sample="rhetorical" bates="511996699" isource="rjr" decade="1990" class="ui" date="19940330" Mar. 30. 1994 6:12PM FLEISHMAN HILLARD No. 1670 P. 4 2 I. ESTABLISH A SMOKERS' LEGAL DEFENSE FUND In the current environment, businesses and government make sweeping policy decisions with no regard for the rights of smokers and often attempt to reap positive publicity in the process by claiming to act in the public interest. They do so with an attitude of righteousness and even have invoked the U.S. Constitution in attempts to justify smoking bans. We recommend forming a national "Smokers' Legal Defense Fund" -- with a seed grant from RJR and possibly others -- that will bring more accountability to the debate by using visible litigation to prevent policymakers from continuing to act as "class bullies" and to send a clear signal to businesses that their actions regarding work place smoking will be confronted. This strategy will take advantage of smokers' rights' strong court room track record. The organization would be Washington-based, with strong national spokespersons, and would have representation and capabilities in every U.S. state (consider the NMRL model). An outspoken director with a strong personal tights record will be required, such as Harvard professor Charles Ogletree, who represented Anita Hill and who we understand has indicated that he believes government has gone too far with proposed sweeping smoking bans. State point persons would be identified through state bar associations. is this feasible? need legal input The organization would use Constitutional law and personal rights arguments to: Confront decisions by local, state, and federal governments. Challenge discriminatory policies of individual companies, especially major corporations -- perhaps chain restaurants for starters. Dramatically increase the visibility of arguments against individual regulations and policies. Highlight "bad science" and double standard arguments and make the issue of fairness more central to existing and future policies. The organization's activities would be very public and a magnet for media attention. It could also be used as a vehicle for releasing research, surveys, etc. The litigation and surrounding publicity would serve to decelerate the bandwagon for aggressive smoking restrictions by ensuring a heightened awareness by public and private officials of increased accountability and potential costs associated with these decisions. Spokespersons would need to be extensively media trained, due to the likely demand for comment, especially in the early stages. In fact, the press conference launching this group would be a major media event that would provide unprecedented opportunities to deliver arguments against unnecessary and intrusive policies. To further heighten awareness of the watchdog organization and increase its value as a deterrent, targeted advertising could be executed. Such advertising would be positioned as a membership building effort, i.e. - "Have you been discriminated against because you smoke? Your Constitutional rights may have been violated..." However, the ads would serve a much greater purpose by heightening the sense of accountability among target audiences. II. INCREASE COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITIES There is a large check mark in the left margin beside the following paragraph: The legal defense fund concept is a front-line strategy to confront the charges head-on. We recommend that this philosophy be adopted at all levels of communication and that RJR create opportunities to raise the visibility of its messages on all fronts. Following are tactics we believe will help achieve this goal: Spokesperson Capabilities In an effort to leave no chair empty and use every opportunity to interject RJR's messages into the debate, a systematic network of spokespersons and allies should be identified, trained and promoted. One simple way to beef-up spokesperson capabilities would be to media train RJR's field people and prepare them to deliver key public smoking messages. Local allies, such as smokers' tights advocates, restaurateurs, club owners and others also would be identified and trained to echo key messages. F-H has experience in designing and holding group media/message training sessions and could design joint regional training for RJR field operatives and allies. Information advisories would be sent to targeted editors and reporters alerting them of local/regional resources available to comment on public smoking issues and the availability of a local contact. RJR could operate a public smoking media relations "hotline" to provide counsel and backup materials to spokespersons. The hotline also would serve to help identify upcoming media coverage on the issue and keep records of key reporters and editors for future approach. There is a verticle line in the left margin next to the following heading: Smokers' Rights Information Bureau 800 number A special information bureau should be developed as a repository and clearinghouse for information regarding smokers rights and smoking regulation issues. The bureau would be publicized nationally through media advisories, resource directories and smokers' publications. It would serve as an important resource for a wide range of interests including litigators, smokers' rights groups, legislators and the media. In addition, the bureau could serve the "hotline" function previously described and maintain records of media coverage. III. ENHANCE LITIGATION SUPPORT Probably not Too often smokers' rights prevail in the courtroom but lose in the press. Let's work to fix that. A large media relations component would be designed to complement the proposed Smokers' Legal Defense Fund. However, equal attention should be given to key litigation involving RJR. Aggressive litigation support will both increase the broadcast of key public smoking messages and act as a deterrent to future proposals for onerous restriction. This effort could include: Developing op-eds and letters to the editor to be sent by scientists, smokers' rights advocates and other third parties to local newspapers and business-related publications. Developing a tally, or score card, of major litigation victories that would include anecdotes and examples and illustrate the triumph of fairness and personal rights. Identifying individuals who have a "stake" in the outcome of ongoing litigation, training them and making them available to local media to illustrate the effects of such laws. Furthermore, since the parties involved in litigation are often severely limited in what they can say, it will allow others to humanize the debate by putting a face on those affected, who might include, smokers and restaurant and club employees and owners. Identifying and pitching legal and constitutional scholars who are available for media comment and will champion individual rights. There is a circle in the left margin next to the following heading with a line to this marginalia: a big point to pursue IV. INCREASE DEMAND FOR SOUND SCIENCE Despite some of the recognition that EPA's and OSHA's actions do not reflect the body of scientific evidence and that science has been overlooked and manipulated to suit policy goals, efforts to regulate public smoking continue to accelerate. Smoking advocates are challenged to make people care that basing policy on "bad science" is not only irresponsible, but dangerous as well. Following are ways to accomplish this: Science and Policy Forum One way to increase the call for responsible use of science in formulating policy would be to create a forum to debate and draw attention to the issue. The event would be open to the media and participants could include: Scientists Risk assessment experts Legislators who have been critical of improper use of science Syndicated columnists, science writers and policy reporters Current or former health officials The forum would be held in Washington, DC and sponsored by a reputable independent think tank or institute, RJR would underwrite the event, possible in conjunction with other companies, and work with the organizers to develop a program, which would be broad enough to include a myriad of issues and concerns regarding various substances and issues, but would include ETS as a centerpiece and current example. It could also include: An overview of examples of where issues were driven by flawed science of with scientific support, such as ETS, pesticides, asbestos, ozone depletion, acid rain and resource depletion. A discussion of how sensationalism and unjustified media frenzies have effected behavioral or policy changes without scientific support, such as scares over alar, electromagnetic fields, polystyrene and other issues. A discussion of responsible policy, where despite public and media pressure, sound science prevailed. A segment on risk assessment that includes hypothetical risks vs. real risks and illustrates the levels of risk associated with common and uncommon activities. This would put perceived ETS risk in perspective. In addition to having media attend, print or video news releases could be developed to publicize the event and its findings. Excerpts of comments could be developed and widely distributed to media, think tanks, the congressional Research Service and mailed to legislators and their staff. F-H also could work to generate a story about the conference in policy journals and media publications, such as the Columbia Journalism Review. Tobacco- friendly legislators could reference the forum and its pleas for science-justified policy in Congressional floor and record statements. The event could be sponsored by the Columbia Institute, which F-H has worked with before to coordinate successful issue forums. The Columbia Institute format requires balanced panels with speakers on both sides of the issue and usually features two members of Congress with diverse views as hosts. This scenario would probably call for a panel devoted specifically to ETS and public smoking. Although the panel would feature advocates from both sides, the "bad science" viewpoint would get a fair airing in a forum that would be receptive to the arguments. This type of forum could also be conducted through National Academy of Sciences. However, the degree of control would be lessened and the costs would be greatly increased. Regardless of the venue, one excellent organization to involve is the Heartland Institute, which has done extensive research on bringing common sense to environmental issues. Another group to consider involving is the Scientist' Institute for Public Information, which has done extensive research on bringing common sense to environmental issues. In a similar vein, F-H could explore the possibility of working with the Media Institute to explore the media's treatment of public smoking issue. This could include a forum or event to consider what factors most influence coverage of ETS issues and whether science has been overlooked or, more specifically, if the media has been too accepting of suspect scientific evidence being used to justify policy debates. Demonstrate Bias Against Tobacco Survey research could be helpful to demonstrate a bias against tobacco by researchers and the scientific community. RJR could commission research to replicate the study we understand Philip Morris performed that involved a blind survey of various substances to rank the risk associated with them, coupled with a attitudinal survey to determine the perceived risk of tobacco. Conduct Research to Add Perspective Risk communications experts could develop a broad ranking that puts ETS in context with other pollutants (like RJR's Coggins' illustration that drinking a class of milk is more dangerous than secondhand smoke). The ranking would then be widely distributed to media by RJR or a smokers' rights organization, including camera-ready illustrated charts "USA Today" style to tell the story. Responsible Policymaking Ads Advocacy advertisements could be developed for placement in targeted congressional districts to encourage responsible smoking policymaking. The ads would include: Illustration of the known risks associated with ETS compared to other substances. The flaws of EPA's meta-analysis and OSHA's dismissal of legitimate work place studies. An appeal to fairness - to disregard personal feelings about tobacco and to base policy solely on available science. - in field discuss roll out V. USE SURVEY DATA AS NEWS HOOK AND MOTIVATOR With an issue as visible and controversial as public smoking, the news media is extremely receptive to survey data. Therefore, surveys can be used as both a news hook to spread key messages, and as a tool to reach and motivate key constituencies. Visibility Polls The recent USA Today poll, indicating the majority of the public does not support smoking bans, is an extremely valuable asset. Further commissioned research can increase the database and provide additional support. Research recommendations include: A national public opinion poll, executed by a premier polling firm such as Gallup or Harris, that goes beyond the USA Today's poll to get more detailed attitudinal information -- from smokers and non-smokers -- including perceptions of: Whether total smoking bans in offices and public places are excessive. The fairness of bans to smokers. The importance of scientific evidence to justify smoking policy. The type of poll described above could be conducted in targeted Congressional districts and released separately by local smokers' rights advocates, restaurant/club owners and others with coordination by RJR field operatives. The local publicity polls would be released with background on public smoking issues and spokespersons would be available including scientists who could point out the lack of evidence to support bans and local citizens who could discuss the effect on their rights and/or business. Research to Motivate Constituencies Additional research can be conducted to illustrate the various costs of smoking bans and motivate groups and individuals with interests at stake. This research includes: Commission an economic study of the costs of banning smoking to the hospitality, travel, and retail sectors. Such research would be conducted by a reputable economist or academic with consumer habits background. This research would illustrate the resulting impact from smokers avoiding travel and entertainment and opting to stay at home where they can smoke. The results would be heavily publicized to targeted state and local restaurant associations, hotel and hospitality associations, tourism bureaus and chambers and to the trade press of these sectors. check w/ Hyde An impact assessment of the Los Angeles ban on smoking in indoor restaurants. This research would expand on the recent industry poll revealing lost income and jobs since the ban went into effect to compare the impact within Los Angeles to restaurants just on the opposite side of the city boundary. Data would be assembled as a case study for other cities/states to illustrate the costs of such bans. In addition to general publicity for the poll, the results would be packaged and distributed to restaurant owners through trade publications and to restaurant associations through meetings. A opinion survey could be conducted of the blue collar workers' attitudes toward work place smoking bans. The results would be publicized to targeted labor unions.