NYSA TI Single-Page 4
610 Im transient situations, the approach can be more direct. _nere is often no time.to _eek the d_e
Abstract
Im transient situations, the approach can be more direct. ~nere is often no time.to ~eek the d~e process o~ law~ and usually a s~oker when potitely co~£~o~t~' ,~ill cease ~lluti~ the air in your space. ~er~ng ~a~ the ~k~r is a~saili~ innocen~ bystanders with a docu~n~ ~oxlc substance, ~he ~g~ker can ~ £orceEul £n the request (£~ ~acc does ~t work) and ¢~ to ~ successful.
Fields
- Named Organization
- Advertising Association
- American Cancer Society
- American Health Foundation (Health Research)
Plaintiff- American Lung Association
Voluntary health organization concerned with fighting lung disease, promoting lung health and advocating clean air, indoors and out.- American Public Health Association (Public health organization)
Professional organization for people working in public health- ASH (Action on Smoking and Health)
Action on Smoking and Health- Avon (Makeup)
- Benson and Hedges (Benson & Hedges (elite cigarettes, 1948))
A small, elite cigarette company in NY, NY in 1948.- Biometric Society
- British Broadcasting Company (BBC) (British Broadcasting Company)
The British Broadcasting Company did "Panorama" show (British "60 Minutes"), an expose' of the tobacco industry called "A Pack of Lies" circa 1993.- British Medical Journal (BMJ) (scientific periodical)
scientific periodical- British-American Tobacco Co Ltd (British-American Tobacco Co. Ltd.)
British-American Tobacco Company Limited was a operating group under B.A.T. Industries P.L.C. in 1985.- Canadian Council on Smoking and Health
- *Department of Health and Human Services
- *Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) (use United States Departmen (use @hew_dept)
- EEC (European Economic Community)
European Economic Community- Federal Trade Commission (Enforcement agency for laws against deceptive advertising)
Enforces laws against false and deceptive advertising, including ads for tobacco products. Ensures proper display of health warnings in ads and on tobacco products;collects and reports to Congress information concerning cigarette and smokeless tobacco advertising, sales expenditures, and the tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide content of cigarettes.- Government Printing Office (GPO)
- Health and Welfare Canada
- International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (WHO cancer research arm)
International Agency for Research on Cancer - The cancer research arm of the WHO. Conducted a multi-center epidemiology study on ETS, initiated in 1988, data collection completed in 1994 and results were published in 1998- International Society and Federation of Cardiology
- International Union Against Cancer
- John Wiley & Sons (Publisher)
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
- Metra
- Ministry of Health (Located in Singapore)
- National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
- National Institute of Education
- National Institutes of Health
- Office on Smoking and Health
Responsible for creating reports on the health effects of smoking. Created by the Public Health Service.- Preventive Medicine (periodical)
- Research Council
- Salvation Army
- Seventh Day Adventists (religion that prohibits smoking. runs smoking cessation prog)
- Singer
- Statistics Canada (Federal Statistics Canada)
- The Shield (anti-tobacco and alcohol publication of the 1920s)
- 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).- Tobacco Institute of Australia
- Trinity College
- University of California Press
- University of Manitoba
- University of Minnesota
- University of Newcastle
- University of Southern California
- Washington University in St. Louis
- World Conference on Smoking and Health
- World Health Organization (Concerned with global public health)
International organization concered with public health worldwide - American Cancer Society
- Named Person
- Alexander, H.M. (Researcher on Youth Smoking, Newcastle, New South Whales)
- Ary, Dennis V.
- Ashley, Mary Jane
- Ball, Keith
- Best, Allan
- Best, J. Allan
- Big, Anthony
- Brown, K. Stephen
- Caceres, Eduardo
- Chapman, Simon ("Tobacco Control" Editor for British Medical Journal)
- Collishaw, Neil E. (Canada Nat. Health & Welfare Ministry, Tobacco Products Dir.)
- Dobson, Annette J.
- Europe, Phillip Morris
- Flay, Brian R., Ph. D. (professor, University of Illinois at Chicago)
Plaintiff- Fletcher, Charles (Chest Physician)
Colleague of Sir Richard Doll, did research on why doctors who continued to smoke did so and what effect they'd found giving up smoking was when they gave it up. 8 smoking.- Glantz, Stanton
- Gray, Nigel
- Heart, Stanford
- Hill, David
- Jones, R.T. (BATCO GR&DC)
R. T. Jones was with BATCO-GR&DC. (Source: NM Tobacco Companies Personnel List)- Kunze, Michael
- Lee, John F.
- Legge, David A.
- Lewis, Ian C.
- Lynch, Cornelius J.
- Marcus, Lola
- Mulligan, Linda
- Ochsner, Alton, M.D. (President, Ochsner Foundation, Early Anti-Tobacco Expert)
Plaintiff- Overholt, Richard
- Pechacek, Terry (Office of Smoking and Health Associate Director for Science)
- Rahman, Abdul
- Range, Brooks
- Rayner, Kent J.
- Reek, Van
- Ryan, Katherine B.
- Sawatzky, Vern
- Severson, Herbert H. Ph.D.
Plaintiff- Simpson, David
- Stanwick, Richard S.
- Thomson, Margaret P.
- *Todd, G.F. (use Geoffrey Todd)
- Trudeau, Pierre
- Weissman, Wendy
- Wood, Michael
- Woodward, Stephen D.
- Wynder, Ernst L., M.D. (Epidemiologist, Sloan Kettering, Anti-Tobacco Expert)
1993 First scientist to report in 1950 on the carginocencity of cigarettes in rats painted with tar. Assistant at Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research Directed the American Health Foundation (AHF) from 1984 to his death in 1998. - Ary, Dennis V.
- Master ID
- TI08350674-1466
Related Documents: - Date Loaded
- 18 Jul 2005
- Box
- 1618
Document Images
610
Im transient situations, the approach can be more direct. ~nere is often no
time.to ~eek the d~e process o~ law~ and usually a s~oker when potitely
co~£~o~t~' ,~ill cease ~lluti~ the air in your space. ~er~ng ~a~ the
~k~r is a~saili~ innocen~ bystanders with a docu~n~ ~oxlc substance,
~he ~g~ker can ~ £orceEul £n the request (£~ ~acc does ~t work) and
¢~ to ~ successful. Ve~ £~ ~opte I£~ to ~ publicly e~arrassed
~ad~.~y.~9¢ g~kers know ~ha~ the tide o~ public opinion bzs Cured
~ ~t~cte~ ~ing in sbar~ air spaces.
BeECh"addressing specific actions, let m leave this point o~ con£rontation
with a clear ££nai ~hought. Positive action is called ~or in a11 cases
e~posure to second-hand smoke when a non-smoker ~eels £~ represents a threat
tp.~th; hesitation bel~es the imd~acy o~ the ~hrea~; and an apparent
willingness. ~o su~er chronic exposure wichou~ proces~ undermines
e~£ecti~eness o~ pro~ess£onal eE~orts to improve the envlron~nt. The
o~ a~u and response to s~kers must ~ dictated by the circnmsCances, the
.p~p~gy~o£ the actors involved, and the ~d£cal needs, but some action
£s~ndato~ i~ non-smoking £s ~o beco~ ~he norm.
:'~tld~'-~ ~n-s~k£ng worker can cake a~£ect other sectors o~ public I££e as
"well-when we cons£de~ that almos~ every public place £s also so,one's work-
.site.'.~ile the bulk o~ actions have been £n private work locations,
£n industry or £n government~ waitresses, airline ground and ~light person-
" nel~ bank tellers, and re~a~1 clerks seeking protection have created s~ke-
£ree environments for the public entering ~he£r work area. There are non-
a~k£ng health care ~ac£1£ty empZoyees who have played an active role in the
passage o£ ordinances and legislation req~irlng such ~acil£cies to have a
s~king control policy.
~he two important common law actions mentioned earlier also had great impact
on every other facet of the smoking or health question, with broad language
supporting preventive measures to protect health:
'~he evidence is clear and overwhelming. Ci@arette smoke
contaminates and pollutes the ~ir ereatin~ a health hazard not
merely to the smoker but to all those around the smoker who
.m~st.rely ~pon the s~me air supply. The right of the indivi-
dual to risk his or her own health does not include the right
td'j&opardiee the health of those w~o must remain around him or
her in order to properly perform the duties of their jobs. The
o~inion chat tobacco smoke should be e1~minated from ~he work
e=viror~me~t is sh~red by a11er~ists, immunologists an~ special-
ists in ~he ~ield o~ industrial medicine." (I)
~ew Jersey Superior Court
Released 12/20/76
T108351271
" .... tobacco smoke of co-workers smoking in the ~ork area is
hazardous to the health of employees in general and plaintiff
in particular...plaintiff should not be required to await the
harms fruition before he is entitled to seek an inadequate
remedy .... "(2)
Missouri Appellate Court
Unanimous Opinion - 1982
These reasoned opinions say that no longer should an employee wait until
sickeued by smoke before acting; no longer is the payment of workmen's
compensation, after the full-blown disease or injury, considered an adequate
remedy. The legal definition of tobacco smoke as a toxic substance in the
workplace, not only in New Jersey (where the courts are known to be innova-
tive), but in Missouri where the climate is extremely conservative, gives
every non-smoker a mandate to action, although legal action should certain-
ly be a last resort.
Employees seeking relief under the common law have been few in number, as
employers have made adequate accommodation for their needs without having to
be sued. Three cases are in the courts now seeking smoke-free work environ-
ments and, in two cases, reinstatement with back pay. Smith vs Blue Cross
and Blue Shield of New Jersey is being tried August 15, 1983, the defendant
having failed to develop a smoking control policy to protect the plaintiff
as originally requested by the Court in the preliminary stages and having
terminated the employee. Cooper and Cooper vs Hewlitt Packard was filed in
April 1983 in the Law Division of Morris County, N.J., also seeking rein-
statement for a couple with well documented sensitivities to tobacco smoke
who were ultimately discharged as a direct result of their inability to work
in the presence of tobacco smoke. In the case of Lee vs State of
Massachusetts, a smoker was permitted to intervene as an addicted person,
unable to perform her job without smoking. She freely admitted when ques-
tioned by the press that she was being represented without charge by legal
firms retained by the tobacco industry. Other non-smoking employees have
joined Ms. Lee as plaintiffs in this suit which will be tried later in 1983.
Handicapped Acts
Another course of action for non-smoklng workers is filing a complaint of
discrimination as a handicapped person under state and/or federal laws. The
U.$. ~ehabilitation Act of 1973, ar~ most state laws, require that "reason-
able accommodation" be ~iven pars~ns whose physical impairment substantially
limits one or more of life's major activities, such as breathing and work-
ing. This premise has been tested and persons with respiratory disease or
impairment have been declared handicapped; the question lies in defining
"reasonable accommodation" and the administrative law decisions have varied
greatly in adjudication of the few cases pursued to completion.
Unemployment/Disability/Damges
~ compensated to employees who are forced to quit
their jobs because of management's refusal to restrict smoking or provide
accommodation. Substantial workmen's compensation awards have been made to
T1083~51272
non-s~okers sustainlr~ illness from occupatioual exposure to tobacco s~oke.
Other employees have been granted disability retirement pensiorm because
employers wo~ld ~t provide ~hem with s~ke-free ~rk enviro~nts.
e~loyees have been fired because of their requests for a s~kinz control
policy, a~ ~til ~cen~ly ~ ~e has challenged =he action ~ccessfully.
In an interesting California case (Hentzel vs Singer Corp.) (3)~ an appel-
l~e c~r~ ~eld ~he ~ of ~s~kinE ~en~ a~to~ey ~ntzel ~o sue
for reinstate~nt. The court stated that he could not be fired "at will"
with no remedy at law, and further indicated he could sue Singer for ~,e-
~..ds~es as a result of "intentional inflic~i~ of emotional distress"
(caused by harassment during his employment and the trs~ of dismissal).
A similar case in S=. Louis involves an engineer fired by Washington Univer-
sity for an infraction of rules historically codified by all employees, but
the protesting non-s~ker was the only one discipllned. After administra-
tive remedies are exhausted, a similar suit will be filed
the employee is not reinstated.
II~DIVIDUAL ~lOl~S IN A UI~II~D
Employees are subliminally influenced by what happens in the workplace and
the non-smoking worker has a responsibility to be a continual reminder of
the'health threat posed by smoke in the ambient air. In every instance each
non-smoker must speak up in whatever setting second-hand smoke is encoun-
tered .... restaurants, schools, union meetings~ public meetings, private
honms, social functions. Legislators should be educated and constantly
pressured to protect non-smokers in public places and places of work. The
non-smoker should not sit back and let someone else work to protect his or
her health. Only by sheer numbers, banded together in a c~operative spirit,
can the non-smoking forces hope to overcome the billions of dollars spent by
the tobacco interests to advertise their deadly wares and to misinform
readers.
The International Non-smokers' Network formed at the Fifth World Conference
is an important first step in welding these individual and organizational
efforts into a cohesive, driving force to eliminate this most serious health
problem.
If anyone still doubts the seriousness of the forced or involuntary smoking
health threat, let me invite him or her to '~alk a mile in my moccasins", as
the utlve ~riean saying goes. Spend your days as a non-s~oker with
special sensltivies, eudeavorir~ to live without encountering tobacco smoke
in public places, to work productively without career limitations. Counsel
the thou.~ands of non-smoking employees we work with each year, hear their
stories o.f harassment and indifference, suffer with them the pain of head-
ache~ vision impairment, chest p~in, bleeding nasal passages, and nausea.
The problem is real, it is serious, it demands the individual concern and
the action of every delegate to this conference to achieve the social chan~e
eh=r w~]| m~ ~¢~-~$ ~ norm around the world.
T108351273
613
I. Shlmp vs ~ew Jersey Bell, 368 Atlantic Reporter 2rid 408. (1976 Dec).
2. ~mith vs Western Electric, 643 S.W. 2d10 (Ho. App. 1982).
3. Hentzel vs Sin~er ~0,~, 188 Cal. Rptr. 159 (Apr. 1982).
B IBLIO~R~[I~
American Lung Association. Smoking at the workplace: the changing legal
situation. American Lung Association, 1740 Broadway, N.Y,, N.Y. 10019. 1983.
Environmental Improvement Associates. Improving the work
Environmental Improvement Associates, 109 Chestnut Street,
08079. Original publication date 1983; Rev 1984.
environment.
Salem, N.J.
Epstein S. The politics of cancer. New York: Anchor Press, Doubleday & Co.,
1979.
Brody A, Brody B.
1977.
The legal rights of nonsmokers. New York: Avon Books,
T1083,51274
615
David Simpson
Director, Action on Smoking and Health
27-35 ~ortimer Street
London
U.K. WIN 7PJ
The very fact that there is opposition to those who seek to reduce the harm
caused by smoking; the fact that more than 20 years after the acceptance by
medical opinion around the world of the overwhelming, scientific evidence
linking smoking and i11-health; the fact that since that time, and now more
than ever, the tobacco industry has tried not only to deny, pervert and
otherwise impair the transmission of that evidence to the general public,
but also to undermine the initiatives of those whose interest is the better
health and welfare of mankind; these facts amount, quite simply, to the big-
gest public health scandal of our time.
The object of this and other papers presented at the Conference is to
provide ideas on how to counter the opposition to smoking control measures
from tobacco and advertising industries, and from others with financial
interests in smoking. The object of this paper is to give a brief, overall
guide to the main areas of opposition and to present some hints on how best
to deal with them. Although most of the examples, like the experience on
which the paper is based, are from the UK, they are still relevant to the
international scene. Here is the first important point about the
opposition, together with the first hint about how to counter it: the
tobacco industry, although colossal in size and financial and political
power, is very compact in its identity. Apart from the People's Republic of
China and the Soviet bloc countries, just half a dozen companies dominate
the world's tobacco trade. Three of them, including the biggest of all, are
British, while the others are American. Thus the tactics used by the
tobacco industry around the world are not only very similar - they are often
identical to one another, having sprung from the same source. Close liaison
between smoking and health activists around the world, therefore~ can
greatly facilitate the opposition to anti-health initiatives.
Some insights into ~he way the tobacco industry thinks and the lengths to
which it will go in its attempts to push its wretched pro~ttcts ~im~t the
e~orts of the health lobby, were revealed in a British Broadcasting
Corporation film in 1980. The 'Panorama' programme was given two internal
documents by people in tobacco companles~ who presumably still had some sort
of conscience about their employers' work. Such insights are important to
those trying to counter the opposition and the most interesting examples
were as follows:
T108351275
616
S~OU
I) A document from the 'Task Force' monitoring the Fourth World COnfe~
ence, set out the following objectives:
- We must try to stop the development towards a Third World commitment
against tobacco;
- we must try to ~et all or at least a substantial part of Third Wor:
countries committed to our cause;
- we must try to influence official FAO and UNCTAD policy to take a
.... pro-tobacco stand ;
- we must try to mitigate the impact of WHO by pushing them into a
more objective and neutral position;
2) A document from British American Tobacco included the following
=: i..Statement s:
:.;,~":'-A~.ad~rtising bans tend to fall unevenly on countries, within
regions, companies should explore the opportunities to co-operate
~.. one with another by beaming TV and radio advertising, into, for
.. example, a "ban" country. Obviously the political risks of this
....... action must be weighed up and treated with prudence,
"~'~-: .The company, its position and prestige in society assumes greater
"'~,~:~ .: importance as the cigarette industry comes under attack. The com-
. . ..... -puny image must be enhanced by whatever publicity resources are
- ... it has been found most successful in arguing the industry's case
to government ministers (particularly Economic Ministers) that
marketing departments should assist in compiling and presenting a
dossier proving the contribution of the industry to the economic
well-being of the country. "Opportunities" to establish and
nurture friendly relations with media writers and presenters should
be sought.
These extracts give an indication of the nature of the opposition to our
work. NeXt~ some of the different types of opposition and how to deal with
Chum are examlm~i in a little ~re ~tail.
It is suggested that the opposition from the tobacco industry can be divided
into four broad areas:
1) anti-health propaganda
2) promotio~
3) ecouomic propaganda
4) 'social ac~ptah~]~y,
These subjects do, of course, appear in different arenas - for example with-
in the press, in political lobbying or in direct approaches to the public.
This should be borne in mind while examining each subject in turn.
T108351276
617
All s~okin~ a~d health activists will be fssdliar with the sorts of things
the industry says to try and resist our efforts: they talk of the '~dical
controversy" or the "alleged" hazards o~ a~ktns; so~i~a ~h~ s~ak of
"e~essive" s~king or oE "safer" s~kin8 and worse still, ~o~eti~s "safe"
s~k~. ~ey say Chat ~ causal relationship ~eeu s~i~ s~ ill-
health has been proved, ~owing full well that ~st people
a causal relationship is and will assume, from such a state~ut, that the
case a~ainst s~kln~ has ~ot been proved. They talk about a "balanced view"
being ~cessary, ~ich really means they want people to reject ~he over-
whelm{~ scientific evidence about s~kin~. They refer ~o ~s as do-gooders
or fanatics and accuse us of "nannylng" people.
Further examples of the industry's style in promoting anti-health propaganda
can be seen in two booklets prepared for the employees of tobacco compa-
nles. In '%4hat about Smoking and Health?", sub-titled "Some Questions and
Answers about Smoking and Health for the Information of the Employees of
Phillip Morris Europe/Middle East/Africa", the first question begins thus:
"Has it been established that smoking causes cancer and other
diseases? No. The numerous reports and studies on smoking
and health fail to establish a cause-and-effect relationship
between cigarette smoking and cancer and other diseases .... "
"Smoking Issues", a British American Tobacco Employee Information Booklet,
is a rather longer document but no less disgraceful in content. Counter
arguments will not be presented here, not only because most readers will be
quite familiar with them, but also because the tactics to adopt are laid out
so competently in publications such as '~he Lung Good-bye" produced by Simon
Chapman (I) and the UICC Manual "Guidelines for Smoking Control" (2).
The one thing which we have on our side which is not available to the
tobacco industry is, quite simply: TRUTH. Our job is to ensure that the
scientific evidence about smoking reaches as wide an audience as possible.
Reassuringly, the amount of anti-health propaganda and the number of avenues
used for its dlssemiuatlon by the tobacco industry, are usually fonnd to be
iu inverse proportion to the strength of expression of medical opinion about
smokin~ and the amount of pro-health activity going ou in any one co~ntryo
In other words, an active medical lobby is essential. All the medical and
health professions ~a~st be involved and we must tall them our needs so that
they can summarise their opinions and make clear, in a way which we can use
best, the ~nanimlty and strength of feeling within their ranks about the
smokin~ issue.
It is not intended to cover this topic in detail since it was the
..... . e. us ea , a ew key points will be
presented which may be of assistance in counterir~ opposition in this area.
T108351277
Firstly~ it is entirely possible to counter the arguments which the tobacco
industry uses to preserve its promotion of its products. On close examina-
tion,, most of the arguments are worthless and frequently include sophistry
which can be exposed easily. In the UK some years ago, the industry pub-
fished the ~etra Report 'The relationship between total cigarette advertis-
ing m~ total cigarette consumption"(3). Since then, this same report has
surfaced i~ the USA, Australia a~d many other countries around the world.
All that is really necessary to deal with such ~onsense is to read reports
llke this, then expose the errors and omissions, sophistries and false
arguments. Good journalists will be quite prepared to publicise the truth
about s~ch material. In the UK, even the respected financial newspaper 'The
Financial Times", which is frequently supportive of, or at least not hostile
to~ "kh~"-tobacco industry, headlined its report of the Metra document
'~obacco: How Not To Play A Hand"(4). Furthermore, the leading British
advertising journal "Campaign" ran a leader which was highly crltical of the
doc~ment~(5);.
Another hint on the subject of promotion is to turn once again to our
medical-~rofessioRs. In December 1981, the Presidents of no less than eight
"~d~i~-ai-Royal Colleges in Britain signed a letter to the Sports Minister
urging him not to renew an agreement allowing tobacco sponsorship of sport
or, if he dld~ to at least plan to phase it out. That such a strong letter
wasslgned by so many eminent medical men led the British Medical Journal to
describe the letter in a leading article as "an event unprecedented in the
his~0ry of public health in Britain"(6). Although it did not,
unfortunately, achieve its objective at the time, it did receive widespread
publicity and without doubt advanced the anti-tobacco cause.
The thir~ point to remember is that there are always some advertising indus-
try o£f~clals who are prepared to stand up and be counted on the smoking and
health question and who, on principle, do not accept tobacco advertising
business. It is the job of health activists to identify these people and
use them in their work.
Lastly, the general public can be recruited against tobacco advertising,
particularly when made to realize the effect of advertising in presenting
cigarettes to children as a socially acceptable product. The public can be
e~couraged, also~ to protest when, as is frequently the case, the cigarette
advertisers grossly overstep the bounds of public decency.
~C PROPA~A}~A
The tobacco industry talks of the benefit of tobacco to the economy and the
unfairness o£ taxation to the smoker. It ma, kes much of tobacco as a provid-
er of jobs and a source of revenue to government.
On the question of benefits, we can do no better than refer to the plenary
paper delivered by Dr Nigel Gray, in which the enormous costs to the
econo~ry, as opposed to the '*benefits" quoted by the tobacco industry, were
co~uterim4g t~is form of opposition is to ensure that health economists carry
out appropriate work to evaluate the costs of tobacco and to ensure that
the results o£ s~ch ~ork are publicised and presented to governments.
T108351278
Turning to the question of jobs, ~e need only ask, publicly, who would dare
to propose that we should stop trying to prevent road accidents, because of
the ~obs they provide for neurosurgeons, nurses, undertakers, florists and
garage repair mechanics? ~hls is simply a question of seizing such anti-
health propaganda every time it arises and setting it in the context of the
colossal da~ge to l~ealth caused by smoking which, of course, is never
mentioned by the tobacco inclustry.
Regarding revenue, we must always point out that tobacco is such an
~nelastic commodity, that virtually every government around the world can
make more revenue every time it increases its tax on cigarettes, even
th.ough, at the same time, consumption is forced down. In other words, the
total tax paid on a smaller volume of sales after a tax increase is still
larger than the total revenue gained from a lower rate of tax on a larger
volume of sales before the increase. This point is not often understood by
the public at large and our job is to explain it as carefully as possible
every time this topic of tobacco propaganda is produced.
Also~ public opinion is often found, sometimes unexpectedly, to be on the
side of health and in favour of further increases. In the UK, at the end of
1981, a majority of the population was found, in a public attitude survey,
to be either in favour of, or indifferent to, a further increase in
cigarette taxation, although it was only about nine months after the biggest
rise in cigarette tax in almost two decades. Health professionals must
connnission such surveys in every country where economic propaganda is
produced by the industry. Support is often there waiting to be harnessed to
the cause of health - it simply has to he collected and pressed into
service.
"SOCIAL A~CEP~BILI~" ISSUE
This covers three main areas: non-smokers' rights, including smoking in
public places; the so-called "freedom" issue; and a wide range of activities
by which the companies try to ingratiate themselves with governments and
other important target groups.
The issue of non-smokers' rights has been dealt with admirably by Professor
Stanton Glantz (8) and thus will not be examined here except to record, once
again, the importance of sou~din~ out public attitudes. In the UK, for
exa~aple, it is not only ~ou-smokers who are found by opinion polls to be in
favour of increased provision of smoke-free sp~ce in public places, but also
smokers themselves. Such f~ndlngs are important to counter the tobacco
industry's frequent contention that smokers are being victimised.
The "freedom' issue is, of course, without foundation, because on examina-
tion, it is obvious that smokers, far from exercising freedom of choice, are
the victims of loss of freedom. We ~ow from surveys among ~mokers in the
IlK and elsewhere, that the majority of smokers started smoking when they
were children, rather than making a free, adult choice
i ,-- _ r~e a east once to give up smoking; and do not
understand the nature or amount of risk which they run by smoking.
T108351279
62~
Thus any argtm~ent about freedom can be turned against the opposition.
among those who are not prepared to accept reasoned arguments about fr~
and **bose main interest is the fzeedom to promote and sell cigarettes,
often found that arguments involving children a~d their need for
are irrefutable. '~i
Dealing wich those ac~ivitles by which the companies try to e~hance
names is clearly a matter of weighing up the relevant facts of each part
ular case, Once sgaln, public opinion can be harnessed so expose wha~
tobacco co~panles do to try to gain undeserved respectability or
priate infh~ence. In the OK, ~he British ~ericsn Tobacco Co~ny's
tire of eatert~ining Civi1 Servants from various sovernment depart~nts
the Wi~ledon Tennis Cha~ionships c~eated substantial publicity
apparently helped to counter the effectiveness of this operation.
There are obviously o~hec areas in which the opposition has to ~ countered
by health authori~ies~ but which have not ~en deal~ with here ~cause
are covered in other papers presented at this conference. O~ these, the~
~s~ important example is probably that of lower emission cigarettes, ~ich.~
tend to assu~ greater importance as health campaigns achieve ~re and ~re
success. ~hls is because a trend to lower emission cigarettes is the one
item.ln health policy about smoking which envisages continued cigarette
sales, rather ~han ~£ng designed to reduce consumption. In ~his and other
areas which have not been dea1~ wi~h, health workers must be no less.
vigorous in their efforts to counter the opposition. Clearly, the war
against s~king is bein~ won and the greater the international co-operation
and' e~ch~nge of experiences between heal~h workers, the sooner the final
victory will be achieved.
Chapman S. The lung goodbye.
author, 28 Queen street, 1983.
Chippendale, NSW, Australia: By the
Gray N, Baube M, eds. Guidelines for smoking control.
International Union Against Cancer, 1980.
Me=ra Consulting Group Ltd. The relationship between total cigarette
advertising and total cigarette consumption in the UK. London: Metre
Consultlug Croup Ltd., 1979.
~ompson-NoeI M.
1980 Jan 17.
Tobacco: how not to play a hand. Financial Times
E~tozial. Cigarette ads: Why this latest report can only be harmful.
CmapaiEn 1~80 Jan 25.
Leader. Tobacco sponsorship of sport: think again.
2~:
Br Med J t982;
T108351280
