Tobacco Documents Online

y t- •, i r~{ E k~ ~ .i. t. 'Address-Your Letter As Follows:::: ! i~j,ec,n- r 1p4 The Honorable (name) (office address - see below) Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator (name): , STATE SENATOR(S) OFFICE ADDRESS Alabama Jeremiah A. Denton, Jr. 5327 Dirksen Senate Office Building Howell T. Heflin . .3107 Dirksen Senate Office Building Alaska Theodore F. Stevens 127 Russell Senate Office Building Arizona' Barry M. Goldwater 337 Russell Senate Office Building Connecticut Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. 313 Russell Senate Office Building Florida Paula F. Hawkins 1327 Dirksen Senate Office Building . , Hawaii Daniel K. Inouye 105 Russell' Senate Office Building Indiana Dan Quayle 254 Russell Senate Office Building Iowa Charles E. Grassley 232 Russell Senate Office Building Kansas Nancy L. Kassebaum 304 Russell Senate Office Building - - - Kentucky Wendell H. Ford 363 Russell Senate Office Building •Louisiana Russell B. Long 217 Russell Senate Office Building Michigan Donald W. Riegle, Jr.. 1207 Dirksen Senate Office Building 91V~T~~0 i ( ovE R )

STATE Missouri Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Mexico North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina _ South Dakota •~ Vermont Washington West Virginia Wisconsin I SENATOR(S) OFFICE ADDRESS John C. Danforth :- Thomas F. Eagleton J. James Exon, Jr. ;j: 460 Russell Senate Office Building 1209 Dirksen Senate Office Building 3313 Dirksen Senate Office Building Howard W. Cannon' Gordon J. Humphrey;; Harrison H. Schmitt John P. East Quentin N. Burdick Howard M. Metzenbaum Donald L-.!; Nickles John Heinz, III John H.. Chafee Claiborne Pell Ernest F. Hollings Larry L. Pressler Robert T. Stafford Slade Gorton Jennings Randolph Robert W. Kasten, J 259 Russell Senate .,f,-.6205 Dirksen Senate 5313 Dirksen Senate ~ 5107 Dirksen Senate 451 Russell Senate :347 Russell Senate 6327 Dirksen Senate 433 Russell Senate .-.5229 Dirksen Senate 325 Russell Senate 115 Russell Senate 411 Russell Senate 5219 Dirksen Senate 3327 Dirksen Senate Office Building Office Building Office Building Office Building Office Building Office Building Office Building Office Building Office Building Office Building Office Building Office Building Office Building Office Building 3203 Dirksen Senate Of . :D 304 Russell Senate Of

Act~i7%HRe~r l FabaccoAetion Network, 1875 Eye Street, N:VV.', Washington, D.C. 20006 800-424-9876 April 5, 1982 TO: TANVolunteers F~ROM : J~ohn, D~.~ K~elly~ ~ National TAN D'iirector RE: TAN' Action, Request - S'. 1929 A bill under consideration by two U.S. Senate Committees would require a whole new group of warnings on cigarette packages -- way overstating,real scientific knowledge about smoking and health. The real purpose of the bill -- to prevent smoking -- will also result in needless loss of' sales, income and jobs. Your, help is needed'to stoD this legislation. - ~ We're urging a simple step: If you agree that this legislation is unnecessary, write a letter opposing the bill to your Senator(s) whose name andd address are on the enclosed list. The bill is S. 1i929, the "Comprehensiv~e Smoking Prevention E~ducatio:n Act."' P'utting,itsimply„ itwou~ld force the cigarette industry to use its package labels andladver- tising as vehicles for an anti-smoking campaign by telling smoke.rs things that the industry -- and many scientists -- just don't think are proven about cigarettes., Many TAN members have already written to their Represen- tatives about a similar bill pending in the House andi I ask that you write now to your Senator(s) in opposition to S. 1929. Please write promptly -- and sendi me a blind copy of your letter, if'you will. And when your Senator answersiyou, I'd appreciate having a copy of his letter, too. When you write to your Senator('s) use your oca words, of course. On the reverse side of this alert are a few thoughts tolconsider, as you get started. Thanks for your support in this important effort. ( 0'VE'R'),

oa7ECZZONS To' S. 1929 1. The real purpose of'the "Comprehensive gmoking Prevention Education Act" is not to inform but to prohibit. The net effect may be to reduce smoking -- and therefore sales, income,, and jobs. Advocates of the bill frankly say it is a'rfirst step"' toward putting the full power of goverrment behind a campaign to stop smoking. Giving Washingtonibureau^ crats the authority to decide what is an approved life style is~incon- sistent with the traditionlof individual responsibility -- and' costly to our econcmy. 2. The philosophy of this bill is in direct conflict r,aith _the current mood of the electorate and the course being,pursuediby the Adminis- trationiand the Congress. It would give us more government, not less; more bureaucracy, not less; added regulation, not deregulation; more intervention to ccmpel people to do what Washington thinks is, good for them instead of permitting,them tolmake up their own mindsa on how they wish to live. 'The justification given for this bill is that the public is unaware off the claimed relationship of smoking and health. In fact,, according to experts,, more than 90'percent of the public are aware of the alleged hazards of smoking. The fact that about one-third of'the adult popu- lation continues to smoke does not showitheir unawareness of'the possible risks of smoking,. It indicates their individUal decision to smoke after receiving the information government provides. 4. There is no reliable evidence to conclude that the device of rotating iaarnings on cigarette packs and' aci'vertising material will either increase public awareness of any clasined' health risks resulting, from smol'ai~.ng or modify smoking behavior in the United States. Congress should not legislate a burdensome systemithat will never accomplish its goal. In Sweden„ where the rotating label systemlor3:ginated, there are no studies demonstrating that it has had any of the intended results, and tobacco consumption has increased~. 5. This bil7l may well hinder prcmising scientific research.. If the Congress pronounces tobacco gui]!ty of'causing a number of'diseases,f many researchers (especially those in goverment-financed projects) may well steer away frcm further inquiry into the many suspects in disease causation such as industriaIIl exposxres, diet, etc. The bill cont~tins several "find'3.ngs" which~ the Congress is making on the supposed relationship of smokiing to various diseases. It would be rash for a Congress to adopt by majority vote conclusions on which there is a serious controversy among medical and scientific experts. ~ Politicians should not render final judgments on the scientific issues ~ in these disputes. ~ ~ N C1T~