Philip Morris
Fields
- Author
- Story, G.
- Area
- SLAVITT,JOSHUA/OFFICE
- Document File
- 2025684071/2025684856/Americans for Non Smokers
- 2025684072/2025684855/Americans for Non Smokers
- Type
- LETT, LETTER
- Litigation
- Stmn/Produced
- Site
- N340
- Characteristic
- ATCH, ATTACHMENTS MISSING
- EXTR, EXTRA
- Request
- Stmn/R1-037
- Stmn/R1-102
- Master ID
- 2025684073/4854
- 2025684073
- 2025684074
- 2025684075-4854 Legislative Approaches to A Smoke Free Society
- 2025684085-4138 A Study of Public Attitudes Toward Cigarette Smoking and the Tobacco Industry in 780000
- 2025684139-4144 Proposition P: Anatomy of A Nonsmokers' Rights Ordinance. The Basics of Beating the Tobacco Industry
- 2025684145-4152 California City and County Smoking Ordinances
- 2025684153-4154 States Placing Limitations Nonsmoking in Public Places. States with Laws Addressing Smoking in the Workplace
- 2025684155-4230 Bibliography on Involuntary Smoking
- 2025684231-4232
- 2025684233-4234 Tobacco Smoke and the Nonsmoker
- 2025684235-4241 Testimony of James L. Repace in the Matter on Senate Bill 1440, the Nonsmokers' Rights Act of 850000. Before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Civil Service, Post Office and General Services, Committee on Governmental Affairs Washington, D.C. 850930
- 2025684242-4248 Testimony of Joseph A. Califano, Jr. Before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Civil Service, Post Office and General Services
- 2025684249-4255 Testimony of Alfred Munzer, M.D. On Behalf of the Coalition on Smoking or Health and Its Member Organizations the American Lung Association the American Heart Association the American Cancer Society on the Nonsmokers' Rights Act of 850000 Before the Subcommittee on Civil Service, Post Office and General Services Committee on Government Affairs U.S. Senate 850930
- 2025684256-4262 Written Testimony of Stanton A. Glantz, Ph.D. Submitted to the Subcommittee on Civil Service, Post Office, and General Services Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate for Hearing on S.1440 the Non-Smokers Rights Act of 850000 850930
- 2025684263-4278 Statement of the Honorable Bill Ross Commissioner Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation S-1440, on the Non-Smokers Rights Act of 850000 Before the United States Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs Washington, D.C. 850930
- 2025684279-4297 Clean Your Room A Compendium on Air Pollution
- 2025684298-4308 Indoor Pollutants
- 2025684309-4310
- 2025684311-4312 Celebrities Who Have Supported Nonsmokers' Rights
- 2025684313 Known Causes of Residential Fires National Figures for 810000
- 2025684314 Known Causes of Residential Fires California Figures for 810000
- 2025684315-4320 Tobacco Industry Conglomerates - Status Report on Diversification in the Tobacco Industry 840000 Representative Products
- 2025684321-4326 Written Testimony of Professor Marvin M. Kristein. Ph.D. Departments of Economics and Community and Preventive Medicine State University of New York at Stony Brook, New York Subcommittee on Civil Service, Post Office, and General Services Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate Hearing on S. 1440, to Restrict Smoking to Designated Areas in All U.S. Government Buildings 850930
- 2025684327-4349 How Much Can Business Expect to Profit From Smoking Cessation?
- 2025684350-4353 Wanted: Smoking Policies for the Work Place. Company Activities in Smoking Control
- 2025684354-4367 A Smokefree Workplace An Employers' Guide to Nonsmoking Policies
- 2025684368 California Poll Majority Would Restrict Smoking
- 2025684369-4372 Strong Sentiment to Restrict Smoking in Public Places
- 2025684373
- 2025684374-4375
- 2025684376 Summary of Results of the 830400 Survey by the Gallup Organization 'survey of Attitudes Towards Smoking'
- 2025684377 840000 Gallup Monthly Report on Eating Out
- 2025684378-4383 the Prevention Index 850000 A Report Card on the Nation's Health Summary Report
- 2025684384-4386 People of Michigan Say 'yes' - They Do Want to Limit Smoking in Public Places
- 2025684387-4389 Public Support for A State Law Restricting Smoking in Public Places
- 2025684390-4391
- 2025684392-4429 Michigan Survey 8
- 2025684430-4436 Testimony of Harry Perlstadt, Ph.D, M.P.H., Chairperson Michigan Coalition on Smoking or Health Before the Michigan House Public Health Committee Sub-Committee on H. B. 4500
- 2025684437 Summary of 800000 Minnesota Poll
- 2025684438 Good Idea Defies Smoke Screen
- 2025684439 Thy Neighbor's Lungs
- 2025684440 Smoking Your Wife to Death
- 2025684441 Oh, to Breathe in Nassau County...
- 2025684442 Contra Costa Packs It in
- 2025684443 Clearing the Air
- 2025684444-4445 Secondhand Smoke
- 2025684446 Tobacco Company Crusaders Try Weapon of 'courtesy'
- 2025684447 Cigarette Makers Set Greed Record
- 2025684448 Why Does Anyone in This Nation Still Smoke Cigarettes?
- 2025684449 Good Neighbor
- 2025684450-4451 Frisco Votes An Antidote to Smoking Poison
- 2025684452 News Item: San Francisco Passes Toughest Anti-Smoking Law in U.S.
- 2025684453 'thank You for Smoking'
- 2025684454
- 2025684455
- 2025684456-4457
- 2025684458
- 2025684459
- 2025684460
- 2025684461 5 Regulation of Smoking - Initiative Statute Argument in Favor of Proposition 5. Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 5
- 2025684462-4474 Cigarette Smoke and the Nonsmoker
- 2025684475-4482 A Rebuttal to the Tobacco Industry's Paper, 'cigarette Smoke and the Nonsmoker'
- 2025684483-4486 Response to American Lung Association of Superior, California Document 'the Need for Smoking Control Legislation in Butte County: A Case Statement'
- 2025684487-4488
- 2025684489-4493 A Statement on the Health Effects of Passive Smoking
- 2025684494 Los Angeles City Public Smoking Issue Public Opinion Survey Summary of Findings
- 2025684495 Survey of Los Angeles City Voters 506 Interviews Margin of Error: Plus or Minus 5 Percent
- 2025684496
- 2025684496A Poll Shows L.A. Voters Oppose Anti-Smoking Law for Business
- 2025684497
- 2025684498
- 2025684499-4500 Appendix: A Slanted Poll on Smoking Law
- 2025684501-4504 Michigan Tobacco and Candy Distributors and Vendors Association Michigan Statewide Survey 850429 - 850430
- 2025684505-4506 Account of Tobacco Institute Poll in Fort Collins, Colorado, 841100
- 2025684507-4509 Tobacco Institute Poll Raising Eyebrows Here
- 2025684510-4522 Development of A Comprehensive Ordinance Regulating Smoking in Enclosed Public Places and Places of Employment
- 2025684523-4532 Regulation of Smoking in Public Places and the Workplace
- 2025684533-4549 Opinion 82 - 55 Regulation of Smoking in the Workplace in the City and County of San Francisco
- 2025684550-4565 Smoking Ordinance
- 2025684566-4577
- 2025684578-4581 Addiction Mortality in the United States, 800000: Tobacco, Alcohol, and Other Substances
- 2025684582-4605 Economic Costs of Smoking: An Analysis of Data for the United States
- 2025684606-4611 Questions and Answers on Proposed Nonsmokers' Rights Legislation
- 2025684612-4631 A Quantitative Estimate of Nonsmokers' Lung Cancer Risk From Passive Smoking
- 2025684632-4633 the Oregon Indoor Clean Air Act and You An Explanation of the Law and the Rules for Its Implementation
- 2025684634-4639 Smoking in the Workplace City of San Jose Ordinance 21830
- 2025684640 Cityline Thank You for Observing San Diego's New No Smoking Ordinance
- 2025684641-4642 Thank You for Observing San Diego's No-Smoking Ordinance
- 2025684643-4645 City of Ft. Collins No-Smoking Ordinance
- 2025684646-4653 the Smoking Policy Handbook
- 2025684654-4655
- 2025684656 Equal Employment Opportunities 42 Uscs 2000e-2. Discrimination Because of Race, Color, Religion, Sex, or National Origin
- 2025684657 Compiled Laws Annotated 37.2202 Employer, Prohibited Acts
- 2025684658-4669 Model Smoking Pollution Control Ordinance
- 2025684670-4680 An Ordinance Amending the Los Angeles Municipal Code to Regulate Smoking in Public Places and Places of Employment.
- 2025684681-4686 Ordinance Number 0-15865 An Ordinance Amending Chapter IV, Article 5, Division 1 of the San Diego Municipal Code by Amending Sections 45.0101, 45.0102, 45,0103, 45.0104, 45. 0105, 45.0107 and 45.0108 Relating to Regulation of Smoking in Public Places and Places of Employment
- 2025684687-4689 Ordinance No. 298-83 (Health Regulations) Amending Part II, Chapter V, of the San Francisco Municipal Code (Health Code) by Adding Article 19 Thereto, Regulating Smoking in the Office Workplace
- 2025684690-4702 Ordinance No. 85-005 An Ordinance Amending Chapter 37 of the Sacramento City Code Relating to Smoking
- 2025684703-4704 Ordinance No. 85-016 An Ordinance Amending Chapter 37, Section 37.22, of the Sacramento City Code Relating to Smoking
- 2025684705-4709 Ordinance No. 3476 Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Prohibit Smoking in Elevators, Public Restrooms, and Indoor Service Lines and Regulating Smoking in the Workplace
- 2025684710-4716 Ordinance No. 16.84 An Ordinance of the City of Mountain View Repealing Section 21.46 of the Mountain View City Code, and Adding Article II to Chapter 21, Relating to the Protection of One's Right to Fresh Air Through the Prohibition and Regulation of Smoking in Certain Places
- 2025684717-4720 Proposed Ordinance Regarding Smoking in the Workplace
- 2025684721 San Francisco Anti-Smoking Law A Success
- 2025684722 Sf Controls Are Working Smokers Survive Their New Habit
- 2025684723 A Month with Smoking Law: Problems Resolved Smoothly
- 2025684724-4726 County Close to Being Smoke-Free
- 2025684727
- 2025684728-4731 No Smoking Ordinance, Implementation and Enforcement.
- 2025684732-4733
- 2025684735 No Smoking Ordinance Information
- 2025684736-4738 Non-Smoking Ordinance
- 2025684739-4739A Smoking Ordinance - Status Report on Implementation of Enforcement and Effectiveness
- 2025684740-4751 the San Francisco Experience with Regulation of Smoking in the Workplace: the First Twelve Months
- 2025684752-4753
- 2025684754
- 2025684755-4757
- 2025684758-4761 Contact List for Information Regarding the Experience of California Cities Relative to Enforcement of Existing Smoking Regulation Ordinances
- 2025684762-4763
- 2025684764-4773 Testimony of Robert D. Tollison on the 'non-Smokers Rights Act of 850000' S. 1440 Before U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Civil Service, Post Office and General Services
- 2025684774-4815 Economic Impact of Instituting Smoking Prohibitions in U.S. Government Buildings
- 2025684816-4819 Pleasant Hill City Council Considers Model Smoking Law
- 2025684820 L.A. Councilman to Propose Anti-Smoking Ordinance
- 2025684821 L.A.'s Gravy Train Does the City Council Care How Tawdry It Looks?
- 2025684822 City Panel Studies No-Smoking Proposal
- 2025684823 Watered Down No-Smoking Law Gets Preliminary Ok. No-Smoking Ordinance Endorsed
- 2025684824 L.A. Council Acts to Limit Smoking at Places of Work 10-1 Vote for Measure
- 2025684825-4826 Council Adopts Tough Law on Smoking on Job
- 2025684827-4828 Conflicts Mostly Solved Few Fired Up Over L.A. Smoking Law
- 2025684829 L.A. Council Acts to Ease Curbs on Smoking at Work Victory for Businesses
- 2025684830 Tobacco Firms Act to Snuff Out Smoking Law View Weakening of L.A. Plan As Just A First Step
- 2025684831 No-Smoking Law Opponent Hosting Council at Resort. Council: Desert Retreat
- 2025684832-4833 L.A. Strengthens Draft Ordinance to Curb Smoking Penalty for Retaliation. Orange County Revives Anti-Smoking Ordinance
- 2025684834 Council Puts Some Muscle Back in L.A. Smoking Law
- 2025684835 L.A. Approves Strict on-Job Smoking Law Smoking: Law Approved, Goes to Bradley
- 2025684836 Bradley to Sign No-Smoking Ordinance, Press Aide Says
- 2025684837 the Region Law's Opposition Doused
- 2025684838 Clock Running for No-Smoking Plans
- 2025684839-4841 Smoking on the Job No More Ifs, Ands, Butts - It's Law
- 2025684842-4843 A Month with Smoking Law: Problems Resolved Smoothly
- 2025684844 Jonesville County Health Coalition Announces Introduction of Jonesville Smoking Law
- 2025684845-4847 Medical Association Head Endorses Nonsmokers' Rights Plan
- 2025684848-4854 Michael Schildberger Show Radio 310 Melbourne Australia Friday, 850726 9:10 A.M.
Related Documents:
Document Images
December 3, 1984
Mr. Robert Thomas
Page Two
ordinance and, by the same token, the organizations in the community
which are dedicated to protecting the rights of nonsmokers have
worked with us in this regard and have not demanded that we take a
law-Enforcement posture.
I sincerely hope that you will find the enclosed material help-
ful, and I would be glad to answer any specific questions which you
might have.
~yir t ~6~
Georg~rory, pirector
Citizens Assistance & Informaticn
\
GS:pc
cc:.,<rrill J. Matchett
1634 Jeffrey Drive, #7
Anaheim, CA 92802
Howard Mitchell, President
Californians For Nonsmokers' Rights
San Diego Affiliate
P.O. Box 99511
San Diego, CA 92109
Attachments
TfdE CITY OF
SAN DIEGO
CITY ADMINdSTR.1 TIIDh''BUILDIINC 202 C STREET' SAN DIECO; CALIIFORIVIr! 92J 0n 3873
DEPARTMENT OF
CITIZENS ASSISTANCE' A'ND, INFORIAAATION.
(61191 2316-6D47
'
December 3, 1984
Mr. Robert E. Thomas
Chief Admiinistrat'ive Officer
County of Orange
10 Civiic Center Plaza
SantaAna, CA 527011
Dear Mr. Thomas:
Howard Mitc'helll who has been very successful working with
local governmental agencies in the San Diego region toward the
adoption of legislationi regulating: smoking in indoor public places
and places of employment, suggested to~me that it might be useful'
to your office to have some information from the City of San Diego
on how we have attempted'to implement our municiipal ordinance per-
taining to smokingi.
I am taking the liberty of enclosing a copy of the San Diego
City ordinance, which you probably alread'y have, plius some bro-
chures and correspondence and City Manager's Reports which ycu
might find useful.
We have concentrated our e'fforts on public awareness and voT-
untary compliance, and that is why the assignment was given to the
Department of Citizens Assistance & Information instead of' a l'aw-
enforcement -aqency.
We have enjoyed the cooperation of the business community,
which worke6 with us toward an ordinance which we felt represented
a reasonable compromise. After helping us draft such an ordiinance,
the various organizations ini the business co7rmunity have as'si5ted
us with the implementation. The County of San~ Diego and most of
the cities within the County have adopted Legisl'ationi which is
virtually identic'all with theSa~n Di~egp o'rd'inance, and this, of
course, ha:s enhanced our ability to help the pufilic understand N
what the law requires. ~I
We have experienced' excelilent cooperation with very little l'aw- (r~l
enforcement rhetoric being employed. We have exhibited tolerance
to, give the private sector time to understand and work with the
~
~
~
W
~
C
I1-10
