Tobacco Documents Online

Libertarian letter about Prop. 10 (1980 CA measure to provide separate smoking and non-smoking areas)

Abstract

This draft form letter from the chair of the Libertarian National Committee was to be mass-mailed to California citizens to oppose California's Proposition 10, a 1980 ballot initiative to provide separate smoking and non-smoking areas in businesses throughout the state (the "Smoking and Non-Smoking Sections Act"). In the letter, David Bergland (chair of the National Libertarian Committee) characterizes Proposition 10 as a "dangerous law" that "threatens to seriously disrupt businesses all over the state." He says it is "ludicrous legislation," "an affront to the intelligence of every thinking Californian," and that the measure represented "our darkest Orwellian fantasies come graphically to life."

The group Bergland that represented, Citizens Against Regulatory Excess (C.A.R.E.), was a front group formed by the major tobacco companies to fight Prop. 10. They recruited Mr. Bergland, a figurehead in the Libertarian party, to head the group. The initial cost of creating and operating CARE was $2,320,000, and the cost was divvied up based on market share among the four principal member companies of the Tobacco Institute (R. J. Reynolds, Philip Morris, Brown & Willlamson, and Lorillard).

This letter, now so notable for its hysterical characterizations of smoke-free laws and its wild, fanatical claims of doom and devastation from such laws, demonstrates the extent of the Libertarian Party's complicity in helping the tobacco industry fight public health efforts to reduce exposure to secondhand smoke. It also gives us a valuable perspective on industry arguments against smoking restrictions, by showing how the industry, through its allies, has used groundless arguments and fearmongering to get people to oppose these laws.

Fields

Quotes

Dear Mr. XXXX:

Once again, a group is trying to legislate our personal lives using our tax dollars. I'm describing Proposition 10, at best a well-intentioned law, at worst another infringement upon our daily lives, Mr. XXXXX.

What we will be confronted with on November 4th is a poorly thought-out ballot issue which, if enacted, could seriously damage California's economy. Proposition 10 would divide virtually every enclosed public place into "smoking" and "no smoking" sections. If a place is deemed "impractical" to separate, it by law would revert to a "no smoking" area. And who makes these "Solomon-like" decisions? Why, your local Department of Health Services, subsidized by your tax dollars!

But that's not all, Mr. XXXXXX.

For every smoker caught "smoking illegally" comes a citation and a fine. If it wasn't bad enough with the D.H.S. intrusions, now we have citations issued by our police officers!

And there's still more.

In a place of amployment, an employee who works in any enclosed office can demand his/her work location be located in a "no smoking" section. That employee must be allowed to move, regardless of whether job efficiency is lost in the process. And that employee cannot be fired for demanding a change in work area.

Proposition 10 is an affront to the intelligence of every thinking Californian. But disguised behind the campaign rhetoric is a dangerous law, one that threatens to seriously disrupt businesses all over the state.

I don't smoke. But I wouldn't vote for Proposition 10 under any circumstances. I t's a law that attempts to solve a social problem through legislation, and in the process, make some Californians "more equal" than others. Under the provisions of California law, a person can make a "citizen's arrest" and hold the alleged "illegal smoker" using "reasonable force" until the police arrive. What a travesty! I believe police should be on the streets, protecting our homes and families. I believe the Department of Health Services employees should continue working for the public well being. There's a committee to which I've contributed that shares beliefs. The name of the committee is C.A.R.E., (Californians Against Regulatory Excess), formed specifically to fight excess government regulation and this devastating law. C.A.R.E. recognizes that both smokers and non-smokers have rights. But in our already over-regulated society, C.A.R.E. believes the answer to smoking in public is common courtesy, not overkill legislation by initiative. Remember two years ago when this same anti-smoking group tried to pass a similar law (Proposition 5)? It was beaten, but only because responsible citizens joined with tobacco companies to help provide the financial resources needed for the "No on 5" campaign. The tobacco companies feel that the No on Proposition i0 campaign can win only if we all join ranks to fight this battle together. But first WE HAVE TO HAVE YOUR SUPPORT. We have to place newspaper ads and we have to alert other people to this ludicrous legislation with letters like this. Our opponents --- the anti-smokers --- have a head start, and they already have raised substantial amounts of money to get their unfair law passed. We're behind now, but we can win with your help...

Sincerely,

David Bergland, Chair Libertarian National Committee

Company

Lorillard

Author

Bergland, David (Californians Against Regulatory Excess (CARE), Chair)

Simultaneously served as chair of the National Libertarian Party.

Region

California (USA)

Named Organization

Californians Against Regulatory Excess (CARE) (Tobacco industry front group to fight Prop. 10 in Calif.)

Prop. 10 would provide separate smoking and non-smoking sections in CA

Dept of Health Services

Type

LETT, LETTER

Litigation

Stmn/Produced

Subject

smoking restriction