Abstract
This confidential Philip Morris document lists the arguments that the tobacco industry "must cover" in hearings for public smoking bills. Note the arguments that smoking bans discriminate against women, the disabled and blue collar workers while favoring white male executives, and the argument that smoking bans on airplanes will cause a fire hazard, because it will drive smokers into smoking in dangerous ways and places to evade the ban.
Page 1: aua46e00
C'0 N F I D E N T'I A L
PUBLIC SMOKING HEARING READINESS
Primary Responsibility: John Lyons
Sharon Ransome
Kay Thomas
This memorandum includes informati~on on the industry's ability to
respond to legislative hearings on:
o Smoking aboard airliners.
o Workplace smoking restrictions.
o Smoking restrictions in~other public places.
o Indoor air quality issues.
B'ackground
The anti-smoking movement's agenda for the 101st Congress
includes a number of proposals further to restrict or prohibit
smoking in public places, includi~ng,all Federal buildings and on~
commercial aircraft, interstate buses and trains. Thesee
proposals are similar to those introduced i~n the last two
Congresses.
At least half a dozen public smoking bills have already been
introduced, i~ncluding legi~slation to ban smoking in Federal
buildings and'on all domestic airline fli~ghts. Legi~slati~on that
would gilve sweeping authority to the Environmental Protection
Agency to fund studies on indoor air quality is expected to be
reiintroduced.
What TI and its Allies Must Cover
On public smoking legiislati,om generally, and on ai~rline
legislatilon in many instances, Tobacco Institute testimony and
that of its allies and~interested parties should emphasize:
1. The continued lack of scientific evidence that environmental
tobacco smoke is a cause of disease in healthy nonsmokers. Such
testimony should continue to point out the dilfferences in tone
and substance between the bodies of the 1986 Surgeon General and
NAS reports and~the politicized introductions. While the bodies
of these reports clearly indicate that scientific data on the
health effects of ETS is far from conclusive, the iintroductions
claim serious health harm and advocate restrictions based on
existing research.
Moreover, while assertions of possible ETS health effects
continue to appear -- one even claiming that more than,46,0100
deaths per year may be attributable to ETS -- little research has
Page 2: aua46e00
Public Smoking Hearing Readiness
Page Two
been~added to the ETS literature considered by the Surgeon
General and NAS. Flaws i~n exi~sting research should be
illuminated, and the need~for additional, welil-designed studies
should be expressed.
Withirespect to airliners, experts must refute the interpretation
of the report published i~n the February 101, 1989 Journal of the
American Med~ical Association. That report suggests t at
passengers in t e nonsmo ing section of airliners are harmed by
exposure to tobacco smoke. Nicotine exposure levels cited in the
study are comparable to industry-generated~data, but the
methodology used to associate these levels wi:th health harm is
flawed.
Industry PASS results should be presented as the most
comprehensive i~n-fli~ght data available. The DOT study should be
supported as a means to produce solid empirical data on a wide
range of cabin air contaminants, but methods used to interpret
the data should be scrutinized.
2. Evi~dence that smoking is a minor aspect of a serious i~ndoor
air quality problem -- a problem that can and should be addressed~
not by restricting smoking, but by providing,adequate ventilation~
via properly maintai~ned ventilation systems. Smoking restric-
tion~s merely appear to alleviate indoor air pollution problems;
ventilation is a comprehensive solution~.
3. Evidence that Americans believe in accommodation and that
existing public smoking provisions are more than sufficient.
Public opinion surveys show substantial majorities belileve that
employers and employees should determine workplace smoking
policies; that restaurants should be allowed~to offer smoking and
nonsmoking sections to customers; and that separate sections on
airliners represent a fair and reasonable policy.
4. Evidence that employers are dealing with smoking problems in
the workplace as they occur. A recent survey shows that the
majority of employers and employees do not consider smoking a
major workplace issue or government regulation of smoking
necessary. Another survey shows that the vast majority of
Americans believes smoking restrictiions are a matter to be
addressed~on a case-by-case basis, rather thaniby government
fiat.
5. The lack of evidence that smokers are any more costly or less
productive than nonsmokers; conversely, potential costs to
employers of restrilcting smoking in the workplace.
6. Discriminatory effects of workplace smoking restriction~s,
including denying equal access to handicapped workers, selective
enforcement, and implementation that affects minori~ties,, women
and blue collar workers but excludes white male executives.
Page 3: aua46e00
.I#
Public Smoking Hearing,Readiness
Page Three
7. Potential collective bargaining,problems for organized labor,
as well as union concerns about the broader issue of indoor air
quality.
8. Aboard airliners, the threat to fire safety posed by
surreptitious smoking in lavatories and by other attempts to
conceal -- under newspapers, magazines or blankets -- in-flight
smoking.
Resources
Tobacco Institute Witnesses:
The Honorable Charles 0. Whitley
Industry scientists involved in PASS testing.
Scientific Witness Team:
Dr. Walter Decker
Dr. Lawrence Halfen
Dr. Larry Holcomb
Dr. Alan Kassman
Mr. Joe Pedelty
Dr. Jack Peterson
Dr. David Weeks
John Vincent, Esquire
ETS' consultants retained outside the U.S. also may be
available.
Ventillation/Indoor Air Quality Experts:
ENV Services, Inc.
Jolanda Janczewski, Consolidated Safety Services, Inc.
Frank Powell, National Energy Management Institute
Gray Robertson, ACVA Atlantic, Inc.
Simon Turner, ACVA Atlantic, Inc.
Representatives from AFL-CIO:
Bakery, Confectionery & Tobacco Workers
Sheet Metal Workers International Association,
International! Association of Machinists
Service Employees International Uni,on
A. Philip Randolph Institute
Labor Council for LatiniAmerican Advancement
Coalition of Labor Union Women
American Federation of Government Employees
Economists:
Lew Solmon, UCLA
Bob Tollison, George Mason University
James Savarese, Savarese & Associates
Page 4: aua46e00
-44
Public Smoki~ng Hearing Readiness
Page Four
Additional Witnesses:
John Drake, Purdue University (airline PASS testing --
available for private briefings only)
Phil Schaenman, TriData Corp. (analysis of in-flight fires)
Dave Brenton, Smoker's Rights Alliance, Inc.
Tom Burch, Chairman, National Coalition of Vietnam Veterans
League of United~Latin American Citizens
National Toxics Campaign
Surveys:
Public preference for non-legislated solutions
to workplace smoking problems.
Economic impact of smoking restri~ctions.
Personnel polici~es in~Fortune 1000 companies.
National surveys of Americans' attitudes on various
public smoking policies and practices.
Videotapes:
Indoor Air Quality: A Labor Perspective (for Tobacco Industry
Labor Management Committee use only).
Financial News Nietwork segment on airline smoking.
Action Needed
Pre-hearing briefings of Congressmen and staffs on indoor air
qiuality and ETS iissues. Videotapes on both issues are available
for use, along wilth scientific and ventilation experts.
Identification of an aviation-specific ventilation consultant to
testify and conduct briefings.
Update TriData analysi~s of fire incidence aboard commexci~al
aircraft.
Economic impact studies can be ini~tiated upon request, should it
be determined that they will be useful in hearings.
