rl,Y. Speaking at the New York Hospita]~--Cornell Medical Center's world renowned Burn unlit today., State Assemblymen Pete Grannis (D/L-Manhattan) and John R. Branca (,D-West- chester) released their special legislative report "UP'I~N SMOKE:THE CASE FORA FI~RE-SAFE CIGARETTE~ and called for action by the cigarette industry to address the problem, o~ cigarette-caused fires in. New York State. Joining them at the press conference were State Senator Emanuel Gold (.D-Queens), New. York City Fire Chief Jolln Hart; Dr. G. Thomas Shilres, Surgeon-in~Chie~ o~ New:York HOspital--Cornel] Medical Center; Mr. Cosmo a:. La, Costa, Associate Director of New York Hospi~all--Cornel] Medical Center representing ~he Burn Unit; New York City Deputy Fire Commilssioners James Coler and Christine Godek; Ms. Betty Brinkley, a victim of a tragic clgarette-caused ~ire, and representatives of The ~hoenixSociety, a national association for burn victims and their families. "'It is clear from~this ~eport," said Mr. Grannis, who is chairman of the AssemBly HOusing~Committee, "that cigarette caused;fires exact an iintolerabl~ toll in human suffering and death in thiis s~ate. Smoldering cilgarettes are the 1.eading cause of death and injury in residential fires in, New York, They'are responsible not only for needless and tragic loss of lives but for milllions of dolliars in propertv loss and unendurable pailn and injury for those 'llucky' enough to survive these infernos every year. it is inexcusable that th~s terrible devastation has been a]lowedlto, continue; We ~elieve that most of it could have been avoided simply by ~hanging the formulation of cigarettes." The report indicates that the average American cigarette is designed ~o burn from 2~ to 45 minutes wiithout being puffedlon. Most ~urniture fabrics, however, will ignite in a ~ar shorter period of time, often smoldering for hours and finally bursting into flame after the careless smoker -- and, frequently, others -- has left or gone to bed. "The tragic results of this lethal combination of longrburning cigarettes and i}=~r..~abl!e furniture fabrilcs, is detailed in the. report," the legislators sa.id. "What is at issue now is the cul:-~ahility of the tobacco, i!ndustry iln this matter: Using their - more -

well-known lobbying power andl financial! influence,. Big ~obacco has succeeded in killing IL, gisl!ation addressing cigarette fiire safety on the. Federal level and tying up similar legislla,tion in several states. Despite its adaman~ claims to the. contrary, we believe that the tobacco i,ndustry is perfectly capable of produciing a fire-safe cigarette -- one which will, go ou~ in~ a short period o~ time when it i.s not beiing smoked." The Tobacco Lobby iis employing~ ilts sophiisticatedl and well-funded lobbyists to sial!l, obfuscate and fight the emerging truth.: that American cigarettes are loaded with chemicals to make them burn longer. It is very tell.ing~, of course, that ~he same long- burning cilgarettes allso mean~ big profits for ~he industry -- because smokers are forced to buy more." .... "A lot of attention has been paiid to the undeniabl;e ways in which cigarettes cause slow death, and injury to smokers and others," Assemblyman John R. Branca, co-author ef the report pointed out. "Far too li:ttle attention has been given so far to the sudden deat~l and injury caused by cigarette related filres." "T~he current adminiistration in,~Washington has made-i~ clear that its in~ent'is to charge ~he states with the responsibility of protecting their own residents, we want it made equally clear," the legislators said, "that New' York is ready to tare up that challenge. I~f Big Tobacco has Congress trussed up so soundly that it cannot respond to the daily horrors resulting ~rom cigarette-caused fires, then New Y, ork State .has the responsibility to protect New. Yonkers from this clear and present danger. W.ith~n the next~ week, we will be announcing the introduction of legislation addressing the issue of cigarettes and fire safety."'

UP IN SMOKE: THE CASE FOR .A FIRE-SAFE CIGARETTE April 1982 Alexander B. Grannis Chairman Assembly Standing Committee On Housing John Branca Chairman Assembly Sub-Committee On Code Enforcement & Rent Administration

A JOI!NT REPORT OF THE CHAIRMAN:, A'SSEMBI.Y STAI~DING COM.~IITTEE ON HOUSING AND THE CHAIRMAN, ASSEMBLY SUBCOMMITTEE ON CODE ENFORCEMENT &' RENT ADMINISTRATION APRIL 1982 TABLE OF CONTENTS UP I.N SMOKE: C}GARETTES AND FIRES .............................. PAGE 1 FIREPROOFING FURNI:TURE: A VIABLE AL}ERNAT].VE? .................. PAGE 3 THE SELF EXTINGUISHING CIGAREITE - HARDLY A NEW IDEA ............ PAGE 4 A SOLUTION: THE 3ELF-EXTINGUISH~G CIGARETTE. .................. PAGE 4 CONCLUSION.: THE CASE FOR A FIRE SAFE CIGARETTE. ............... PAGE 7 PREPARE~ BY: RANDI~ BREGMAN t~1~ 455-5681 BEVERLY DESO?O (518) 455-56~5

"I've seen this type of (cigarette caused) fire from firsthand experience. We' II find the children lying in their beds. Most of the time they don't even wake up. They just die in their sleep." ---A Washington,~ D.C. Fire OfficialI WATERTOWN -- Three persons were killed here early this morning in a house fire that investigators said was started by a smoldering cigarette in an overstuffed chair. William Connell, 56, and his wife, Sarah, 51, were apparently asphyxiated in their bedroom~ Their 14-year-old son, Bob, was attempting to escape from. the window of his second floor bedroom when the living room, window exploded and flames shot upward, burning. him to death, according, to the deputy fire chief, Ronald Damon° " : ~ ---June i0, 1980. New York Times* NEW YO~K CITY -- A Manhattan man, who was the only tenant in his building to refuse the installation of a smoke detector, was critically burned yesterday in a flash fire that started from a cigarette dropped in a couch, fire officials reported. Deputy Fire Chief John Rossi said the victim apparently dropped a lighted cigarette between cushions on his living room couch before going to bed. 'People d~n't know that some couches take up to three hours to smolder before the material catches fire," Rossi said. ---March 21, 1982 New York Daily News ~Names have been changed to protect the survivor's privacy.

It's an all too familiar story -- a carelessly dropped cigarette smolders in a chair, couch or mattress, and in a few hours tragedy strikes, leaving a trail of tears, injuries and deaths. We all kn~w about these: fires. Pick up a paper, watch the evening news, listen for the sirens in the night. Every day, son, where, someone dies, is maimed, crippled, burned beyond recognition -- tragically, needlessly, repeatedly. Cigarettes are the leading cause of death and injury in residential fires. Almost one third of fire deaths and injuries occtmring in residential fires are 2 caused by smoldering cigarettes. In 1980, 28. 4~. of New York's residential fires that killed were s~king, related. There were over 500 cigarette-related fires in New York State. Twenty- nine people died in those fires, 47 were seriously injured and close to $2 million ~rth of property was lost -- all preventably. Both in hospitals and institutions for the mentally handicapped, cigarettes are the leading cause Of fire. In homes for the aged, cigarettes are the second leading camse of fire. 3 Cigarettes may be responsible for an even greater nu, nber of fires than documented evidence suggests. According to figures provided by the New York State Office of Fire Prevention and Control, the second leading cause of residential fire deaths and injuries in New York was the 22.5 % of fires marked "Cause Unknown"'. Andrew Maguire, executive director of the Burn Council in San Francisco and a fire safety advDcate, believes that many such fires are actually cigarette caused. Mr. Maguire cited a study c~nducted by Walter G. Berl, director of the applied physics lab at Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Berl plotted the course of almost all of the home fires in Maryland between 1972 and 1977, in a study which is considered probably the most extensive research on. fire causes ever c~nducted in the United

States. Dr. Berl's research shsws that nearly 457~ of the deaths he investigated occurred in cigarette fires .4 Scientific studies have. fo~d that a freshly lit cigarette will bum for between 20 and 45 minutes without being puffed. After I0 to 15 minutes, a lit cigarette dropped onto a piece of upholstered, furniture will usually start to smolder and flare. 5 Despite health and safety programs in schools, public service announcements and other publ~c education efforts, people continue to smoke in bed, and they continue to fall asleep in couches and chairs after carelessly leaving a lit cigarette resting on an arm. There are estimates t/-mt up to 50?° of cigarette- related fires may have involved someone who's been d~. 6 In the end, however, it makes no difference .to the victim. _--_ ~ Although it is important to be aware of the death resulting from cigarette fires, it is equally imperative to bear in mind the number and type of injuries that these fires cause. Burn Trauma is often severe and Lvery painful. --Disfigurement,. deformity and loss of function ~ my require extremely difficult adjustments by the patient, family and peers. The fact that society does not easily adjust to individuals disabled or disfigured by such trau~ contributes to the overall disaffection, alienation and rejection these victims face.7 Hospitalization is usually lengthy, often requiring months and years of ~. ~ and expensive treatments which tax the individual's and/or family's ~ financial resources to the breaking point Goverrmmnt and third party pa~ent ~D • ~ systems are thus eventually involved, expanding the impact of such tragedies ~2~ economically i 8 ~ Jobs~ Careers and life patterns are drastically and frequently permanently disrupted. The burn accident itself my have been accompanied by extensive property loss or damage, which further contributes to the financial, psychological

and emotional damage suffered by the victim and the family. Victims, for example, often exhibit adverse emotional reactions stemming from feelings of loss and guilt 9 for having caused the fire or for not having prevented it. Cigarettes cause fires. Once that fact is accepted, the next logical step is to inquire about prevention. How can the toll from these fires be reduced? ~miture manufacturers faced with increasing pressures to make their product more fire resistant have encountered a variety of thorny dilenmas. For example, a polyfoam mattress that is less vulnerable to being set afire by a burnir~ cigarette is more vulnerable, unfort~ately, to ignition by an open flame such as a cigarette lighter. Research has shown that resistance to smoldering combustion and to flandng ignition are not at all the same thing. In fact, they tend to be mutually exclusive. Very few materials are equally resistant to ignition by both, kinds of sources, i0 Polyurethane foam is inherently smlder-resistant. However, once polyurethane does catch fire,-this petroleun-based material burns fast and hot, quickly generating enough heat to make a whole room explode into an inferno.. It also generates unusually large ammmts of toxic gases such as hydrogen cyanide. Firefighters call fires started in such. synthetics "~lastic fires", which are widely regarded with trepida- tion and dismay because of the poisonous smOke they emit. ii Another suggested alternative is to treat furniture with flame-retardants. Unfortunately, many flame retardants have been found to be mntagenic and possibly carcinogenic. 12 Even if all the difficulties associated with producing fire-proof furniture could be eliminated, one fundamental problem would remain. That is that older, more flammable furr,~ture w~uld continue to be in use for many years to come. In the meantime, cigarette fires would continue to exact a ghastly toll.

-4- THE SELF-EKrlNGUISHING CIGARETTE - HARDLY A NEW IDEA The question remains. What can be done to prevent these fires? The answer is r~narkably simple: produce a self-extinguishing cigarette. It's an idea that's been around for quite a while. In 1950, the Reader"s Digest had this to say: "In England, Switzerland and other co,retries abroad, people have been smoking slow-burning cigarettes -- and liking them -- for years. In the United States, however, the tobacco industry is not yet ready to make its product less of a fire hazard. The faster cigarettes burn, the more are used, the bigger the sales.''13 In 1975, United States Senator Phillip Hart of Michigan introduced legislation calling for fire-safe cigarettes which passed in the Senate, but was defeated in the House. 14 In 1979, Congressman Joseph Moakley of Massachusetts first introduced the Cigarette Safety Act, which sought to insure that cigarettes have a minimum capacity for igniting fires.. In 1980, Senator Alan Cranston of California introduced the Cigarette Safety Act in the Senate. The bills have been re-introduced this session, but sources on Capitol Hill give them little chance of passage. "The Tobacco Institute is just too: powerful," says one congressional aide. contributi~m and ho~mraria. from. ' ,16 A SOLUTION: 'IFney've given dozens of members of Congress campaign People around here don't forget where the m~ney comes In '~atal Fires in America", the National Fire Protection Associatio~ r~tes that: '~ne cigarette is by far the most comr~n heat of ignition in fatal fires. Recognizing this, the National Fire Protection Association has endorsed the campaign of the ~merican Burn Association for self-extinguishing cigarettes. When not puffed by the user, such cigarettes, go out in a time sh~rt enough to prevent ignition of

-5- the mterials most c~ly involved in fatal fire scenarios. If such a cigarette sP~)uld come into general use, the most c~-~n fat~1 fire scenarios will be broken, ~nd the resulting savings in lives will be dr~natically ~nd quickly realized.''17 The next logical question: Are the tobacco ccmpanies capable of producing a self extinguishing cigarette? The m~aer varies according to wh~m you ask. Ask the Tobacco Institute, and you will get an emphatic '~o", with arguments designed to convince the listener that the combined research facilities of this multi-billion doll~r industry are unable to produce a: cigarette without the chemical additives which produce the more profitable long-burning cigarette. Ask Charles Cohn,. and he'll tell you '~es" without hesitation. Then he'll tell you about his cigarette. , Charles Cohn holds U.S. patent #4,044,778 -- one of m~re than 20 patents for cigarettes that go out quickly when they are mint puffed. The treatment he has devised is very simple and inexpensive. He paints each. cigarette with stripes of a well-known compound known as water glass (sodiun - silicate).. As the cigarette burns, the stripes don't. They just melt a little, relp~..~ing only their water content into the smoke. The g1~sy, unburned paper stripes fore an insulating cage (easily knocked off with the ash). Even if the cigarette is placed on a highly ~le surface, a fire cannot start because the tip. stays cool. ~ cigarette goes out typically between one and three minutes after the smoker takes the !~st puff. Since water glass is inert, it doesn't enter the smoke, and thus poses no additiorml health hazard to the smoker.18 J~m~_s Winger, head of the Product Flanmability Reserarch Group of the National Bureau of St~rds, tested one of Mr. Cohn's cigarettes on a highly f~,,,~hle fur- niture mock-up. Mr. Winger speaks of Mr. Cohn's invention with the utmost respect, saying '~here isn't any doubt from a technical standpoint. His cigarettes can be made the way he says ~nd will do what he says.." 19

-6- When. Mr. Cohn's cigarettes were tested at the California State Upholstered ~i~rniture Fire Test Lab in Sacramento, they performed perfectly, self-extinguishing before the fabric was even scorched.20 Consurer acceptance of a novel cigarette is undoubtedly the industry's biggest w~rry. Manufacturers think smokers won't like a cigarette that goes out. When tested, Mr. Cohn's cigarette was found to stay lit well enough to satisfy the average smoker (who statistically takes a drag once every minute)..21 In addition to ~.~r. Cohn' s invention~ self-extinguishing cigarettes are currently being produced in New York State. Sherman cigarettes, ~ch ¢a_~-ry the guarantee that they contain no chemical additives, generally go out in less than five minutes. More cigarettes, in tests conducted by California's Bureau of Home Furnishings in 1979,. were fo~md to be comparatively fire-safe. Although this may not have been intended by the manufacturer, the very existence of More cigarettess tends to disprove ~ industry's c1~m that they are unable to produce s;1~h a cigarette. It is evidently the chemicals added to the cigarette that produce the long. burn. It is ~ficult to determine what the added chemicals are, because tobacco c~@anies refuse to discloSe the ingredients of ~ cigarettes. However, the fact that the '%~o cb~mir~" brand~ ~erman's, de.self-extinguish is an indication that chemical additives are responsible for the l~g bu~. A Tobacco Institute spokesm~n, Wal~er Merryman, in explaining the industry's opposition to development of a fire-safe cigarette, defends his product by placing the blame on the careless smoker. "One thing you have to: keep in mind is that these cigarette fires don't occur in a vacuum", says Merryman. "As many as half those fires happen when an excessive a~mmt of alcohol and/or drugs has been used." 22 But there is more at issue here than the relative guilt of the smoker. According to David Pittle, a m=mher of the United States Consumer Product Safety C~,,,,~ ssion who has been involved with cigarette fire safety for m~ny years,

'The person ~ho accidentally sets the fire is not always the only person killed. Often times it is little children or older people in the next room who are killed. ,,23 They are the ones l~ast likely to escape. Another reason that The Tobacco: Institute opposes such legislation is that, according to their members, the tedmology that has been developed to cause cigar- ettes to self-extinguish %Duld increase tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide output, thereby further jeopardizing the health of smok~_rs. 24 There is an interesting point to note here: In a study done by the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare on Charles Cohn's cigarettes, his invention was found to give off 257~ less tar, nicotine and carbon mmuoxide per puff to the smoker than an average, non-fire safe cigarette. 25 In light of The Tobacco Institute's vehement stance that there is no conclusive evidence that cigarettes are harmful to the health of smokers, it se~ns inconsistent for that same organization to argue against self-extinguishing cigarettes on. the basis of health concerns. CONCIIJSION: ~qE CASE FOR A SELF EXTINGLrlSHING CIGARETTE Conclusive evidence which has been widely docon~nted indicates that long- burning cigarettes are responsible for untold fire deaths and suffering in this co,retry and tk,~s State. The case for a self-extinguishing cigarette is clearly in the public interest. Opposition to it has come solely from the tobacco industry. On the Fed~al level, Big Tobacco has stymied legislative atteupts to deal with this problem through employing its ~ll-funded, highly trained and widespread network of lobbyists, legal staff and campaign contributors. For a variety of political and regional reasons, it has been left to the states to address this issue on their own. The implications for the State of New York are well defined and immediate. Every y~;r~ we delay action on this issue, approximately 30 New Yorkers will die and many more will suffer from the hideous effects of cigarettes..

-8- The time to act is now. Legislation is urgently needed in ~w York State to address this problem and to insure t_hat no New Yorkers will have to, suffer and die needlessly f-r~m fires that can be prevented by re~ring self-extinguishing cigarettes.

2 3 9 i0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 - Murray W~s, '~ui~fe Savers: Self-Extinguishing Cigarettes", Washington Post, J~me i, 1980. -. '~esidential Fires in the United States", U.S. Fire Administration. -~qational Estimates Report 2 - Cause Categories for Structure Occupancy 6q~ses-Residential", New York State Office of Fire Prevention and Control. - Walter G. Berl and Byron M. Halpin, '~mn Fatalities from Unwanted Fires", The Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Tahoratory, Laurel, Maryland, Dece~er, 1978. - Statement from Andrew McOuire, Executive Director of the San Francisco: • Burn Cotmcil,. 1980 KIDL Doo,~ontary on Cigarette Fire Safety. - The '~hoenix Society Inc." for burn victims): - Ibid - Ibid pamphlet. (Anational self-help organization - Becky O'Malley, "Cigarettes ~nd Sofas - How the Tobacco Lobby Keeps the Home Fires Burning", M~ther Jones, July 1979, page 60. - Ibid, page 60. - Ibid, page 61. - Ralph Nader, "Self-Ext~shing Cigarettes", October 7, 1981. - Murray W~. Opcit - "In T~-~", Newsletter of the Burn Council, 1981. - M~m-cay W~.~. Opcit - '~Fatal Fires in America"$ Fire Jouro~1., September 1979, page 77. - Becky O'Malley, pp 61 and 62. Opcit told, Ibid, Ibid, Ibid. Ibid, Ibid. pp 61 and 62. pp 61 and 62. pp 61 and 62. O'Malley, pp 61 and 62. Opcit

11 RUST HILL ROAD, LEFITTOWN, PENNSYLV.4:~'IA 19056 "FILEHOENIX SOCIETY INC. MARCH 22, 1982 BACKGROUND STORY ON BETITY BRINiKI~EY, BUP,~, VICTIM (21.5) 946.4788 FOR MORE INFORMA'TION CONTACT~: ALAN JEFFRY' BRESLAU EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Two weeks, before Christmas, 1977, Betty Brinkley's husband had been drinking, as he usually did. He fell asleep in an, easy chair whil~e smoking. The fire that resu~Ited, killed him, as wel:l a;s. h~is three ch~ildren, two girl!s and a, boy. Betty somehow managed to get out of their burning~ house and survived. The home, and; all of their possessions were destroyed, except for a photograph album, which Betty cherishes because iit is the only link to her children.: B~tty was severely burned in the fire, with fllames consuming almost a quarter of her body. Her face wa,s. almost destroyed, as well as her ha,nds, arms, neck a~nd: torso. She was whisked by' hel'icopter to Crozer-Chester Burn Cen~er., in Upland, Pennsyl:vania, and ever since ha;s been unde~goin~ surgery there. She has undergone 38 surgical procedu,res so fa:r, and wi:ll probably quit before her reconstructive ~lastic surgery is completed by Dr. John McC1elll:an, who, estimates iit w.ill take fifty su:rg,ical: procedures to get Betty back to what would be con~ siidered. "normal." Betty's burn surgeon, who, hel~ed her through the. acute ~hase, was Dr. (~ha~rles [. Ha:rtflord, Director of the burn cen~er.: Betty resides at 4110 Thirdl Street, UpQand, Chester, Pennsylvaniia 19013 (]telephone 215/876-2225), i,n order to be close to the burn center, ~he fire took i]~ace on l)ecember Iii', 1977 in Camden, New Jersey. Because of careless smoking, Betty has had to suffer what seem to be insurmountable horrors. A'll of th~s could have been prev.en:ted. #,#'z z # 30 # # ~- ~ I1~1~ N,,~ I IOi\~AL, NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION FOR BURN VICTIMS

CAUSES OF RESIDENTIAL FIRES SMOKING COOKING INCENDIARY/SUS. HEATING ELECTRICAL DISTRIB. APPLIANCE... CHILDREN... OTHER EQUIP. EXPOSURE NATURAL OPEN FLAME... OTHER FLAME,.. UNKNOWN FIRES DEATHS INJURIES I I , I 0 10 20 0 10 20 30 , i , I , 0 10 20 30 PERCENT DOLLAR LOSS i I I . 1 0 10 20 "[~'~~,0~ SOURCE: NFIRS

Thirtieth in a series~ saves lives. Cigarettes can kill. Nobody. this side of the tobacco lobby -- not; even most: smokers k will dispute that. Bur some cigarettes are more likely to killi than others. That's why we'd like to offer a few kind words for a cigarette that is a little less lethal than most. All cigarettes,, of course, would be bet- ter snuffed out. But; for those people who can't kick the habit yetk and for the rest of us, took we think more consideration should be given to the self-extinguishing, cigarette. What's a self-extinguishing cigarette? A potential! wonder of tobacco tech- nology that will not do many important things: Iv will not ignite the approximately. 70,000 residential fires started by standard cigarettes each year in the U.S. It willl not cause the nearly 2,000, deaths and 5,000 injuries.which make ordin- ary cigarettes, year after year, the major source of residential! fires. And it will not be responsible for prop- erty losses estimate& at between $1.5 andl $2 billion annually. The reason is, a self-extlnguishing cigarette goes: out within approximately, five minutes if it is not puffed. Today's conventional cigarettes do not. Unpuffed, they will continue to smolder for up to 45 minutes ~ plenty of time to ignite most household furniture, which usual- ly can resist burning for no more than ten, minutes. A self-extinguishing,. "five-minute cigarette" wouldl reduce the incidence of res- idential fires dramatically. It would also help the nation:s dimin- ishing number of fire-fighters, wtto are tak- ing the heat: from budget-cutting officials. Andl don't forget: the thousands of guests in America's hotels. For them, that untended cigarette in the next room, is always a: fearsome tlhreat. But a self- extinguishing cigarette means less danger, more peace of mind. In, Europe, all this has already hap- pened. Self.extinguishing cigarettes are com- monplace there; cigarette-caused fires are not. And fire death rates in Europe are less than half that of the United States. Can Americans have a cigarette that stops burning before it starts fires? Yes: Right now,.there are almost thirty U.S. patents for making such a product. Indeed,. two~ national brands available today are self-extinguishing cigarettes. Their public relations representatives refuse to call them by. that name. And their marketing people never mention it in their ads. Yet, unpuffed, both brands self-extinguish within five minutes. There seems to be a powerful myth in the tobacco industry that insists America's smokers will reject~ a self-extinguishing cigarette as bad-tasting and inconvenient. Or that converting to the "five-minute cigarette" willl increase tar levels. But, the current quick-burnout brands prove the contrary:: Sales.are doing fine; the inconvenience problem apparently doesn't exist; andl one of the two brands is among the lowest tar and:nicotine cigarettes on the market! Maybe it'g time for you smokers to ex- plain things: to the tobacco companies. They'lli pay attention, because you're their best customers: Tell them you realize that, when your idling cigarette continues to burn~ it's your money going up in smoke ~ and you're already buying enough cigarettes. Tell them, too, that you~ like to smoke. But you~like your, furniture even more~ And your home. And your life. Meanwhile, the rest of us should be explaining things to our legislators. Remind- ing them that the first: Cigarette Safety. Act to protect the public was introduced- unsuccessfully ~ in, 1 .975. ~ And not much, has happened since then, Ask the legisla- tors, why not? Get their attention. Because you are their best, customers, and you deserve an a swer. RODALE PRESS, INC. Emmaus, PA 18049 Rodale publishes: Prevenlion, Rodale's New Shelter, Organic Gardening, Bicycling~ .Executive Fitness Newsletter, ,The New Parra, and l Spring. as wel~, as hardcover and paperback books under the: Rodale imprint. The company also produces films and television programs.

From Assemblyman Pete Grannis Community Office, 1672 First Avenue. New York, New York 10028, Telephone.(212)860-4906 New York Slale Assembly, Slate Capilol, Albany.. New York 12248. Telephone (51:8)i 455-5676 ,to .~n "UP' IN ~IOKE: THE CASE FOR A FIRE-SAFE CIGARETTE" Andrew McGuire Executive Director The Burn Council Trauna Center Building #I Ssn~ Francisco, Cal~fornia 94110 (415) 821-5135 United States Fire Administration Federal Emergency Management Agency National Fire Inciden~ Reporting. System (NFIRS) Washington, D.C. 20472 United States Department of C~merce National Bureau of Standards Center for Fire Research Washington,. D.C. 20234 New York State Office of Fire Prevention and Control Department of State 162 Washington Ave. Albany, New York 12231 (518) 474-6746 The Bureau of Home Furnishings California Department of Consumer Affairs 3485 Orange Grove Avenue North Highlands, California 95841 Al~n J. Breslau Executive Director The Phoenix Society, Inc. II Rusthill Road Levetto~n, P~-,~sylvania 19056 (215) 946-4788 Richard Katz Data Analys~ (202) 287-0789 John Krasny Textile Technologist (301)i 921-3116 Gordon Damant Director (916), 920-695~

RECEIVEB PUBLIC AFFAIRI PHILIP MORRIS 100 PAR~ AVENUE, NEW YOR~ N.Y. 10017 April i, 1982 Dear Sam : Disturbing comments from, key Albany legislators confirm our belief that a failure by industry lobbyists to take basic actions on the New York restrictive smoking bill led: to our embarrassing defeat this week in, the New York Assembly. Sam, we were defeated: during a New York legisla- tive procedure known as a "fast roll call." That is, legislators not on the floor during the vote (or those on the floor who do not request they be recorded in the negative) are automatically re- corded as voting "yea." Tobacco Institute pre-vote, tabulations indicated that the bill's sponsor, Assemblyman Grannis, had, at best, 70 votes. Our industry had commit- ments from 77 legislators. When the vote was taken there were no more than 100 legislators present in the Assembly Chambers. This defeat, by a vote of 84-59, could: have been prevented had industry lobbyists properly re- quested in advance a "slow roll call," which would have necessitated recording an accurate count of all legislators present. An additional option, would have been a request for "reconsid- eration" of the vote by which the Assembly passed the Grannis bill. These fundamental actions, of course, are usually planned by lobbyists with supporting legislators prior to a vote.

Mr. Samuel D. Chilcote,'Jr. April i, 1982 Page 2 Sam,, we are further convinced that Assembly leaders stayed out of the debate on the Grannis bill and did not work the floor to solicit support for passage of this legislation. Here are some of the comments we received from a few of our legislative supporters following the vote (I will be happy to provide additional details): "Stan, I don't think your lobbyists understand the process. We had our votes for you." what happened to your people?" "What are you guys doing with those lobbyists?" "I checked with my legislative colleagues and was told that none of them had been asked by T.I. lobbyists to request a slow roll call." Assemblyman Vince Graber, who was in the Speaker's Chair at the time of the Assembly floor vote told us : "No one ever requested a slow roll call on the Grannis bill. I was really taken aback that no one did so. This is not automatic under our Assembly rules. Someone must actually request it."

Mr. Samuel D. Chilcote, Jr. April i, 1982' Page 3 Sam, while we are disturbed by this defeat, we are more concerned about the way we lost. Sincerely, Stanley S. Scott SSS:dh CC : H. Cullman S. P. Pollackv/ J. C. Bowling J,. B. Robinson M. J. Kerrigan Mr. Samuel D~ Chilcote, Jr ...... President The Tobacco. Institute 1875 I Street, NW' Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006

~TAI~LEY ~. ~COTT PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A. 100 PARK .AVENU,E, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017 & P. POLLA¢~ February 24, 1982 Dear Assembl'yman Gran,nis : On behalf of Philip Morris U.S.A., please accept my sincere, thanks and appreciation for your very generous comments reg:arding, our recent reception co-hosted on behalf of the Business Council of New York. As you may be aware, Philip Morris has always taken pride in being active corporate citizens. Our charitable contributions,, our involvement in the arts, and our participation in. the politica:l process represen,t our efforts to make our State a better place to live. Assemblyman Grannis, regarding your request for information on surveys, dealing with public attitudes towards cigarette smoking,. I have for- warded your correspondence to the Tobacco Insti- tute and I have been assured that our industry representatives will be in direct contact with you. SSS:dh Sincgrely, Sta~y S. Scott Assemblyman Alexander B. Grannis Chairman-Committee on Housing Legislative Office Building Room 522 Albany, NY 12248 bcc • H. Cullman S. P. Pollack~/ J. C. Bowlingi J~. B.. Robin.son K. M.. Irish, B. Ruggieri M. Kerrigan, ~. Kelly S. Chilcote

(ALEXANDER B.): PETE GRANNIS 68TH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT NEW 'YORK COUNTY 1672 FIRST AVENUE NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10028 (212I :860- 4906 LEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUILDING ROOM 522 ALBANY. N Y. 12248 (518);45~5676 THE ASSEMBLY STATE OF NEW YORK ALBANY February 9, 1982 CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON HOUSI~NG Mr. Stanley S. Scott Vice President, Public Affairs Philip ~rris I00 Park Avenue New York, ~f 10017 Dear Ph-. Scott: This is a short note to thank you for the marvelous reception you co-hosted on behalf of the Business Council of New York on Jan,~ry 25. W~Lile we get invited to many receptions and get-togethers during our tour in Albany, this was easily one of the grandest and most pleasant. On a business matter, I was hoping you might be of some help. I know that The Tobacco._Institute .h~s ,._in. the past, co.udssioned bi-~,',,~ual__ reports on various aspects of public attitddes towards cigarette smoking and the tobacco industry. I was pleased to receive a copy of the study done in 1978 and was hoping you would be able to let me have a copy of the subsequent study which ~uld have been completed in 1980 or 1981. Again, thank you for the reception. M~mber of Assembly

TO:¸ From: Subject: Distribution Stanley S. Scott~ New York-Grannis ti-Smoking Legislation PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A. INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE 100 Park Avenue, N~w York, N:Y. 10017 CONFIDENTIAL Date: RECEIVED FEB ! ~- 19~ ~' P- POLLAC~ ~ebruary 16, 1982 On a flight back from Albany, Monday, 2/15, Assembly Speaker Stanley Fink confirmed reports that he would not take an active role this year to seek passage of the Grann~s Anti- Smoking Bill. Fink further stated that "you guys can defeat the bottle bill(s) and the Grannis bill if you play your hand right." In an obviously relaxed and loquacious mood, Fink continued: "If I were a lobbyist, I would organize all of the Mom and Pop stores, the bodegas and the food merchants... get them working on the legislators right now. To. hell with the d:istributors. Have those little and big stores talk about additional space requirements to store bottles and conta~iners ...I would; not insult the public by talking about building recycling plants in ghetto areas." On the gubernatorial race, Fink predicted tha~t "chances are 80-20 that Mayor Koch will give it a shot." SSS : dh. Distribution: Messrs. Hugh Cullman John A. Murphy Shepard P. Pollack J James C. Bowling

Tobacco Action.Network, 1875 Eye Street NI W., WashinEton, D. C. 20006 January 29, 1982 FEB ~ 19g'/ TO:: FROM: RE: State Activities Policy Committee Ernest Pepples, Esq. Mr. K~v.R, Dey, Jr. Arthur J; Stevens, Esq. Jack Kelly ~ Grannis Cl~n~ " Indoor Air Act Mr. Shepard P. Pollack Mr. Charles A. Tucker BACKGROUND It is anticipated that Assemblyman Alexander "Pete" Grannis will quickly move his Clean Indoor Air Act in the New York Assembly early in 1982. This legislation passed the New York Assembly in 1981 by a vote of 81-55 and remained pending in the Senate Health Committee where no action was taken during the year. In 1981 there were 69 Assembly co-spOnsors,.and 24 Senate co-sponsors. Because this bill Will soon be considered again in the Assembly, it is necessary that opposition to the Assembly membership be expressed as early as possible. You will recall my September 10, 1981 Action Request which you approved allowing member company TAN volunteers to participate in. a select "Meet Your Legislator"' program. This pro.gram has been implemented and yielded valuable information from leg.isla- tors. However, a number of legislators have declined an invi- tation to meet with. our enrollees after normal business hours. Because I view the information gathered from this effort to be most important. I believe that conducting additional meetings with our targetted legislators during normal business hours would; be in, the best in,terest of our overall program, [see Action Request item i)i. ACTION REQUESTED Your permission for the New York State Area. Director to request company TAN! enrollee volunteers to con- tinue further meet-your-legislator meetings. Where necessarY, these meetings may take place during nor- mal business hours.

ACTION REQUEST: January 27, 1982 Page Two Grannis Clean Indoor Air Act Your permission for the New York State Area Director to write to company TAN enrollees to request that they write letters to members of the New York State Assembly in opposition to this legislation (EXHIBIT A). it is suggested that these letters commence upon for- mal introduction of the bill. The attached sample letter (EXHIBIT B) will be sent to 4,100 enrollees, approximately 8S0 of whom are company enrollees. Your permission, for the New York State Area Director to request company TAN enrollee volunteers to. distri- bute ten copies of the attached petition, (EXHIBIT C) to wholesaler, retail, and vending accounts in the state. This activity Will take place after normal business hours. Your permission for the New York State Area Director to. request selected company TAN enrollee volunteers to participate in a telephone bank effort prior to consideration of the Grannis bill after normal business hours in company or other appropriate facilities. Your~permission for the New York State Area Director to request selected company TAN enrollee volunteers to participate in a letter-to-the-editor program in selected media areas. Key activists will be• requested to participate in this effort. Your assistance in contacting companies with whom you do business in New. York (suppliers, adverti- sers, subsidiaries) in order to secure their early opposition to this legislation. Should this bill pass the Assembly and move to the Senate for consideration, your permission for the New York State Area Director to request company TAN enrollee volunteers to participate in each of the above requests with regard to members of the Senate. Covington 6 Burling has advised that this request does not require registration or reporting on the part of the TAN volunteers. In addition you may wish. to consult the en- closed memoranda on this subject (EXHIBIT D).

ACTION REQUESTED: January 27, 1982 Page Three Grannis Clean Indoor Air Act If you have any questions relative to the above, please feel free to contact Mike Kerrigan. JDK/kpt Enclosures CC : Samuel D. Chilcote, Jr. Dr. I.W. Hughes Mr. Wilson Wyatt, Jr. J. Kendrick Wells, III, Esq. Mr. Steve Cohen Mr. Hal Grant James Cherry, Esq. Mr. Stan Scott J. Bernard Robinson, Esq. James T. Breedlove, Esq. Scott Gilbert, Esq. Mr. Edward A. Horrigan, Jr. Mr. W.E. Ainsworth,. Jr. Mr. Larry Bewley Mr. Keith Rogers Mr. Hugh Foley Mr. Michael Kerrigan Mr. Richard Scanlan Mr. John Meegan Bernard Ruggieri, Esq. Matthew. Mataraso, Esq. Joseph Carlino, Esq. Mr. Raymond Oliverio

lion. Edward Abrasion lien. Frank J, ~rbaro )~US ~y hrkvay 3~ Oell~rt Lane ~on. '~t~as S. 8oyland IOQ Cht'isLophef AvuRu~ ~on. filthier J. JrJtaln lion, David L. Cohen 170-10 6~h Avenue J'lushlnt, Hey York 11363 ~uq. ~lfzaheth A. Connelly ~4 ~.~dlcL Avenue lion. Richard J. Conners 31 ~nheim St~ee& Albany. K~u York 12204 11103 10314 546, LOB $712 5820 654, LOb 4466 601, LOB 4567 $01, LOB 5503 46?7 524, CAP 4118 82el7 IS3rd Avenue liovard Beuch,Neu York II41~ 21|-135-$181 ilOI IIy hrkwly Ireeklyl~ Hey York 212-313-1009 23 Orchard Reid 516-654-0414 16~6 f~tkIn ~venue 212-495-3000 313-~5~t61 ~e ~rmmmtmm Avenue HL. Vernon0 Hey York IOSSO 4~-0~ 30(h Avenue ~1~-132-405312 80o31 l~th Street 212-$91-~7~ Sl~t 27~ Vlct~ry ~uleverd CmpLtoL~ Ro~514

lion. Geraldine L. Daniel# llnn. Glorl+ flronx, Hey York I0/*60 Iron. John C. ~8 ll~tropolILan Oval Oroux. NO+ York IO~63 lion. An~cio lion. Eilee. C. 122 2rid Place ~rooklyn, H~v York i1231 AlO0-11 Ilulchl nuon lion. Acth,~ O. 16~ Jekyll Parkway SllB 712, LOB $102 844, LOB 736, LOB $005 424, LOB 746, LOB 5807 ~eu Yorke Neu'York 10021 639 Kilt 149th Street Bronx, Has+York 10456 1414 Hetropo|lten Avenue Bronx, Hey York 10462 212-024-1900 2011 Third Avenue Hew Yotkj Nov York 10029 212-060-8405 Brooklyn, ~euYork |1231 232-875-2311 708 ~ydlB Avenue D~onx, Hey York )0462 212-829-7~$2 l~BO JefferlOn Avenue Buffalu~ Hey York 14208 716-885-4834/S 72S Veo~ 1811~ SLreet Hev York, Hey York 10033 212"678-2565 I]26 Xlnll Hilhvay Brook]yn~ Nov York 11220 212-375-0770/4 1663 lOlKAvenue Brooklyn, Hey Yolk IIliS

I)I;HOC'IL~T$/NfdlE & I1~1£ ADDRESS lion. Stsnlcy Flnk 22~9 Kast 70th Street RreokLyn, Nov York 11234 lion. Vllliam 8. Finneran 30 Edgevold Road ~|te Plains, Hey York 10607 190~olpi~ Avenne 9rooktyn, Nee York ~on, George Friedman Dronx~ Hc~ York 10458 )lo~. Ralph GoldstcJn ~1-20 Grand Central Pa~kvay Forest I1/11s, ~ev York 11375 Ilou. I~nnJl T. Gorski 69 F~lro~ks Lane CheektovaAa, Hev York 1~227 lion. Richard H. GottZ~led 91 Central Park Wel&, Hey York, New York 10023 lion. Vincent J. Greber 248 Elmm/ord Drive k'est S~teca~ Hey Ye~k 1~224 lion. Alexander B. Orlnn~8 501 East 871h S~ree& I~ev York~ Hew York 10028 II,n. Ro~er L. Green 105 St. Jo~en Place Mrooklyn~ N~v ~ork 11238 932, LOB 3791 727, LOB 5193 704, LOS 5861 5821 627, LOD 4545 830, IOB 5676 441, LOB 5323 p~STelcY An~SS & P.o~o. Albany, Nov York 212.532-71OO 587 Merbu¢to~Avcnue Raatin|n-on-Iludaon, Hey York 914-478-4448/5193 10706 190 Ralph Avenue Brooklyn, liev York 212-452-0924 11233 2704 University Avenue gronx, Hey York 10468 212-796.6400 97-45 Queens Bonlevard Re8o Park, Hey York 11374 212-&59-2400 Donovao Office Bldg, 125 flain Street Du(~olo, Hey York 1~203 716-842-3634 131Me*t 72nd Street Hey Yorkj Key York 10023 290 Center Roe4 Welt Seneca, ~evYork 716-675-7170 167~ First Avenue Nev Yo'rk, ~ev York 212-860-490G 10028

lion• l~dvard Grlflith 710 Warwick Street Brooklyn, No~ York 11201 lion. Paul Harenberl 65 IlarrieL Ro~d Oa~ort~ Hey York lidOS Forest Hllls~ New York i!3~5 lion, Hlvrlcl O. Ill,they 68 LfVinsJLon Street IIo~. So.el Illrech 5418 171h Avenue Brooklyn~ Ne~ York 11204 Jl~n. George J. Ilochbrueckner Cormme He+ York 11727 lion. William B. iloy~ 182 North Pearl 5trent ~ ~ulfJlo, Nov York 14202 lion. ahodt ~. Jacobl 1+5 Xenll~rth PlJce Orooklyn,.~ev Iork 11210 lion. Andrew Jenkins 1~4-10 A,lelttde ~oad St. Aibans~ flew York 11433 lion. ~arles R. Jolmmon I~10rand Concourse Bronx, Hey York 104~2 748, LOS 5891 943j LOB 4926 4436 ' 741, LOB 5991 652, LOB • 4462 555, LOB 5671 p!S~tCT ~,~, ~.ss t r,o~z ~o. 270 Broadway Ne~ York, New York 212-488-787! 10O07 State Office Did|., Vet.rag ~rlaI Nwy. Ilauppaule, New York 11781 $16-979-5155 75-15 Yellowstone Boulevard Forest NiLLI, Bey York 11375 212"268"2424 Kin|iron, Hey York 12£0L 91~-33B00909 5212 13th Avenue BrooklynB Hey York 212-438+6494 11219 P.O. Box T Port Jefferson glutton, New York 516-928-7788 11715 Oen. Donoven Bld~., 125 tibia Street Raffolo, Nee York 14203 716-842-343~ 1452 Flntbuah Avenue BrooklynB Nov York 11210 212-454-0446 109-43 Farmers Boulevard St, ~Lblna, HeY York 11412 212-468-5660 ]lAB Grand Concourse Bronxt Ne~ Tork 212~992+8410

lion. R|ehard J. Keane 2G$ PoLLers Road Buffalo,.Hev York 1&220 lion. Relined £. Kidder 33 Chestnut Street Jones,nun, Roy York 14101 IIoc~O. Oliver Koppe|| 38?5 Valdo Avenue Rcoax0 ~ev York 10463 Hon. Arthur J. Kroner Loci Reach, Nov York 11561 lion. Ivan C. Le~ayette 30-20 9Oth Street Jacklon Iiellhtl, ~e~ Yolk ||369 lion. )Inward L. Lasher 2271 £ast 2nd Street B~ooklyn, Hey York 11223 lion. Joseph R. Lento] 15~ Russell Street , Brookty,, Hey York 11222 lion. Woodrov Levis 1293 Dean Street 8rook1#no Hey York 11216 llon. Cerdl E. Llpschutt 156 Beach 144 Street R0ckavay Pakk, Hey York 1169~ lion. Vincent A. Harchlsel|t 4320 Van Cortland, Psrkvay East 8ronx~ Hey York IO470 R_OOtl i ,~II~ LOB 828, LOS 4691 ~17, LOG 5965 923, LOS 3851 841, LOB 4811 621j LOB 4577 701, LOB 5693 Gen. PonOVan Sld~, 125 ~ain Street RUffolo, Hey York 14203 • 716-84~-3~34 ... ~ lloLel Jones,arc lids, Rom 306 Jmeotov~ Hey York 14701 716-66&-7773 214 Vest 233 S~reet Rronx, Hey York 10463 212o7Kr-~345 201/sot Pork Avenue Leo| ~ench, Hey York 11561 $16-~31-0500 37-$SA 90th Street JnckaonRefshtn, Hey York 212-457-0384 606 BflBhton Peach Avenue |rooklyn, Hey York 11235 212-648-1200 406 Graham Avenue Brooklyn, ~ev Yo~k i1~11 212-&88-36091383-747~ 752 Hostrind Avenue Brook|yn~ Nov York 11216 212-647-5768/5706 25~ Reach 116 Street Rockovoy Park, Nee York 212o6344750 4309 A~hfte Plains Road Bronx, New York 10466 212-618.24681994-8057 mm

lion. Ja-es W. HcCabn, !~7 |bsr~chuxetts Avenue Johnson City, HeY York 13790 lion. Helvln II, HIller 300 B,sby Ro~d Brooklyn, Her York 11226 lion. Armando tlontano 634 ~nlds Street Bronx, New York 104;4 lion. Ha,then J. ~urphy 139 South Trann|L Street Lorkport, New York !~09~ lion. John S. Hur~ou|h 33 Indian Rood New York, New York 10034 lion. Jerrold Nadler 69? WelL End Aven.e Hey York, Hew York 10025 JOan. |Jay W. Nevburser 16 Old Colon~ Lane Great Neck, Hew York lion. Lon|r Nine 1~24 Wllkinr Avenue Bronx, Neu. York lion. Anie|o F. Oraz|o 18 Crescent Lane ^lbertson, Nev York lion. William F. Passann~nLe 72 Barrow Street New York, Ne~ York 716, LOB 5921 659. LOB 939. LOB. 5511 725, LOB 619, U)B ' ~561 626, LOS ~886 837, LOB A841 16; Hath Street Owe|o, Hey York 13827 60;-687-5011 !108 Cortelyou Road Brooklyn~ New York 11218 212-287-0242 554 Southern Boulevard Bronx, New York IC45S 212~993-2211 131 East Avenue Lockpor~, Hey York 1409~ ?16-434-863915594 4915 Brondvoy New York. Hey York 10034 212-942-1065/1651 2390 Broadway Ne~ York, Hey York IOO2& 212-362.2100 A3 South ~lddle N~ck Rond Orea~ Neck, Hey York 11021 516-482-5112 1471 Wen.chester Avenue Bronx~ New York 10472 212-842-0022 133 HillrldeAvenue WIXIix~Oo Pork, Hew York $16-747o8953 131Woverly Place New York, New York IOOJl 212-535-8200 115~6

lion. Joseph T. Pllltttere IO4l E111ett Drive Leviaton, Hem Turk 16092 lion. GaFF f~on4 1983 Hutch Clinton Avenue Rocbester~ Nee Yoek 14631 lion. P~$er J. Robsch 171 lieu[It Street ~ocheeter, ~u turk. 14612 lion. Victor L. Rubies $O ~anhattan Avenue-Apt. SF 9rooklyn~ Nee York 11206 lion. Richard S, Rngstero )3! VeatmJnJatet P]ace Utica, Nov York 13501 lion. Steven ganders 276 First Avenue Hey York, Nee York 10009 lion. Robin SchlmeinAer 255 Arsonne Drive Kcn~ore, Hey York 16217' lion. Frederick S¢l~idL 85-16 86t5 Street Voedhaven| Nov York 11421 lion. Anthony Semlner~o 109-56 Illth Street Sooth Ozone Park| Hey York 11~20 lion. Jo|e ~. Serrano 888 Grand Concourle~Apt. $-C Bronx| Nov York I0~$1 NO. 536~ LOB 5753 4526 824, LOB 4564 331, 100 519e LOB 5505 730e 1,00 " 5286 !7OO PLne Avenue Nietare FoI|o, New York |630| 716,282-60621720R ~6~ Ilndsou Avenue Rochester~ ~evY0rk 16621 ;t6~$44'0880 Rochester, Hey Turk 16626 57 Graham Avenue ~rooklyn, Nee York 11206 212~388-~816/7023 HYS Of|Lee Bld8~ 207 Genesee Street Utica, ~euYork 73501 315-1~2-6120 125 East 23rd Street, Suite 600 Nev Yo~k~ Nee York |OOJO 212-673-1600 3515 Delavare Avenue~ Rome Kemnore~ Hey Turk 1~217 716-873-2540 8~-20 Jamaica Avenue Drook]yn~ Hey York 11~08 212-295-59~9 IQ5-02 HeLropoltLan Avenue Forest ili118, Nee York 11373 • 212-261-4882 322 ~aet ]&SLh SLreet~ Ro~ aronz~ Xev York iO~SI 2120~93-3711 I t

lion. Ceil S. Shaffer Indian Trail Road North Blenheim, Nov York lion. Hark Alan Siegel 239 East 79th Street Nov York, New York 10021 lion. heldon Silver 5$O-G~Grand Street Nov York, Nov York 10002 lion. Ilarry gamier 2635 Ilarin~ Street Urooklyn, Hen York 11235 lien. Leonard P. Staviaky 162-21Powells Cove Boulevard ~|!teatone, Nov York 11351 lion. Edvard C. Sullivan 606 ~'ea[ 116th Street. Hew York, New York 10027 lion. Jones B. Tallon, Jr. 67 OrLon Avenue Binghauton, Nov York 139~5 lion. Albert Vann 362 flacDonouth Street Brooklyn, ~eu York 11233 lion. Paul tl. ViRg|ano 90 Cmld Street ~ev York, Nov York 10038 lion. Daniel B. Walah Route 16 Franklinvllle, Neu York 1&737 RO0tl & JqJONE NO. 535. LOB ~ 5762 327, LOB S&18 650, LOB &451 836, LOB &lg, LOB 5272 822, LOB 6646 622, LOB 5476 9~0, LOB 6897 925, LOB 3831 223 Esa~ 82nd Stree~ Ne~ York~ Nov York 10028 212.861-9061 2 Vorld Trade Center, Noon 5&89 Nov York, Hey York I00~? 2i2-488-57~6 3520 Non,rand Avenue Brooklyn, Nov York 11229 212-76~-7819 142-O6 hyafdo Avenue Fluat|inBj New York 1|35~ 212-539-8300 IlariomOffiee Blda.~ 163 ~. 125 St. Hey York~ Nov York 10027 212.678"2522 890 State O[flce Bids, Gov. Bin~hamton, Nov York J3901 607-773-7950 1360 Fulton Street, Room Brooklyn~ Nov York 11216 212-783~2A00 165 Park Roy, Suite II Nee Yorke Nee York IOO31 P.O. Hox 196 Oleon, Nov York 1&760 716-372-03~5

Ion. Seen f. W~lsh ~;$ £1s flare Ironx, Hey York 10458 Ion. |lelene Wetnstein ~S$ East 79th Street lrooklyn, New York 11236 ion. Saul Wep~in |2.09 ISSth Street |ollis, Hey York JI623 Ion. Clifford E. Wilson 19.35 Woodbine Street lidsewood, ~ev York 1138S Ion. Levis Yevoli !9 Serpentine i.sne )ld Bethpase, Hey York 1180~ Ion. flelvin H. Zi~r 161 ||ood Avenue |yracuse, ~ev York 13208 IKN~! & i)llOgE NO. $60, LOB 5716 656, LOB 831, LOS ~ 4767 $51, LOB 5721 7~2, LOB $6S6 839| LOB 2 Wemt Fotdhtu Rood Bronx, Hey York 10668 212-933"8099 6201ForrsRu~ Romd Brooklynt Hey York 11203 212-693-6201 61-08 226th Rtree~ Bayside, Hey York 11366 212-628-7900 67-02 67th Avenue Woodstdej New York 113;7 212-392-5063+ 1625 01d Country Rd, r West Vial Pleinvie% Hey York 11803 516~620~!046~S State Office Did|., Boom 861 Syrecume~ Hey York 13202 315.673.6700 • !

tin...luhn I,. }'~l| rviev Ave,me Hontauk Point, Hey York 11954 lion. Gordon V. Ourro~# 6~ Ilarvard Aven.e ~'onkers, Neu York 10710 I Gen~se~ Street Cani Ilu#~ ~:v York 13031 Ih)n. ~b~thony J. 19 Natal Rtreet ~loha~'k, Ile~ York lion. Ray~nd T. Che#bro AO~ Lo~i# Terrace Phoenix, Ne~ York 13135 lion. Joh. C. Cochrane ~(I Conco.r#e "rllht~ater#, ~e~ York 11718 II~n. A.d¢e Plnny Cooke 3A? Cobhs Ilitl Drive ~vchelter~ Ne~ York lion. Armand P. D'~ato ?11 Xoelbel Court RaiSin, Nev York 11510 lion. Robert A. D~Andrem R.D. I, Kaydero#l Park Road Saratuga Springs, Hey Yock lion, D~inlck L. DiCar]o 1~65 ~rd flrooklyn, ~ev Yo~k 11228 12866 $23, LOB SS26 4451 I,OO 3662 529, LOB 5841 $33, LOD 5783 544, LOS 5655 937, LOB 5341 • 430, LOB 5373 720, LOB 4633 325, LOB OlSTIIICT AIIIIRF:S.q & 1,1~: p;. P.O. ~ox IOnS flontnuk, Hey ~ork 11954 516-668-5656 720 White Plains Road $ceroda|e, Hey York 10583 914-723-1115 5102 West Gen~see Street Camillun, Raw York 13031 315-488-4237 246 Horth Neln Street Herkl~er, Hey York 13350 315-866-1632 1510 Fifth Avenue Bmyahore, ~ev York 11706 516-566-0991 2541Honroe Avenue Rochester, Hey York 14618 716-271-$121 S Bromdvey Freeportj Hey York 11520 $16'378-4288 285 Sromdvay, On|l|Sht Square Serotoss Sprin|s, ~ev York 12866 518-587o5151 7561 ISth Avenue Drook|ynI Hey Yo~k !i228 212-156-0052

Iio.. Jamca L. Lmery 4.330 Lens Point Road Geneaeo, Nov YOrk 14454 lion. John A. £sposiLo 222-01 I01 Avenue Queens Villlae, i~ York 11429 fish. Jqhn T. Flock 78-1~ £4th Place Gle.d~le~ Hey York lion, John ~. Ilmltiniton~ Nov York lion, 3on S. ~IL. Ilolly Road K~tonah~ Hey York IOS36 lion. 3o:n B. Ilalue 9102 ~e~ency Apar~nL (;lens Falls, Nov York 12801 lion. ~as A. Xanna IGSO ~ke Road Vebste[. Hey York 14S80 Hen. Ke~ Ilannon 99 Ninth Street G~rden City, Nov York il5~0 Hen. Glenn II. Ilsrris ~'estktm Uo~du Rood Gtoversville, Hey York 12078 ,on. R, Stephen Harley 8269 Bunk Street Road ~tavia, ~ev York ROOfl & PIIONF. NO. 340. CAP. 3751 633, LOB 5377 310. LOD LOB 530, LOb 5811 821. LOS 6656 521, LOB 5565 ' 5797 • State University Comp.o at G~ne|eo 716,243-3600 97-01Sprinarield Bu.levard Queens VLIiose, New York 114|9 212-665-1632 85-60 Orand Avenue Elmhurst0 Nov York 212-478-9772 11373 103 Droodvoy Oreentuvn~ Hey York 11760 516-261-6565/979-$353 7 PleouontvLL|e Rood Oaoinin|e Nov York 10562 914.762.4990 21 Boy ~treet GleBe Folla~ Nee York 12801 518'7~B-0004 82 gist Hoin Street Vebster, Nov York 14580 716"265"9800 226 7oh Street Oordon City, Hey York 516.248"4490 11530 I00 West Haln Street Johnston, Hey York 518-762-4S08 12095 19 Joekeo~ Street Dmtsvis, Hey York 716-343-3990 14020

32 ~r=nkel Road Hassapequn~ Nay York 11758 lion. fl[chaet J. Ilob~ockt Denise Delve-Apt ~ lion. Lo*t~s T. 197 ~ouLh 9a~iev Avenue ~ityvll~e, Hey York 11701 Iio.. Hell R. Kei~cher Troy, Hey Yo~k 12]82 lion. Richard L. Kennedy GI03 ~ornvood Dc~ve II.~ur~, Nov York lion. R~y~nd H. I GreRory Lane Goshen~ Hey Yock IOg2~ S90 ~es~ Lake Road Ila~.dspOr~ Nov York lion. Clarence D. Lane ~indham ~indhan~.Nev York 12496 lion. Viii,oR J. ~rkin~ Hey Vindmor~ New York 12550 lion. ~,Aene Suffern, Nov York 10901 :)29, LOB 5305 723, too 5931 ~ 920, LOB ASOI 320, Loft 82"?, tO8 534~ LOB 5791 &6St LOB 722~ LOS 5943 544 Bromdvey. Ilmmmnp.q.m, Nov York II?$B 516.561'8222 518-463-2251 (Boaineam) 74 Broadvay • A~ityvtlle, Nov York 516-264-2200 I1?01 Room 320, LOB Albany, Nov York 518-&55.5777 12248 1950 Boston State Road North Horth Boston, Hay York 14|10 716-6&8-5822 60 Erie Street Goshen, Hey York 10924 91&-294-9217 48 Liberty Street Bath, Hey York 14810 607-776-3304 (eutlneon) I Becket Te~vaee Delmarj Nov York 12054 597 Little Britain Bd - ~ox &3tO Hey Windsor, Hey York 12350 gl4-564-15)0 I S~utk Hadlmon Avenue Sprin| Valley, Hey York 914o~5-1818 10977

I~I:I~IIILIC:~NS/N,~tI~ 6 IlOfll~ ADUR£SS lion. John g. Lopreato I~-II I~gth Street M~iLestone, Ne~ York I1~S~ lien. II.~h S. HacHel[ 132 Gleneide Road Ithaca, N~ York 14850 lion. George II. fladlson 191 Third Avenue Franklin Square, Nee York I1010 IIon~ Ilyuon rl. Illller b6 Lyndon Road Fayettevllle~ Hey York 13066 lion. Thomas P. Horsllsn 3 Glenn Lane Hey City, Hey York 10955 lion. James F. No$1e 801 Ilain Street East Rochester, Hew York lion. il. Robert Norse 52;4 Clinton Street Lowllle, New York 13367 lion. John O. O'~el| flax 158 rorlshvll|e, Hey York lion. Frederick E. Per.Is, Jr. 3563 Ilanchester Rood Vantagh, Hey York 11793 lion, John fl, Per.me 539 Prospect Avenue Homer.neck, Nay York 10543 ROOfl & PIIOHE I~). ~31,~ LOB $444 819, LOB 322, LOB 4505 420, LOB 531. LOB 570~ 545, LOB '5662 543, LOS $741 629, LOB &611 7iB,.LOB 5878 DI.__~.BICT AI)DREES & ~lONr. 22-02 Stelnvqy Street Astoria, New York i1105 212-932-5227 901 Oryden Road Ithaca, Hey York 1~850 607-272-3~03 516-295-4567 (Business) li010 1000 mast Geneses Street Yoyettevl!le, Hey York 13066 315-~6-5221 Pork Avenue City, New York 10956 91A-63~-0612 120Vest Coemerclsl Street East Rochester, New York ?!6-586-8596 Box 48, ~urvlne B, ildin8 l,owl[ie. Hey York 13367 315"376"6~66 SUC Potsdam, Hey York 315o386-8236 13676 3700 Ilempatend Turnpike Levittovn, Hey York 11756 516-731-3436 315 Vestehester Avenue Port Chester~ Hey York "10573 91~-939.1908

lion. Oott~las I~. Prescott 260-09 Utt|on Tnrnpike Glen Oaks, tier York 11004 lion. Clarenre D. Rappleyes, Jr, I'.O. Box Horvicl% Hey York 13ills Iton~ Date £. RaSh 8S Centennial Avenue HrockporL~ Hey York 14&20 Hon. Joseph H. 7 lliekory Lane Glen Cove, Hey York lion. Anionic P.~ 175 Voodbury Road IlunLtn~ton, Hey York II~n. Lloyd S. Rl~ord, Jr, ~'est Gen~see Road Auburn~ Nov York 13021 lion. Andrev ~. Rymn~ 187 Cornelia S~ree~ PlaLtsbursh, Ne~ Yo~k ~2901 lion. Stephen ~1. q Jonathan Lane Pou~hkeupsie, Nev York 12603 lion. 9illia~ R. ~rar Creek Road ~ood~3te~ New York lion. John D. She(~er. 80 Sonth Cayusa Road ~'illi,utvllle, ~ev York !~221 323~ LOB $424 525, LOB 5545 528, LOB 5606 402, LOB 5363 425, LOD 5355 634, LOD AGI6 443, LOB 5441 550, LOB $125 438~ LOB 5334 921B LOB 4804' Sidney Civic Center SldneYt Hey York 13838 607-563-3323 716-637-3147 (Business) 7015 Brides Street. PO Box 671 Olen Covet Hey York 11542 516-676o83OO 1783 Nev York Avenue IluntJn8ton Station, Nev York 11746 516-271o8025 Vest Cenesee Road Auburn~ Hey York 13021 315-252-2614 42 CXinton Street Plsttsbur|h~ Hey York 12901 518-455-3708 226 Hill Street Pou|hkeepele, Hey York 12601 tl4-545-3360 iOY Yes~ Court Street Ro~et Hey York 134~0 315-336-3630 5792 Hnln Street ~Jlllamsvflle, Hew York 14221 716-634-6775

lion. Calol I. Sliek $9s Ilerlel Avenue Ilufille, liet York lieu. liras O+ Ske|os h.qO IIc.mpiteld Avenue Rockvllle Centre, Row York lion. Itlcholls A. Spans .1~0 Rt~erdale Avenue Yonkers, New York I010S lion. Vlllil II. Stephena. lB S, Indian Veil Facto life.step, He~ York 10509 lion. Robert A. Strinlern 40 iron Ilion Drive Stalun Island, Hey York 10304 lion. Florence II. Sullivan 229 Ovingion Avenue Brooklyn, New York 11209 lion. Peter II. Sullivan 20 North Broadway, Apt, lilllie Filial, liew York i~601 lion, Frisk ~, lliollnt Geneva, New York lion. Ouy J, Velel|s 1240 Rhineland~r Avenue Bronx, New York 10A6| lion. Glenn E. Vurren Van Vyrk Lake Rosd Ilopeve!! ~unetlon, N~v York 1~$33 628, LOB 5291 CAP 326, LOB • 4&Be . LOB 6311 LOB 5293. $111 CAP $27, LOB $177 II/!ll!C'l' Am~RF.~S ~, PIIORr, 30 South Broadway Yonkers, New York 50 Halo Street Brewetere Hey York 91&-27~'&379 10701 10509 'S10 o ?Sth Stiee~ Brooklyn, New York 11209 212-258-6393#&88~2290 277 Hartlne Avenue ~hite Plains, New York 91&-g&8-6839 611 Vest iashlnston Geneva, Hey York 315-789-2030 1937 Vllllsnibrldle Bond Bronx, Hey York 10&51 212-931-1220 6 Broad Sireel ~|shkl|l, New Ye~k 914-896-8210

lion. Clmrk C. Weup|o 1160 Van Antverp Rond $cl0enecLady, Hey York 12309 lion. Robert C. 9~ D Short Path St. Jaees~ Nev York Ilonk Georie II. Vlnner~ 164~ Vest Voter Street £1aica, Hey York 14905 458, LOB : 5383 404, LOI~ 5185 633, LOB 4538 |eheneetsdyo Nev York 12301 518'377-648~ 25? Hiddlo COllfl~ry Rood S~ithto~n~ Hey York 11787 516-72~-2929 30? Eo|L ChurCh |treoto Rot. 201 Elmlrso Hey York 14901 607-734°8580

(EXHIBIT B) Dear (Personalized): While I hope you have had an enjoyable holiday season, it is now time to. turn our thoughts to other matters as next year's holiday may not be as enloyable. Why? Because in a short time your Assemblyman will have an opportunity to Vote against you and your livelihood when the Grannis No- Smoking Bill comes up.for a vote. This bill, as you know, would severly restrict smokers' rights and cripple our in- dustry. TIME IS SHORT! If you would take a few moments to write to Assemblyman (name) , (address) , please express your opposition to any legislation which restricts smokers' constitutional rights. Indeed, the national mood supports the supposi- tion that more government is bad for our country's econ- omy. The answer lies in less government intrusion,:not~ more bad laws and bureaucracy. If you agree this legislation is uncalled for, I urge you to write your Assemblyman today. I have enclosed for your information a brief fact sheet that explains the problems associated with this type of restrictive legislation and a list of quotes of what other organi- zations have had to say about it in the past. Please take the time to write your letter today. Your legislator needs to. hear your feelings prior to voting on this important issue. Should he/she respond to your letter, I would appreciate receiving a copy in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope. Again, thank you for your help in this important matter, YOUR LETTER COUNTS. Sincerely, Enclosures P.S. Remember, all Assemblymen are up for reelection in 1982. Your letter will get their attention.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Your State Legislators are considering several anti-tobacco measures that would prohibit smoking in public places except in designated smoking areas. The places of wo~rk mean any indoor area in which two or more persons work. Indoor area open to the pubiic includes, restaurants, retail stores, arenas, meeting rooms, and many other places. So:me questions and answers about the impact of this llegislation on New York- ers and its businesses and industries.: Q -- What would this law do? A -- It would prohibit smoking, except in certain designated areas, in all public places, and places of work. Q -- What does "place of work" mean? A -- It is defined as any indoor area in which two or more persons work, but excludes factories and private enclosed offices. Q -- ..What kinds of pub.lic places are covered? A -- All kinds: offices, restaurants, stores, shopping malls, bowling alleys, barber and beauty shops, banks., arenas, supermarkets; virtual- ly every public place. Q -- How about 9overnment owned facilities? A-- They're covered too. Q-- What. about areas where, smokin, g could be _permitted~- A -- The owner of a public place could designate an area where smoking is allowed, but must purchase and place signs to that effect in the pub- lic place. Q-- How about a smoker .and non-smoker who work to~ether and share an office? A -- Too bad. The bill only exempts private offices occupied exclusively by smokers. Other o.ffices require separation of smokers and: non-smokers by designated areas. Q -- Who enforces this law? A -- The owner or person in charge of the public place, the police, sheriffs, or the health department would be responsible for impllementing and en- forcing the law. Q -- can a violator of this law be arrested? A -- Yes - and the rinse for each violation is $I00. The owner or person in charge can also be fined for not poliicing this law. Q -- Who makes sure the law is enforced? And bow do...they do it? A -- The Department of Health would adopt rules, to implement the law, spend thousands of doliliars to hire and train personnel, seek iegislation to make them peace officers empowered to issue summons, and thus create ad- ditional burdens on the Courts.

Q -- Don't the police have better thin,is to do "than to apprehend smokers? A -- They have repeatly said so in public testimony before numerous legis- lative bodies. Q -- Are there any exceptions-to the law where publ)ic places are notcovered by the law? A -- Several - a bar, a place of work with less than once thousand square feet of floor area, a restaurant or cafeteri~a with I00 or less seats, and a lobby and public mall. Q -- I have no prolblem with my employees. They have not requested smoking and non-smo.kin9 areas. Woul)d I still have to comply with the l!aw? A -- Yes - you would; have to place your smoking employees in the designatedl smoking area. If they can't be relocated, they could' only smoke d:uring a break. Q -- It sounds like the 9overnment is forcing) people to take a restroom break so they can catch a quick smoke. A -- That's what is likely to happen, reducing employee productivity. Q -- Isn't all this le~islatin9:workin9 conditions without the Consent of labor or manaqement? A -- Of course it is! Q -- What is the economic impact of such a law? A -- The cost to the State would be monumental. Increased police department budgets for enforcement., loss of business by hotel and conventions, de- crease in tax revenue to the state, loss of numerous jobs, costs of buy- ing signs, physical reconfigurations to office designs, etc. Q -- Has such legislation been workable in the past? A -- Ask the New York City Department of Health w~n it tried to. enforce its resolution of July 25, 1974, restricting smoking in certain public places. They arrested some 74 persons and fined 30 of them between $5 and $25. Warrants were issued fo.r the arrest of others who failled to. appear for trial, and several cases were dismissed and enforcement was finally dis- continued. Experiences in other jurisdictions with similar laws shows more of the same unenfo.rceability.

RESTRICTIVE SMOKING PROPOSALS - WHAT OTHER ORGANIZATIONS HAVE SAID ABOUT THEM "The New York-AFL-CIO expresses its opposition to this bill. . The bill is discriminatory.., imposes restrictions on proprietors of pu,~lic places that are unenforceabl~e... There is no reliable evidence that would necessitate this. kind of legislation." NEW YORK STATE AFL-CIO "The Business Council's underlying complaint with the subject bill is that it co.ntemplated legislating a practice which is better left to resolution on an. in~dividual basis. Surely by now, employers, employees, and the public they serve are sensitized to the controversey regarding the comfort and health im- plications of the passive inhalation of smoke." THE BUSINESS COUNCIL OF NEW YORK STATE "The Chamber strongliy urges disapproval of this bill because it would create severe and undue economic hardship on places of public accommodation., and could not realistilcallly be enforced in any event. Similarly, the proposed re- strictio.ns on the work place would be chaotic, and costly." NEW' YORK CHAMBER: OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY "To restrict a restaurant patron's right to smoke at the concl)usion of his meal remind;s us of bringing back prohibition... The food service industry today is burdened: with myriads of regulations, rulings and laws. . To add to thils bur- den and particularly where we would have to confront our patrons in the role of a pol;iceman, is to add to our predicament." NEW YORK STATE RESTAURANT ASSOCIA- TION "We further oppose this legislation on the grounds that it disrupts the work- place without duly compensating our members. The Public Employees Federation believe that smoking is a basic choice of our membership and shou,ld not be taken from us legislatively." PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FEDERATION "This legislation at best will be most difficult to enforce and will require in- spectors and other personnel to be available and on the alert for inspection during the business hours of the places affected. In the cases of bars and res- taurants, these hours are principally evenings and weekends. Enforcement of the mandate of this legislation will be most difficult except when the various place specified are in operation or conducting business." NEW YORK STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES "Nuisance legislation of this type generally effects minorities and poor people. to a further degree than others. It also would be a waste of law enforcement time and effort to even attempt to enforce laws of this nature. The limited amount of personnel that we do have could better spend their time in making our neighbor- hoods safe." NATIONAL BLACK POLICE ASSOCIATION. "Provisions of the legislation requiring the hospitality industry in the state to act as the arm of the law by enforcing smoking and no smoking zones are not feasible. Owners and managers of facilities would find it impossible to jeopar- dize customer relations by insisting upon strict compliance." NEW YORK CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU

"This bill can jeopardize customer relations and can add a substantial addi- tional cost in reconstruction of established properties. Local managers of hospitality establishments should not lose the flexibility to establish pro- cedures which they feel adapt to the preference to their customers." NEW' YORK STATE HOTEL AND MOTEL ASSOCIATION "Such a law: would be a harassment to the thousands of men and; women bowlers who enjoy a healthy and wholesome sport on a regular weekly basis .... Such a law would b.e impossible to enforce in any bowling center and any attempts by a bowling proprietor to force the regulations upon his customers would, without a doubt, result in a curtailment of their bowling activities." NEW YORK STATE BOWLING PROPRIE- TORS ASSOCIATION. "Suffice to say that to. enact legislation of this type is not practical, feasible, nor enforceable, and we urge that such legislation be defeated." HOTEL ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK CITY "Restaurants can voluntarily restrict or prohibit smoking now:, if their cus- tomers demand it. . There is a stated objective of improving the business climate in New York State. The proposed bill will only make it more diffi- cult to do. business in New York State." UNITED RESTAURANT, HOTEL, TAVERN ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK STATE "This bill puts extreme economic pressures on many groups.., and we all know that our economy is of great importance at these times The New York State Association of Chiefs of Police does not feel that this'b~lli can be properly enforced, nor the public will encourage the proper enforcement of this Iegislation." NEW YORK STATE ASSOCIATION! OF CHIEFS OF POLICE

PETITION The Honorable Stanley Fink, Speaker The Honorable Warren 2mderson, Majority Leader The Members o£ the New York State Legislature The A~tached Petitioners Punitive Lezislation To, Rezulate Smoking In Public Irlaces In The State of New York We the undersigned residents of New York State, recognizing that smo:king ~s a rotter 0£ personil b/mice, petition the" Legislature to re£z~ain from enacting any laws restricting the free association o£ people in our state 5~sed on the persorml choice to s~ke or not to smoke. We further suF~est that legislation "reEulatinE smoking in public places is unnecessary, unreasonable, unenforceable and will prove costly to both private enterprise and public entities within our state. Finnlly, we request the members: of the Legislature.to leave the question o£ smsking in public places to be resolved by the courtesy and under- stamling o£ thepeople of the State.

I~EC E IVEI~.r TobaccoAction Network, 1875Eye Street, N~ W., Wasl~inEton, D~.C 20006:800-424'9876 September 10, 1981 TO: FR: RE : TAN CORPORATE CORRDINATORS Dr. I.W. Hughes Mr. K.v.R. Dey, Jr. Mr. Curtis H. Judge Jack Ke~~ " New. Yore A. 274:6/S. 24;00 Mr. Sh.epard P. Pollack~/ Mr. Edward A. Horrigan, Jr. Mr. Keith Rogers BACKGROUND Assembly bill.A. 2746/S. 2400 (EXHIBIT A) passed the New York State Assembly on March ii, 1981, by a vote of 81-55. In addition to S. 2400, the Senate Health Committee has before it a second bill, S. 3307, which would .reverse the provision of S. 2400 in that all areas would be left as smoking except for specified areas set aside as non-smoking. A. Z746/S. 2400 has 69 co-sponsors in the Assembly and 24 in, the Senate. S. $307 has 17 Senate co-sponsors. S. 240.0/ S. 330.7 are pending in the Senate Health Committee. The legislature has recessed for the summer without taking any action on either bill. ACTIiON REQ.NES TED At this time, New York TAN is presented with the opportunity to utilize i~s membership in the various Senate and Assembly districts to presen~ the tobacco industry's position to select members o.f the legislature during this period;, this will request your approval of the following activities by selected company TAN enrollees and selected member company employees in the State of New York. To participate in a meeting between targetted legislators and other T~aN volunteers, State Director, and New York legislative counsel in the legislator's office or a mutually agreed upon place after working, hours. This meeting will be in the form of a small gathering of in- du.stry people who. wish to discuss with the particular legislator the issues of public smoking. The meeting will be arranged by the State Director and will in,elude local TAN activists from that legislator's district. The. State Director would brief each. person invited to attend on the issues to be raised, techniques to elicit a specific response, and the past voting record of the legislator.

ACTION REQUEST: New York A. 2746/S. 240:0 September i0, 1981 Page Two A report will be completed after each meeting, detailing each State Legislator's position on various pieces of legislation. With the advice and consent 'of New York counsel, 27 legislators have been targetted for meetings with TAN! volunteers in the first phase of this program. It is counsel's feeling that these individuals are the most likely to be open-minded on the merits of the indus- try's positions. Each meeting will include a discussion of the economic impact of the industry in the district, taxes paid, and the impact on related industries. The Garfinkel and Hirayama press release information will be distributed along with smoking and health literature, and a copy of the compendium of organizations opposed to the Clean Indoor Air Act will be distributed. Attached (EXHIBIT B)please find a list o.f 27 targetted legislators and their voting records. Also attached; [EXHIBIT C) please find the list of the member company enrollees who will be requested to participate in the meeting with their legislators. After review of the New York lobbying laws, Covington ~ Burling has advised that this request does not require registration or reporting on the part of TAN volunteers. If you have an7 questions regarding this request, please contact Mike Kerrigan,. JDK/kpt 'Enclosures cc: Samuel D. Chilcote, Jr. Ernest Pepples, Esquire Mr. Wilson Wyatt, Jr. J~. Kenderick Wells, IIl, Esquire Mr. Steve Cohen Mr. Hal Grant Arthur J. Stevens, Esquire James Cherry, Esquire Mr. Stan Scott J. Bernard Robinson, Esquire James T. Breedlove, Esquire Mr. Charles Tucker Mr. Larry Bewley Mr. W. E. Ainsworth, Jr. Mr. Hugh Foley Mr. Mike Kerrigan Mr. Richard Scanlan Mr. John Meegan Joseph, Carlino, Esquire Bernard Ruggieri, Esquire Matthew Mataraso, Esquire

'. aN AGT to ~mend the pubZl¢ health IAw,. In: relation, to p~otectln~ the pu- blic health, co, fort ~nd environment by proh£bltln~ smoklnS In certain publl¢ places and at public meettnss except in dest~nAted smokln~ z~ea~ and to ~epeal A~tlcZe thl~teen-F of such l~w ~el~tlns thereto The Peoole ~f the $%#te of New York. re~?esented [n Sen&re ~nd assem- bl~. do enact ~s follows~ " . Section 1. Le[IsZ~tive f~ndln8s &nd purpose. The le[lslAtu~ hereby finds that tob~co s~ke Is one of ~he m~o~ health Bazar~ ~esent In ou~ envl~n~nt. ~e~" Is subst~ntizl scientific evidence that. tobacco ~ke ca~e~ cance~, he~t dlse~e ~d v~fous ~un~ disobeys. ~ le£tsZatu~e~ fu~e~ £1n~ ~at the Bagful effects o£: tob~co smoke are not confln~ to smoke~s, but ~:so cause seve~ discomfort ~d In some ~TZON--~tter In ltallcs'(unde:sco~)Is, new; m&tte: In bracke~ [ ] Is old l&w %o be omitted.

popul&tlon. It Is therefore the purpose "of this leg~sl&tton %0 T 8 9 14 15 16 18~ 19 2O 21 22 24 25 26" " 27 29 30 32 34 36 37 3S 39 4O 4~ 42 43 4~ 4,6 47 49 50 51 52 53 54 protect and preserve in a ~easona~le manner the hea/th and comfort of the ~eople of ~1~ state by-c~atln~ In ~ln places tha~ a~e vtslted ~ -the ~ene~ p~ll¢ ~ that ~e ~ee f~ the ~f~ects o~ tob~co ~ 3. Such l~w is ~ended by addlng~ new ~tlcle thl~teen-F to ~ad ~ ~ollows: - CLE~N ~NpO0~. Section 1399-o. Definitions. " 1399-~. Prohibition. .- ~399-~. Desisn&tion of ~mokln¢ areas. 1399-r. Smokln¢ In elevators mrohtbited. 1399-s. Resmonslbil.ttles of 1399-t. Loc~l~re~ul.atlons. 1399-u. Vtol&t~on. § 1399-o. Defln1~1ons. For the DurD0ses of thls.artlcle, th~ follow~ te~ms shall.have'the followtn¢ 1. "~ar" means a =lace in which the DrtnCiDal business i~" %h~ alcoho!Ic ~evera~es for on.Premises ¢onsumotlon. or tha~ a.r~ o~ a restauran~ which is devoted prtmarl:iy to the sale or servi,ceof ~olic beverazes. 2. "~ndoor area o~en to the ~ubltc" m~ans an area menera11~ acq,es~ble to t~e ~ubltc in: auditoriums, ban~s, bars. cafeterias. heerln~ rooms, hospitals, libraries, meetinm rooms, museums, oubll¢ means of ma~s transoortatlon, restaurants, retail stores, train. ~lanff, bus and subway stations and theaters. 3. "Place of work" means any indoor area In which two or more are employed ~or waK?s or Tender volunteer services, excludln~ and excemtlons as defined I.n subdivision n~ne of section two of the ~aho~ ~.aw•#nd p~iva%9 enclosed offices occuDled excluslvel~ by smoke~s eve~ t~ou~h such o~ces ~y be visited by no~-smok~rS, 4. "Restaurant or csfe~.eT~a" means a m~ace In. whlch the 5usi;ness ~s ~he ~l,e of ~ood for on-mremlses consum~tlo~. 5, "Smoking" lncl'udes the bu~-~in~ of a lighted cigar, cigarette, oloe or any other matter o~ Sub~.tan~? wh~.h contains tobacco. 6. "5mokln~ srea$" m~ans a deal[hated area. In which smok~nz permitted. ~ 1399-D. Prohibition. No person ~ha.ll smo~e in any place o~ work or any Indoor aT~% op~D %0 %he public except In, desisnated smoktn¢ areas, a ~r~,vzte s6cfal function aDd:arrange|norris are under the control 9~ "the sponsor o~ ~6e funct|on and no~ t~ proprteto; o7 menaSer o~ the room. or hall., DOT shal~ ~%" ~PPlY to smokinK by De,formers as part of' a Sal production. smoh~n~ is mroh.tblted bY the ft~e marshall or other law.. ordlnaDce or re~l~tion. Where smok~,E ~re~s are design#ted. ~ Si~. Or ml,q~r~ ~hall ~dlca%e theft IQqa~ton, and ex~s~inK physical b~rlers and ~s%ems shaI1 be used to minimize the effect of smoke in ~dJ;acent smoi~tnE a~eas. non-

I 7 8 9 I0 II 12 13 15 18 19 20 27 35 4 ~, . ~ne fo~lowin~ ~eas ~aY be ~es~zn~ted ~s than o~e thousand_square feet of floor area.:. . .. ¢, ~ restaurant or cefetert~,wh,~h $ea~s one hundT~l or less persons. ~n %he ca.se of any reS%auTant, ca~eTla or b~r destcnated as ~ a~ea ~n ~ts entiretY, the D~op~1;etor o~ oerso. I. cha~¢e must pasta sign $o sta.tlnz this designation,, Tbls sign m~st ~e posted so as t~: be v~sible to the publlc before o~ Immedlatel~y ~Don entrance to the ~e- ~,ses: and d., an a~ea ,commonl~" referred "~o as a lobby or Dubl, ic slsten~ provision: of this article or any other law. ordinance aT ~erula- %~on,..0 person shall smoke ~. any 91avatar ~ene~all~ access~b~9 to ~ubii~. S~Kns indlcatln~ tha~ s~,ok~.K ~ So pTohlb~e~ ~ust be c_uously" posted, in e~.¢h elevator ~n~ ~t e~ch: entrance'to an elevator car ~T b@nk of el, evato~s~. . § 1399-s,. ResDonsib[l~tlv~ o~ proprietors. Ifa smoklnf a,rea is des~K~ %h~ designated atlas bY the-pos%~,pK of s~K~ 9~ mlacinz O~ placards. " ~ !399-%. "Loq.al Te~latlon$,. NoZhlnK ~onta~Ded i,n th~s a~cl~ sh~l~ 5e d~me~ %o l~m~t the au%hovlty of a citY., t0~ :o~ v~ll,ace f~om ink o~ amendln~..local l~ws whlch~rouidg.st~Icte~ ~eR~l;a%io" o~ smoklnK ~ p~aces of wo~k: ~md ~mdoo¢ ~.~ea~ open to the p.b~c, In. add~t~:on, nothinK contained In th1,s article shall b~ ~medto l~mi,% the ~u%ho~ity ofthe s~a.te hospital, ~evi~w and p~anninK qo~.c~,%O pro~IKate ~ules o~ ~ 1399-~..Vlolitlon. No%w~%bstand~nK ~OY ,,o%he~ m~ov~s~ons o~ this 0hapte~ any~De~son:who9:io~ates t~e,p~ov%s~n~ of this a~tiCl@ shall Kui~v o$ a v~o~a~ion punlshab~e by a'flne of not mote th~n dolla~ fo~ %he flvst v~0~a%ion ~nd not m0~9 %~#p ,one h~nd~ed dolla~s ~oT each successlue violation. No o~he~ clv_i,l o~ c~Imlnal s~nction o~ , ~ 4. ~IS act shall t~e effect on the fi~s5 day Of January nex~ canine the date on which i% shall have become a law. . ~PEAL NQTE.--ATtI~Ie thITteen-~ o~ the public heal,~h law, p~oposed to be ~epealed by th~s ~. makes ~t unlawful to smoke %obacco in any bl:Ic me~s of %TanspoT~a~ion a~d in any IndooT facility such ~ a bTaTy, muse~ aT theater. It would be" ~placed by ~ new thITteen-F Telat~nK %o the same sub~%, and expandln¢ thereupon.

STATE OF NEW YORK- "3307. :. "- " .1981-1982 Re~ula~ Sessioasl IN .SENATE " Febr~ery 24. '1981 Introduced by Sans. JOHNSON, LOMBARDI DUNNE, FARLEY, GAZZARA, KEHOE, LEICHTER, ~rDEZ, O~EHS, PADAVAH, RUIZ, TRUHZO, VOLKER--~ead twice and~rdered printed, and when pr~uted to be committed to the Comm£Ctee on Health ACT'to amend ~he public health la~, in relation co the regulation of smok~-z ~:o,bacco in" cer~.ain publ:[c ar'eas The People of the State of New York, n represented ~n Senal:e and Assem- blya do enact as follows: . 1 S~'ccion 1. Article ~hirteen-F of the public health law, as added by 2. ~ap~er ei@~y of th~ laws of n~e~een h~dred savory-five ~d 3 ten,bared by chapter seven h~dred ei~y-~hree of ~he laws of n~e~e~ & h~ed sevenuy-e~, ~s ~ded ~o read as foll~s: 5 ~IC~ 13-F 6 ~ ~~ON OF S~OKING ~BACCO IN 7 ~AIN ~BLIC ~AS 8 Section 1399-o. S~k~g ~obacco ~ ce~a~ public areas. 9 1399-p. Desisted no s~k~ns areas. 10 1399-q. Violation. 11 [1399-q. ]: 1399-r. ExcepC~ are~. 12 1399-s. ~cal regulation. 13 ~ 1399-o. S~k~ ~obacco ~ certain p~l~c areas. l& lawful for ~y ~erson ~o s~ke ~obacco in ~y fo~ ~5 of m~s ~r~spor~a~on~ passenger eleva~0r or I6 vh~ch £s open ~o ~he public as a l£bca~ or muse~, or as a ~hea~er 17 which ~s p~arily ~ed for,. or desf~ed for ~he pr~ pur~se 18 h~b£~ ~y mo~i~ p~c~ure, stage ~a, musical recital, d~ce, 19 c~e or o~her s~flar perforate, dur~ such perfom~ce; provided, 20 h~ever, ~ha~ s~k~n~ by perfo~ers as par~ of the ~heacr~cal producc~ 21 shall noc be proh~bi~ed. ~ATION--Nac~er ~ ital~cs (~derscored) ~s ne~; matter [ ] ~s old I~ ~o be omitted.

2 • S. 330,7 5 6 8 9 10 21 12 13 15 17 18 19 20 23.' | 1599-p. DesL~natmt no amoktn8 areas.' ~y aud~t~, cl~sr~, ~.- bltc ~e~8 r~ ~es~aur~ ~d cra~ pl~e~ b~ or sudsy shall h~e a clearly desi~a~ed '~no s~k~" area ~here s~k~ shall prohibited. ~h~ ~ ~his sec¢~ou shall "preven~ desi~a~ion o~ ~h~ ~ire~ o~ ~y. facility ~ a "no s~k~" a:ea ola~t~ .P~h~le by a f~e of no~ less ~h~ ~en ~llars ~r ~re ~h~ ~on~ h~ ~llars. ~ ~1399-q.]i 1399-r. ~cep~ed ~e~ ~e provisio~ of ~h~ Shell ~ preclude s~k~ ~ res~ r~s~ or smok~ ~ ~ ar~a c~nly r~err~ to ~ a lob~ tg physically separated ~r~ ~he s~c~a~or a~ea or ~ ~y o~her ~ dest~ed as a s~k~ area~ providede h~evere ~ha~ ~hose factl,t~tes lts~ed, ~ ~hts ar~tcle. ~h~ch have lobbies adja- c~ ~ere~o~ shell have a clearl~ d~s~e~ed ;'no smok~" area ~ 1399-s. ~al re~Ia~ions. Ho~hin~ ~n ~h~s article shall be con-

" " ' (EXHIBIT B) LEGISLATOR John Cochrane John Flanagan Paul Harenberg Phil Healey George Hochbrueckner Louis Howard Richard Kennedy George Madison May Newburger Fred Parola Antonia Rettaliata Dean Skelos Robert Wertz Vincent Graber Icilio N. Bianchi, Jr. Kemp Harmon Angelo F. Orazio Lewis J. Yevoli Walter Floss John Perry Tarky Lombardi James Donovan Howard Nolan John. Cammerer Jerome Weinstein Caesar Trunzo Martin Knorr DISTRICT 6 7 5 II 2 9 147 21 16 12 8 19 4. 148 17 15 i0 59 53 50 4:6 42 7 I0 3 15 CITY Brightwater Greenlawn Hauppauge Massapequa Coram Babylon Hamburg Franklin Sq. Great Neck Levittown Huntington Great Neck Smithtown Nest Senaca Suffolk Nassau Nassau Nassau 1979 Nay Yea Yea Yea EOR Yea Yea Nay Yea Yea Yea 1980 Nay Yea EOR* Yea Yea Absent Yea Yea Yea Yea Yea NEW M~,~ER Yea Yea Yea Nay DNV, * Yea Yea Absent Yea Yea Yea Yea 1981 Absent Yea Yea Yea Yea Yea Yea Yea Yea Yea Yea Yea Absent Yea Yea Nay Yea Yea Amherst Rochester Syracuse Utica Schenectady East Williston Queens Nassau Queens *Excused for Other Reasons **Did Not Vote

, .' [~"XH I B IT C) ASSEHBLY District 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 g 10 11 12 As~embl~nan/Area Individual George Hochbruechner/Coram Spencer Blank DL Bomgardner John P. Connolly Thomas M. Cooney James J. Doherty Steven Dubin Ira Gafarian John Imbriami Ronald Masloff GH Moul ton Philip Russell Icilio Bianchi/Suffolk Peter Gregorio Robert Wertz/Smithtown Ronald Lazzaro HR Seibel Harry L. Smith Paul Harenberg/Hauppauge John Cochrane/Brightwater John Flanagan/Greenl, awn John R. Bowen John P. Pilosi Anton,ia Rettaliata/ Huntington Glenn L. Fuerst Louis Howard/Babylon E1 len Rhodes John Thompson Lewis YevolilNassau Phil Healey/Massapequa GJ Lestrange Vilctor Maldonado Fred Parol a/Levittown Harold Wein~an CompaB~ # of TAN, In District Lorlllard RJ Reynolds Philip Morris RJ Reynolds Lorillard RJ Reynolds Philip Morris Lorillard Lo,rillard Rj. Reynolds US Tobacco 28 Philip Morris 15 Lorillard RJ Reynolds Philip Morris 25 I l 8 Philip Morris 18 Philip Morris Lorlllard 7 RJ Reynolds 1 6 RJ Reynolds B&W Lorillard 2 21 RJ Reynolds 7

District 15 16 17 19 21 1.47 148 SENA~FE lO 15 42 46 50 53¸ Assemblyman/Area Angelio. F. Orazio/Nassau Individual May Newburger/Great Neck Lynn A. Mason Kemp: Hannon/Nassau Dean Skelos/Great Neck DA Bore Sidney Bradshaw Monica Larsen George Madison/Franklin Sqbare Richard Kennedy/Hamburg Joseph Chartrand Vincent Graber/West Seneca Patrick Bonner J. Baronski Rose Doster DT Walsh # of TAN ~ompany In District 8 RJ Reynolds 17 RJ Reynolds RJ Reynolds 20 Philip Morris. Liggett&Myers 34 Liggett&Myers 30 B&W RJ Reynolds RJ Reynolds Caesar Trunzo/Nassau John Cammerer/East Williston Jerome Weinsteiin/Queens Martin Knorr/Queens Howard Nolan/Al:bany James Donovan/U~ica Tarky Lombardi/Syracuse John Perry/Rochester Gerald Alonzo Clifford Shea G,I Conkl in: JO Downey Monica Larsen Randol ph McNeil RJ Reynolds Lorillard RJ Reynolds Rj Reynolds Philip Morris Lorillard Ronald Close Roger Fidel l AC Johnson Lawrence Mal eski Raymond Pil gram RJ ~eynold.s Philip Morri~ RJ Reynolds RJ Reynolds Lorillard 28 29 47 40 167 63 George Hickey Lorillard Fredl Jackson RJ Reynolds AR Pichette RJ Reynolds Walt Trzcinski General Cigar Nancy Anderson B & W' R. Bomberger B & W Monty Faulk Philip Morris Christine Phillips " Thomas Pollock Philip Morris Steven Sheft RJ: Reynolds Leo Weber Loril l;ard Albert Al fieri Gary Barcliff John Corcoran Kathi Westcott Liggett&Myers RJ Reynollds Lorillard RJ, Reynolds 65

District 59 Senator/Area Walter Floss/Amherst Individual Robert Bonomo Bill Bradshaw Joseph Chartrand AJ Conroy John DeCarlo Joseph Faraci Marc Kruth Dennis Neaf Company # of TAN: In District Lorillard Liggett&Myers Liggett&Myers Philip Morris Philip Morris Lorilllard RJ Reynol!ds RJ Reynolds 83

STAN SCOTT April 14, 1981 FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Messrs. H. Cullman S. P. PollackJ J. C. Bowling:

To: From: Subjecti: PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A. INTER-OFFICE CORRESPON'DENCE 100 Park Avenue, New York,, N.Y. 10017 Stanley S. Scott Bernie Robinson Date: 4/13/81 TI Review Session on "Grannis Bill" New York City, 4/10/81 Current Statues According to the indus.try's New York lobbyists, i. "The Grannis Bill won't pass the State Senate (S2400/A2746)" 2. "The Johnson Bill won't pass the State Senate ($3307)" 3. The State Senate may well pa~ss some "watered down" version of an anti-smoking bill. 4. ~ssemblyma~n Grann,is and some Senators are intensively pushing for a bill this year and more Senators than before are leaning in favor of "some form of a bill". Timing Once the state budget battle is resolved (probably this week), the New York legislature will take their annual spring holi- day recess. At this time,, it doesn't appear as though the Senate will move on th,is ma:tter before the la:st two weeks in May. Current Strategy i. Continue one-on-one lobbying~ with each of the 60 member State Senate. 2. Substantially increase industry effort to generate letters to the State Senate (The TAN field staff has organ- ized a telephone campaign to TAN members). 3. Organize TAN meetings with individuai State Senators in their home dlistricts. 4. Continue to expand coalition, opposing these bills. Attendance at Meeting. Larry Bewley, RJR; Jim~ Cherry, Lorillard; J. Kelly, M. Kerrigan, R. Scanlan, J. Meehan,, TI; B. Ruggieri, Shea Gould; a repre- senative from covington & Burling; and Bernie Robinson, PM USA. cc: J. McAuley M. Irish

Tobacco Action Network, 1875 Eye Street, N. W., Washington, D.C.. 20006 800-424-9876 '- ..... .- ~"'~D., TO: FROM: March 9, 1981 TAN Corporate C~ordinators Mr. Charles I. McCarty Mr. K.v.R. Dey, Jr. Mr. Curtis H. Judge Mr. Shepard P. Pollack / Mr. Edward A. Horrigan, Jr. Mr. Keith Rogers Jack Kelly RE : New York Assembly Bill 2746. PUI~POSE The purpose of this memo is twofold: 61] to alert you to the possibility of an Assembly floor vote on Wednesday, March II, 1981 and to advise that the measure may pass the Assembly based upon our projected roll call vote; and, [2) to request authorization for the activities mentioned below to commence immediately in the event we are unable to postpone con.sidera- tion of the measure on the floor, or if A. 2746 is passed by the Assembly. CURRENT BACKGROUND As you know, this is the fifth year that the entire Assembly has considered this measure; last year in the Assembly it received ten more votes-than necessary for passage. The leadership also "worked the bill on the floor" last year, thus insuring that a projected close vote was changed to one which, passed comfortably. This year it is not clear that the leadership will work the bill on the floor. However, the leadership has assisted proponents in securing swift consideration of the measure [i.e., approximately a month from introduction to floor consideration). Our lobbyists have met with each member of the Assembly as well as with the "leadership'" and have been advised by the latter that they wish to '"immediately dispose of this bill and get working on the budget " • Technically, the bill may be considered on the Assembly floor as early as Tuesday, March I0.

New York Assembly Bill 2746 March 9, 1981 Page Two Both parties will caucus on Monday and/or Tuesday and are expected to consider caucus positions on the measure at that time. Our legislative counsel has. arranged for oppo~ nents of the measure to speak in both caucuses, as the proponents surely will do also. In the unlikely even.t that a dealy in floor consideration is granted, the organizational efforts you previously authorized are not likely to have had time for a favorable impact. For good order~s sake, it is appropriate to out~ line herein those activities: TAN ACTIVITIES -2/23/81 Action request - 2/27/81 Wharton mailing, with "Grannis Legislation. Card" mailing to New York TAN enrollees - 3/2/81 New York State TAN Director mailing to New York TAN enrollees - 3/5/81 Distribution of RTDA mailing to membership - 3/6/81 New York State TAN newsletter with "Grannis reminder" mailed to New York TAN enrollees - 5/8/81 Telephone tree system and/or mini-banks begin in, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany and Long~ Island, telephoning TAN members reminding them to write and/or phone their representatives ALLIANCE ACTIVITIES - 2/17/81 Mailing to 30 previously targeted non-tobacco allies ~ mostly those involvedi in previous year [i.e., New York Business Council, followed by. personal con- tacts by TAN member company personnel - 3/4/81 Mailing to 20 newly-targeted potential allies to file memoranda in opposition to A.B. 274:6. Tele- phone contact to all such gargeted allies in process - 3/5/81 Supplemental action, request for adiditional support from member companies gargeting involvement of suppliers, advertising agencies, loca~l outdoor advertising companies, sampling companies and sub~ sidiaries within New York State Chore reg.istration and reporting requirements below) - 3/5/81 Conference call with, member company represen- tatives alerting them to probability of floor vote and: requesting urgent support in targeting 15 key swing Republican Assemblymen

New York Assembly Bill 2746 March 9, 1981 Page Three - 3/6/81 Contact with National Outdoor Advertising Association (Verne Clark)~ who promises immediate activation of New York contacts and report on 3/9 - 3/8/81 and 3/9/81 Personal visitation in, Albany to ta:rgeted; ally associations for support MEDIA - 2/19/'81 Mailing of press release to all New York media - 3/4/81 T~'s Bill Toohey telephone contact to reci- pients of Wharton media mailing - 3/9/81 Spokesperson targ.eting and involvement CWalker Merryman and Tom Howard) ~n New. York media markets to discuss Wharton study - in process - 3/4/81 Prominent Democrat letter to the editor of New York Times D~RECT LOBBYING EFFORT CMessrs. Ruggieri, Carlino, Griffin, Mataraso] - Committee chairmen meetings (Health, and; Codes - Assignment of each Assemblyman to be contacted by counsel - Meetings with leadership - ~dentification of key swing votes - Party caucus participation - Identification of floor leaders, speakers, etc. Projected head count for roll call vote - Initiate and con.tinue dialogue with committee chairman and leadership of Senate Final meeting witli Assembly leadership to seek delay Intensive personal lobbying, in Assembly Further Senate preparation, and ~nvolvement - Floor vote/submittal of compendium to all Assem- blymen - Scheduling of Wharton meeting with Department of Commerce and fiscally-orien,ted members ACTION REQUESTED I. Anticipating, unfavorable action by the Assembly, those actions outlined in my memorandum of 2/23/81 should now be approved for the Senate as well as for the Assembly

New York Assembly Bill 2746 March 9, 19'81 Page Four Those actions outlined in my memorandum of 3/5/81 should now be applied to the Senate as well as to the Assembly Covington & Burling has reviewed the lobbying laws and pre- pared a guide for their compliance which h,as been sent to your representatives under separate cover. The last point ~#2) mentioned above will require registering and reporting by your appointed representatives. All of these activities and requested actions will ~e discussed and reviewed more fully on March 12, 198.1 a~t the scheduled State Activities~ Executive Briefing. We will keep you apprised on a timely basis of the develop- ments in Albany. JDK:sb CC: Ernest Pepples, Esq. Mr. Wilson Wyatt, Jr. J. Kendrick Wells, Jr., Esq. Mr..Da~ve Jackson Mr. Hal Gran,t Arthur Stevens, Esq. James Cherry, Esq. Mr. Stanley S. Scott J. Bernard Robinson, Esq. James T. Breedlove, Esq. Alfred Pollard, Esq. Mr. Charles Tucker Mr. Larry Bewley Mr. W. E. Ainsworth, Jr. Mr. Hugh Foley Mr. Michael Kerrigan Mr. Richard Scanlan Mr. John Meegan= Mr. Gregory Scott Bernard J. Ruggieri, Esq. John P. Rupp, Esq..

PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A. INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE 100 Park Avenue; New'York, ,N.Y; 100| 7 To :¸ From: Subject: Distribution Stanley S. Scot~ Grannis Bill approved in Assembly Date: March ii, 198:1 The New York restrictive smoking bill sponsored by Assemblyman Alexander "Pete''~ Grannis was approved today by a vote of 76-58 in the Assembly. Seventy- six votes were needed for passage of the bill. We are told that Assembly Speaker Stan.ley Fink cast the 76th vote. This same legislation passed the Assembly last year by a vote of 86-50. Some legislators traditionally switch their votes for the record after a bill has been approved, and we can expect the final recorded vote on the Grannis bill to read (probably) 81-55. Grannis, incidentally, was able to introduce his bill this year with 73 sponsors. We will be meeting at the Tobacco Institute tomorrow to analyze the vote and map. strategy on this legis- lation which now may go to the New York State Senate. This bill did not gain an introduction in. the Senate last year. SSS:dh Distribution: Messrs. T'. F. Ahrensfeld R. N. Beane J. C. Bowling H. B. Coleman R. H.. Cremin H. Cullman M. A. DeMita R. A. Fitzmaurice E. J. T. Flanagan J. J. Gillis C. H. Goldsmith A. Holtzman J. P. Jeb Lee J. T. Landry F. J. Laux J. W. McAuley W. W. McDowell R. R. Millhiser J. J. Morgan S. P. Pollackv~ J. B. Robinson R. F. Tr~cey A. Whist Informational Copies: Messrs. J. F. Cullman, 3rd G. Weissman,

Ma:rch 5,~1981 TO: FROM: RE: TAN Corporate Coordinators Mr. Charles I. McCarty Mr. K.v.R. Dey, Jr. Mr. Curtis H. J,udg.e ~., Jack Kel~iW<i_-- New York Assembly Bill 2746/Senate Bill 2400 ~r. Shepard P. Pollack Mr. Edward A. Horrigan, Jr. Mr. Manuel Leitao, Jr. BACKGROUND As you are aware, Assemblyman Alexander '"Pete" Grannis has introduced A. 2746/S. 2400 in the 1981 sessionof the New York Legislature and A. 2746 has now passed through the Assembly Health and Codes Committees, My TAN Action Request to you of February 20 requests your approval of actions by member company TAN enrollees in opposition to this legislation. Due to'an imminent floor vote in the Assembly, this request seeks additional actions of a non,TAN related! nature which will greatly assist the overall effort of opposition to A. 2746. SUPPORT DESIRED The following additional activities by your company personnel would be extremely helpful: The designation by you of a special company volun- teer to supplement your involvement in coordinating the activities enumerated below. I£ is suggested~ th.is volunteer be from your corporate public affairs department. This volunteer would initiate a dialogue with your suppliers in.New York State to urge that they oppose this legislation. This volunteer would initiate a dialogue with your sampling, outdoor and print advertising accounts to urge that they oppose this legis- lation."

New York A. 2746/S. 2400 March 5, 1981 Page Two This volunteer would develop a program with n,on-tobacco related subsidiaries in your corporation within New York State to urge that they oppose this legislation. According to local counsel in New York, the above actions should begin immediately. A legal analysis has been completed by Covington ~ Burling of the New York State lobbying laws. It is their judgment that the designated special volunteer must register as a lobbyist if that person reasonably anticipates receiving and/or expending $i,000 or more, including allocable salary, in connection with such activity. This person will be required to file periodic and annual reports, and the member company will be required to file an. annual report, If you have any questions relative to the above, please feel free to contact Mike Kerrigan, JDK : smb CC: Ernest Pepples, Esq, Mr. Wilson W. Wyatt, Jr. J. Kendrick Wells, III, Esq. Mr. Dave R. Jackson. Mr. Hal A. Grant Arthur J. Stevens, Esq. James R. Cherrz, Esq. Mr. Stanley S. Scott J. Bernard Robinson., Esq, James T. Breedlove, Esq. Mr. Charles A. Tucker Mr. Larry Bewley Mr. W. E. Ainsworth, Jr. Mr. Keith Rogers Mr. Michael Kerrigan Mr, Gregory R. Scott Alfred Pollard:, Esq. Mr. Richard Scanlan Mr. John Meegan Joseph F. Carlino, Esq. Bernard J,. Rug.gieri, Esq. Matthew H. Mataraso, Esq~ John P. Rupp, Esq.

PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A., INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE 100 Park Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017 To'.¸ From: Subject: Distribution Stanley S. Scott _~ New York Clean Indoor Date: Air Act-(Grannis Bill) March 6, 1981 Status Report: The New York restrictive smoking~ bill, sponsored for the fifth consecutive year by Assemblyman Alexander "Pete" Grannis, has received speedy approval by the Health and Codes Committees. We were informed this afternoon that the bill--which would prohibit smoking in most public places--will be considered in a vote by the Assembly on Wednesday, March ii. The bill is similar to ~egislation which passed the Assembly March 27, 1980, by a vote of 86-50. Grannis was able to introduce his bill th~s year with 73 sponsors. Seventy-six votes are needed for passage. SSS:dh Distribution: Messrs. T. F. Ahrensfeld R. N. Beane J,. C. Bowling H. B. Coleman R. H. Cremin H. Cullman M. A. DeMita R. A. Fitzmaurice E. J. T. Flanagan J. J. Gillis C. H. Goldsmith A. Hol£zman J. P. Jeb Lee J. T. Landry F. J. Laux J. W. McAuley W. W. McDowell R. R. Millhiser J; J. Morgan / S. P. Pollack~" J. B. Robinson R. F'. Tracey A. Whist Informational Copies: Messrs. J. F. Cullman 3rd G. Weissman

~rch S, 1981 TO: FRON: R~- K. v.R. Bey, Jr. Curtis H. Judge Jeck Eel~ %~r; Shepard P. Pollack Mm. ~dw~rd A. H0rrigzn, Jr. ~. ~nuel Leitao, 3r. New York Assembly Bill 2746/Senate Bill 2400: BACKGROU~ As yo~ ~re aware, Assemblyman Alexander "Pete" Grannis has introduced A. 2746/$. 2400 ~u ~he 198I session o£ the New York Legislature and A. Z~¢6 has now passe~ ~hrough the Assembly Health and Codes Co_m~tees. My TANAction Request to you oK ~ebruary ~0 requests your spprov~1 o£ actions by membe~ co.any TAN enrollees in opposition ~o this legislation. Due to an i~Anen~ £1oor vo~e in the Assembly, this reque~ seek~ add~ion~l actions og a non.TAN rela~ed nature which will greatly ass~s~ the overall e£Kort o~ opposition ~o.A. SUPPORT DP..SII~D The following additional activities by your co~pany personnel ~ould be extremely helpful: The designation by you of a special company volun- teer ~o supplement your involvement, in coordinating ~he activities enumerated below. It is sugges~e~ this volunteer be ~ro~ your corporate public This volunteer would initiate a dialogue with your suppl~ers in New York State ~o urge that they oppose this legislation. This volunteer would .initiate a dialogue with your sampling, outdoor ~d print adver~isinE ac¢o~r.ts ~o urge ~hat they oppose ~his lation.

New Yo~k A. 2745/S. 2400 ~arch S, 1981 Page Two This vol~teer would develop a pro,gra~with non-tobacco relate6 suSsidiaries in your corporation wi:thin New York State to urge that they oppose this legislation. According to local counsel in ~ew York~ the above actions shoul~ begin i~e~iately. A legal analysis has been completed by Covington 8 Burling of the New York State lobbying laws. It is their judg~en~ tha~ ~he designated special volunreer~u~t register as a lobbyist if that ~erson reasonably ~m~icipates receiving and/or e~pending $I,00~ or ~ore, iuclud~ug alioc~51e salary, • u connection with such activity. This person~ll be required ro file periodic and annual reports, and the menber company will be required to ~£ile an annual report. If you have any questions relative to the a5ove, ~lease feel ~-£ree to contact Mike Eerr£gano CC: ErnesZ Pepples, ~sq, ~r. Wilson W. ~/att, J. Eendrick Wells, III, .Mr-. Dave R. Jac~on Mr. Hal A. - G~t ~thu~ J. Stevens~ Hsq. J~es R. ~erry, Esq. ~. ~r~ Bewley Hr. W. E. Ainsworth, Mr. Ke£th Rogers ~r. ~c~el lerrigan ~, Gregory R. Scot~ Alfre@Pollard, Mr. Richard Scanlan i~r. John Meegan Joseph P. Carlino, Bernard J. Ruggieri, Matthew H. Mataraso, 3o~m P. Rupp,

VICE PRES I DI[NT PHILIP MORRIS U.:S.A. 100 PARK AVENUE. NEW YORK, N,Y, 10017 March 3, 1981 Dear Cliff:: For the fifth consecutive year Alexander "Pete" Grannis (D-68-New York) has introduced A.2746, a comprehensive restrictive smoking bill. The measure has been favorably reported by both the Assembly Health and Codes Committees. The date for consideration by the full Assembly has not yet been determined. As you know from last year, the same bill passed the Assembly by a vote of 86-50. Fortunately, the bill stalled in the Senate Health Committee. Once again we have encouraged all Philip Morris employees living in New York (sales force and i00 Park Avenue) to write their Assembl~men and express their concerns over the proposal. Your assistance by encouraging Miller Brewing Company employees living in New York to write their Assemblymen would be very helpful in our effort to stop passage of A.274:6. I am. sure the letters genera:ted by Miller employees last year to the Chairman~ of the Senate Health Committee were instrumental in sta:11ing ~h.e proposal. I have enclosed a copy of the ma:terial sent to our employees for your use. Please call me if you have any commen,ts or suggestions. Since:rely, Mr. Clifford D. Williams Director of Government Affairs Miller Brewing Company 3939 West Highland Boulevard Milwaukee, WI 53208 SSS/sm cc: Messrs. H. Cullman S. Pollack

(o\~\ Tobacco Action Network, 1875 Eye Street, N. W,, WashinEton, D.C, 20005, 800"424-9875 ] ,.:" February 23, 1981 FROM" RE : • TAN! CORPORATE COORDINATORS Mr. Cha:rles I. McCarty Mr. K.v.R. Dey, Jr. Mr. Curtis H. Judge Action Request - New York Assembly Bill. 2746/ Senate Bill 2400 ~r. Shepa.rd P. Pollack Mr. Edward A. Horrigan, Jr. Mr. Manuel Leitao. BACKGROUND: Assemblyman Alexander "Pete" Grannis has introduced A 2746/ S 2400' [Exhibit A) in the 1981 session of the New York StaZe Legislature. The bill is similar to A 27.46-D which passed the Assembly March 27, 1980,by a vote of 8'6-50. The bill has been referred to the Assembly Health Committee for action on February 24. This proposal would restrict smoking in public places including restaurants., places of work, hotels and motels, arenas, convention, centers, and many other areas. Any person, who violates the provisions of this bill would be ~u~ity of a violation, punishable by a fine o:f not more than, 25 for the first violation and not more than $I00 for each successive violation. ACTION REQUESTED: We request your approval of the foil.owing activities by com- pany TAN enrollees, and member company employees in the State of New. York: Your permission for the New York State TAN Director to write company TAN enrollees to request tha~ they write letters to the members of the New York Assembly in opposition to. this legislation (Exhibit BJ. It is suggested these let£ers commence immediately. The attached: sample letter (Exhibit C) will 5e sent to 2,000 enrollees, approximately 700 of whom are member .~_ company enrollees. III

ACTION R~QUEST - New York A 2746/S 2400 February 23, 1981 Page Two e Your permission for the New York State TAN Director to request selected company TAN enrollee volunteers to participate in a volunteer telephone effort. Telephoning would .be conducted after normal business hours in the New'York State TAN! office or at the home of the volunteers, be staffed by company and other volunteers, and be designed to solicit letters from TAN enrollees, company employees, and other members of the tobacco, family in opposition to the legislation. Your permission for member company enrollees to pro- vide each retail, wholesale, and vending account with a copy of the attached flyers (Exhibit D). This volunteer activity will take place after normal business hours. A legal analysis has been completed by Covington ~ Burling of the New York State lobbying laws grassroots requirements. It is their judgment that we may proceed without the reg.istering or reporting of TAN volunteers engaged in the abovementioned activities. According to local counsel in New York, the above action should begin immediately. If you have any questions relative to the above, please feel free to contact Mike Kerrigan. JDK : stub Enclosures CC: Ernest Pepples, Esq. Mr. Wilson W. Wyatt, Jr. J. Kendrick Wells, III, Esq. Mr. Dave R. Jackson Mr. Hal A. Grant Arthur J. Stevens, Esq. James R. Cherry, Esq. Mr. Stanley S. Scott J. Bernard Robinson, Esq. James T. Breedlove, Esq. Mr. Charles A. Tucker Mr. Larry Bewley Mr. W. E. Ainsworth, Jr. Mr. Keith Rogers Mr. Michael J. Kerrigan Mr. Richard E. Scanlan Mr. John E. Meegan Joseph F. Carlino, Esq. Bernard J. Ruggieri, Esq. Matthew. H. Mataraso, Esq.

---

---

---

": BE~IOCRATS/NMIE & IIOHE ^DDRES$ lion. Edward Abramson 163-39 130th Avenue Jamaica, Nov York 11434 }Ion. Frank J. Barbaro 7705 Bay Parkway Brooklyn, No~ York I1214 lion. ~/illiam I. Bianchi~ J~, BcllporU, Nc~ York ll~13 lion. Thomas S. Boyland 109 Christopher Avenue Brooklyn~ N~' York 11212 lion. Hichael J. Bragman 8285 Thompson Road Cicero, ~ev York 13039 flow. ~ohn R. Bronco ]~0 Con,,*on~calLh Avenue He. Verno., ~e~ York 10552 l[ou. I)enls J. Bu~ler 31-59 ~Tth SLree~ Long Island City, New York 11103 }iDa, David L. Cohen l~O-lO 69th avenue Flu~hing~ ~e~ ~ork I1365 lion. Elizab~th A. Cona~ll~ 91~ [leaedict Aveau~ Staten Islaad~ New York 1031~ lloa. Richard J. ~oaaer~ 31 Bo,heia Street AlbaaF~ Re~ York 12204 ROOH & PIIONE HO. 546, LOB 5772 713, LOB 5828 728, LOB 5014 654, LOB 4466 601, LOB 4567 501, LOB 5585 557 LOB 5787 637, LOB 4404 826, LOB 4677 524, CAP 4178 DISTRICT ADDRESS & PllONE NO. 82-17 153rd Avenue Howard Beach,~Neu York 212-835~5881 11414 6808 Bay Parkway Brooklyn, New York 212-313-1009 11204 25 Orchard Road Eaat Patchogue, New York 516-654-0414 11772 1636 Pitkin Avenue Brooklyn, New York 212-495.3000 11212 708 South Hain Street North Syracuse, New York 13212 315-452o086i One Gramatan Avenue Hi. Vernon, New York 914.664.1444 10550 43-08 30th Avenue Lon8 Island City, New York 212-932-4053/2 11103 80-32 164th Street Jamaica, New York 212,591'8700 11432 SIDC, 2760 Victory Bonlevard Staten Island, New York 10314 212.727-9198 Capitol, Room 524 Albany, New York 518.455.4178 12248

....... ~i~A1~;'NA~I~: & ROi'IE ADDRESS ROOH & PIIONE NO. DISTRICT ADDRESS & PIION£ NO. lion. Geraldine L. Daniels 1,5 Nest 1321~d Streec New York, New York 10037 llnn. Gloria Davis 1700 Crocona |'.,rk East Ih'o,tx, Ne.w York 10460 lion. John C. Dearie 28 H,'tropolican Oval Drone, New York !04~2 lion. hng~lo Del Toro 1~9 Ease IO6~h Street Ne~ York, New York 10029 lion. Eileen C. Dugan 122 2rid Place Brooklyn, Hew York 11231 lion. Eliot Enact ~lOO-ll Ilutcifinson River Pkwy Ease B~onx, Nnw York 10475 lion. Arthur O. Eve 184 Jcwe~t Parkway Iluffalo, New York 14216 lion. lleFman D. Fa~rcll, Jr. 159-O0 Riverside Drive, Apt. 7,6 Ne~ York, Ne~ York 10032 lion. Daniel Feldman 50 Shore Boulevard Brooklyn, ~ York 11235 lion. Joseph Fnrris 292 Ni||dsor Place Brooklyn, New York 11218 641, LOB 4521 432, LOB 5118 712 LOR 5102 844, LOB 4781 454, LOB 5426 734, LOB 5296 736, LOB 5005 424, LOB 5491 452, LOB 5214 746, LOB 5807 Harlem Office Bldg, 165 ~. 132nd Street New York, New'York 10027 639 East 169th Street Bronx, New York 10456 1414 Hetropolitan Avenue Bronx, New York 10462 212-824-1900 2011ThLrd Avenue New York, New York 212-860-8405 10029 356 Court Street Brooklyn, New York 212-875-2311 11231 708 Lydig Avenue Bronx, New York 212-829-7452 10462 1490 Jefferson Avenue Buffalo, New York 14208 716-885-4834/5 725 Nest 181st Street New York, New York 10033 212-678-2565 1126 Kings llighvay Brooklyn, New York 212-375.0770/4 11229 1663 lOUt Avenue Brooklyn, New York 212.788-7221 11215

DEIIOCR;WSINA]'IE & IIOHE ADDRESS lion. Stanley Fink 2249 East 70th Street Brooklyn, Hew York 11234 lion. William B. Finneran 30 Edgevold Road White Plains, Hey York 10607 )[on. Thomas R. Fortune 190 Ralph Avenue Brooklyn, New York 11233 lion. George Friedman 357 East 195 Street Bronx, New York 10458 lion. Ralph Goldstein 61-20 Grand Central Parkway Forest ilills, Hew York 11375 lion. Dennis T. GorskL 69 Fa~coaks Lane Cl!~ckLowaga, Hew York 14227 lion. Richard 14. Gottfried 91 Cc,tral Park West, Apt, Hew York, Hew York 10023 lion. Vincent 3. Graber 248 Elms£ord Drive I~est Seneca, New York 14224 lion. Alexander B. Orannta 501 East 87Lh Street New York, Hew York 10028 lion. Roger L. Green 105 St. James Place Brooklyn, Hey York 11238 PHONE NO. DISTRICT ADDRESS & PIIONE NO, 932, EaR Room 932, LOB 3791 Albany, New Y~rk 212,532~7700 727, LOB 5193 12248 587 Warburton Avenue llaatings-on-]ludson, Hey York 739, LOB )90 Ralph Avenue 5911 Brooklyn, Hew York 212,~52-0924 704, LOB 2704 University Avenue 5861 Bronx, Hew York 10468 212-796-6400 553, LOB 5821 627, LOB 4545 11233 97-45 queens Boulevard Rego Park, New York 11374 212.459.2400 10706 Donovan Office Bldg, 125 Hain Street Buffalo, Hew York 16203 716-842-3434 941, ~OB 131 West 72nd Street 6941 New York, New York 212.724o9600 830, LOB 290 Center Road 4601 West Seneca, New York 716-675-7170 522, ~OB 1672 First Avenue 5676 Hey Yo~ck, New York 212-860-4906 441, LOB 5323 10023 14224 10028

'.. _D,EH~CRA.TSfl~AHE & IIOHE; ADDRESS lion. Edward Griffith 710 Warwick Street Brooklyn, New York 11201 lion. Paul Harenberg 65 Ilarriet Road Bayport, New York 11705 Hun. Alan G, llevesl 68-10 Ingrsm Street Forest Hills, New York 11375 lion. Haurice D, Ilinch~y 68 Livingston Street Saugerties, New York 12477 )ion. Samuel )lirsch 5418 17th Avenue Brooklyn, New York 11204 lion. George J. ]lochbrueckner One Nycomb Place Coram, New York 11727 lion. Nilliam B. ]loyt 182 North Pearl Street Buffalo, Hew York 14202 lion. Bhoda S. Jacobs 125 Kenilworth Place Brooklyn, New York 11210 lion. Andrew Jenkins 174-10 Adelaide Road S¢. Albans, Hew York 11433 lion. Charles R. Johnson I001 Grand Concourse Bronx, New York 10452 ROOH & PIIOITE NO. 847 LOB 4767 748, IOB 5891 943, LOB 492~ 625, LOB 4636 656~ LOB 4474 622, LOB 4591 741, LOB 5991 435, LOB 5365 652, LOB 4462 555, LOB 5671 DISTRICT ADDI~SS & PIIONE NO. 270 Broadvay New York, New York 10007 212-488-7871 State Office Bldg., Veterans hemorisl Ilwy. ]lauppauge, New York 11787 516-979-5155 73-15 Yellowstone Boulevard Forest Rills, New York 11375 212-268-2424 243 Fair Street Kingston, New York 12401 914-338-0909 5212 )~th'Avenue Brooklyn, New York 11219 212-438-6494 P.O. Box T Port Jefferson Station, New York 516-928'7788 11776 Gen. Donovan Bldg., 125 Hain Street Buffalo, New York 14203 716-842-3434 1452 Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn, New York 11210 212-434-0446 109=43 Farmers Boulevard St. Albans, New York II412 212-468-5660 1188 Grand Concourse Bronx, New York 10456 212-992-8410

.-DEHOCrATS/NAHE & HOi'IE ADDRESS lion. Richard J. Keane 265 Potters Road Buffalo,.Hew York 14220 lion. Rolland E. Kidder 33 Chestnut Street Jamestown, Hew York 14701 lion. G. Oliver Kappa11 3875 Naldo Avenue Bronx, New York 10463 lion. Arthur 5. Kremer 605 East State Street Long Beach, Hew York 11561 lion. Ivan C. Lafayette 30,20 90th Street Jackson Ileights, New York 11369 lion. Iloward L. Lasher 2277 East 2rid Street Brooklyn, Raw York 11223 lion. Joseph R. Lento] 152 russell Street Brook!yn, New York 11222 lion. Noodrow Lewis 1293 Dean Street Brooklyn, New York 11216 lion. Gerdl E. Llpschutz ' 156 Beach 144 Street R0ckaway Park, New York 11694 lion. Vincent A, Harchiselli 4320 Van Cortlandt Parkway East Bronx, New York 10470 ROOtl & PIIO~ 562, LOB 5735 828, LOB 4691 717, LOB 5965 923, LOB 3851 417, LOB 5262 841 LOB 4811 621 LOB 4577 645, LOB 4292 701, LOS 5693 547, LOB 5844 DISTRICT ADDRESS & PIIONE NO. Gen. Donovan Bldg, 125 Hain Street Buffalo, New York 16203 716-842-3434 }lotel Jamestown Bldg, room 306 Jamestown, New York 14701 716-664-7773 214 Nest 233 Street BronX, New York 10663 212-796-~365 20 West Park Avenue Long Beach, Hew York 1156] 516-431-0500 37-55A 90th Street Jackson Heights, New York 1]372 212-657-0384 606 Brighton Beach Avenue Brooklyn, New York I1235 212-668=12OO 406 Graham Avenue Brooklyn, New York 11211 2]2~488-3609/383-7474 752 Nostrand Avenue BroOklyn, New York 212-667"5768/5706 11216 257 Besch 116 Street Rockaway Park, New York 212-634-4750 4309 A Nhite Plains Road Bronx, New York 10466 212-678-2468/994-8057 I169~

• . DDI~CP~ITSINAHE & llOrf£ ADDRESS ROOM & PIIONE NO. DISTRICT ADDRESS & PHONE NO. lion. James W. HcCabe, St. 127 Massachusetts Avenue Johnson City, New York 13790 llon. Helvin ][. Mil|er 300 Rugby Road Brooklyn, New York 11226 lion, Armando'Montsno 634 Manida Street Bronx, Hew York 10474 lion, ~latthew J. Hurphy 139 South Transit Street Lockport, New York 14094 llon. John B. Murtaugh 33 Indian Road New York, New York 10034 llon. Jerrokd Nadler 697 West End Avenue New York, New York 10025 lion. Hay W. Newburger 16 Old Co!ony Lane Great Hcck, Rc~ Y0ck 11023 lion. Louis Nine 1424 ~ilkins Avenue Bronx, Hew York 10459 llon. Angelo F, Orazio 18 Crescent Lane AIbertson, New York II507 llon. W~lIiam F. Passannanre 72 Barrow Street New York, Hew York 716, LOB 5921 659, LOB 4477 939, LOB 4901 526, 5511 725, LOB 5197 744t LOB 5802 619, LOB 4561 647, LOB 4203 626, LOB 4886 837, LOB 4841 167 Main Street Owe8o, New York 607-687-5011 13827 ll08~Cortelyou Road Brooklyn, New York 11218 212-287-0242 554 Southern Bouievard " Bronx, Hew York 10455 212-993-2211 131 East Avenue Lockport, New York 14094 716-434-863915594 4915 Broadway New York, New York 212-942-I065/1651 10034 2390 Broadway New York, New York I0024 212-362-2100 43 South ~liddle Neck Road Great Neck, New York 11021 516-482-5112 1471Westchester Avenue Bronx, New York i0472 212~842,OO22 133 Hillside Avenue ~illiston Park, New York 516-747-8953 131Naverly Place New York, New York 212.533.8200 lO011 11596 i

~ DEI'I~CRATS/NA~ & IiOHE ADDRESS lion. Joseph T. Pillittere 1041Elliott Drive Lewlaton, New York 14092 lion. Gary Proud 1983 North Clinton Avenue Rochester, New York 14621 lion. Roger J. Robach 17111ewitt Street Rochester, New York. 14612 lion. Victor L. Robles 50 Hanhattan Avenue-Apt, 5F Brooklyn, New York 11206 lion. Richard S. Ruggiero 131Westminister Place Utica, New York 13501 lion. Stevcn Sanders 276 First Avenue Neu York, New York 10009 lion. Robin Schimminger 255 Argonne Drive Kenmore, New York 14217 lion. Frederick Schmidt 85-14 86th Street N0odhaven~ Ne~ York 11421 lion. Anthony Seminerio 109-56 lllth Street South Ozone Park, New York 11420 lion, Jose E. Serrsno 888 Grand Concourse-Apt. 5-C Bronx, New York 10451 ROOH & PIIONE NO. 538, LOB 5753 643, LO9 4526 824~ LOS 4664 331, LOB 5414 639, LOB 4511 519, LOB 5506 730, LOB 5284 732, LOB 5668 818, LOB 4621 845, LOB 4755 DISTRICT ADDRESS & PIIONE NO. 1700 Pine Avenue Niagars Falls, New York 716-282-6062/72OB 14301 864 Iludson Avenue Rochester~ Hew York 716-544-0880 14621 2200 Nest Ridge Road Rochester, New York 716-225o4190 14626 57 Graham Avenue Brooklyn, New York 212-388-4814/7023 11206 NYS Office B!dg, 207 Genesee Street Utica, New York 13501 315-797-6120 125 East 23rd Street, Suite 600 New York, New York ]0010 212-673-1600 3514 Delaware Avenue, Room 202 Kenmore, New York 14217 716-873-2540 84-20 Jamaica Avenue Brooklyn, New York 11208 212.296-5949 105-02 Betropo$1tan Avenue Forest Ilills, New York 11375 . 212-261-4882 322 East 149th Street, Room 9 Bronx, Ne~ York I0451 212-993-3711

lion. Gai]S. Sheller Indian Trail Road North Blenheim, ~eu York 12131 lion. Nark Alan Siegel 239 East 79th Street Hew York, New York 10021 lion. Sheldon Silver 550=G Grand Street Hew York, New York 10002 lion. Ilarry Smoler 2435 IlarinS Street Brooklyn, Hew York 11235 lien. Leonard P. Stavisky 162-21Powells Cove Boulevard Whitestone, New York 11357 lion. Edward C. Sullivan 606 ~est ilGth Street. Hew York, New York 10027 lion. James R. Tallon, Jr. 47 Orton Avenue Binghamton, New York 13905 )Ion. Albert Vann 362 NacDonough Street Brooklyn, Hew York 11233 lion. Paul U. Viggiano 90 Gold Street Hew York, New York 10038 lion. Daniel B. Welsh Houte 16 Franklinville, New York 14737 ROOtl & PIlONE 535, LOB 5762 842, LOB 4811 327, LOB 5418 650, 4451 836, LOB 4717 419, LOB 5272 822, LOB 4646 422, LOB 5474 940, LOB 4897 925, LOB 3831 DISTRICT ADDRESS & PilONE NO. 518-827-6353 223 East 82rid Street Hew York, New York 10028 212-861-9061 2 World Trade Center, Room 5489 New York, Hey York 10047 212-488-5746 3520 Noatrand Avenue Brooklyn, Hew York 11229 212-769-7819 142-04 Bayside Avenue Flushing, New York 11354 212-539-8300 llarlem Office Bldg., 163 N. 125 St. New York, New York 10027 212-678-2522 890 State Office BIds, Gov. Plaza Binshamton, New York 13901 607-773-7950 1360 Fulton Street, Room 519 Brooklyn, New York 11216 212-783-2400 165 Park Row, Suite 11 New York, New York 10038 212-964-4755 P.O. Box 194 Olean, New York 716-372-0345 14760

'E~tOCIL~TS/HAI'IE & ilOI'IE ADDRESS Ion. Sean P. Walsh !473 Elm Place Ironx, Ne~ York 10458 Ion. Helene Weinstein i55 East 791h Street ~rooklyn~ New York 11236 ion. Saul Neprin |2-09 1881h Street Iollis, Nc~ York 11423 ion, Clifford E. Wilson i9-35 Noodbine Street tidgewood, Hew York 11385 Ion. Lewis Yevoli !9 Serpentine Lane )ld Bethpage, New York 11804 ion. Helvin N. ZIMer !Gl llood Avenue 3yracuse, New York 13208 ROOH & PHONE NO, 540, LOB 5716 456, LOS 831~ LOB 4747 551, LO~ 5721 742, LOB 5456 839, LOD 4826 DISTRICT ADDRESS & PIIONE NO. 2 Nest Fordham Road Bronx, Hew York 212-933-8099 ~201Farragut Road Brooklyn, New York 11203 212-693-4201 61.08 224th Street Bayside, New York 11364 212-428-7900 ? ~7-02 471h Avenue Noodside, New York 11377 212-392-5043 1425 Old Country Rd, F West Plainview, New York 11803 516-420-1044/5 State Office Bldg., Room 841 Syracuse~ New York 13202 315-473.4700

I{EPI'III,IC;XNSINAPIE & lit)liE AIII)IIES.~ Iloo. John L. Behan F'. i rv i e.w Aveuue tlonLauk Point, New York 11954 lion. Gordon W. Burrows (~5 Ilarvard Avenue Yo.kers, Hey York 107lO lion. t~illiam E. Bush I Gem-,sce Street Camillu~, New York 13031 lion. Authoqy J. Casale ]9 tlarmet Street tloha~'k, New York 13407 lion. Raymond T. Chesbro 405 Loomis Terrace Phoenix, New York 13135 lion. John C. Cochralle 81) Col~CO|lrse East BrighLwaLers, New York 11718 lion. Audre PinnY Cooke 347 Cobbs 11ill Drive Rochester, New York 14610 lion. Amend P. D'Amato 711Koelbe! Cour~ ~aldwin, New York llSlO lion. Robert A. D'Andrea R.D. I, Kaydeross Park Road Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 lion. Dominlck L. DiCarIo 1345 83rd Street ~rooklyn, New York 11228 ROOtl & I'IIONE NO. 523, LOB 5526 445, LOS 3662 529, LOB 5841 533, LOB 5783 544, LOB 5655 937, LOB 5341 430~ EOB 5373 720, LOB 6633 436, ~OB 5253 DISTXICT AI)I)I(ESS & I'IIONE Nl}. P,O: Box 1005 tlontauk, New ~ork 516-668-5656 11954 720 Nhlte Plains Road Scarsdale, New York 10583 914-723-1115 5102 Nest Genasee Street Camillus, New York 13031 315-488-4237 246 North tlain S~reet Ilerkimer~ New York 13350 315-866-1632 1510 Fifth Avenue Bayshore, New York 516-666~099i 11706 2541 tlonroe Avenue Roclieste~, New York 716.271-5121 14618 5 Broadway Freepor~ New York 516-378-4288 11520 285 Broadway, Gaslight Square Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 518.587~5151 78G1 15th Avenue Brooklyn, New York 212-256-0052 11228

lion. Jam(.'s L. Emery 6330 Long Poin~ Road Geues~o, Nev Y~rk 14454 lion. John A. EsposiLo 222-01 IOl Avenue Queens Village, ~ev York lion. John T. Flack 78-16 6~h Place Glendaie~ Hey York 11385 lion. John J. ~lanagan 52 DunlopRoad Iluntington~ Nay York 11743 lion. ~on S. Fossel ~lt. Ilolly Road Kaconah, Nc~ York 10536 lion. Joan B. tlague 9102 Regency Apartment Glens Falls, Ne~ York ~2801 lion. Thomas A. llanna i~80 Lnke Road Webster, New York 1~580 lion. Kemp Ilannon ~9 Ninth Street Garden City, Neu York 11530 lion. Glenn II. ilarris ~cssk~m~ Needs Road Gloversville, Ne~ York 12078 lion. R. Stephen 8249 Bank Street Road Rataviu, Ne~ York 1~020 ROOfl & PIIONE NO. 340. CAP 3751 433, LOB 5377 318, LOB 5411 427 LOB 5348 719, LOB 5997 530, LOB 5811 429, LOB 5171 821, LOB 4656 521, LOB 5565 532, LOB 5797 pI_S_TI_H.C_T A_.~II_~ES.S. ~._{'I{_O_NI..'._HO., State Univera,ity Campus at Geneaeo Geueseo, Nay York 14454 716-243-3600 97.01 Springfield Boulevard Queens Village, Neu York 11429 212-465-1432 85-40 Grand Avenue Elmhurst, Neu York 212-478-9772 11373 103 Broadway Oreentawn, Hey York 11740 516-261-6565/979-5353 7 PleasantvLlle Road Ossining, New York 10562 914-762~4990 21 Bay 'Street Glens Fails, New York 12801 518-798-0004 82 East tlatn Street Webster, Reu York 14580 716-265-9800 226 7th Street Garden City, Neu York 516'248-4490 11530 I00 West Hain Street Johnstown, New York 518-762-4508 12095 19 Jackson Street Batavia, New York 14020 716-343"3990

REI'UBI.ICANS/NAtlE & IlOtlE ADDRESS lion. P!zitip 8. Ileatey .32 Franke] Ruad flassapequa, Nov York 11758 lion. tlLchae] 3. ]lob]ock~ Denise Drive,Apt. La~ham, Ne~ York 12110 lion. Lonis T. Ilouard 197 South Ba~ieu Avenue Ami~yville~ He~ Yo~k 11701 lion. Neil ~. Kellehe~ ~Od 6th Troy, Hey York 12182 Hart. Richard L. Kenned~ 6103 Thornvood Ddve Hamburg, Hey York 1~075 lion. R~ymo~d It. Kisor ] Gregory Lane Goshen, Neu York 1092~ lion. John R. Kuhl 590 ~est Lake Road Ila,~ondspo~L~ Neu Yo~k 168~0 lion. Clarence D. Lane tqindham Arms ~i~dham, ~eu York 12~96 lion. William J, Larkin, 3r, 32 Ona Lane Hey t~indsor, Hey York 12550 lion. Ensene 12 Eas~ Place Suffern, Nov York 10901 ROOII & PIIONE NO. 329, LOB 5305 723, LOll 5931 920, LOB 6801 320, LOB 5777 ~ 721, LOB • 5952 ' 827, LOB 4684 534, LOB 5791 448, LOB 5314 722, LOB 5943 450~ LOB 5393 544 Broadway. Hassapequa, Hew York 516-541-8222 11758 518-463-2251 (Business) 76 Broaduay Amityvllle, Nov York 516-264-2200 11701 Room 320, LOB Albany, Hey York 12248 518-455-5777 7350 Boston State Road North North Boston, Hey York 16110 716-668-5822 60 Erie Street Goshen, Hew York 914-294-9217 10924 48 Liberty Street Bath, New York 14810 607.776-3304 (Business) 1 Becket Terrace Delmar, New York 12054 518-439-9902 597 Little Britain Rd - Box 4318 Hey Vindsor, Hey York 12550 914-564-1330 l Sauth ~ladison Avenue Spring Valley, Ne~ York 914-425-181g 10977

• I~EI'tlI|LIC:~N$~NAIIE & IIOHE ADDRESS lion. John G. Lopresto 14-11 139th Street ~/hitestone, New York 11357 "lion. Ilugh S. Haclteil 132 Glenside Road [thaca~ Hew York 16850 lion. George I1. Hadison 791 Ti~ird Avenue Franklin. Square, New York llOlO lion. Ilyman H. Hiller 56 Lyndon Road Fayettevi[le, Nee York 13066 lion. Thomas P. Horahan 3 Glenn Lane Nev City~ New York 10956 lion. James F. Ragle 801 Hain Street East Rochester, New York 14445 lion. l[, Robert Nortz 5274 Clinton Street Lowville, New York 13367 Ilon. 3ohn G. O'Nell ~ox 158 Parishville, New York 13672 lion, Frederick E. Parola, Jr. 3563 tlanchester Road t~antagh, New York 11793 lion. 3ohn H. Perone 539 Prospect Avenue lq:,maroneck, Hew York 10543 ROOtl & PIIONE NO. 569, LOll 5732 431, LOB 5444 819, LOB 6627 322, LOB 4505 531, LOB 5784 545, lOB 5662 543, LOB 5741 629, LOB 4611 718,.LOB 5878 DISTRICT AI)DRKSS & I'IIONF, NO. 22~02 Steinwqy Street Astoria, Hew York 11105 212-932-5227 901 Dryden Road Ithaca, New York 16850 607-272-3603 516-295-6567 (Business) 7000 East Genesee Street Fayettevllle, Hey York 13066 315-446-5221 l~O Park Avenue Hew City, Hew York 10956 914.63~-0612 120 Vest Commercial Street East Rochester, Hew York 14445 716-586-8596 Box 48, ~urvine Building Lowvllle, Hew York 13367 315-376~6446 SUC Potsdam, Hew York 315-386-8236 13676 3700 llempstead Turnpike Levittown, Hew York 11756 516-731-363~ 315 ~estchester Avenue Port Chester, New York '10573 914-939-1908

lion. Douglas N. Prescott 260-09 U,iion Tnrnpike Glen Oaks, New York 11004 lion. Clarence D. Rappleyca, 3r. i'.O. Box 536,17 " Norwiclt, Flew York 13815 lion. Dale E. Rath 85 CentennlaI Avenue Brockport, Neu York 14420 lion. Joseph H. Reil]y 7 Ilickory Lane Glen Cove, Heu York 11542 lion. Antonia P. Rettaliata 175 Noodbury Road Iluntington, Neu York 11743 lion. Lloyd S. Riford, Jr, West Geaesee Road Auburn, Neu York 13021 lion. hndreu N. Ryan, Jr. 187 Cornelia Street Plactsburglh Hew York 12901 lion. Stephen tl. Saland 9 Jonathan Lane Ponghkeepaie, New York 12603 lion. William R. Sears Bear Creek Road Noodgate, New York 13494 lion. John B. Sheffer, II 80 South Cayuga Road Nilliamaville, Hew York 14221 323, LOB 5424 525, LOll 5545 528, LOB 5606 402, LOD 5363 426, LOB 5355 634, LOB 4616 443, LOB 5441 550, tOE 5725 438, LOB 5334 921, LOB 4804 Sidney Civic Center Sidney, Ne~ York 13838 607-563-3323 716-637"3147 (Rusincss) 7-19 Bridge Street, PO Box 671 Glen Cove, Hew York 11542 516-676-8300 1783 New York Avenue Iluntlngton Station, New York 516-271-8025 11746 Neat Geneses Road Auburn, Hew York 315-252-2614 13021 42 Clinton Street Plattsburgh, New York 518-455-3708 12901 226 Hill Street Poughkeepsie, Ne~ York 914-545-3360 12601 107 Nemt Court Street Rome~ New York 13440 315-336-3630 5792 Hain Street ~illismsville, New York 716~634-6775 14221

..RFPUBI, ICANS/NAHE & IlOH£ ADDRESS lion. Carol A. Siwek 598 Ilertel Avenue Bu[[alo, New York 1&207 lion, Dea,z G. Skelos 680 ]lempstead Avenue Rockville Centre, New York 11570 IIo,z. Nicholas A. Spano 350 Riverdale Avenue Youkers, Hew York 10705 lion. Nillis II. Stephens. RD 5, Indian Nell Farm BrewsLer, New York 10509 lion. Robert A. Straniere 40 Iron Hine Drive Staten Island, Hew York lion. Florence H, Sullivan 229 Ovington Avenue Brooklyn, New York 11209 10306 lion. Peter tl. Sullivan 20 North Broadway, Apt~ B307 ~hfte Plains, Hew York 10601 lion, Frank G. Talomie, 110 Nest Street Geneva, New York lion. Guy J. Velella 1240 Rhinelander Avenue Bronx, New York 10461 lion. Gleun E. Nacren Van Nyck Lake Road Ilope~'ell Junction, Hew York 12533 ROOH & PIIONE NO. 628, LOR 529] 833, LOB ~851 919, LOB ~807 326, LOB 4495 324, LOB 545~ 631, LOB 5397 820, LOB 5293 511 CAP 4166 527 ~0~ 5177 DISTRICT ADDRESS & PIIONE NO. 30 South Broadway Yonkers, New York 91~-969-519& 50 Hain Street Brewster, New York 914,279-6279 I0701 10509 ~510 - 78th Street Brooklyn, New York 11209 212-238-6393/~88-2290 277 Hartine Avenue ~hite Plains, New York 916-948-6839 10601 611 Nest Nashln~ton Street Geneva, New York 14456 315-789-2030 1937 Williamsbridge Road Bronx, New York 10661 212-931-1220 6 Broad Street Fishki11, New York 914-896-8210 12524

lion. Clark C. ~/emp]o 1760 Vail Antwerp Road .~che.ecLady, New York 12309 IIo.. Robert C. 97 D ShorL Pach St. James~ Hew York ]]780 lion, George II. Winner~ 1643 ~est ~ater Street E~mi~a, Ne~ York 1~905 ROOfl & PIIORE NO. 458, LO8 5383 404, LO~ 5185 633, LOB 4538 DISTRICT AI)I)I~F.SS & PIIOHE NO. 602 State Street Schenectady, Hey York 12307 518-377-6484 257 Hiddle Country Road AmLthto~n, Hey York 11787 516-724-2929 307 ~a$t Church Street, Am. 20] Elmira, New York 14901 607-734-8580

EXHIIBIT C Dear : During the next month your industry will come under heavy pressure in the New York State Legislature. Your personal action is necessary now if we, are to be successful in, our defense of the indust-~. Assembly b.i~l 2746/Senate bill 24i00 would make it a crime to smoke in various places in the State of New York. We are opposed to: this leg.is.lation for the following, reasons: The bi~l creates a new crime -- the crime of smoking in public. The police would be drawn away from enforcement of real crimes. Prosecutions will add additional burdens to the courts. 4. The cost of implementing such a law to the taxpayer is an unnecessary one. The bill infringes on the rights of local city governments and other boards to govern their own meetings. The bill infringes on the right of the owner of a business to serve customers. I would like to solicit your help in opposing this legislation which is unnecessary and unenforceable. Accordingly, I have enclosed a compendium of material and a list of arguments which could be incorporated into letters to your Assemblymen and a list of the members of the New York Assembly. If you agree that this legislation should be opposed, your letter asking for a '"No" vote to. your Assemblymen. will be most helpful towards our overall effort to oppose this restrictive legis- lation. It is only through your assistance in. this cooperative effort of letter writing, phoning., and personal contact with, your elected officials that your rights will be preserved through your participation. Please write your Assemblymen today, and I wou~Id appreciate your sending any copies that you receive to this office. Yours truly, J~ohn, Meegan State Director

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS EXHIBIT D Assembly Bill A. 2746 would prohibit smoking in public places except in designated smoking areas. The places of work mean any indoor area in which two or more persons work. Indoor area open to the public includes restaurants, retail stores, arenas, meeting rooms, and many other places. This legislation will be considered by the New York State Legislature in the coming weeks. Some questions and~ answers about the impact of this legislation on New Yorkers and its businesses and industries: Q -- What would this law do? A -- It would prohibit smoking, except in certain designated areas, in all public places, and places of work. Q -- What does "place of work" mean? A -- It is defined as any indoor area in which two or more persons work, but excludes factories and private enclosed offices. Q --What kinds of public places are covered? A --. All kinds: offices, restaurants, stores, shoppingmalls, bowling alleys, barber and beauty shops, banks, arenas, supermarkets; virtually every public place. Q -- How about government owned labilities? A -- They're covered too. Q -- What about areas where smoking could be permitted? A -- The owner of a public pl.ace could designate an area where smoking is allowed, but must purchase and place signs to that effect in the public place. : Q -- How about a smoker and non-smoker who work to~ether and share an office? A -- Too bad. The bill only exempts private offices occupied exclusively by smokers. Other offices require separation of smokers and non-smokers by designated areas. Q -- Who enforces this. law? A -- The owner or person in charge of 1he public place, the police, sheriffs, or the health department would be responsible for implementing and enforcing the law. Q -- Can a violator of this law be arrested? A -- Yes - and t~e fine for each violation is $I00. The owner or person in charge can also be fined for not policing this law. Q-- Who makes sure the law is enforced? And how do they do: it? A -- The D~partment of Health would adopt rules to implement the law, spend thousands of dollars to hire and train personnel, seek legislation to make them peace officers empowered to issue summons, and thus create additional burdens on the Courts.

-2- Q -- Don't the police have better things to do than to apprehend ~mokers? A -- TH~y--3"~ve repeatedly said so in public testimony before numerous legislative bodies. Q -- Are there any exceptions to. the law where public places are not covered by the law? A -- Several - a bar, a place of work with less than one thousand square feet of flocr area, a restaurant or cafeteria with i00 or less seats, and. a lobby and public mall. Q -- I have no problems with my employees. They have not requested smoking and non-smoking areas. Would I still have to comply with the law? A -o Yes - you would have to place your smoking employees in the designated smoking area. If they can't be relocated, they could only smoke during a break. Q-- It sounds like the ~overnment is forcin~ people to take a ~estroom break so trey can catch a quicx smoke. A -- That's what""is likely to happen, reducing employee productivity. Q -- Isn't allthis'legislating working conditions without the consent of labor or management? _. A --'Of course it is! ...... . Q -- What is the economic impact of such a law? A -- The cost to the State would be monumental. Increased police department budgets for enforcement, loss of business by hotels and conventions~ decrease in tax revenue to the state, loss of numerous jobs, costs of. buying signs, physical reconfigura- tions to office designs, etc. .- Q -- Has such legislation been workable in the past? A -- Ask the New York City Department of Health when it tried to enforce its resolution of July 25,.1974, restricting smoking in certain public places. They arrested some 74 persons and fined 30 of them between $5 and $25. Warrants were issued for thearrest of the others who failed to appear for trial, and several cases were dismissed and enforcement was finally. discontinued. ~xperiences in other jurisdications wi%h similar laws shows more of the same unenforceability.

A. 2746: WHAT OTHER ORGANIZATIONS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT "The New York APL-CIO' expresses its opposition to this bill. . The bill is discriminatory, imposes restrictions on proprietors of public places that are unenforceable. There is no, reliable evidence that would necessitate this kind'o~ legislation." NEW YORK STATE AFL-CIO "Al's underlying complaint with the subject bill is that it con- templates legislating a practice which is better left to resolu- tion on an individual basis . Associated Industries respectfully recommends defeat of this b~l~." ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES OF NEW YORK STATE "In a time o,£ fiscal austerity, it is inappropriate to create significant additional burdens on a municipal government which finds it increasingly difficult to carry out its present tasks and responsibilities." : LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE THE CITY OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 'We,have taken the position that this bill is unfair to organized labor. This legislation is also restrictive to many small 5usines~e~ which employs our members." NEW YORK STATE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL "This legislation is typical of a state mandate being imposed upon county governments with no financial assistance to carry out the terms of the mandate and enforce its provisions... This legislation goes too far.., and places an unfair administrative burden and fiscal mandate upon the local government of New York State." N~W YORK STATE ASSOCIATION OY COUNTIES "This bill puts extreme economic pressures on many groups. . . and. we all know that our economy is of grea~ importance at these times. The New York State Association o£ Chiefs of Police does no~ feel tha~ this bill can be properly enforced, nor the public will encourage the proper enforcement of this legislation." NEW YORK STATE ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE, INC. "To restrict a restaurant patron's right to smoke at the conclusion of his meal reminds us of bringing, back prohibition. The food service industry today is burdened with myriads of regulations. . . To add to this burden and p~rticularly where we would have Eo confront our patrons in the role of a policeman, is to add to. our predicament." NEW YORK STATE RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION

-2- "This bill can jeopardize customer relat£ons and can add a sub- stantial additional cost in reconstruction of established pro- perties. Local managers of hospitality establishments should not lose the flexibility to establish procedures which they feel adapt to the preference to their customers." N~W YORK STATE HOTEL AND MOTEL ASSOCIATION' , "Ours is an extremely competitive industry and this proposed legislation would handicap our sales efforts... In such a competitive atmosphere, (this) legislation., needlessly places New York at a disadvantage with our competitorS... Such, infringe- ments within our state fly in the face of the very purpose of the tourism program which the New York S~ate Legislature has funded to attract visitor business to our s~ate." NEW YORK CONVENTION AND V'ISITORS BUREAU' "Further restrictions on smoking would affec~ the rights of one segment of the public as against another without regard to justifiable need or ultimate impact. Smokers rights would be restricted. This cost is evident. But the benefits to accrue, not just to non-smokers, but to our society as a whole, are neither evident nor well documented. This is a poor foundation for legislative action." OFFICE OF THE MAYOR CITY OF SYRACUSE "The proposal would be unenforceable in any bowling center and attempts, to force its regulations.., would be resented... and 5ring ~5~ut a loss to. the bowling center's business." NEW YORK STATE BONLINGPROPRIETORS BUREAU "Suffice to.say that to enact legislation o£ this type is not practical, feasible, nor en£orceable,-and we urge that such legislation. be defeated." HOTHL ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK CITY "Our patrons show absolutely no interest in No Smoking and Smoking designations and we feel that any attempt to enforce this law upon. them would be verycostly to our members." NEW YORK STATE ASSOCIATION NO. 16 OF THE B~/tBERS, BEAUTICIANS, AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES

STAN SCOTT For Your I:nforma£ion: H. Cullmaff S.P. Polla:ck W.W. McDowell J.J. Morgan J.B. Robinson A, Holtzman R.R. Millhiser C.H. Goldsmith J.C. Bowling T. 1~. Ahrensfeld F.A. Saunders R.A. Newman

THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE 1875 I STREET. NORTHWEST WASHINGTON. DC 20006 20" 457-4~00 • 80|), 424-987h JOtlN D. KELLY Senior Vice:President- State Activities May 13, 1980 Mr. George W.eissman, Chairman of the Board Ph.il£p Morris, Inc. I00 Park Avenue New York, NY 10:017 Dear George: Thank you for sha:ring with me copies of your letters to Senators Anderson and Ohrenstein regarding S 1968-D, the Grannis bil, l in, ~he New York Legislature. You~ make a number of excellent points, which shou,ld, be very persuasive with bo~h of these senate leaders. The Philip Morris effort on, this and other bad bills has been, ou~s.tanding. With some support we continue to be optimistic about the fa,vorable outcome of these bills. Best regards. Sincerely, Jack Kelly JK/a / co" 'Stan Scott

PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORA'I'E D 1OO PARK AVENUE. NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017 May 7, 1980 Dear Senator Anderson: I want to register my strong, opposition to S1968-D, which would prohibit er restrict smoking in most "public places". The bill encourages the intrusion of the state into private matters and produces resu~its counter to the true purpose of the goverr~nent. Even some supporters of smoking prohibi- tions, such as S1968-D, concede that such laws are unenforceable and discriminatory. Members of the New York State Restaurant Association have voluntarily initiated divided smoker/non- smoker sections. These "market demands" experi- ments have met with very limited acceptance. They have imposed costs, increased meal prices and caused seating problems. The Restaurant Association's opposition to S1968-D is appropriately based on the failure of these prototype programs in Seattle, Minneapolis and elsewhere. Furthermore, there is. concern among many law enforcement authorities (such as Gerald Lynch,, President of John Jay College of Criminal Justice), as well as students of society (such as Russell Baker, William Safire, and Malcolm Forbes), that too many unenforced laws bring a generalized disrespect for the law, and there- fore, for government as a whole. We believe that the citizens of New York need' no new laws to be flouted. We further raise the question as to whether we need a new law on the books that could intimi- date a portion of our population. Chicago is a case in point. They passed: an an,ti-smoking ordinance, and it is pointed out that 90 percent of those arrested for violations were from minority and low income groups-- which proves the law could be enforced, in. a: discriminatory manner.

-2- I think it is safe to say that smoking prohibitions w~ll adversely affect state and city revenues while, at the same time, in- creasing the cost of government. Many mayors have opposed this bill for these and other reasons, including Lee Alexander of Syracuse and Ed Koch of New York City. The negative impact of such bills on tourism should not be dlisregarded. General tax ~osses are also potentially significant. Much has been, madie recently of the New England Journal of Medlicine article by Drs. White and Froeb, which may be a "study" quoted in your deliberations. This article is strongly at variance with both. the Surgeon General Report of 1978! and Congressional hearing:s on the effects of so-called "passive" smoking in 1979. The New England Journal of Medicine, in its editorial comment on the White/Froeb study, also noted that the evidence presented was sparse and incomplete and that no evidence of physiological damage on non-smokers had~ yet been established. Philip. Morris, as you may know, has major business interests in the state of New. York. We add well over $i billion a year to the state's economy in terms of purchases, salaries, wages and fringes. During the next three years, we plan to invest more than $100 million in job- creating capital expenditures in the state, in- cluding a new corporate headquarters in New. York City. We are making major commitments to New York because we believe in its fu.ture. We do feel, however, that S1968-D could be injurious to our business, and to the climate for doing: business, in this state. For all these reasons, Senator, I am asking for your active support to defeat this unwise legislation,. The Honorable Warren Mi. ~derson President New York Senate Legislative Office Building Albany, New York 12247 Sincerely,

PHILIP lX4ORRI$ INCORPORATED ]00 PARK AVENUE. NEW YORK, N.Y. 100|7 May 7, 1980 Dear Senator Ohrenstein: I want to register my strong opposition to S1968-D, which would prohibit or restrict smoking in most "public places". The bill encourages the intrusion of the state into private matters and produces results counter to the true purpose of government. Even some supporters of smoking proh,ibitions, such as S1968-D, concede that such, laws are un- enforceable and discriminatory. Members of the New York State Restaurant Association have volun- tarily initiated divided smoker/non-smoker sections. These "market demand" experiments havemet with very limited acceptance. They have imposed costs, increased: meal prices and~ caused seating! problems. The Restaurant Association'~s opposition to S1968-D is appropriately based on the failure of these prototype programs in Seattle, Minneapolis and elsewhere. Furthermore, there is concern among many law enforcement authorities (such as Gerald Lynch, President of John Jay College of Criminal Justice), as well as students of society (such as Ru,ssell Baker, William Safire, and Malcolm Forbes), that too many unenforced laws bring a generalized dis- respect for the law, and therefore, for government as a whole. We believe that the citizens of New York need no new laws to be flouted. We further raise the question as to. whether we need a new law on the books that could in~imdate a portion of our population. Chicago is a case in point. They passed an anti-smoking ordinance, and it is pointed out that 90 percent of those arrested for violations were from minority and ~ow income groups -- which proves the law could be enforced. in a discrimina:tory manner.

-2- I think it is safe to say that smoking prohibitions will adversely affect state and city revenues while, at the same time, increasing the cost of government. Many mayors have opposed this bill for these and other reasons, includling Lee Alexander of Syracuse and Ed Koch o~ New York City. The negative impact of such bills on tourism, should not be disregarded. General tax losses are also potentially significant. Much has been made recently of the New England Journal of Medicine article by Drs. White and Froeb, which may be a "study" quoted in your deliberations. This article is strongly at variance with both the Surgeon General Report of 1978 and Congressional hearings on. the effects of so-called~ "passive" smoking in 1979. The New Eng~iand Journal of Medicine, in its editorial comment on the White/ Froeb study, also noted that the evidence presented~ was sparse and incomplete and that no evidence of physiological damage on non-smokers, had yet been established. Philip. Morris, as you may know, has major bu,siness interests in the state of New York. We add well over $i billion, a year to the state's economy in terms of purchases, salaries, wages and fringes. During the next three years, we plan to invest more than $i00 million in job- creating capital expenditures in the state, in- cluding a new corporate headquarters in New York City. We are making: major commitments to New York because we believe in its future. We do feel, however, that S1968-D could be injurious to our business, and' to the climate for doing: business, in this state. For all these reasons, Senator, I am asking for your active support to defeat this unwise legislation.

To: From: Subject: PHILIP MORRIS: U.S.A. INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE 100 Park Avenue, New York, N,Y, 10017 Hugh Cull_man Date= Stanley S. Sco~ MAYOR KOCH'S OPPOSITION TO GRANNISI BILL February 25, Hugh, as I indiicated on Friday, Mayor Koch -- just prior to his departure to China -- delivered on his promise to. file a memo- randum in opposition to the Orannis Anti-Smoking Bill (see attachment) ~ In. an. obvious effort to assure that Mayor Koch received credit for this initiative, Peter Piscitellli, City Hall Liaison. l%epresen- tative, placed a call to my office this morning to request that key Philip Morris personnel be made aware of the Mayor's action. The attached memorandum, accord;ing, to Piscitelli, is being distri- butedl to alll members of the legislature. 1980 SSSIgc Attachment ccMessrs: Informati;onal Copies Messrs: R. R. Millhiser S.P. Pollack C. H. Goldsmith, A. Holtzman T. F. Ahrensfeld V~r. ~Ar. McDowell J. C. Bowling ~. J. Morgan J. T. Landry M.A. DeMita E. J. T. Flanagan I.B. Robinson G. Weissman J. F. Cullman 3rd

LE~LA T IVE REPRESEN~rATIVE 1,11 Washington Avenue Albony, New Yo,k 12210 |§18| 462~5§11 THE CITY OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 52 Chambers Street New York, New York 10007 |212| 586-5135 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE S#1968-C by Senator Johnson.- Health A#2746-C by Assemblyman Gra~nls/Hevesi - Health. TITLE AN, ACT to amend the public health law, in relation to protecting the public health, comfort and environmen~t by prohibiting smoking in public plaices andl at public meeting~ except in designated~ smoking~ areas and' to repeal article thirteen-F of such law relating thereto SUMMARY OF This bill repeals Article 13.F of the Public PROVISIONS Health law and is amended by adding a new article 13.F to. prohibit smoking in public areas in order to. protect the public health, comfort and environment. REASONS FOR ~f enacted., this proposal would make smoking OPPOSITION illegal in countless public and private places and establish that a violation of its provisions would be pun.ishable by a fine of not more £han $25.00 for the first violation, and not more than~ $100:.00, for each successive violation. In so doing, it would significantly increase mandated activities of the City of New York without providing commensurate revenues to carry out these mandates. In a time of fiscal austerity, it is inappropriate to create slgnificant additional burdens on a municipal government which finds it increasingly difficult to carry out its present tasks and responsibilities. The alternative to significantly increasing personnel is to cause local government to haphazardly enforce the provision,s of this proposal, thus increasing a disrespec~ for the law in general. While we sh,are the concern expressed in this bill for the health of non-smokers, compliance wilth the provisions of this proposal wculd create severe and undue economic hardship upon pl~aces of publ'~c accommodation, andl places of employment by foisteri,ng upon them the obligation to maintain, duplicate facilLities, install physical separations and otherwise separate and segregate their activities' in a fashfon that is otherwise neither practical nor logical.. Additional~y, to. accommodate smokers where physical separation, and segregation cannot be established~ would require that smokers be .given the opportunity to leave their immediate area of employmen~ to be permitted to smoke on some occasions during~ their working day. This would ~ead to a ~oss of productivity and consequent economic detriment to the individual employer and~ to the general economic climate of the City. Accordingly, it is urged that this bill be defeated. Respectfully submitted, 2/22/80 ~RGARET L. WEISS Legislative Representative

To: From: Subject: PHILIP MORRIS U.S.A. INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE 100 Perk Ave,ul.: Now York. N.Y, 10017 Messrs. H. Cullman S. P. Pollack~' Stanley S. Scott~ New York: "The Grannis Bill" Date: March 5, ~- P. POLLACK Assemblyman. Alexander "Pete" Grannis' restrictive smoking bill could come up for a vote during the week of March 8. As you know., this legislation would restrict smoking in most public places such as restaurants, retail stores, public transportation, auditoriums, arenas, meeting rooms and places of work. Anyone violating the act could draw a $25 fine for the first offense and: $i00 for each suc- cessive offense. The Assembly passed the bill last year by a vote of 81-55 (76 votes needed for passage) with Assembly Speaker Stanley Fink casting the 76th vote. We are hopeful of a much closer vote in the Assembly this year with some of our people even predicting a defeat of the Grannis bill which, of course, would help us in other parts of the country. SSS:dh

---

Health Anti-Smoking Forces Stoke Legislative Fires Spurred by an aggressive health lobby and a surgeon general publicly committed to making America a smoke-free society by' the year 2000, Congress is again preparing tO do bat- tle over tobacco. Expected to gain center stage in 1987. are proposals tO ban cigarette ad- vertising and promotions, to raise the 16.cents-per-pack federal excise: tax on cigarettes, to ban smoking on do- mestic airplane flights and~ to limit se- verely smoking in, federal buildings. Not surprisingly, anti.smoking advocates are predicting early success; while the tobacco industry says the proposals are likely to go nowhere. "This issue's time has come," says Rep. Mike Synar, D-Okla., sponsor of the ad ban.bill in the 99th Congress. didn't believe we could, do it this quickly, but I'm now convinced that there's a good chance -- a very goodl chance -- that we can [ban cigarette advertising in] this Congress:" Not so fast, argues SCott Stapf. spokesman for the Tobacco Inst;itute; which represents the interests of ciga- rette manufacturers. "I think there's been a lot; of attentions, says Stapf, "but it's been a lot of smoke and not much fire:,' Given Congress' concern with the budget deficit andl the con- troversy surrounding the sale of arms to Iran, Stapf wants to:see "how much time these sideshows are given when, there's big: business at hand.,' Examining the Evidence The public health groups that make up the anti-smoking lobby say their case is bolstered by the increas- ing body of evidence linking: cigarette smoking to health problems. "The science is now irrefutable," says Matthew L. Myers, staff director of the Coalition on Smoking OR Health (CSH), whose members in- clude the American Cancer Society', the American Heart Association and; the American Lung Association. The Tobacco Institute, however, steadfastly maintains that the biologi- cal causal link between smoking and disease has never, been ,established and --By Julie Rovner But Tobacco Interests See Nothing But Smoke more research is necessary: Myers dismisses that. "'The To- bacco Institute now stands on the same: level with. the Flat Earth S0ci- ety~ frankly, and deserves the same credibility," he says. The numbers, say anti-smokers, are on their side. They cite as evidence a staff report prepared bythe congres- sional Office of Technology Assess- ment (OTA). It shows that an esti- mated 350,000 Americans died from smoking-related ailments in 1985 and that. smoking-related diseases costl the U.S. health care system an estimated $22 billion, of which some $4.2 billion was paid by the federal government. OTA notes that when lost earnings.are added: in, the total economic cost is about $65 billion, or about $2.17 for every pack of cigarettes sold in 1985. Anti-smoking forces have also ap- plauded the completion in, li986 of two studies by panels appointed by' the congressionally chartered Nationa]l Academy of Sciences (NAS).. In August, an NAS. panel recom- mended that smoking be banned on,all: domestic airline: flights, arguing that it would lessen discomfort to passengers; reduce potential health hazards to cabin crews, bring cabin air quality into line with standards for other closed environments and remove the possibilityof fires caused by cigarettes. In.October, another NAS commiti- tee reported that non-smokers can be adversely affected if they breathe smoke-contaminated air, so.called "passive smoke:, The committee found that young children whose par- ents smoke suffer more respiratory ail- ments than do children of non-smok- ers and that non-smoking: spouses of smokers have an increasedi risk of developing lung cancer. Koop Report Anticipated Anti-smoking groups are expect- ing even more ammunition Dec: 16 when Surgeon General C: Everett Koop, an outspoken critic of smoking and the tobacco industry, is scheduled to release a 10ng~awaited study on the effects of passive smoking. Some observers speculate that the Koop report could be:as important in establishing, the right of non-smokers to live and work in a:smoke-free envi- ronment as. Surgeon General Luther L. Terry~s 1'964 report was in estab. lishing that smoking could be hazard- ous to health. (Hist,ory o/anti-smok- ing legislation, p~ 30~1) Despite repeated atteeks from the tobacco industry charging that his claims are scientifically suspect and politically motivated, Koop has stead- fastly refused to back off his strong anti,smoking stance. "It is irrefutable that cigarette smoking is the: single mostl important preventable cause of death,in,our soci- ety," he testifed Aug. 1 before the "There's only so much time that somebody who's elected to, Congress and sent to Washing- ton is going to spend futzing around with cigarettes.'" --Scott Stapf, Tobacco Institute Dec. I3, 1986--PAGE 3049

House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health and the Environment. "There is a cost to, our society resulting: from cigarette smok- ing~ That cost is paid in sickness, death and an overwhelming economic loss. It is a cost that we as a society can no longer tolerate." The tobacco industry challenges Koop's assertions and attacks the paso sire-smoking study even before it~ is. released. "There is a clear,, conscious and deliberate willingness on the part of the Surgeon General's office and others to.allOw the political agenda to completely overwhelm, any concept of scientific integrity," says Stapf. Still, he admits it will be difficult to: chal- lenge the report~ which, he says "will be judged as a scientific document even though it is. going to be almost purely a political! document." But the surgeon general is not alone in his attempts to crack down on smoking; Other segments of the execu- tive branch are also. taking action to curb smokingi On Dec; 4 the General Services Administration, (GSA) issued, final regulations designed to guarantee non- smoking federal workers "a reasonably smoke-free environment." The GSA provides office space for 890,000 fed- eral employees, nationwide -- about one-third of the federal work force: Smoking is also being discouraged among armed forces personnel as a re- sult of a directive from,Defense Seere, taD' Caspar W. Weinberger. The sec- retaries of the Arm3! and Navy have imposed tough new rules rest~ricting smoking in military facilities.. 4,400 4,200 4,000 3,800 3,600 3,400 Cigarette Consumption Cigarettes smoked per person per year '50 '55 %0 '65 '70 '75 SOURCE: Department of, Health and Human Se~ices And the Department of Health: and Human Services; in a report is- sued Nov, 20,. noted that 42 states have enacted legislation.to control re- stricl or prohibitl smoking in public places. (Box, p. 3053) Battle ot the Lobbyists A major force behind the anti- smoking drive isa welLorganized lob- bying, effort by major public health groups. "The health community has become a read and: serious political~ force,, says CSH's Myers, who la- mentS that it was noL always so. Smoking in the United States Percent Men Women 100 Never Smokers .~ Former Smokers '65 '75 ,8¸5 Never Smokers 60 Former Smokers 1955 '65 '75 '85 Percenl 300 80 60 40, 20 '8,0 '85 1955 SOURCE: Departmen! of Health and HUman Sere'ices PAGE 30$0--bec. 13, 1986 "'Until the last five years, the health ,community felt that all ,you had to dowas makea case for the science: against smoking, andl then Congress and the government would naturally do. what science uggested, he s~ys. "And it took them abom I5 years to, reali~e that politics didn't work that way." Leading the new!"cha~ge is the American Medical Association (AMA), which has made the cigarette ad ban the No: 1~ item on its public health agenda. The AMA was conspicuously ab- sent during congressiona]~ debate 1964 and I965 over legislation to force cigarette packages to bear health warning labelS: (In 1964, the organiza. tion accepted $10 milli0n fromthe to- bacco industry for research into the links between smoking and health.): But in recent~ years ~he organization has come out in favor of thegoal of a smoke*free society by the year The Tobacco I nstitute's S~pf says the AMA's new interest is a thinly dis~ guided effort "to try ~,attract young dt~10rs; and to reposition i~elf away from therd~tors who golf into the area of the d~tors who are concerned about preven~tive: medicine." That; is a charge the AMA d~s not dispute: "The AMA opened doors about 10 years ago ~ medical students and r~idenk~ and they've ~en relentless about~ this issue/' said a spokesman for, the ass~iation. But even more important, he says,, is the 2025K 1618

change in the public's perception about smoking. "There!s just been kind of a general public awareness that this stuff is really bad," he said. The evidence of health risks has led to a, decline in cigarette consump- tion, especially among men, and anti- smoking advocates say it is having a major effect on the social acceptability of smoking, (Charts, p. 3050) "The non-smokers' rights move- ment has changed the: perception~ and awareness of the:majority of the people in our society about cigarette smok- ing,, says Myers. "They. now realize they're the majority. They now realize that the one-third of the: society who smoke not only irritate them, but jeopardize their health~ and they're more willing to speak out." Even smokers are becoming aware of the rights of non-smokers. A 1985 Gallup Poll found that 75 percent of all adults, including 62 percent of smokers, agreed that smokers should refrain from, smoking in the presence of non-smokers. Banning Advertisemenls By. far the most controversiaL' anti- smoking proposal Congress is expected to take up, is Synar's bill to extend the radio and television ban on t0bacco ad- vertising to the print media. The bill, (HR 4972 in the 99th COngress) would also prohibit tobacco manufacturers from offering free sam- ples and from sponsoring athletic, ar- tistic or other events under the regis- tered brand: name of a tobacco~ prod- uct. This would prohibit such event.s: as the annual Kool Jazz Festival and the Virginia Slims women,s tennis tournaments. The goal, says Synar, is to prevent young people from starting to smoke: Synar argues that despite a voluntary code that, is supposed to prohibit ciga- rette advertising from, explicitly ap- pealing to young people;: that is ex- actly what the ads do. "The facts of the matter are that this industry has to replace 500,000 smokers each year; 350,000 because of death; and' another 150;000: because they give up the habit by choice. They have obviously geared that replace- ment to.the children of this country," he says, citing tobacco industry' spon- sorship of athletic events and rock concerts and cigarette ads depicting young adults sailing, biking, and enjoy- ing other outdoor activities. The tobacco companies respond that; their ads are not aimed at getting non-smokers to take:up the habit, but Health - 3 Then to Now: The Cigarette Warning The battle in Congress over.cigarette health warnings dates back to 1964i when themSurgeon General Luther L, Terry issued his now cele- brated report branding cigarettes "a health hazard of sufficient importance ... to warrant appropriate remedial action." The: following year Congress passed legislation (PL 89-92)insisting that all cigarette packages contain the warning: "Caution: Cigarette Smok- ing May Be Hazardous to Your Health?' (1965 Almanac p. 344) Although it marked the first: time the tobacco industry was forced to acknowledge the link between smoking and disease, manufacturers sup- ported the measure because it postponed: until 1969 a: Federal Trade:Com- mission (FTC): ruling that would have required health warnings in ad- vertisements as well as on cigarette packages: Four years later Congress took up the:issue againl and in 1970 passed legislation (PL 91-222): banning cigarette advertising from, television and radio~ COngress also changed the requiredl notice on packages to: "Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined That Cigarette Smoking Is Dangerous: to, Your Health." (1970 Almanac p. I45): Again, the legislation~was passed with the consent of cigarette manufacturers, who gained another reprieve: on FTC-im- posed advertising regulations -- this one until 1971i. The legislati0n,also prevented state and iocal'jurisdictions from imposing their own bans on cigarette advertising: Anti-smoking forces won their first major: victory in, 1982, when Congress agreed as part of a deficit reduction pack- age {PL 97.-248)to, raise the excise tax imposed on cigarettes from: 8 cents to 16. cents per pack. Tobacco-state legislators, led:by Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., added an amend- ment restoring the 8-cent rate after three years,but it never took effect and the 16; cent tax was made permanent in the fis, cal 1986 deficit reduction bill (~PL.99-272). (1982 Almanac p, 32) In I984, after a~three-yea~ battle, Congress again approved legislati(m~ stlrengtheningcigarette warning labels and requiring:that they be.included in cigarette: advertising. The legislation (PL 98-47i4) required fi~ur new labels warning, that cigaretite smoke contains carbon monoxide; causes lung cancer, heart disease and emphysema~ and poses:significant health, risks t~). pregnant women. The new labels, which are rotatedl periodically; are 50 percent larger than previous labels. (1984'Almanac p. 478) The cigarette industry withdrew its oppositinn to the bill after, the removal of language stating that the warnings did noti reli'eve cigareVte makers of liability for smoking-related diseases. Reportedly, tlhe industry was also hoping to gain goodl will for future legislative battles. Congress turned its attention to chewing t~)bacco and snuff in 1986 when it passed the Comprehensive Sm(,keless Tobacco and Health, Educa- tion, Act (~PL 99-252): Concerned that smokeless tobacco,was viewed asa harmles~ alternative. t~), cigarettes, lawmakers banned advertisements for smokeless tobacco, products from television and radio, and required that three rotating labels. be printed on packages and in print advertisements. They warn that prod: ucts may cause mouth cancer,, gum disease and tooth.10ss. Industry officials did not oppose the final bill. Like cigarette manufac- turers in 1970. they faced the prospect of states imposing their own labeling requirements if there were no federal~ regulations. (Weekly Report p. 267): --B3! dulie Rovncr Dec. 13i 1986--PA.GE 3051

"Health - 4 at getting current smokers to switch brands: Synar says his eventual goal is to end all tobacco use, but concedes that is not possible now. "The point is, the total ban, of tobacco is not a political reality, And so this is the next natural step towards moving us to a tobacco- free society;, he says. Although prospects for the legis~ lation, in the Senate remain unclear, Synar has. found a powerful ally in Henry A. Waxman,:D-Calif., chairman, of the House Energy" and Commerce Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, which shares jurisdic- tion over the: proposal. While not specifically endorsing Synar's hilt, Waxman says the tobacco, advertising issue "is going to be a very high priority for us. It seems tome the major push behind continued accep- tance of cigarette smoking is the:enor- mous amount being spent to advertise: and promote that product by the to- bacco industry?' But the measure faces formidable opposition, not only from the tobacco industry, but. also from the advertising. industry~ which, would hate to lose i:ts share of the more than $2 billion spent annually to promote tobacco use, and the liquor industry; which fears that if Congress bans tobacco advertising, al- cohol will be the next target. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has also publicly as- sailed the advertising ban proposal, charging tlhat "the First A:mendmentl does not permit a prohibition on truthful advertising of products which may lawfully be distributed and soldi" Synar insists the First Amend~ ment argument lacks merit, since the Supreme Court has.held that~ advertis- ing and other "commercial speech" need not be afforded the same: protec- tion as other forms of speech. He and other backers cite a July Supreme Court decision upholding a ban,on ca- sino. gambling advertising in Puerto: Rico,. even though casino gambling is legal there. (Posados de Puerto. Rico: Associates. Condado Holiday Inn v: Tourism Company o[ Puerto Rico; Weekly Report p. 1526): Synar also insists that the liquor industry, has nothing to fear from a tobacco ad ban. "Tobacco is a unique product,, he argues. "It's the only pr(~iuct thatl we know; when used as intended, still is harmful to your health. A doctor may say, 'Have a drink before you go to bed,~ but I've never heard of one saying, 'Have a cigarette before you go to bed.'" Another approach comes from Fortney H. "Pete" Stark, D-Califl, chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health,~ and Bill Bradley~ D~N.J~, a member of the Senate Finance Committee: They would allow tobacco advertising to con~ tinue, but would not permit its costs to: be deducted as business: expenses. Bradley rejects industry claims that ads arenot aimed at creating new smokers. "The tobacco manufacturers have been telling, us for years that smoking does not cause cancer." he says. "Now the), are telling us tlhat advertising does not cause:smoking.,' "Those who selll and promote these products are merchants of death,? charged Stark atl a July 18 hearing before Waxman's panelt "The federal government should get out of the:business of subsidizing the promo- tion of this lethal substance.?' The proposal: has the support~ of Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, who will "The Tobacco Institute now, stands on the same level with the Flat Earth Society, franhly, and deserves the same credibility." --Matthew L. Myers, Coalition on Smoking OR Health be ranking Republican on the Labor and Human. Resources Committee: in: the lO0th Congress. "The Bradley proposal takes the money out of [ciga- rette manufacturers'If pockets, while the ad: ban,puts the money back in;" a Hatch staffer points out. But the tobacco industry and the ACLU say the same constitutional! ar- guments apply to the Stark-Bradley proposall that appl.~" to the overall ad ban: "It's al~ pretty unfair on its face~,' says lhe Tobacco Ins~itu~e'S Stapf. "It's nt~t like we're talking aboutl the elimination of snme special lt)ophole: This is the standard deal that every business from Philip:Morris to the cor,ner drugstore gets:," Raising Excise Taxes While the ad ban questicm is likely to attract the most media atten- tion, lobbyists and members say the most likely anti-smoking action Con- gress will take in I987 will be to raise the current 16-cents,per-pack federal excise tax on cigarettes. PAGE 3052~Dec. 13, 1986 Pressure to reduce the federal deficit is likely to be as much a factor ~l~ as health considerations, they. say~ Congressional, budget analysts esti- mate thatl each penny added tothe tax brings in approximately $200 million. Thus, doubling the:current tax could reduce t:he federal budget deficit by some $3.2 billion annually: And while the Tobacco Institute's Stapf likens raising the cigarette ex- cise tax in order to reduce the deficit to: "breaking into: your kid's piggy bank to try to make: the house mort- gage payment," many members and staffers think there's a good chance it will happen,especiallygiven,recent re- ports that the Reagan administration would support such an increase. Anti-smoking forces are eager to: raiseexcise taxes because studies show that price increases result in cor- responding consumption decreases~ According to a report publishedl in the Feb. 28, 1986, issue of The Journal of the American Medical: Association, an excise tax increase of 8 cents would prompt L8 million Ameri- cans to quit or not start smoking, in- cl(~ding 400,000 teenagers and 500,000 young people between the: ages of 20 and 25~ A 16-cent increase, according to the:report, would drop the smoking ~1~ population by 17 percent, including 800;000 teenagers. The move to raise the tax islikely to come in the Senate from John H~ Chafee, R-R.I., who succeeded in pushing a hike:through the committee during consideration of fiscal 1987, deficit-reduction legislation (PL 99= 509), only to see the proposal!stripped on the Senate floor. And while a staffer for incoming Finance Commit- tee Chairman Lloyd Bentsen~ Texas, said Bentsen would not lead the:charge to raise the tax, he did not rule out supporting: the move if Presi~ dent Reagan pledged not to veto il. Opposition will i~ertainly surface in the Senate from key tobacco~back:- ers Jesse Helms; R~N.C:, and Wendell H. Ford, D-Ky., who represent tihe two states whose, economies most heavily rely on tobacco production. "It's ways out there," said a Ford staffer of tlhe potential excise tax hike: "It's a, perennial favorite of penple who want ~' Ix) attack tobacco. But. if we're going to fall back on regressive taxes, what was the point of tax reform?" Passive Smoking Congress is also likely to address severall initiatives related to passive smoking~

H~a#h o $ States Move Aggressively to Limit Smoking In Connecticut, teachers cannotl be certified unless they have passed an examinatinn on, the effects~ofl nico~ tine and tobacco: In Florida, smoking is restricted in schools, restau- rants, offices, elevators and retail outlets. Minnesota prohibits persons running for public office fromdistrib. uting cigarettes to: voters. And in West Virginia, it is illegal to give or sell tobacco products.to patients at a: state mental hospital Increasingly,. state and local governments are mov- ing to regulate the sale and use of tobacco prodUcts~ And a Nov: 20 report to Congress by. the Department of, Health and Human Services (HHS)suggests.a new em- phasis on protecting the rights of non-smokers. The HHS report, required by the 1984 Comprehen- sive Smoking Education Act (PL 98-474), says.42 states have enacted laws restricting: smoking in public places. Wide Range of Regulations Smoking is most commonly prohibited or limitec~on public transportation vehicles (33 states)i, at health care facilities (32 states) and on elevators. (31 states): Accordingl to the: HHS report, the states with the most comprehensive rules are Alaska, Florida, Minne- sota, Montana, Nebraska, Utah and Washington. They prohibit or restrict smoking in health care facilities, elevators, recreational facilities, public transportation vehicles, schools, stores,, restaurants, offices and work places,, government buildings andl at public meetings. Thir,ty~five other states and bhe District of Colum~ bin restrict smoking in one or more of these public places. Only eight states have no such~ restrictions: Ala~ baron, Illinois~ Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Wyoming; Seventeen states have legislation restricting smok, ing in offices and other work places. Alaska prohibits smokingin all places of employment -- public or private -- where a no-smoking sign is posted. Florida, Minne÷ sot.a. Montana, Nebraska, North: Dakota, Utah and Wis~ consin~ restrict smoking to designated areas in private or, public offices: Florida also requires employers to pr.o~ vide no-smoking work space tO, any employee who re~ quests it. (Chart.. t,his page)' In most states, violations of: anti-smoking laws are punishable hy fines ranging from, $25 to:$100: In Westl Virginia, however, the fine can be as low as. $1. The highesl fines, for failing to comply with,smoking restric- tions -- up to $300- are imposed by Alaska, Marytandi New Jersey and the District of COlumbia. Taxes and Licenses All 50:states and the Distlrict of Columbia tax ciga- revtes andl all but West Virginia: require that persons obtain licenses before, engaging in the business of distributing, retailing, wholesaling or manufacturing cigarettes. The sale or distribution of cigarettes or tobacco pruducts to minors is regulated by. 39 states.The major- ity define a minor asanyone under the age of 18, but 10 states set the age at 16 and Hawaii puts it at 15. According to the HHS: report, all 50 states tax ciga~ rettes. N0rth Carolina has the lowest rate -- 2 cents per pack -- and Maine has the highest -- 28 cents. Some states channel a portion,of their cigarette tax revenues into health programs.. Louisiana puts $I mil- lion of its annual tax revenue into the Cancer and Lung Trust Fund, which finances research on cancer and car- diopulmonary diseases: Nebraska sets aside 1 cent per pack for research on~smokingrrelated diseases. Education Requi~ed The HHS:report say~s 18 states now require:elemen- tary and secondary schools to include instruction,on the dangers associated wit!h, tobacco use: In addition, three states- Alabama. Connecticut and Oklahoma -- are establishing training programs:for teachers: and other school personnel' on the effects of nicotine and tobacco use: And in Minnesota~ all schools that provide teacher training must offer programs on the risks associated with the misuse of and dependency on tobacco. Severall other anti-smoking regulations have been adopted by individual states: • Utah prohibits cigaretlte advert,ising on billboards, streetcars andl buses. • New Jersey has made it a misdemeanor, to sell to, bacco to reformatory inmates. • Smoking is illegal!under a:covered bridge in Maine: Smoking in the Work Place The. following states, have laws prohibiting or re- stricting smoking in offices and other w~)rk places: Government- Private Controlled Offices Employera' Offices Alaska California Connecticut - - " Florida ......... v" v; " Maine Minnesota Montana v, " ~' - Nebraska -- New Hampshire New Mexico u" v'- - " Ohio Oregon Utah Washinglon Wisconsin - SOURC[: Depar|meali o| Heallh and Human~Ser~ices c,~ ,,~ ~ ~ ~, Dec; 13, 1986--PAGE 3053

Heath- 6 Subcommittees in both chambers held hearings in the 99th Congress on legislation to restrict smuking in fed- eral buildings,~ but it remains unclear, what. effect the recent GSA regulation w:ilt have on those effi)rts. A spokesman for Sen, Ted Ste- vens, R-Alaska, sponsor of the Senate measure and outgoing chairman of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Civili Service, said no d~cision has been made on whether to pursue, the legislation in light of the GSA action. "It's not everything we wanted, but it's a good start,, he: said~ But a staffer fi)r House sponsor • James H. Seheuer, D-N!Y.,~ says the GSA regulations "complement rather nicely the goals of our bill." He says Scheuer still plans to push for enact, ment. He pointed out that GSA over- sees.only about one-thirdlof the:federal work force and that legislation is nec- antes, including buses andl trains. The Tobacco Institute's Stapf says the National Academy of Sci- ences, report, d~spite its recommenda- tion, t,hat smoking on domestic flights be banned,: did not help the effi~rt. "I just don't see that report being the drmnatic piece of evidence that,s ing t~:stampede members of Congress int~taking that acticm," he said, citing numerous: instances, in~ the report where the paneli called for t'k~rtiher study: But Stapf says the industiry is concernedl that members mighti see banning smoking on shorti flights as.a moderate alternative to:harming it a|- togetiher: "The problem with, that is that: 90 percent: of flights in the U.S. are two hours or less,, he said, and tryingl t0,distinguish~ which flights are smoking and which are non-smoking: "will create an absolute nightmare: Tobacco is "'the only product that we know, when used as intended, still is harmful to your health. A doctor may say, "Have a drink before you go to bed,' but I've never heard of one saying, "Have a cigarette before you go to bed.' '" --Rep. Mike Synar, D-Okla. essary "to make: the policy consistent across the board for all federal build- ings." Still, it is likely to be an~ uphill fight. "I think most members will want to wait to, see how [the GSA regulations] work out before taking on, a legislative remedy," says Thomas J. Bliley dr., R-Va., iike:Scheuer a mem~ bet of the: Energy and Commerce Sub~ committee on Health. Bliley is a key tobacco industry supporter; the Philip Morris tobacco company is a major presence in his Richmond district. Also related to the passive smok~ ing issue are legislative efforts to ban smoking on, airplanes. Several plans were offered; in the 99th Congress, ranging from banning: smoking on short flights to banning it on all do- mestic flights, and a Hatch staffer says the senator plans to introduce legislation in, the 100th Congress to ban. smoking not only on airplanes. but on all publicly funded convey- PAGE:3054~Dec. 13, I986 The competitive disadvantage h)r the airlines, would be just enormous." Time Is a Factor While both sides agree that to- bacco issues are likely to. attract sig- nificant congressional attention, a key question is how much efforti members will actually devote to pushing mea~ sures through. "There's only. so much time that somebody whets, eli~cted to Congress ... is going: to spend futzing around with cigarettes," says Stapf. "'l don't think the anticipation, is that people get sent to Washington to. make per- sonal lifestyle choices fi~r their voters." Another question is the makeup of the committees that will deali with smoking issues. "A lot will depend on who the new members of [the House Energy and COmmerce] committee will be;?" says Bliley. On the Senate side, incoming La- bor and Human Resources Committee Chairman Edwardl M. Kennedy, D- Mass.,. is known to be sympathetic to anti,smoking legislation, but not as devoted to the: cause as outgoing Chairman HatCh. "'When Kennedy takes the: cigar out of his mouth, he agrees: that smoking's bad for you," laughed a Kennedy staffer. But advertising legislatiim, in~ the Senate would pr,bab[y have to go throngh the Commerce C-mmittee, where it will likely be received coolly by incoming Chairman Ernest F. Holi- ings. [)-S.C~ Although never an outi- spo[~en, supporter of the tobacco, in- dustry; one lobbyist says; Hollings has "always been, a gelid soldier" in pro~ tecting the state's tobacco interestS: Anti-sin.eking advocates still speak in awed tones of t~he tobacco industry's vast influence on Capitol Hill. "The: tobacco, lobby is quite pow- erful, and since the tobacco, industry. has become much more diverse in its holdings, they've become even, more powerful," admits Waxman. With so: many t~bacco manufacturers merging with other companies, says Waxman, "'they can control an enormous amount of money that goes into ad- vertising and otherwise: can, be effec~ tire in gaining: their way." W.hat enabled tobacco-state legis- lhtors t'o wield so much influence in tihe past, say observers; was. the all- consuming nature of their interest. Members from tobacco-producing states "w~uld do anything to save bacco/' says CSH's Myers. *'Anytlhing. Folks from New York or other states couldn't do that. So they were able to wield more power than their numbers because they were willing to make any political trade: whatsoever." The lack of an,active health lobby aided tobacco interests as well! "For many years;the tobacco lobby was the only li)bby on this issue," says Myers. "'The Tobacco: Institute operated prettiy much in a vacuum." But as the number of, smokers in the population dwindles andl evidence of the health hazards of smoking be- comes better known, Myers says that balance is beginning, to shift. "Many, many members of Con- gr,ess now realize that a w~te in favor of health and against tobacco,is now more likely tobe helpful~to them than a:vote to the: contrary, and [ think that is a very significant psychological change," he says: "'They now realize thatl a vote for tobacco will be perceived by most of their constituents as a sellout for a very narrow special interest, and one tlhat will have to: be explained." |

NOv i~,86 15:12 0134005 P'.02 ni ws from the NATIONAL, RESEARCH COUNCIL, partlci~¢ion by: ~m~ri~a~ ~clent~t~ and en$ineer~ in ¢h¢ wvrk o~ the ~cadem7, The ~codemy wa* charter~ ~'t}~¢ U~S. Cong~e~ in 18~3 ~ a ~rlvate orgaMaal~n wit~ a reaponsH~itity Joe examlnin~ Federal Go~,ernment, The National ,tc~em7, o/ Englneerin~: w~ org~ni:ed in 1964 under tl~e oriBinal N~$ ~harter. The N~iona[ Research Council now ~erve~ a~ the age~: of both ~cademi.e~ in the conduct: o/~t~ie~ aM inve~tigat~n~ in the gubl~: intere~t. 2I'01 CO~S'TI~TUTIO~[, AVE[~E, ~,W., WASHINGTON% D,C. ~0418 AREA CO DE 202 ~$4.2000 DaCe: November L3, 1986 (202) 53~-2138 CHILDREN ~ND SPOUSES OF SMOKEKS AT GKEATE~ KISK FOK LUnG AILMENTS FOK RELEASE: 12 noon EST. NovembeK_IA. I~86 WASHINGTON -- Young children whose paren=s smoke suffer more respiratory ailmen=s than do. Children of non-smoke=s,~ an~ non-smoklng spouses oF smokers face an Increased risk of lung cancer, a Na=ional Research Counell committee sa£d ~oday ~oliowl.ng a year-lons s~udy~ or the ep~demlologic da=a on "passive smoking." Ciclng "remarkab%y ¢oflsls~en=" scientific da~a of the heal=h e~fec~s o~ exposure co environmental tobacco smoke on children -- particularly ~nfan=s -- ~he committee oonc~ad: that i~ would be envlronmefl~s of small children. Although ~he evidence on hsal~h r~sks to adults iS less conclusive, c~mulac~ve da~a from s~udles throughout the world show ~hat the spouse or a smoke~ has abou~ a 30 percen~ increased r~sk for Lung cance~, the com/~¢~ee found, In addition ~o assessln~ ~he apidemlolo~ic evidence o£ heal~h effects, ~h~ co~i=cee also ~eviewed =he chemical charac=e=Is=ics ~f envlro~enca~ =o~acco smoke and ~ha me~hods used ~o measure exposuEe of non-s~okers. *The reporu,Environmen~al Tobacco Smoke: Meesur~n~ E×Dosure$. ~nd Assess~n~ Health Effects, is available from ~he National Academy Press for $19.95 (prepaid).. Mail orders only should he sen~ ~o ~he l~t~e~head address. The publication sales office is in room 700', 2~00 Pennsylvanla Ave., N.W. Reporters may obcaln copies From the Office of Mews and~ Public Information, also a~ ~ho letterhead, address.

~ov ~3,86 15:1i3 0134005 0,3 The study was conducted at the request of the Office of Air and. Radiation of the Environmental Prot~ctlon A~ency and ~he Office on. Smokl.n~ and Health of the Department of Health and Human Services. The National Research. Council is the principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and, the National~ Academy of Engineering. CHILDREN. HOST VULN~RABL~ Children of smoklng parents more frequently suffer such symptoms as wheezlng, cou~hlng, and sputum p,'oduction than do the children of non-smoklng parents, the committee pointed out. I= ciued studies that estimate an Increased ~isk of between 20 percent and 80 percent, dependfng on the speelflc symptoms being investlga~ed and the number of smokers in the household. The committee also found ~hat pneumonia, bronch.~is, a~d othe~ lower respiratory tract infections may occur up co twice as of=en during ~he first year of llfe ~n children of smokers, and that these children, are hospitalized for respirator~ infections more often than are children of no,~-smokers. Ocher possible effects on ch~]idren from chronic exposure to envi~ronmen~al tobacco smoke Include increased' risk of ear Infections, slower growth rate,, andl decreased lung function. Studies al~so su~'est that earl,y ezposure may increase the r~sk of pul~monary diseases in adulthood. However, not enough is kno%~ at th~s time to dlscinguish between fetal exposure due to the passl, ve smoking of the mother and exposure of the infant after b~rth, ~he committee added. Non-smoki:n~ women marri, ed' ~o smokers may be more likel~ to gfve birth to smaller babies than non-smoking women, marr5ed to non-smokers, the committee said.

Nov i~,86 15:14 0134005 P.04 -~- R~K .~0 ADULTS "Considering the evidence as a whole," the committee said, "exposure to ~nvlronmental tobacco smoke increases the ~ncldence o~ lung cancer in non-smokers." Although estimates of the magnitude of risk vary considerably, added the committee, there is sufficient consistency among the s~udles to conf~rm a ~ink. Th~ committee cited data from, ~3 s~udles worldwide. Results of studies conducted in the United States estimated a ~& percent increased risk of .lung cancer, V~rtually: all the studies focused on spouses of smokers and therefore did not provide da~a on. the effects of short-term, occasional exposure. • Although the chemls~ry o£ env~ronmenta~ tobacco smoke ~s somewhat different from the smoke a smoker inhales dlrectl~y from a cigarette, the committee pointed out ~ha~ It sti~.l contains, carc~.nog.enic agents. Therefore, it is "blolo~ically plausible" that it poses an. lncreased risk of lun~ cancer as nothreshold for cayclnogen~c effects has been established. Furthermore, the ~evel of respirable parclc~es in room air ~s significantly increased when, smoking takes plaue, the committee said. Xf radon, is presen~ in t~e air, it may increase the risk posed by environmental tobacco smoke, the committee concluded, because radon could stilck to resplrable parcicl.es ~ha,t enter the lungs. Ocher health effects of environmental tobacco smoke in adults are less clear, said the committee. Results from s~udles investigating the links between, passive smoking and ocher cancers are Inconsi.scent. A ~ew sCudles suggest ~hat exposure.to tobacco smoke reduces lung function, but the committee recommended cautlo~] in ~ncerpretlng! these data because adults in the normal course of ~i.fe come In contact wi~h many substances tha~ can, affect lung function. Studies with asthmatics exposed to environmental tobacco smoke are inconclusive, the commlt£ee said,. (OVER)

N,0"v 1'3,86 15,:i'4' 013:4'005 .4¸. Some studies have found an, excess risk of cardiovascular disease amon:~ exposed non-smokers,, but the committee concluded that probl, ems in the design and analyses of the studies "preclude any firm, conclusions about the results." Further research is needed in all .areas to conf~rm, suspected links between exposure to e~vlronmental tobacco smoke and disease, the tommittee said. ACUTE EFFECTS AND MEASURINS ~XFOSURE Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke commonly causes eye, nose, and throat irritation, an4 many people find the odor objectionable, the committee said. A ventilatlon, rate greater than 5Ocubic feet per minute (cfm) per occupant necessary to. make the air in a closed room acceptable to 80 percent of adul~ts when there Is smoklng, the committee found. Th~is is about five times greater than the ventila:=ion, rate acceptable when there fs no smoking. Cigarette smoke is a mixture of more than 3,800 compounds, the comm~ittee pointed: ou=, A smoker inhales "mainstream," smoke dlrec=ly from, the cigarette, but a non-_~m, oker inhale.s envi;ronmen~al tobacco, smoke -- a m~x~ure of "sides~r~am, smoke" from the burning end of the cigarette, "mainstream smoke" exhalled by smokers~ gases that diffuse through, the cigarette paper, and ambient ai~, which may also. contain pollutants.. The committee recommended further studies to improve methods for monitoring environmental, tobacco smoke and the level, of individual exposure,, to design computer models for estimating exposure, and to iden£i~y biological markers to trace the path of chemical agents found in environmental tobacco smoke through the human body., Barbara Nulka of the School of Publilc Health of the University of North Carolina chaired the committee. Other members included: Clay Axe~son, University ~ospltal, Lin~oping, Sweden; Soseph Brain, Harvard School of Public Health; Patrici~ Bu~fler, Universi;ty of Texas at Houston; A. Sonla Bulst, Oregon ~eal, th Sciences Unliverslty, Portl,and; Dietrich Hoffmann, American Health Foundation.,, Valhalla, N.Y.; Brian Leaderer, John Pierce Foundation Laboratory at Yale UniversltM; Genevieve Matanoski, Johns Hopkins Uni=versity;i James Robins, Harvard School of Public Heal!th; John Spengler, Harvard School of Public Hea~th: and Nicholas Weld, Medical College o£ S~. ~artholomew's Hospital, London., England. Diane K. Wagener of the Research Council's Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology served as proj,ec~ d~rector,

PHI!.! M<: 91S !NCORI:XORATED CORRESPONDENCE zo: Dist ri but i o~: ~ FROM: Samuei~ Gen SUBJECT: AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y 10017 ASPA Smokin9 in the Workplace Surve~ Septem,ber 3:0, i 9 EIVED ~ OCT z 1B88 FRANK E. RESI,,;II4 Attached for your information is a copy of the American Society for Personnel Administration (ASPA)membership survey on workpllace smokin,g restriction policies. AS.PA. is the world's largest individual membership organization devoted exclusilvely to hu!man resources. ASPA has mere than 35,000 members iln~ the U.S. and in, 42 foreign countries. The group represents o,ve.r 40 million employees. SUMMARY The A:SPA survey of 662 comp:an4es iis one of the llargest to date (for comparison, the Solmon study h~ad a sample of 445;i ASH's sample was 1,000)and provides additional evidence that workplace smoking restrictions are not widespread:. Of those surveyed, 41% of the companies have no sm,oking policy and! are not considering smoking restrictions (thils figure from other studies: 68% Solmon, 4:9% Rober~ Half, 45% ASH).. If we exclude those companies which are requ!ired by law to have a policy (!i06 firms, 16% of the total), this 41% figure would rise to 49%.. HIGHEIGHTS * Only 2% of the compan4.es ban smoking completely. * 0f those companies with smoking policies, over 40% b.an smoking in all shared workspaces. * In 54% of the firms, smokers generallly supported th,e restrictions, however, 10% of the firms said that smokers did oppose the pol~icies. * The reasons most often given for developiing a policy were: I) compliance with state or local law; 2) health; concerns; 3) employee complaints. * Ten percent of the firms with,out policies had at one time considered an,d rejected the adoption of a. policy. The "easons for rejection were: I) anticipated en~forcement "oblems; 2) legal~ity of limi:~i~n~g smokers' rights to ke; 3) members of top management were smokers; 4)i or fanatacism of nonsmokers.

,-%

June 12, 1986 ASPA-BNA Survey No. 50 Smoking in the Workplace Policies on the smoking of tobacco, products in the workplace have become more prevalent in recent years, although very few employers have gone so far as to: prohibit~ smoking entirely, according to, a recent ASPA-BNA survey on smoking in the workplace. As Figure I illus- trates, over one-third of the 662 organizations responding to, the survey currently have work- place smoking policies related to employee health and/or comfort, the vast majority of which were established within t;he past five years. An additional 2 percent wiil~ have policies in effect by the end of the year, and 2I percent of the respondents were considering smoking restrictions at the time of the survey. Despite the apparent trend toward contemplation and estab- lishment of smoking policies, however, the ma- jority of responding firms do not: currently have smoking policies that address the issues of em- ployee health and comfort. Highlights from the survey data begin on the following page, followed by the full survey re- Figure 1 Smoking Policies Designed for Employee Health and Comfort Willllrnplement a Policy in 1986 Currently Have: Policy 36%, No Policy/ None Under Consideration 41% Have Policy Under Consideration 21% Copyright © 1986 byTHE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC.. Washington~ D,C; 20037

Bulletin ~o Ma~,agemen~ port. Several sample smoking policies are con- tained at the back of the report. Survey Highlights * Smoking policies related to employee health or comfort are more prevalent among the re- sponding Northeastern and Western firms, com- pared with those in the South and in the North Central states. This may be due, in part, to the fact that a greater proportion of companies in the NOrtheast and the West are subject to state or local laws that require the establishment of workplace smoking policies. Sixteen percent~ of all responding firms are governed by such legislation. • Most respondents cited at least one of t;hree reasons for the establishment of their smoking policies: state or local laws, company concerns about employee health and/0r comfort, and em- ployee complaints about smoke in the workplace. * Over 40 percent of the organizations that maintain smoking policies (1!5 percent of all respondents) ban smoking in all open work areas. Less than 10 percent of the policies place no restrictions on smoking in: shared work space. • More than half of the firms with policies specifically designate areas for smoking. • Very few (2 percent)of the surveyed firms ban smoking on all company property: • Less than one-quarter of the smoking policies specify any penalty for smoking in unauthorized areas, and about one-third contain procedures for resolving disputes between, smoking and non- smoking employees. • A majority of the organizations with smok- ing policies indicated that their employees who smoke generally support the restrictions, while 10 percent noted opposition, to the policies. • The survey, data provide little evidence to support contentions that restrictions on smoking either reduce company costs or increase worker productivity. Most respondents could not say whether their policies had any. effect on either. • Ten percent of the firms that do not have smoking policies had considered and rejected such, policies in the past. e Aimost three-quarters of all respondents ed that these protests were widespread. In nearly half (45 percent) of the firms that have had complaints, employees were urged to work the problems out themselves. About one-third of the companies asked smoking employees to refrain from smoking, and a similar proportion rear- ranged work stations to accommodate non- smokers. • Less than I percent of the responding com, panics will not hire a smoker; 5. percent give hiring preference, by policy; to nonsmoking job applicants; and another 10 percent allow individ- ual supervisors to consider applicant smoking habits in their hiring decisions. • Half of the responding, organizations have taken measures in the past five years to encour- age their employees to stop smoking, most com- monly through the distribution of literature de- signed to persuade smokers to quit. The Survey Sample The survey questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of 1,967 members of the Ameri- can Society for Personnel Administration (ASPA). Results are based on returns from 662 personnel executives, which represents a re- sponse rate of 34 percent. Forty percent of the participating organizations are manufacturing companies, 33 percent are nonmanufacturing firms; and 15 percent are nonbusiness establish- ments, such as educational institutions and health care facilities. The remaining 12 percent of respondents did not indicate their industry category. By workforce size, 20 percent of the respond- ing organizations employ 1,000 or more workers, 67 percent have workforces of less than 1,000, and 13 percent did not indicate workforce size. By. region, 20 percent of the responding firms are located in the Northeast, 33 percent are South- ern companies, 24 percent are located in North Central states, and 17 percent are Western firms. Four percent of the organizations have facilities in more than one region, and the loca- tion. of 2 percent of the firms could not be determined. Twenty-seven percent of the re- sponding firms have employees who are repre-

Bulletin to Management June/2, /986 Prevalence of Smoking Policies Of the 662 organizations responding to the survey, 36 percent have established workplace smoking policies designed primarily to address issues of employee health and/or, comfort. Ten firms (2 percent) indicated plans to implement a smoking policy by the end of 1986, and 21 percent of the responding firms currentlly have such a policy under consideration. On the other hand, a plurality (41 percent) of t~he respondents do not have a smoking policy related to employee health or comfort, do not plan to establish: one in 1986, and have no proposals on this subject under consideration. Thus, a majority of re- sponding firms are currently without smoking policies related to employee health or comfort. There appear to be minor differences byindus- try and by'workforce size in the probability that an organization has or is considering a smoking policy. As Table 1 shows, large organizations seem to I~ somewhat more likely to have a policy currently in effect (45 percent)than small firms (33 percent). Only 30 percent of the responding nonbusiness establishments have no policy and none under consideration, while 40 percent of the nonmanufacturers and 47 percent of the manu- facturing firms surveyed fall into this category: Manufacturers appear considerably less inclined to issue smoking policies than nonbusiness orga- nizations, and somewhat less likely to adopt or consider policies than nonmanufacturing firms, By region~ policies on workplace smoking are more common among the Western companies (52 percent) and Northeastern firms (42 per- cent) than among firms in the North Central (29 percent) or Southern (28 percent) regions. At least some of the difference by region is attribut- able to state or local laws that mandate work- place smoking policies. Twenty-eight percent of the responding NOrtheastern firms and 25 per- cent of companies in the West indicated they are required by law to establish smoking policies, while such, laws affect only I li percent of the Southern firms in the survey and 9' percent of the respondents located in t~he North Central states. Sixteen percent of all responding firms (46 per- cent of those with smoking policies) are located in jurisdictions that require the est~ablishment of smoking policies. Age of Policies The overwhelming majority (85 percent)of the 239 organizations with workplace smoking policies established these policies within the past five years. As Table 2 indicates, over 60 percent of these policies first went into effect in eit~her 1985 (33 percent) or I986 (28 percent), while only 8 percent of the policies were implemented before 1982. Nearly two out of five (138 percent): of the manufacturers' smoking policies are new this year, compared with about one-fourth (124 percent): of the nonmanufacturers, policies andl 18 percent of those in nonbusiness operations.. Many of the nonmanufacturing firms (,42 per- cent) established their policies in 1985..The old- est policy -- established in 1936 -- is main- tained by a company that initially, developed a policy because customers found smoking "often- Table 1 Smoking Policies Designed for Employee Health and Comfort Percent: of Companies All By Industry By Size • . Companies Mt~I. Nonmf~. Nonbus: Lar~le (Number of companies) (662)= (264) (220)i (97) (134) Company has no policy now and none under consideration 41% 47% 40% 30% 34% Company currently has a policy 36 33 39 40 45 Company has a policy under consideration 21 19' 21 27 19: Company plans to implement a policy in 1986 2 1 1 3 2 Small (446)~ 44% 33 Note: :Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. Page 3

Jur~ 12, 1986 Table .2 Year Smoking Policy Went into Effect Percent of Companies All . By Industry By Size Companies Mfg, Nonmf9. Nonbus: Large Small (Number of companies) (239) (86) (85) (39) (60} (148) • 1986 28% 38% 24% 18% 20% 32% • 1985 33 26 42 28 30 34 • 1984 14 18 12 13 17 13 • 1983 7 7 5 13 8 7 • 1982 3 2 6 - 3 3 • Prior tO 1982 8 8 6 13 12 6 • No response 7 3 5 15 10 5 Note: Percentages are based on the number of companies with smoking policies, as shown in parentheses. sire." The firm updated its policy in 1979 to reflect concerns about employee health. Since state and local legislation on workplace smoking is a recent phenomenon, it is not sur- prising that the policies implemented by firms that are subject to these Iaws are newer than those established by= companies in jurisdictions where no such laws are in effect: Nearly three- quarters (72 percent)of the policies instituted by firms located in jurisdictions where workplace smoking laws exist went into effect in 1985 or 1986, while about half (52 percent) of the corn- panics under no legal obligation implemented their policies this year or last: year. Reasons for Developing a Smoking Policy There were primarily three reasons why work- place smoking policies were developed in the surveyed companies: a= state or local law, com- pany concern about employee health or comfort, and employee complaints about smoke in the work area. The reason cited by the greatest proportion of respondents (35 percent) was a state or local law requiring, them to develop a policy.. As Figure 2 illustrates, 28 percent of the firms with smoking policies cited state or local legislation as the principal reason for implement- ing a policy, and another 7 percent mentioned state or local laws in combination with heahh concerns or employee complaints. Twenty-nine percent of the firms with policies indicated that company concerns about employee health and/or comfort prompted them to develop a policy; 22 percent cited no other rationale and 7 percent mentioned employee health and com- fort in conjunction with either a workplace smok, PI@ 4 ing law or employee complaints. A total of 27 percent of the policies were established at least in part because of employee complaints, with. 21 percent citing only these complaints and 6 per- cent also mentioning concerns about health or laws as reasons for the policy: Three percent of the smoking policies were ordered by the com- pany owner or president. Among the 24 firms citing other reasons for establishing smoking restrictions, three employers noted that a move to a new location prompted a change in policy; while four firms mentioned customer relations: A respondent from a small North Central educa~ tional institution wrote that, while the rationale for its smoking restrictions had not been ex- pressed, the heart attack of an employee who smoked "'immediately. preceded the ban." Policies on Open Work Areas Respondents from firms with smoking policies were asked to indicate their organizations' re- strictions on smoking in open offices or shared work space. As Table 3 shows, over two-fifths (41 percents) of the policies ban, smoking in all open work areas. Total bans on smoking in shared work space appear far less common in manufacturing companies than in nonmanufac- taring or nonbusiness establishments. Twenty- eight percent of manufacturers with smoking policies do not allow employees to smoke in any open work area, while smoking in shared work space is prohibited by about half of the nonman- ufacturers (48 percent) and nonbusiness institu- tions (54 percent)with policies. Almost one-fifth (19 percent) of the organiza. tions with smoking restrictions divide their open

Bullefi~ to Manageme'nt, Figure 2 Reasons for Implementing a Smoklng Policy State or/local law Company concerns about employee health/comfort~ Employee complaints Both law and company health concerns Both law and employee complaints Both employee complaints and company health concerns Mandate by company owner/president Other No response 22% ................ ~ 21% , 4% ~ 3% :3% 3%. 10% June 12,~ 1986 28% work areas into smoking and no-smoking sec- tions. The separation of smokers and nonsmokers in this manner is more prevalent in manufactur- ing concerns (28 percent) than in nonmanufac- turing businesses (15 percent)or nonbusiness establishments ( 13 percent). Fewer than one out of tO policies (8 percent) have no restrictions on smoking in shared or open work areas. This type of policy also appears more popular with manufacturers than with employers in other industries. Six percent of the organiza- tions that maintain smoking policies will ban smoking in a shared office at the request of any one employee, and an equal proportion require that a majority of employees ask for the prohibi- tiion. A smoking ban may be instituted at the Table 3 Policies on Smoking in Open Work Areal (Numl~" of companies) Banned in all open work areas Aroas divk:led into smoking and no- smoking sections ,. 19 28 Allowed ~n all open work areas 8 12 Banned if one employee requests it 6 6 Banned if a majority of emptoyees request if 6 7 Banned at supervisors' discretio~ 5 5 Banned if all eml:)k:~/eea agree 3 3 Other provisions 11 10 NO response 1 1 Percent of Companies Companle~ Mfg. (239) (86) 41% 28% By Industry Nonmf(:j, Nonbus. (85) (39) 48% 54% 15 13 5 5 7 5 1 5 8 3 4 3 11 13 I - By Size Large Small (SO) 40% 42% 18 21 5 9 8 5 8 5 2 4 15 8 l~own in parentheses,, Percentages may not Ptge ~

Bulletin to Management discretion of the office supervisor in 5 percent of the firms with smoking policies, and 3 percent of firms will institute restrictions only if all the employees in an office agree to them. Just over one-tenth of the organizations with smoking policies noted other provisions on smok- ing in: shared work space. Four companies indi. cared that their policy allows employees to desig- nate their work stations as no-smoking areas, although none of these firms indicated the extent to which these designations might restrict adja- cent smokers. Two companies permit work sta- tion smoking only if the employee keeps an air filter on his oy her desk, and a large Southern nonmanufacturing firm provides clean air ma- chines to smoking employees, A few companies maintain somewhat equiv- ocal policies on open work areas, permitting employees to smoke "unless a problem arises" or "provided it does no~ interfere with a nonsmoker.'" Policies in Other Locations The responding organizations also were asked to specify their restrictions on smoking (if any) in t:he seven areas listed in Table 4. As the table shows, a majority of the firms with smoking policies ban smoking completely in four of the seven areas listed. About two-thirds (66 percent) of the firms disallow smoking in company hall- ways, and 63 percent ban all smoking in meeting and conference rooms. Total bans on rest room smoking are maintaiined by 60 percent of the companies with policies, and 56 percent do not permit smoking in customer or visitor areas. In contrast, smoking is allowed in private of- rices at 56 percent of the organizations, while June 12. 1986 only 36 percent have complete or partial bans on smoking in private work areas. Partial smoking bans are most common in company cafeterias, usually in. the form of designated smoking and no-smoking.areas. Eight out of 10 policies either allow smoking in company vehicles (41 percent) or have no provisions regarding vehicles (39 percent). About one-<iuarter of the company policies prohibit smoking in areas other than those listed in Table 4. The most frequently men6oned ioca~ tions were elevators, computer rooms, patient rooms (in health care facilities); areas in which food is prepared or processedi gymnasiums, and libraries: Over half (58 percent) of the company policies specifically, designate locations for smoking, such as employee lounges, break rooms; or cafeterias. Total Bans on Smoking Only 14 surveyed organizations -- 6 percent of those with policies and 2 percent of all respon- dents -- prohibit smoking on all company prem- ises. Nine of these firms cited their own concerns about worker health as at least one of the reasons for the ban, while three organizations noted that the owner or president issued t~he policy. One church-affiliated organization explained that its members' beliefs did not allow them to smoke, and a manufacturer of health products cited the health consciousness of its customers as the rea. son for banning smoking altogether. Five of the companies with complete bans on smoking are manufacturers, including two whose president ordered the policy: Another five are nonmanufacturing concerns, including two insur- ance companies: Two nonbusiness institutions Table 4 Policies on Smoking in Selected Areas Percent of Companies Partially Banned Banned: Allowed No Policy Hallways 66% 5% 23% 5% Meeting/conference rooms 63 21 13 2 Rest rooms 60 6 28 5 Customer/visitor areas 56 12 26 3 Private offices 21 15 56 7 Cafeterias/eating areas 1,4 58 24 4 Company vehicles 13 5 41 39 Note: Percentages are based on 239 companies with smoking policies. Percentages may not add to 100 clue to rounding and Pace 6

B~lle~n ~o Managemen~ June 12, t986 have banned all workplace smoking, as have two organizations that did not identify their ',yp¢ of business, Policy Enforcement Less than a quarter (23 percent)of the smok- ing policies designed for employee health and/or comfort specify penalties for violating smoking restrictions. Of these 56 policies, ! 2 indicate that smoking prohibitions will be enforced in the same manner as other company rules are en- forced, and: an equal number specify that a system of "'progressive discipline" will be used to punish, employees for smoking violations. Fifteen firms noted only that some form of disciplinary action, would be taken against the offending individual(s). Several firms mentioned specific enforcement measures including reprimands, warnings, and counseling, One-quarter of the companies (14 firms) that have penalties in their smoking policies specifically, cited termination as a possibility for workers found smokilng in re- stricted locations, although only two of those respondents said an employee might be fired for a first offense. Resolution o! Smoking Disputes Just under a, third (32 percent) of the policies contain procedures for resolving disputes be- tween, smokers and nonsmokers. Over half (54 percent) of these provisions give management the responsibility for resolving disputes. In a few cases, if the immediate supervisor cannot resolve the problem, the dispute is referred to a manager outside the unit, such as the director of person- nei. Eighteen companies (24 percent of those with dispute resolution provisions) noted that if a compromise cannot: be reached, the rights of the nonsmoker prevail. Three organizations indicat- ed that majority rule is applied to all smoking disputes, with one noting that the responsible department head is expected to "act decisively" when such situations arise. Two policies provide for "'reasonable accommodations," while two others specify that the work stations of the con- tending individuals be separated. Employee Role in Policy Development Over half (56 percent) of the smoking policies were developed unilaterally by management in the surveyed firms. In the remaining 44 percent of companies with smoking policies, nonmanage- ment employees contributed to the development of the policy~ Over three-fifths (61 percent) of the 106 firms that involved the rank-and-file solicited their views through informal discussion. One-quarter of the organizations that soughl nonmanagement input: conducted employee sur- veys on smoking, and an equal' number includ~:d nonmanagement representatives on their policy- making committees. Twenty-one firms (20 per- cent) formed policy advisory committees that included nonmanagerial scarf. None of the firms formulated: its workplace smoking policy through union negotiations, Communicating Company Policy Companies have used a variety of means to communicate their smoking policies to employ- ees, as Table 5 illustrates. Three-fifths of the firms with policies posted them in the workplace; this percentage includes 72 percent of manufac- turers with smoking rest;rictions, 51 percent of nonmanufacturing companies, and 49 percent of nonbusiness establishments. Forty-one percent sent a policy notice to each employee, a measure that appears to be favored more by nonmanufac- turers (52 percent): than by manufacturing firms (33 percent)and nonbusinesses (36 percent), and one that is much more common among small firms (47 percent)than large organizations (27 percent)!. Smoking restrictions were announced by su- pervisors at 37 percent of the companies with policies. Employee newsletters published the smoking policy provisions at 50 percent of the responding Iarge firms, 20 percent of small firms, and at 27 percent of companies overall. About one-quarter (24 percent) of the companies added the policy to their employee handbooks. Twelve percent reported other means of com- municating smoking, policies, including employee meetings (11 firms), procedure manuals (two firms), and the job application process (t~hree firms). None of the smoking policies has been incorporated into a. union contract. Reaction to Policy Employee support for company smoking poli- cies appears fairly widespreadi as 541 percent of the firms with policies indicated that smokers i:n the workforce generally support the smoking restrictions, while only 10 percent reported that smokers generally oppose the policy provisions. Twenty percent observed no reaction to the poli- from employees who smoke, and 16 percent cy could not say how smokers felt about their prohi' bitions on smoking. Acceptance of smoking restrictions on the part of smoking employees appears lowest in nonbusi- ness organizations, as only 38 percent of the Page 7

Bulletin to Management June 12. 1086 Table 5 Methods of Communicating Smoking Policy Percent of Companies All By Industr,/ By Size Companies Mfg. Nonmfg. Nonbus. Large Small (Numl:)er of companies) (239) (86) (85) (39) (60) (148) Posted in workplace 60% 72% 51% 49% 57% 59% Sent to each employee 41 33 52 36 27 47 Announced through supervisors 37 35 38 33 42 34 Published in employee newsletter 27 33 20 38 50 20 Published in employee handbook 24 13 27 38 27 22 Other 12 9 14 10 113 11 Note: Percentages are based on the number; of companies with smoking policies, as sl~own in parentheses. respondents from this sector felt smoking work- ers supported the policy: The proportions of non- manufacturing firms (56 percent) and manufac- turing companies (51 percent) reporting smoker support were considerably higher. Similarly; op- position appears more likely among nonbusiness establishments (18 percent)i than i:n nonmanufac. turing (12 percent) or manufacturing concerns (7 percent):. Worker support; for smoking policies may be slightly greater in firms t:hat sought non,manage- ment input during the development of the policy: Fifty-eight percent of those organizations noted general approval for the policy once it was estab- lished, and 7 percent experienced overall resis- tance to the policy' from smokers. Of the organi- zations that established their smoking policies without consulting nonmanagement employees, 50 percent report general approval of the policy~ and 12 percent experienced opposition from smokers. Company Costs and Worker Productivity The survey results supply'little evidence that workplace smoking restrictions have a beneficial effect on either company costs or employee pro- ductivity, Only six (3 percent) of the firms with smoking policies said that bans on smoking had reduced their costs in some way~ Three reported lower cleaning and maintenance costs as a result of their smoking restrictions, and two firms said their insurance rates were reduced. Fifteen per- cent maintained that their policies had not de- creased company expenses, while the overwhelm- ing majority (77 percent)! of respondents could not say whether any costs had declined as a result of smoking restrictions~ Similarly, 80 percent of the respondents indi- cated that they did not know whether their smoking policies had increased employee produc- tivity: Twelve percent said that their prohibitions on smoking had not iincreasod productivity, and only 4 percent believed t;hat they had~ The re- spondent for a small Northeastern retailer as- serted that productivity had: increased at that firm because workers now spend "less time off the job to smoke" and because "clean air in work areas keeps employees more alert." A small service firm in the West reported that its non- smoking employees are more productive because they no longer spend time complaining about smoke in the office. Policy Changes Sixteen percent of the firms t;hat currently. have smoking policies plan to make changes in their policy' provisions in 1986, although six of these 39 firms are merely streamlining a policy that was implemented this year. Twenty-two or- ganizations will introduce additional smoking. restrictions by year's end, including five that will implement: a total ban. Two companies plan to add new locations at which workers may smoke, and one firm will begin to give hiring preference to nonsmoking job applicants: Companies Without Smoking Policies Of the 423 surveyed organizations that do not have workplace smoking policies designed for employee health or comfort, only six have had Pag~ 8

Bullefin to Management June/2, 1986 policies in the past. A large North Central man- ufacturing firm maintained a policy t:hat com- pletely prohibited smoking on company grounds from 1912 to I937, when it repealed the policy. because of company expansion and greater social acceptance of tobacco smoking. A small South- ern nonmanufacturing company abandoned its nine-year-old policy of allowing smoking only in its coffee shop in December I971. The respond- ent wrote that the "company felt it was being too strict" with the policy~ After only one year, a large Southern health care institution gave up on, a policy that provided for a no-smoking section, in the cafeteria, citing enforcement difficulties. Ten-percent of the firms without policies had, at one time, considered and rejected the adoption of smoking policies. Various reasons for rejecting smoking restrictions were cited, ranging from anticipated problems with enforcement to ques- tions about the legality of limiting employees' right to smoke. A few others did not wish to deal with the objections of smoking workers, and six firms indicated that a policy was rejected be- cause the company president or other members of top management smoked. One organization concluded that requests for smoking restrictions had been put forth by a small "fanatical group" within, the company: Handling Worker Complaints All responding organizations were asked to indicate the extent to which their company had received complaints about smoke in the work environment. While "/3 percent had received complaints from nonsmoking employees, few of these firms indicated that complaints were wide- spread (7 percent) or that a group of employees had I~tged: protests (4 percent). Less than 1 percent: of the survcycd companies (three firms): have been involved in lawsuits over the issue of smoke in the workplace. Table 6 shows the various ways in which, employee complaints about smoke have been handled bythc 482 firms that have received such complaints. As the table illust;rates, many em- ployers prefer to encourage employees to resolve the problem themselves, as 45 percent of firms experiencing complaints indicated they have tak- en this approach. Nonbusiness establishments and manufacturers appear more likely than non- manufacturing firms to Iet employees resolve such disputes, and large organizations seem Table 6 Company Responses to Employee Complaints Abo,u~ Smoking All Companies Mf~. (Numl~er of companies) (482) (190) Encouraged employees to resolve problems themselves 45% 50% Provided desk-top air filters or smoke-absorbing ashtrays 41 41 Moved desks end/or work stations 35 32 Asked smoker(s) to refrain.¢rom smoking 32 26 Improved ventilation in work area 25 28 Divided work area into smoking and no-smoking sections 11 10 Transferred smoker(s)to another work unit 2 2 Transferred nonsmoker(s) to another work unit 2 2 Other measures 13 12 Percent of Companies By tndustr~ By Size Nonmfg. Nonbus. Lar(je Small (!61) (73) (~04): (319) 37% 58% 53% 44% 44 34 34 44 43 27 42 33 35 37 33 31 25 15 35 22 9 12 17 8 1 1 2 1 2 - 3 1 16 111 20 11 Note: Percentages are based on the number of companies experiencing co~plaints about workplace smoking, as shown in page 9

B~llet~n ~o Management somewhat more likely than small firms to take this stance. Forty-one percent of the firms that have re- ceived complaints provide desk-top air filters or smoke-absorbing ashtrays to smokers in an effort to placate nonsmokers, while 35 percent moved desks or work stations to accommodate those offended by secondary smoke. Smokers were asked to refrain from smoking at 3:2 percent: of the companies that received complaints, al- though the survey results do not indicate which of these requests were informal and which be- came restrictions by policy~ One-quarter of the firms receiving complaints took action to im- prove their" building ventilation systems, and 11 percent of the employers divided the problem work area into smoking and no-smoking sections: Very few employers (2 percent each)transferred either a smoker or a nonsmoker to another work unit because of complaints about smoke. Not surprisingly, firms with smoking policies appear more likely to take stronger measures in dealing with worker complaints about smoking than companies that do not have policies. For example, 41 percent~ of the firms with policies have responded to complaints by asking smokers to refrain from smoking, compared with 28. per- cent of the organizations with no policy~ Similar- ly, 20 percent of employers with policies created smoking and: no-smoking sections in work areas in response to employee complaints, while only6 percent of companies without policies segregated work areas. Union involvement in disputes between smok- ers and nonsmokers has been very limited: in the surveyed companies. In only 23 (18 percent) of the 128 unionized firms t~hat have experienced complaints has the union taken a role in a: smok- ing dispute by defending the rights of the smoker or the nonsmoker or by attempting to work out a compromise. The survey data provide no evi- dence that unions favor either smokers or non- smokers in workplace disputes. Allergies to Smoke Eleven percent of the surveyed organizations have had at: least one employee request a smoke- free work area because of a medically certified allergy to tobacco smoke. The vast majority of these firms made accommodations for the indi- vidual(s). One-third of the 73 firms with. smoke- allergic employees transferred or moved the worker who had the allergy; while only one company relocated a smoker in response to the request. Seven firms simply noted that they com- plied with the request: without specifying how; five firms asked smokers in the allergic individ- ual's work area not to smoke; and four firms began to enforce restrictions that already were in effect. Two North Central nonmanufacturing businesses indicated that: an employee's allergy to tobacco smoke prompted the development of their smoking policy: Hi!dng Policies Despite the apparent movement toward tihe establishment of workplace smoking policies, there is little evidence from the survey data to suggest that companies have begun to give hiring preference to nonsmoking job applicants, As Ta- ble 7 shows, 82' percent of the surveyed organiza- tions either have no policy on whether job appli= cants" smoking habits can or should be considered in the hiring process or they do not allow hiring supervisors to give preference to nonsmokers. Only four organizations (1 percent) hire nonsmokers exclusively~ and 5 percent give preference company-wide to nonsmoking appli- cants. Ten percent of the companies allow indi- vidual supervisors to give preference to nonsmok- ers. Seven firms (1 percent) noted that they discuss their policies on smoking with all job applicants,. All four of the firms that hire onlynonsmokers have restrictive workplace smoking policies, two of them total bans: One insurance firm, which plans to have a total ban on smoking by August 1987,. defines a smoker as anyone "who has smoked within the three-month period immedi; ately prior to the application date." Seven per- cent of the firms with policies always give hiring preference to nonsmokers, compared with 3 per- cent of the organizations without smoking re- strictions. Nevertheless, 77 percent of the firms that maintain smoking policies have no provi. sions that favor nonsmoking job applicants: Smoking Cessation Programs Half of the responding organizations have tak- en measures within the past five years to encour- age employees to stop smoking. Sixty-nine per- cent of large organizations have taken steps to encourage workers to quit, while 46 percent of the small establishments have done so. Similarly, firms that have smoking prohibitions (64 per- cent) are more likely than companies without restrictions (42 percent) to urge employees to kick the smoking habit. Table 8 lists the methods of encouragement employed by responding firms, in order of fre. quency~ The most common form of encourage- ment to quit smoking -- used by 39 percent of Page I0

Bulletin to Management June 12,1986 Table 7 Policies on Hiring Smokers/Nonsmokers (Number of, companies) Company has no policy on hiring smokers or nonsmokers Company does not allow hiring pref- erence for nonsmokers Company allows individual supervi- sors to give hiring preference to nonsmokers Company gives hiring preference to nonsmokers Company hires nonsmokers only Other . No response Percent of Companies All By Industr~ By Size Coml:~nles Mfg. Nonmf~l. Nonbus. Larcje Small (662) (264) (220) (97) (134) (446) 43% 44% 46% 39% 42% 44% 39 39 36 42 46 37 10 8 10 14 7 11 5 5 4 3 2 5 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 2 - 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 Note: Percentages may not add to 1 O0 due to rounding. firms -- is the distribution of literature on. the subject. Sixteen percent: of the employers have sponsored quit-smoking programs in-house dur- ing non-work hours, while an almost equal pro- portion (15 percent) have sponsored these pro- grams on company time. Company-sponsored quit-smoking programs appear most common in large organizations and in nonbusiness establish- menus. Ten percent of the firms have paid fees for individual employees to attend outside smok- ing cessation programs. Only 3 percent have paid cash awards to employees who quit smoking, and even fewer (1 percent) have given other awards. Many of the firms that reimburse or give awards to employees require that an employee quit smoking for a specified length of time,. ranging from one day to one year. The most common required abstinence period is six months. The smallest cash award; given to em- ployees for kicking the habit is $10, reported by one firm, while the largest -- paid by a large Western nonmanufacturing firm after six months -- is $500. One company pays employ- ¢es $250 after just one month of abstinence, but rescinds the award if it discovers that the em- ployee has started smoking again. A large South- ern manufacturer gives T-shirts and snacks to workers who quit for a single day and will take the same employees out to dinner if they are still abstaining one year later. Of the other measures companies have taken to encourage their smoking employees to quit, company participation in the "Great American Smokeout" was mentioned by the greatest num- ber of respondents, followed by wellness pro- grams and various forms of employee recognition for success in quitting the habit. A few employ- ers removed cigarette vending machines or ash- trays, and several others distributed stop-smok- ing aids, including one employer that paid the cost of a nicotine substitute, if prescribed by a doctor. Three companies held contests or raffles among employees attempting to, quit smoking, and one firm offered, lower-cost life insurance to employees who abstained for at least 12 months: Less than one-fourth of the companies were able to provide data on the costs of their quit- smoking incentive programs. Twenty-six of the 79 firms providing information, indicated that their efforts (typically literature distribution) had cost them nothing in the last five years, while a large manufacturing firm with locations nationwide reported the highest expenditure -- approximately $10,000 -- on its smoking cessa- tion efforts. This company also est:imated that 200 employees have quit smoking as a result of these programs. A Iarg¢ Western nonmanufac- turer, despite having spent just $400 on its quit- smoking endeavors, claimed that .its efforts (both literature distribution and smoking cessation pro- Page

Bulletin to Management lu~ 12. I~86 Table $ Measures Taken in Past Five Years to, Encourage Employees to Stop Smoking Percent of Companies All .. By Indust~, Companies Mf(~. Nonmfg. (Nurn~er of companies). (662) (264) (220) Distributed quit-smoking literature 39% 47% 33% Sponsored in-house quit-smoking program off company time 16 15 16. Sponsored in-house quit-smoking program on ~:ompany time 15 14 15 Paid for employees to attend quit- smoking programs outside work 10 10 13 Paid cash awards to employees who: quit smoking 3 4 3 Gave non-cash awards to employees who quit smoking 1 2 1 Other 9 8 10 By Size Nonbus, Large Small (97): (134)i (446) 40% 53% 37% 24 35 11 20 25 12 5 12 10 - 3 3 - 1 1 8 10 8 grams) have led 300 of its employees to stop smoking. The median estimated five-year ex- pense for incentive and award programs is $400 among firms that provided cost data, and a median of I0 employees stopped smoking as a result of company programs among the 57 firms that reported their success rates. Just over a quarter (27 percent) of the re- sponding firms plan to offer programs in 1986 to encourage employees to quit smoking, although a number of other companies said they were con- sidering such programs, Plans to offer these programs are more likely in firms with work, place smoking policies (40 percent) than in those without (19 percent). While many firms plan to offer the same programs as they have in the past, some compan- ies indicated that new tactics designed to help employees quit smoking will be tried t;his year. New wellness programs or smoking cessation clinics will be available for the first time at a number of firms, some in-house and others con- ducted by an outside organization, such as the American Cancer Soeiety~ A few organizations expect to bring in outside speakers on the dan- gers of smoking, while others have arranged for seminars to be conducted by a local hospital. A small North Central manufacturer noted that it would be offering "a self-help program .... sponsored by t~he American Heart Associ- ation." The spokesperson for that firm also indi- cated that the services of a hypnotist would be available "'to those employees still needing help." Another company said it plans to pay for "any program an employee chooses" if that worker expresses the desire to quit. P~ge 12

Bulletin to Management Sample Policy (Small Southern service firm) June 12:1986 SU~BJECT: Home Office Non-Smoking Policy As a result of changing attitudes of employees in the workplace and recently verified health hazards expressed in the Surgeon, General's report, employers across the country are examining smoking practices within their companies. Smoking is seen, by individuals,, employers, and insurers as having a very negative impact on the health of smokers and non-smokers alike. In response to=all the scientific information and the concerns of our employees, is establishing a non-smoking, policy. Precisely, this new non-smoking policy wiill prohibit smoking except at the employee's desk. Smoking will not be permitted in other areas on the second and th.ird floors. We recognize that smoking is habit-forming and the average long-term smoker would not be able to quit by decree if we were to ban smoking entirely. Although smoking at the employees' desks will be permitted, should non-smokers in the area become concerned or physically affected by the smoke, then smoking may be prohibited in that particular workplace. The merits of each ca:se will be reviewed individually. Should a non-smoker be condUcting business at the desk of a smoker~ the non-smoker may request that smoking: cease during the course of his or her business. This request should be honored. This policy will be effective February I, 1986. At that time, smoking wily no longer be permitted in any public areas on the second and th.ird floors outside of the employee's desk area (~.e., meeting rooms, hallways,~ copy rooms, restrooms, breakrooms, etc.) I am c~nfident that implementation of this polZcy will go smooth.ly. I hope we all remain sensitive to the needs of smokers and non-smokers and maintain a friendly and caring attitude toward one another. Page 13

Bulletin to Management June 1,2,1986 Sample. Policy (Western communications firm) SMOKING CONTROL 1. PURPOSE To: promote the health and safety of all employees by providing safe and healthy working conditions and; programs. 2. POLICY The smoking of tobacco or any other substance or plant is a danger to health and is a cause of material annoyance and discomfort to non-smokers. To protect its employees' hea~th and welfare, will regulate smoking in. the work-place. 3. PRACT ICE Using already available means of ventilation or separation or partition, we will attempt to reach a reasonable acco~modatlon, insofar as possible, between the preference of non-smokingand smoking employees. All employees have the responsibility for maintaining a constant awareness of conditions that are dangerous to the health: of non-smokers and: those who smoke. If reasonable accommodation that is satisfactory to all affected non-smoking employees cannot be reached., the preferences of the non-smoking employees will prevail and action will be taken to insure a substantially smoke-free atmosphere. This means providing adequate notice, consistent enforcement and, when necessary, applying uniform and fair discipline. All common areas, i.e., reception areas, hallways, lunchrooms, restrooms, conference rooms and meeting rooms will be no-smoking areas and clearly marked with "No Smoking" signs. Work areas designated as no-smoking areas will be similarly signed. Any employee objectlng to. smoke in his or her work area will initiate com- pliance with these instructions. In all locations the individual responsible for a particular building or work location will assure that non-smoking areas are clearly identified and observed. Smoking will be allowed in designated smoking areas or rooms which will be enclosed to prevent smoke from drifting into non-smoklng areas, i.e., doors will be kept closed until smoke is cleared'. Insofar as is reasonable, the Safety and Health Department will attempt to maintain current information on smoking cessation and related! health education information for use of interested employees. For the first six months after the effective date of this revised instruction, discipline will be administered only after prior review by the V'ice President- Human Resources or designate.

,. June /2.1986 Sample Policy (Small Northeastern research and development firm) SMOKING POLICY To comply with the Legislation ¢oncet-nin8 control o~ smoking in places of employment, the following smoking policy is in effect at All outslde areas wlthin the fenced perimeter of the slte are designated "'NO SMOKING" areas. All laboratory, corridor, fabrication, library and desi.$nated "NO SMOKING". mechanical room, pilot plant, shippinglreceivin8 areas are Each individual office will be a "SMOKING" or "NO SMOKING" area at the discretion of the occupant. Multipl, e office areas will be "SMOKING" or "NO SMOKING'" at the discretion of the occupant at each position. "'NO SMOKING'" areas will be desisnated in. the cafeteria and buildi.n~ #i conference room. "SMOKI~NG" or "NO SMOKING" in all other conference rooms will be determined by the originator of the meetinE after polling the attendees. The main lobby, break rooms, restrooms and. locker rooms are desi.~nated "SMOKING" areas. Areas not specifically included in this policy shall be considered "'NO SMOKING" areas. "NO SMOKING" pictoErams are available at the Safety/Security office area. o The following maps depict this smokin8 policy. We emphasize the importance of this policy and remind you that failure to comply with these 8uidelines will result in appropriate disciplinary action as outlined earlier in this manual. Page 15

CHEST VOLUME 89 NUMBER 2 /FEBRUARY, 1986 \/ assive Smoking Acute Effects in Asthma £ince King james ttie~ F'irst's "'e=mntcrl)laste t() llal)er~~ ~'recor~ed ere and inuu~l~ali irlilaii~mc ill~, mid wheezin~ iii ~i~tlle IIr~ll)iJriUitlli~ of littrilial Slilljc-uts iiiid ;l~tlllll;lti(" I);itii'ill~ M~nt" iet'ellll)', there ha~ he.ll intere~l; in tlilculneillill~'tlie exacl' I)h)'~iolil~ic Prom a iltedical point ofvie~ tillt" ~vi)tltd like hikliow why large nlunbers ill~ asthlnati¢ patients (lllld llornlal individuals): colnplain of cough and wheeze when exposed~ to cigarette sinoke. Understanding tlie llleellallisins revolved should be helpthl to filture re- search into ~stllma and envinmmentall lung disease. ~¢Froln a ~litieal poiilt of view, the current nlovenlent for smoke-free environments wouldbe strengthened if one ~e~ able to show objective laborator~ changes on ute ex~su~ to "'second-hand"cigarette smoke. Contem~rary studies of pulmonary t~netion have delineated three interrt'lated etlk~cts lit] tobacco snloke that are germane to the ongoing d~bate almut; the iln- port~ of scrod-hand smoke: L Chronic exposure to second-hand tobacc~ smoke in the ~rkplac~ has been documented to result in decrements in the FEF~-75%+ andia similar exposure in the home~ showed reductions in FEV, as well: as FEF~T5%. ~. Actually snloking cigarettes produces cl.rtaill acute effects, including higlily significant increases in ai~ays resistance:"-: One might accordingly speculate that scrod-hand smoke should have similar acute fects. 8; Ine~ed bronchial reaetivity~ cxlmpared with nonsmokers h~ ~en r~ed in a group of smokers ~th othe~se normal pulmonary function tests.~ ~ In this issue of Chesi (see page 180), a ea~ful study by'Wi~elnann and c~-~rkers has shown no ine~ura- hie ~ute effects of passive smoking in young ~thmatie ~t~nts; ~th re~ting ventilatory t~netion and ai~ay festivity were unchanged. Only ~ other pa~rs have l~ked di~etly at this question. Shephard et aP tiiund no effect, while Dahlns et aP"'d~'uluented deleterious effect of passive smoking in asthmatic sulljecls; Tlw dtscilSSlOllS i~t|;eredlt~y ttle allthltr,s ul)hllse three articles give causc tbr t{lrther reth~ctilm iibollt; passive Mllll~ill7 iiildlasthlllli. CImld il be thai ;i cunsidcrably lllllgt'r dlil-atitlil lit t.xlloMire i~ flit' key7 allil lsl)herll, alld sh.<ved all iliCi-,~'a~t" iii cllii~hiii~ bul Illl si~iiitit'ant t)ulhillliary t]iiiuliim c.llaii~t-s. Mild fist' i)t a~lhll~alit Ila[ii/'lils ill die l'XllOSiiie cllallibcr wliuldlal~ll Ill' intcrl,~tin~. This sliould iiiilllit' tlit~ lil{~ silualioii llllilt' cll~sclv ihan ally t, tlair-bllUlid cxperi- ilit.lllL l)elaycd ctt{'ct~, loll rt:qilil-t" C'Olisidel:a[iiOli. It inay well lle tilat tiiture st;udies should tbllow asthlnatic patielits up to 48 hotlrs atier tile passive snloking insult. Finallyi let IIS ilot tb~get~ that niedtcal liiSto~y ilbOlllids: in, exaliltllt,s of physicians dislnissiiig Sylllp- toms bec'atlse Ileitht'r our crude physical exalllinati011 techniques nor Oilr routine laboratory tests coui~ uncover supl~rling evidence. Othe~ tests: ~ay l),lve inore sensitive than those currently employed in studying the physiology'of passive smoking, Necilh, M. l~fcoe, M.D. London, Ont*,,io. University t,t" Western Oiltario: Reprint. requests: D~: Lefcoe. Victoria tlospital. 37.5 South Street, L4mdnrl.. Ontario. Canada N6A 4(;5. [~EFERENCES I James First,: King of (;real Britalin,and Ireland. The E~says ~ntise, in,tile l)ivinl= Art;ofipt~sie. Edinthlrg~; 1~5. A Coun- 277-82 3. speer E ~lll~tal and! ltie non-smoker: a ~tudy of subjective symptoms: Arch Environ IteMtg 1~ 16:443-46 4 Willie 18, Fmeb lIE Small-ai~ay~ dy~lhnction in non-smtlkt'rs ch~ni~ly e~l~'d to tol~ smoke. N Engl J Med 1~; 5 ~uffm~ F. Tessier IE P~I O. ~ult ~sive smoking in the hnne envinmment: a fist f~'ior for chronic airfl~ limitation. Anl J Epidelniol I~; 1 6 C~iang S~ W~g BC. ~cute eN~'ts ofci~retie smoking on pul- mlln~y function~ Ain Rev Ne~pir Dis 1970; t01:~i-~ 7 So~l B~ viiV~rhies L. Emirgil C; Detection o[~'ute ci~ette smoking on ~ays d#:n~ics. ~or~ 1~77; 32:312-16 8 Gerard JW. C~'kcmfl DW,' Mink J~ Cdton I)~ ~lalna~Ma ~lsman ~. lncre~d nons~cifie bmnchi~ reaciivily in ciga- rette sllltlkern wiih ~tlrnlal!lung fulicti~n: Ain Ilev Nesllir I)is 1~; 1~:577-81 CHEST /8~ / 2 / FEBRUARY. 188~ li§li

Indoor pollut on If you think your home is a bastion of clean air in a polluted world, think ag c U from furnishings and building materials. The "tighter" the house, the more seri- eus the problem can be. Caulking, weather stripping, and insulation cut down on ventilation, and thus help seal in pollutants. Most susceptible to indoor pol- lution problems are the so-called super- tight houses that were built within the past 5 or 10 years. In the typical American home, an amount of fresh air equal to the volume of air in the house leaks in about once an hour. That's called a ventilation rate of 1.0 air change per hour. But superfight houses may have ventilation rates of only 0.1 or 0.2 air change per hour. For super- tight houses, a heat:recovery ventilator (see page 596) is one wayto provide ven- tilation while :conserving heat. Ordinary tightening of an existing house generally results in~ a: far smaller reduction in ventilation rates. Typical measures--caulking, weather stripping. increased insulation--reduce air circula- tion by 25 percent at most. Unless: a powerful pollutant source is present, this would not ordinarily push indoor pollution concentrations to extremely high levels~ But you should nevertheless be aware of signs ofl possible pollution problems. These include condensation on the inside of windows in winter, presence of mold or mildew on walls or ceilings, stale odors that linger, smarting eyes, or frequentl respiratory illnesses, especially among .~:!:~!"'~:":"~~ meant ~ufion, of ~e out; ~~ d~r ~--e~anst s~g from. motor vehicles ~ke billo~g from faao~es ~d re~. c~s. Most of us have ~wa~ a~med ~M~I any t~eat stop~d at ~e d~rstep: ~r h~mes were enclaves of ~ean a~ ~ a ~luted world. Rtx~ntl~, however, stu~es ~ve fo~d tk~t iad~r air is often ~er ~ out- &xw air. For ~me ~u~, ~d~r e~x~ures reg~arly ~c~ ~ible ~t~r stand~ds ~t for ~em. ~ yet, no Gox~xment s~nd~ds e~ for les~l$ in ~ple's houses, ~d ~e &~xLq for pubic b~gs ~e a w~ ~n~ h~ge~ge. S~ most ~ople s~: more ~an 60 ~cent of ~ek ~x~ their homes; ~ien~ts ~e con, ~ ~at ~gh ~d~r ~u~t levels n~g~t have adverse he~ eff~. ~ factors have aggravated: ~ai~ problemz New che~ ~ houses ~e ~tter ~t~ they ased~ to be, Concern has also in~a~ as res~'~ve !~ n~ a~uti ~e ~ds of ~e~s ~at ha~ k~ ~en M ~ple's homes. ~ands of cbe~ls, ~me to~c ~d n~- ~ver ad~uately test~ for to,dry, a~ ~s~t in household pr~u~ ~g f~ ~Mt s~p~ to ~s~ddes. t~l ~mi~ls ~use Mto ~e Md~r What to do about: - : ~ more toxic chemicals, and generally ~ ~ ~i~: :: ,. When you use household chemicals: think it's wise to minimize your ~: ':': that might be toxic, such as paint ~ to aexosol products, parficu- " strippers, try to usd them outdoors. ~ those that may use methylene At the least, open windows and tur:n.. ~ti~d~k~'ide~ule~m as a propellanL Corollated • ~ on a fan when using them inside. And Pump bottles and other means of keep cans and bottles tightly sealed ~pensbig household products, nero- and store them outside in a shed or ~ ~s~ally release larger amounts of. • garage if possible. FRANK E. RESNtK cha~en (see chart, page 598). Improved ventilation is often the answer. The pollutants that pose the greatest threats inside people!s homes are not nec, essarily the same ones that pose the biggest problems outdoors. To under- stand the indoor-nix problem, you will' needito get acquainted with another cast of potential,villains. Household chemicals A typical house harbors :dozens of, prod- ucts that release organic chemicals. (One study sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency found more than 350 organic chemicals in the air of a single house.) Many household-chemical prod- ucts~spra~ paints, insecticides, furniture polish, and so on---come in aerosoliform, assuring that tiny droplets of the product will be dispersed into the air, and adding an additional chemical (the propellant) to those that are present in the basic prod- uct. The average home contains some 45 aerosol cans. Some of these chemicals, particularly solvents, may pose hazaxds to your health. Several: solvents used in, consumer prod- ucts are known or suspected caxcinogens. One of the worst, and most commonly used, is methylene chloride. Scientists have suspected for several years that methylene chloride may be car- cinogerdc, and a recent study provides strong evidence that it is. The National Toxicology Program carried out an inhala- tion study of methylene chloride using mice and rats. Last January, the NTP reported its results to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission: Methylene chloride is an animal carcLnogen that causes numerous tumors in both mice and: rats. Experts agree that such findings in test animals mean that a substance may pose a cancer risk to humans. The CPSC staff relied in part on the NTP results to estimate the potential can-" cer risk posed by methylene chloride. The staff calculated that three of every thou- sand people who used a methylene- chloride-based paint stripper once per year between age 25 and 70 (for three hours each time in a dosed work room) could develop cancer as a result. That was CONSUMER REPORTS OCTOBER 1985

the highest cancer risk the CPSC sta~ had ever calculated for any household-chemi- cal hazard. One reason to be concer~ed about methylene chloride is that it is present in large amounts in several widely used con- sumer products. Each year,, some 135 million cans of paint stripper are sold. Vir- tually all of them consist of 50 to 80 percent methylene chloride, Most of the 100 million cans of aerosol paint sold each year also: contain methylene chloride, in smaller amounts. So do about 30 percent of aerosol hair sprays and: insecticides, which include the chemical among their "inert ingredients." Last June, the CPSC staff asked the commissioners for permission to work with the industry on measures that would reduce consumer exp~ure to methylene chloride. The staff also asked the commis- sioners to convene an advisory panel to asse~ methylene chloride's risk to con- sumers. (By law, the Commission must create such a panel when a chemical poses a chronic hazard.) Despite the staff's urg- ing, the commissioners have not acted on either staff request. Ii~ you want to learn whether methylene chloride is in a product, reading its label won't help much~ Manufacturers usually use catch-all terms--"chlorinated sol- vents" or "aromatic hydrocarbens'--on their ingredients lists, leaving them free to use any of several chemicals, ~ of which should be used with care. Radon Scient~ts have long puzzled over what causes the roughly 15 percent of lung- caac~ ca~_s that occur in people who don't smoke. Increasing evidence sug- gests that the second leading cause of lung cancer may welli be exposure to radon gas. Of all the indoor pollutants we encoun- ter, radon is probably the most danger- ons. This naturally occm-ring radioactive gas can be found under the earth in varying amounts virtually everywhere in the world. Like any gas, it diffuses out of the ground and into the air---or into houses that happen i to be built above. Houses can trap radon gas that otherwise would disperse into the atmosphere. Where the earth is rich-in radon, the gas can accumulate in homes to levels that can significantly increase the risk of lung cancer. The U.S. Environmental Protec- tiou Agency estimates that radon causes: between 5000 and 20,000 lung cancer deaths in the U.S. each year. Colorless and odorless, it inflicts its damage pain- lessly over many years. Radon decays into highly unstable ele- ments called "radon daughters,,' which attach to particles of dust or other matter floating in the ai~. When the dust particles are inhaled, the radon daughters lodge in the lining of the lung. Most of the radon daughters undergo radioactive decay within minutes, emitting alpha particles (consisting of two protons and two neu- truns) that damage adjacent lung cells. ~,,~,,~_.~or~ The bigh-rado~ area ¢~llt~i the Reading Prong spans portions of Pennsylvania, Hew Je~ey, a~i New York. house. A heat-recovery ventilator installed in the basement (see page m- 596) might be a good way to vend- late. An EPA study in progress is .co ~mparing the effectiveness of sev- eral radon-mitigation techniques. ,,. -_>-- - .CONSUMER REPORTS OCTOBER 1985 601

Radon is one ot the few indoor pollu- tants whose health effects are well estab- lished, primarily from studies of uranium miners. Through those studies, research- ers have established the lung-cancer risks associated with various exposure levels. Relying on a ]knifed number of measure- ments, the EPA estimates that one million homes (more than I percent of the nation's total) have radon, levels that are cause for remedial action~ Occupants of those houses, even if they don't smoke, face at least a 4=in-100 chance of develop- ing lung cancer. Those are odds at least as bad as smokers face. By contrast, non- smokers not exposed to high radon levels have only about a 2-in-1000 chance of developing lung cancer, For some people, the risk is much higher than 4 in 100. Last winter, Stanley. Watras, an engineer at the nearly com- pleted Limerick Nuclear Power Plant in, eastern Pennsylvania, set off a radiation detector when entering one of the build- ings. Investigation showed that Watras had high,levels of radiation on his clothes and in his beard and hair. The search, for the source of Watras's radiatiou ended at the home near Boyertown, Pa., where he had lived for a year. It had the highest indoor radon levels encountered to date anywhere in the U.S. Watras, it~ turned out, was living over a large radon hot~ spot--a subterranean rock formation called the Reading Prong, which extends ~rom Pennsylvania through New Jersey and into southern New York. The radon level in Watras's home was 100 times the maximum level permitted in uranium mines~ The ettect of living in that house for 20 years, an EPA official told CU, would be the same as the effect of undergoing three chest X-rays per min- ute for life, or smoking 50 to 100 packs of cigarettes per day. The lung-cancer risk for people exposed to such levels d radon approaches 100 percent. All states probably have some radon hot spots. Unfortunately, there is at present no way to tell i if~ you live over one. The EPA is now planning a survey to assess radon Ievels in a representative sample of U.S. homes, but that survey may take four years or more to complete. Though it may help predict where the risk is greatest, it willi not determine radon, levels in every home. Indoor radon levels can vary tre- mendously from one house to another. (The house next door to Stanley Watras's, for example, had no radon problem.) In addition to the amount of uranium or radium in the soil, a house's radon level depends on several factors, including the te0Ccure of the underlying soft and the con- stroction of the house. Formaldehyde Building materials and,hwnishings con- tribute to many cases of "sick building syndrome" that have afliicted offices in 602 recent years. Volatile chemicals in some of these products seep out into the indoor atmosphere. Pollutants in this class include pentachlorophenol (a wood pre- servative), certain adhesives used in car- pet backings, and formaldehyde, perhaps the best-known of all indoor pollutants.~ Formaldehyde came to national atten, tion several years ago largely because of its presence in urea-formaldehyde foam insulation. Many homeowners had this foam pumped into hollow exterior walls to save on energy costs, only to find that formaldehyde gas from incorrectly pre- paxed or applied foam could cause eye and, respiratory irritation, sometimes severe. Beyond those immediate health problems, an industry-sponsored study showed that long-term high exposures to formalde- hyde caused nasal cancers in rats. The CPSC banned the use of urea-for- maldehyde foam insulation in 1982. A Federal appeals court overturned the ban the next year, but even before the ban took effect the adverse publicity had pretty much halted use of the foam. There are plenty of other sources of formaldehyde, however. Each year, bil- lions of pounds of it are used in making plywood and particleboard and: in treating textiles such as draperies and carpets. Mobile. homes, tightly constructed and containing a great deal of partideboard, axe espedatly prone to indoor formalde- hyde problems. Formaldehyde, unlike some pollutants, isn't odorless. However, the gas caa have irritant effects at levels that you can't smell. If you think you may have a formal- dehyde problem in your house, but you're not sure, there are formaldehyde moni- tors available at moderate cost. One company that offers them is Air Quality Research Inc., 901 Grayson St., Berkeley, Calif. 94710. The detector is a small glass vial that you expose to room air for a week and then marl back to the company for CONSUMER REPORTS OCTOBER 1985

analysis. The cost;of the detector ($48 for two, $30 for one) includes postage, labo- ratory analysis, a written report, and a booklet explaining the results. Cembusffon products Three of the major outdoor pollu- tants-nitrogen dioxide, carbon monox- ide, and particulate matter--are com- mouly found indoors at levels higher than those outdoors. Indoor exposures are often high enough, to pose a hazard to human health. Their major sources are gas ranges, heating appliances (defective central heating, systems, tmvented gas and kerosene space heaters, wood-burn- ing stoves);_and ci___~garette smoke. Nitrogen dioxide is an irritant gas that affects the respiratory tract: Long-term exposure to levels above the outdoor stan- dards may contribute to respiratory, dis- ease, People who already have respira- tory problems such as bronchitis and asthma are at particular risk from nitro- gen-dioxide exposure. Carbon monoxide--odorless, colorless, and undetectable to the senses--inter- feres with the blood's ability to carry oxygen to the cells of the body. People with angina poctoris (a heart condition Characterized by chest pain) are among those most sensitive to carbon monoxide. Also sensitive to it are fetuses, newborns, .and people with chronic lung disease or anemJao Particulate matter includes a wide vari- ety of substances that float in the air as discrete particles, either as solids or as liquid droplets. Particles may be toxic themselves or act as carriers for other toxic substances. Most harm.rul~are small -particles that, when inhaled, are carried deep into the lungs: • People at special risk from particulates include those with emphysema, bronchi- tis, or asthma, those with heart disease, smokers, children, and the elderly. Here's a rundown on the major sources of combustion pollutants: Gas rangea. Used in about 30 oercent: of U.S, households, gas ranges may pose problems indoors mainly because of. their nitrogen-dioxide emissions. Particularly in urban areas, pollution leaking in from outdoors, combined with the nitrogen dioxide produced by the ranges, can cre- ate indoor nitrogen-dioxide levels that exceed the standard established by the EPA for outdoor air. Kerosene heaters. More than 12 mil- lion unvented kerosene heaters are now in use. Three years ago, CU tested kerosene heaters and concluded that they could cre- ate potentially hazardous indoor pollutant levels (CONSUM~-R RF_a'OaTS, October 1982). Even though today's heaters burn somewhat more cleanly, subsequent stud- CONSUMER REPORTS OCTOBER 1985 ies measuring pollutant levels in homes with kerosene heaters have supported ;our conclusion. Researchers at the Pierce Foundation Laboratory at Yale University recently monitored 150 COnnecticut homes that used kerosene heaters. They found; that, for half, the homes, average nitrogen-diox- ide exposure levels during heater use exceeded the standard set bythe EPA for outdoor air. Seventy-one percent of, the homes had~ sulfur dioxide levels that exceeded the long-term EPA standard. Ao, part of the same study, researchers evalu- ated the health,of children in 174 families with kerosene beaters andiin 173 families without heaters. They found that children in homes with kerosene heaters experi- enced significantly more days of acute respiratory illness than children in homes without kerosene heaters. Gas space heaters. Unrented gas space heaters are most commonly found in rural areas of;the Seuth,and Southwest. About six million are now in use. Their high outputs of carbon monoxide and nitrogen~dioxide probably make them the most polluting ofl all unvented combustion appliances. In a recent study, researchers at the University of. California's Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory measured pollutant levels produced by a variety of gas space heaters. For carbon monoxide, maximum levels measured indoors were nearly three times the long-term outdoor-air standard. Nitrogen-dioxide levels ranged from, 8 to 29 times higher than the out- door nitrogen-dioxide standard. Tobacco smoke. About 54 million Americans--one third of all ad,lts~ smoke tobacco, mainly cigarettes, That smoke adds copious amounts of parl|cu- lares to indoor air; it also adds hundreds of different gases, including carbon monox- ide and nitrogen dioxide. The impact of cigarettes on smokers is all too clear: Cigarettes account for, MU)ut 85 percent of the 120.000 lung Cancer deaths that occur eachyear in,the U,iled States. They also conLribute to thougands of cases of emphysema, cardiova~:ular disease; and other aliments. Cigarette smoke also harms c~rtain "passive smokers'--people who the smoke of smokers at home, at work, and elsewhere. Very young children, of smoking parents have an increased ir~ci- deuce of: bronchitis and pneumonia, and are more likely to be hospitalizol respiratory infections than the children of nonsmokers. Many.adults, especiatl), peo. ple with respiratory allergies, ~offer severe discomfort from the irritative effects of cigarette smoke. And the nancies of women who smoke inw,6m much-greater-than-normal rLqk of n~r. riage and stillbirth. Babies born to ers tend to have lower birthweight increased incidence of health,and dey, lop. mental problems after birth. Since tobacco smoke inhaled by smokers contains the same carcinogex,~ the smoke inhaled by active sm~r~, some scientists hypothesize that ~e smoking poses a risk of lung cancer. more on that, see COUSUMER February 1985, • I I1~ ~ . : .'.. high-efficiency filters. These filters, . ...__m~ms " : .,-~ however, canbe expensrve." . If you don't smoke yourself, you're ....... ~-~: Instead of adding filters to your certainly well within your rights to 'i: i central beating or air-conditloning request that visitors txo your home -,..,.-}~system,.you may want to instal] an r~.~__.efra~, fro_m.~.~_~_~._)If someone ia :,: .::electrostatic-precipitator air cleaner~ your home d~oke, consider get-_ _: ~ These devices impart an electric ting an air cleaner. CU recently _ charge to pax:tides, which then are tested room air cleaners and found . several that did a ,good-job of trapping cigarette smoke (see co~sm~:R REPORTS, January 1985). - : - • Filters placed in forced-air heating systems orcentral air-conditioning systems can also help in removing smoke particles. Most such systems come equiplx~d with coarse "low efl~- attracted to a collecting plate. According to the U.S. Department g Energy, electrostatic precipitators compare favorably with medium- a~ high-el~ciency filters. Their main advantage is that they don't impede air flow the way filters do. But their collecting plates must be replaced ~r cleaned every few months.

PHIUP MORRIS INCORPORATED INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDEN!CF TO, FROM: SUBJECT~ 120 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y 1OO1'7 DALE, September 16, 1986 RECEIVED Enclosed is a well documented five country study by the Children's Research Unit which has Just been released by the International. Advertising Association. FR~K [ RESNIK The study provides strong evidence that advertising plays a miniscule role in the initiation of smoking by the young. In the five countries studied (Norway, Hong Kong, Spain, Australia and the United Kingdom) control of advertising ranges from. a ban to rather limited restrictions, yet all five countries report similar impact of social influences on Juven£1e smoking initiation. Please note how similar are the findings to those reported in the WHO study and the Boddewyn "...16 Countries" study. Additional copies are available. Dis ,~ribut ion F. Breidbach H. Cullman P. Franc is M. Horst F. Moreno J. Nelson Do Oxberry F. Re snik 3.B. Robinson G. Smith H. van Roode C. yon Maerestetten M. Winokur D. Zelkowltz

WHY DO JUVENILES START SMOKING? AN INTERN~ATION!AL STUDY OF THE ROLE OF ADVERTISING & OTHER CONTRIBUTORY FACTORS IN AUSTRALIA, HONG KONG, NORWAY, SPAIN. & THE UNITED KINGDOM Edited and Introduced by: PROFESSOR J.J. BODDEWYN, Ph. D Baruch COllege, City University of New York INTERNATIONAL ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION INC.

WHY DO JUVENILES START SMOKING? AN INTERNATIONAL STUDY OF THE ROLE OF ADVERTISING & OTHER CONTRIBUTORY FACTORS IN AUSTRALIA, HONG KONG, NORWAY, SPAIN & THE: UNITED KINGDOM Edited and Introduced by: PROFESSOR J.3. BODDEWYN, Ph. D Baruch College, City University of New York Published l by: The International Advertising Association New York August 1986

A report prepared by: CHILDREN'S RESEARCH UNIT (CRU), London Sponsored by: INFOTAB, Brussels Published by: INTERNATIONAL ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION, New York

PREFACE The 1AA is most, interested in the effects of advertising on children, a so-called vulnerable group. For this reason, we publish this study as a valu- able addition to the literature. It is:based on very careful research by a most qualified organization employing, methodology which we have examined thoroughly and, found to: be of the highest standards, It is also research which has generated a comparable international data base~ The IAA believes in the freedom to advertise all~ products:and services which are legally sold and legally consumed. Further, the IAA believes that this freedom,is indivisible in the sense that restrictions applied to one group of products inevitably lead' to, erosion of the freedom to advertise other products. These beliefs led us :to:publish"Tobacco Advertising Bans and Consumption in 16 Countiries" (in 1983. and 1986), which clearly showed tihat the implementation of advertising bans was generally not followed by decreases in overall tobacco consumption. It would be convenient for those against advertising to indict it asa main cause in how and why people buyand consume products: But advertisingis only one of many variables affecting consumer choices. This five-nation study bears on all of these issues and should be an impor- tant addition to a growing literature on them. International Advertising Association World Headquarters 475 Fifth Avenue, New York NY 10017, USA (212) 684-1583

CONTENTS I. EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION! THE ISSUE 3. BASIC' RESEARCH APPROACH 4. RESU:LTS OVERVIEW 5. KEY FIN!DINGS THE PREVALENCE OFSMOKING THE DIRECT IMPACT OF ADVERTISING 8. STARTING TO SMOKE A PPENDICES A : Background to the Children's Research Unit (CRU): B : Interviewing ChildrenI General Comments C : CRU's: Research Methods Used in This Study D : Smoking Frequency E : Outline Information About Surveys F : Comparison of Restrictions:on Tobacco Advertising in Countries Covered, by, Report G : Reviewof the Literature H : References 1 4 5 7 8 l0 1i3 15 21 22 25 28 30 31 32 35

1. EDITOR, S INTRODUCT ON Whether tobacco: advertising.affects overall tobacco: consumption is. a complex problem. The bulk of research on this topic points to little or no relationship between the two: A subset of this issue concerns the impact of cigarette.advertising on,smoking initiation bythe young: do juveniles start to smoke because t:hey have been exposed to print and broadcast advertisements? Important Evidence The 5-country study reported l~ere provides strong evidence that adver- tish~g pla)w a miniscule role in the' initiation oJsmoking: by the young. Instead, parents, siblings and friends appear to be the determining factors when ctfildren sta~ to smoke. New Evidence Such a point h~ been made and p~oved before. However, this recent study (:1984~ 1986)provides.not only covvoborative evidence but also: a new angle by focussing on five countries whe~ the control of cigarette:adverfis~ ing ranges from,a ban (Norway)to rather limited restrictions (:Hong Kong and Spain), witch Australia and the United Kingdom: standing in between. It estahlishes thatJbmi~v and peer influences appear to be tt~e determin~ ing./hct,otw, hr~pecfive ~?[' whether the young are exposed 1o ~garette advertish~g or not; wittY; aH~five countries rq~orth~g the similar impact ~?[: so~'m/ b~/ha'nc~w on juveni/e:.~oking re#lot,ion:. New Methodology, Tiffs stiudy also breaks new methodological ground in tihat, for the first time, an established Smoking P~vvalence Estimator has been applied mter- nationaHi: to produce a comparable measure among countries with~differ- i ng.tobaeco-advertising cont~rols, Besides, instead of using, diaries or impersonal questionnaires adminis, tered at school as is common in this field, the present survey used persot~al interviews conducted at home. Again, this:is a first international methodo, logical breakthrough which has generated a comparable: international database about juvenile smoking, initiation:

Finally, a./br broader age range (7 to: 15 /'ld.years old) ~'re37~ondenls were interviewed than in mos! other studies in order to provid~ a mo~e comprcl~cnsive understanding of the factors involved. Implications Such findings, would seem to, challenge the validity' oI~ fairly common assertions that t,he young start: to smoke because they have been,exposed to cigarclle advertising~ They also raise questions abouti the effectiveness of tobacco.advert~ising bans (*)]he fact that Norwayhas hadlsuch a~complete ban since 1975, yet retains:relatively high, proportions of adult and juvenile smokers, clearly points to other factors. Is/he Evidence Believable? This:study was initiated and financed by the tobacco industiry: N~) one should question its.right to:engage in research~ any more t~han research by the antismoking movement should be consideredl suspicious a, priori. The test, instead, should be: "is: it good research?" The findings reported here were provided by the Lond0n-based Child- ren's Research, Unit (CR U); which is an experienced research,house that has been,employed by both business and government (see Appendix A): CRU reliedl in part on,the met~hods and findings of studies commissioned by the British ~GOvernment in 1982: and11984, but it, also d ~ewon its own,extensive international, research experience to improve on the British Government study:s methodology, as was explained above (Appendices B andl C detail tt~e research methodology used in the five country studies). I think that t~he methodology used by CRUiwas appr, opriate and that the findings are credible -- after all, other studies have reached similar conclu~ sions but t~he reader should reach his:or her own conclusions, in any.case, the newdata presentedl here, collected internationally, and in a comparable manner, are now available for discussing the issue of juvenile smoking, lnltlatlon~ Limitations It, may be objected that this stludy has reduced cultural differences among the five countries to a single factor, namely, the differences among national tobacco-advertising controls. This is not quite correct since there are refer- ences to cultural habits -- particularlyin Hong Kong and Spain. However, even, if this criticism is valid and we need further studies: of the role of other (*) .gcc Ior example:: 7bhoc¢.~ ,,]~lv¢~rti~ing Bans and ('on.sto~q~li~n~ in I6 ('o~tn/r:ie~: NCv~ York: Imcrtmtional Adverlising Association, 198(,. 2

cultural factors in the initiation of smoking bythe young, thisvery require- ment. also applies to those who. advocate cigarette-advertising bans and other restrictions all over the world. They too ignore or downplay the varying impacts of cultural values and customs:when theypropose the same solutions -- bans and restrictions-- everywhere: The findings reportedl here deal mainly with juvenile smoking initiation, and do,not investigate factors accountingfor the continuation of smoking behaviour. Only additional research can explain the latter but, meanwhile, the Children's Research Unit's study can be considered to have thoroughly investigated factors influencing the initiation of smoking by youngsters on a cross-national basis. In my editorial role, I have asked the authors of this report to clarify their methods: and findings, and to limit their interpretations rio what can be reasonably inferred from the data. As such, the following study provides valuable evidence for researchers, policy-makers, advetxising practitioners and concerned citizens. J.J. Boddewyn Professor of Marketing/'International Business Baruch College, City University of New York 17 Lexington Avenue, New York 10010, USA Tel. (212) 7.25-3295:

2. THE ISSUE There is a growing body of national studies:identifying factors account~ ing for "juvenile smoking initiation," that is, the conditions andlmotivations associated with~chiidren starting to smoke (see Appendix G for a review of that literature). Besides, whether substantiated or not,: there is a. fairly widespread belief around the worldl that advertising constitutes a major factor in this initiation process. In contrast, there has been, a lack of systematic cross-national research to compare juvenile smoking initiation under different country, conditions. Nations, of course, vary considerably in such factors as values, economic development~, political systems and social stratification. Controlling for all of these factors is a daunting task indeed for any researcher. However, consideringthat one common remedy has been proposed ro combat~juvenile smoking, namely; to ban or severely, restrict tobacco ad~,ertising, it was highly desirable to compare'countries that. dif.[~r significantly in terms of puhtic policies toward tobacco advertising, in order to, determine the relative'hnpact of tobacco advertising on why juveniles start, smoking~ To this:end, the:tobacco industry's international information organisa- tion (INFOTAB) commissioned the Children's Research Unit (CR U -- see Appendix: A)to determine tihe extent to which tobacco advertising influ- enced juvenile smoking: initmtion in a sample of countries selected for their different regulatory systems regarding the advertising of tobacco products (see Appendix F for further details about tihese systems)i.

3. BASIC RESEARCH APPROACH The programme of research reported here has involved independent research investigations in four countries; conducted during 1984 (Austra- lia); 1985 (Norway)and |986 (Spain and Hong Kong). This: research programme has:attempted to investigate comprehensively juvenile smoking initiation, with particular attention being given, to the role of advertising. Approximately. 1000 interviews were conducted in each one of these four countries with male and female respondents aged 7-15/16 years, according to a quota sample. All~interviews were conductedl personally and in-home, with parentall permission and the willing participation of the child (see Appendices C and E for further details)~ First of all~ itl was important to apply a, reliable est:imator of smoking prevalence so thaticountrieswith varyingpolicies towards tobacco advertiS- ing control could be meaningfully compared. CRU therefore decided to apply Bewley's Smoking Prevalence Estimator (see Appendix D); widely accepted in this field, throughout this international researct~ project. Since the U K Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (:OPCS) studies (:Dobbs & Marsh 1, 2*):had also applied: Bewley's modified estimator in 1982 and 1984, this enabledlcomparisons to be made between data from the United Kingdom (OPCS)and other countries (CRU studies): Four countries were chosen as. providing important comparisons in relation to the degree of media exposure allowed for tobacco advertising at the time of the:survey: I. AUSTRALIA was selected as: having similar voluntary agreements to t hose i n t he United Kingdom as far as rest rictiio ns o n to bacco ad~/ertising are concerned. 2. NORWAY was chosen because there has.been, a total ban on, tobacco advertising, in force since 1975. 3. SPAIN and 4. HONG KONG were selected to provide further contrasts in that tobac- co advertising, was permitted across: all media in tliese two countries. * The numbers in parentheses refer to entries in the Bibliograph_~' (iAppendix H) at ttle end of this report.

The UIK OPCS studies provided the baseline essential for investigating. Australia, NOrway, Spain and Hong Kong, and the results from all five countries are considered here (NOte: In the United Kingdom there were three: separate stiudies which are treated here as:one -- see Appendices D and E). The overall approach adoptedl in this report isto illustrate the picture which emerges from each, national survey. It must be stressed, however, that "regular smokers" are always defined in the same way aschildren who smoke at least one cigarette every week, andlthat "children"always means children of comparable age, when this appears to be important (see Appendix D). Against this background, this research report considers the national patterns of smoking, the ways in which smoking seems.to start,.and the part which advertising may play in this process, against the impact of the social and familial environments. With a study of this complex nature, there are many possible analytical breakdowns: of the statistics, such, as boys versus girls, those who live in towns versus those who live in the country, and social and cultural factors: However, the purpose of the research was to examine differences among five countries; and the data is therefore presented here five ways by country of study~ and within this,:by smokers against non-smokers, and often by age as well. Furt:her fragmentation would seemlikely to bring confusion rather than enlightenment within the context of this report. Further enquiries about this.cross-national survey can be addressed~ to: Glen Smith, DirectOr Children's Research Unit; ~CRU) Albany House Portslade Road London SW8 3DJ England Tel. 01-622 0286 Tx. 8952387 6

4. RESULTS OVERVIEW In Norway, for eleven years(since 1975); there has been a total ban: on tobacco advertising, but the proportion of those aged between 11 and 15 years who can be classified as "regular smokers," according to this survey is just over one in ten (see Appendix D for the definition of"regular smoker"): In Spain, on the other hand, minor advertising controls have been introduced in the last few years, yet the proportion of regular juvenile smoking is :rather less than that in Norway andi for that matter, than the propor- tion in Australia where control of tobacco advertising follows a different pattern. In the United Kingdom, there are restrictions of still other kinds;yet; once again, the :proportion:of I I-15 year-olds:who claim to smoke regularly follows :almost exactly the same pattern as in Norway. In other words; on the basisof the varying: nationalpatterns regarding the control of tobacco advertising, one could notpredict which country would have the lowest incidence of juvenile smoking~ Conversely, juvenile smoking, incidence statistics would not help predict, which country has the strongest restrictions on tobacco, advertising. Clearly, factors other than tobacco advertising and its regulatory control:must have played a key role in juvenile smoking initiation and incidence. This cross-national research~ indeed reveals such key factors, as: I): the circumstances in which children began to experiment, 2) the role playedi by the smokingbehaviour of parents, brothers, sisters and friends, and 3) the challenge of daredevilry. Such factors are remarkably similar from country to country (:in Hor~g Kong the pattern deviates: in the extent to which children smoke ati all, but remains verysimilar on almost all!other issues). On the other hand, the juvenile respondents:in this survey ascribed very little importance to advertising as an initiating factor: To summarise, the role of advertising in. tlhe smoking initiation process has been internationally examined within and between, countries with different approaches to tobacco advertising controls (,see Appendices E and: F), ranging from countries with a few restrictions, to one with a~complete adVertising.ban (Norway). h7 all cases, it is apparent that tobacco advertising does'not significantly #~/hwnce the smoking initiation process asJbr as.children and young:people are ~,'oncerned. Instead, the decision to start smoking #~volves mostly a combination of personal, family and social factors,

~!l~ulsn~" U! po~!uolu! ~ splo ~ 91"l: J°~suv ~N • ,~Jluno3 leql u!slO.tluo3 ~u[s[lJoApe o33eqol!lle lsocule jo z3uosqe oql ~]!dszp 'uotutuo3sszI se~ ~U]~lOtUS zJoq~ ~UO~l ~lUOH ~u!zq uo!ldz3xz ~rql 'pzSzAJnS sz!Jluno3 ~ql ~uotue ael!tU]s zq ol punoj ~a~m q3[q~ "lle le ~u[~oms u~apl!q3 plo ap, o,~ gl-/jo suo[IJodoad ~ql:slez^za I olqe.L "!

Table 2 OVEI~LL SMOKING BEHAVIOUR PERCENTAGES G|VING TH|S ANSWER AMONG,RESPONDENTS AGED I|~|5 YEARS: U~i~ kust ralia Norway Spain ~ Hoag Engta~d Wales Scotland ~1-16 y~. Koag Total in ,numbers 36581 2778[2798 608 553 558 559 Never ~'~ ~ ~ ~~ F '~ Use.~l to 3%! 3%, 8% 6% ! 1% 3% 11% 16%; 3%, 7% | 3%, Regular I I 3. The incidence of regular smoking among 115 year-olds (tihe oldest age group where comparable international data are available)was highest in Norway; a country.with a total~advertising ban for tobaeco, and lowest in Hong Kong where there were relativelyfew restrictions on tobacco advertising, 4. The start of smoking was found to depend very much on the influence of family andl friendS, and the chances of a child smokingin a household w.here there were no other smokers ~vere low fsee chapter 8)~ 5~ The influence Of advertising on smoking initiation was found to be insig- nificant in relation to the overwhelming pressures of personal (family and friends) inflUences surrounding tlhe potent:ial smoker (see chapter 8).

6. THE PREVALENCE OF SMOKING In Tables I andi 2; information is given for the total sample (7:15,years) and for I I- 15 year-olds only~ the latter being comparable with t~he United Kingdom surveys. For I1-15 year-olds in every country, withthe exception of Hong Kong, the position was similar: about half said that they had ne~er smoked; and between one fifth and two fifths said that tihey had tried once and never again. Bearing in mind that iti is between these two groups (tihose who had never smoked and those who had tiriedl once and never again) that all United Kingdom adjustment was made (see Appendix D); three out~ of four children aged between I I and 15 years had never smoked more than oncc: On the other hand, in, all countries, between less. tihan one in ten and approximately one in seven,-- lowesti in Spain (~7%), highest in Scotland (16%)i and Norway. (113%) -- said that they were now regular smokers; that is, smoked at least one cigarette aweek (see Appendix D for a definition of "regular smoker"). Hong Kong, however, differs dramatically from all the other countries studied, in that the proportion of children, who smoked -- despite less stringent advertising controls than elsewhere --- is lower than anywhere else; yet confirms almost all the remaining findings. In Hong Kong, only 3% children aged 11-15 reported that tihey were regular smokers, against who said that they had never even, hadl a single puff. Part of this difference is undoubtedly due to social factors, In Hong Kong, and nowhere else, there was a major variation between the smoking habits of boys and girls. Looking at all those who have ever smoked: • In England, for every 100 boys, there were 95 girls who had ever smoked. • In Wales, for every 100 boys, there were 102 girls whohad ever smoked. • In Scotland, for every 100, boys, there were 1i00: girls who had ever smoked. • In, Australia, for every 100 boys, there were I00 girls, who. had ever smoked. • In Norway, for every 100 boys, there were 73.girls who had ever smoked. • In Spain, for every 100 boys, there were 73 girlswho had ever smoked. But, • In Hong Kong, for every 100 boys; there were 42 girls who had ever smoked. I0

This sex difference is also reflected in tihe smoking habits of parents, as we shall soon see. Naturally,. there is a progression upwards, the older the child becomes, This increase is governed by a number of factors: as the child becomes older, adult aspirations and identification with adults increase, the child's peer group widens and includes peers with a greater variety, of behaviour pat= terns, the child's mobility and spending power increase, and tihe age for legal purchase of the product approaches: Taking the two age extremes on~ which information is available in all countries:(:l i year-olds:against 15 year- olds), we find the foilowingpatterns for those smoking one or more ciga- rettes a week: SMOKING ONE OR MORE CIGARETTES A WEEK Atll At 15 England i I% 28% Wales. I 23 Scotland 3 32 Australia I (*): 19 Norway 0 36 Spain I 27 Hong Kong 0 I I (*) I I ~ 12 year-oldS. It is worth noting the higher incidence of smoking in Norway where a tobacco~advertising ban has: been in operation since 1975~ Hong Kong has far fewer smokers at age 15, as does Australia. Even at 15, however, there is. no country where children/young people have reached the smoking levels of their parents, as shown below: PERCENTAGES OF PERCENTAGES OF ALL CHILDREN 15-YEAR-OLDS SAMPLES REPORTING THAT SMOKING THIS PARENT SMOKED(,) Father Molher England 28% 44% 37% Wales 23 47 43 Scolland 32 50 48 Australia~ 19 40 34 NOrway 36 51 46 Spain 27 69 32 Hong Kong I I 44 4 (,)1 I:1~ .l'ear-ohA i~ the United Kingdom 7:16 year-okA #~ Auslralia 7:15 .l'ear~okA it~ Hong Kong, Spain and Norway' IJl

One final point: for the sake of simplicity in reporting these data, we have considered all smoking as equal, whether the number smoked per week is one or forty, or even more.The classifications used inall surveys allowed for this aspect, and more detailed breakdowns are shown in t~he following table: 11-15 YEAR-OLDS : PERCENTAGES SMOKING THIS NUMBER OF CIGARETTES PER WEEK TOTAL PERCENTAGES OF 11-15 YEAR-OiLDS SMOKING I-6 7~39 40+ England 3% 7t?~, 3~,7~ 13~ Wales 3 6 2 II Scotland 4 9 4 16, Australia 3 4 2' 9 Norway 4 6 3 13, Spain 3 3 I 7 NOte: Hong Kong figures were too Ioxv to be broken down. Again, the similarity is obvious, except for Spain. In most countries, there are similar lower proportionsat the two,extremes -- less than seven cigarettes a week, or more than forty~ The middle-of-the-road group is usually about twice the size of either of these groups, These findings suggest that, irrespective of advertising restrictions, the amount smoked in each country appears to be independent.of the variation in advertising controls, although one argument advanced for such govern- ment restrictions has been that they itrfluence not the fact but the amount ~[ smoking. !¸2

7. THE DIRECT IMPACT OF ADVERTISING ON JUVENILE SMOKING INITIATION The extent to,which "outside messages"from the tiobacco industry have made their mark on the youngcan only. be considered against the smoking patterns:described above. The four country surveys revealed that tt~e major -- indeed the overwhelming -- influence on the start of smoking behaviour among young people was the related behaviour of friends and family, and that this is: almost identical in allithe countries studied. In all surveys outside the United Kingdom, direct questions were asked about potential influences. In Norway, Spain, Australia and Ho,ng Kong, children were shown a list of items which might have influenced t:hem(*:). Their answers witch regard to what might have influenced them, mosl are discussed in greater detail: in the next~ section, but what is shown below are references:to:advertising as prompted responses (i.e. from a proposed list): PERCENTAGES IN THESE COUNTRIES SAYING THAT, INSTARTING TO SMOKE, ADVERTISING WAS: Firs! Most Imporlantl Reason Norway Spain 0 Hong Kong I In Australia, no boys and' I% of girls answered "advertising"in reply to:a differently phrased but similar question (see bottom of Table 3 on page 16)~ Few adults believe that they are ever directly influenced by advertising. However, there is a good dcaliof evidence (3~ 4, 5; 6):that children are less likely to be coy. or self-deceiving in this: respecti certainly, in the case of many other products, lhcv will happily admit to advertising pressure, in such a,context indeed cvcn if we do assume that ctfildren are as reticent as adults- -,the similar very lt)w percentages rcpo~tcd in,the above table imply littlc advertising influence, compared to other ['actors. (*), Respondents were shown a list ~1 possible reasons for starting ~o smoke (see Table 3 on pagc 16). 13

As this study concentrated on investigating tobacco issues; there was insufficient scope for similarly investigating other products such as alcohol and confectionery~ However, in order to put the tobacco results intio context, respondents were questioned; about t~heir brand awareness of cigarettes, alcohol and confectionery(interpreted respectivelyas "beer" and "chocolate"). The exception was Australia where advertising awareness about these other products.was.not covered. The findings were as follows: • In:Norway(where t~here isno advertising of cigarettes), 7.0% menti0nedi the leading brandl ofcigarcttc, against 711% who mentioned the leading brand of chocolate, and 7.7% the leading brand of beer. • In Spain, the pattern was quite different, with 77% mentioning the leading brandlofcigarette. 63% the leading brand of chocolate, and the leading: brand of beer. • In~Hong Kong, 77% mentioned the leading brand of cigarette, 87% the leading brand of chocolate, and 91%the leading brand of beer: • In Australia, at least 87% said that tihey had seen cigarette advertising, but as the full~ Australian, report comments: "Awareness, then, of cig- arette advertising was high amongst all age groups: This finding essen- tially reflects children's awareness of many adult products - for example, kettles, soap powder, petfood,etc. - rather than a motivation, to purchase these products," In other words, brand awareness of cigarettes is quite high in all the countries surveyed, irrespective of whether advertising: is allowed or not: This is also true regarding non-tobacco products and even those which the young: do not use (for example, kettles, petfoods and detergents). Other parts of this report suggest that such cigarette brand awareness is picked up from family~ friends andl other people when,cigarette advertising ~s not allowed. However, the fact tihat cigarette b~andl awareness: is high~ even in countries with no advertising, is related to t;he industry's argumenti t:hat the purpose of cigarette advertising is to induce brand switching -- noti jul~t brand awareness which constitutes only the initial step, and can be generated through means other than advertising~ i¸4

8. STARTING TO SMOKE The cross-national pattern is one of remarkable consistency, in the pro- portion of children who smoke, and in the extent to. which they smoke. However, what are the influences which seem to be at work in starting them, to smoke? As:CRU's research experience with children has shown them to be highly aware of brands andladvertising in different markets, regardless of product usage, this international study set out to consider children's own: viewsof the ways in which they'came tO smoke in tihe first place. The impact of advertising as an initiating factor was included in this framework. The conclusions which emerge from this international survey.will cause little surprise, at least in t:he centrali t~heme. On, tihe one hand, there is the daredevil approach to the first puff; on, the other, there is the influence of friends and schoolmates, and of family. Theyare largely"common-sensical" and corroborate several nationall studies (see Appendix G), although in a comparative and comparable manner, and in the context of varying.degrees of tobacco advertising control. In this.research project, questions were asked on the circumstances of tihe first smoke. Results of"why" and "with whom" are given in Tables 3and 4. Unfortunately~ there are no UK data on"why," but a generally comparable: question, was asked in all countries outside the United Kingdom. For this: purpose, a list of possible reasons.was shown toall respondents to tihe CRU surveys, and a further one was. askedl on where the first cigarette was smoked. In,all countries, hardly surprisingly, among reasons given,."To see what it was like" came in first place, followed by variations on the theme of conformity (19%in Australia said that all their friends smoked; the same proportion in Spain said that someone gave them one)or of daredevilry (38%,gave this answer in Hong Kong, 7% in Australia and 4% in Norway)~ Greater interest probably lies in Table 4 which presents answers.to t~he question: "With whom?" Certain cultural differences were apparent al. though detailed examination of these was not possible within the scope of the studies ¢onducted. However, a couple of the most obvious differences can be explained by the fact that, in Spain, iti is.the local wedding custom for children to be given a~quick puff of a cigarette, to indicate adulthood. This would account for tlhe very different pattern in Spain -- not merelythe high proportion given cigarettes (referred to in t:he above paragraph)i, but also the far higher percentage (3 [%)i who referred to a special occasion (see Table 3)~ This was a category' added for Spain alone, and not enquired about elsewhere. 15

Table 3 STARTING TO SMOKE ANSWERS GIVEN TO PROMIVI'E.__D REA~3NS FOR STARTING TO SMOKE ~ FIRST MENTIONS Total in hombres ot those ~,ho ha~e ~ smok~ C~ 4~ ; 420 4911 94 (*) Question Wordings: Australia : "Can you remember when you,tried the first cigarette? Was it for any of these reasons?" Norway, Spain and Hong Kong : "These are some (other)reasons that people have given us as to why they tried their, first cigarette. I would like you ~to look through ,them and decide if any of them had any part in your trying a cigarette. Tell me which was the mosl important reason..." 16

Table 4 STARTING TO SMOKE O'I~HERS IPRESENT AT TIME OF FIRST SMOKE(*): United Kingdom Australia NOrway Spain Hong England Wales Scotland Kong 2025 1328 1697 583 420 491 94 Total in numbers of those who haw ever smoked Fdends Brother Sister Mother 13% Father I Others 16%, Alone Can't remember Percentage of mentions('): 1 4% 5% 10% !~3%, 10% 1 7~ 8% -- 81% -- 1~%, 1~% 105% 117% 1~%; 159:%; 115%, Question wording in united Kingdom: "Who were you with, the tirst time you tried smoking a cigarette'?" Almost identical wordings were used elsewhere, except tltat precoding allowed for "one friend" against ~more than one friend." (*:): United Kingdom figures concern children aged I I upwards; all othcrsconcern children from 7~years upw~trds. Technically; we are describing an event whicll 1oo~ place at a specific age, and tlierelbre this difference between the two age:groups is irrelevanti although it seems very likely that the higher percentages mentioning father and mothcr~ outside the United Kingdom reflect more recent recall by younger smokers: (**), Totals add up to more lhan, 100Oil: because severallanswers were allowed. 17¸

Similar variations spilled into answers given on environments and loca- tions: Clearly; we would expect that the most common environment for the first puff would be with, friends and peer groups: with one exception, this proved to be the case. The exception, once again, isSpain where "others in family", "father" and "mother" score more heavily; again stressing the special: occasion already mentioned. However, in all countries whether "hole-in-the-corner" or flagrantlyopen, the first smoke with friends seems to be a form of initiation ceremony; something which makes tihe smoker more like an adult. Table 4 has much more to tell us~ Excepti in Hong Kong, less than onein ten youngsters first practised on their own; but a fan higher proportion,than this -- between a fifth and just over a, third -- started in the company of someone in their family~ Indeed, an additional question, asking where the child was at the time of first trial, shows that the proportions saying they started within their own home were as follows: FIRST CIGARETTE TRIAL AT HOME 11-15 Years England l 15c~b Wales 12' Scotland 12 7-15 Years Australia (7-16 years) 38% NOrway 29 Spain 26(*) Hong Kong 55 (*:):"Special occasions" in Spain usually occur outside of the home. Perhaps because of question wording or question, positiioning in the surveys (although reasons are not clear), United Kingdom figures are far lower than elsewhere, but stiill remain substantial. .All this clearly highlights tihe importance of parental attitudes. The U K Gc~vernment/OPCS study conducted in 1984 by Dobbs and Marsh stated that: "A number of studies have suggested that the development of children's: smoking experience is influenced by'the smoking behaviour of tlheir parents: and siblings. The additional 1984 questionnairetherefore included a ques- tion about the smoking behaviour of pupils' families." 18¸

This. 1984 OPCS study goes on to report the proportions of family smoking, and shows how they compare with,other data. It then comments that: "The survey shows that pupils who smoked were more likely to live among smokers. In England and Wales, for example, only 18%,of pupils who were regular smokers, and 22% who were occasional smokers; said that no one at home smoked, compared with 46% of pupils who have never smoked. The proportions of pupils whose fathers smoked rose from 39%of those who had never smoked; through,46% of those who had tried smoking once and 46% of those who used to smoke, to 50% of occasional smokers and 52%of regular smokers. The proportions of pupils with mothers, sisters or brothers who smoked followed a similar pattern: in each case, the pro- portion rose with the smoking.experience of tihe pupils, sometimes substan- tially: For example, in England and Wales, only 7%.of pupils who had never smoked had a brother at home who smoked, compared with 33%of pupils who smoked regularly~ lin S¢otland,.there was less variation in the propor- tion of pupils with, mothers or fathers who: smoked; the only significant differenees were between regular smokers: and all otiher smokers." This: has been quoted at some length from the United Kingdom survey since, in other countiries, the pattern is almost identical. It is noti possible to make exact comparisons, but Table 5 shows the close similarities in the key groups: Table 5 SMOKING BEHAVIOUR OF THOSE WITHOUT SMOKERS IN HOUSEHOLD England* Wales* Scotland* Austra, Norway,** Spain** Hong lia*** Kong** 47% N/,A 21% 34%1 33 NIA 117 31 N/A 9 28 N/A 6, 18 N/A 7 Thus, as already, quotedi less than one in five of regular smokers in England came from households where there were no other smokers; and the proportion dropped to onlyone in ten in Wales and Scotland. In Spain, it was:less than,one in ten, and in.Hong Ko,ng far less. Of the countries studied byCRU, the highest proportion of juvenile regular smokers coming from 19¸

households where there were no other smokers was: in Australia (equal to the United Kingdom)~ Even there, they still numbered less than one in five of the smoking group -- not more than one fifth, in other words, have automatically to turn to "other reasons" for smoking,. Altogether, whatever the nature of tobacco, controls in. the countries studied, young people are three times as likely to smoke when they live in a househoM where anybody:smokes as they'are in a household where there are no smokers at all. Children are exposed to manydifferent~ influences such,as:the authority of parents and the comradeship and rivalry of siblings and/or peers. For instance, in the United Kingdom, it is very clear that the habits of brothers. and sisters are of more importance than those of parents; the latter inevita- bly playing a larger role in one-child households (and, in consequence, presumably playing that role in, eveo, household, as far as the firstborn is: concerned). A note is relevant here on Hong Kong. Among all those interviewed (that is, the total sample of 1003 respondents); 44% said that their father smokedl -- an identical proportion to those in England -- and 55% said that they. came from a family' where somebody, smoked, compared with 65%, in England. However, whereas: in England 37% reported that their mother smoked, only 4% gave this answer in~Hong Kong. In other wordS, it would appear from the very smalll numbers of children and mothers smoking in Hong Kong, that the maternal role is critical in juvenile smoking initiation in, that country:

APPENDIX A BACKGROUND TO THE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH UNIT (CRU) The Children's Research unit~ is a London-based market research com- pany specialising in research with children and young people in the U hired Kingdom and internationally: It was set up in 1972 by Glen Smilh, a child psychologist, who is a fulli member of the British Market Research Society. CRU has played a leading role in developing the field of children's research, in the United Kingdom and abroad, by applying modifications of established clinical procedures for obtaining information from children and young people. Studies have been conducted in a wide variety of areas such as town planning (play facilities), road safets,; career guidance, drugabuse, toys and games, computers and software, magazines and comics, food and drink, TV programmes, and advertising in all media. CRU regularly disseminates information concerning its research findings about a wide variety of markets,.via the international conference circuit and professional publications. In addition, CR U is frequently consulted by the media (television, press andl radio)i regarding children's reactionsto:adver- tising, their consumer behaviour patterns, interests/lifestyles, and other issues: Channel 4 Television (London)recently'filmed a session at CRU?s headquarters where children were being.interviewed about television adver- tising~ CRU~s clients include major manufacturers; advertisers, professional and trade associations,, media groups, government units (the U K Central Office of Information - madsafety; and the European.Parliament - anti-drug campaigns), banks, film companies, television groups and publishing houses. In addition to carrying out~ research,on a national and international scale, the company, also conducts research at its Observation Studio, with a t~wo-way mirror facility,, and at its Electronic Research Laboratory, CRU also runs a regular children's panel! 21

APPENDIX B INTERVIEWING CHILDREN- GENERAL COMMENTS In children's research, CRUI is frequently asked t:he question: "At what. age can children be considered 'reliable'research respondents?" Since a wide range of individual differences.can be found whenever children are grouped in chronolOgical-age levels, answers to:such a question can only be couched in general terms. Overall, CRU's policy (dictated by past experience): is to interview children from a minimum age of 5 years. Clearly, due to the 5.year-old's lack of conceptual development, interview exchanges have to be short, to the point and carefully structured, in order to allow the child freedom of response: Childrenunder the age of 5 years are move productively assessed using direct observation, methods, as applied in, the: company's two-way- mirror Observation Studio: It is. of fundamental importance to any research programme involving children to utiIise rapport~building techniques which aim to establisl~ rap- port between the interviewer and the child as early as possible in the interview situation. Unless the child is particularly sophisticated, there isa strong tendency in adulff.child interview settingsfor the child to behave in approval-seeking.terms; when confrontedl by an unfamiliar adult. This can induce the child, t~o respond in a manner which he/she considers the interviewer wants to see/.hear, if this attitude prevails, the interview becomes worthless. In order to prevent t~his:happening, CRU interviewers convey to:the childl at an early point in,the interview that it is primarily what he/~he thinks/feels about the subject under discussion which is important, and, as such, there are no "right"or"wrong,answers:when evaluative questions are posed'~ The interviewer communicates: this also: at selected intervals during the inter- view, to serve as reinforcement~ and/.or as:a confidence-building technique. We have found~ that this usually produces honest responses:from children who, in many cases, are often unaccustomed to the experience of meeting an unfamiliar adult who is interested in their views. Location The choice of interview setting can also enhance rapport. For an investi, gation:of this nat~ure and complexity; CRU has:found that: school settings: are not conducive to investigating complex or cont~roversial areas, given the:

authoritarian overtones and lack of privacy for the individual' respondent. Therefore, CRU always interviews children in private ati their home. In tl~is context, a basic flaw is present in a number of studies relating to cigarettes:and smokingbehaviour, that is, the interviewswere conducted in the classroom~schoollsetting, wit:h all the attendant overtone of authoritar- ian attitudes which can bias the respondents! wilfingness to provide honest answers. This is particularly true in the case of controversial issues~ such as. juvenile smoking, where the expected attit~ude of the school towards under- age smokers is one of disapproval~ Some over-claiming of smoking inci- dence can, also occur amongst: the more "rebellious,' pupils. Lessening the Interview "Task" from the Child's Viewpoint CRU usually, interviews children at home after being at school all! day: Rather than becoming an extension of the school day, the interview expe- rience provides a refreshing contrast -- not only. in terms of subject matter but also by having a shared experience between interviewer and child, with no distractions. Confrontational, interrogat:ive interviewing is:avoided at all costs; and usually the child sits next to the interviewer in order to enhance the "shaving,' climate throughout the interview. Additionally, if fatigue becomes apparent, rest periods take place when the child discusses subjects. which are consideredl importanti to him~tter. Self-Completion Methods Are Inadequate In view'of tihe complexity of the issues surrounding smoking and non- smoking deeision~making processes, and the influences impinging on such processes, attempts: to investigate this. area among children by using self completion questionnaires are clearly inadequate. The self-completion questionnaire offers a, very poor substitute for the individual personal interview in which, full explanatory reassurances: and. clarifications can be given, to the child. The classroom setting, works, against the individual in need of reassurance or clarification, and it may be subject to peer-group influences. Administrator Bias Previous studies have drawn attention to the variable effects of using.an adult reference figure well-known to the respondents (,a teacher, in,the case of the Ledwit~h study~ 8) as.the questionnaire administ~rator. Results have been found to:vary according to.the orientation of the teachers concerned, 23¸

that~ is, as a smoker or a non-smoker: Ledwith doesnot attempt to describe the orientation of the teachers concerned in his study, but this factor may have affected the answers he obtained. CR U's strategy is to use interviewers unknown to respondents, so that their smoking, behaviour is similarly unknown~ Planning of Questions Given children's tendency to respond to question cues in socially approval-seeking terms, it is imperative that all questions are factually andl clearly stated, and contain balanced response options: For example, it is insufficient to merely ask a child whether he/she agrees with a particular statement. The child must always be given the option to agree or disagree, within the structure of the question. If we assume that children are more likely to agree than to disagree with an unfamiliar adult interviewer, care must be taken to allowthe chil6 more freedom of choice than the approach commonly taken when interviewing adults. This is the approach used by CRU. 24

APPENDIX C CRU'S RESEARCH METHODS USED IN THIS STUDY In the first instance, exploratory, qualitative research was conducted in each country, in, order to identify the key attitudes of ~espondents t~o smoking issues. A Master Questionnaire was then drawn up, for quantifica- tion purposes. The main topics covered in the questionnaire are noted in Appendix E. Approximately, 1000 respondents between the ages of 7 and 15/16 years were personally interviewed in each of the four countries ,directly, surveyed bs~ CRU. Children and young people were recruitedl via a quota sample (~where selection, requirements such as age and sex were pre-determined); and individual interviews were conducted in home. All,interviews,were con- dueled with,the permission of a parent and t:he willing participation of the chilldi although in strict confidence and in the absence of either parent. Since identical interviewing procedures were adopted in each countlry~ the samples interviewed were broadly comparable, l~eading,research agen- cies cond ucted the interviews in tiheir countiry,of origin under close supervi- sion from CRU's directors. The Research Rationale 1. Market Selection In addition to tobacco, CRU selectedl two extra markets, alcohol and confectionery (interpretedl as "beer"and "chocolate")in order to provide prodluct comparisons in the four countiries surveyed. However, to restrict quantitative interviews to manageable lengths, comparable questions about these three products(tobacco, alcohol and confeetionery)iwere only asked about b~and and advertisingawareness, includingttm sources of awareness. The bulk/~nemainder of the questionnaire concentrated on investigating cigarette/tobacco: issues exclusively: 2. Application of Distancing Techniques CR U useda distancingtechnique for obtaining each child's attitudes and bet~aviour patterns: in relation to smot~ing, non-smo[~ing, as follows, The interview first focussedl on parental behaviour, t~hcn sit~l#tg, s attd:.[iiiet~ds; and finally on, tt~e re.v~omh,nt him/hevselfl In this way,. by' talking firstly about other people's behaviour in,a non-judgemental manner, rapporti was built up between interviewer and respondents, and the cl~i[d became approp- riately more relaxed andlconfident when reporting on his/trot own behav- iour. 25,

QUESTION EXAMPLES I would like to ask you about your own family~ whether they smoke or don't smoke nowadays. (:INTERVIEWER: ENTER ALl.. ANSWERS IN GRID BELO.W). FOR EACH FAMILY MEMBER, ASK THE SAME SUB-QUES'I'IONS: i) Does he/ghe live at home with you'? ii) Does het%he smoke or noti smoke? iii) What does he/.she smoke -- cigarette;cigar, pipe? ix:) For each item smoked, does he./ghe smoke: A 10t Son, climes Hardly. ever v) And, do you knowdid he/she ever smoke? • What;about your Father? • What about your Mother? • Have you any brothers? ASK QUESTIONS i)-v)A.P, OVE ASK QUESTIONS i)-v)ABOVE IF YES, FOR EACH~ BROTHER, STARTING WITH THE OLDEST, ASK • Is he older or younger, than you? THEN ASK i)-v) ABOVE IF NO, ASK: • Have you any sisters? IF YES, FOR EACH SISTER:. STARTING WITH TttE OLDEST, ASK • Is she older or younger than~you? THEN ASK i)-v):ABOVE And what about yourself, have :you tried a cigarette, even just a puff, to see what it ~vas like'? (CIRCI.E CODE) YES NO 3. The First Smoking Experience M any assumptions have been made by the critics of advertising, who claim that advertising is of primary importance to smoking initiation (see Appen- dix G). In order to explore such assumptions, CRU concentrated on investigating thefirst cigarette experience. It is usually the case that first product experiences in: most markets cantnot be recalled by children, due to their very young age at the time, given that trial occurs during pre-schooi years. This applies to. confectionery; cereals, milk, soft drinks, etc. Tobacco represents an exception, and: child- ren have little difficulty in recalling their first experience with this product. The main reason for this situation is. that first cigarette trials are usually unpleasant or even traumatic, and these negatives fuel children's memories. Furt:hermore, children are older when trying their first cigarette or their first alcoholic drink than is: normally the case wit:h respect to trials of other products: Consequently~ the firstl smoking experience can be more readily evoked and recounted. 2¸6

QUESTION EXAMPLES How old were you when you triedlthatifirst' cigarette?:(Cl RCLE APPROPR lATE CODE) 5 YEARS OR UNDER 1! 6 YEARS 2 , 7, YEARS 3 9 YEARS 5 YEARS 6 i!i," ,YEARS 7 ;; 12 YEARS 8 I 13 YEARS 9 ~ 14 YEARS V 15 YEARS X Where were you when,you tried it? And where didl you get thav first cigarette from? (PROBE FULLY): These are some other reasons that people have given us as to w.hy they tried their first cigarette. I would,like you to look through them; and:decide if any of them had any. part in,your trying a cigarette. Tell me, which was the most important reason? (SHOW PROM PT CARD) (PROBE: ANY OTHER REASOiNS?) 27 I TRIED IT FOR A DARE BECAUSE ALL MY FRIENDS SMOKED' SOMEONE GAVE ME ONE l WAS BULLIED I'D SEEN ADVERTISING FOR CIGARETTES I JUST F6UND ONE I WANTED TO SEE WHAT IT WAS I.IKE I TRIED IT TO LOOK TOUGH I TRIED IT TO LOOK GROWN-UP I TRIED IT TO SHOW'OFF

APPENDIX D SMOKING FREQUENCY In the 1982 and 1984 United Kingdom Government Surveys conducted by Dobbs and Marsh, a preliminary question asked allichildren to check the alternative from those listed below; which they felt~ best described their position: (*): Statements !. have never smoked I have only tried smoking once I used to smoke sometimes, but ! never smoke a cigarette now I sometimes smoke cigarettes now, but I don't smoke as:many as one a week I usually smoke between one and six cigarettes a week I usually smoke more than~sir, cigarettes a week; but less than forty~ I usually smoke fort}, or more cigarettes a weel~ Abbreviations for Classification "Never~ smoked" "Tried once" "Used to smoke" "Smokes occasionally" "Smokes regularlyr" "Smokes regularlyr' "Smokes regularlyr' To consider "Less than 6 cigarettes: a week" as amounting to "Smokes: regularly" mayseem strange. It must be considered, however, that obtaining cigarettes and smoking them, is much more difficult for juveniles than for adults, so that a small number of cigarettes smoked amounts to "regularly" as far as children, are concerned. In later parts of the interview; further questions were asked which could, at the analysis stage, be cross-checkedl against the original statements. For example, some of those who originally, said that they never smoked; subse- quently admitted to having tried once or twice~ In the final data, the adjusted figures were used:. It is important to stress tihe care which was taken by the U K Government study to ensure that t~he statements measured the real level of incidence. (*) These classifications can be foundl in: Bewley B.R. and Bland J.M. "Academic and sociall factors relatedl to cigarette smoking by schoolchild- ren." British Journal of Preventive and Social Medicine, 1977, 31 : 18-24! (54); 28

However, the effects:of these adjustments were small, as can, be illustrated from the UK study from 1984: ADJUSTMENT BEFORE AFTER Has never smoked 50% 45% Tried once 19 24 USed to smoke 13~ 13 Smokes occasionally 5= 6 Smokes regularly 13: 13 Note: The official reporl refers to this part of the survey as England and Wales since certain Welsh scl~ools were included to provide eomparal~ility with the 1982 study:.For ease of reading thr,oughout this report, it is referred to as "England.~ The OPCS's application of Bewley's Smoking Prevalence Indicator be- came a central partiof CRU,splanning of surveys in other countries. It was therefore repeated exactly in tihe children-and-smoking surveys reported here. 29¸

APPENDIX E OUTLINE INFORMATION ABOUT SURVEYS DATE AGENCY UNITED KINGDOM England (b) 1984 Office of Population Ccnsuscs SUrve\'s Wales 1984 Scotland 19~ AUSTRALIA 19~: Children's Research Unit NORWAY 1985 SPAIN 1986 ~ONG KONG 1986 METHOD Written qpestion,,: at school Persc, nalt :at home AGE SIZE RANGES 3658 IIKI5 2773 I I-I 5. 2798 11-15, 998 7:16 998 7-15 1016 7-15 1003 7-15 Notes: (a) In all surveys, both boys and girls participated (h) Technically Engl.and;and-Wa es see oole in text. MAIN! TOPICS COVERED IN SURVEYS United Kingdom Australia Norway Spain Hong Kong Smoking Patterns X X X X Factors Affecting the Start of Smoking, Attitudes toward Smoking Advertising Awareness X X (c) X(c) X(c) (c)There were some questions on brand awarene.'~s: 3O

APPENDIX F COMPARISON OF RESTRICTIONS ON TOBACCO ADVERTISING IN COUNTRIES COVERED BY REPORT POINT-OF- COUNTRY TELEVISION RADIO CINEMA PRESS SPONSORSHIP POSTERS [SALE ADVERTISING AUSTRAI.IA HON(; KONG UNITED KIN(il)OM SPAIN NORWAY Cigarette and roll- Cigarette and roll- ybur-0wn your-own advertising advertising prohibited since prohibited since 1976 1976 No tobacco ads Restriction as for 4.30 - 6.30 p~m~ or TV, except no in programmes 4:30-6.30 p.m. directed !it young broadcasting ban. people Regulated by TV authority No ads in N9 ~pecific No specific No specific No specific children's restrictions for restrictions for restrictions for restrictions for programmes and tobacco tobacco tobacco tobacco general Pr0grammes during school holidays No specific No specific No specific No specific No specific restrictions for restrictions for restrictions for restrictions for restrictions for t~bacco tobacco tobacco tobacco tobacco No cigarette or No cigarette or Voluntary Voluntary Voluntary Voluntary No specific roll-your-~wen roll-your-own controls. No agreements on restrictions since restrictions on restrictions for advertising advertising cinema tobacco 1977 on expenditures and tobacco permitted permit!~ advertising (*) advertising since expenditures, sites near schools 1975 messages, health warnings~ etc. Restrictions Restricted as for Unrestricted No specific No specific Restrictions for Advertising only include no ads for TV. except for restrictions for restrictions for tobacco. No allowed for high-tar brands. Ex~qption for Catalonia !obacco tobacco posters in domestic brands Nn ads before new low-tar Catalonia 9,30 p.m. brands for 2 years after introduction No tobacco No tobacco No tobacco No tobacco No sponsorship No tobacco No tobacco advertising advertising advertising advertising permitted advertising advertising permitted permitted permitted permitted permitted Permitted (*) Lip to I April 1986, advertising was permitted in programmes for those aged 18 years and over.

APPENDIX G REVIEW OF THE,LITERATURE Many single fact:ors have been postiulated as to why children and young people start to smoke. However, a review of the international literature indicates that it is nor any one fact:or but a combination of factors which contribute to the decision of whet~her to smoke or not. SociaiJhctors, for instance, have been increasingly recognised interna- t~ionally as worthy of more detailed examination, andl a large number of studies have focussed on the association between social-network variables and the smoking habits of children and young people (9, 10), Most of the scientific literature in this field consistently agrees that social factors repres- ent by far the most dominant influence as regards start:ing to smoke (:1 I); and t:his was also the conclusion of studies from the late 1950s when Horn,et ak (I 2)i rated parental and: peer group factors as the two most important ones for predicting .smoking among high-school students. An early Norwe- gian study (I 3)i concluded that parental attitudes and peer group, pressure were of major importance. In their comprehensive review of research and theory on the modifica- tion of smoking behaviour, Leventhal and Cleary (14)state that~ social pressure is a prime initiator of experiments with cigarettes. On the other hand; personality factors are not considered important in predicting.the start of smoking: Williams (15)i maintains that the relationships between smoking and personality variables have often been tenuous, and occasional, ly contradictory Personality'factors appear to influence the amount and type of smoking, rather than the actual adoption of the habit, which is. determined more: by the social and familial environments of the person. Regarding parental, behaviour, a large number of studies confirm that the probability that children and young people smoke increases when their parents smoke (1i6, 17; 18; 19, 20, 21,22,23; 24; 25, 26~ 27,28, 29, 30, 31,32, 33, 34, 35~ 36,37; 38). Some studies conclude that the mother's:example is of greater importance than the father'S (39, 40; 4 I), whilst two studies:claim the opposite (42, 43)~ A few studies: did not find any association between parental l smoking behaviour and the children's habits (44,45, 46). Bynner (47); in his well-known,study of smoking amongst schoolboys, maintains that~ t~he association between the parent's and the children's smoking habits is moderate, a conclusion conforming with many of the studies mentioned above. Palmer (48) found that girlsmore than boys are influenced by their parents' habits. Some researchers report that the relation between parental and child smoking habits is stronger between father and son than between 32

mother and daughter (49, 50; 51, 52; 53, 54, 55, 56): That mothers' and daughters' habits, are particularly closely related, is reported from two studies (57; 58); Horn's studyfrom 1968 (59)showed that children reduce their use of tobacco when their parents stop smoking. Attention has also been given to parental art#aries. Several researchers have demonstrated that families who are permissive as regards: smoking generate an increased probability that the children will start smoking (60, 61, 62, 63, 64~ 65, 66, 67)~ Williams (68) finds that girls more than boys are influenced by parental attitudes. Significant: association has also been re- ported between, parents' permissiveness and children'S smoking behaviouv (69, 70; 71 )~ The effect of living outside the parental home, or with only one of t he: parents, has also been stiudied~ Wake et al. (72)found thati young people li~ing with their parents smoked less than those living outside the family. home. Another study concludes that boys leaving their parents at a young age are more likely to smoke(73): A high percentage of smokers has been found amongst children in homes where the parents are divorced (74, 75)~ Several surveys have focussed on the role of siblings. The conclusions are consistent:: when sisters or brothers:are smokers, the probability that a child will,start smoking is increased (76, 7.7; 78, 79, 80,81,82,83, 84, 85,86, 87)~ One study has also concludedlthat sisters' influence is greater than brothers" influence (88). Anot~her researcher has maintained that the smoking habits. of boys are particularly influenced by their brothers(89); whilst one study has confirmed that the association between girls andl their sisters' smoking, habits: is particularly high (90). A near-perfect consistency is found in studies where the smoking habits of young.people and children have been compared with the smoking habits of best friend or closest friends, When~best friend o r friends arc smoking~ the probabilit~y of being a smoker is strongly increased (91,92, 93,.94i 95, 96, 97; 98; 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107); Overall~ the findings of these studies indicate that children and young people are most likelyto smoke when tiheir father, mother, siblings or best friend(s) smoke, and when t;he parents are permissive towards children's smoking, Within the family; the association seems to be strongest between persons of the same sex. An additional finding from an early, study also deserves mention: children smoke less when their parents have stopped smoking. (108): Advertisi~ has been postulated as having: a~ positive bearing on the decision of the child or young person to:start smoking; and several studies have atlempted to identify advertising as a major influence in this respecti. 33

Fisher and Magnus:(109) claim thati tlieir survey leaves "little doubti" that advertising leads children to tlike up smoking. However. ccrtain methodo- logical deficiencies and a sample containing child yen from "disadvantiagcd schools (45%~ raise serious.questions as:to t:he dala's validity. Chapman and Fitizgerald (:110, 1 I 1 )i surveyed sccondal~y schools.t~o ascc~- rain juvenile brand preference and advertising recall', but they did not address themselves to:the problcms of conducting complex and controver- sial,research within schools (refer to: Appendix A's sectit~ns on "l.ocation" and "Administrator Bias,), and a limited,self-completion questionnaire was utillsed. Notwithstanding, the authors claim t~hat their data; show that "adolescents are well aware of advertisements~" but also point out that '~thc role played by advertising in t,he decision to:smoke needs refining.concept:u- ally; so that: appropriate questions may be:askedl in, research:" Ledwith (1:12) claims that televised sports, sponsorship: by tobacco manufacturers acts as cigarette adk~crtising to:child fen, but= acknowledges that his study makes no,attempt to establish causal links between sponsor- ship and children's smoking.bchaviour. Again, school setlings were used, plus the:inevitable administrator bias of class teachers administering (:limit- ed) self-completion, questionnaires to pupils who were not given a free choice to participate in the study, the decision to participate being taken by the headmaster of the schooll Ov'erall, studies of advertising as apotential initiator ofiuvenile smoking have not been comprehensive, h~ that. the.v have not examined advertising the context of other potential.#~fluences. They also,contain methodological, deficiencies: None have attempted to examine the incidence of juvenile smoking in relation to the vao,h~g restrictions, on tobacco, advertis#~g internationally, with the result that no comparable #~ternational. database has been. established by previous researchers. 34

APPENDIX H REFERENCES I. I)obh~ JJ & Marsh A., ,Smoking Among Secondary: Schuol.,'hildren. An enquiry carried;out for the Dept of Health &: .%~¢ial Security, the Welsh Olfice &the Scottish Home andl Health Dcpt. London :: Office of Population (?en~use+ & Survc3s, Social Survey Division+ 1983. 2. Dob~> J. & Ma~h A+, Smoking among Seconda~: Srhtmlchild Fen in 198~. An enqui~ carried out for the ~pt. o~ H cuh h & SociM Security, Ihe Wel~h Office & the Scottish H.rnc and l Health Dept. [London : Offi~ of Population Cvn~us~ & Surveys, Social Suwey Division. 1985. 3 ~mith G. &' S~ceney A,E. ~hildren,& Television Adwrfi,ing- An Oxervicw," Lond6n,Children's Re~earch II;nil. 1984: 4 t ~,erman .1~ "A Study of Children's ~fenees:Against I clcv(,a~n Commercial Ap~als "Television ~dve~ising :& Children. Child Rcscurch Se~'iee~ New Yor~, 1981:43-55 5. (;uinc~ I. & Es~erman J. "A Quantitati~ Study of Ytmng Children'g Comprehension of~TV, ~rogrammes & Comm¢rcial~" Television Adve~ising & Children, Child Research Service, New York; 1981: 95-107: 6 I)onahue T~R.. Henke L.L & Don~hue W/A: 'Do Kids Kno~ ~ hat q V Commercials Intend'?TJournal of Avenising Re~carch ~0: 15); 1980: 51-5L 7. Smith G. & Sx~ney A~E., 1984~ ibid. 8 I.cdwi~h F. "D~ws Tobacco Sports Sponsorship on Television Act as Adxeai~ing:to,Children?~ Health Educa- tion .IournaL 1984: 43: 85-88. q. Bc~qe3, B.R. Day, L & Idle. I, "Smoking by Children in (,hcm Rrilaim- A Review of the L~leralure:7 London: S~¢ial ~cien~e Research Council & Medical lR~earch Coun- I[L W,illiums RM. "Summon' and lmpfications,of ~icu ol I itcralurc Related to Adoles~nvSmoking." Wa- ~lii0gh)n: t?~ ,I )c~l. o~ Health, Education ~& Welfare Public Hc:dth Net, tcc; Centre for l)ise~ Contrnl 1972. II. R o3,1 ~Collegc of Physicians. ~Smoking or H~ahh: :A, Rc~utiol the Ro~:al College ofiPhysiei~nsT. I.ondon: l~ilman 12: H~rm I). C6urt~. F~A~, Taylor, RM. & Sulomon IL~ "'(,~g~c:tc Smoking~among 14igh S~hool Student, S" ,Nm~r~can .l~umal ~ffiPublic HeahhL 1959. 49ZI497-1BI IL I~: Nor~cgian C~mccr Society. "Rovking lant barn og ung~, I;n kattlc~mg av royEcvancr hlanti skoleclevcr" I Nin,~kin~ mmmg ~ ff~ldrcn and Y(mth.~ A rcgi~traliOnl of snu~k[in~ hcha~ iour among,~choolehtldrL, n)~ 14. lcxcuth:d. II &Clcary, P?D "Jhcgmokin~,l'rob- lcm k ~c~ ~c~ ot the rc~carch and thcor~ in ~havioural risk m.diI~catam." Psycholg,gica] Bnllctin, {98 ~ ~: 371)~)5 16: tt~n~ct ~I~ Iq59, ~bidJ 17~ t und~rg, A. "Cigarctbrokning bland skolfliekof i(:'ig~ncllc Sm~king amung Ndhool~irl~)2 Svcnsku I~kaoid- mngen. 19~. 57: IN Mori,~uL J B: & Mt~Ovy, H. "Snmkin~ ttabits of Winnipeg Schuolcbildrcn". ('anadtan anl.ug ttigh Nchool Nludcnt~ related Parental Sim~kiug tlabtlg'. Americm~ ,hmrnld ol Public Health4 1961, 51:1780-1789. 201 Salber, E.J.. Welsh=B. & Taylor, S2V. "Reasons for Smoking given by Secondary SclloolchildrenL Journal of Health & Human Behaviour,,1963, 4: 118-129. 211 Morison, J.B. "Heal(h~ Education and Cigarette Smoking - a =report on a three-year programme in the Win- nipeg Sclmol Division, 1960-1963". Canadian Medical Asso- ciation Journal 1964, 91: 49-56. 22: DHEW Publication. "Teenage Smoking: National Patterns ofiCigarette Smoking~=ages 12 through 48, in 1968 and 1970." Washington: DHEW Rublication No. (HSM) 72-7508 US Dept. of Health, Edueation,~ Welfare, Public Health Se~, iec, 23: Vilstrop; K. "Skoleborn og Tobal~. En undersogelse af vaner og holdinger h~ant 8-16 drige" (,-Schoolchildren and Tobacco. A St ud~' of H ants and Attitudes among 8-16: year oldsl.I Copenhagen: Ejnar~og,MetaThorsens Fond, 1973. 24. Davidson, R.I.. &Fletcher. S.M. "Education about Smoking among Young Adults: A study in a College of Further Ed ucatien.7 Geneva: U ICC Technical Report Series I I, 1974.24-29.' 25. Fe~cr.H. Psychologische Beitragezu Rauchverhalten, Rauchcrcntwohnung und Nichtrauchertraining" (Psycho- logical Contributions to Smoking Behaviour, Smoking Cessa- tion, and NOn÷Smoker Training), Rehabilitation, Sozial- medizin, Physikafische Medizin; Pr~ventivmedizin. 1975, 211: (3~), 47-52 261 Higgins, M'. & Keller, J. "Familial Oceurence of Chronic Respiratory Disease in Familial Resemblanee in Ventilatory: Cap~cily." Journal Iofi Chronic Diseases, 1975, 28:23q,25 27i Boric; ,I ,K, McAvthur, C. & Fisher, C2 "Norms, Atti- tudes: and Smoking Behaviour amongst Menchester stu- dents:." Health Education,Journal, 1976~ 35:142-1501 28: Bcrnardzl.(Z & Boyer, G "Epidcmiological Study of Tobacco .g, moking among Young Men in France:" Bulletin of Ihc World Hcahh Organisation4 1976, 53~ 75-81. 291 Hanlcy.,J.A: & Robinson. JIC "Cigarette Smoking and tile Y~ou ng: :A national suP.,ey." Canadian Medical Asso- ciation Journal~ 1976~ 114:511-51172 3(t. Sch ~ arz, W. & Paun D:'Psychologischc Aspekte des Rauchcrs"( Ps~ chological Aspects of Smoking). In Gibel, W. !l!di (;c~,undhcii~,schaden dutch Raucbcn - M6gliehkeiten cinc~ Ihx~pl-,ylaxc: B,~rlin: Akademie Verlag, 19764 93:105. 3 [~ Wilde; ,1 & llaubertiE. "l)er Einfluss der Eltern~auf dic Rauchgcwohnhciien Jugendlicher" (Parental Influence ~);cr the sm~king Ilabits of Young People). ZcitscHrift fdr lh krankungen dcr Atmungsorglme mit F(~lia Ilronchologia. 19-I6. I~M.: 5-1 I. 32: (ircen~EE "lcenageCigarctteSmokinginthe United S~atc.,,19~,8, 19711:1972 & 1974." Ih,Steintcldi J., Gtiffiths, W., Ball K, & Ihylor, R.M. [Eds.)~: Heahh Con~qucnces, Education Cessation Activities and Governmental Action, Vol. II. Pr~v, ceedings of the Third World: Conference on Snu~Ling & Ileahb, New Y,ork:, June 2'-5; 1975; I)IIEW Publication,No. (NIII,~ 77:t413~ 1977. 331 Rimp¢la~ M.. Exkola., Ahlstrom-l,aa_sl~o~ S. & Kan- has; I. "Nurotcn lupakoinlilatavm Suomessa sykoylla I t~73"(Smoking ttabits of Finnish Ylmtho 1973~: [Inive~ity of I ampere, I )opt. ol Public Heal(h ~Nciences, Research & Re- imrt *., Ncries, t977, 35

34. ~,lleguantc. J!P. O~Rnurkt'~ .lourn;d ot I)rtl~ f ducat~on. 197K 7: 2~7-24K. 35; Ik-aglL'htddl R., Eylcn+ E. & flardln+. W+ Smokhlg llabiln, Attitudcn and Associated ll~actt~,h~ Icsccnts." N+m/caland Medical Journat. 19+~. 87::239+242 Medical .h~urna[. 197E. ~: 197+I~.= 37: Pcar+onJ RL & Richardson. K. "'1 he %n:,kmg Ilhhi.t~ ol 16 3~car; tlold~ in t he Nati0nal Child Public tie;dill: 192~, 92: 13~1~. 3~ Ra~ b~mc. R.(Z. Keeling C.A...Icnkii~. "X. +(+~areltc: Smoking among Secondary N~httt)l Ch+ldrcn ]97~: It~ Prcvalcnec and Somc o[the ~;+clor~,that Promole gill~king" Ilcalth kdu+al[on .Iourua[. 1979. 39~ Galli. N.A~ "' .X Comparativ¢ Analysis ol the Attitudes and ~'ha+iours ol Scho~l Children (Sc]cclcd Grades 4-t2) and Ilicir Parcnt~ "l O~ards l)ru~s~" I)is:scrlation abstracts inlcinalit*n~l B~ 1973. M::730:731. ~. I)HEW IPu~l~cafi0n~ +Teenage Smoking+ National Patterns ol Cigarette Smoking Ages 12 throug~ 18: in 1968 and 1970;" Washington: DHEW Publication No. (HSM) 72-750~+ t~S Dept. ot Hcahh, Educalion & kkelfare+ Public Heulth Service, 1972: 41. Baric et al., ibid. 4~. NiNon+ U. ++Sosiale normer og opplj+ningsar~id" (Social Norms und Educational Actix+tiesL ¢~1o: The Nor- +egi+n Center S~iety, 1967 (unpub+ished~+ 43., Wilde & Tau~r, 1976~ ibid. ~+ ,len+en, I+.M. & Thompson, J.C. "Reporuof 1965 Smoking Sur+ej; l+incolh Public School,+- Senior High School~+~ The Journ~t of ~hool Health. 1965+ 36::366.3733 45; ~rgcn: B.J. & O~sen+ E. "+Some Exidcnce lb~ + Peer Group H~,~othesis about Adoles~m Smoking:" Heallh ~d- ucation Journal 196~. 21: 113. 46~ Rcvill, J. +Teenage Pr~su~s:'" Health Education Journal 1978+ 37:171-178. 47+ Bynner .I.M., ~The Youn~ Smoker. A Study oil Smoking among Schoolboys, Ca+led out for,t~e M inist~' ofi Health+" LondOn H MSO:Government St~+i+l ,Su~ey; 1969+ ~. Paler A+B~ "Some Variab~s: Contributing to the On~t oil Cigarette Smoking,among Junior High School Students7 Social:Sdence &' M~ine. 1970. 4: 3+9-3~ 49~ Hbrn et al., 1959~ibid. 50. B,rrett EA. +High School, Studem+" Smoking Path erns" Canadian J ournal of Public Healt h, I ~Z 53: ~5~ 51. Bonelt-t+e~i+, WH.B~ +T~e Smoking H~bits of Women :Students in a,Teachers" Training College" Health Education Journal. 52. W0hlford,P+ "Initiation of Cigarette Smoking: I~ it Related to Parental Smoking ~hmviouf~" 3ournal of Con- suiting and Clinical Psycholo~, 1970+ M: 148z15K 53. Hi.ins & Keller+ 1975+ ibid. ~. ~wley; B.;R. & Bland~ J.M. +Academic Re~otman~ and S~ial Fataors Rcl+ted to Ci~mtte Smoking by ~ool- chddmn" Briiish Journal of Preventive and S~i+l Medi¢ine, 1977~ 31: 55: B+nks M~HI, ~wley+ B.R.. Bland, J.ML l~an, ,LR. & Poll+rd~ ,v+ "Long-Term Study of Smoking b3 Sccondb~' School¢hildren." Archives of Dimm~ in Child hot~2,197~ 53: 1~19. 56. ~wley. 1978, ibid. - 57: Balarda (,iranale+ M.C. ++o~acco habits of l+male adol~cems."JOutnal da S+~ied~e da~ Ciencias M~icas de leisure, 1+73. 137: 18). ~23~5~ 5K Raw~mnc et al.+ 1979, ibid~ 36 59. |learn. IX "(i=r=cnl Smoking' am~mg l ecnager~:." Public Hcahh Repu=t~; 1968, ~3: 45~ ~). Nil~-n. t "SmirKing ]lahit~ amt~n# Nch~,4th~ldtcn in ~ Norway:"Brilixh .Iournal t~f Preventi~ c and 1959L 13: 5-13~ 61. Bytnncz+ ,IM.-lihc YtnmG Nna+kc+ A Nttat3 oil H~allh" I.o~ld~m: ]l MS() (:~o~crnmcml~+c~tll~tJlx¢y. 62.: Pahncr+ 1920. ~htdJ 63. Vil{lrup, 197& ~bitl. 65., Wa~c. k.R.. I homa~: l+. & ()S]~;+r roll. +'1 hc l~havionr t=l (~rad¢ ~cxcn Nch~u~lchild~c:n m au I aMcl I+ diamCity- UICC lcchn+cal Rcp~r~ ~'u¢, d, IqT~ ~: Hanlc3 & I{obin~tm; 19~6. ib~dJ 67: Atlcgrantc cl a[?. 1978+ ibkd. 6N William~,A,~ +'l)cr~onatit3 and u~hcr Associat+~ with Cigarctlc Smoking Atnmxg YuunF I ccnag- e~YJournal ol ttGdlh and Social ~,ha~ Luut, Iq73, 14: 69~ ~+rgcu & Olcxcn. 1%3~ ibid 70~ Batardh, 1973: iB+d. 7It Bariccl all+ IG)76, 7Z Wake etaL, 1974. ibkl 73. Batlegay+ R. Muehlcmann+ RL, Hc[IJ I)..Zehndcr. R.. H~ch. P:, & l)illingcr+ A: "Atkohnl I obak und Drt~g¢n ira, Le~n d+s ~ungen Mannes. Untersuchung a~ ~ 082 zer Re~tuten ~lrellgnd Suchtmittelkonsum im Ziville~n und w~hrcnd tier Rc~rutcnschul¢" (~lco~+~l. Tobacco and l Drags in the I.ix~ ol IYoung Men: Nt ud ) on 4~0~2 g~iss recruits on the Consumption of Addi~tixe Pr¢~ u¢ts in Civilian l ~ilc, and during,Training NchoolL SozialmcdiPini~¢hc und Padago: gische Jugendkund+m 1977:14. 74. (}men, t97~ibid. 75. l)HEW'Publieation. 1+Tb, iBid 76: Sal~r & laylon 1913. ibid. 77. Horm 1968, i~}d. 78+ Bynner; 1969: ibkL 79: DHEW: 1922~ ibid. 80: Wa~e et al.. 1974. ibid. 81. Eme; H. & Bru~pacher, R. +Familiarc kaklorcn und Zigamtten Konsum ~i Adoleszemen '+l Familial factors and cigarette cemsumption by adolcscentsL N~>zial und Pr+vcntiv- medlzin, 1975, 2@ 23~237: 82: Hi,ins & Relier+ 1975~ ibid. 83: Stanhor~, .I.M. & Prior, IA,M "Smoking Behav- iour and~ Respiralory Health im a ] eenag¢ Sample: The Rotoma Eakes:studyd' N~w Zealand M~dical Journal. I975~ ~2= 7 I-7@ ~. Grin; 1977, ibid. 85. Ban~s et al.. 191K ibid 86. ~aglehol¢ et all 1978, ibid. 87, ~wley+ 1978, ibid. 88. I)HEW. 1976~ ibid. ~ l~wlcy, B.R, Bland2 J.M. & Ilams., Ass~+atcd with the Stamng of Cigarette Smoking by Prim. a~ Sch¢~flchildmn++ British Journal ot Preventive and Medicine, 1970, 28: ~. ~rgen & Olesen, 1~3, ibid. 91. Nil~n, 1959~ ibi,d 92. ~rgen & OIc~m 1963, ibid. 93. Bynncr. 1969, ibidJ

94,. t~'aln~.,r. 1970, ibid! 95., Hewlcy ct ~dJ. 19"/I). ibid. 96. I.cvitt |i. E. & l~dw~ltd~;, J.A, "A M uhivariale Studs of ('orrclativc F:~clo~ in ~ulhful Cigarette Smnking." I)excl- opmcnl~d l{sychtdog), 197(IJ 2:5~1 IL ~7. IlillJ D., "PCer Group Cont2~rmit3 in Adol~cc:m Smokin~ and it~ ,R~lalionship tn Afl~lialion and iAt~tonom~ Necds:T Australian~.li~urn~d ot Vsychology. 19~1, 23~ q~. Batardc Granatc. 1973v ibid. 99. Foss, R~-PC~n~nality:Social InlluenccandCi~arette Smoking" .lou~al of Health and SoeiallBchavii~ur. 1973. 14t 2~9-286. l(~k Vilsltup, 1973: t01. Wa~c ct al.. 1974, ibid. 102: Bewley & l{land, t977: ibid. 103: Green, 1977, ifi~d. I(~ AIIcgrantc ct alJ. I~ff~, ibid IO5. Beag!ehote et all. 1978. il~id. 106. P, ewlcy, 1978, iHid. 10L Rcvill, 1978, ibid. 11)8. HOrn ctal., 1959i ihid 10q. Fisher, I)cl~(~rah A. & Magl~us. I~ald "(~tlt ol, Ihc Mouths of Ba~s ... lqhc Opininns: ol II) and ll Year C)ld Children R~garding,the Ad~eoising of (igarcttcn munily He~llh Studies 1981.5: (1~, 22-26. II0. Chapman, S. & Fitzgerald, B: -Brand Preference and Ad~'e~ising Recall in Adt~le~nl Smokers: Norne lmpli- calions lor Health Pr(~motion." American .10urmd Health 1982~ 72~ II I~ Ch~pman, S."Undcrstanding(?i~arctlc Ad~c~aisn~g - A N~w Approach to Anti-Smoking [ ducali~m- Can~H a. Australian Commonweahh l)cpa~mcnl~of Hcahh, Hcahh Sc~'ic~ a:nd Teaching I]a~r NO: 6~ Seplcm~r. 112~ I~dwith, 1984, ibid. 37¸

~o " He NEW V • ORK TIMES, SUNDAY, SEPTEM, " R " " SafetyGroup Find: • .... 'BiblicM scoreboard' hue, R cau~d, scarcely, a ripple un ..._f.~.~ • ~oncemed,~at "most of our gov, But seine memO,s I. eminent offices" a~ "in ~e auickly fo~d themselves deluged way ~ramc safety Aammi~tratien , ~ hands ot amoral' or immoral ffi~ ffhone calls from constituents. ~gan investigating, mo~rists', r~ " leadersl7 two ch~ch-relat~ groups, It turns out that at least two ~ ~r~ m erratic aeee~erau~ ~ Nis- Ehflsian VoiCe and the Biblical News bacco companies had sent telegrams san automobiles but did not publicize ~ Service, have published a "Biblical ' Scoreboard" to help voters select candidates for Congress and some state offices in November. The scoreboard, rates 3~000 candi, dates from .0 to 100, irlcumbents on the , basis of a dozen votesin the last four ,~ years, challengers :on the basis of an- , swers to questions. Challengers who ' declined to answer were rated 0. . The 40-page pamphlet lists as "pro- ; Biblical" support for the project to , place weapons in, space, a constitu- ' t~onal amendment requiring a bal- anced budgeti a constitutional. , amendment banning abort/on, aid to "anti-Communist freedom fighters in " Angola" and the death penalty~ The. • "pro-Bibllcal" position also involves ~ opposition tO financing for family planning, paying female employees; ' ~n the basis of "comparable worth,''~ , the proposed, equal rights amend; • merit and. "giving homosexuals the '. same minority status as blacks and , other minorities." Dr. Robert G. Grant, president of Christian Voice, estimated that five ' million to.eight million copies of the pamphlet would.be distributed before Election Day. The publication aug- gests that pastors buy "this lmpor- last, voter eduction magazine,' with funds from the church budget or donations from congregations. : Budget-Minded. "l~ /~'embers of Congressi: like [ ~i | prophets, are sometimes ' I_ V • held in higher respect in the , capital than In their-homes. When a Washington woman was chatting ' with a South Carolina man .in the ' TKTS discount theater ticket.line in ,' New York the other day, she spotted ,~ Representative Butler Derrick, • Democrat of South Carolina, In the ~' line and:pointed him out, "Well," the ; man responded, eying the Congress- , man, "when it comes to his own • money, I, see he doesn't spend it." ~The SmoMng Leffer -r-~. ternal vigilance is one keyto a ,. ~ . successful lobbying effort, and ~ few are better at it than the to- , bacco industry. When Dan Rosten- ' kowskl, the ChiCago Democrat who is chairman of the Housq Ways and Means Committee, suggested not 10rig ago that raising to"b-acco taxes .mtght be one .way to increase rev~- to smokers suggesting that "Our elected representatives in Congress haven't heard enough protest from • the smokers of America" and urging them to call, not write, to remedythe situation; Puzzled by the swiftness of the reaction, Representative Charles E; Schumer,. a Brooklyn Democrat; looked into the matter and'found that the telegrams had=gone to a comput- erized list ofpeople who had filled out a coupon several, months ago to re- ceive free samples of cigarettes~ Portuguese Hero Aa result of aplea from 80 mere. bets of Congress, thej Govern- ment of Portugal has agreed to c]ear the name of a Portuguese diplo- mat summoned home In disgrace in World War 1I for defying his Govern, ment by "improperly" issuing visas to people fleeing the Nazis. The diplomat, Dr. AriStides de Sousa Mendes, was the Portuguese consul to Bordeaux, France, in 1940, and is credited with saving the lives of thousands of people. For disobedience, Dr. de Sousa Mendes was recalled,-stripped of the right to: practice law and blacklisted from other, work. He dled in poverty in I954. Although, he has been honored for his courage bY bOth,the Governments of Israel in 1967 and the United,States last May, he remained officially In disgrace in Portugal As a resuR of a personal plea from Tony'Coelho. a California Democrat who IS of Portuguese descent, and, a letter signed by other Hou~ mem- bers, President Marlo Soares of Pot, tugal has agreed to clear his name and award Dr. de Sousa Mendes a posthumous special medal of honor. . Wayne King Warren Weaver Jr. it, news of the investigation was an- nounced: by a private consumer ac- tion group here. "N.H.T.&A. Opens New Investiga- tion Into Nissan Sudden Acceleration Defect," read the#rat line of a press release from the g'roup, the Center for Auto Safety., which had for several months been urging an inquiry, It hastened to assert that its pressure had moved the agency to action. In a time when highway safety does not have the importance in the White House or on Capitol Hill that it once did, it is not; uncommon to find the center making noise about things the Federal agency has decided are not news. Playing the barking watchdog and, being the badger, at Federal agencies and in Congress or the courtroom is the role the center has assigned itself, according to Clarence M. Ditlow 3d, for 10 years the executive director. Mr. Ditlow says that his group~ founded by Ralph Nader. is the only independent consumer auto safety group In town. 'It's Been a Different Battle' The role is praised by some. parole; ularly those who are consumer-ori- ented, and criticized by others,:nota- bly in the Reagan Administration. "It's a different battle from, what it's been i' said Mr, Ditlow, recalling the heyday of auto safety in the 1960 S and 70's. "Cars are clearly safer :because of. the passage of safety standards and recall programs," added Mr~ Ditiow, whose father was a service manager at a Chevrolet dealership In Peunsy.l- vanl& "But this AdminiStration refuses to go to the mat with auto- makers who refuse voluntary recall. On CapRol Hill, we're sort of at a stage where the number of strong ad- vocates are fewer and the priority of auto safety not as high." As for~ the Traffic Safety Adminis- tration, he asserted that it; had created a "vacuum,' by not announc- ing its activities and that the center had moved to fill It, 'We'll Do It Ourselves' "Sure they get upset," said Mr. ,D/t- low, 42 years old, a chemical engineer and lawyer, "Our. answer Is: 'If you are not going to pnt~ out the releases, thaVs fine with us. We,ll do R our- s~lv~.' " Among its v counts the suec~ the Firestone. tires in the late 1 the Federal Ht8 to require that not wood be use lion workers f~, It considers In getting a the Governmen~ of miles of hi~' opening the andin getting t dress motorisl i transmissions the gears tO verse." Diane IL Sts of the ltlghws ti0n, views the ably less finite: "somewhere fringe." 'Frequently. "They have problemy she get things wr accidents. Ov we got 100 1, about probler those people r you cry wolf problems, th, them offY" Ms. Steed s spread its eft should focus ~ On the oth~ president of ; [I

PHILIP MORRIS COMPANIF3 INC. INTER-OFFiCE CORRESPONDEN'CF FROM: SUBJECT: Mr. Hamish Maxwell Fredric S. Newman Environmental Tobacco Smoke Ad 120 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK. N.Y ~0017 August 7, 1986 DATE: The British study has now been published. Attached for consideration is proposed text for a piece in. the "op-ed" style as you requested. tb ~..~ ~ , attachment cc: T. F. Ahrensfeld, Esq. A. Holtzman, Esq. (w/att.)

Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke has not been shown to cause chronic diseases in nonsmokers. This is the conclusion of many independent scientists who have studied the subject from a purely scientific point of view based upon research conducted; throughout the world. Lung cancer in nonsmokers has been the main focus of inquiry. The predominant scientific opinion, based upon 16 published studies, is that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is not associated with a significant increased risk of lung cancer. The newest study, published July 31, 1986, in the British Journal of Cancer, reported: "Amongst lifelong non-smokers, passive smoking was not associated with any significant increase in risk of lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, ischaemic heart disease or stroke in any analysis." That study, reported by researchers affiliated with the Institute of Cancer Research., was funded by the British tobacco industry. It is the most comprehensive to date: it is the first of its kind to address the four major disease states while assessing a full range of environmental tobacco smoke exposures. The study was conducted over a 6 year period in i0 hospital regions in England. Cases studied

were selected from over 12,600 patients to provide matching smoker and nonsmoker pairs similar in age. The results of the British study are consistent with a number of studies conducted in other countries which, found no significant increases in lung cancer among nonsmokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke. The British study also supports the conclusions of other researchers who have found no significant association of environmental tobacco smoke exposure with cardiovascular conditions. Moreover, the British study is only one of a handful. to have-considered environmental tobacco smoke exposures other than those resulting from the smoking habits of family members. The British researchers considered data regarding tobacco smoke exposure at home, at work, during travel and during leisure. In fact, every study cons±dering total exposure to tobacco smoke outside the home has failed to report a significant relationship to lung cancer in nonsmokers. Furthermore, those studies reporting an increased lung cancer risk in nonsmokers have been severely criticized in the scientific literature. None of the researchers conducting the studies actually measured the amount of environmental tobacco smoke to which nonsmokers were exposed.. Most failed to consider age differences, diet,

occupation, exposure to urban air pollution, and even such obvious influences as ventilation. Nor did any consider the potential confounding effects of familial risk of lung cancer or other genetic factors. Their methodological deficiencies have even been pointed out by the authors themselves in some cases. The highly publicized 1981 study by Japanese epidemiologist Takeshi Hirayama reporting that nonsmoking wives of smokers have a greater lung cancer risk than. wives of nonsmokers is a case in point. Commencing with its publication, that study has generated extensive scholarly criticism among noted scientists and physicians worldwide. Both the design, of the study and the validity of its conclusions have been: faulted. The study also has been criticized as methodologically suspect. Even if the Hirayama findings were valid, it is doubtful that they could be extrapolated to provide meaningful data for people in other countries because of differences in culture, social customs and living conditions. Finally, there have been several important, international scientific conferences on the topic of environmental tobacco smoke in recent years. All have reached the same conclusion.: the scientific evidence does not support a causal relationship between exposure to

environmental tobacco smoke and increased risk of chronic health effects to the nonsmoker. Undoubtedly, some nonsmokers are annoyed by poorly ventilated smoky rooms. But after all, in normal situations cigarette smoke is immediately diluted by surrounding air. Measurements of tobacco smoke in the air taken under realistic conditions show again and again that the amount of tobacco smoke in the air we breathe is minimal. Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health, for example, have estimated that a nonsmoker would have to spend 100 consecutive hours in a smoke-filled bar to be exposed to the equivalent of a single filter tip cigarette. Japanese researchers recently confirmed these estimates. Then why do we hear so much about the "harm" of environmental tobacco smoke? Because this scientifically unfounded claim has been perpetrated by those few zealots who would prohibit smoking altogether. It is an emotional appeal to the nonsmoking majority, people who otherwise would not infringe upon. the individu,al rights of their neighbors over social customs or personal lifestyles, no matter how annoying. - 4 -

We believe that legitimate scientific inquiry should not be misused to advance one's social or political agenda. We will continue to support further research, and further public discussion, of this scientific issue. The one thing all scientists do agree upon is that more research is needed. We agree too.. Research, not rhetoric. - 5 -

XECUTIVE EDITION Contact: S. Sarro, Ext. Wedneaday, August 13, 1986 MOND AUGUST 11, ~d~ ~des ~e ~t n~es~y me ; College Student Opinion Poll ~ ~ ~e des~ piles of ~ches. I Percentage m slu~nts ~s~ "yes" to e "~n it comes to get~g a we~- Smoking, Favor The Death Penalty Today's college students want to be suc- cessful financially and they believe mari- juana, cocaine and tobacco are harmfifi. College Watch '86. a study sponsored by a trade association of col- lege stores, also shows that students are conservative beer drinkers who do not trust politicians and disapprove of sex before marriage. The $250.000 survey, taken last winter of 1,004 students at 4-year col- leges nationwide and released late last month, was conducted by Simmons Market Research Burea- for the National Association of College Stores -- the research arm of the College Stores Research & Educational Foun- dationof Oberlin, Ohio, Association Executive Director G~is Distelhorst said the survey,"gives a complete profile of the college student as a consumer. "It is the most penetrating survey of student attitudes ever undertaken," be saicL "By the time they. leave college, their patterns and preferences' are established, Trend-setting for the future generation is largely determined by this markeL, He said the survey takes on even more importance because college enrollment may reach a high of 15.4 million by 1990, up more than 3 million from 1086-87. The survey said two out of three respondents want to make '% good deal of money" and 34 percent believe "being a millionaire before age 35" is ~portant. paying job, 70 percent agree somewhat with the concept that personality and appearance are at least as important as knowledge," said the study, adding:. "Fifty-nine percent are completely or somewhat in accord with the statement that, 'It's not what youknow, it's whom you know that helps you get Nearly half the respondentS said they would rather work for themselves than for a large corporation and 15 per- cent said the only way to make heaps of money is to start a business. The survey also revealed a tendency for students to bite the hand that feeds them intellectually:. "Almost half of the respondents .... agreed at least some- what with the statement that 'most of the learning in college has nothing to do with the classroom. .... The nation's future leaders and con- sumers are more conservative in their attitudes about a wide range of subjects than the preceding generation: • Respondents who favor tougher laws on pornography: 50 percent. • Those who said industry cannot ~ trusted to handle disposal of toxic: wastes: 70 percent. • Those who think cocaine is. "unwise or harmful," 73 percent; 62 percent think the same of mari~uana. • Think cigarettes are bad. 70 per- cent; but only 10 percent think beer is • Favor the death peru~]ty, 73 per- cent, while 28 percent said abortion • Repub]~zans, 37 percent; indepeno ~ents, 31 percent; Democrats, 28 per- cent. Haft of the respondents described themselves as moderate and 24 percent. as conservatives. 3:454 ~ 4o ~ UPI GRAPHIC "COLLEGE WATCH 86', a survey ~hen last winter and released last month, shows that A mericds /uture leaders and consumers are more conservative in their attitudes about a wide range of subjects than the generation which preceeded them. The sur~ey was conducted by the Simmons Market Reserach Bureau for the College Stores and Educational Fou~.lation. • Fifty-six percent think sex before marriage is always or sometimes wrong, while 95 percent believe sex outside marriage is always or some- times wrong. • Seventy percent had;little or no trust in.politicians; 60 percent felt the same way about reporters. Doctors, scientists and professors were most trusted. The foundation is a trade group with more than 2,700 college store members in the United States. Canada and 15 other co~,ti'ies. t hired Press International

THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE MEMORANDUM TO: The Members of the Executive Committee FROM: Samuel D. Chilcote, Jr. ~ 187~ 1 STREET. NOR!['H~¥EST SAMUEL D. CHILCOTE, J~R V~I'\SHINGTON. DC 2l~)l)B President', 202/457,-480{] • /- , ,/RECEIVED ~i, RECEIVED JOHN ~ MURPHY The enclosedl article from a recent issue of the Journal of The American Medical Association is sent to. you for your information. SDC : dlt Enclosure

.v~AY 6 i F~,,O~ ~OUR INFORMATION FREDR|C S. NEWMAN

Letters Legislative Action on Tobacco and Smoking To the Ed/tor.--I would like to com- mend you for dedicating your Feb 28 issue to the subject of tobacco abuse. Over thelast several years, Congress., has considered a large number Of bills introduced~ to curtail voluntarily the use of tobacco. In 1982, I introduced legislation to amend the Federal Cigarette Label- ing and Advertising Act of 1965, replacing the old warning with four stronger health warnings. After three years of intensive legislative activity, a. series of hearings, executive ses- sions, and floor debate in beth the House and Senate, this legislation was unanimously.approved by Cou- gress and signed into law. This year, Senator Richard Lngar and I intro- duced legislation, that places three strong health warnings on smokeless tobacco products along with regulat- ing. advertising. This legislation was approved by Congress a few weeks ago and only recently signed, into law by the President~ In addition, the 16-cent tax on cigarettes, which was scheduled to return to 8 cents last year, has been permanently ex- tended. Numerous other measures now be- fore Congress could substantially af- fect the tobacco industry, Senator Ted Stevens and I have introduced legisla- tion that' wouldi restrict smoking in federal buildings (S 1937), Senator Bill Bradley has introduced legisla- tion that would end. the tax deduction for advertising expensesfor tobacco products (S 1950); Senator Howard Metzenbaum and I are currently working on legislation to ban smoking on all public conveyances, ie, planes, trains, and buses. In addition, several senators intend to introduce legisla- tion to increase the current tax on cigarettes from 16 cents to either 24 or 32 cents. Finally, a number of senators joined me in writing to our secretary of defense, Casper Weinbergsr, urg- ing him to halt the sale of cigarettes in military commissaries and to raise the price in milltary exchanges. I was pleased to learn in March of this year that the Secretary announced his goal of a smoke,free military by the year 2000. The Department of Defense is currently developing programs to reach this goal.. As you ~: see, Congress is actively and aggressively involved in this bat: tle~ It is important to remember that politics is the art of doing the possi- ble. Many members of Congress have goals in, common with health profes- sionals and share their concern abeut public health. To suggest otherwise is unfair and inaccurate. In the long run, if we work together, I am confi- dent that we wan achieve a tobacco- free society by the year 2000.

U.S.NEWS & WORLD REPORT; July 2h 1986 VOICES OF AMERICA RESTRICT SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES? 4~terv ew with Joseph :Caiifano, ' i ,ormerSecretary,0f Health, Educatio~ and Welfare PRO CON Q Mr. Califano,.why do you favor restricting smoking In public? People---whether they're children, workers or pregnant women--should not be forced to. breathe other people's smoke_ Mayhe you can drink alone or eat alone, but it is not possible to smoke alone in an enclosed space with other people: Studies show that 5,OOOAmericans die each year because of secondhand smoke.. A Japanese report concluded that nonsmoking winces of heavy smokers had an 80 percent higher risk of lung cancer, than:women married to nonsmok- ers. Study after study has associated involuntary smoking and' lung cancer, pneumonim asthma and bronchitiS.. A re- cent study, has linkedlsecondhand smoke to heart disease. Q Where do you think smoking ahould be banned? In, schools, hospitals, sports arenas and convention halls, theaters, banks or other public places where people have to, stand andl wait. Sections of theater lobbies and other areas could be set aside for~ smokers. Smoking. should not be per, mitted¢iB stores. Restaurants should~ be required to provide smoke,free space. Employers ~ES -"Five thousand' should,' provide a smoke-free workplace for employes who, Americans die each, wish it: l support the efforts to: year because of restrict smoking to designated secondhand smoke" areas in Federal buildings. Vir. tually all assembly lines now' prohibit smoking~ and most large companies with large workroom areas have restric- tions. Businesses that permit smoking at work can provide a room for smoking or segregate smokers in one part of a room with proper ventilation. The commission 1 worked witch to propose a New York City antismoking law recom, mended no ,restrict ions for bars, private residences, hotel and moteli rooms or tobacco:stores: Q Many restaurants already have no-smoking areas, Why should merchants and employers be forced to separate smokers? Because the last five surgeons general have concluded that this is a public-health problem with heavy costs to our society. Why should the nonsmoker have to protect himself against breathing smoke any more than a customer should have to in- spect; the kitchen of a restaurant to see if it is sanitary? Q Businesses argue that such measures are costly-- It costs no more than.a sign that says"NO-Smoking Sec- tion." Employers will save money.in terms of reduced illness and absenteeism and increased productivity. Q Is the reatlgoal to force people to stop smoking altogether? Not~ at all. That is their choice. Fm only trying to.protect nonsmokers, But I do support employers who fund pro- grams to help workers quit smoking if they want to~ Smok- ing is slow-motion suicide. The point here is to prevent secondhand smoking from becoming slow-motion murder. Interview with Paul Scr~vane, former president, r~ew York City Council! O Mr. Screvane, why do you oppose banning or restricting smoking In public places? Because such laws would set up;two classes of citizens-- smokers and nonsmokers--and wou~d~ be very confronta- tional. They give the nonsmoker virtual:dictatorial power to determine where smoking may notl be permitted. And such laws are unenforceable. Health departments and the police are already overwor,ked. O What about atudles that link smoke-filled rooms to lung can- cer In nonsmokers? [ can fiud no evidence that secondar~ smoke is a danger. At three separate workshops on this very issue, scientists concluded that health hazards to nonsmokers could not be established} O Why then,are cancer doctors among those pressing to ban, smoking tn ,public places? Passive smoke is a subterfuge. They. are really' tr~ying to NO- '1 can find: no evidence that; secondary smoke is, a, danger" make it difficult to smoke in, public. They' think many young people will say: "Well,. if it's that inconvenient, why even get started on, it? Forget it.?" They can't point to any scientific danger to nonsmok- ers. IFs a sham, a fraud. O Don't you think restaurant pa- trons, for Instance, have the right to dine without smoke if, they wish? If enough people came into a restaurant and said.. "'We will not patronize your place beca~tse you don't have a no, smoking section,, they'd have one. Restaurants aren't re- qg.ired by lawto provide sugar~ substitutes, but because of the pr,essures of the marketplace, most do., Q What about the workplace? Shouldn!t; all workers have the right to a amoke-free environment? The workplace isnot aJways a big room in which you can segregate smokers and nonsmokers. What if lO,people work in a section, and two are smokers? Can you put a wall around them? If they need to communicate with their fellow workers, I think you're depriving them of their li',elihood. AlSo, segregating smokers costs money. An AFL-CIO study estimated that an antismoking law' would cost $2~5 million a year in New Yorl¢. City. O How would such.laws cost employers money? Besides reorganizing the office and putting up partitions. a company would suffer from time lost. I'smoke three packs a day, which means I smoke three or four cigarettes an, hour. As president of Federal Metal .Maintenance, Inc., I have my own office. But if I did not. I would have to absent myself from my workplace and go to,a: designated area to smoke. That's time--and time is money.

RECEIVED STAN SCOT'rIUN ~0 ].~:~ FRANK June 19, 1986 __~ DISTRIBUTION: Mr. Thomas F. Ahrensfeld Mr. Hugh Cullman Mr. Alexander Holtzman Mr. George L. Knox Mr. William Kloep.fer, Jr. Mr. Michael Kenny Mr. Herbert Millington Mr. John A. Murphy Mr. Fredric Newman Mr. Frank E. Resnik Mr. Thomas D. Ricke Mr. Guy L. Smith Attached for your review is the American Medical Association article on cigarette smoking and cervical cancer. SSS

Cigarette Smoking and Invasive Cervical Cancer Louise A. Bdnton, PhD; Catherine Schairer, MS; William Haenszet, DrPH; Paul Stolley, MD, MPH; Herman F. Lehman, DDS, MPH; Robert Levine. MD; David:A. Savitz, PhD • A case-control study of 480 patients with Invaalve cervical cancer and 797 population controls, conducted In five geographic areas In the United 8tstes, included an evalueUon of the relaUonsklp of seversl cigarette smoking variables to cervical cancer risk. Although smoking was correlated with both age at first intercourse and number of sexual partners, a significant smoking-related risk persisted for equamous cell carcinoma after adjustment for these factors (relative risk, 1.5). The dsk of squamous cell cancers increased significantly .with Intensity end duration of smoking. Twofold excess risks were seen, for those smoking 40 or more cigarettes per day and those smoking for 40 or more years, in addiUon, users of nonfilter cigarettes were at particularly high, risk. Increased risks, however, were observed only among recant and conUnuous smokers. In contrast to squamoua cell cancer, no relationship was observed; between, smoking and risk of adenocarcinome or adenosquemous carcinoma (n=63). These results suggest a causal ralaUonahip between cigarette smoking and invasive squamoua ceil cervical cancer, part.pc through • isis.stage or promotional event, although the mechanisms of action require fur~er elucidation. (JAMA 1986;255:32fiS-326g} THE HYPOTHESIS that cigarette smoking a~ects the risk of cervical cancer was raised by Wlnkelatein,! who reviewed a variety of direct and indirect observations linking smoking to cervical cancer risk. Subsequent prospective= and case-control~'° stud- ies demonstrated excess risks of both preinvasive and invasive cervical &b- normalRies among smokers, particu- larly current, tong-term, or heavy smokers. Most of these studies had limited exposure information and few focused on invasive disease. In addi- tion, questions remain as to whether the smoking associations merely re- 9Y 8ran~, NatiOnal ~ In.Sure, Landow 81dg, flect confounding by other cervical cancer risk factors. One controversial study" reported that adjustment for age and socioeconomic status elimi- nated pre~ously observed smoking effects. However, other studies that have been able to control for more direct measures of risk, include ing number of sexual partners and/0r age at first intercourse, have found excess smoking risks to persist, although to a diminished extent and sometimes without a clear dose. response relationship.*T' To clarify the relationship at smok- ing to risk of invasive cervical cancer, we undertook a case-control study in five metropolitan areas in the United States, in which detailed information was collected on smoking habits and on numerous cer~eai cancer risk fac- tom. hospitals in these areas were found to diagnose or treat sufficiently large num- bers of cervical cancer ca~es and were chosen.to participate in the study. Incident cases of invasive cervical cancer occurring among women aged 20 to 74 years were accrued from these hospitals during the period:from April I982 to January 1984~ Controls for the study were obtained through random-digit dialing techniques.!~ Whenever possible, two controls were indi- vidually matched;to each case on the basis of telephone exchange, race, and: five-year age group. This process was done in four waves, each of which involvedi(t)iselecting a residential cluster matched on exchange for each case; (2):generating the telephone numbers to be called in each selected residential cluster, (3) enumerating by telephone: interview the female members of each household, aged 20 to 69; according to age and race; and (4)selecting two controls from the. total pool of eligible controls in the same exchange-race-age cell as each case (in.certain circumstances, when there were no available controls in a certain age and race category, it was necessary to relax the age match some. what), Of the 23,404 telephone numbers sampled, 13,561 (57.9%) were eligible num- bers for control selection. An enumeration of female members was obtained for 84.1i%. of the telephone numbers assumed to be working and residential FollOwing the selection of appropriately matched con- trois, a brief telephone interview was administered to ascertain histories of prior hospitalization. Approximately 25% of the initially selected controls were found to have had a hysterectomy (and presumably were not at risk for cervical cancer) and were replaced with other eligible controls. Trained interviewers conducted home interviews with, both cases and controls. The majority (74%) of the cases were interviewed within six months of diagno- METHODS sis, while 35% were interviewed within This case-control study included: as three months of diagnosis. Interview.~l study sites five cities reporting to the lasted an average of 76 minutes and Comprehensive Cancer l~tient Data Sys- elicited detailed information on smoking tern--Birmingham, Ale, Chicago, Denver, history, as well as demographics, sexual Miami, and Philadelphi~ Twenty-four behavior, pregnancy history, menstrual JAMA, June 20, 1986--Voi 255, No. 23 Smoking and Cervlc~l CancerwBrinton et al 3265

20.0 27.5 19.0 16.5 17~I fS! 19.0 224 28.1 156 19.8 118 I4.S 1~0 18.8 88 "/oS ! 19.8 216 27.1 27.7 231 29.0 24.4 170 21.3 28.1 180 22~6 " _'~,9__~-~~ " 1'91'~ ~':~.~-"~ 100~,.. histor~ and hygiene practices, contracep- tive use, medical history, diet, marital history, end family history of cancer. The smoking information included the curren- cy of smoking at the time of diagnosis (or an equivalent period for controls), the number of cigarettes usually smoked per day, the nge at which smoking had st.-ted and stopped, whether smoking had been continuous or intermittent, the depth of inhalation, and the use nf filter and non- filter cigarettes. Interviews were completed for 481 (73.1~) o! 6~ eligible cases and/'or 801 (T1.9%) of 1,114 controls. Refusal (9,7% of cases vs 2/.9% of controls)was the major reason for nonrespunse o/' study subject~ Other reasons included subjects havinz moved or not being locatable (~8% ~ 3.4%), death {5,0% vs 0,5%), i/loess (~.1% v8 1:1%), and miscollan~ous problems (1.7% vs 1.1~). In addition, it was not possible to obtain physic/an consent for 4.6% of the case~ Information from hospital pstholo8~ reports was evallabls for the casse. This allowed us to examine equnmous cell osrcl- homes separately from the adenoce~'ino- mas or adencequamous carcinoma~ After we elim/nsted five subjects for whom information was .nknown for at least one of the smoking v~r/ablce, the fins/groups for analyzis consisted of 417 c_~__-~_ with invuive equamous cell carcinoma, 63 eases with inv--;ve adenoosrcinoms or adeno- equamous carcinoma, and ~J7 controls. The relative risk (RR), as estimated b~ the odds rstio, was the measure o/' aasocia- lion used for evaluating effects of smoking exposures on the risk of cervical cancer. Unmatched logis~c re~roesJun analyses" using cases and all controls were done to obtain maximum likelihood; estimates of the odds ratios and 95% confidence inter- vale. while adjusting for con/ounding vari- ablss. Tests for trend in the logistic analy- ses were obtained by categorizing the exposure variable, assigning the score j the ~ exposure level of the categorical variable, and treating the scored: variable as a continuous variable. Because match- ing wu employed in the study design, matched logistic regression analyses were also done." However, this resulted in con- siderable loss in power, since the case and control populations were reduced, by 10% and 35%, respectively. After determining that any differences between matched and unmatched rssults were likely to be due to differences ia the study populations rather than in true analytic discrepancies, it was decided that unmatched estimates only would be presented. RESULTS Table 1 presents.basic demographic information on cases and controls. There was a fairly even accumulation of ca~s from the five study sites, although the largest percentage (27.5%) was from Chicago. A total of 56~% of the cases were non-Hispanic whites, 32"3% b|~ka, 9.2% Hispanic whites, and 2.2% of other or unknown races. Despite attempts to obtain a close age match, cases tended to be significantly (P<.001)older than controls (mean of 46.T vs 43.7). Percentages of smokers among the controls according to selected risk factors for invasive cervical cancer are presented in Table 2. Whites, women younger than age 55 years, and women with. nine or more years 3266 JAMA, June 20, 198~Vol 255, No. 23 Tsble 2~--Percent Smokers Among Controls According to Selected Cervical Csncer Risk FBCtOrS Risk Fsotor SmOItMs White, non~Hisl~nic 50 While, Hill)Ink: 54 Click 47 ~her 0 <36 51 ~+ 411 Educa~on, yr ' <9 43 9-11 57 12 45 13+ 49 2 104~ 74 Age It first JntMcOUrle. yr': 22+ or never 39 20-21 38 18-19 50 18.T7 61 < 18 49 • Relulta itindzrc~zld for age. of formal education were more fre. quently smokers. The percentage of smokers varied substantially accord- ing to lifetime number of sexual part- nero, rising from 39% among those who reported having zero or one life- time sexual partner to 74% among those with ten or more partners. Similarly~ approximately 38% to 39% of controls who reported ages at first intercourse after age 19 years (or never) were smokers compared with 54)% to 60% with earlier ages ~t first intercourse. A total of 256 cases (61%) with squamous ceil carcinoma and383 con- trois (48%): reported eve~ having smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime, and regularly for six months or longe~, yielding an unadjusted RR of 1.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.4 to 2.2) (Table 3). This estimate was confounded, however, by several of the variables presented in Table 2, most notably, by number of sexual partners and age at first intercourse. Because women who were at high risk for cervical cancer by having numer- ous sexual partners or an early age at~ first intercourse were also more fre- quently smokers, adjustment for these factors reduced the association between smoking and cervical cancer. Adjustment for age, race, and educa- Smoking,and Cervical Cancer--Brinton el al

414 I+0 1.0 383 1,7 1.4.-2.2 1.5 1. I, I ~S 111 104 179 37 1.2 0,9.2.0 I ~ I O.S- 1.7 1.6 1.1-2.3 1.3 0.9-2.0 1.7 1.2-2.2 1,5 1.1-2,1 3.2 2.0.S. I " 2.4 1.4-4.1 P<:.001 .... P<.001 ... " 1,~-'i ~ 97 • . 1,7 '" ... "Ad~ull~l kx mg~, m¢~, num~ o~ ~xual l~rtne~s, ago at ~ Int~)um~, ,and ~duca~. N01~RIokI~, 161: 414 1,0 . . . Rim' ONy 210 347 1.4 li0-1,8 N(mlltet ot boltt 4~ 38 2,1 1:~)-3.6 lO+ 2-4 1 current Trial test 1~1'T ~, .: "~ Yes 28 55 1.1 0.0- 1.9 8 22 1.0 0.4-2.4 9 23 I. ~ 0,~-2.0 15 1 ~ 3.2 1.4-7.4 1~ 272 1.5 1.2-2.0 P<.01 ~:: ~" ~I~'.--~"!:~L~~;'~" 4T ".. ~.. .2~-~ • ~ I~: ~'~. 1,t~ . ~7-I.~ t~o~ on the other hand, dighdy increased the association. After ad- justment for all of these variables, the RR associated with ever having smoked was 1.5 (95% confidence interval, I.I to 1.9). Addit/onal adjust. merit for study site, income, oral contraceptive use, h/story of a non- spo~fle ~enital infection or sore, his- tory of a positive result ofa Papanico- laou smear, and interval since last JAMA. June 20, 1986~Vo~ 255, NO. 23 Papanlcolaou smear did not substan- tlally alter this estimate. Relative risks associated with cur- rency,, intensity, and durst/on of smoking for cases with squamous cell carcinoma are also presented in Table 3. Both former and current smokers were at elevated risk (1.3 and 1`5, respectively) compared with non° smokers after adjustment for appro- priate confounders. This increased risk was statistically significant, however,~ only among the current smoker~ There was also a significant trend in risk with increasing number of cigarettes, with the adjusted RRe being 1.1, 1~, 1~, and ~4 for smokers of fewer than I0, 10 to 19, 20 to ~, and 40 or more cigarettes per day~ respectively, compared with non- smokers. A significant trend in risk was also evident according to increas- ins duration of smoking, with those who smoked for 40 or more years having an adjusted RR of 2~ com- pared with nonsmokers. Relat/ve risks associated with othe~ smoking variables are presented in Table 4. Both smokers of filter cisa- reties only and smokers of nonfilter ci~rettos were at si~ifie~ntty e|e- rated risks compared with nonsmok- ers, but the risk was s~eater among those who had ever smoked nonf~Iter cisarettos (RR, 2.1). Smokers who inhaled into the chest were also at sisnificantly increased risk compared with nonsmokers (RR, 1`5) and at a slightly hisher risk than women who did not inhale (RR, I~). Both re~ent quitters (for one year or less)and current smokers were at: increased risk compared with nonsmokers (ad- justed RRs, ~L2 and 1.5, respe~ively), while the risk for qu/tters for two or more years was approximately that of nonsmoker~ There was no clear pat- tern of risk accordins to the nge at which smoking had started, although those who started smoking at a~e 20 Smoking and ~ervical Cancer~Brinton et ~1 3267

Table 5.--Relative Ri~ke o~ tnva/iva Cervical Adermc, lrclnomss o¢ Adenosquamou~ Carcinomas ~ted With SeversliVadabJel of Smoking Ever smoked NO ' 31 414 1.0 . • . YII 32 383 1.1 0.7-1.9 r.,~mnt om,:Am~ 26 g?~ 1.2 0.7-2.1 No. of c~re~tes ~ per d~y <: 10, 5 SS 1. ! 0,4-2.8 10.19 "9 104 1.2 0.5.2.5 20-38 15 179 1.1 0.8-2. ! 40+: 3 37 1.1 i 0.3-3.7 Trend test ......... P~.70 . . . 10,,19 ~ 1~ 0.9 O.~g.1 ~ 4 21 2.0 0~.0 ~ ~ " 24 ~4' I'.0 " t ~' 0~: yean or later were at a somewhat higher risk than those who started e~rller. Intermittent smokers did not appear to be at a higher risk than nonsmokers (RR, 0.9), whereas con- tinuous smokers had an RR of 1.6 compared with nonsmokers. Sinco we were concerned that the smoking elfeete might: reflect corre- lated measures, we attempted to con- trol the effects of each smoking vari- able for the other smoking measures. However, the effeete of Focency, intensity, duration, filtration, and intermittency persisted after adjust- ment for each other and for other risk Smoking-related risks were also examined according to a number of other cer~cal cancer risk factors. Aseociat/ons prevailed across all study centers and in. all age and racial subgroups, and there was no evidence of any interaction with either of these variab|se. In addition, there were no significant interactions of smoking with squamous cell carcinoma risk according to ag~ at first intercourse, history of a nonspocific genital condi- tion or sore, interval since last Papanicolaou smear, or history of a positive result of a Pspanicolaou smear. Furthermore, there was no evidence of a significant interaction with number of sexual partners, with the smoking-associated ~iska being 1.2 for women with zero to two part- here, ~.4 for those with three to four partners, and 1.6 for those wi~h five to nine or ten or more partners. Relative risks associated with smoking for cases with adenocarcino- ma or adenosquamous carcinoma are shown in Table 5. There was no evidence of increased risk aseoeiatad with ever having smoked (RR, 1.1). In addition, no significant relationships of risk were observed with currency of smoking, number of cigarettes, years of smoking, filtration, or inha- lation. COMMENT .. The results of this study provide strong evidence that smoking is an independent risk factor for invasive squamous ce|l caeca| cancer. After adjustment for appropriate co,found- ing variables, we found that women who reported ever having regularly smoked cigarettes had a 50% elevated risk compared with nonsmokers. Fur- ther supporting an etiologic role for smoking were significant linear rela- tionships observed with number of cigarettes smoked per day and with years of smoking. Thus, women who smoked: 40 or more cigarettes per day as well as those who reported smok- ing for 40 or more years had siguifi- 3268 JAMA, June 20. 1986--Vol 255, No. 23 ~nt twofold excess risks. These fig- ures agree well with previous studies that have been able to account for sexual factors in assessing the rela- tion of smoking to cervical cancer risk.°..'''.'` In particular, our findings are consistent witl~tbose of Clarke et~ al' and L~ Vecchia et al/°'two: other detailed investigations that have fo- cused on the relationship of smoking to risk of invasive cervical cancer. In addition to effects associated with duration and intensity of smok- ing, our study was also able to exam- ine cervical cancer risk in, relation to several measures of smoking that were not assessed:in previous studies.. It is noteworthy that the highest risks were associated with recent smoking and the use of nonfilter cigarettes, providing further support for a role of smoking in cervical cancer etiology--particularly since these associations persistedl as risk: factors even after adjustment for oth- er measures of smoking (including intensity and duration), This study, however, indicated: the importance of accounting for addi- tional risk factors in assessing the relationship between smoking and cervical cancer, particularly since smoking was correlated with mea- sures of sexual activity that were major predictors of risk in this popu- lation. Since smoking was more com- mon among those reporting an. early age at first intercourse and/or multi- ple sexual part~ers, adjustment~ for these variables decreased the crude RRs, generally by a magnitude of 10% to 30%, Although our findings suggest that cigarette smoking is causally related to squamous carcinoma of the cervix, the biologic mechanisms are unclear. Recent laboratory studies'""' that have detected cotinine, nicotine, and other mutagens in cervical mucus of smokers would, support a direct, car- cinogenic effect of smoking, Alterna- tively, immunosuppressive effects of smoking might allow other carcino- gens to be expressed. At present, it is impossible to distinguish between. these alternative mechanisms, but the distinctive patterns of several of the observed associations merit: at- tention, especially given their diver- gence with smoking associations de- tectedl for other cancer sites. Although reasons for discontinua- tion were: not obtained, and may Smoking and:Cervical Cancer--Brinton el al I

explain some of the risks associated with year~ since stopping," it is of note that those who discontinued smoking two or more years prior to diagnosis demonstrated no signifi- cant excess risk compared with non- smokers. Furthermore, we found some evidence of higher risk among those who began smoking later in life, a finding inconsistent with that of others.'~'' In addition, we observed no elevated risk among intermittent smokers, with all the excess smoking risk deriving from continuous smok- ers. Thus, our findings regarding dis- continuation, age at which smoking started, and intermittency suggest; that smoking may exert a late-stage or promotional effect on cervical can- cer risl~ This contrasts with other cancers, including lung," for which smoking has been suggested to act as both an initiator and a promoter. Although Zur Hausen" has previ- ously suggested thatl smoking might act as a cocarcinogen with transmis- sible agents, we did not find a signifi- cant interaction of smoking with age at first intercourse, number of sexual partners, or a history of a nonspecific genital infection or sore, However, few women in this study reported histories of specific infections with herpes genitalis or condyloma acumi- nature, suspected in cervical cancer etiology (herpes virus type 2 and papillomavirus): Thus, laboratory tests will be required to clarify any effects of smoking on virus-related cancers of the cervix. In contrast to the effects on squa- mous ceil tumors, smoking was not L Wlnlmistein W Jr. Smoking and cane~ of the uterine esrvix: Hypothesi~ A~t J Ep/d~m/d 2. Gr~l~ MR, V~ M, McPherson K, et s~ Ci~s~tto smold~ and sanest of th~ uterino & Wright H, Vmasy MP, Kenwsrd Nmpluia ud dysplas/~ of the e~'vix uteri and contrsesptio~" A poes/ble protact/ve sffact of thn diaphragm. Br .~ Cavw~. 4. Harris RWC, Brinton LA, Cowdell RH, et al: Characterimt/cs of womon with dysldaala or carcinoma in situ of the e~'viX uteri; Br 5. Wisle lYr, Ma~ Y, Gra~ M: It~ Smoking and sanest of th~ uterino esrvig Hypothesis. Am 6. Clarke EA. Morgan RW; N~wman AM: Smoking as • risk factor in cancer of the cervix: Additional evidcues from a cast-control study. 7. Lyon JL. Gardner JW. West: DW, et al: Smoking and: carcinoma in sltu of the uterine JAMA, June 20, 1986~VoI 255, No. 23 related to the risk of adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix. Consistent with this is the observation that smoking has a much greater impact on squamous cell can- cer of the lung than on adenocar¢ino- ma.~ Given the small mimber of cer- vical adenocarcinomas included in this study (n=63)and the fact: that smoking was associatedl with excess squamous cell risks of only 1.5 to 2.0 (in contrast to risks of I0,0 to 20.0 for lung cancer), we cannot; exclude a real effect; of smoking on adenocarcinomas of the cervix. Certain methodological issues asso- ciated with our study deserve atten- tion. Of concern, was a lower than desirable response rate, particularly among the controls, whose overall response rate (product: of the tele- phone screening and interview re- sponse rates) was only 60%.Although we have no information on the smok- ing behavior of nonrespondents, it seems unlikely that differential smoking habits between the nonre- spondent cases and controls could account for our findings, particularly in view of the consistency of the associations across several smoking variables~ Furthermore, we did not have complete assurance that our controls were free of all cervical abnormalities,~ since Papanicolaou smears were not administered. How- ever, it is highly unlikely that any of the controls would have had invasive cervical cancer and the effect of other cervical abnormalities would, if any- thing, have resulted in underestimat- ing smoking-related risks. In addi- ~oforon¢os & gmhsll JR, Graham S; Bye. T, et .t. Dist and ~o~ in ~e epide~ol~ of ~n~r ~ ~, ~ ~NCI I~7~1. 9. ~u ~ ~ P, We~ ~ st ~ Ci~ ~oki~ ~ d~p~ia ~ ~noma 10. ~ V~ia C~ P~hi S, ~ A, et ~ C~ ~o~ ~ ~of IL S~lm~ SD, A~fln H. W~der ~ ~r- study; Am ~ E~ I~11:~ I~ W~ ~: ~mpl[n~ me~ for ~- don di~t di~i~. ~ Am ~ A~ 16. P~nti~ P~ ~ ~ ~s~e di~ ineiden~ m~els ~ ~nt~[ studio. 14. ~n ~: & ~mp~r p~ fo~ the an~s of ma~h~ ~at~[ studi~ C~ 15. S~n,IM, Hale~ NJ, Hoffm~ D, et ~ Ci~t~ smoki~ and;n~pl~ia of the u~ne Smokin~ .~- tion, although we had extensive infor- mation on a number of other cervical cancer risk factors, the remote possi- bility of residual confounding exists. A preliminary analysis of extensive dietary data in relation to smoking did not result in altered interpreta- tions, but further evaluation~ of the issue is needed. In summary~ this study strongly supports a relationship between smoking and risk of invasive squa- mous cell tumors of the cervix. The consistency of the finding with other studies, along with the dose-response relationships that persisted after con- trol for a variety of factors, would tend to support a direct effect of smoking on the squamous epithelium of the cervix. The biologic mecha- nisms underlying this association are currently unknown, hut t;he patterns of risk suggest a late-stage or promo- tional event. The declining incidence rate of cervical, cancer, however, sug- gests that the impact of smoking is not as potent as for other smoking- related cancers, such as that of the lung, a cancer that has been rising steadily among women. We m indebted to Betty Smith of the Papa- nicolaou Comprehensive Cancer Center in Miami, Mary Pat; Ostrander of the Illinois Cancer Council. Karen Corri~an and Wendy Kreitman of Survey Research Laboratory, Uni- versity of Illinois, Catherine Hawkes of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Carl Ames of, the University 'of Alabama at Birmins- ham, and Cheryl Grace of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center for managing the field activities of this study;, to Nancy Baylees of Westet tad Howard Jones and Joseph Reid of Capital Systems Group for computer acsiStanes~ and to Kimberiy Young for help with the manuscript. cervix: Smoke constituents in cervical mucus. Eno/3 Meal 1985;31~315-~16. 16. Holly EA, Petrakis NL, Friend NF, st; Mutagenic cervical mucus in women smokers, abstracted. Am J" Ep/dems~/1985;12~518. 17. Kahn HA:The Dorn study of smoking and mort~lity among US veterans: Report on years of. ob~rvation, in Haanmi mioloCi~l Approa¢~ to t~ Shd~ of a~td OOwr Chro~i~ ~ National Csacor Institute monograph 19. B~thesda, Md, US D~pt of H~alth, Edueation~: and Wel~ar~, 18. Doll R, Peto [~ Cigarett~ smoking and bronchial carcinoma: Dos~ and time relation- ships among regular smokers and lifelong non- smokers..[ Epid~miol Commtmi~ Heo~h 1978; 3~303-31& 19. Zur Hausen H: Human genital c~ncer. Synergism between two virus infections or syner~sm between a virus infection and initiat- ins events? Lancet 198~2:1370-1372. 20.. Lubin JH, Blot; WJ: Assessment; of lung cancer risk factors by histolog~c c~gor~. JNCI 1984;~383-389. and Cervical Cancer--Brinton et al 3269

Vot. 314 No, 16 HEALTH POLICY REPORT I061 Amu~L Review ofP,,bLic HeaLH will publish an essay by Diana Chapman WaSh o~ Boston Univc~ity and Nan~ P. Gordon o~ Ha~a~ Unive~ity on Ieg~ ap- p~ach~ to smoking deterrence, whi~ coven that ~und ve~ well.* O~er the yea~, the tobacco lobby h~ e~Te~ively employ~ the ~l~ti~ o~ re~onalism to promote t~, financ~ s~bsidi~ oE the tobacco ind~st~ and a ni~ government poli~ towa~ smoking. ~us, le~s- lato~ in smt~ ~at ~ow tobacco have traded suppor~ Cur eontinu~ a~cultu~l subsidi~ with l~slatom who reprint constituen~ in which milk, cotton, p~nu~, wheat, and o~er ~ops are "king." Space limitations pr~nt more than a ~mo~ mention of the f~e~ p~m oC tobacco p~ce supporm, but it ,m~rmnt for the reader to undemtand thac the bl~ status of the p~m h~ wea~en~ the ~nfluence of ~e tobac~ lobby. ~e proem Cac~ a major fi- nan~ai ~s~ in 1985i b~ause ~e major Amefi~n ~g~ette manufaccur~m im~rt~ a~ut one third of the toba~o they us~ to make ~ret~es. ~e r~ult- ing d~e~e in d~and for ~e Amefi~n tobacco crop ~eat~ la~e su~lus~ that t~nslat~ into proje~ loss~ to ~e pfice-sup~rc pro~m o~ more th~ billion. Different approa~ to r~ol~ng ~is problem have di~d~ the interim oC ~e tobacco g~wem and • e ~garecce manufaczurem, thereby ~r~ing ~ per- haps pendently ~. the ~lidaficy of their vaunted lobby? Repr~entative Chart~ G. Rose (D-N.C;)~, chair- man of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on To- bacco and Peru,, spoke about this schism l~t ~e- cumber l during an appea~nc~ on the GBS tel~sion proem, F~e ~ Our ~ition ~ chan~n~. ~o~ of us who ~ent ~he p~ple who. ~w tobac~ r~ly~ taEin~ a differ~c. ~pproach m the ~mpa- ni~, ~use the comp~ni~ a~ ~nnin~ to im~ forei~ tobac~ in ~er in~in~ amount. ~ ar~ burning our ~nsfituen~ ve~ badly. I'm not ~e I~k step Ioyalis* to the co~cco compam~ that I* w~ five y~ a~, and 1 s~ that. c~n~ng v~ ~pidl~. In opinion, the mbac~ ~mpani~ ~ ~pidl~ losing thor. ~p on Gapitoi Hill~ th~'~e go,ten more incer~t~ in ke~in~ thor st~k pric~ up. ~r p~fi~ in~ ~en though consumouon is Toing down ~a~e the're inc~ ~ ~r ten* the whol~e ~fice of cigarct~ in the l~t thr~ Another i:ndi~on that ~ntismoking forces are gaining momentum is the ~xpedifious fashion in which Congr~s enac:~ the Comprehensive Smokeless bacco H~th Eduction Ac~ o~ 1986 (P.L. 99-252). Reagan. sign~: the me~ure into law on Feb~a~ 27, eight, months after the flint congressional heating on smokeless tobacco. There is no ne~' co dwefl on the substance of the l~slation or the scientific evidence that ~ints to the link between ~he use of smokci~s tobacco and disuse, because th~c are~ are covered in a Special Article in this issue o( the Jou~al, How- ever, ~eve~l other dimensions of the process are worth noting. - Three ~accom were instrumental in the prompt- ness wic~ which the l~istatioa was considered -- one sc~ntifi~ one emotional, and one dealing with the determination oF states to cope with the growing prev- alence of the use of smokeless tobacco. Congressional interest in the heaJth effects of smokeless tobacco stemmed in part from. the story of a 19-year-old Okla- homa athlete, Scan Marsec, whose death: was attribut- ed to causes related to the use of snuff l'or six years. Representative Michael L. Synar (D,Okla.) intro- duced the first: bill that~ called for warnings on smoke- less tobacco produc~s. Several mont~ after the meas- ure was introduced last July, Marsee's fate was widely publicized in a Re,,der.:s Digestartiele, which was pub- lished in October 1985. Representative Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chair- man of the House Energv and Commerce Subcommit- tee on Health and the Environment and a leading sponsor of the smokeless tobacco legislation (:along with Republican senators Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Richard G. Lugar of Indiana), explained on the House floor on February 3, 1986, why his panel: lieved that warning labels were necessary. ScientiSr~ representing the National Cancer Institute, the American Dental'Association, the American Cancer Society and the American Academy of Otolaryngol0~'y -- Head and Nc~k Sur~e~'y testified to the fact that these products can cause life-threatening diseases mouth and oral cavity,. In addition, the [.July 26] hearing docu- mented an alarming increase in the use ot" smokele'*s tobaca:o young people. We also heard ~hilling testimony from the toothier a young high-~c.hool track star. Betty Aria Marsee told c~" her son courageous ~truggte against mouth cancer caused ~ his u~ and addic't~n to smokel~s tobacco. Finally, th~ me~ure calling for warning labels on smokeless tobacco products and a ban on cete~rision and: radio advertising moved expeditiously because the Smokeless Tobacco Council, an industry trade ~roup, and the Coalition. on Smoking OR Health agreed co a compromise bill that. cai~ed t'or the labe.;s but~ dropped a proposed warning stating that nicotine is addictive and a requirement that manufacturers disclose publicly the ingredients of their smokeless tobacco. (iInstead, manufacturers must disclose those ingredienm to the Department of Health and Hu- man Se~ices.) M~chael.[. Kerrigan, president of the smokeless tobacco.trade ~'oup, said the council made the agreement because only uniform, if "ve~ distaste- fuk'" federal legislation could head off" adoption by a number of states oC "conflicting and differing warning statements. '" Massachusetts, the ~rst ot~ ch¢ states to act, promu|- gated regulations last year that required; the place- ment of warning !abe~s on smokeless tobacco prod- ucts; 25 other state legislatures were slated to consider similar measures in 11986, before Congress enacted the Federal statute. Federal legislators credited the pres- sure applied by .Massachusetts' regulation as ins,ru- mental in the prompt consideration of the federal measure. An aide to Waxman who worked on the smokeless tobacco measure said in an interview, Some ~0 s*ates were =~te~arin~l to *ake action, bu* deserves credit for mo~.mg first. Its chief" dental'o*fic~" [IDr. N. Connotly], more titan anyone et~,~:. :ieseg.es credit tot ur~,anizmg the other states to taste acuon on this i~ue.

lOG2 THE NE~,V ENGLAND jOURNAL OF MF_.DICI:NE April 1~7. 1986 The new law requires manufacturers to display one o1" three warning labels on a random basis on their smokeless tobacco products. The labels read,. "Warning: This Product ,May Cause Mouth Cancer," "Warning: This Product May Cause Gum Disease and Tooth Loss," or "Warning: This Product Is Not A Safe Alternative to Cigarettes." The legislation quires manuficturem to display the warning state- merits in a "circle-and,arrow" format. This format was selected because studies conducted by the Federal Trade Commission in 1981 concluded, as Waxman said on the House floor, that the format "significantly improved the visibility and effectiveness of warning statements." The Tobacco [nsthute, which represents cigarette manufacturers, remained unalterably opposed to the new le~slation. One ceason for its opposition was a concern that if Congress adopted the circle-and-arrow format for the warning labels of smokeless tobacco products, it would follow suit next time it considered changing the labels on cigarettes. $ccordin~ to Wax- man's aide~ ~The tobacco lobby had every, reason to fear that we may take that step because that is abso- lutely what we plan to do." The next major imue that Congress is likely to con- sider in retadon to smoking is whether to ban all: forms of dgarette advertising', as proposed by a number of organizations, including the AMA and the Coalldon on Smoking OR Health. The coalition work- ing on this measure consists of the American. Cancer Society,. the American Lung Assodadon, and the American Heart .-kssociadom The administration has taken no position or, this issue, but Koop did say on Face dze Nation on December I, "If I had my way, I would certainly ban [cigarette] advertising ..... The experience in countries . . . where advertising bans have been enforced has shown a tremendous drop in smoking." Debate on this issue will be exten- sive, and early action, is certainly not likely, but Wax,~ man does plan to conduct hearings later this year. / Ahhou~h Waxman personally favors a ban on all forms of cigarette advertising[ andl promodon~ the first hearin,~s l~e convenes will be oversisht sessions intend- ed to develop a record: that could later be used to write legislation. The AMA is seeking le~slative sponsors for its pro- posal that calls for a ban on all advertising of tobacco products in newspapers and magazines, on billboards and balloons, during street-corner ~veaways, and through sponsorship of athletic events or skywriting, Although the AMA recognizes that, the cigarette, newspaper, magazine, and advertising industries witl challenge the proposedi advertisin~ ban as a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech, its gener- al counsel, Kirk B..Johnson, said in an interview that several legal scholars have written opinions support- ing the constitutionality of such a ban. On December 10; 1985, :he House oC Delegates of the AMA ap- proved a resolution, calling for development of the leg- iSlative proposal. The rmolution noted! that "¢igare,.tes are the most heavily advertised product in America," that efforts by the AMA to convince newspapers andl magazines to refuse tobacco product advertisemems voluntarily had largely failed, and that according to a 1981 report by the Federal Trade Commission,: "ciga- rette advertising may be deceptive." The resolution concluded: These circums~anc~ have le~ the Br~dsh: Medical Association and the American Lung Association, among o~hers, to oppo~ ci.~are~c adver~isinE~ The board believes that ad,.'enisin~ and promotion tobacco, products should be opposed and tha~ I~,isLation should be enacted ~o achieve this goal. The AMA's proposed: ban on advertising is, at this point, the most visible reflection of the increasing phasis the association is placing on steps to curb smok- ing. Another reflection.of this greater emphasis is that on February. 28, the.]ourn,,L of t~e American MedicaL. Asso- ciatwn (.JAMA)I devoted its third theme issue within 18 ton t hs to the health problems posed by smoking, Sev- eral forces within the association have converged to propel it toward a more vigorous posture against smoking. A number of board members, principally. Ronaid M. Davis, a medical resident employed by the Centers for Disease Control; John H. Dawson, a sur- geon from Seattle; Robert A. McAfee, a surgeon from South Portland, Maine; and Alan R. Nelson, an inter- nist from Sah Lake City, have been outspoken in argu- ing that the AMA should take a more visible stand against smoking~ The ecii~or of lAMA, George D. Lundberg, regards tobacco use as society's greatest public health problem. In addition, an increasing number of youn~er physicians and medical~ students who are actively involved in the resident and student sections of the AMA have raised their voices against smoking~ Dr..James H. Sammons, executive vice president of the AMA, confirmed the presence of these strong forces within the association and their influence on its stand on smoking. In an. interview, Sammons several additional factors, including the refusal by ~he cigarette industry co accept the accumulating data linkin~ smoking to disease, the estimate that 1000'per- sons a day die oC ~moking-related diseases, the $2 biia [ion spent on cigarette advertising annually (with much of it "cl~ariv aimed at younger people"), and "the overshad0win~ of the AMA's image as a scientif- ic organization'" by socioeconomic issues. In adopting more vigorous antismoking approaches, ~he AMA is in essence.joining t,he British Medical .-kssociation (BMA)I and the Canadian .'vledicail Association in steadfast opposition to tobacco use. The BMA has taken, perhaps the most vigorous and outspoken position~ in recent, years. Its strategy/ in striving to persuade the British government co become more vigilant against smoking is in some re~pects quite con~'rontational. For example, the .qMA gives its members black-bordered postcards that are desi~nedl for doctors to send' co their Members of Parliament when a patient dies of a smoking-feinted disease. The card reads:

HEAL'/TH POLICY REPORT ! wish to inform you that one of your constituents, who was a patient: of mine, has died. The de'ath was due to the following dis- e~se: lung cancer, chronic obstructive lung diseue, coronary, heart disease, or oth~ tobacco related cancer or vascular disease. [I'he physician checks the appropriate box.t This per.on smoked. Tobac- co smoking is the major avoidable cause of disease. Le~sladve measures that stop short of an advertis- ing ban may be more politically realistic in the near term. One proposa~ that has been advanced by two Democratic legislators, Senator Bill BradIey of New Jersey. and Representative Fortney H. (,Pete) Stark of California, would prohibit cigarette manufacturers from ciaiming the revenue they spendl on advertising as a business tax deduction. Stark, who is chalrTnan of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health, ~a.;d in a statement publ~ched Iast December 16 in the Congressional Record: In 1983, $2.7 billion was spent on the promotion of c~garetten alone, making them the nation'S mint highly advertised: consumer prod- uct.... All o( these advertising activities are indirectly supported: b'! the federal government: Under the Internal R,'venue Code 1954; these pcomotional activities are deductible from corporate federal'income taxes ...... My proposal would remove that status from arty promotional activities -- advertising, cou,oons, sweep stakes, sporting events -- t*or tobacco and tobacco products. The struggles that engage the tobacco lobby andl antismoking advocates have been under way for sever- al decades. A more recent development in the effort to curb smoking is the ~rowing level of activity to restrict smoking at work sites and in public places. The latest~ repor~ of the surgeon general,, which, was released in December II985, dealt with cancer and chronic lung disease in the workplace. The report concluded that "for the majority of American workers, cigarette smoking, represents a greater cause of death and dis- ability than their workplace environment." For employm'~, the issue is more than adverse health effects that may afflict smoking employees. A memo- randum prepared by the Office of Technotog'y Asses- merit tast y.ear estimated that; smoking-causedl illness costs $43 billion in lost production annually (,or for each pack of cigarettes sold); these expenses are ~orne largely by employers. Interestingly, private cor- porations seem to be moving more aggressively to strict; smoking on. their premi.~-s than are heal:th care organizations. Attitudes that favor the restriction of smoking in the wor]~pl:ace are not limited to a few persons who are sensitive to smoke or even to nonsmokers, ~ a recent national opinion survey, conducted for the American Lung .Association by the Gallup organization showed. T'ne results of the survey, of 1540 men and women over the age or- 18 showed that ~0 percent, of current smok- ers. 90 percent of former smokers, and 92 percent of nonsmokers believe that companies should desi~mate smoking and nonsmoking areas or should totally ban smoking at work. A monograph entided~ "Reducing Smoking at the Workplace." which was written last fall~ bv consultant Ruth A. Behrens for t~h¢ Washington Business on Health (in whose offices smoking was banned: some time ago)i, has been distributed to: its 200 member companies, most of which are of the Fortune 500 vari- ety. Although Behrens noted that legal cases dealing with smoking in the workplace are a relatively new phenomenon, she also said: There is a growing body of court cases and legal opinions that indicate (,I)i employees have a right, under common law *.o sue for a smoke-free work environment, (2} employers must Ix prepared to bear some responsibility, for ~e discomfort, pain. and illness caused to .,'rnployees by smoke in the workplace, znd (3) employers are within their rights in banning smol~ing at the workplace or in hiring only nonsmokers. The smoking policies of businesses, which Behrens characterized as "the backbone of any company's ef- fort to discourage smoking," are based on various ra- tionales. She said: such policies can. be designed to protect equipment or property,, to comply with state or local: laws and regulations,, to ban smoking in specific areas, to ban smoking throughout the organization or to limit it to .designated areas, to prohibit the hiring of smokers, or to effect a combination of these actions. Whatever the motivations underlying these programs, a central~ policy question is how coercive and intrusive they are or might become. Many companies combine smoking-cessation programs, or various incentives that urge smokers to quit~ with their policies on. smok- ing. restriction. For example, the Boeing Company of Seattle, which: is one of the largest corporations (about 90,000 employees) to announce a total l~an on smoking, sponsored a free off-hours stop-smoking program and offered to defray part of the cost of an employee's attendance at one of several commer~a[ smoking- cessation programs. Two other large Seatde organiza- tions, Pacific No~hwest Bell. and the Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, have also banned smok- ing. within their organizations. [BM, Campbeil Soup,. DuPont~ Eastman Kodak, AT&T, General Foods, Dow Chemical, and Ford are other companies whose approaches to smoking have been discussed in the lit- erature. An inc.'easing number of commerc'Jai health insurers and Blue Cross and Blue Shieldl plans are adopting more vigorous stances against smoking, both by restricting it within their organizations and by oi'- feting discounts on premiums paid bv nonsmokers. A recent nationwide survey, of company vice presi- dents and personnel directors showed that, in general, nonsmokers who are lookingl for a job are more [ikclV to. get hired than equally qualified job seekers who smoke. Robert Half. president of Robert Half Interna- tional an executive recruiting firm, has said that the "bottom [ine is that workplace attitudes toward smok- ing are becoming increasingly more negative and that smokers may be limiting boch their chances of getting [aired and their opportunities for promotion/"~ T,~e federal government is following private corpo- rations and: a number of state and local governments in. adopting policies that restrict smoking in work sites.: (Alaska. California, Connec'.icut~ Florida, Hawaii. Maine, .Minnesota, Nebraska, .New.lersey., and Utah

1064 THE NEW' ENGL.-~ND JO~'RNAL OF MF.~IClNE April Ii7. 1986 all have state laws regulating smoking in the work- place.) The General Services Administration, which, is rmponsible for the maintenance and management of thousands of federal buildings, is developing tougher guidelines that will restrict smoking in of~ce spaces where mor~ th~n one person works and ban. smoking in. auditoriums, ciassrooms,~ conference r~oms, medi- c~l care facilities, ~nd bathrooms. The draft guidelines aJso allow the individual agency he~Is to adopt even tougher policies. L~t November, the Senate Govern, mental: Affairs Committee reported a bill (S. 1937) that is designed to restrict smoking in federal, build: ings. Full Senate at'don is pending. In the most~ r~cent federal action, Secretary, Wein- berger announced on March I0 that he intends to launch an "intense antismolting campaign . . . at all levelS of all services"; he also. said that the prograsn wiIli "become a major responsibility of all c~mmand- ers and: commanding o~cers, up to and: including the highest levels of each service and department." Wcin- berger's announcement c~rne a.s pat~ of a repor~ on: smoking in the military that w~s prepared by the Pen- t~,on at the r~quest of Coheres. In calling for the new campaign, Weinberger rejected a recommenda- tion advanced by William. Mayer, ~ssistant secretary of defense for heaJth affairs, to ban the sale of ci~- r~ttes in military commissaries. Weinberger conceded in a letter to Senator Mark Hatfield (R-Oreg.) that selling cigarettes to military personnel: at lower prices represented a~ "undesirable" inconsistency in.govern- ment policy. He pledged to review his decision ~at the end of a period of time reasonable to measure the effectiveness of our ~ggressive ant/smoking campaign in. decreasing the use of tobacco by the troops." Assumptions about social class seem to be develop- ing axound people who, smoke. In a front-page ~r- title, "Smoking of Cigarettes Seems to Be Becoming a Lower-Class Habit," that was published in ~ Waft Slreet Journn~ last .July 4, r~ortcr Trish H~ll said: I n general~ the aver-age smoker today smokes more per day than the average smokc-~ in prewious yean arui is like.ty less educated ~ work at a less prestigious job than the average nonsmoker, A study by the federal C~nte~'s for Disease Control ~'ach [additioa~l] le'~.l o~ education. Of white women who dropout of high schoo/, for e~tampi¢, more than 60 p~ the figure for white wom~ ~dth umvezs/ty graduate about 1.5 per c~mt.... The strong~st co.elation. mist, jc/rrcy Harris, occurs in middle a~c. g'roups and c= .rpo~t¢ board rooms are hardly stooging at atL .... It'S ~e..~ ~'tat ~p|e whO have a hi~hcr seams in soci~y have much Work-site policies are caught up in the controversy, over the effect of passive smoke on nonsmokers. Al- though the scientific knowledge base on which passive smoking is indicted as a health hazard is far less sotid than that on which smoking itself is condemned, the base is becoming more substantial Donald R. Shopland, director of ".he Office of Smoking and. Health at the Department of Health and Human Services (,DHHS); said in an in:crview: "Of all the issues, this is the one that;will propel the United States toward a smoke-~r~ society." The Board on Environ. mental. Studies and Toxicology of the National Re- search Council is currently conducting a $175,000 study to examine how indirect exposure to smoke can bc measured and to assess its health effects. The DHHS.and the Environmental Protection Agency. ax~ supporting the investigation. The nc.x~ surgeon gener- al's report, which will bc released in late 1986, will bc devoted to passive smoking, F.inalIy, the Nationali Cancer Institute (NCI)is heavily involved in antismoking activity through an intervention research program designed to identify the most effective strategies for preventing people from starting to use tobacco and for helping them to. stop using it. The program employs the same scientific log- ic that the NCI uses for its national cancer-control program. Emphasis is placed: on a progression of ac- tivity from basic investigations to. broad applications in target populations. joseph W~ Cullen, deputy director of the Division of Cancex Prevention and; Control of the NCL esti- mated in an interview that the institute would spend $80 million during the next five years in stepped-up efforts to identify the most successful smol~ing control programs and to implement them. The NCI's control methods will concentrate on interventions with ado- Iescents in schools, the use of the mass media, employ- ing physidhns and dentists in anfismoking campaigns, and the development of self-help procedures. In my earlier report on smoking, ~ I noted that feder- al policy on tobacco use reflects a balancing of con- flicting forces. This balancing act continues. Whik: the NCI invests millions in smoking control, the Depart- merit of Agricultur~ continues to operate its tobacco price-support program. Indeed, the agriculture de- partment spends more every year ~ about S~.3 mil- lion ~ on research to develop a safe cigarette than is represented by the endre budget of the Office of Smoking and Health: at the DHHS (about $3.5 mil- lion). The news, however, is that the balance is ripping away from the interests of the cigarette man,facturers anff the tobacco p~oducers toward a greater concern about the medical consequences of smoking..~though the federal gove~ment is heavily involved in tipping this balance, the movement is far more broad-based, involving as it d0~s a wide variety of private interests. Given the diversity of the interests involved; the trend toward a reduction in smoking, is likely to continue into the indefinite future. Rzrm~..,~czs L |.~!chatt ]K. $~lt~ag ~:~bii~ polio/. N Engl JiM~:lg~4;

"radical right-winger" at the time. The picture was screened at the Cannes film festival; Patrick jetted over for the show. Though he scrambled for parts and trained like a journeyman thes- pian, studying for a while with Lee Strasberg, he lived~ in a 12,000- square-foot castle in Hollywood,~ with guest houses, towering ceilings and 14 fireplace~. H~s new house in Beverly Hills is more modest, but Patrick still keeps company with a high.rolling crowd. Reynolds is single, after a brief marriage and divorce from a prom- inent German socialite. He i~ anx- ious to be married again, and is looking for "a peer.,' His opposition to tobacco sur-~ faced in May when he complained about inadequate excise taxes on cigarettes at a Washington., D.C, luncheon. Within a few weeks Reynolds had volunteered with the American Lung Association and began lining up interviews with print and broad- cast media. He has appeared on the "CBS Morning News," "CBS Nightwatch" and the Oprah Winfrey talk show in Chicago. He will testify July 25 before a Congressional sub- committee, requesting a ban on cig- arette advertising directed at wom- en and children. The Reynolds corporation, which will not comment on Patrick's ac- tivities,~ acquired Nabisco last year and ~s now called R JR Nabisco Inc. With all its divisions, the conglom- erate could throw a nice party: serving Oreos. Vanilla Wafers, Ken- tucky Fried Chicken, Smirnoff rod= ka, Inglenook wine, Black Velvet Canadian whiskey, Moosehead beer, Jose Cuervo tequila, Del Monte fruit products, Baby. Ruth candy bars, Life Savers and Planters peanuts. Patrick said he sold his tobacco stock long ago. Would he consider giving up that $2.5 million tobacco inheritance?, "Hell, no," he said. "If I had to give it all up, I would find • other good causes to devote myself to. You've got to take care of your- self first.,' Some, like John. Reynolds, who haven't sold their Reynolds stock, consider Patrick's campaign a stab. at: the lifeblood of the Winston-Sa- lem economy, the town where John. Michael and Will Reynolds still live. "Sounds like he'd double-cross his own mother," said John. Michael adds, however, that the stock has risen in price since Patrick's views -6- JUL 9 1986 were aired .... Patrick said he is more con- • cerned with public health, than with , the economy of North Carolina. "It,s . a matter of priorities .... Tobacco . ..~-'<~ ~ ~ ". is a killer." ., ATLANTA JOUBNAL JUL 6 ~ Georgian says he told U.S. of 'new' theory on smoking 20 years ago ~.~u n~ Jurpr~ed by an nrUe.~ i~ i /-r~ew. ~, of me Re, dor's I~g~st day as they would if tMy uM,r~ent 300 chest X.ray~ a yMr. Womble r,ce~ved a pout, - but negative - answer wh,n he pro- ,,nt,d hl~ tb,ov/t~ ~ in "We Imo~ of no scientific dance to sopport *your theory," wrot, Robert J. Arm%. of the "Our r,s, archers it, lxlrsuin| n~l proml~ bid, in tim so&ck for solutions to cancer prob~em, end mainline titled "Radioactivity -- under.ks studies which 8~e no the Nag. Found Danger in. Cain" ..~...~ ~.. ~/~tffuL," tM ~y reported Identical suspicions to wMt wu tl~es~ known u ~a i~ p~rtm~t ot He81~ ~ and Wt~a~ two ~ ~o. Wom~ w~ n~ llv~ In ~x- ~ ~ it ~SO ~ ~t~t~ radl~ ~tlvo ~1~ we~ p~t m ~ m~ ~ ~ 1~ ~ the at r,adln~ about 9m tatmt ~ovq~n* rn, at ~ l~ Accordiu8 ~ the ~der'8 ac~ve ~r~ Mve ~ I~M can wtthsta~ thin ~cl~ "Re.archers a~ afraid ~ll fl~ ~u~ (m I~ have te ,~ reJ~nslbfllty

---

' ." il Chemical carcinogens have been ~.~ide- ' --"i " ly publicized as-health hazards for : ...:-.,. i smokers. Now research focuses on ... .-: . .i~,. ~~ • • .. • • .....• " ....... t ty "" ~~""~ " "'e%~ n''1,~' wrou a " D~ger in " .. '-Cig~ett~. - • .~'~ .- ~ ~ ~v~m~, after a ~ard day of work, a: smoker ." ~ fighff~p. For y~rs he has done this, enjoying the ~ p~.~d' ~e smoke and the glow, though dimly aware ofp~bliNty about chemical hazards. But if his eyes ~uld det~ what scientific instruments can, he would ' . ~ radioacfivi~, coming from his cigarette anti'from his ~y--from his lungs, li~er~ kidneys, pancreas, sex glands and even from the bon~ of his skeleton. " Cigarett~ Contain, s~ much radioactlvi~, according to Dr. Thom~ H. Winters, director of an occupational. heal~ center in North Quincy, Mass., and Dr. loseph R. . .~. D~ran~ of the University of Massachusetts Medical . Center, t~g a pack-and-a-half-per-day smoker gets a y~rly dose of r~diation in parts of his lungs equal to what, ~ skin w~uld ~ exposed to in about 300 ch~t X rays. ~fisu are only beginning to discover how much harm .. ~e radioactive isotopes in cigarettes do, ~t.im~t~ vary ~-amafi~lly as to the number of ~es of lung cancer in :" , smokes that are ~used by radiation in dgarettes, Dr. .DiFran~ however, believes that "radiation alone could account for a~ut half of all lung cancers in smoker . (In x985, ~8o,ooo Amerions are estimated, to have died

from smoking-related cancers- most from lung cancer.) Radioactive Footprints. How did radioactive elements get into cigarettes? T. C. Tso, a former researcher for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, tracked these radio- active footprints to the fields where tobacco is grown. For many dec- ades, farmers have fertilized to, bacco crops with phosphates rich in m:anium. By •decay, this uranium generates radium'226, which in turn spawns radon-222, and even- READER'S DIGEST ~ March Marte!l, a specialist in radiocl,emis~ try at the National Center for At, mosphcric Research, these points become "hot spots" of radioactivity. Martell believes it is no coincidence that most lung cancers begin at these branch points where radioac- : tlve debris gathers. " A healtl~y, body's defenses are usually .able to clear away the smoke, ash and P0iSon,gas pollu- tion from a single cigarette within hours. But the accumulated smoke particles are much harder to re- dioactivc elements from the fertit- izcrand from naturally occurring radiation in the soil, air.and ~vatcr. • " Breezes and farm equipment whip these dangerous elements into the ~ir, wher~ they are absorbed by the Silcky resin tips of hairs ~hat grow on each tobacco leaf. tually lead~210 and polonium-210, move from the moist protective Tobacco plants readily absorb'ra, coating of lung tissues.~.the bronch~ ial epith~!iu~, and remain in. the lungs usually for three to six months--in some :instances for many years--emitting radiation. • Eventually the body's immune- system cells clean these particles from the lungs, but in the process the radioisotopes are carried into When a smoker lights up, the the bloodstream and to other parts heat of the cigarette's glowing tip " of the body--the liver, pancreas, fires the hair tips of the tobacco into kidneys, lymph nodes, thyroid and insoluble particles, which, inc0rpo-- bone marrow. Here, too, the radio- .rating the radioactive isotop.es, are then inhaled deep into the smoker's lungs, Inside the lungs the airways branch out into smaller and smaller passageways. It is especially at each branching, many scientists claim, that the.particles in the inhaled smoke tend to accumulate, much as floating river debris piles up on sand bars. active particles accumulate year af- ter year, emitting radiation that can damage nearby cells. ~. Martell notes that the calcified plaques in the blood vessels of smokers suffering atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) show high' levels of lead-210 and p01onium~210, the same radioactive isotopes in- haled with tobacco smoke--and As a smoker consumes cigarette he speculates that the radiation in after cigarette, these particles may cigarettes may also be a contribut- b~ deposited at the same points in ~ing factor in smokers' developing thelungs. According to Edward A. athcrdsclerosis, which itself can t986 RADIOACTIVITY:.TtlE NEW.FOUND DANGER IN CIGARETTE$ lead to early corbnaries and also to strokes. E~angerous Interaction. How long does such radioactivity persist in a smoker's body? Radioactive • lead-210 has a half-life ofux.4 years. • Beverly S. Cohen and Naomi H. .Harley of the New York University Medical Center discovere~l that smokers who quit ~till had, five years later, almost as much lower- lung radioactivity from lead-210 as did active smokers. And most. smokers do not quit permanently. Indeed, each year the average smoker in the United States con- sumes more than i I,ooo cigarettes. .. The most harmful radiation in cigarettes, however, comes not from lead-210, which emits the tel-. atively weak beta radiation, but from its radioactive "granddaugh- ter," po10nium:210, which emits highly localized, ionizing alpha ra- diation, the same sort given off by. the plutonium of atom bombs. Al- pha radiation smashes into atoms~ turning them into ions that can 210 as he would get from natural. sources in ~4 hours. Thus the aver- age smoker exposes himself each day to about 3° times more of this long-lived radioactive element than do most non-smokers. For more than ~o years, Dr. John B. Little and his colleagues at the Harvard University School of Pub- lic Health studied the effect of polo- nium-210 on the lungs of laboratory animals and humans. They foffnd that alpha radiation from inhaled polonium-210, at doses the same as those inhaled by long-time smok- ers, can cause lung cancer. Uranium miners on the job inhale short-lived radon daughters as well as poloni- um-210 and other alpha-emitting isotopes, and some studies have shown that those miners who also smoke tend ~o get lung cancer five to ten years sooner than non-smok- ing co-workers do. Can this radioactivity in ciga- rettes caus~ cancer in humans ~y itself, as it can in laboratory ani- mals? Scientists are not yet sure. readily damage the genetic blue- Many researchers suspect, hoOver- print of living cells, killing them or er, that it can combine With o~er turning.them into cancer cells. Sci- factors to cause cancer..When a entists have recognized the danger to living things in beta radiation, but alpha radiation can be ~o times as damaging. The human body evolved on a planet with low levels of natural rad, ioactivity from such sources as cosmic rays, and therefore it has some ability to heal radiation injury. But with each cigarette, a smoker inhales almost as much polonium- smoker lights up, he inhales more than 4000 chemicals with his first puff. Some, such as the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon benzo(a)py- rene, are powerful carcinogens. When Dr. Little and his Harvard colleagues exposed animals sequen- tially to alpha radiation from polo- nium-210 and to benzo(a)pyrene, they found that the two substances together acted synergistically and lea¢

caused malignant lung tumors at rette-smoke pollution may create "about twice the rate expected from yet another synergy deadlier titan simple additive effect" of •polo- each of the pollutants separately, nium-210 and benz0(a)pyrene, • Even without radon, thosewho • Radioactive elements in cigarette breathe smoke,clouded air will be ~moke can also accumulate in areas closed with radio:ictivity from to- important to a body's immune de- bacco. At least 50 percent of the lenses. There is evidence indicating that smoking can undermine the body's ability to fight off poisons, cancer and other diseases. : Menace in the Home. Recently scientists discovered another deadly" mixture in smoking. Soil gives off small amounts of radon, a radioac~ tire gas derived from radium. New weather-sealing technologies to help conserve energy in our homes can also trap and concentrate this dangerous gas indoors.* The Envi- ronmental Protection Agency esti= radioactive isotopes in cigarette smoke wind up in the air, and a ~smaller percentage ofthls and other elemems in the smoke are inhaled b~ d~ose around the smoker. Dr. Takeslii Hirayama Of the Institute of Preventive Ontology in Tokyo studied records of more than 9 ~,°°° women and found that non-smok- ing wives of heavy smokers• had more ~haa double the risk of dying from lung cancer than did the non~ smoking wives of n.on-smokers. mates that up to 2o,ooo Americans NOTHINO c^~ r~r~ov~ all the radio- each year may be dying from lung activity from cigarettes, but steps cancer .caused by inhaling radon in can be taken to reduce this hazard: homes and work places. * Tobacco growers could switch But when indoor air already pol- to fertilizers low in radioactivity luted svith invisible, odorless radon and to tobacco-plant hybrids with gas is also polluted wi~h Cigarette less tendency to concentrate radio- smoke, something even more active elements in their leaves. .frightenin,g happens. In clean air the radons short'lived daughters tend to attach themselves to walls, , .rugs and draperies. But with tobit= co smoke in the air,. the radon 'daughters condense onto smoke -particles and remain aloft to be inhaled by smokers and those who breathe secondhand smoke. As a result, the combination of indoor radon poll.ution and indoor ciga- *See "The Menace of Indoor Pollutionff Reader% Digest~ February Denser planting also seems to re- : duce ~he radioactivity in each leaf. * Cigarette comps;hies should be 'encouraged to contihue improving their filters so that even more radio- activity is removed. • Since polonium-210 seems to be the single element in smoke that causes cancer by inhalation in lab animals, the Surgeon General should add a new warning on cigarette labels to alert smokers to this [~eril. • Smokers can.educate mem~ RADIOACFIVEI3t: TIlE NEW-FOUND DANGER IN ¢IGARETFF_~ selvesto the hazards ofradioactlvity available to researchers so tha~ they in tobacco: Smoking more fre- may investigate further the effects on human health of the radioactiv~ quendy and inhaling deeply, for example, expose them t~ much ity in cigarettes, more danger from the volatile ra' With all that scientists have dioactive dements in smoke. Many learned about radioactivity in ¢iga.- believe that filtered "light". ciga- retteS, however, the best way to rcttes are safer, but research shows protect yourself is not to let tobacco that smokers tend to inhale these . smoke into your lungs at all.. : re°re deeply and t° sm°ke a largerI For in,ormation on reprints ~.:[ number of them. ~ "'~ of this article, see page 222 * More funds should be made Husblmd to wife: "I'm wo~'ried, punk rock is beginning to sound llke Waiter to Chef: "Table sev~ sends its compliments, table threc to know your secret, ~blc five is curious to know who you are, and ~ey're Son to mother: "Dad gave me my allowanc~now I'm asking you for matching funds." . • --l,,q m,~, Woman, describing her spouse on va~tlon, to friend: "It wasn't just : Denmark. He found some~ing rotten in Swed~ Nonvay, Ho~d, Belgium, France, Italy and Greeeel7 ~ Da~ ~ ~ Teacher to pupik "This homework is a disgrace. I'd llke a note :from : your computer," , ~id~ Harrh, ~ ~ Funn~ d~ ~p~? ~i~ ~uf~) :. Mechanic to trainee: "Tell him a hundred and sevenS-five dollars. If he doesn't flinch, add 'plus paru.'" --Bill ~ in Na;~t . " Woman to ffien4: "I'm happily married, run my own bus{nes and ha,e - no weight to lo~ What do I haw ~ l~k forward to?" --~ First-grader to teacher: "I ~ow two plu, two i, four] But I want Man to t~vel agent: "~lub Med rounds fine for m~ Now where would ~ou surest for my wife?" . : --Sill ~ King ~tur~

IIIS~~" ~"~~f l~.the Ke~11 age.andt~_at he wn ~Id~] ~~: ~] bu~ fi~ ~ in I~I an~ ~:] 8f whom he outlive: He had I ~d ~' ~at-~ ~~:I su~v~ n~ were t~, o-~, ~z! ~~~:~ ~e yo~ge~, Arap-Mbur~ mem~el~, doctors who,d~,y, he~ died. his fam/ly s~id~ thought, he ~ .har~ a~t~flt [ He had the hm~'t of a man enough to l/ve~er decade ~ half his years," said Dr, Julius or more.~ ~. " " : - ~Kadhi, chief medical officer of In'an interview publ~hed[the region_al medical clinic last year, Mburuburu claimed]ne.a~ Embu. _ . the secret of bib longevity was [i I honestly think he willed a _st~ri~'ct.~ meat-and-yam diet, [Ihis death m he died because ,h, ard work,, plenty of sleep and lhe wanted to." - ~ 'cigarettes---~ two packs a[ Medical records dating back day,? KenyaNews said. ]to 1892, and an officially In. fact~ Mburuburu tended ]recorded birth certificate peg- I/.vesto~...~iffd¢i-~Ik~ ~l~i-s~Y~m.} ging. his birthdate at Aug,. -21~ when the old man was 90,~ Kenya News sai~L.: Githui, Mburubunt,. 52, sai~ that his dad's mind wa~ clea~ to the end. • "He .was very proud of hi~ years'~t~td didn't let an oppor- tunity pass to say so,,' said the: son. "He alsO said that none o~ his relatives would make it to age 90 because we didn't work 14 hours a day, eat right o.r' .-laugh enough."- • ....... '-~

STAN SCOTT 11/14/85 To : Mr. Thomas F. Ahrensfeld Mr. Hugh Cullman Mr. Eugene J. T. Flanagan Mr. Ehud Houminer Mr. Hamish Maxwell Mr. John A. Murphy Mr. George L. Knox Mr. Frank E. Resnik Mr. Guy L. Smith IV We are planning to generate letters to Mr. Jimmy Breslin. SSS /co Attachment RECEIVED l~0v * 4 1985 FP, ANK F.. RESNIK

Vhy don t we stamp a pack of lies? on the cartons. As the number of children who actually are missing is small, and the number of cancer dead from cigarets is endless, the placing of memorial pictures on cigarets is much more natural. ON TIlE WAY to work yesterday, ! passed the headquarters of the i'hilip Morris Co.. which sells lhe following cigarets: Virginia Slims. Marlboro, Parliament Benson & .i ledges, Merit, Players, among o|hers. Of the last six cancer deaths I was around, two of the people were heavy smokers, and in one of the long illnesses, up at Memorial ltospital on the East Side, the lung cancer metastasized, which means it spread, ,and it went to my friend's brain practically as we stood there. Nothing tempered, softened or suppressed his remorseless pain; Marlboros at the end torture all parts On a Marlboro pack they can put the picture of the late Robert O'Con- nell, with the caption stating that he started smoking Marlboros young and that he died in agony while still young. "1 Got My Tumor From Marlboros: The late Robert O'Connell." The most popular picture that could be on cigarets, I believe, would be that of the late Rose Cipolione of Little Ferry, N.J., whose lawsuit, • started in January of 1984 against three of the largest cigaret manu- facturers in the country, is still con- sidered a great danger to the eigaret of the body. The entrance to the offices of Philip Morris is on 41st and Park. It is a big building, and reflects a country in which each year $13 billion is spent on cancer care and $20 billion is spent on the purchase of cigarets, a prime causer of cancer. Entering the lobby, one is greeted by a sign calling on everybody in Philip Morris to give blood. There is one flaw in this: The blood banks have neither staff nor the storage space to guarantee that a person dying of Marlboros in Memo- rial cancer hospital will get blood transfusions directly from the people companies. The companies can no longer be harnfful to Bose Cipollone because she Is dead, which makes her only one among the 350.~0 people who dle of cancer from smoking cigarets each year. She died shortly after a deposition was taken as part of her lawsuit The suit goes on, with her husband as the plaintiff. Yesterday, as I walked around the Philip Morris building, I took out a who manufacture Marlboros and the too many other brands that caused the cancer. Which is too bad because it seems like a fine ide~. What should be the main entrance to the building, on 42d St, is taken up by the Whitney Museum, which main- tains a branch there. Philip Morris, in the cancer business, cloaks itself with art. This Joining of cancer and art has caused a number of people I know to turn over pictures of depa~ed Philip Morfm smokers to a group of artis~- against~ancer, the picture~ to be turned into possible artwork on the Philip Morris pecks. 'l~ey could runs the photos of mlsein8 ¢hildrt~ JIMMY BRESLIN copy of Rose Cipollone's testimony during a deposition for this lawsuit and searched for a line that could be placed across a pack of Marlboros or Parliaments. both of which she smoked--along with Chesterfields. WIEN ROSE testified, she had little hair because of chemo- therapy, and her left hmg had already been removed. Itere are the parts of her testimony that I glanced at yesterday: Qo llow are you feeling this morning? A. Very tired. Q. tlave you taken any medication within the last 4~ hours? A. Monday, I had chemotherapy, and it makes me tired and sick. That was a good start. I then began leafing through pages and came to this: Q. Again, if you would like to take a break at any point .... A~ 1 am starting to get tired. Q. Would you like to take a break now? & Please. (A recess is taken at Ih20 a.nx Deposition reconvenes at 11:45 a.n~) Mr. Edelh (Mrs. Cipollone's lawyer) We are now outside of the Teen is freed in Queens slayings A teenager who served time for the wounding of an off~luty cop was nabbed yesterday in the Ilkylngs of an elderly Queens couple--but the murd~ f~~h¢ dt~i/t~ N6v. S ~f Ctmrle~ BresKn. 81. ~md ttls wife. }le,e~. presence of my client, who is in my room. Just so the record reflects the fact that after we terminated the deposition, which was going on for about an hour and a half, my eli, nt, on her way to the ladies' room. pa~ 'ed out and fainted, whatever. I'm not going to be a diagnostician. But :he ended up on the floor. We all kaow that she has cancer .... Some pages later, this appeared: Q. We have been at it about 45 minutes. Mr. F~teli: Let us take a short break. A. I am having a problem breathing. Q. Would you like some water? A. Please. The pages of testimony then show that Mrs. Cipollone came back after a 15~minute break and spoke about Chesterfield cigarets. Q. You mentioned you recall parti- cularly an ad concerning Chester- fields with a pretty girl with a big hat. Is that one of the ads Mr. Edell showed you to refresh your recollec- tion? A. No, sir. Q. Do you remember any other particular Chesterfield ads? A. Well, there were a lot of them but I don't particularly remember any particular ones except pretty girls and movie stars, Joan Crawford. Which, as l read it, gave me the idea for the ad that can run across both the Chesterfields and Marlboro packs: On the front of the pack, a picture of Rose Cipollone in a pretty hat; on the reverse aide a picture of Rose with the hat off and her hair wasted by chemotherapy. ~l Got My Tumor From Marlboros and Chesterfields: The late Rose Cipollone."

INFOTAB International Tobacco Infonmation Canter Centre Imternatlonal d'linformation du Tabac Ot~tober 18, 1985 To: See Distribu~tion List ~ RECEI, VED Re : Growing Tobacco - What others have said ... The enclosed brochure was published by the British-American Tobacco Company Ltd. It is also used as an insert in their brochure, "Tobacco: Creating Wealth in the Deweloping World". We believe this is an. excellent collection of quotes on the agricultural aspects of tobacco growing coming from several prominent organisations and individuals. We suggest that you consider adapting this material to your own local situation and use it with interested c~rcles. Best regards. Yours sincerely, Antonietta Corti Director of Information= Services Enclosu.re: AC:jg IS:5283.:85

Economist Intelligence Unit Tobacco & Food Crops, 1983. page Economist Intelligence Unit Tobacco & Food Crops. 1983. page xiv Economist Intelligence Unit Tobacco & Food Crops. 1983, page 101 Economis~ Intelligence Unit Tobacco & Food Crops. 1983;page xi~. Growing tobacco What others have said... .... ON LAND USE "Tobacco accounts for 0.37 per cent of the total land area under arable and permanent crops in the Third World. As an annual crop which occupies land for only part. of the year, the area of land under tobacco which entirely precludes other production is, therefore, an even smaller proportion of the:total." .... ON FOOD PRODUCTION "At the same time, it is important to note that tobacco is frequently the vehicle for the opening up and exptoitation of new land. In this way, new food production arises directly out of tobacco growing,,' "Ordy rarely are tobacco farmers concerned solely with tobacco cultivation. Apart from the t~aditional and necessary setting aside of land to meet, as a bare minimum, family food requirements, other crops are grown because of the rotational practices and opportunities for intercroppingwhich arise from tobacco cultivation, and, of course, because agronomic and market.conditions offer scope for their cultivation irrespective of the presence of tobacco." "In some circumstances, other crops can be grown on the same land as tobacco but not during the same period. Examples o[ such complementarity include tobacco/. maize in many parts of Southern Africa, tobacco~main season rice in South East Asia, tobacco/groundnuts in Jamaica and tobacco/maize and tobacco/rice in Costa Rica. In yet other cases, for example tobacco]tea, neither competition nor complementarity occur, since the crops cannot be grown on the same land."

E~onom#t intm~.~ ~]~ "A mo~e direct, physical impact is to be found with the yield~nhancing effect of rob~co ~ Food ~ 1983. residues of fertiliser applied to the tobacco crop upon the crop.immediately following. The correct application of fertiliser to the tobacco, crop thus reduces, and in some cases entirely replaces, the fertiliser requirements for the succeeding crop or, alternatively, provides some of the beneficial effect of fertiliser where none would otherwise have been applied. The monetary savings brought abou~ by residues of phosphate and potash (but. not nitrogeneous fertiliser)can be substantial and may make more viable the cultivation of other crops. The high standard of field: hygiene required to grow tobacco successfully likewise reduces the pest and disease risks to succeeding cropa" Economist Intelligence Unit Tobacco & Food Crops, 1983, page "It must be borne in mind that the termination of tobacco: growing can also result in the decline in or removal of associated food production." Economist Intelligence Unit Tobacco & Food Crops, 1983, page 106 ..... ON IMPROVING FARMING SKILLS' "It is thus apparent, that the impact of tobacco farming upon the practices used in the production of other crops in the locale, even if incidental to. its primary purpose, is considerable and that such 'spillover' effects are: predominantly beneficial. Tobacco. farming acts as a catalyst to, other agricultural production in the locality, resulting in a number of 'spin-offs' which would not.otherwise have reached the tobacco-growing regions so quickly. Amongst these can be numbered the demonstrated lessons on the value of crop rotation and soil analyses; the benefits to other crops of the use of tillage machinery bought for use on tobacco land; and, the overall gains from farmers practicing~ for the benefit of all their crops, skills and insight into good husbandry in general acquired through their involvement in tobacco cultivation. In a rural economy which is founded upon agriculture and where the availability, of technical assistance from the government extension service may be minimal, the incidental effects of tobacco cultivation can be invaluable and its impact extremely profound. The particular value of tobacco as a 'teaching' crop, often cited, is thus of broad practical relevance and of potentially far-reaching beneficial impact."

• • £eo~om#~/~t~e U~t ~rhe ~b~o f~ of ~e ~: World ~ eme~g ... ~ a ~ ~e ~p~n~ ~ r~o, ~,~ ~o ~d ~ a s~ ~l~t. No f~er, not ~en ~e low~e~ pe~t, ~ uns~ ~bou~r. Now, ~ ~ no ~ p~ W ~e ~vi~es of ~e ~mafion~ Wb~co m~u~g complies, ~e ~b~co ~ow~ ~ ~on~t ~e eH~ ~ h~ l~ co~u~." of Tobacco, 1982, pa~e~ l O & 11 United Nations Food and The Economic SlgnOT~nce of Tobacco~ 1982, page 20 .... ON FARMERS, INCOMES "Tobacco compares very favourably with other crops even in those countries where it yields a relatively low income per unit of land." "In nearly every producing country, tobacco is one of the most valuable crops grown, and its contribution to total agricultural income is almost invariably significant." Eco~omtzt Intelligence Unit Leer Tobecco. 1951. p~e 72 "What would be lost if tobacco growing (and export) were entirely removed from the economy? The EIU believes it reasonable to suggest that if tobacco were so removed, the ~ocal population would lose a significant source of direct and indirect income and employment with no comparable replacement," .... ON EMPLOYMENT United Nat/ons Food ~d The Economk $1~bqcenre of'Tobacco, 1982, page 7 "Tobacco is an important source of employment and cash income in all the countries where it is grown.,' United Natiom Food and The Economic $igni~cance of Tobacco, 1982, page 7 "In most developing countries, production tends to be concentrated on very small holdings and the crop provides a livelihood not only for the growers, but also for unknown numbers of. family members and other workers." United Nations Food and Agricsdtswal Org~,zation The Economic Significance oJ~ Tobocco, IM2, page 20 "Tobacco growing generates Iarge-scale rural employment in over-populated areas and provides a ready source of cash for smallholders who would otherwise be dependent on less remunerative crops or on subsistence farming."

'~robscco leaf is an important source of foreign exchsnge for exportLng countries." "Exports of tobacco play an important part in the agricultural economies of many developing countries which depend on them for a significant proportion of total foreign exchange earnings," Economist Intelligence Unit Leaf Tobacco, 1981. page 9 .... ON IMPORT SUBSTITUTION "Savings in scarce foreign exchange are also achieved since the bulk of production of unmanufactured tobacco is required for local consumption. Such tobacco does not enter into international trade, but it does eliminate imports that have to be paid for in foreign currencies." Economist lnteH~nce Unit Tobacco & Food Crop:, 198~, page 24 "Increased tobacco production as an import-substitution strategy recognises that smoking cannot be 'disinvented'i .... A highly restrictive policy is likely to give rise either to contraband trade ..... or, perhaps, covert tobacco-cultivating activities." Economiz~ l~telli~ence Unit Tobacco & Food 198~, page xill .... ON FLUE CURING NEEDS "Deforestation in the Third World has a number of diverse causal factors, including the use of wood for fuel for domestic purposes and rural industry, commercial exploitation, shifting cultivation and large scale cattle-grazing. Small-scale rural industries, of which tobacco-curing may be considered but one of many, are responsible for only a very minor part of total removals so, although substantial, the volume of fuelwood used for curing must be putin proper perspective." Econom~t Intelligence Unit Tobacco & Food 1983, pege~ 1'17 & 118 '~rhe tobacco sector has its obligations to the local populations, and the country as a whole, to ameliorate the effects of its activities on forest resources. In many areas where fuelwood is an important source of energy for curin~ the industry has taken steps to conf~ontand to deal with the problem by devoting resources to the search for more efficient curing systems, and by seeking, where appropriate, alternative sources of energy to fuelwood, including the utilization of agricultural by-products. In some countries, particularly where there is little option but to use fuelwood, these measures are increasingly being supplemented by the initiation and organisation of reafforestation schemes."

Ov~e I.. Freeman, Forme~ U~ 5ec.ret~ry of Addre~ 198J .... ON' FARMING IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD "For many years, the causes of agricultural growth were controversial and little understood, That. is no: longer so. Evidence and experience now support certain key propositions about the role of governments and of farmers themselves in encouraging this growth. Starting with farmers, it can confidently be said that: All farmers -- small, medium, and large -- respond to economic incentives. Far from being "tradition-bound peasants", farmers have shown that they share a rationality that far outweighs differences in their sociai and ecological conditions... Farmers contribute to agricultural investment~ All of them, even those farming only a few acres, save a substantial part.of any extra income and invest it on their farms. They also use their own and their families' labor to. level~land, grow trees, dig ditches, and build paddy terraces- activities that create capital to produce more agricultural output in the future... Small farmers can be highly productive.. Typically, they produce more from each acre than large farmers do, despite the often considerable disadvantages of their limited access to services, markets, and production inputs such as fertilizer ..... Research and technology need to be developed and adapted to local conditions,.. Rural development programmes have helped overcome obstacles to increased agricultural output and have also benefited the poor... Major investments in irrigation, transport .and marketing networks are needed ..... Where little agriculturai.progress has been made, iris sometimes because of an adverse agrarian structure inherited from the past... "The ability of small farmers to take the plunge into cash crops has an immediate effect in.a village. Even if only marginaily successful, the farmer needs help at harvest time so that casual labor is taken on. When farmers have a profitable year, their first expenditure is home improvement. Materials and labor come from the village. As farmers climb out of a subsistence level, they take other members of their

TABLE ¢ THE , AMPLE Sara'pie NUmber % Sampie Responses % Responses Industr/ Chem~c~s Mininglputmleum Pelmleum Refining Mining. Crude 011Pruduction ~ Metals Metal Manufacturing, Metal Products Consumer Goods Electronics, Appliances Musical Instruments, Toys Apparel Transporta~n Pruducts Shipbuilding, Railroads; ,Transportation Motor Vehicles industrialiFarm Equipment Sc~entHi~ Equipment l Office Equipment. Computers Measurement. Scientific & Photo Equipment Petrochemical Products Textiles, Vinyl Roorino Rubber. Ptastlcs Glass, Concrete, Gypsum Pharmaceuticals S~aps, Cosm~ce Retailing Transportation Services Puper/Publiahing Publishing, Pflntino Paper, Rber, Wood Region Northeast 79 52 68 75 93 73 183 49 99 51 41 32¸ 46 51 52' 22 5.9 27 4.7 6.4 30 44 5.1 37 16.4 68 3.4 25 10.3 27 4.3 21 2.6 23 8,1 6.4 16.0: 4,3, 8.6. 4.5 3.6. 2.6 14 2.8 4.6 " 14 4.0 5.3 14 4.5 :, 1,4.7 / 19, 4.5 20,9 93 31.0 _~, Ii 22.6 138 28.1

DISTRIBUTION ~M ~I:~E BY REGION, INDUSTRY AND EXISTENCE OF LAW ..M~Etb..C,,ent ral 7.9 44~8 22.7 1418 38.7 26.7 52.3 18.9 22.1 36.0 25.9 47:6 26.1i 21.4 57:1i 28.6 26.3 West ~32;9 38,2 6~9 4.5 11.1 9~7 23,3 11,4 37.8 20J6 8,0 29~6 4.8 4.3 14.3 7.1 42:9 31.6 TABLE 3 EXISTENCE AND TYPE OF POLICY (by industry) Chemicals Mining Trans- Petroleum Consumer portation Scientific RefiflinQ Metals Goods Products Equipment Company Has Smoking Policy No Smoking While Working For All No Smoking While Working For Some No Smoking On Premises For All No Smold~g On Promises For Some Restrict Smoking ,By Job Oescdption Rastfict Smoking ,FOr Alll 31~0 ~.-'~6'9 -\ 37.9 3.4 0 27.6 Insurance FiNance: Company Has Smoking Policy No Smoking While Working FOr All NO Smoking While Working For Some No Smoking On Premises For All: NO Smoking On Premises For Some Restrict Smoking By Job Description Restrict Smoking FOr All 31i.8 11.1 16:1 13.3 29.5, 29.7 51i5 9,1 7,,4 0 3.3 0 2.7 li5 31i.8 11.1 25.8 23.3 38.6 43.2 41i2 4.5 3.~ 0 3,3 0 5.4 1,5 4,5 11.1 6.5 0 9.1 16.2 5.9 13.6 3.7, 12:9 20.0 18.2 13.5 8.8 27~3 22.2 9,7 10.0 22.7 32.4 42,6 Petro- Trans- Diversified chemical Pharma- portation~ Paper/ Service~ Utilities Products ceuticals Retailing Services Publishin~ 56.0 18.5 28.6 34.8 57.1 21.4 21.4 42.1i ~00.0-'~ 3.7 0 8.7 0 0 0 5.3 29.6 33.3 47.8 50,0 28.6 28.6 36.8 ! 3.7 0 4.3 7.1 0 0 5,3 I 4.0 II 7:4 14.3 17,.4 0 14.3 14.3 5.3 .o/ 14i8 19.0 21.7 28.6 21~4 14.3 15.8 ~\~ 8~.~/ 25.9 38.1 30.4 42.9 21~4 21.4 52~6

TAm.L 3 EXISTENCE AND TYPE OF POLICY (by Industry) Food: Chemicals Mining Petroleum Refining Metals Consumer Goods Trans- portation Sdentific Products Equipment Finance Company Has Smoking Policy No S~oking While Working For All NO Smoking While Working For Some No Smoking On Premises For All NO Smoking On Premises For Some Nogdct Smoking By Job Description Restdct Smoking For All 31.0 31.8, f~6.9""~ 9+1 37.9 i 31.8 3.4 ! 4.5 0 / 4.5 34.5 13.6 27.6~ 27.3 Diversified; Insurance Services 11.1 16:1 13.3 29:5 29.7 51.5 7.4 0 3.3 OI 2,7 1.5 11.1 25.8 23.3 38,6 43.2 41.2 3.7 0 3.3 O' 5.4 1.5 11.1 6:5 0 9.1 16.2 5.9 3.7 12:9 20~0 18.2 13.5 8.8 22.2 9:7 10.0 22.7 32.4 42.6 Utilities Petro. chemical Products Pharma- ceutLcals Trails, portatiOn Paper/ Retailing, Services Publishing, Company Has Smoking PoliCy No Smoking While Working For, All NO Smoking While WOrking FOr, Some No Smoking On Premises For All No Smoking On Premises For Some Restrict Smoking By Job Description Restrict Smoking For All TABLE 4 56.0 18,5 28.6 34.8: 57:1 21.4 21.4 42,1 //~'" 3.7 0 8.7 0 0 0 5.3 /' 40.0~0 ~ 29.6 33.3 47.8, 50.0 28.6 28:6 36:8 / ~ I 3.7 0 4.3 7:1i 0 O: 5.3 .0 ~ 7.4 14.3 17.4 0 14.3 14.3 5,3 I 8.0 J= 14.8 19.0 21.7 28.6 21.4 14.3 15~8 ', 52.0' 25.9 38.1 30.4 42:9 211.4 21.4i 52:6 WHY SMOKING POLICIES ARE REJECTED (overall percentage, by region, by workplace smoking law) Region North- North Overall east South Central West WOrkplace Smoking Law In Being Effect Di:scussed Neither, Too Gostfy To Implement 4.6 0 13.0, 5,1 0 0 9.7 3.4 Too Difficult To ,Implement: 38:9 , 31.0 47:8 51:3 11 i8 26.3 45.2 39.7 Not Accepted By Employees 59:3 " 69.0 60.9 64~1i 29.4 57:9 45.2 67.2 Not Accepted ;BY Clients 10;2 13.8 8.7 12.8 0 15.8 0 13.8 Employees Can Handle On Own 58,3 65.5 65.2 43.6 70.6 42;1 51.6 67.2' No Complaints About;Smoking 28.7 20.7 30.4 23. li 52.9 15.8 29.0 32.8,

REJECTION OF SMOKING POLICIES (overall percentage, by region,, by workplace smoking law) Overall Policy Considered For Company But Rejected 24.3 Region North- North , east South Central West 21.5 24.2 28.1 22.4 Workplace Smoking Law In, Being Effect Discussed Neither, 25;0 41.3 19.7 TABLE 6 COMPLAINT PROCEDURES (overall percentage, by region, by workplace smoking law) Encoura0e Employees To Work Out Problems Complainer Moved ;To New Area TryTo Get Smoker Moved To New Area Try To Get Smoker To Reduce Smoking Order Smoker To Discontinue Smoking Nothing Is Done Other Measures Taken North- Overall east; 70.8I 69.6 6.3 11 5.2 3.4 ~ 3.7 22.5 ~ 17.0 9.7! 11.1 3.1 ' 2.2 Region North~ SouthCentral l West Workplace Smoki:ng Law' In Being Effect; Discussed Neither 78.9 66:2 71.1 71.1i 73.3 70.1 6.3 5.8 9;2 10.5 6.7 5.1 3.2 2:9 3;9 6:6 5.3 2.0 24i2 21.6 31.6 28:9 29.3 19.0 0 2:2 0 1.3 0 1:0 10.5 9.41 6:6 0 5.3 13.3 0 2:9 9,2 6.6 2.7 2,4

---

U.S.A. Mr. Frank E~ Resnik Jack Nelson ~ ~ October 15, 1985 RECEIVED ~mnan, Resources Policy Corp. (Solmon) Study of Smoking Policies in Large Corporations OCT 1 5 1985 FRANK E RESNIK Stmmary of Study The Solmon Study, published and distributed by the Tobacco Institute, is a smoking policy survey of the I,I00 largest US corporations--forty percent of which (445) responded to the mailed questionnaire. It was conducted by Lewis C. Solmon, Dean of the UCLA Graduate Education School, in late 1984. The major findings are: - Workplace smoking, policies are not a trend among major cc~panies. - ~,ployees can work problems out for themselves. - Most workplace smoking policies that are in place apply only to certain employees. - Most policies are initiated by management for safety reasons. - The majority of workplace smoking policies have not been established because of increased public pressures or legislation. - Most c~[~anies do not consider snaking to be a factor ~n hiring.. - Cc~pan/es do not want to segregate their workers or make major changes in the workplace. Clerical Errors In a 1985 printed sunmary of the study, sixteen tables were included in an appendix. Due to sloppy proofing and inadequate explanation, Tables I and. 2 contain incorrect and misplaced figures. Table 3 appears twice, Moreover, scme columns total over 100%, but fail to explain that more than one response per q]/estion per respondent was allowed. Conclusion Although sloppy proofreading work, these errors do not affect in any way the Study's findings or conclusions on the substantive points. The cmissions and errors are being corrected in a new printing scheduled for November. cc: G. L. Smith

~0~5851734

SMgKING POLICIES+ CORPORATIONS HUMAN RESOURCEiS POLICY CORPO!RATION 1279 CA ~IANO ROAL~ LOS A NG F.LES, CALIFORNIA I.EWIS:C. SOLMON I~rcsident

EXECUTIVE ,. SUMMARY Smoking Poliaes in Large Corlmrations In late 1984, the Human Resources Policy Corporation, Los Angeles, Calif., surveyed 1100 of the nati0n~s largest and fast; est growing companies to.determine the nature andlextentl of their workplace smoking policies. Results of this survey, com- pleted in May. 1985, challenge the widely reported ~ trend to- ward restrictive workplace smoking .policies in major corpora- tions: The HUman Resources Policy Corporation sent an eight; page questionnaire to Fortune 1000: service and industrial com- panies; and to lnc: magazine's 100 fastestl growing companies: Surveys were sent to the chief executive officer or the vice presidenti for human resources: The survey questioned respondents on the existence of COrl~rate smoking policies.and reasons for implementation. Results are based on,responses from 445 companies. The 40 percent response rate is acceptable, given the sensitive nature of the data. The responses are representative of the fullipopu- lation when anal~czed by region and indUstry type: Among the results: Workplace smoking policies are not a trend among major companies. Most respondents (63i 8 percent).do not have a formali smok- ing policy, but rather encourage their employees to use com- mon sense and courtesy to solve problems among themselves: Companies in the north,central region (28.1 percent)andi tt~e south (2Z I percent)are less likelyto have a~smoking policy than those in the west (44.7 percent), Employees can work problems out for themselves. ()f. the 63. 8 percent of companies without smoking policies, 35 percent reported considering.and rejecting one. (If tl|e companies I hat considered but rejected a~ smoking policy, most (59.3 percent): said they did not believe a policy woultJ be acceptediwell by employees. When a smoldng prob- lem arises. ?018 percent of all respondents saidi they encourage employees to work problems.out for themselves. Fewer than, one percent said i the supervisor orders the employee to stop smoking. Most workplace smoking policies that are in place apply only to certain employees. The general company workplace policy prohibits some emplOy- ees from smoking while: working: This occurs most~ frequently with employees who deal lwith hazardous substances, sensitive machinery and equipment, or food. Few companies prohibit alli employees from, smoking while on company premises (Z 5 per- cent): nor do,they prohibiti all employees from smoking while working (~: 9 percent). Most policies are initiated by management for safety reasons. Virtually no companies reported limplementing smoking policies to:increase productivity or reduce costs. The majority of workplace smoking policies have not been established because of incrensed public pressures or legislation. Since public pressure for restrictive workplace smoking legisla- tion has come about in the past three to five years, most com- pany smokingpolicies cannot be attributed to.this factor be- cause most have:been in effect for longer than five years. Only nine percenti of respondents said they had imple- mented a policy within, the last year. COmpanies in the west (~2.4 percent), followed by the northeast (10.4 percen0:were: most likely to have implemented policies within, the past year. These regions of the country are facing the greatest number of legislative workplace restriction proposals. Most companies do not consider smoking to be a factor in hiring. Eighty-five point four percent of companies said they never consider whether a job applicant smokes and 81. li percent never ask about an applicant's smoking habits. Only four per- cent always ask: Ninety-nine point one percent said they hire smokers. Only four of the 445 respondents said they refused to hire smokers. Companies do not want to segregate their workers or make major changes in the workplace. Most (87.4 percent) do not assign employees to work areas or offices according to:whether they smoke and 40:7 percent said l they do not modify the work environment to accommodate nonsmokers: 2

Over the pastl several years:there has been considerable bate over the need for legislation to restrict smoking in the workplace: Proponents of legislation claim a trend toward workplace smoking policies among major companies: There is no trend. This comprehensive survey by the Hu- man Resources Policy Corporation, Los Angeles, Calif., o[ the nation's largest and fastest growing companies reveals less than one-third have some form of smoking policy. In mostl instances, the policy prohibits some employees from smoking while working with hazardous materials or sensi- tive equipmentL These policies are generally accompanied by other safety regulations thati are necessary because of the haz, ardous nature of the work: Most workplace smoking policies have been in effect for more than five years; long before em- ployee: smoking legislation, came into vogue. Companies are not instituting radical changes to accommo~ date nonsmokers: Few comparlies consider smoking behavior in their hiring practices and virtually no companies refuse to hire smokers. Companies will provide :adequate ventilation, post signs or even rearrange certain work areas to accommodate nonsmok~ ers. Buti few are willing to: construct new partitions or to seg- regate smokers from nonsmokers. Most companies simply en- courage employees to work outi problems among themselves. Companies rarely consider cost savings; profit increases: or employee morale when they. consider a, smoking policy, Poli- cies usually are: implemented by management because of safety factors. When companies reject smoking:policies it is usually because of the difficulty of implementing a: policy, the factl that employees would object, or tile belief that any problems can be worked out among employees: Companies in, certain regions of the country, particularly the west, and in certain industries, usually where smoking may pose a safety hazard, are more likely than others to have a workplace smoking policy. However, most policies have simply. formalized safety practices that have existed for years: This survey clearly demonstrates that employers have and will continue to handte responsibly the issue of workplace smoking~ State:or local I~gislation concerning,the issue is not needed. Employers place high confidence in the ability of their employees to work out any problems among themselves. The Sample In 1984, the Human, Resources Policy Corporati0n,of Los An- geles, Calif., surveyed the nation's largest and fastest growing. companies to determine the:nature and extent o[ their work- place smoking policies. The large sample:included Fortune 1000 service and in- dustrial companies and Inc. magazine's 100 fastestl growing: companies. Chief executive officers or human resource vice presidents of each company received an eight-page question- naire asking about: the existence of corporate smoking policies and reasons for implementation, Four hundred forty-five of the 1100 companies surveyed responded. This 40: percent response rate is acceptable given the sensitive nature of the data. If anything, companies.having policies are likely to be overrepresented in the number of re- spondents, as they would be more likely to take time to com- plete the questionnaire. These responses are representative of the full population when analyzed by industry, type (see Table 1)~ Responses also are representative of industry by region (see: Table2). Overalli 17.1 percent of respondents are located in an area with workplace: smoking legislation: Sixteen pointi nine percent of respondents are located in an area in,which workplace smoking legislation is being considered. Aims of the Study In conducting the study,~ Human,Resources Policy Corporation wanted to.determine and understand formal smoking policies and other practices as they relate to employee smoking in large corporations. The study attempts;to establish the extent and nature of smoking policies, what type of companies have them, why they were implemented, and how long they have been,in, effect. In addition, the study examines the relationship of smoking to,company hiring practices, and how companies deall with. smoking:complaints. The study tests several assumptions such as the "trend" toward workplace smoking restrictions and that smokers are finding it increasingly difficult to find employment. The results are presented in the hope that any corporate or public policy decision~making concerning smoking in the workplace: will be based on factual information~ Research Director Lewis C. Solmon~ economist, dean of the graduate school of edtacati0n~at UCLA, and lpresident of Human Resources Policy. Corporation, developed and supervisedlthe survey. Human Resources Policy Corporation is~a social science andieconomic research organization. The survey was sponsored by The bacco Institute:

THE SURVEY IN OETAIL Most companies do not have smoking policies. Contrary to the widely reportedl trend toward,restrictive workplace smoking policies, most companies (63.8 percent)i do not have a formal policy. Companies least: likely to have:a smoking policy are those located in the south (22.1 percent) and north central region (,28.1 percent). Not surprisingly, com, panics most likely to have policies are in areas where a work- place smoking law is in effect (59. 2 percent) and in the west (44.7 percent), Industries least likely to havea policy are mining (11~ 1 percent), metals (16~ li percen0: andl diversified services (18. 5 percent). Industries most likely, to:have apolicy are pharma~ ceuficals (57.1' percen0; insurance (56i0:percent); and finance (51.5 percent): See Table 3. Companies have'considered and rejected smoking polieies; Twenty~four point three percent of all respondents said!they have considered andl rejectedl a workplace smoking policy. Re- spondents said~they rejected policies because employees would not accept a policy (59.3 percent), because employees can han- dle problems on their own (,58,3 percen0; or because a~policy wouldbe too,difficult to implementl (38,9 percen0: Nineteen point eight percent of respondents:said they believed a smok- ing ban would decrease employee morale, See Table 4. Policies are: rejected most frequently, in the north central region (28.1 percent):andlthe south f24.2 percen0: Policies are rejected less frequently in the west (22.4 percenO and the northeast (21i 5 percentl): See Table 5. Companies encourage employees to work problems out for themselves. When a smokingproblem,arises, most companies (:70.Sper- cent) encourage employees to work problems out for them- selves with common courtesy. Virtually no respondents (.9: percent) said they. order an employee to discontinue smoking, See Table6. Twenty-two pointi five: percent of respondents said they. will encourage an employee to redlace smoldng when a~com- plaint arises: Nine point seven percent said they do nothing when~ a complaint arises. Most workplace smoking policies apply only to certain workers. Virtually no companies (only 2.5 percenO prohibit all employ- ees from,smoking on,the premises nor do they prohibit smok- ing while working (2.9:percent). Thirty-four pointl eightl per- cent of respondents said they prohibit certain employees from, smoking while working, See Table 7. Fifteen point seven percent of respondents said they re- strict smoking for employees holding certain jobs. Those most likely to be prohibited from smoking are those employees who work with dangerous substances, sensitive machinery and food. Smoking is most frequently restricted or prohibited in areas where there are sensitive chemicals, supplies and equip- menti as well as in food processing areas, Companies post signs, irfform employees individually, or distribute a policy manual to:let employees know about their policy. Increased public pressure is not a factor in establishment of workplace smoking policies. Only nine percent ofl respondents said a workplace smoking. policy was initiatediwithin the last year~ Most companies (20 percent) responded that their policy has been, in, effect for over five years. Only 3.6:percent of the policies have been in effect for between three and five years. SeeTable 8. Since public pressure for restrictive:workplace smoking legislation has come about in,the past three to five years, most company smoking policies cannot be attributed to this factor-- most have been in effectl for more than five years. Workplace smoking.policies are more:likely attributed lto the realities and dangers in the workplace that have existedl for many years: This.is demonstrated!by the fact that industries: most likely to have:hadla policy for over five years are food (48:3 percent); pharmaceuticals (35~7 percent) and~chemicals (31.8 percent). And 39.9 percent of companies where there are hazardous materials or sensitive machinery have:had smok- ing policies for over five years. See Table 9: Companies Iocated~in an area with a workplace smoking. law (29 percent): and the westl (22.4 percent)are most likely to have implemented a, policy within the last year. Industries most likely to: have implemented a policy within the: last year are in- surance, finance and scientific equipment.

Workplace smoking policies are initiated by management. Most workplace smoking policies were initiated by manage- ment (37.3 percentS: Only 13.3 percent of respondents Said the policy, was initiated because of a~ state or local ordinance. See Table lO~ ~rtrtually no companies:implemented smoking policies to increase employee productivity or to reduce costs: See Table 11. Safety was:the reason most often cited for initiating the policy (25.4 percent): Most companies do not segregate smokers from nonsmokers. Most companies (87.4 percent) , do not assign employees to work areas or offices according to whether they smoke. See Table 12: Rearrangement ofl work: areas t0:segregate smokers from nonsmokers is least likely in the south (16.8'percent)andl north central regions (22:3 percentl): It is most likely in areas where a workplace smoking lawis in effect (53.9 percent) and in the west (40~ 8 percent)~ Industries least likely to rearrange work areas to segre- gate smokers from nonsmokers (See Table13) are food (:10~3 percent), mining/petroleum, refining (1I. 1 percent) and con- sumer goods (:13.3 percent). Industries most likely to do so are insurance (48 percent), finance (38~ 2:percent) and scientific equipmentl (35. i percent~: Companies do not want to make major changes in the workplace. Forty point seven percent ofl respondents said they do not modify the workplace to:accommodate smokers and nonsmok- ers. Companies in the south are least likely to modify the workplace~ Companies in tihe west and in areas where a work. place smoking law is. in effect are most likely to modify. Industries least likely to modify are mining/petroleum re- fming~ petrochemical and diversified services. Industriesmost likely to dO so are pharmaceuticals,: chemicals and insurance. The most frequent modifications to accommodate nora smokers are provision of adequate ventilation, (40:4 percent)i, posting of signs.(27.0 percenti): and ventilation improvement (26:5 percent)~ The most unlikely.changes:are new partitions (4.3 percent) and separate offices for smokers and nonsmokers (4.0 percent). Practically all companies hire smokers. Contrary to anti-smoking literature, smokers are not finding it difficuiti to secure employment. Virtually all (99,1 percent): re~ spondents said they. hire smokers. Only four (~.9 percent)of the 445 respondents said they refuse to.hire smokers (See Table 14): Even in the westi only li 3 percent~ of respondents said they had such a policy. Eighty-one point one percent of respondents .never ask abouti a job applicant's smoking, while four percent said they al- ways ask. Companies in utilities (90:5 percent), food (89:7 per- cent) andlpaper/publishing (89.5 percent)are least likely to ask (See Table 15)~ Even those industries most likely to question an applicant about smoking--pharmaceuticals, metals and trans- portation-~tid so only 1~,.31 9~7and 9.1 percent ofl the time, respectively. Eighty-five point four percent of respondents said they. never consider whether a~job applicant smokes. Only 2:2per- cent take smoking history into account. The retailing anditrans- portation services industry (92.9 ~percent): is least likely to take this into account. The scientific equipment industry (8,I per- cent); with its highly sensitive machinery, is most likely to take smoking, intO: consideration~ Only 4.3 percent of respondents said.they dO noti hire smokers for certain jobs: This is more likely to be the case:in highly regulated companies where employees deal with sensi; tire machinery, hazardous substances andifood. When dangers exist in the workplace, smoking iseither regulated or smokers are precluded from those jobs altogetherL Even those indus- tries most likely not to hire smokers for certain j0bs--diversi- fied services, metals and utilities~id so only ill; 9~7 and!9:5 percent of the time, respectively. Most companies do not assume the cost of smoking cessation programs. Although,42:9 percent of respondents said lthey offer a smok- ing cessation,program~ only 29:O:percent of those companies assume the:cost (See Table 16). Only 15.7 percent of respon- dentls said they allow employees to participate on company tifne.

TABLE 1 THE sAMPLE" Sample Number % Sample Responses % Responses Industry Food Food Beverages Chemicals Mining/Petroleum Petroleum Refining Mining, Crude Oil Production Metals: Metal Manufacturing Metal Products Consumer Goods Electronics, Appliances. Musical !Instruments, Toys Apparel~ Transportation Products Shipbuilding, Railroads, Transportation Motor:Vehicles Industrial. Farm ~Equipment Aerospace Scientific Equipment Office Equipment, Computers Measurement, Scientific & Photo Equipment Finance Commercial Banks Diversified Finance Insurance Diversified Services Utilities Petrochemical Products Textiles, Vinyl IFIooring Rubber, Plastics Glass, Concrete, Gypsum Pharmaeeuticals Pharmaceuticals Soaps, Cosmetics Retailing Transportation Services Paper/.Publishing Publishing, Printing Pager, Fiber, Wood Region Northeast South North Central West~ 79 7.1 29~ 6.9 52 4.3 22' 4.5 68 5,9 27 5.9 64i 4.7 31 5.6 75 6:4 30 6.6 93 7:0 44~ 8,1 73 5.1 37 6:4 183 16.4 68 16:0 49 3.4 25 4~3 99 10.3 27' 8.6 51 4~3 21i 4i5 41 2.6 23 3.6 32 2.6 14 2.8 46 4.6, 14 4.0 51 5.3, 14 4.5 52 4.7 19 4.5 378 31.0 138 33.0 259~ 20.9 93 22.6, 322' 31.0 138 28.1 186~ 17..1 "76 16.2

TABLE 2 .. DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE BY REGION, INDUSTRY AND EXISTENCE OF LAW NOrtheasti South North Central l Law In Effect Law Being Discussed Food Chemicals Mining/Petroleum Metals Consumer Goods Transportation Products Scientific Equipment Finance Insurance Diversified Services Utilities Petrochemical Products Pharmaceuticals: Retailing TransportatiOn ~Services Paper 15.6 14.8 27.6 36.4 22.2' 38.7 30.0 i 20.5, 35.1 36.8, 48.01 18.5. 9.5, 43.5. 64.3 14.3 0 26.3 5,3 20J7 36,4 51.9 12.9 20.0 15.9 8.1 20.6 8.0 25.9 38.1 26.1 0 21.4~ 28.6 15.8 7.9! 44.8, 22.7 14.8, 38.7 26.7 52.3. 18.9 22.1 36.0' 25.9 47.6, 26.1 21,.4 57.1 28.6. 26.3 32:9 3&2 6:9 4.5 11.1i 9:7 23:3 11.4 37:8 2016 8:O 29:6 4.8 4.3 14.3 7:1 42:9 31.6 TABLE 3 EXISTENCE AND TYPE OF POLICY (by industry) Food Chemicals Mining Petroleum Refining~ Metals Consumer Goods Trans- portation Products Scientifio Equipmentl Finance Company Has Smoking Policy 31,0~ No ,Smoking While Working ~For~ All 6.9~ No ,Smoking While WOrking ,For Some 37.9~ No,Smoking On Premises:For All 3.4 No,Smoking On Premises For Some 0 Restrict Smoking By Job Description 34.5, Restrict Smoking For, All 27.6, 31.8 31.8 4.5 4.5 13:6 27:3 11,1 7,4 11,1 3,7 11.1 3.7 22,2' 16.1 0 25.8 0 6.5 12.9 9.7 13.3 3.3 23.3 3.3 0 20.0 10.0 29.5 0 38.6 0 9.1 18.2 22:7 29.7 2.7 43:2 5,4 16:2 13;5 32:4 51.5 1.5 41.2 1.5 5,9 8,8 42:6 Insurance: Diversified; Services Uti:lities Petro- chemicali Products Pharma- ceuticals. Retailing Trans- portati:on Services Paper¢ Publishing Company Has Smoking Polioy 56.0 No Smoking While Worl~ing For All 0 No Smoking While Worl~ing For Some 40.0 No Smoking On Premises For All 0 No Smoking On Premises For Some 4.0 Restrict Smoking By.JOl:l Oescription 8.0 Restrict Smoking For All 52:0 18,5 3,7 29:6 &7 7.4 14.8 25.9 28.6 i 0 33.3. 0 .14.3 19.0' 38.1 34.8 8.7 47:8 4~3 17:4 21.7 30.4 57:1 0 50:0 1:1i 0 28:6 42~9 21.4 0 28.6 0 14~3 21.4 21.4 21.4 O' 28,6 0 14.3 14.3 21.4~ 42.1 5.3 36.8 5.3 5.3 15.8 52.6

TABLE 3 EXISTENCE AND TYPE OF POLICY (by industry) Food Chemicals Mining Petroleum Refining Metals Consumer Goods Trans- portation Scientific Products Equipment Finance Company Has Smoking Policy 31.0 31.8 11.1 No :Smoking While Working For All 6.9 9~ 1; 7:4 No :Smoking While Working For Some 37.9 31.8 11.1! No ,Smoking On Premises For All 3.4 4.5 3:7 No,Smoking On Premises For Some 0 4.5 11. li Restrict Smoking By Job Description 34.5 13,6 3:7 Restrict Smoking For All 27.6 27.3 22:2 16.1 13.3 29.5 29.7 51.5 0 3.3 0 2.7 1.5 25.8 23.3 38:6 43.2 41.2 0 3.3 0 5.4 1.5 6.5 0 9~1i 16.2 5:9 12.9 20.0 18:2 13.5. 8:8 9.7 10.0 22:7 32.4 42:6 Diversified Insurance Services Utilities Petro- chemical Products Pharma, ceuticals Trans, portation Paper/ Retailing Services Publishing Company Has Smoking Policy 56.0 18.5 28,6 No Smoking While Working For All 0 3.7 0, No Smoking While Working For Some 40.0 29.6 33,3 No Smoking On Premises For AIII 0 3.7 0. No Smoking On Premises For Some 4.0 7.4i 14.3 Restrict Smoking By. Job Description 8.0 14.8 19:0 Restrict Smoking For All 52.0 25.9 38.1 34i8 57.1 21.4 21.4 42:1 8.7 0 0~ 0 5~3 47:8 50.0 28;6 28.6 36~8 4i3 7.1 0~ 0 5,3 17:4 0 14.3 14~3 21.7 28.6: 21.4 14.3 15,8 30.4 42.9: 2t .4 21.4 52:6 TABLE 4 WHY SMOKING POLICIES ARE REJECTED (overall percentage,, by region, by workplace smoking law) Overall Too Costly To Implement Too Difficult To Implement Not Aocepted By Employees Not Accepted By Clients Employees Can Handle On Own No Complaints About Smoking Region North- North east South Central West Workplace Smoking Law In~Being Effectl Discussed Neither, 4.6 0 13.0 5,t 0 0 9.7 3.4 38.9 31.0 47:8 51.3 11.8 26.3; 45.2 39.7 59.3 69.0 6019 64.1 29.4i 57.9~ 45.2 67.2' 10.2 13.8 817' 12.8 0 15.8; 0 13.8. 58.3 65.5 65~2 43,6 70.6 42.1 51i.6. 67.2' 28.7 20.7 30;4 23.t 52.9 15.8; 29.0 32.8.

TABLE 5 REJECTION OF SMOKING POLICIES (overall percentage, by region, by workplace smoking law)i Overall Policy Considered For Company But Rejected 24.3 Region North- North east South Central West 21.5 24i2 28,1 22.4i Workplace Smoking Law In Being Effect Discussed; Neither 25.0 41.3 19.7 TABLE 6 COMPLAINT PROCEDURES (overall percentage, by region, by workplace smoking law) Overall Region~ North- North east South Central West Encourage Employees To ,Work Out Problems 70.8 69.6 78.9 Complainer, Moved To New Area 6.3 5.2 6.3 Try To Get Smoker, Moved To New Area 3.4 3.7 3.2 Try To Get Smoker, To ReduoeSmoking 22:5 17.0 24.2 Order Smoker To,Discontinue Smol~ing, .9 .7 0 Nothing Is Done 9.7 11. t 10. 5, Other Measures Taken 3.1 2.2 0 Workplace Smoking I~aw In~Being Effect Discussed Neither 66:2 71.1 7.1.1 73.3 70.1 5:8 9:2 10~5 6.7 5.1 2.9 3,9 6,6 5.3 2.0 21.6 31.6 28,9 29.3 19:0 2.2 O: 1.3 O' 1.0 9.4 6:6 O~ 5,3 13,3 2~9 9:2 6i8 2:7 2:4

TABLE 7 EXISTENCE AND TYPE OF POLICIES (overall percentage, by region, by work:place smoking law) Overall Company.Has Smoking Policy' No Smoking While Working ~For All No Smoking While Working ~For Some No Smoking On Premises For All No Smoking On Premises For Some Restrict Smoking By Job Description Restrict Smoking For All Region NOrth- North east, South Central West Workplace Smoking Law. In Being Effect Discussed Neither 31.9 35.6 22:1i 28:1i 44!7. 59.2 22.7 27.2 2.9 1.5 3:2 2:2 6.6 2.6 0 3.7 34.8 37:0 36.8 34i5 28.9 48.7 30.7 32.3 2.5 1.5 0 2:9 6.6 2.6 1.3, 2.7 7:9 5~9 9.5 7:9 9.2 13.2 8.0: 6~5 15~7 14L8 17:9 19~4 7:9 18.4 13.3 15.6 30.1 32,6 21 .li 25.9 44~7, 53.9 24.0 25.5 TABLE 8 TIME SMOKING POLICY IN EFFECT (overall percentage, by region, by workplace smoking law)! Overall Region Workplace Smoking Law NOrth- North In Being east: South Central West Effect Discussed Neither Less Than Six Months 3.4 3.7 1 .li 1.4 9.2 13.2 1.3 1.4! Six Months To=One Year, 5.6 6.7 3.2 2:2 13.2 15.8 5.3' 3;1 One To Three Years 8.1 12.6 5.3 4i3 10.5 14.5. 10.7 5,8 Three:To Five Years 3.6 3.0 3.2 5.8 li.3 7..9 2.7 2:7 Over Five Years 20.0 1418 23.2 2512 15.8 18.4 12.0 2214 No Policy/Do Not Know 59.3 59.3 64L2 61.2 50.0 30.3. 68.0 64.6 10¸

TABLE 9 TIME SMOKING"POLICY IN EFFECT (by industry) Food, Chemicals Mining, Petroleum Refining Metals Consumer Goods Trans- gortati:on Scientific Products Equipment Finance Less Than ~Six Months 0 O= 0 0 3.3 6.8 2:7 5:9 Six Months To,One Year 0 O, 7.4 0 0 4.5 8~1i 8.8 One To Three Years 0 9:1 3.7 6.5 6.7 11.41 10:8 14.7 Three To Five Years 6.9 O, 0 0 0 0 2:7 5.9 Over Five Years 48.3 31.8 7.4 12.9 16.7 11.4 16:2 19.1 NO Policy/Do Not Know 44:8 59:1 81.5 80.6. 73.3 65=9 59:5 45.6. Diversified Insurance Services Utilities Petro, chemiGal ProdUcts Pharma- ceutical,s Trans, portation Paper/ Retailing Services Publishing Less Than Six Months 8.0~ 3.7 4:8 0 0 0 0 10.5 Six Months To One Year 8.0~ 3.7 4i8 4.3: 14.3 0 14.3 15.8. One To Three Years 12.0= 7:4 9:5 0 7.1 0 O, 10.5, Three To Five Years 4.0~ 7.4 14i3 8.7 7.1 0 O, 0 Over Five Years 28.0~ 14.8 4i8 26.1 35.7 21.4i 7.1 31.6; No PolicyLDo Not Know 40.0: 63.0 61.9 60.9 35.7 78.6 78,6 31.6; TABLE 10 SMOKING POLICY ORIGINATION (overall percentage, by region, by workplace smoking law) Overall State/LocaliOrdinances 13:3 Employee Plebiscite .7 Employee union .9: Management 37:3 Medical/Health Personnel 12. li Legal Staffi 3.1 Other 6.3 Region North- North~ east~ South Central West~ Workplace Smoking Law In Being Effect Discussed Neither 12.6 12.6 9.4 22.4 59;3 10.2 30.5 .7 0 .7 1,.3 1.3 1.3 .3 1.5 0 1.4 0 O: 2.7 .7 41.5 32.6, 36~7 36.8, 53:9 24.0 36.4 19.3 9.5, 11.5 3.9~ 19:7, 13.3 9.9 2.2 1.1 5,0 3.9: 10:5 1.3 li.7 6.7 3.2' 5;0 lil.8; 6:6 10.7 5.1 11

TABLE 11 REASON~ FOR bRIGINATING POLICY (overall percentage,, by region, by work:place smoking law) Overall Legal!Mandates 16i0 Safety Regulations 25;4 Health Reasons 19:6 Employee Preference 15 ;5 Increase Employee Productivity 2.0 Reduce Costs And;Increase Profits 2~7 Annoyance To Customers 7~4 Management Opposes Smoking 4i5 Region North- North east South Central West; Workplace Smoking Law' In Being Effect Discussed Nei,ther 15,6 9~5 15:1 26.3 53.9 9.3 7.8 27:4 2915 25.2 17'.1 26,3 18.7 26.9 27:4 9:5 18.0 21i.1 32.9 20.0 16.0 20~0 10:5 12.9 18.4 23,7 20.0 12.2 .7 3~2 2~2 2.6 2:6 4.0 1.4i 3!0 2:1i 2:9 2.6 5,3 6.7 1.0 8:9 8:4 7:2 3.9: 11.8 6.7 6.5 2.2 4i2 2.9 11.8' 5.3 6.7 3.7 TABLE 12 WORKPLACE MODIFICATION (overall percentage, by region, by workplace smoking law) Overall Region WOrkplace Smoki:ng Law Nor~h, North, In Being, east South Central l West Effect Discussed Neither No Segregation In ~Work Areas 87.4 91 i.9 87.4 89.9 75.0 77.6 86,7 Smokers And Nonsmokers :In DifferentiOffices 4.0 5.2 1 i. 1 3.6 6.6 10.5. 5~3 Separate We rk Areas 25.6. 26.7 16.8. 22.3 40.8 53.9 ~ 37.3 Existing Partitions To Segregate 16.4 10.4 10.5 18.0 31.6 42.1 16~0 Construct New Partitions 4.3 3.0 2.1 6,5 5.3 9.2' 6i7 Provision of Adequate Ventilation 40.4 38.5 35.8, 44.6 42.1 60.5, 44.0 Improvement Of iVentilation~ 26.5 25.2 22.1 31.7 25.0 50.0: 24.0 Provision Of Smoke Removal Devices 22.7 17.0 18.9: 23,7 3515 42.1 22:7 Posting Of Signs 27..0, 31.1 22.1 20!1 38.2 63.2 24.0 Work Environment Not Modified 40.7 41.5 46.3: 43,9 26.3 13.2 33:3 90.1 2;0 15.3 9.9 2.4 34.4 21il 17.7 18.4 49.7 12

TABLE 13 WORKPLACE MODIFICATION (by industry) Food; Chemicals: Mining Petroleum Refining~ Metals Consumer Goods Trans- portation Scientific Products Equipment Finance No Segregation In WOrk Areas 82,8 77:3 92.6 96.8. 96.7, 8411 75.7 86.8 Smokers And ;Nonsmokers In Different Offices 3.4 0 7.4i 0 3,3 4~5 18.9 2.9 Separate Work:Areas 10.3 18.2 11 .I 16.1 13.3 25.0 35,1 38.2 Exi sting Partitions To Seg reg ate 6.9' 13.6 14.8 3.2= 10. 0 20.5 21.6 23.5 Construct New Partitions 3.4 9.1 3.7 3.2 0 9.1 8.1 1!.5 Provision Of Adequate Ventilation 27.6; 45.5 29:6 41.9 30.0 43.2 43.2 39.7 Improvement Of Ventilation 10.3; 13.6 25~9 22.6 10.0 25.0 32.4 27.9 Provision Of Smoke Removal Devices 24.1 31.8 7~4 9.7 20.0i 22.7 21.6 38.2 Posting Of Signs 17.2 50.0 18;5 16.1 20.0, 29.5 35.1 22.1 Work Environment NOt Modified 51.7 22.7 5913 51.6 46.7 45.5, 37.8 30.9 Diversified Insurance Services. Utilities Petro, chemical ProdUcts Pharma, ceuficals Retailing Trans~ portation Paper/ Services Publishing No Segregation In Work Areas 92.0 88.9 71.4 95=7 92.9 100.0: 85.7 89.5 Smokers And Nonsmokers In ~Different Offices 4.0 3.7 0 0: 7.1 0 0 0 Separate Work Areas 48:0 14.8, 33.3 26it 21.4i 28.6 28.6 26,3 Exisfing Partitions To Se g regate 20!0 11.1 19.0 17~4 14.3 21.4i 21.4 15.8 Construct New Partitions 4.0 7.4 9.5 0 0' 0 0 5~3 Provision Of Adequate Ventilation 68~0 25.9 47:6 30:4 71.4 42.9 42.9 36,8 Improvement Of:Ventilatiom 52:0 14.8 38.1 39.1i 28~6 21.4i 35.7 36~8 Provision:Of Smoke Removal Devices 28!0 18.5 14.3 13:0 35~7 21.4! 0 31.6 Posting Of Signs 4010 7.4 28.6 17;4 57~1 35~7 21.4i 47~4 Work Environment Not Modified 24;0 51.9 42.9 56.5 14.3 28~6 42.9 31.6 TABLE 14 SMOKER HIRING POLICIES (overall percentage,, by region, by workplace smoking law) Overall Region WOrkplace Smoking Law NOrth- North In Being, eastl South Central l West Effect Discussed Neither Always Consider Smoking 2:2 1.5 3.2 1.4 3:9 1.3 0, 3.1 Never Consider Smoking 85.4 90.4 83.2 90.6 69.7 84.2 82:7 86.4 Always Ask About Smoking 4i0 5.2 5.3 2.2 3.9 2.6 2:7 4.8; Never Ask :About Smoki