6.10 The tobacco industry and smoking in the workplace and in public places

Impact on sales

As noted above, average consumption among smokers decreases following workplace smoking bans. This matters to the tobacco industry. In 1978 William Hobbs, a president of the US-based tobacco company RJ Reynolds, said of anti-smoking measures that:

If they caused every smoker to smoke just one less cigarette a day, our company would stand to lose $92 million in sales annually. I assure you that we don't intend to let that happen without a fight.(17)

More recently, the Director of the Asian Tobacco Council (the tobacco industry lobby group for that region) stated that '... the danger is that if you reduce the opportunities for a smoker to smoke, through private or public smoking restrictions, then there is, inevitably, a resultant decline in personal consumption. This undoubtedly affects the bottom line'.(99)

It has been estimated that workplace bans in the Australian Commonwealth public service alone would cause a loss of $5.2 million in retail sales to the tobacco companies annually (in 1988 figures).(78) Extrapolated to indoor workers Australia-wide, even allowing that only half of them might work in a smokefree environment, the industry would lose over $65.5 million in sales per annum (not $6.55 million as reported in Chapman et al,(84) due to a misplaced decimal point). Were 90% of indoor workplaces to go smokefree, around $73.35 million in retail sales would be lost (1992 prices).(100) These calculations do not take into account evidence that the drop in consumption on workdays is, in some smokers, carried over to non-workdays as well, resulting in a greater drop in consumption. Nor do they include the permanent loss to the industry of smokers who, having learnt to do without cigarettes at work, may decide to quit altogether.

Similar calculations have estimated that the tobacco industry would be losing around $736,500 annually in retail sales (at 1988 prices) as a result of the ban on smoking now in force in Australian domestic aircraft.(84) Taking into account other forms of public transport, and the wide variety of other places where smoking is not permitted, means that smokefree policies are probably having some impact on the smoking behaviour of most smokers. See also Chapter 14, Section 20.

The Australian cigarette market has entered a period of downturn, and is contracting at a faster rate than initially forecast by the industry.(101) In early 1994, cigarette manufacturer WD & HO Wills predicted an rate of market decline of 3-5% per annum for the foreseeable future(102) (see also Chapter 14).

Public perceptions of harm -- giving tobacco a bad press

Restricting the places where people can smoke is a constant reminder to the public that smoking is dangerous and that its effects spread beyond the smoker. Smokefree environments counter the previous ubiquity of the cigarette, and erode social acceptability. They also encourage those who would prefer a smokefree environment to work towards achieving one. As discussed in Section 6.13 below, public opinion strongly favours smokefree work and other public areas. There is also a strong public perception that passive smoking is harmful to health (Chapter 4, Section 6).

Sick buildings, ventilation and courtesy

One tobacco industry response to the issue of health risks from environmental tobacco smoke has been to deflect attention from tobacco smoke by focussing on so-called 'sick buildings' and poor ventilation. Rather than banning smoking in the workplace, the problems of environmental tobacco smoke should be resolved through a combination of courtesy, tolerance and improved ventilation. In the tobacco industry's view, bans are discriminatory, are likely to cause friction between employees, and are unjustified by scientific evidence.(103,104,105)

Leaving aside the industry furphy that the scientific evidence is inconclusive, research undertaken for the New South Wales Cancer Council has shown that common courtesy may not be enough. The survey showed that over 80% of smokers would continue to smoke in the presence of non-smokers, although 50% would try to deflect their smoke, or smoke less. Although almost 70% of non-smokers said that smoking bothered them, only 7% would ask the smoker to stop. Non-smokers tended to use less confrontational methods of discouraging smoking around them, such as coughing or looking annoyed, or moving away.(106)

For more information on 'Sick building syndrome' and the tobacco industry response to the passive smoking issue, see Chapter 3, Section 11 and Chapter 14, Section 20.

Smokers' rights?

The notion of smokers' rights frequently occurs in conjunction with objections expressed by the tobacco industry about restrictions on smoking. Chapman et al(84) have made the following observations about these rights:

In Elizabethan England, the free exercise of flatulence even among company was considered normal and not proscribed by considerations of politeness or offensiveness. Similarly, public expectoration was commonplace across all social classes in Victorian and Edwardian England, and the practice remains widespread in many countries today without drawing any social or legal approbation. There are some pertinent similarities between flatulence, spitting, and smoking. Each behaviour is essentially personal, but being not involuntary, is each capable of being exercised in both private and in public settings. As well, the performance of each behaviour is usually motivated by a desire to make oneself more comfortable, and so its execution is accompanied by a feeling of relief and pleasure. While those performing any of these three behaviours derive some pleasure from them, all three have also emerged as the focus of social ostracism, and in the case of spitting and smoking, legal sanctions. The control of spitting is thought to have played an important part in the control of tuberculosis. The personal pleasure these behaviours allow to their perpetrators also causes unpleasant, and in the case of spitting and smoking, potentially harmful results to those exposed to the products of these behaviours.

In view of these parallels, it is salutary to speculate on the likely reception that would be given to earnest talk about 'farters' rights' or 'spitters' rights'. Clearly, such terms would be greeted with derision, while 'smokers' rights' continues to maintain some currency as a serious concept. The derision accorded to the former terms would partly reflect their strangeness, but derive mostly from the bombastic apposition of essentially private and discreet behaviours with the legalistic tone intrinsic to the word 'rights'. Perhaps the principal difference between the three behaviours is that it is only smoking that involves a purchased commodity (cigarettes), and hence only for smoking have powerful groups of financially vested interests taken any role in attempting to define the behaviour as one appropriate to as many public situations as possible. There is no financial gain to be made in promoting the social acceptability of flatulence or spitting.

Discrimination

It is also worth noting that restrictions on smoking do not relate to a factor inherent to a person, such as sex, colour or class, but to an activity in which a person may or may not choose to engage. Laws restricting smoking are no more discriminatory than those concerning, for example, alcohol use under particular circumstances.(107)

See also Chapter 14, section 20 for further discussion of tobacco industry promotion of smokers' rights.