NYSA TI Multipage 2
The Tobacco Institute 1875 I Street. Nokrhwest Washington, DC 20006
Abstract
Attached for your review is a proposed draft of the local program we discussed by telephone earlier today. Please provide any additions or deletions to Kurt Malmgren or me at your earliest convenience.
Fields
- NYSA numbers
- 0018 B1793 02C
- Named Organization
- Advocacy InstituteAn anti-tobacco organization based in Washington, D.C.
- American Medical Association (physicians group)
Professional trade group representing American physicians.- Coalition on Smoking OR Health (public action arm of the National Interagency Council on Smo)
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
- *Health and Human Services (HHS) (use United States Department of Health and Hum (US)
- Labor Management Committee (LMC) (of Tobacco Institute)
- Philip Morris & Co. Ltd. (Cigarette manufacturer, incorporated in U.S. in 1902)
Philip Morris & Co. Ltd.., was incorporated in New York in April of 1902; half the shares were held by the parent company in London, and the balance by its U.S. distributor and his American associate. Its overall sales in 1903, its first full year of U.S. operation, were a modest seven million cigarettes. Among the brand offered, besides Philip Morris, were Blues, Cambridge, Derby, and a ladies favorite name for the London street where the home companies factory was located - Marlborough.- R.J. Reynolds Corporation (second tier subsidiary of RJR Industries)
- STAT (Stop Teenage Addiction to Tobacco)
Stop Teenage Addiction to Tobacco - anti tobacco group started by Joe Tye.- Stop teenage Addiction to Tobacco (STAT is a anti-smoking group (1994))
STAT is a anti-smoking group (1994)- Tobacco Institute (Industry Trade Association)
The purpose of the Institute was to defeat legislation unfavorable to the industry, put a positive spin on the tobacco industry, bolster the industry's credibility with legislators and the public, and help maintain the controversy over "the primary issue" (the health issue). - American Medical Association (physicians group)
- Named Person
- 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.
- Griscom, Thomas C. (Executive VP External Relations, RJR c. 1991-95)
Thomas C. Griscom served as Executive Vice President of External Relations 1991-1995. Thomas Griscom is an Executive at R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and is knowledgeable regarding creating and marketing a safer cigarette. Thomas C. Griscom served as Executive Vice President of External Relations 1991-1995.- Malmgren, Kurt (Sr. VP of State Activities, Tobacco Institute)
Late 80's- early 90's- Malmgren, Kurt L.
- Merlo, Ellen (PM Corp. Affairs VP)
Marketing Services prior to 1986. Understood use of nicotine addiction in selling PM products.- North, Virginia
- South, Virginia
- Griscom, Thomas C. (Executive VP External Relations, RJR c. 1991-95)
- Date Loaded
- 27 Jan 2005
- Box
- 8037. letters from associations and state reps.
- 1992 local proposals
- 1993 MA local proposals
- local programs
- OSHA meeting on 7/8/94
- procedures for state OSHA regulations
- 1994 MD OSHA regs.
- 1994 WA labor and industry regs.
- CA-OEHHA-air resource board
- 199
- 1992 local proposals
- Folder
- 1992 Massachusetts Local Plan
- Division
- State Activities
Document Images
THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE
1875 I STREET. NoKrHWEST
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
202/457-4800 • 8001424-9876
SAMUEL D. CHILCOTI~,
Preaident
November 30, 1992
TO:
Thomas C. Gdscom
Ellen Merlo
FROM: Samuel D. Chilcote,
SUBJECT: Draft Local Program
Attached for your review is a proposed draft of the local program we discussed by telephone
earlier today. Please provide any additions or deletions to Kurt Malmgren or me at your
earliest convenience.
I plan to submit this draft for general discussion at the Executive Committee meeting on
December 10 in New York City. At that time, I will recommend that they have their staffs
review this document for any further additions or deletions prior to consideration of the
Executive Committee on Thursday, January 14, 1993, during The Tobacco Institute
Legislative Conference in La Quinta, California.
As I mentioned to you both on the phone, I hope that we can have a discussion on your
suggestions and deletions or if you feel that it should be cancelled, so we can give a
consensus view at the Executive Committee meeting that we are in agreement.
SDC:dlt
CC: Kurt Malmgren
Attachments
T109891289
THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE
1875 1 STREET. NORTH~/EST
WASHINGTON. DC 20~06
2021457-4800 • 800/424-9876
SAMUEL D. CHILCOTE, JR.
President
MEMORANDUM
November 30, 1992
TO:
FROM:
Thomas C. Griscom
Ellen Mcrlo
Samuel D. Chilcote, Jr~
SUBJECT: Draft Local Program
Attached for your review is a p
earlier today. Please provide
earliest convenience.
I plan to submit this draft for
December 10 in New York Ci
review this document for any
Executive Committee on Tl
Legislative Conference in La
Past-It"routing request pad ~
ROUTING - REQUEST
Please
[] READ
-'-] HANDLE
J---~ APPROVE
and
--'] FORWARD
J-"] RETURN
As I mentioned to you both, I--] KEEP OR DISCARD
suggestions and deletions or J--J REVIEW WITH ME
consensus view at the Execut
Date From
SDC:dlt
,hone
your
Rg on
sta~
the
,~itute
your
~ve a
CC: KurtMahngren
Attachments
T109891290
.DRAFT
MEMORANDUM
November 30, 1992
TO:
Samuel D. Chilcote, Jr.
FROM:
Kurt L. Malmgren
RE:
Expanded Local Program
,BACKGROUND
We face increasingly serious challenges at the local level of government in the areas of
smoking bans, point-of-sale display bans and restrictions, punitive retailer licensing
schemes, sampling/couponing bans, advertising bans and many other related issues.
The anti-tobacco forces have developed a more sophisticated and well-funded structure
to address local government affairs. Among recent anti-tobacco assaults are the
following:
ASSIST, the $115 million grant program from the National Cancer Institute which
ensures continued funding for local battles in the 17 states chosen for the
program. ASSIST guarantees that local matters will take increasing portions of our
time and effort. ASSIST's forerunner, COMMIT, was geared toward local anti-
tobacco activity as well, and laid the groundwork for the current program.
Prop 99 in California and the recently adopted Question #1 in Massachusetts
provide tens of millions of dollars in continued funding and organizational support
for anti-tobacco activities at the local level.
A major portion of the blueprint from the Coalition on Smoking OR Health outlines
anti-tobacco activities to be undertaken at the local level of government. Other
groups also have "blueprints" for action and are carrying them out.
STAT (Stop Teenage Addiction to Tobacco) meets regularly to plan anti-tobacco
approaches on "youth-related" issues such as advertising bans, punitive retailer
licensing, sampling/couponing bans and other measures.
The Advocacy Institute acts as a clearinghouse and organizational arm for many
of the most vocal anti-tobacco groups, with a significant portion of its materials
aimed at the local level. One of the focuses of this group has been opposing local
preemption laws.
T109891291
The American Medical Association has turned its attention to "youth-related"
tobacco matters, locally in many cases.
Health and Human Services Secretary Sullivan picked up Surgeon General Koop's
banner, with an eye to state and local matters. Sullivan proposed model state
legislation on a range of anti-tobacco matters, which also has been taken to the
local level. The incoming Clinton Administration is expected to continue such anti-
tobacco efforts.
The anti-tobacco momentum continues in the media, focusing largely on local
battles and routinely reporting, in a one-sided fashion, on the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) risk assessment on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)
and other issues. The anti-tobacco leadership is expert in using the media in
projects at all levels of government.
Clearly, there is a well-orchestrated effort among the anti-tobacco leadership to strike
where it perceives as the tobacco industry to be vulnerable: the local level.
The activity at the local level has been with us since the early 1980s. It is evident that in
recent years, however, increased organizational energies have been channeled into local
matters. As a result, local proposals have become more numerous and more serious in
nature.
RECENT HISTORY OF THE LOCAL CHALLENGE
The industry has faced serious local challenges -- largely in the form of public smoking
restrictions -- since the early 1980s. However, voter passage (50.4-49.6%) in 1983 of
workplace smoking restrictions in San Francisco was a watershed event in the onslaught
of local anti-tobacco battles.
In 1983, 73 localities proposed smoking restriction ordinances. A large percentage of
those introductions occurred in California, Massachusetts and Illinois. By 1986, the year
of the Surgeon General's first major report on environmental tobacco smoke, the number
of localities reviewing anti-smoking ordinances had grown to 229.
In 1987, Beverly Hills, CA, adopted the first restaurant smoking ban. The passage of
Prop 99 in November 1988 provided the funding for increased local activity in California,
as well as the springboard for action in other areas of the country. Press leaks and
related discussions in 1990 on the EPA's draft report on ETS provided another major
argument in the arsenal for severe smoking restrictions and bans.
These events worked together to help set the stage for a change in local direction from
workplace and restaurant smoking restrictions to outright smoking bans.
2
T109891292
In 1990-1991, nearly 50 smoking bans were introduced in California. During the first three
quarters of 1992 alone, more than 50 localities in California had considered smoking
bans.
In addition, smoking ban proposals have been introduced in a handful of other states,
including Arizona, Massachusetts, Washington and Wisconsin.
Beginning in 1989, there also was a new push for state and local laws and ordinances on
"youth-related" issues, such as advertising bans, vending machine bans and restrictions,
pun!tive licensing schemes and other matters, couched as measures designed to "protect"
young people from tobacco.
The effort began with restrictions and bans on vending machine sales. In 1988, fewer
than 30 communities considered such legislation. By the end of 1989, that number had
increased to 60.
The number and severity of "youth-related" local ordinance introductions continues to
increase. Since mid-1990, 80 California localities, spurred on by Prop 99 funding,
considered "youth-related" matters on vending, sampling/couponing, licensing and
advertising. In 1992 alone, 156 localities in 27 states looked at this set of issues.
INDUSTRY APPROACHES TO THE LOCAL CHALLENGE
Since the advent of local anti-tobacco challenges in the early 1980's, the industry has
moved to deal with the local situation as effectively as possible. The Institute's regional
directors, a handful of local legislative representatives, member company mailings and
smokers' rights groups all were used to work on local ordinances in key localities. During
the 1980s and until very recently, however, the clear priority for the industry was in the
state capitals; local activities always took a back seat as far as time and resources were
concerned.
Even with the development of state affairs staff and lobbyists from Philip Morris and R.J.
Reynolds, Institute staff were charged with handling the bulk of the local load. Company
state affairs operations were state operations, with limited focus on local concerns.
Today, local challenges are not only more numerous, but much more severe in nature.
In the mid-1980s the question was smoking and other restrictions. Today, the industry
must address anti-tobacco bans. Therefore, local efforts must be placed on a par with
state efforts. That requires industry coordination of suitable resources and close staff
attention to the myriad of complex and extremely punitive anti-tobacco measures at the
local level.
Our local experiences in California, Massachusetts and other areas provided the basic
blueprint for a local program of national scope.
3
The California Experience
The 25-cent/pack initiative forever altered the nature of the local challenge, first in
California and now in much of the rest of the country. Instead of facing a few local
smoking restriction proposals per month in California, we were facing scores of smoking
bans -- and youth-related restrictions and bans -- weekly. It became physically impossible
to attend all the hearings held on certain days, let alone mount successful opposition
campaigns.
More troubling still, the industry did not have in place a mechanism to make it aware of
the introduction of some local ordinances while opposition was still feasible.
Therefore, the industry was, on occasion, forced to address local concerns at the ballot
box, an extremely expensive undertaking. It was a necessary approach early on,
however, because the industry was not prepared in some instances to deal effectively with
local challenges in city councils or county commissions.
In addition, perceived public pressure was mounting on many of our traditional allies in
California to take positions in favor of smoking bans. In many instances, local chambers
of commerce and other groups in California were pressured into supporting smoking
bans in the workplace and other public places. In 1990 the California Restaurant
Association came out in favor of a statewide smoking ban for restaurants.
To slow the local hemorrhaging in California, The Institute and member company
representatives, through an umbrella organization, began to coordinate resources and
stem the success of the anti-tobacco leaders. Under this team approach, most of the key
components necessary to wage a campaign to address local concerns in California are
in place. Primary among the crucial elements are the following:
Sophisticated monitoring of local ordinance introductions;
II
Ability to respond quickly with locally-based advocates;
Local consultants who can go door-to-door to educate restaurateurs, business
leaders, minority group leaders, representatives from organized labor, and other
potential allies;
The ability to rightfully project a local concern about a given anti-tobacco
ordinance, making it more difficult for anti-tobacco leaders to say, "The only people
who oppose this ordinance are the out-of-state tobacco companies"; and,
Reasonably coordinated and effective means to trigger direct mail campaigns,
phone bank operations and other contacts.
4
T109891294
The Massachusetts Experience
In another recent twist, local Massachusetts boards of health have taken the lead to push
for the adoption of smoking bans and restrictions, punitive retailer licensing schemes,
advertising restrictions, vending bans, point-of-purchase display bans and other
measures. Boards of health in the Commonwealth are un-elected, authoritarian bodies.
It is difficult for the industry to make its voice heard in their decision-making process.
The Institute, Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds all recognized the seriousness of the
situation early on. Each entity identified and deployed programs to deal with an
increasingly challenging set of dynamics.
Earlier this year the industry established a formal, solid working relationship with the New
England Convenience Store Association to develop a better coordination of their existing
resources. Through weekly conference calls, all elements of the industry are afforded an
opportunity to have input into legislative strategies and tactics. Together the
Massachusetts team has streamlined and coordinated the entire process.
For monitoring purposes, we fund our allies in the convenience store group to regularly
report on ordinance introductions and assist in campaigns to stop unreasonable
measures. That reporting is complemented by other reporting mechanisms and channels
such as member company sales representatives and other allied groups. Promotion of
The Institute's "It's the Law" program and other industry programs play a helpful role as
well.
As a result, the industry is prepared to deliver direct mail, run phone bank operations and
otherwise attack local proposals with our local business allies in a generally coordinated
and productive fashion.
The team is beginning to export the Massachusetts efforts to other states in New England
to prepare for the increase in local activity expected from ASSIST funding in Maine and
Rhode Island, as well as in Massachusetts.
Experiences in Washington State
Within the past month, and working with company representatives, The Institute has put
in place in Washington State a program to address increasing anti-tobacco concerns at
the local level. As in California and Massachusetts, they are forming an umbrella group
to coordinate the local activity.
Thus, the industry already has in place the apparatus to address the local challenge in
California, most of New England, Washington State and, to a lesser degree, in certain
other areas of the country.
5
T!09891295
What We Have Learned from California and Massachusetts
Recent experiences in California, Massachusetts and a few other states make it clear that
the industry can monitor and address local concerns with reasonable results -- if
strategies and tactics are developed, coordinated and triggered in an effective and timely
manner in conjunction with necessary resources. What follows is our strategy to
implement successful local programs in other extremely important areas of the country.
The Goal of Preemption
Industry leaders have recognized that state laws which preempt local anti-tobacco
ordinances are the most effective means to counter local challenges. Strategies and
targets for this program have been discussed in detail and will continue for the
foreseeable future.
Preemption efforts, however, do not preclude the need for a more coordinated and
aggressive strategy to deal immediately with the onslaught on local challenges.
THE LOCAL STRATEGY
The local strategy calls for the industry to tackle two interrelated challenges: (1) defeat
unfair anti-tobacco attacks at the local level of government in key states in a timely and
effective manner; (2) ensure the adoption of reasonable laws relating to the sale and use
of tobacco products. The past histories of anti-tobacco activity, the presence of ASSIST
funding, fallout in New England and the mid-Atlantic states due to the Massachusetts 25-
cent/pack initiative, and other related factors make 27 states primary targets for
immediate additional attention to local concerns.
Thorough analysis of these factors makes it clear that the following 14 states present the
most immediate and serious challenges: New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Virginia,
North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington, California, Arizona,
New Mexico, Texas. In each of these states, save Virginia, we anticipate more numerous
and severe attacks on public smoking and youth-related issues. In Virginia we may also
see these challenges (despite the existence of local public smoking preemption), but the
focus centers on local tax concerns.
Our analysis suggests that the following 13 states are positioned to become even more
challenging with the next year: Maine, Rhode Island, New Jersey, West Virginia, South
Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, Colorado, Utah, Oregon, Illinois, Indiana. While
Florida and South Carolina offer a degree of local preemption protection, we believe
localities in all of these states will redouble their efforts on public smoking and youth-
related issues. In addition, local taxes in Missouri will be a focus of our attention.
6
T109891296
Furthermore, the 25-cent/pack increase in Massachusetts will undoubtedly cause
pressure for similar measures throughout the remainder of New England and in many of
the mid-Atlantic states. The pressure will mount not only for state tax increases, but also
for funding for local anti-tobacco activity.
Our program is largely up and running in California, and getting there in Massachusetts
and New England, and Washington State. Goals and tactics discussed below also are
intended for use in these areas as well as the other extremely challenging states.
Goals and Tactics
Develop effective monitoring systems to ensure that the industry learns of
the introduction of unfair local anti-tobacco proposals in a timely fashion.
We must employ the best monitoring systems available. In some
instances, systems may build upon our existing resources and will
vary from location to location, depending upon the results of our
continuing research in this area. In many cases, feedback from
company sales representatives and other~ allies greatly improves the
timeliness of our intelligence. The bottom line is that if we do not
know a local battle is taking place in a timely manner, there is no
way in which we can employ our resources to challenge unfair
outcomes.
Our experience with local matters in California and elsewhere makes
it clear that nothing we have seen to date works more effectively than
a system in which city and county clerks are contacted on a regular
basis to determine if anti-tobacco activity is scheduled. The work of
our local system in California has been instrumental to industry
success. Effective systems also are at work in New England and
Minnesota, where we learn of anti-tobacco proposals in a generally
timely fashion. Unlike Massachusetts, where convenience store allies
and member company sales reps fill the role, in Minnesota, the
wholesalers have implemented a similar program which has proved
effective.
Monitoring activities can be handled in a multitude of different ways.
Because of the large number of communities and the speed of local
action, we need an extremely sophisticated operation in California.
A lesser number of communities and a slower process may justify a
more informal and less costly "New England approach." Our
research in this area is ongoing.
To achieve the most efficient and cost-effective monitoring results,
our local team will continually review proposals from several
7
T109891297
businesses with expertise in this area to determine the most effective
group(s) to employ, or to create, for this vital function. In some
instances, as in California, it may be that an effective monitoring
system team can also provide some of the necessary coalition
coordination discussed later in this document.
Employ effective local advocates as necessary in the targeted states and
regions of the country.
Identifying and deploying the local person who can "make the sale"
before local government entities on our arguments for reasonable
approaches accounts for an extremely large portion of the reason
the industry achieves its goals. This is the single most important
non-managerial element of the program. In many cases the
advocate will be part of a given local umbrella group or a person
close to a member of our local team.
In other cases, local legislative advocates may have to be retained
on a contract basis. In these cases, local representatives must have
a thorough knowledge of local legislative procedures, be willing and
able to travel extensively, and be able to work closely with a range
of consultants.
In some instances, The Institute's and the companies' current local
legislative representatives are capable of being a part of this
proposed operation.
As noted, local advocates will be identified and deployed in several
ways. Where possible, and we believe in most cases, local persons
will lead the program. In others, we will either prepare annual
contracts or engage local advocates on a single project basis.
Implement mechanisms necessary to provide a solid foundation for coalition
development and deployment.
With tobacco, the messenger is usually as important as the
message. The constant claim on the local front is that "It's only the
out-of-state tobacco industry that opposes this ordinance." Thus, a
solid coalition of willing and able home-town allies is essential to the
mix. If local advocates are the single most important element of the
plan, local coalition activities are clearly second.
As noted earlier, the industry's most positive local coalition building
successes to date have occurred in California and in New England.
8
T109891298
