Daily Doc: TI: Tobacco Industry says Bans are Most Effective
Daily Doc: Tobacco Industry says Bans are Most Effective
Title: I. PUBLIC SMOKING: THE PROBLEM (SDC INTRODUCTION)
TI
Bates #: TIMN0014554 TIMN0014554/4565
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 measures. 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.
CITATION
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," ofthe Tobacco Institute)
Recipient: N/A
Date: 19000000
Site:Tobacco Documents Online http://www.tobaccodocuments.org/
Page Count 12
Bates No.TIMN0014554/4565
URL: (On TDO) http://www.tobaccodocuments.org/view.cfm?docid=19435&source=BLILEY&ShowImages=yes On Tobacco Institute site: http://www.tobaccoinstitute.com/getallimg.asp?DOCID=TIMN0014554/4565&if=avtidx
Litigation Usage: None, but stamped "Confidential: Minnesota Tobacco Legislation."
Search Criteria: "speech and confidential" (on TDO)
QUOTES
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 thatthenonsmoker may have untoward effects from the pollutionhis 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? Amajority 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 wereintroduced 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.
This service is brought to you by the American Lung Association of Colorado ( http://www.alacolo.org/) and Smokescreen ( http://www.smokescreen.org)
To join Doc-Alert, go to http://tobaccodocuments.org/, scroll down to the bottom of the page, enter your email address in the box marked "Daily Document Newsletter," and click *subscribe.*
Visit the Daily Document Archives at http://www.smokescreen.org/list/viewmsgs.cfm?id=66, or, for quick and easy at-a-glance viewing, try Gene Borio's great new Daily Document Archive at http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/dd/dd.html
Anne Landman, Regional Program Coordinator
American Lung Association of Colorado, West Region Office
Grand Junction, CO
(970) 245-2120
afoxland@gj.net
***********************
Go To: Tobacco BBS HomePage / Resources Page / Health Page / Documents Page / Culture Page / Activism Page
***********************
END OF DOCUMENT