16,063
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
SW: grammar clean-up
<blockquote><b>"For the first time, [EPA] report provides alleged proof of link between ETS and cancer...Shifts argument from 'personal choice' to 'smoking is unhealthy for everyone'...Arms antis with scientific proof to go to OSHA...Fuels emotional hysteria of antis...Will likely accelerate efforts to prohibit/restrict smoking further...Alters image of smoker [from] 'Bad for him/her,' to 'smoker is bad for all of us.'...Puts further pressure on volume/revenue/profit trends."</b></blockquote>
Strategies Burnett designed to fight the ETS issue were to 1) broaden the ETS issue to encompass ''total'' indoor air quality (thus deflecting attention away from the ETS issue), 2) to use "credible third parties" to help the company fight public health measures, and 3) to "create a sense of doubt about the EPA ETS report" [Page 30 of the cited document].
PM did in fact employ, and in 2007 continues to employ, many of the strategies Burnett first proposed in 1993. For example, PM continues to to "frame the issue as a bigger one that just ETS" by claiming ventilation is the best solution to secondhand smoke. On In fact, eliminating smoking indoors is the simplest, most effective and inexpensive way to deal with problems caused by secondhand smoke. Still, on its website PM USA states:
<blockquote><b>In indoor public places where smoking is permitted, business owners should have the flexibility to decide how best to address the preferences of non-smokers and smokers through separation, separate rooms and/or high quality ventilation.</b></blockquote>
In reality, no manufacturer of ventilation or air purification systems warrants will warrant their products to protect health in the case of secondhand tobacco smoke.[http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?id=267]
PM also creates third party [[front group]]s that advocate ventilation, like the "Hospitality Coalition for Indoor Air." In virtually every venue where a public health smoking restriction is proposed, some business group (either existing or newly-appeared) will claim that the law is too much "government intervention." The "anti-government" strategy was proposed in 1993 by Burnett in Project Brass. (See the strategy Burnett describes on Page 25 of the cited document, titled "Raise Flag of Government Intervention: Attempts to shift focus from EPA ETS report to one of the government interfering again").
