Tobacco Documents Online

THIRD DRAFT CONFIDENT:[AL: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION REPORT ON PUBLIC SMOKING ISSUE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE APRIL 10, 1985 WILLIAM KLOEPFER, JR. (CBS tape) The nonsmoker battle for smoke-free air -- more complicated than fire safety, more damaging than restrictions and a greater bottom-line threat than excises. A battle in a society that has conquered man's environment and in which, paradoxically, our fear of it is growing. The logical appeal of smoke-free air is irresistable to politicians, commentators, even some smokers. It is the most effective way to reduce smoking.~We are defending two fronts -- political regulation and private rulemaking. We are fighting legislation, we are confronting research by regulatory agencies such as FAA and EPA. Indoor air quality is a buzz phrase in a dozen other agencies which we must monitor. Workplace restrictions grind on in their course. The focus is dangerously narrow: ambient smoke. Some of our retaliation is working. Some is in the pipeline. We have only begun, however, to take the decisions, make the commitments and exploit the opportunities that ovc*~ can win this battle 6o-r the basic social acceptability of smoking. The invaders employ an offshore battery of scientific research findings and an air cover of socio-economic incentives. We seem to be trying to protect a population without a popular will to join the resistance. TIMN 0013710

CONFIDENTIAL: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION On the other hand, the roadblocks we've thrown up and the skirmishes we've won are not without significance. Nearly two years ago, we laid out a plan to blunt the socio-economic attacks and we are solidifying that defense. If you were the owners or managers of some other business, it is likely you would be confronted on one side by anti-smokers and on the other by employees and customers who smoke. It is likely that smoking restrictions would seem to be a good idea for reasons put forth repeatedly by the anti-smokers. First, they argue, restrictions save money. Weis, Kristein and others teach you that employees who smoke cost more in insurance and productivity. To that we have developed effective rejoinders, proven commodities on line. o An immediate task for us is to tune up Lew Solmon's volume -- indeed to clone him -- following the_excellent job he has done countering Weis, in journals, in the public media, in meetings with business officials and in two legislat:ive hearings where he has been placed by the State Activities staff. We've already begun to prep the 40-plus economists we originally lined up on the excise issue to make expert pitches on this one. o Imminent publication in "Management World," which we: engineered)of our Response Analysis Corporation survey, will give us a new round of reprint circulation. That'~_~.- demonstrates that 2 TIMN 0013711

CONFIDENTIAL: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION managers and shop stewards in six different industries and in public agencies believe that smoking has little if any effect on productivity. We've already shared the report with 60 business and professional publications, and widely distributed it to business, labor and public officials. o We've mapped out our first hits for our Environetics study which shows that professional planners see no way to promote productivity by restricting workplace smoking: Planning journals like "Interior Design." Presentations and a video s ~,c.+~ . r.c. : .~......-.,..~..v.... _~ display -wreir.me at planning conventions and seminars,.~ o Every new study showing the negative effects of smoking restrictions on local economies will be exploited at lobbyist direction. Those we've done in New York City, Montgomery County, Maryland, Philadelphia and elsewhere, have been presented this way to public officials and discussed with the media in each instance. o We're ready to cry to replicate occasional independent studies that support our point of view. The one from the University of Minnesota last year got national publicity and helps us refute the claim that smokers are less productive. Our lobbyists and other consultants keep flashing it:. It's ideal for a repeat in Washington statex Mr. Weis' home turf. The anti-smokers' second argument is the right to breathe smoke-free air. A number of our initiatives have helped to neutralize its effect. 3 TIMN 0013712

CONFIDENTIAL: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION o In litigation, we gave,the anti-smokers a public relations and legal beating when they tried to force a 19-year employee of the Wisconsin Department of Revenue to stop smoking a pipe or face termination. o Early on a Federal judge assured us there is nothing in the Constitution that promises a smoke-free environment. But the American Association of Affirmative Action Officers 'believes that smoking restrictions can be used to deny minorities constitutional rights to employment and promotions. We are working with that group to raise that important point. An American Civil Liberties Union committee will study smoker employment discrimination. With help from Philip Morris we've opened the door to our input. ACLU has assured us it will be welcome. o The same issue has led us to potential allies in black, hispanic, veterans and women's groups. Hispanic lobbyists are experienced in successful attacks on -o4abit"-limitations in public safety employment on behalf of their constituents who don't meet minimums. We've sensitized the hispanics to smoker discrimination and Pete Sparber is in California today negotiating resolutions from them opposing it. We're not as far along with other minorities but we're determined. to get there. o We've helped labor find legal problems with smoking restriction edicts. The American Federation of Government 4 TIMN 0013713

CONFIDENTIAL: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION Employees, various fire fighters locals and state labor federations are opposed to unilateral impositions. As a follow-up to our labor-management committee seminar in February, eight states are targeted for field staff non-tobacco union collaboration in lobbying -- New York, Massachusetts, Florida, Washington, Minnesota, Michigan, Texas and California. o The law enforcement community has expressed concern that frivolous legislation makes a mockery of the law, diverts resources and hurts police morale. The Internationa:l Union of Police Associations helped us with S.B. 80 in Wisconsin and right now is finishing a position paper which will enable them to supply witnesses where Roger Mozingo needs them. The prestigious Police Executive Research Forum is not a lobby, r . 'r"ar~fCM~lv: . but their~policy recommendations are going to carry great weight in broadening our police support. CNS~':P.T Tc COrc 2e.VE~ ~oG.rC'~ i-?,.s'."' .,- : r* ::•~~f The final, socio-economic argument the anti-smokers make is the bandwagon techniqu t! Tell~them "everyone is doing it." n ,/ We now know their numbers are dead wrong, but as far back as 1979 the National Interagency Council on Smoking and Health started saying and they're still saying a majority of Fortune 500 companies restrict smoking. o Lew Solmon's research has just told us that among the 1,100 largzst or fastest-growing companies, just over 30 percent say they have some restriction. That number includes places 5 TIMN 0013714

CONFIDENTIAL: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION that simply restrict smoking on elevators, in food processing operations or near gasoline pumps, and facilities required to restrict smoking by law. Of the 30 percent, less than three percent say they prohibit smoking altogether, and less than 13 percent maintain separate sections in the workplace. o About 25 percent say they have considered and rejected restrictions because they prefer to let their employees work things out for themselves. 0 99.1 percent do not prohibit hiring of smokers. More than 85 percent have never considered doing that. Our present schedule is to have Solmon's full report in time for a mid-May news conference disclosure. Yet, despite what it shows, these businesses are under pressure. The trend is towards restrictions. The bandwagon is not yet rolling down tobacco road. But at least we are slowing it down with these implementations of our plan. That is not yet the case with the other half of the issue: health. The anti-smokers have just one argument: cigarette smoke is dangerous. It's a physical assault. We say no one knows if cigarette smoke is dangerous to the smoker, much less to the nonsmoker. But, consider the popular perception. The Repaces and Lowreys, Whites and Froebs, Hirayamas, Trichopoulos's and cou'.tless other anti-smoker scientists have kept refueling the public's paradoxical fear of its environment 6 , TIMN 0013715

CONFIDENTIAL: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION to the extent that seventy percent of nonsmokers and a majority of smokers now believe that ambient smoke is probably hazardous and a no-smoking sign will restore health to the indoor air. More reenforcements are on the way. ; D...-- o Environment Internationah has scheduled publication of Repace's nonsmoker death estimate for late May. We expect he'll make a new news story out of it. But he may not know that we'll beat him to the media in a series of documented, one-on-one briefings. Repace may not know the journal editor's own skepticism, the editor's warm reception of Sorrel Schwartz' critique, and the editor's eagerness to get and publish the critical scientific responses we're stimulating. We other^,hits vi=~ are going to be needed here. o EPA has given the National Academy of Sciences $75,000 to do a"preliminary investigation on the hazards of exposure of nonsmokers to tobacco smoke." We expect the study to be completed, and publicized, at the end of this month. Beyond that, EPA has $2 million this year to investigate indoor air quality from various angles, but there is no sign yet of funding for next year. At the moment, we can only stay on watch here. o The National Academy of Sciences has a contract to do a Congressionally mandated $500 J00 study of aircraft cabin air quality for the Federal Aviation Administration. A report is 7 TIMN 0013716

CONFIDENTIAL: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION required about a year from now and is likely to include regulatory or legislative recommendations. We have a plan for this one, and I'll come back to it in a minute. o The Interagency Committee on Indoor Air Quality has a grand plan for government research pending at 0MB for clearance. The Consumer Federation of America and others are promoting more government funding. As soon as the 0MB releases the agenda, we will put it under our microscopes. o The 1985 Surgeon General's report, expected in 8e~e-r-, will address workplace smoking and, more specifically, what Dr. Koop will assess as the synergistic.effects of cigarette smoke and such substances as asbestos, radon and cotton dust. We believe there will be 14 chapters demonstrating that the synergistic whole is greater than the sum of its parts. We've identified some of the authors, we're pulling together their published treatments of these subjects, trying to visualize what the report will look like, so we can begin drafting our response. o The Office on Smoking and Health has begun work on its own $500,000 literature review which, bolstered by independent studies, probably will be the meat of the 1986 Surgeon General's report on passive smoking. Actually, we hope the review will help us in our own tracking. o The National Cancer Institute has $500,000 to spend on passive smoking research and development of exposure: models. 3 TIMN 0013717

CONFIDENTIAL: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION That one is relevant to an industry support project now forming, and I will come back to it. The American Cancer Society is expanding its data base in its repeat of the million-person survey. It has asked women to state the number of hours per day they are exposed to smoke at home, at work and elsewhere. I'll describe our own questionnaire project in a moment. o We know of at least 16 relevant major research efforts under way in private institutions -- none of which can be expected to help us much. They range from work at the Harvard School of Public Health on "Constituents of Sidestream and Mainstream Tobacco Smoke and Markers to Quantify Exposure" to a study at the University of North Carolina Department of Pediatrics on the "Significance of Childhood Respiratory Infections." These just add to the scientific pressure which we have barely begun to meet. There have been innumerable scientific meetings and symposia including focuses on ambient smoke. We have supported only one -- at Geneva two years ago -- and its effect was diminished because The Institute had to be its publicity agent. Many others are in prospect. A sampling: o A Conference on Smoking and the Workplace, American Lung Association, Washington, right now. o The Air Pollution Control Association, Detroit, June. 9 TIMN 0013718

CONFIDENTIAL: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION o An International Conference on Indoor Air Quality, Ottawa, 0 this month. The American Chemical Society, Miami, this month. A Symposium on Health Risk Assessment, Columbia, Maryland, next month. There is little chance the outcome and publicity on these projects and meetings will be sympathetic. There is every chance they will contribute to the adversary offensive. If we still lack a star-wars capacity to explode the missiles before they hit, we are at least making some progress in defusing. We now have-several scientist consultants capable and willing to critique the anti-smokers' research. Foremost, Schwartz, who already has testified in legislative hearings, and who is prepared to brief reporters. He and others will be busy with us in anticipation of the 1985 Surgeon General's report, in briefings of journalists, legislators, business and labor officials. ~fMAND iv~ ~; S,~?P/"nc-.r, C The quickest way to put a dent in the conventional wisdom, of course, is critiquing other peoples' work. The next best is to replicate their work or show that it can't be repeated. Third best is supporting new research. !~As a result of your direction last July; a committee led by ; Don Hoel, comprised of industry scientists, attorneys and - 10 - TIMN 0013719