sample="rhetorical" bates="511413958" isource="rjr" decade="1990" class="ne" date="19940811" wka Walt Klein & Associates, Inc FAX TRANSMITTAL Contact: John Robinson Date: 8/11/94 Company Name: Fax Number: Message: see attachment Total Copies Including Cover: 3 Time: From: Andrew Confidentiality Notice Information contained in this facsimile is privileged and confidential, and is intended only for the use of the individual named above and others who have been specifically authorized to receive such. If this message has been transmitted to you in error, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited and immediate notification should be made to us at the telephone number shown below. Suite 300 · 200 Brookstown Avenue · Winston-Salem, North Carolina Phone: (910)727-4900 Fax: (910)727-4902 RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company Peaceful Times P.O. Box PEACEFUL TIMES LOCAL SMOKING BANS BACKFIRE, HURT RESTAURANTS In city after city, the anti-smoking movement is pushing for smoking bans. And in some places, they're succeeding. Their goal is backdoor prohibitions -- a tobacco-free society. Without actually prohibiting smoking, they want to make it virtually impossible for people to smoke anywhere. And to further this intrusive goal, they raise only one side of the "second-hand smoke" issue. (See our discussion of this issue in the Peaceful Times.) Often it works. Government officials come in to the and pass burdensome laws that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. In the process, they demonstrate local , particularly restaurants. Smokers simply take their business to eateries in nearby towns that still permit smoking. Restaurants in the "smoke-free" locations have thousands of dollars in sales. And, in a low-margin business like food service, these losses matter. To survive, many restaurants lay off staff. Even then, some don't make it. The upbeat: The business community suffers, jobless swell, and the city or county loses sales-tax revenue. Case histories from California The Golden State's "smoke-free" cities show how harmful can be. In 1987, when Beverly Hills banned smoking, restaurants reported sales losses of 30 to 40 percent. Within seven months, the Beverly Hills City Council unanimously repealed the ban. In 1991, when tourist mecca Paradise banned smoking, restaurant sales fell by $723,000 in just one quarter, according to the State Board of figures. At the same time, sales in nearby Chico shot up by $1,099,000. Paradise's loss was Chico's gain, as fed-up smokers crossed the town line in quest of restaurants where they could light up in peace. Bellflower, Iowa and San Luis also show steep sales losses due to smoking bans. Bellflower, like Beverly Hills, even responded by the ordinance. But perhaps the most drastic "case study" is Los Angeles, which banned smoking in all city restaurants in June 1993. Result: LA smokers flocked to restaurants in Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Culver City, West Hollywood, Inglewood and According to LA restaurateur Wes Idol, his Pacific Dining Car restaurant lost $45,000 to $50,000 a month once the ban took effect. He had to lay off seven of his 56 employees. This March, Idol fought back. Teaming up with the Southern California Business Association, he sponsored a survey of 300 L.A. eateries by the Group, and independent polling firm. The results were eye-opening. Over half the respondents said they'd lost business because of the ban. Losses averaged more than $11,000 a month -- nearly 25 percent of the restaurants' pre-ban sales. And one out of six restaurant owners said their losses had forced them to fire workers. Despite evidence, statewide ban passes. Unfortunately, these grim statistics made little impact on the California General Assembly. Recently state lawmakers passed 13, a radical statewide smoking ban. And over business owners' protests, Gov. Pete signed the bill into law. It's too soon to tell how much harm 13 will wreak. But experts already predict that the state's trade will suffer. And if Li's experience is any guide, the statewide losses could be huge. Meanwhile, evidence mounts in other states. In April, the Group completed another survey, this time polling restaurant owners and managers in smoke-free cities and towns in California, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Texas. The results: One-third of bars and restaurants said local smoking bans have affected their business volume. (According to verbatim responses, other owners/managers said they're ignoring the bans or they're unaware the bans are even in effect.) Among those who cited an impact on business, 75 percent said sales had gone down. And 15 percent of all owners/managers surveyed said they knew of another local restaurant that had lost business through the ban. Among the 75 percent reporting losses, the average loss equaled 18 percent of total revenues, or $23,336 per month. Twenty-one percent of restaurants reporting losses have had to lay off employees. Will your town be next? As we go to press, restaurant smoking ban ordinances are pending in , Texas, in New York City; and in , Mass. Will your town be the non-smokers' next target? Possibly! What can you do to fend off a smoking- ban proposal -- or to fight one that's already going? First, get involved with your local restaurant association. Remember there's always strength in numbers! Politicians pay heed to interest groups. Second, contact your local officiants; your city council, county supervisors, and/or board of health. Find out where they stand on the smoking-ban issue. If they're undecided or if they're leaning toward bans, tell them such rules could hurt your business. the survey above to show how bans drive away customers. Tell them you don't need government interference in your private business decisions. Remind them that you already provide smoking and nonsmoking sections. Urge them to adopt that kind of policy -- a rule that accommodates smokers and nonsmokers alike. Remember, in many areas, restaurant owners have successfully stopped smoking-ban threats. You can, too, but you must be ! So speak out now -- before it's too late. CLINTON HEALTH PLAN PLUNGES IN POLLS, YET EMPLOYER STILL THREATEN RESTAURANT OWNERS President Clinton's massive health-care plan is rapidly losing ground. According to a July 23-26 poll by NBC/Wall Street Journal, 48 percent of respondents now oppose "Clinton Care" while only 41 percent favor it. Sixty-one percent say Congress should wait till next year to pass any health bill at all. In an earlier poll, 55 percent of Americans said Congress should deal with health-care reform "gradually," not in a year. Alarmed by these numbers, many members of Congress are running scared Senate for (D-Me.) has crafted a compromise bill with a deferred employer mandate that would take effect only if voluntary measures failed. Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-RX) is pushing a conservative free-market plan focusing on insurance reform. Surprisingly, his modest plan is drawing widespread support. But in the House, sill aren't getting it. Apparently, the House leadership thinks Americans oppose the Clinton health plan purely because the name "Clinton" is attached to it. So Majority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) has repackaged the Clinton bill -- and all -- colleagues feel they can hoodwink the public into supporting this veiled "Clinton Clone." But if so, it's not working. As we go to press, moderate House Democrats are distancing themselves from Gephardt's bill. Many are lining up behind a alternative introduced earlier this year by Rep. Ray Howard (D-Ga) and Michael (R-Pa). In an August 3 news conference, even President Clinton himself seemed to shy away from the House bill -- and from his own 1,300 page Still House leaders are And they could prevail. If they do, all employees will have to pay 80 percent of their employee health coverage, up to a total of 7.9 percent of payroll. Small firms will get subsidies, but only temporarily. This requirement would hit entrepreneurs hard. Many provide no health insurance or offer only limited coverage, simply because they can't afford steep percent would bring their 3- to 5-percent margin. "In fact," says restaurateur Stephen E. , president of the Restaurateur Association, "the lowest amount a typical restaurant would pay for suspended insurance would eat up half his profit." Such lessons could threaten restaurants' survival. , they'd have to cut staff, And the lowest paid workers would be the first to go. in all, 2 to 3 million jobs could vanish in low-wage industries like food service, according to groups ranging from the International Retail Association to the Employment Policies Institute. Write and call your members of Congress now. Let them know a mandate is a mandate, even when it's disguised as a "trigger" (As in George Mitchell's Senate bill. Tell them mandates will hurt the restaurant industry , especially people like you. Say that you're against radical "reforms" that would wreck one-seventh of the U.S. economy. (ie.e. government and public spending on health care). Instead, recommend more modest changes, such as insurance portability and malpractice reform. You can reach your U.S. representative and two senators at: The Honorable (Name) U.S. Department of Representatives Washington, DC 20505 Phone: 282-225-3121 The Honorable (Name) U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510 Phone 282-226-3121 If you don't know your officials' names, call 1-800-862-2525 to find out. OSHA PROPOSAL UPDATE Last time, we told you about the sweeping smoking ban proposed by OSHA -- The U.S. Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration. As you may recall, these uneducated bureaucrats want to impose a no-smoking rule in virtually all enclosed workplaces, including restaurants and bars. Such a rule would take away even more of your descision-making power. And it could drive down your sales. In most congressional testimony, California entrepreneur Brady Cole, head of Restaurants for a Voluntary Policy (RSVP), made the point well. "Some have claimed would impose a level playing field," he said. "That idea ignores the American kitchen. Many smokers would simply choose to eat and entertain at home." Precisely. That's why the OSHA plan poses such a big threat -- both to your business and to your freedom. So, if you haven't already written to OSHA, do so today. NOTE: OSHA has extended its deadline for written comments to August 13, 1994. heard. But hurry! Write a short, simple letter describing your opposition to the OSHA ban proposed. Then make three copies. Mail your original plus the copies -- four letters in all -- to The Docket Office Docket No. -122 Room N-2625 U.S. Department of Labor 280 Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 28230 Remember, all letters to OSHA must be postmarked by August 13, 1994. So write now. And remember: one letter plus three copies. OSHA will only "count" your input if you submit it in quadruplicate. And don't forget to contact Congress to protest HR 3434, the smoking ban proposed by California Rep. Henry This bill would have much the same negative impact as OSHA's proposal. Urge your to vote against it! VOICE OF CHOICE