Daily Doc: PM, Jul 8, 1994: Philip Morris on economics of smoking bans
Daily Doc: Philip Morris on economics of smoking bans
Title: CAC Presentation Number 4 Tina Walls - Introduction
PM, Jul 8, 1994
Bates #: 2041183751/3790
June 10, 2000
This Philip Morris (PM) document exposes the tobacco industry's disingenuousness in continuing to predict that economic devastation will result from the passage of smoking bans. The following "inside" quote is by David Laufer, Philip Morris' director of Marketing and Sales, in 1994:
"...the economic arguments often used by the industry to scare off smoking ban activity were no longer working, if indeed they ever did. These arguments simply had no credibility with the public, which isn't surprising when you consider our dire predictions in the past rarely came true."....Yet they still prompt the restaurant, tavern and hospitality groups to use this argument!
We can thank PM for also revealing how effective tobacco control efforts are at the local level: As Mr. Laufer put it,
"With 535 locations [pursuing smoking bans] in the state [of California in 1994], there was no way we could be in every place the antis could. "PM's answer to the onslaught of popular smoking ban efforts, though, is to remove people's rights at the state level (preemption). PM's multi-pronged strategy to fight local clean-indoor air efforts, according to this document, is as follows:
- Step 1) Introduce legislation to scatter the antis' resources,
- Step 2) Pursue "accommodation" laws in a few localities to divert the anti's resources,
- Step 3) Slap a lawsuit on a large city that enacts a smoking ban so it serves as an example to leaders of other towns the "trouble" they, too, will bring upon themselves if they are so brash as to yield to their citizens' desires for a clean indoor air ordinance, and
- Step 4) Place a Philip Morris initiative on the state ballot.
This is a straightforward example of corporate abuse of the initiative system for profit protection. PM's reasons for fighting smoking bans are also contained here. As Tina Walls (Vice-President of PM State Government Affairs) put it on page one of this document:
"The immediate implication [of smoking bans] for our business is clear: if our consumers have fewer opportunities to enjoy our products, they will use them less frequently and the result will be an adverse impact on our bottom line."
CITATION
Title: CAC Presentation Number 4 Tina Walls - Introduction
Type of Document: Draft press release (I think this may have been inaccurately entered -- this seems more like a speech/presentation to me)
Author Tina Walls, Vice-President, State Government Affairs, Philip Morris Recipient: N/A
Date: 19940708
Site: Philip Morris Tobacco Company http://www.pmdocs.com/
Page Count 40
Bates No. 2041183751/3790
URL: http://www.pmdocs.com/getallimg.asp?DOCID=2041183751/3790
Litigation Usage: Florida and Washington state trial exhibit
QUOTES
(From page 28, comments by David Laufer, Director of Marketing and Sales, and Worldwide Affairs, with Philip Morris, regarding smoking bans):
...Also, the economic arguments often used by the industry to scare off smoking ban activity were no longer working, if indeed they ever did. These arguments simply had no credibility with the public, which isn't surprising when you consider our dire predictions in the past rarely came true.
The fact was that Stanton Glantz' totally bogus pronouncements on ETS had more credibility with the media and the public than our economic impact arguments...
...We decided that passing pre-emption language [in California] was vital. With 535 locations to cover in the state, there was not way we could be in every place the antis could.
Passing pre-emptive language would stop localities from passing more onerous laws and guarantee that smokers could be accommodated when they went out in public.
Our initial strategy to achieve this was five-pronged:
--First, legislative: We introduced legislation of our own to scatter the resources of the antis;
--Second, we selected a limited number of localities and decided to seek local level accommodation in those communities. This would also divert "anti" resources while demonstrating to the public and the media that accommodation works and is acceptable to most people.
-- The third was legal: We decided to sue a locality that had banned smoking in the workplace on the grounds that CAL-OSHA regulations pre-empted the city's ban. The city we selected for the suit ultimately was San Francisco...
-- The fourth prong was ultimately pulled. We were going to try something on the regulatory front using CAL-OSHA. We abandoned that idea.
-- Finally, and the most innovative tactic of all, we decided to put our own initiative on the 1994 ballot, giving California voters a chance to vote for a statewide smoking law that made room for public accommodation of smokers.
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