Tobacco Documents Online

i I I ACTION ON SMOKING AND HEALTH 2000 H Street, N. W. Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 659-•s.?10 August 12, 1980 Mr. Sunny Sun Nai Fong Chief, Office of Health Education State Department of Public Health 3500 N. Logan P.O. Box 30035 Lansing, Michigan 48909 Dear Mr. Fong: I am happy to respond to your letter of July 31, 1980 and to very briefly answer the questions you raised. As you may know, I was the attorney who applied the fairness doctrine to cigarette advertising, and our organization has been involved in and particularly interested in that matter ever since. 1. So far as I am aware, there is no general legal impediment to states' or state agencies' purchasing broadcast time. However, you may wish to get an opinion from your own Attorney General as to whether any one particular statute or judicial opinion prohibits it with regard to the State of Michigan. 2. I am not aware of any state or state subdivision which has attempted to purchase broadcast time for antismoking messages. 3. I do see some serious problems with the proposal that the State purchase broadcast time to present antismoking messages. First, unless very large sums of money are spent, the impact may not be significant. Although cigarette manufacturers are prohibited from advertising on the radio and television, they are currently spending at the rate of over $900 million a year in cigarette advertising which appears virtually every- where you look: billboards, newspapers, magazines, point-of-sale, etc. Second, if you begin purchasing time for such announcements it may be more difficult for the State of Michigan or other private organizations con- cerned with smoking to persuade broadcasters to make time for antismoking messages available free on a public service basis. Indeed, stations might cut back on the limited time they already provide for such messages. Third, if the State simply presents the same kind (generally low-key, inoffensive, nonadversarial, etc.) of antismoking messages as are now being distributed by major antismoking organizations, there will be little net gain. 4. Contrary to the statement in your letter, broadcast licensees of the Federal Commimications Commi.ssion do have an affirmative legal obliga- tion to present programming responsive to the needs of the community and dealing with issues of interest to the cvmmunity. One of the most popular ways of attempting to discharge this obligation is to broadcast public service announcements. In addition, broadcasters have an obligation to affirmatively seek out responsible citizens and spokesmen for various interests to determine the issues as to which they should address their programming. Legal Action and Education on the Hazards of Smoking Protecting the Rights ot the Nonsmoking Ma/ority -234-

Mr. Sunny Sun Nai Fong August 12, 1980 , 5. Thus, an alternative means of getting effective broadcast time for antismoking messages other than a comnerciai purchase would be to take the following steps: A. The Office of the Governor, the Department of Public Health, all other State agencies concerned with health, environmental protection, fire safety, etc., and, insofar as possible, the individual counties, cities, etc., within the State should notify radio and television stations serving Michigan that smoking is the number one health problem and that programming in the form of public service messages,-among others, should be very sub- stantially increased. The letters should be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested,-with a carbon-copy to the Federal Communications Commis- sion (1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554] asking that the letters be placed in the stations' files. The letters should further state that if the station does not fulfill its responsibility in this area, additional action may be-taken. Although it need not be spelled out, this "additional action" would-be an objection to the renewal of the license of the station. B. A concerted effort should be made to get similar letters sent by all the major health organizations, religious organizations, environmental, safety, etc. organizations, and groups in Michigan to the stations. - - C. Some mechanism should be set up so that announcements appropriate to the audiences of the individual stations are available and to serve as a distribution point for such messages. D. If possible, stations should be monitored for running anti- smoking messages, and requests can be made for them to provide this infor- mation voluntarily. In addition, their program logs and records are, by law, available for public inspection. - IF-YOU TAKE THE STEPS SUGGESTED ABOVE, I WILL VIRTUALLY GUARANTEE TSAT YOU WILL RECEIVE FAR MORE BROADCAST TIl`SEE FOR ANTISMOKING MESSAGES THAN YOU COULD POSSIBLY PURCHASE FROM THE STATE'S LLiITED FUNDS. MOREOVER, YOUR EFFORT MIGHT WELL INSPIRE SIMILAR CAMPAIGYS IN OTHER STATES, AND COULD EASILY HAVE A S.10W-BALLL*1G EFFECT. 6. At the moment I do not believe it is politically feasible to attempt to get Congress to pass a bill providing taa incentives to encourage radio and television stations to broadcast antismoking messages. Indeed, until the major health organizations make a strong commitment to become involved in lobbying, no plan involving Congressional action has much political feasi- bility. 7. Contrary to the statement in your letter, stations were never C!1 required to provide equal time for antismoking messages. Under the provi- 09 sions of the fairness doctrine they were required to provide only a reason- ~ able period of time to respond. I do not think it would be possible for the State of Michigan to attempt to apply a fairness-doctrine approach to the 4 co print media. N I I II I I I j I I t L -235-

i ar. Sunny Sun :Iai Fong August 12, 1980 While I am delighted to learn of your group's interest in this area, I would like to respectfully suggest that you seem to be exploring a strategy which might be one of the least effective. Trying to compete in the advertising arena with the immensely well-financed tobacco industry is almost certainly a losing proposition. Fortunately, there are, I believe, many other steps which can be taken which.would be far more effective in reducing the problem. The following are only a few suggestions: 1. Secret documents obtained by the Federal Trade Commission from the tobacco industry confirm the view long taken by ASfl, the FTC aad other organizations that the nonsmokers' rights movement is today the major force in persuading people to quit smoking or never to begin. Establishing and enforcing an effective program limiting smoking in places of public frequence would be the most effective step you could take in reducing smoking in the State of Michigan. In addition, it would have the strong support of most nonsmokers, and would help to protect the rights and health of the majority of the State's citizens who have wisely chosen not to smoke. 2. Most people begin smoking at a very early age: one out of five 12-year-olds is already a smoker, and most persons who will become smokers are well entrenched into the habit by age 16. One of the reasons is that, despite state laws restricting the sale of cigarettes to minors, cigarettes are, in fact, readily available to any child tall enough to put a coin in the slot of an unattended vending machine. We would suggest, therefore, that you take steps to prohibit the sale of cigarettes through vending machines either by adopting a statute to that effect or by initiating criminal pro- ceedings in situations where persons are selling cigarettes to minors through vending machines. Getting cigarettes out of vending machines and otherwise cracking down on the sale of cigarettes to minors would not prevent the problem of teen-age smoking any more than similar measures have prevented the problem of teen-age drinking, but such measures would make it far more difficult for teen-agers to smoke cigarettes on a regular basis as they now do, and would go a long way towards solving the problem. In considering 'this, you might, by the way; want to imagine what would happen if vodka, - scotch and-other hard liquors were sold in unattended vending machines; if teen-agers were frequently observed walking in shopping malls drinking alcoholic beverages; and if schools set aside separate rooms in which their - students could imbibeS - 3. It is now well established that smoking is the major preventable cause of our increased health care costs. Why not adopt a program under which persons receiving various health-care benefits from the State, or with State participation, would pay more if they deliberately engaged in this self-destructive behavior. Experience has dictated over and over again that an increased cost can be a powerful incentive in changing behavior and thus decreasing the incidence of smoking. For those who refuse to quit smoking, such a plan will at least make them pay.their fair share of the added health costs to which their conduct is directly contributing. -236- I

Mr. Sunny Sun Nai Fong August 12, 1980 Thank you so very much for writing to ASH for our suggestions. We look forward to hearing from you, and hope that you will keep us advised of the steps you will be taking in this area. JFB:fdr / ha£.'I: t A m CA F I I I i I I I I I P I L i -237-