Tobacco Documents Online

xvlll N. Public opinion surveys on smoking restrictions . 1984 California Poll . 1983 National Gallup Poll . 1984 Gallup Monthly Report on Eating Out . 1985 Harris Poll . 1984 Michigan Survey • Summary of 1980 Minnesota Poll O. Editorials supporting nonsmokers' rights . Los Angeles Times, February 10, 1985 . New York Times, April 2, 1980 . New York Times, January 21, 1981 • New York Times, February 11, 1986 • Oakland Tribune, September 20, 1985 • San Jose Mercury, May 20, 1983 . Washington Post, November 22, 1985 P. Columnists supporting nonsmokers' rights . Ellen Goodman, August 6, 1985 . Don Graff, July 25, 1982 . Bob Greene, December, 1985 . Ann Scott, October 23, 1985 • Carl Rowan, November, 1983 Q. Cartoons on smoking . Abbett, June 8, 1983 . Auth, July 25, 1982 . Auth, 1982 • Stein, April 20, 1984 xix R. Correspondence showing misuse of inedical evidence by oppo- nents of nonsmokers' rights legislation • Correspondence between Dr. Paul Magnus and Dr. Claude Lenfant . Letter from Dr. Jonathon Rhoads to Mr. Jack Mcdowell and copy of quote out of context in initiative campaign ballot pamphlet S. Tobacco Institute analyses of health effects of passive smoking and rebuttals thereto , • "Cigarette Smoke and the Nonsmoker," The Tobacco In- stitute, 1984 ."A Rebuttal to the Tobacco Industry's Paper, 'Cigarette Smoke and the Nonsmoker,' " Ernster and Burns, Journal of Public Health Policy, September, 1984 ."Response to American Lung Association of Superior, California Document 'The Need for Smoking Control Leg- islation in Butte County: A Case Statement,' " Center for Environmental Health and Human Toxicology • Letter from Robert Hutchings of the Office on Smoking and Health to Mark Pertschuk, January 24, 1986 T. Tobacco industry polls on smoking restrictions and related newspaper articles • Los Angeles, 1984 • Analysis of Los Angeles poll by Californians for Narlsmok- ers' Rights • Michigan, 1985 • The Coloradoan, November 13, 1984 • Los Alamos Monitor, December 15, 1982 i U. Letters from California city attorneys concerning the constitu- j tionality of nonsmokers' rights legislation

• Los Angeles, 1983 • Sacramento, 1984 • San Francisco, 1982 V. Tobacco Institute legal opinion on constitutionality of non- smokers' rights legislation W. "Smoking at the Workplace: Legal Issues," Timothy J. Lowen- burg, American Lung Association, 1983 X. "Addiction Mortality in the United States, 1980: Tobacco, Al- cohol, and Other Substances," R.T. Ravenholt, Population and Development Review, December, 1984 Y. "Economic Costs of Smoking: An Analysis of Data for the United States," Dorothy Rice, December 28, 1983 Z. Questions and Answers on Proposed Nonsmokers' Rights Leg- islation AA. "A Quantitative Estimate of Nonsmokers' Lung Cancer Risk from Passive Smoking," Repace and Lowrey, Environment In- ternational, April, 1985 BB. Brochures explaining how smoking pollution control laws work • Oregon • San Jose • San Diego • Fort Collins CC. Sample brochure for businesses explaining a voluntary work- place smoking program, and including a survey measuring the success of the program Legal opinion on the right of an employer to hire only non- smokers, Tom Downs, September 11, 1985 Model Smoking Pollution Control Ordinance FF. Sample smoking pollution control ordinances • Los Angeles • San Diego • San Francisco • Sacramento • Palo Alto • Mountain View GG. Legal opinion on validity of clau4 in workplace smoking ordi- nance prohibiting retaliation by employer against employee for asserting rights under the law, Paul N. Dubrasich, October 18, 1984 HH. Newspaper articles on success of nonsmokers' right.s laws • Wall Street Journal, August 15, 1984 • Sacramento Bee, April 3, 1984 • Los Angeles Times, May 13, 1985 • Contra Costa Times, November 17, 1985 II. Letters and testimony of enforcement officials and c.hamber of commerce officials attesting to the success of smoking pollution control ordinances • Cupertino . East Lansing, Michigan . Minnesota . Pasadena • Poway • San Diego • San Francisco • San Jose • Santee

xXiu . West Hollywood (letter from City Councilmember quoting chamber of commerce officials) JJ. List of officials in California responsible for administering smoking pollution control laws KK. Sample petition seeking passage of a nonsmokers' rights law LL. Tobacco Institute testimony before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Civil Service, Post Office and General Ser- vices of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, September 30, 1985 MM. Sample action letters to grass roots supporters • Pleasant Hill • San Francisco • Los Angeles (postcard) NN. Case study of Los Angeles workplace smoking ordinance, as reported by the Los Angeles press • "L.A. Councilman to Propose Anti-Smoking Ordinance," Los Angeles Times, July 8, 1983 • "L.A.'s Gravy Train," Los Angeles Herald, Feb. 3, 1984 • "City Panel Studies No-Smoking Proposal," Los Angeles Daily Journal, Feb 16, 1984 ."Watered Down No-Smoking Law Gets Preliminary OK," Los Angeles Downtown News, Feb 28, 1984 • "L.A. Council Acts To Limit Smoking At Places of Work: 10--1 Vote for Measure," Los Angeles Daily Journal, Oct. 10, 1984 • "Council Adopts Tough Law on Smoking on Job," Los Angeles Times, Oct. 10, 1984 • "Conflicts Mostly Solved: Few Fired Up Over L.A. Smok- ing Law," Los Angeles Times, Oct. 11, 1984 • "L.A. Council Acts To Ease Curbs on Smoking at Work: Victory for Business," Los Angeles Daily Journal, Oct. 17, 1984 • "Tobacco Firms Act to Snuff Out Smoking Law: View Weakening of L.A. Plan as Just a First Step," Los Angeles Times, Oct. 18, 1984 ."No-Smoking Law Opponent Hosting Council at Resort," Los Angeles Times, Oct. 19, 1984 .."L.A. Strengthens Draft Ordinance To Curb Smoking: Penalty for Retaliation," Los Angeles Daily Journal, Oct. 24, 1984 • "Council Puts Some Muscle Back in L.A. Smoking Law," Los Angeles Times, Oct 24, 1984 ."L.A. Approves Strict On-Job Smoking Law," Los Angeles Times, Oct. 31, 1984 • "Bradley to Sign No-Smoking Ordinance, Press Aide Says," Los Angeles Times, Nov. 1, 1984 ."Law's Opposition Doused," Los Angeles Times, Nov. 9, 1984 •"Cloek Running for No-Smoking Plans," Los Angeles Daily News, Dec. 14, 1984 • "Smoking on Job: No More Ifs, Ands, Butts It's Law," Los Angeles Times, April 14, 1985 ."A Month With Smoking Law: Problems Resolved Smoothly," Los Angeles Times, May 13, 1985 00. Sample press releases • Press release announcing a press conference • Press release announcing the support of a nonsmokers' rights ordinance by a prominent physician PP. Transcript of a debate between a nonsmokers' rights activist and a tobacco industry representative

xxiv Chapter 1 1 A Short History. . of the Nonsmokers' Rights Movement In the early 1970's, nonsmokers began to realize that there might be an alternative to spending their liv'~es under a cloud of tobacco smoke. Heartened by the mounting evidence of the dangers of smok- ing, the elimination of cigarette advertising on radio and television and the first studies showing possible harm to nonsmokers from to- bacco smoke, a loose coalition of grass roots nonsmokers' rights or- ganizations formed in various communities throughout the United States. Most of these organizations had only a handful of members, who were pioneers in a new social movement. Their task was not so much to limit public smoking -- that was not yet possible but rather to persuade fellow nonsmokers that public smoking was an important problem. Remember: less than 15 years ago, close to half the adult population smoked cigarettes (it is closer to one-third today) and there was hardly any public place (much less a place of employment) where smoking was restricted. At that time, it took great courage for someone to ask another person not to smoke - in a private or public place. The movement attracted a large following in a short time. Al-

2 CHAPTER 1. HISTORY though the tobacco industry did not take it seriously as long as it consisted of persons passing out leaflets and buttons, it was forced to take notice when the State of Minnesota enacted a law in 1975 that restricted smoking in most indoor public places and required the establishment of nonsmoking sections in the workplace, for both public and private employers. Minnesota has no real economic inter- est in the tobacco industry, and an energetic and resourceful state legislator was able to push the bill through the legislature with little fanfare. Unfortunately, this was the last time the industry would be caught napping. It did not take long for the tobacco industry to realize the danger posed by such a law and to realize that if it did not do something, many similar laws would soon be passed throughout the country. The potential power of the nonsmokers' rights movement was clearly brought home in a secret 1978 report prepared by the Roper Orga- nization for the Tobacco Institute, the industry's trade association. Among other things, the report found: • Almost two-thirds of nonsmokers believed second-hand smoke to be harmful. . There was majority sentiment for having separate smoking sec- tions in all public places covered by the report. . More people said that they would vote for than against a polit- ical candidate who takes a position favoring a ban on smoking in public places. '(Remember that this was in 1978, before all the string of legislative successes - and point this out to leg- islators whose support you seek.) . Favorable attitudes toward the tobacco industry were at their lowest ebb. (They are certainly even lower today.) The report demonstrated that the early nonsmokers' rights activi- tists were correct in realizing that they had to raise the consciousness of other nonsmokers, because the report showed that there was rel- atively little public concern over the smoking issue compared with 3 other social issues such as crime, drugs and pollution. (Of course, the report should have noted that the smoking issue also involves drugs and pollution.) But the report also demonstrated that those early activists had, at the very least, succeeded in convincing a large pro- portion of nonsmokers that second-hand smoke is hazardous. Non- smokers' rights activists received a tremendous psychological boost in knowing they no longer consisted of small voices crying in the wilderness. Ironically, the boost was provided by the tobacco indus- try itself. The most important part of the Roper Report was its conclusion that the nonsmokers' rights movement was the single greatest threat to the viability of the tobacco industry. In other words, laws and social pressures restricting smoking in public places would hurt the industry more than all the health warnings to smokers! There are two reasons why this is so: The first, and rather obvious, reason is that as smoking is re- stricted, smokers will have less opportunity to smoke and thus will smoke fewer cigarettes per day. As an executive of R.J. Reynolds pointed out in 1984, if nonsmoking laws had the effect of cutting consumption by just one cigarette per smoker each (lay, the industry would sell 22 billion fewer cigarettes each year! The second reason is both more subtle and more significant: the nonsmokers' rights movement and concornmitant legislation make smoking socially unacceptable. The tobacco industry had long ago figured out how to successfully combat the health warnings of the medical profession, but it knew it could not abide an attack on the very reason for smoking - that it was suave and sophisticated and that people who smoke were popular. If smokers could be made to feel like outcasts - driven to the far corner of a room to indulge in a filthy habit - they would soon find the fortitude to quit altogether. The industry might survive reduced consumption, but it could not survive if it were to lose its customers altogether. The Roper Report remains one of the key documents in the battle for nonsmokers' rights and is must reading for anyone who is seriously involved in the nonsmokers' rights movement. (For a complete copy of the report, see Appendix A.)

W I 4 CHAPTER 1. HISTORY Thus, by the mid-1970's, the battle was joined, and the industry would never again sit idly by while a nonsmokers' rights law was passed. Tobacco industry lobbyists began appearing in nearly every location where legislation was being considered. Even with increased public awareness of the issue, most nonsmokers' rights organizations were unable to attract politically powerful supporters and were usu- ally no match for the sophisticated lobbying campaigns of the tobacco industry, particularly at the state level. As a result, efforts to enact legislation in the latter half of the 1970's were usually met with hos- tility and indifference; with few exceptions, legislation either failed altogether or was so diluted as to be almost meaningless. In 1978, after being frustrated in an attempt to enact statewide legislation, the organization which later became Americans for Non- smokers' Rights placed a comprehensive nonsmokers' rights measure on the California statewide ballot by means of the initiative process. The 600,000 signatures obtained (twice the number needed) and the early large approval of the measure in public opinion polls were clear evidence that nonsmokers' rights had come of age with the public. What nonsmokers were not prepared for, however, was the outra- geous campaign against the measure conducted and financed by the tobacco industry. By the time the smoke cleared, the industry had spent $6.5 million and had literally bought the election. The initia- tive was defeated by a margin of 54 percent to 46 percent. At the same time, a group in Dade County, Florida also put a measure on the ballot and also suffered a defeat, although by an even slimmer margin, 51 percent to 49 percent. Both organizations, having come so close to winning, came right back and placed similar measures on the 1980 ballot, but both lost again, by almost identical margins. Nonsmokers learned the hard way that they could not easily com- pete with the tobacco industry in what amounted to expensive mass media campaigns. Not only is the industry highly skilled in using mass media to begin with (it spends more than $2.5 billion per year advertising cigarettes), but it is able to use the media to distort the facts and to confuse the electorate. As any politician will tell you, a confused voter will invariably vote "No." Nonsmokers also learned just how expensive election campaigns can be, and how much volun- teer teer time and energy is necessary to run them. The initiative cam- paigns were glamorous, but ultimately unsuccessful and dishearten- ing. It was time for a new strategy. In 1981, the leaders of the two California initiative campaigns formed Californians for Nonsmokers' Rights (renamed Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights in 1986), and returned to the legislative pro- cess by concentrating on passing ordinances at the city and county level. The mounting medical evidence of the dangers of second-hand smoke and the increased public awareness of those dangers (largely generated by the two election campaigns) had paved the way for the passage of effective laws. Californians for Nonsmokers' Rights soon discovered that the further down you go in the governmental structure, the less influence the tobacco incJustry has and the more influence individual constituents have. While at the state level indus- try lobbyists and money can severely impact legislators, city council members and county supervisors often refuse even to talk to indus- try lobbyists, and are far more inclined to listen to the arguments of local citizens. Nonsmokers found that when they were sufficiently organized and personally lobbied local legislators, they were able to pass legislation in almost any community, often by unanimous votes. In less than five years, more than 75 ordinances were passed through- out California, in places ranging in size from towns with only a few thousand people to cities as large as Los Angeles. The major turning point, however, was in November 1983, when the tobacco industry put a referendum on the ballot (Proposition P) in an attempt to overturn a workplace smoking ordinance which had been passed in San Francisco. Even though the industry spent more than $1.1 million and outspent the supporters of the law by more than ten to one, the voters approved the ordinance and handed the industry its first election defeat. Because the referendum took place in a large, highly-visible city, and in a non-election year, it re- ceived national, and even international, attention. This one event, more than anything else, showed the popularity of nonsmokers' rights laws and demonstrated the vulnerability of the tobacco industry. It opened the door for the passage of many more ordinances in Califor- nia and heightened interest in legislation around the country. (For I

6 CHAPTER 1. HISTORY an analysis of the Proposition P campaign, see Appendix B.) And, of course, there have been many other laws passed in other parts of the country by various nonsmokers' rights organizations. (For charts showing the places and types of major legislation, na- tionally and in California, see Appendix C.) In 1984, the industry again tried to overturn a law that had already been passed, this time in Fort Collins, Colorado. The voters there recorded a resounding 64 percent approval of the law and, perhaps, dissuaded the industry from attempting any future referenda. These recent successes should point the way toward a surge of legislative activity that could literally put a damper on smoking in public places and workplaces throughout the country. In the current climate of public opinion, it is possible to pass comprehensive non- smokers' rights legislation in almost any community in the United States, provided the effort to do so is well-organized by knowledgable people. To those of you who are just beginning to consider involvement in the legislative process, two items of encouragement are offered: First, as the 1978 Roper Report indicated, most people do not view nonsmokers' rights as a highly important issue, and the tobacco industry will play this fact to the hilt. Before you finish your task, someone is bound to ask why you don't work on something "im- portant." But you need not be at all defensive as to why you are working for nonsmokers' rights. There are good reasons why non- smokers' rights is a vital issue even if most people do not view it as such, and you should not hesitate to point these out when the ques- tion arises. The most obvious reason is that you are working on a public health measure that affects everyone in our society. But just as important is the fact that what you are doing is directly attacking the tobacco industry, and that means cutting down on the hundreds of thousands of cigarette-related deaths that occur each year. Since cigarettes kill more Americans every three years than have died in all the wars this country has ever fought, anything that can be done to reduce those deaths is worthwhile. Moreover, a side benefit of im- proving the health of both nonsmokers and smokers is reduced health care costs and reduced taxes. And, of course, nonsmokers' rights is 7 important to you and your own health. That is reason enough to be involved. Second, not only is nonsmokers' rights legislation possible, but it can be accomplished by a small number of very dedicated people, without too many resources beyond their ingenuity and stubborn- ness. If you are willing to face temporary setbacks and frustrations, you will succeed. The tobacco industry knows it is fighting a rear- guard action. If you stick to it, you will eventually pass nonsmokers' rights legislation no matter how bleak the prospects might sometimes seem.

8 CHAPTER 1. HISTORY I Chapter 2 9 The Health Hazards of Second-Hand Smoke It has long been known that high levels of outdoor air pollution from factory chimneys and automobiles can cause illness and even death. These serious effects of air pollution have led to federal stan- dards for the regulation of outdoor exposure levels, and considerable progress has been made in curtailing outdoor air pollution. How- ever, we spend 90 percent of our lives,indoors. Therefore, the levels of indoor air pollution assume great importance in determining total exposure to many air pollutants. Indoor air pollution from tobacco combustion not only is chemi- cally related to the smoke from factory chimneys and other sources of outdoor air pollution, but generally occurs at far higher levels indoors than does factory smoke and automobile exhaust outdoors. Because one-third of the U.S. adult population smokes, and because ventila- tion rates are primarily designed to conserve energy rather than to preserve indoor air quality, the smoke from burning cigarettes, pipes and cigars overwhelms the capability of typical building ventilation systems, inflicting substantial air pollution burdens on nonsmokers - far in excess of those encountered in indoor environments free of tobacco smoke, outdoors generally or in vehicles on busy commuter highways.l

10 CHAPTER 2. SECOND-HAND SMOKE 11 There are more than 600 medical and scientific studies of the effects of second-hand smoke (see Appendix D for a bibliogra- phy). This evidence has been reviewed by several independent sci- entific bodies, including the Office of the United States Surgeon General,2-4 the National Academy of Sciences5 and the World Health Organization,6 all of which have concluded that involuntary expo- sure to tobacco smoke represents a significant public health prob- lem. (The tobacco industry has sponsored "international workshops in Geneva and Vienna" which it claims have come to different con- clusions. For a discussion of these workshops and how to invalidate industry arguments based on them, see Chapter 4.) Surgeon General C. Everet Koop succinctly summarized this ev- idence in a letter written in 1986 as follows:7 The harmful constituents of mainstream cigarette snioke [which the smoker inhales] are found in sidestream smoke [which the nonsmoker inhales], sometimes to a greater extent than in mainstream smoke. Pollution from tobacco smoke in homes, offices, other worksites and in certain public places can reach levels which exceed contaminant levels permitted under envi- romnental and occupational health regulations. Nonsmokers absorb the constituents of tobacco smoke into their bodies, even though in smaller amounts than is true for those who smoke. Maternal smoking has harmful effects on pregnancy, including an increased risk of miscarriage, prematurity, stillbirth, death soon after birth, low birth weight, and fetal death. There is increasing evidence to suggest that environ- mental tobacco smoke can bring disease, including lung cancer, in healthy adults, children and infants. It is on the basis of these facts that I advise nonsmok- ers to avoid exposure to cigarette smoke wherever possi- ble, and that, in particular, they should protect infants and children from this smoke. (Appendix E contains the full text of this letter, which makes a useful handout to legislators and the press. Appendix F contains a brochure summarizing the health effects of second-hand smoke. Appendix G contains testimony on the health effects of second-hand smoke presented at a hearing before a U.S. Senate subcommittee.) What's In the Smoke That Nonsmokers Breathe? Cigarette smoke contains approximately 4000 chemicals, many of them poisons.2,3 The burning end of a cigarette releases twice as much sidestream smoke directly into the air as mainst.ream smoke, which is inhaled directly through the cigarette by the smoker. Sidestream smoke is then breathed by the nonsmoker in amounts that depend on how many cigarettes are burning at a time; how close the nonsmoker is to the source of the snioke; and the size, shape and ventilation of the space involved.8 The sidestream smoke that the nonsmoker inhales is even more toxic than an equal amount of mainstream smoke.2 This is due to the fact that when a cigarette is smoldering in an ashtray (which is about 95 percent of the time that a cigarette is lit), it burns at a lower temperature than when it is being inhaled (because air is being drawn through the burning tobacco), so there is less complete, and hence dirtier, combustion. The poisons in second-hand smoke include:2 Carbon Monoxide: This is a colorless, odorless and highly poisonous gas which lowers the amount of oxygen carried by the blood. It does this by beating oxygen to the red blood cell "posi- tions" which normally carry oxygen in the blood. If someone stays in a closed garage with an auto engine running, it is the carbon monoxide which kills the person. Carbon monoxide is the poison that makes people have headaches from breathing second-hand smoke. Nicotine: This is the addictive drug that maintains the tobacco habit. It makes the heart beat faster and work harder than

12 CHAPTER 2. SECOND-HAND SMOKE it should, and it adversely affects blood clotting factors which may play a part in heart attacks. Carcinogens: There are dozens of carcinogens (cancer-causing agents) in tobacco smoke. One of the most potent of all carcinogens is benzopyrene, discovered in tobacco smoke more than 30 years ago. Hydrogen Cyanide: This is the gas often used to execute prisoners in gas chambers. In the amounts found in tobacco smoke it kills cilia, the tiny hairs that move together in waves to help keep our lungs clean. Arsenic: This is a potent poison. Pesticides: There are numerous pesticides in tobacco smoke, includ- ing DDT, paraquat, endrin, parathion and endosulfan, espe- cially when the tobacco is imported from countries that do not restrict their use. Radioactive Compounds: Such compounds as polonium 210 and pot- assium 40 are known to cause cancer. As the accompanying table shows, there is much more of some to- bacco smoke poisons in sidestream smoke than in mainstream smoke. How Much Exposure Do Nonsmokers Get? Obviously, the exposure of nonsmokers to tobacco smoke will vary a great deal, according to the factors listed above. Practically all nonsmokers are involuntary smokers to some extent. Some are lucky enough to get very little exposure to tobacco smoke. But for many the exposure is heavy, frequent and largely unavoidable. Investigations of indoor air quality have shown that tobacco smoke is clearly a major source of indoor air pollution for most people.1,9-s 13 SOME POISONS IN SIDESTREAM AND MAINSTREAM CIGARETTE SMOKE Poison Ratio of concentration Sidestream: Main4trcam2 Carbon monoxide Nicotine Formaldehyde (inhibits lung cilia) Benzo(a)pyrene (carcinogen) B-Napthylamine (carcinogen) 4-Amino biphenyl (carcinogen) Dimethylnitrosamine (carcinogen) Ammonia Polonium-210 (radioactive compound) 5:1 3:1 51:1 5:1 39:1 30:t 52:1 46:1 4:1 For example, levels of carbon monoxide in the air often exceed federal standards when cigarettes are being smoked, even in well- ventilated rooms, and may occasionally exceed recommended max- imum limits for an eight-hour exposure at work.2 Levels of carbon monoxide in smoky rooms are commonly about three times those found close to city roadways. A major study on indoor air pollution done at the Environmental Protection Agency in 1980 in various common settings, such as work- places and restaurants, found that "levels of respirable suspended particulates [smoke particles] in places where tobacco is smoked greatly exceed levels found in smoke free environments, outdoors and vehicles on busy commuter highways." ' In contrast, the indoor air always met federal outdoor clean air standards when no one was smoking. Involuntary exposure to cigarette smoke is sometimes expressed as the equivalent of the number of cigarettes "srnoked" by measuring the quantity of tobacco smoke in the air breathed by the nonsmoker