Anne Landman's Collection
Comments Peter G Sparber. Comprehensive Public Smoking Issue Plan
Abstract
This document is the text of a speech by Peter Sparber of the Tobacco Institute discussing the Institute's plans to take a more "aggressive posture" against public health efforts to control tobacco. Sparber discusses "mobilizing smokers" to go "head-to-head against the anti-smokers." He describes the purpose of the Center for Indoor Air Research (to provide science for the industry's scientific witnesses), and plans for a group (headed by a celebrity spokesman) that would portray public health advocates as extreme, anti-social and over-reacting to life's small annoyances: "The coalition would sponsor research demonstrating that over-reactions [to being forced to breathe secondhand smoke] are abnormal and anti-social." Of this new group, Sparber states, "We like this approach because it does not preach at all to smokers. In fact, it supports smokers by showing that a large, credible group sees the anti-smokers as the true social problem."
Sparber also states, "We will never be able to say that ETS is not harmful...The question is, when will we have solid, credible evidence that concerns about ETS are unfounded?"
Fields
- Notes
We estimate the date of this speech to be between 1986 and 1989, based on budget documents that show funding for the Institute's Comprehensive Public Smoking Programs.
- Quotes
[From Page 3]:
Perhaps the most telling statistic I have read on this [the public smoking] issue in the past eight years is from a survey commissioned by your company. 49 percent of the non-smokers polled said they would still object to cigarette smoke even if the Surgeon General himself told them that ETS could not harm them. Whether people object to ETS as a health hazard or as annoyance, we still have a battle on our hands. Is there one "right" way to deal with the public smoking issue? In our view, many of the elements of "operation Downunder" make perfect sense...
...The fact is, we all agree on at least 75 percent of what has been proposed, and what is under way: All of us agree, we need science, and we need it now. We all agree that we broaden the issue to overall air quality, and promote the use of ventilation... That public smoking laws are unnecessary... We agree that individual smokers should be mobilized and positioned head-to-head against the anti-smokers, and that we should draw attention to the zealous, radical behavior of the anti-smokers, that we should fight for smokers rights in the legislatures, courts, in grievance hearings, wherever. We all agree that we must take a more aggressive, less defensive posture...TI should be the lightening rod.
[From Page 12]:
The thought of difference companies having different policies on excise taxes, advertising restrictions, accidental fire or separate sections, would suit our adversaries better than it would suit us. Differing goals and strategies have been the anti-smokers' greatest weakness, one which we exploit gladly...Our job, at this point, is two-fold: 1) To move ahead aggressively where we agree, and 2) Keep the policy question open for reconsideration as the business and political environment changes. With those two points in mind, we have two objectives: 1) To defeat mandatory and voluntary smoking restrictions, and 2) To slow the decline of social acceptability of smoking.
We all agree that if large number of smokers were to speak out regularly, has they have on some occasions, elected officials would be less likely to take cheap shots, businesses would be more responsive to smokers, journalists would be a bit more objective...This is not an easy area. Very few smokers spontaneously come forward. Of those who have, some are 'a little light in the loafers.' Others are just out to make a buck from us...On the drawing board are plans to establish strong smokers rights groups in the six states which account for about two-thirds of the anti-smokers' local activity. These plans are intended to overcome some fairly serious legal barriers...and if they do, they will move us ahead quickly." [Pg. 54]
"We will never be able to say that ETS is not harmful. That is not how science works. The question is, when we will have solid, credible evidence that concerns about ETS are unfounded? And will those findings come in time to be of some help? It was in Institute staff recommendation four years ago that finally led this year to incorporation of the Center for Indoor Air Research whose board chairman is Tom Osdene of your company... The Institute has scientists, physicians, epidemiologists and other experts able to address some of the health questions and they are actively engaged as witnesses and as spokespersons. But many of them take a beating, and leave. All of them are limited to criticizing the anti-smokers' research. We need more scientific spokespersons, and they need something to say. We are all looking to the Center for Indoor Air Research to provide the answers.
- Company
- Tobacco Institute
- Author
- Sparber, Peter G. (TI Vice President)Worked on combatting legislated and voluntary workplace smoking restrictions, a Tobacco Institute program to attack the insurance industry and undermine non-smoker discounts on insurance premiums, and and a program to form a coalition to publicly portray public health adovcates as intolerant, anti-social and in need of help.
- Recipient
- Presumed recipient(s) Philip Morris employees (inferred from text)
Document Images
