Discusses bills and initiatives in states that address hazardous materials legislation. States "in some cases, the sponsors of these proposals may have no sense of the far reaching nature of their measures." Continues that "the California experience makes clear . . . that broadly-written legislation will be used to regulate many industries." States "in the past we have viewed hazardous materials legislation as a subissue of the workplace environment and indoor air quality issue," and adds "it is now clear that such measures can have a far more serious impact on the industry than requiring smoking restrictions in business offices." Concludes "it is vital that you notify us immediately of legislation or initiative proposals on this subject."
Page 1: ooq85e00
THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE
Pt3,5~t STNGf:'r. D C~)IYrl~11~It,s~r ROGER L. MoZiN~co
W:15HIN~GT(9N. UC: 31)p)E)tt~ ScniocV~icc EPrt.,yidcM-
3lY_" 45i-4R0U ~ 800 ~, 4°4-9t47.fi State~A'rtiviticv.
MEMORANDM February 5, 1988'
TO: State Legislative Counsel
FROM: Roger L. Mozingo
RE: Toxics Legislation
Enclosed is a copy of California Pro osition 65, the Safe
Drinkin Water and Toxic Enforcement Act o 1986. Now ere in the
act wi' you fin mention of to acco products. But as the
enclosed newspaper clippings demonstrate, the regulatory
procedure implementing Proposition 65 has targeted tobacco smoke
and smokeless tobacco products for "warnings."
The California law was approved through the state's initiative
process. We know that environmentalist groups in other states
are promoting similar measures both legislatively and through the
initiative process. For instance:
Hawaii H2118 would enact a "Safe Drinking Water and
To s Enforcement Act."
Tennessee S1821 would enact a "Safe Drinking Water and
Toxics Enforcement Act."
Washinqton Initiative 97 would regulate and tax
azardous substances" as defined by the Departmnet of
Arizona S1127 would regulate and tax "environmentally
Louisiana and Massachusetts bills were introduced in the
1987 session an are i e y to reappear in 1988.
Oregon's Senate Majority Leader introduced such a
measure in 1987, and there are rumblings of a possible
initiative exported from California.
The co-authors of Proposition 65 have also identified
Arkansas, Colorado, Missouri and New York as states
w ere simi ar measures wi=be consicTerea.
Page 2: ooq85e00
Toxics Legislation, page two
In some cases, the sponsors of these proposals may have no sense
of the far-reaching nature of their measures. The California
experience makes clear, however, that broadly-written legislation
will be used to regulate many industries, including food,
cosmetics and other consumer products.
In the past we have viewed hazardous materials legislation as a
subissue of the workplace environment and indoor air quality
issue. It is clear now that such measures can have a far more
serious impact on the industry than requiring smokingg
restrictions in business offices.
It is vital that you notify us immediately of legislation or
initiative Rroposals on this subject and send bill copies both to
your Regional Vice President and to Cathey Yoe in headquarters.
If you have any questions about this issue or its potential
impact on the industry, please call your Regional Vice President.
cc: Regional Vice Presidents
State Activities Staff