December 24, 2000
As many governments have recognized, in order to decrease tobacco-related
deaths worldwide, cigarette consumption must be
reduced. According to the Tobacco Institute itself, by far the
most effective means of reducing cigarette consumption is to enact
public and workplace smoking restrictions.
In addition, the industry reports that in the absence of its
own invasive social and cultural interference, overwhelming popular
support exists for smoking restrictions in both eating and
workplaces. The report states:
"Our 1984 Roper survey found increasing support for separate
sections for smokers in public places, especially in eating and work places. A
decade ago, about half the public favored separate smoking and nonsmoking
sections in restaurants. Today, 90 percent
do. In 1974, 50 percent approved of workplace restrictions. Today, 75 percent approve."
Furthermore, the industry describes with hard
numbers the extreme effectiveness of workplace smoking bans,
saying that even the mildest smoking restrictions have a profound
effect on the country's overall cigarette consumption rate:
"...What do these health claims, the heightened
public
sentiment for smoking restrictions, increasing nonsmoker annoyance toward
smokers mean for this industry? Lower sales, of course. The
Tobacco Merchants Association took a look at smoking restriction legislation
and cigarette consumption between 1961 and 1982. The conclusion: that
restrictive smoking laws accounted for 21 percent of the variation in
cigarette consumption from state to state during that time. Our 1984
Roper data gives us another clue... Those who say they
work under restrictions smoked about one-and-one-quarter fewer cigarettes each
day than those who don't. That may sound
light but remember we're talking about light restrictions, too.
Those 220 people in our survey who work under smoking restrictions represent
some 15 million Americans. That one-and-one-quarter
per day cigarette reduction then, means nearly 7 billion fewer cigarettes
smoked each year because of workplace smoking restrictions... That's
350 million packs of cigarettes. At a dollar a pack, even the lightest
of workplace smoking restrictions is costing this industry 233 million dollars
a year in revenue."
Of course, this document also clearly describes the industry's
motives for fighting such bans: they interfere with profits.
So, in summary, we see that the tobacco industry
has discovered how to reduce tobacco-induced illness
nationally and worldwide. We also see that their answer agrees
with that of the experts at organizations like Americans for Nonsmokers
Rights and GASPs, who have long been in the business of enacting effective
anti-smoking mea sures. Thus there should no longer
be disagreement in any sector about which measures are most
effective in decreasing tobacco consumption across the board: public and
workplace smoking bans.
This document should be quoted from at every
public legislative hearing where smoking restrictions are being
proposed.
Title (on TDO): The
Efforts of Shook
(On Tobacco Institute document
site) I. PUBLIC SMOKING: THE PROBLEM (SDC INTRODUCTION)
Type of Document: Speech/presentation
Author: N/A ("Source: S. Chilcote,"
of the Tobacco Institute)
Recipient: N/A
Date: 19000000
Page Count: 12
Litigation Usage: None, but stamped "Confidential:
Minnesota Tobacco Legislation."
Search Criteria: "speech and confidential" (on TDO)
Quote:
Public Smoking: The Problem (SDC Introduction)
Fourteen years ago, Surgeon General Jesse Steinfeld launched the
campaign to ban smoking in public places, claiming that "evidence is
accumulating that the nonsmoker may have untoward effects from the
pollution his smoking neighbor forces upon him." A decade later -- in
1981 -- 225 anti-smokers from throughout the U.S. gathered in New York City to
develop a "Blueprint for Action" against smokers. Almost 25 percent
of their recommendations directly address the public smoking issue. The
remainder, of course, affect it...
In 1974, fewer than half the respondents believed this.
Today, nearly 7 in 10 agree. And for the first time? A majority of
smokers believe that ambient smoke is hazardous. A decade ago only 30
percent of smokers believed this. If this trend -- toward increasing
public acceptance that ambient cigarette smoke is dangerous -- continues, in
just eight years we will find that the percentage who accept public smoking as a
probable hazard-will equal the percentage who accept primary smoking as a
hazard. [T]he Roper results continued to report an
increase in the number of people who said they found it annoying to be around
smokers. Two-thirds of nonsmokers said they were annoyed. In 1970,
only one-third reported annoyance. Even smokers now are reporting
annoyance about being around other smokers -- one in
ten.
...At the local level, workplace proposals were introduced in
30 cities and counties; 15 were approved, 21 are pending. We have 17
professional field staff battling these proposals. They are assisted by
lobbyists in each state capital and in local jurisdictions as appropriate.
Our volunteer Tobacco Action Network now numbers about 85,000; of these,
about 12,000 have been identified as activists who can be relied upon to act
when the call for help goes out. But we are badly outnumbered by the
voluntary health organizations, who can call upon more than 3 million members or
volunteers nationwide. The American Cancer Society reports some 3,128
local chapters -- one in every county in the country. One of every 100
Americans is an active ACS volunteer, they claim. The American Heart
Association maintains local chapters in 3,000 communities. The Lung
Association has 141 state and regional chapters....
...That's more than 61,000 staffed offices or units supporting
smoking restriction legislation across he country. And I'm not including
the grass roots organizations such as GASP which form to work on specific pieces
of legislation. Eighty-five thousand-plus versus six million. If we
assume that 15 percent of that six million can be described as "activist," as is
true with our TAN volunteers, we are outnumbered 900,000 to 12,000 in terms of
individuals who are willing to act when called upon. That's a ratio of
73-to-1. And those numbers don't even take into account the fact
that those 75 individuals boast a far greater credibility with legislators and
the general public than our one. Public opinion is increasingly on the
anti-smokers' side as well. Our 1984 Roper survey found increasing support
for separate sections for smokers in public places, especially in eating and
work places. A decade ago, about half the public favored separate smoking and
nonsmoking sections in restaurants. Today, 90 percent do. In 1974,
50 percent approved of workplace restrictions. Today, 75 percent approve.
...What do these health claims, the heightened public sentiment for
smoking restrictions, increasing nonsmoker annoyance toward smokers mean for
this industry? Lower sales, of course. The Tobacco Merchants
Association took a look at smoking restriction legislation and cigarette
consumption between 1961 and 1982. The conclusion: that restrictive smoking laws
accounted for 21 percent of the variation in cigarette consumption from state to
state during that time. Our 1984 Roper data gives us another clue.
859 persons of our 21,500 adult sample said they were smokers. Of these
859, 533 said they were employed, with 220 saying they worked with some form of
smoking restriction, most of them minor. Those who say they work under
restrictions smoked about one-and-one-quarter fewer cigarettes each day than
those who don't. That may sound light but remember we're talking about
light restrictions, too. Those 220 people in our survey who work under
smoking restrictions represent some 15 million Americans. That
one-and-one-quarter per day cigarette reduction then, means nearly 7 billion
fewer cigarettes smoked each year because of workplace smoking
restrictions...That's 350 million packs of cigarettes. At a dollar a pack,
even the lightest of workplace smoking restrictions is costing this industry 233
million dollars a year in revenue. How much more will it cost us with far
more restrictive laws such as those in Suffolk County and Fort Collins now being
enacted?
...It's a difficult problem -- without a doubt the most difficult
this industry faces.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Our apologies for the recent lapse in document information
posting. The editor is recovering from injuries incurred in an automobile
accident, plus the holidays are upon us, adding somewhat more to the
delays.
---> To sign up for this service or to view past postings, go here:
http://www.smokescreen.org/list/det.cfm?listid=66&menuitem=message
You will have to sign up or login to Smokescreen, a quick and simple
matter.
NOTE: Search function is working at the Doc-Alert archives!
Search the entire text of past postings by keyword. To see all postings,
enter a search criterion that would occur in every posting, like "a" or
"the."
For older postings in a easy-to-view format, try Gene Borio's great Daily
Document Archive at http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/dd/dd.html
(Browsable, but not searchable)
--> To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
Anne Landman, Regional Program Coordinator & Daily Document List Editor
American Lung Association of Colorado, West Region Office
P.O. Box 3154
Grand Junction, CO 81502
(970) 245-2120 Fax (970)
245-2288
