Tobacco Documents Online

Tobacco Action Network, 1776 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 800-424-9876 7.0-1 June 25, 1979 TO ALL TAN VOLUNTEERS Detailed below is the background of these proposals, what they would do, why they should not be adopted and how ou can help. Please read this ACTION REQUEST carefully -- then respond with a letter expressing your views directly to the CAB today: BACKGROUND INFORMATION The CAB, in May, 1973, imposed a series of regulations governing the use of tobacco products on commercial airlines. Briefly, these regulations -- which are still in effect today -- require the airlines to establish no-smoking sections in every compartment in the aircraft cabin and to assure that every passenger who wants a seat in a po-smoking section gets one. The airlines also are presently required to take special steps to segregate cigar and pipe smokers in the smoking section. ,, The overwhelming majority of passengers, both smokers and nonsmokers, seem satisfied with the present regulations. However, a militant anti-tobacco group, in 1976, asked the CAB to issue even more stringent regulations. The CAB has responded by compiling several different proposals (listed below) and asking for comments from those who would be affecte4l: the airlines, the tobacco industry and the general public -- individual citizens such as yrou. Iti is important'to note that not all, or even any, of the proposals will necessarily be adopted. That depends, to a great extent, upon the public response. That is why we are asking you to write, in your own words, your comments, directly to the CAB in Washington. The proposal. being-considered would: - . t .o''. . .. . . . 1. Require partitions to separate smokers and nonsmokers 2. Permit only one smoking section per compartment, to eliminate "sandwiching" nonsmokera~ between smoking sections. 3. Separate cigar and pipe smokers from non-smokers by at least seven rows of seats and eatablish a one-row buffer zone between the smoking and no-smoking sections. 4. Require cigar and pipe smokers•to sit by the air vents, or at the back of the plane.`~?;s . -k ,~. 5. Require passengers to extinguish cigars and pipes on request. Ban all smoking on small aircraft, or on flights lasting less than one hour.

a T. Require special seating arrangements for persons who are "unusually susceptible" to tobacco smoke. 8, Ban all cigar and pipe smoking on domestic flights. YOUR P,ESPONSE There are a number of valid points which could be made in letters to the CAB. Listed below are a few: 1. The existing rules seem to be working well and there is no reason to change them. Passengers who want to sit in a no-smoking area are guaranteed the right to do so and the overwhelming majority of airlinepassengers seem satisfied with this arrangement. 2. The rules should not favor nonsmokers at the expense of smokers. All passengers have the right to travel in comfort, and for smokers this includes the opportunity to - amoke dur ~ng-aa-airplane flight: - -- 3.,' Some passengers are annoyed by smoking. In the great majority of cases, however, these passengers are satisfied by receiving a seat in the no-smoking section. The government should not issue more regulations simply to please those antismoking advo 4s` cates who unreasonably refuse to tolerate fellow passengers who smoke ~ . . 4. Life is full of little annoyances. Some airline passengers don't like to sit next tb,~a, crying babies, or persons who drink liquor, or people who talk too much. They deal I with these annoyances by exercising common sense and courtesy -- not by calling foT~-)'~:?: special government action to segregate or regulate the persons of whom they disapprove. 5. The CAB's proposals are unworkable. Establishing "buffer zones" between smokers and , nonsmokers and providing special seats for passengers who claim they are "unusually ; susceptible" to tobacco smoke will make checking-in for a flight a nightmare of red. tape and further delays. To impose these inconveniences on millions of airline passengers merely to satisfy a few anti-smokers would be indefensible. 6. The CAB should not consider any change in smoking regulations until it has the factef, The anti-smokere ha've made many claims about the inadequacy of the existing regula- ' tions, but they`have'not offered hard data in support of these claims. . ... _ ~:, T. The proposal is'inconsistent with the trend away from regulation and big government.44Congress has passed legislation to phase out the CAS'in response to general public -,. - sentiment against unnecessary government regulation. It is particlarly inappropriate_ that one of the CAB's last actions should be to issue regulations that so greatly encroach on the lives of ordinary citizens. i- ~ In writing a letter commenting on the proposals, you may find some of these points useful Other objections to the proposals may occur to you. The important thing is that your, , letter should be in'your own words, emphasizing what rou believe is important. It shotlld~ be brief, preferably one page or Xess. A handwritten letter ls just as;effective as'a; ov written`letter. Because: you xill be apeaking for;yo}itself, yo'uz' letter ~should be on Y ' personal's tionery or~;'simply pla$n`paper bearing your home *Adaie®s ' o~t cn'a bus4Ei letter hed<t tSA.. ®