Lat
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 9
November 1999


Is it true that empty cigarette packs
15. may be traded to the cigarette com-
panies for time on a kidney dialysis machine?
No. There is no basis for this often heard rumor.
Typically. word spreads that a certain number
of packs'will help provide such things as
di2lvsis,
open-heart surgery or time in an iron lung f6r a
child or so many dollars toward the pur6ase of
a wheelchair.
Cigarette companies have for many years made
sizeable contributions to health rcs*ca*rch.
educa-
tion and social and cultural causes. But none of
this corporate philanthropy involves redemption
of empty packs.
Are the tobacco companies preparing
16. to market marijuana if it's legalized?
No. Logic alone would demonstrate that cigarette
makers, alreadv faced with a controverw involv-
ing a fully legal product. would not enter an area
with the legal and ethical sensitivities of mari-
juana Despite rumors to the contrary, the
companies do not own land on whicfi to grow
marijuana. Nor have they registered any mari-
ju2na trade names, such as "Acapulco Cold."
Do you have to be a smoker to work
17. for The Tobacco Institute?
No. In fact, many Tobacco Institute employees
choose not to smoke. The decision to smoke or
not is and should remain a personal one to be
Made by the individual. The Institute believes
that
the individual's freedom to make that choice
should not be regulated and it does not attempt
to do so with its employees.
The Tobacco Institute offers this booklet in the
belief that full and free discussion of important
public issues is in the public interest.
Are more or less people smoking now?
Because of population growth. the nuniber of adulr
Americans who choose to smoke is apparenth
larger than ever. but the incidence of smoking-
the rate or percentage-is lower. Nearly 60
million Americans. or about a third of the adult
population. smoke. The U.S. Public Health
Service reports smoking incidence among men in
1931 2t 36.7 percent and among vornen. 28.9
percent.
Teenage smoking has been declining among both
boys and girls. According to the American
Cancer Society. the incidence of smoking among
teenagers is down 25 percent. to the lowest level
since 1964. Among teenage girls. the smoking rate
has decreased 17 percent since 1974, in boys
32 percent.
How many cigarettes are sold annually
/ 2. in the U.S.?
Approximately 628 billion cigarettes were pur-
chased in 198 i. an increase of 17 percent in the
last decade. Government surveys indicate the
average smoker smokes about a pack a day, men
averaging a little more than women.
Does cigarette advertising cause kids to
3. start smoking? If not, what does?
There are no par answers. A director of the
government's Office: on Smoking and Health has
said that people choose to smoke for a varierv
of reasons, but cigarette advertising is not
wl~iar
he called "the culprit." A recent Surgeon
General's
report said that responses from teenagers them-
selves indicate that peer pressure mav be one of
the major influences. Research by experts
indicates
that the pressure of peers is important, but so
are. many complex psychological, cultural and
socioeconomic factors.
Teen smoking is down, though, and we're glad
it is. Because we don't think kids should smoke,
as youll see in the next question.
BATCo document for Province of BritiSh Columbia 9
November 1999


Meantime. please understand that cigarette ad-
to induce people to start
vertising is not designed
smoking. kids or anybody else. but to divide the
already existing marker 13, promoting brand
identitic ' 1e who are
ation and loyalty among peop
smokers. That advertising does not initiate
smoking
is obvious, witness several European countries
that allow no advertising but see increasing
sales.
That it doesn't cause kids to smoke is indicated
in the drop in teen smoking in this country while
cigarette makers continue to promote their brands
-to adult smokers.
Would you, as a tobacco industry
4. employee, want your teenage son or
daughter to smoke?
Nlost indusm employees would tell you thcv'd
prefer their children did not smoke. ~mokin'g is
an adult custom. like social drinking, staying up
late. making one's own choice of what movies or
TV shows to watch. Young persons should be
urged not to smoke until and unless they have
enough years, knowlecife and experience in life
to make'mature aAd in ormed decisions.
Does cigarette smoke endanger non-
V., 5. smokers? What's the latest research?
7'Many people who want smoking banned or re-
stricted in public places say that smoke in the
atmosphere Can cause disease in nonsmokers. These
claims do not, however. stand up before scientific
scrutinv.
Recent .ly, for example, a Japanese study
reporting
that nonsmoking wives of smokers have a high
risk of lung cancer got, a lot of publicity. But
the validity of the study was scriousl luestioned
Yo
in the medical literature by a variety experts
around the world.
Within six months an American Cancer Socierv
studv covering 17 years and 200,000 people con-
tr2d'cted the Japanese study. The new research,
by the society's statistical director, indicated
that
Irg
-;econd-h2nd" smoke has insignificant effect on
lung cancer rates in nonsmokers.
2
BATCo document for Province of BritiSh Columbia 9
November 1999
Do the toba panies control the
-12 cco com
v research they sponsor?
Absolutely not. Independent scientific advisors
evaluate a'nd fund research proposals by
individuals
and institutions. Awards are made with no string,5
attached and each researcher is free to -,ublish
studv results. whatever thev mav be.
%Vhat about fires caused by the care-
13. less use of smoking marerials-r
Obviously. a single death or injury Caused by
careless s"moking is one too many.
Some people have suggested that Cig2re-tes could
be made diffcrentiv, so that they would go our
when not being pu~ffecl. But the questions
involved
in producing a cigarette that could not. under
any circumstances. cause a fire are incrediblv
complex. Happily. there has been some progress
in this area - particularly in the develop~nent of
fire- and smolder- resista'nt upholstered
furniture.
The cigarette companies are continuing. along
with other interested groups and individuals. to
search for answers to the accidental fire problem.
V 14. Is there a tobacco subsidy?
There is no tobacco subsidy. There is a govern-
ment pr7iir supporr andproo~ctz~n control program
that guarantees farmers a minimum price for their
tobacco in return for strict limits on production.
Similar programs do the same for 13 other com-
modities. But the money isn't a gift. It's a loan,
repaid with interest.
In the 48 years since the price support progr2m
begin. it has been the most successful farm pro-
am the government has ever had. While making
Foans of 55.7 billion since 1933, the program
shows
a net loss on government books of only S57
m:71ion. That amounts to just one-tenth of one
percent of all losses for all commodiry price
support programs. During the same 48 years.
tobacco product purchasers have paid federal. -
!rate ~nd local treasuries more than S136 billion
in excise taxes.
7


Today. cigarette excises represent nearly 4
percent
of tot'al state tax receipts- an important revenue
source for financialiv strapped state governments.
In 198 1. the excise brought States nearly S4
billion
and municipalities an additional :5164 million.
Since 19S 1, when the current federal excise was
set. the average state cigarette tax rate has in-
creased 340 percent.
Cigarette excises are regressive. taking 2 higher
proportion of income from those with lower
earnings than from those with greater incomes.
Combined federal. state and local excises and
sales
taxes average 24 cents per pack. about 87 percent
of the manufacturers' prices.
What is the economic contribution
10. of tobacco?
The tobacco industry contributes mightily to the
U.S. cconomv. Leaf is grown in 20 states on an
estimated 276,000 firms. It is the sixth largest
U.S. cash crop. The U.S. is also the leading
exporter of tobacco and the largest importer. The
result is a positive net contribution of more than
$1.9 billion per year to the U.S. international
balance of payments. Americans spent $23 billion
for tobacco products in 1980.
What is the tobacco industry doing to
it. help resolve the smoking and health
controversy?
So far, the tobacco industry has committed more
thin $100 million for independent research on
smoking and health questions. In many years,
industry awards exceeded that of any government
department. They have always far exceeded the
smoking and health research funding of all volun-
tary health associations, which regularly spend
more of their donated funds for administration
and public relations campaigns than for research.
The tobacco industry remains commirted to ad-
vancing scientific inquiry into the gaps in knowl-
edge in the smoking controversy.
Much has been made bv anti-smokcrs of a 19,90
studv in California claiming to show that exposure
to ci, educesthe
garette smoke in the workplace r
lung function of nonsmokers. Those who quote
this study as gospel. however. fail to take into
account what one of the government's chief
lung experts wrote in a guest editorial in the
52fnC
journal issue. -The evidence that passive smoking
Ineral atmosphere has health effects." %vrote
in a g
Dr. aude Lenfant of the National Heart. Lung
and Blood. Institute. **remains sparse. incomplete
and sometimes unconvincing." Two years 12tC:-.
it still is.
Another study commonly used in support ofsmok-
ing restrictions involved the measurement of
partiCU12te matter in public buildings around
Washington, D.C., bv two researchers who then
claimed that nonsmokers are exposed to - i
cant air pollution burdens from indoor smo ing.
No definitive piece here, either. Because the
investigators measured no substance specific to
tobacco smoke-like nicotine, for instance. Nor
did thev take any readings beforr the introduction
of tobacco smoke. Their measurements, therefore,
may simply reflect the amount of dust in the air
and have little relevance so far as tobacco smoke
is concerned.
No hard conclusions can be drawn about the ef-
fects, if any, of environmental cigarette smoke on
the healthy nonsmoker. The issue is an emotional
one. And emotion may cloud the perceptions and
humors of those who aislike cigarette smoke.
Scientific studies on the nonsmoker question con-
tinue, as they should.
Is it true that 3ide3tream smoke that
6. drifts offthe end ofthe cigarette contains
fiar greater quantities of smoke constituents
th smoke drawn from the
cigarette by the smoker?
All constituents of cigarette smoke- including
tar,
nicotine and carbon monoxide-are immediatelv
diluted by the surrounding air.
Measurements of atmospheric cigarett .e smoke
taken under riwlirt& conditions indicate that the
contribution of tobacco smoke to the air we
breathe
is minimal. One study at Harvard found only
BATCo document for Province of BritiSh Columbia 9
November 1999


Very SM211 amounts of nicotine in the atmosphere
of cocktail lounges. restaurants. bus stations and
airline terminals. Based on those measurements
of a substance speciric to tobacco smoke. one
astute reader of the literature estimated that a
nonsmoker would have to spend 100 hours straight
in the smokiest bar to inhale the equivalent of
a single filterrip cigarette.
Levels Of Carbon monoxide (CO) are affected bv
Many factors-cooking and heating equipment.
motor vehicles and industrial processes. even the
er of people around. because CO is generated
numb.
bv bodv metabolism. But as a prominent New
, ~ha M2COlOgiSt said recently, environ-
ersey r
J
mental studies suggest that the CO in tobacco
smoke has little impact on the content of room
air. except under hikhly arrifEezirl conditions.
The results of studies conducted under realistic
conditions indicated that CO from tobacco smoke
in the atmosphere rarely exceeds 10 parts per
millioti (ppm) and is closer to S ppm in public
P12CCS with normal ventilation. Both figures are
well below the limit of SO ppm recommended
by various health agencies for workers exposed
over an eight-hour period.
7. Are public smoking laws necessary?
There is an all too com.mon tendency today to
turn to public authorities to trv to correct what
might be bothersome behavior in others. But can
we ask law enforcement agencies to stretch their
already limited resources to police smoking
restrictions' Police groups have called such laws
.Virtuallv unenforceable" and -a waste of enforce-
ment time."
Few would not agree with the National Black
Police Officers Asw6ation officials who pointed
out that "the limited amount of personnel we do
have could better spend their time in making
our neighborhoods safe."
Today, when most jurisdictions are strapped for
funds and proprietors begrudge every new penny
perating costs-indeed, at any time-can we
of 0
mally support laws that create extra expense and
inconvenience and cause confrontations?
4
A law that is only h2lf-hC2rtedly. even uneqU211V.
enforced breeds disrespect for 211 law -and all
law enforcement.
Public smoking laws are appropriate to regulate
situations in which there is 2 clear hazard. such
as
smoking in the presence of gasoline. But they
are unnecessary when good judgment. common
courtesy and mutual toleration should dictate
esses.
behavior. Most busin for example. will see
to the mutual comfort of smoking and nonsmoking
patrons as the need exists. for it is in the busi-
nesses' best interests.
The majority of smokers can readily determine
when smokiiig is inappropriate, ana when
approached in a reasonable manner by someone
trulv bothered brv smoke will exercise courtesy.
8. What motivates anti-smoking groups?
Despite health warnings that have appeared on all
cigarette packages for many years, a small number
of persons remain dedicated to the prohibition
of smoking. In the 19SOS and 60s, their attack
was against a tobacco product -cigarettes. Now
it is the users of the product who are the targets
as the anti-smokers attempt to subject them to
public disapproval and ridicule.
The anti-smokers -a small minority of the non-
smokers-lobby for laws to restrict or prohibit
the use of tobacco, seeking to convert a custom
into a crime.
9. What's the effect of tobacco taxes?
Tob cco, amon the most heavily taxed consumer
"a
7 products, proviles Mo. than 56.7 billion
annually
in direct taxes to federal, state and local gov-
ernment, helping to pay for such things as mass
transportation and snow removal. The U.S.
Tre2sury col[lects 8 cents on every back of cl -
9
arettes sold, individual states from to 21 cents
and some 370 municipalities from I to 15 cents.
Since the first federal tax on tobacco in 1862,
more thin $151 billion has been collected by all
levels of government.
BATCo document for Province of BritiSh Columbia 9
November 1999