Anne Landman's Collection
Draft, Sp17 - Dr 2, Briefing of Gerald Long, Chairman, Executive Committee, the Tobacco Institute, January 20-21, 1988, Comments, Samuel D. Chilcote, Jr.
Abstract
This talk (given by Samuel Chilcote of the Tobacco Institute in 1988) was a briefing for the chair of the Institute about the progress the Institute was making against the anti-tobacco movement at that time.
In the talk Chilcote expressly states that the "primary mission [of the Tobacco Institute] is to defeat legislation."
He describes how the Institute successfully "defeated or postponed 93 percent of all the bills we faced [betwewen 1979 and 1987]...and 95 percent of those of major concern."
Boasting about how little it cost the Institute to avoid such legisation, Chilcote states,
"...[T]he total cost of dealing with federal excises last year was less than what our members pay every three hours in federal excises....[T]he cost of dealing with advertising restrictions in 1987 was less than the industry spent in a few issues of "People Magazine."
Chilcote also states that the Institute gathers extensive intelligence about anti-tobacco organizations, including the sources of their funding, their internal organzation and internal disputes.
Perhaps most interesting (and significant) are the statistics Chilcote recites to show what the Institute wase up against on the public smoking issue. The statistics show astoundingly strong national support for public smoking restrictions, even at the workplace and even among their own customers, smokers:
"--In 1974, 50 percent of the public favored restaurant restrictions. It was up to 81 percent in 1980, and by 1984 the figure was at 90 percent.
--Workplace restrictions. 55 percent favored them in '74, 62 percent in 1980 and 75 percent in 1984.
--Among smokers, four years ago 64 percent favored workplace restrictions. 83 percent agreed to separate sections in restaurants. That's 83 percent among our own customers four years ago.
If you were to think about these numbers, and read the newspaper, you might fairly assume that there is no place left to smoke in the United States. But the fact is, our legislative track record is exceptionally good..."
User-Contributed Notes
Fields
- Quotes
Our primary mission [of the Tobacco Institute] is to defeat legislation.
From the 96th Congress through the first session of the 100th Congress...1979 to 1987... we faced 200 bills of major concern...and another 383 of lesser concern to our industry. All told, we defeated or postponed 93 percent of all the bills we faced...and 95 percent of those of major concern.
...At the state level, since 1982 we have faced a total of 2,420 bills and have defeated or postponted 85 percent of them. Locally...the numbers are not as good. Of the 1,181 county and municipal measures we have faced since 1982, about 40 percent have passed over time. While this record does not meet our standards, it should be placed into context. More than 80 percent of these losses involved smoking restrictions...and better than half of those were confined to five states: California, Colorado, Texas, Massachusetts and New York. Overall, half were in communities of less than 50,000 population and of those half were in towns of less than 20,000. Leiglsative success is rather easy to measure...you win or you lose. Public relations activity is far harder to assess. But, if the objective is to gain public support for our positions, we can look, once again, to tangible results. A very wide assortment of non-tobacco groups now routinely speak out on our behalf on every issue we face. They testify at hearings, write letters to legislators and to editors, hold press conferences, provide intelligence, help us expand our ranks, and some have even helped fund our efforts....Our allies include labor unions, farm groups, veterans and active military associations, racial and ethnic minorities, fire fighters, the ACLU, publishers and advertisingindustry executives, retail and restaurateurs, chambers of commerce, consumers, and even some health care groups. Our success in this area is an enormous frustration to the anti-smokers...
...We look at ourselves as an investment. We know that the total cost of dealing with federal excises last year was less than what our members pay every three hours in federal excises. We know that the cost of dealing with advertising restrictions in 1987 was less than the industry spent in a few issues of "People Magazine." No one knows what it might have cost this industry to deal with self-extinguishing cigarette regulation in even one state, but I assure you that since our inception, our program has to deal with this issue has been modest...
...There was a time when our adversaries were few in number, poorly organized, radical, amateur, without funding. That no longer is the case. The anti-smoking movememnt today is large, exceptionally well-funded, sophisticated and increasingly well coordinated. We make it our business to know all we can about the anti-smokers...their strategies, their sources of funding, their organization and means of coordination...and their internal disputes.
...If the excise tax issue is our most pressing challengs, the public smoking issue is our most persistent. We think of this issue as a relatively new challenge, but it precedes the founding of the Institute by eight years. More than 500 bills restricting the sale and/or use of tobacco were proposed between 1950 and 1970. But for all intents and purposes, the modern history of the public smoking issue began abruptly in 1971, when Surgeon General Jesse Steinfeld said,
"The nonsmoker may have untoward effects from the pollution his smoking neighbor forces upon him."
Within months, six states began considering legislation to restrict smoking in public places. And in 1973, Arizona became the first to adopt a public smoking law. Just two years later, we faced 137 separate public smoking bills. A workload that caused us to retaliate with lobbyists and expanded public relations activities....
...Let me cite a few statistics to further illustrate the maturity of this issue.
--In 1974, 50 percent of the public favored restaurant restrictions. It was up to 81 percent in 1980, and by 1984 the figure was at 90 percent.
--Workplace restrictions. 55 percent favored them in '74, 62 percent in 1980 and 75 percent in 1984.
--Among smokers, four years ago 64 percent favored workplace restrictions. 83 percent agreed to separate sections in restaurants. That's 83 percent among our own customers four years ago.
If you were to think about these numbers, and read the newspaper, you might fairly assume that there is no place left to smoke in the United States. But the fact is, our legislative track record is exceptionally good, and much of the credit goes to the man who will lead off our discussion...Roger [Mozingo].
- Rank
- 1
- Company
- Tobacco Institute
- Author
- Chilcote, Samuel D., Jr. (TI President (1981-1997))Chilcote has knowledge of The Tobacco Institute's and the tobacco industry's participation in public fraud and disinformation relative to health hazards of tobacco use, in the manipulation of nicotine in tobacco products and in marketing of tobacco products to children.
- Recipient
- Long, G. 1
Annotations
- 1. Long, G. Recipient
- Affiliation:
Tobacco Institute
- Affiliation:
Document Images
