|
The tobacco fiascoRendezvous With Destiny
This latest snarl involves the extraordinarily large fees to be paid to the lawyers hired by states on contingency fee contracts. It now appears that these fees will total more than $55 billion. A major component of the much-hyped settlement is the immunization of the tobacco companies from future lawsuits--an immunization that can only be granted by Congress. As the exact details of these fees come out, this immunization grant seems to be in jeopardy. Last month, a Florida judge rejected the contingency fee agreement in Florida's suit against the tobacco companies, after calculating that the lawyers would be paid an hourly rate of $7,716--assuming each lawyer billed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for the 42 months that the case lasted. In reality, many lawyers will be paid in excess of $100,000 an hour for actual work done.
Sounds excessive, doesn't it? Well, what can be expected from an anti-smoking movement that has gotten completely out of hand, operating more on rhetoric than on fact? Take, for example, some of the recent comments by anti-smoking activists. Last year, the attorney general of Texas stated,"History will record the modern-day tobacco industry alongside the worst of civilization's evil empires." Strong words, with few facts to back them up. Take, for example, the long-held insistence that smokers have cost taxpayers billions of dollars through extra health care related costs. This is simply not true. From the standpoint of health care reimbursement, everyone is covered for one terminal illness--every person can die once. There is no evidence that tobacco-related diseases are more expensive than other ones. Dying of lung cancer is no more costly than dying of brain cancer or Alzheimer's Disease. However, once you consider that one in three smokers dies early, thus forgoing expensive public pensions and social security benefits as well as other costs associated with old age, such as multiple doctor's visits and nursing home-care, it becomes clear that in dollar terms, tobacco-related deaths cost less than other ones. Several economic analyses have been done, and according to Harvard economist Kip Viscusi, "they all show that smokers save society money." Grisly accounting, I agree, but no more grisly than from those who argue that smoking-deaths cost more. At least this accounting is more accurate. Furthermore, the dangers of secondhand smoke are consistently overstated. Only seven of 34 recent studies show any correlation between poor health and secondhand smoke, and one even purports to show that secondhand smoke improves health. I am not arguing that secondhand smoke actually does improve health, but rather that the effect is so negligible that a ban on smoking in public places easily solves the problem. The second argument--that tobacco companies have been lying to consumers--is equally silly. The Economist recently called the tobacco industry's long insistence that smoking is neither harmful nor addictive "the most spectacularly unsuccessful disinformation campaign in history." Even before science proved it, everyone knew that smoking was dangerous. By the 1950s, surveys found that an overwhelming majority of Americans (90 percent in a 1954 Gallup Poll) knew that smoking could cause cancer. And as soon as science proved this fact in 1968, explicit warning labels were placed on cigarette packs. Now, studies conclusively show that even elementary school students understand smoking's dangers. Finally, anti-smoking advocates consistently overstate the addictiveness of cigarettes. Although it is difficult to quit smoking, it is not impossible. Today, there are more people in America who have quit smoking than people who actually smoke. And America's National Survey on Drug Abuse finds that while 75 percent of respondents had tried smoking, less than 30 percent had smoked in the past month. This is hardly the picture of a substance that always conquers will power. Rather, smoking is a risky decision--one that is not always easy to reverse. But humans make these decisions every day, and the ability to do so lies at the very core of freedom. For example, riding a motorcycle is nearly 16 times more dangerous than riding in a car, yet people do it anyway because they believe that the extra enjoyment makes it worth the risk. Smoking is the same idea. But facts are irrelevant in today's political climate, and the war on tobacco has little do with right and wrong. Rather, it has to do with politics. Faced with shrinking federal aid, state governments have found the tobacco companies easy pickings. Unpopular, yet extremely profitable, tobacco companies are a perfect target for money- and publicity-hungry politicians. For more evidence that the war on tobacco relates more to politics than health, one need only look at the government's nonexistent war on drugs. Although Clinton assails the tobacco companies for targeting minors, he neglects to mention that teenage drug use has skyrocketed under his guard. After dropping more than 50 percent during the Reagan and Bush administrations, teenage drug use has soared under Clinton, rising more than 70 percent since 1992. This is not surprising--Clinton cut the staff of the Office of Drug Control Policy from 146 to 25 when he first arrived at the White House. Moral indignation is perfectly acceptable when rightly placed. However, in the tobacco settlement, moral indignation has crossed the line and become an excuse for political grandstanding and a needless restriction of freedom.
Recent Herald Columns by this Columnist:
|
In earmarking $65 billion from the tobacco settlement for various
Hillary-care programs in his new budget, President Bill Clinton, LAW '73,
has ignored one very pertinent fact: no money is available yet. This is
because, once again, the farce known as "the tobacco settlement" has hit a
snag.
All materials © 1998 The Yale Herald, Inc., and its staff.
Got any questions, comments, or advice? Email the online editors at online@yaleherald.com.
Like to join us?