September 26, 1999

No Butts About it, Reno Anti-Tobacco Suit is Hypocrisy

There is smoke, and there is “smoke.”

The difference between that sucked from a cigarette, and that soon to be wafting rhetorically through a Federal District Court, will be debated in the government suit for alleged damages by tobacco industry.

President Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno assert that executives from leading tobacco companies have conspired since 1954 to defraud and mislead the public about the health effects of tobacco.

As a result of this “criminal” act, the government has incurred costs of $20 billion annually to treat tobacco-related illnesses under Medicare and other tax-supported programs. Clinton wants triple damages for costs since 1970 when the Organized Crime Control Act was enacted.

This is legal blackmail. Obviously the industry would be appropriated and liquidated under such an astronomical financial penalty. Clinton and various state governments don’t wish to strangle the golden goose. Just give all you have, but keep that tobacco tax revenue coming.

We have seen hypocrisy carried to the nether depths by the Clinton administration, but the tobacco suit is plain old- fashion extortion.

The White House tried to climb on the tobacco gravy train a couple of years ago when a few tort lawyers won humongous class- action settlements for smokers supposedly incapacitated by their habit.

Clinton was so greedy in his search for new tax money, the tobacco companies resisted bankruptcy and fought back on the basis they produced a legal product endorsed by the Federal government.

No matter. The government has other arrows in its quiver. Reno dropped the civil suit and approached her shakedown on “criminal” grounds. Everything depends upon how you define “criminal.”

Last week’s suit was filed under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) clause of the 1970 law. It was created to curtail the influence of Mafia racketeers in legitimate businesses. However, a “racketeer” has come to mean anyone who defies the Justice Department..

Greg Little, counsel for Philip Morris, the largest cigarette producer, says “We will not succumb to politically correct extortion.”

George W. Bush, Republican candidate for the presidency “hopes the era of big government is not being replaced by the era of big lawsuits.”

Bruce Josten, executive vice-president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, characterizes the government suit as “nothing more than taxation through litigation.”

Indeed, Reno must explain away the government’s own racketeering. The Congress and Executive Department have been partners in growing and marketing tobacco since 1933.

Green Scissors, an environmental advocacy group, points out U.S. Department of Agriculture duplicity. It provides cultivation advice to tobacco farmers and subsidizes crop insurance. It provides financial assistance to the industry through price supports, research and marketing services.

Reno’s principal accusation seems to be that cigarette manufacturers wrongly assert that nicotine is not addictive. Here, again, we must play the Clintonesque game – how do you define addiction. Six industry witnesses before Congress two years ago solemnly declared nicotine is not addictive – inasmuch as thousands of smokers quit every year.

That is smoke of thinnest substance. Smokers know from git- go that tobacco is addictive. A warning about possible adverse health effects is printed on very package of cigarettes.

Sure, a smoker can die from cancer of the lung or thrombosis of the heart – but, what the hay, we’ve all got to go sometime.

Clinton must balance social arguments with tax revenue policy. Taxes on tobacco products, principally cigarettes, nets $61 billion a year for federal spending. The states rake in approximately three times this much collectively.

At some point tobacco tax revenue will reach a point of diminishing returns -- through decreased usage (good), farmer bankruptcies (bad), and less corporation profit (who cares ?).

Before the courts can take seriously the Clinton-Reno attack on tobacco, our government must get out of the tobacco business.

Then it must declare tobacco an illegal drug to be destroyed in the field – a la Colombia and Mexico -- and dispensed by physician permits. We could legalize marijuana to take up the slack.

India would take over world production of cigarettes. Its nicotine-powerful cherry-flavored “bibi” cigarettes already are popular in the U.S. juveniles’ market. However, our hands would be clean.

Then we could tackle the largest, deadliest drug hypocrisy of all – official approval of alcohol. Can distillers be the next cash cow?

PARTING SHOTS

Sen. Moynihan, friend of Hillary, astonished her and everyone else by endorsing Bill Bradley for president. Asked why he didn’t pick Al Gore, Moynihan committed truth, “Because he can’t win.”

* * *

Christine Todd Whitman says she loves being governor of New Jersey and doesn’t want to be a Republican candidate for president. Just don’t throw her into that briar patch.

By Lindsey Williams, columnist for Sun Coast Media Group newspapers