The tobacco industry is very worried about SHS restrictions, and has indicated in internal documents that the passive smoking issue is “the most dangerous development to the viability of the tobacco industry that has yet occurred.”[1] The bottom line is that smoke-free by-laws and legislation hurt tobacco’s bottom line. one Philip Morris USA internal study[2], obtained in the discovery process during litigation, says:
“Total prohibition of smoking in the workplace strongly affects industry volume. Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11% – 15% less than average and quit at a rate that is 84% higher than average.”
For the sake of brevity, what follows is a short list of typical arguments against smoke-free by-laws put forth by the tobacco industry and its mouthpieces.
“Second-hand smoke is not a health danger…”“Bars and restaurants will lose revenues, will have to close, and proprietors will have trouble feeding their families…”“Ventilation can accommodate both smokers and non-smokers alike…”“Customers will travel to other municipalities to eat out or to go to bars…”“Government should not be micro-managing businesses”“This is a rights issue…government does not have the right to tell people where they can or can’t smoke…”“Smoke-free by-laws are a covert attempt to stop people from smoking…”“Tobacco is a legal product and smoking shouldn’t be regulated like this…”“Municipalities do not have the authority from the province to pass this type of legislation…”“The marketplace can decide how many smoke-free restaurants and bars there should be…”
To face the threat that smoking restrictions pose, tobacco companies have reached new lows in the name of protecting profits. Read on to learn about some of the industry’s tactics that have been used in other communities to fight against clean air legislation.
[1] Roper Organization. (1978). Poll. A study of public attitudes toward cigarette smoking and the tobacco industry in 1978, Volume 1.
[2] Philip Morris USA. (1992). Inter-office memo. Impact of Workplace Restrictions on Consumption and Incidence.
[3] Scollo, M., Lal, A., Hyland, A. & Glantz, S. (2003). Review of the quality of studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry. Tobacco Control, 12, 13-20.
The following quotations have been taken directly from the Fair Air Association of Canada (FAAC) and the Pub and Bar Coalition of Canada (PUBCO) websites. Upon close inspection we found their logic on second-hand smoke and ventilation to be hazy and hazardous to our health.
Download the Document
This prediction of doom and gloom is just that: a prediction, and an inaccurate one at that. To date, no high quality, peer-reviewed study has found a long-term negative impact on business due to smoke-free ordinances (by-laws).
Download the Document
Since Big Tobacco is generally perceived as being untrustworthy in the public’s eye, tobacco companies will often employ more credible third parties to promote their viewpoints and further their agendas. This can be done either by tricking existing organizations into becoming industry mouthpieces, or creating new organizations to do their dirty work.
When it comes...
For a fact sheet on Second-hand Smoke and “Junk Science”: click here
Big Tobacco has known for years that SHS is toxic and dangerous to people’s health. One way for the tobacco industry to fight back is to deny and/or point the blame elsewhere. Two particular strategies have been used together quite effectively: fabricate counter-evidence to...
Ventilation
Ventilation as a solution to SHS in bars and restaurants is a propaganda brainchild of the tobacco industry, and is not based on public health protection. Ventilation is marketed as a way to “accommodate” both smokers and non-smokers, somehow meaning that SHS is nothing more than an irritant or nuisance. Can you think of...
