Court Won't Let Bush Push Tobacco Penalty

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

Monday, October 17, 2005


(10-17) 19:00 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

The Supreme Court refused Monday to let the government sue tobacco companies for $280 billion, a major victory for cigarette makers.

A federal judge presided over a nine-month trial and has not yet decided whether tobacco companies are guilty of wrongdoing.

The fight at the high court was over the amount of money the companies would have to pay if the judge rules that they violated a federal anti-racketeering law known as RICO by misleading the public about the dangers of smoking.

A lower court said that the government could not pursue Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds and other companies for profits that the government claims they earned illegally.

The Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the Bush administration's appeal. The case could return to justices later.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/10...ional/w073505D08.DTL

The short answer is that if the feds and their partners (all the anti-smoker organizations) can't go after all those billions, then smokers and their families benefit. After all, the money would come out of the pockets of smokers, not the pockets of the tobacco industry.

Chainsmoker, the link you provided didn't enlighten me as to the Supreme Court's decision to reject the appeal from the Justice Department. The piece from citybeat.com appeared to me to be a basic boilerplate argument to bestow more of Ohio's tobacco settlement funds onto the anti-tobacco organizations. To the everlasting chagrin of anti-tobacco operatives the money ripped off from smokers was given to the 46 states to use any way they wish. At any rate I don't see the link between anti-tobacco's enormous greed and the Supreme Court's refusal to hear an appeal of a negative ruling by the judge hearing the Federal tobacco case.

Face it, every state said the same thing at the time, but once they had the money all that changed.

Medicade spending will continue to increase because of government programs to evaluate all children in school for mental disorders be they ADD, ADHD, or depression. Who benefits from this the drug companies that have increased the costs of these drug 500% in the last 5 years.

The state of Georgia is currently up in arms over a bribe or contribution from Eli Lilly, a local drug company, who offered a five million dollar contribution to the state's medicade fund if their drugs for these disorders were reapproved for use by medicade clients.

I really do believe that Wanda is right and that this is an example of asking smokers to pay for all the pet programs that every anti-smoking group in the country wants. Just like the costs of the Master Settlement Agreement, the costs of any monetary remedies in the DOJ lawsuit will essentially be borne by smokers (the costs will certainly be passed along to smokers in the form of cigarette price increases).

But the most troubling aspect of the DOJ case, to me, is that the anti-smoking groups are asking for remedies that are simply not allowable under the law. They are asking the Judge in the case to issue a ruling that is inconsistent with the D.C. Court of Appeals ruling that clearly stated that any remedies must directly restrain and prevent future RICO violations.

Essentially, what I think is happening is that every anti-smoking group under the sun is trying to use this case as a golden opportunity to seek huge amounts of funds for public health programs. I have no problem with these groups trying to secure funding for health programs; but I don't find it appropriate to try to misapply the law in order to extract such funding.

While I have written extensively on this topic, I think the best summary was written by Audrey Silk of NYC C.L.A.S.H., who submitted a well-written letter to the Judge hearing the case.

I have summarized her major points and provided a commentary on them.

But the short answer to Jemeyes' question is that I think the victory here is one for justice.

thanks Michael,

I agree that Justice should prevail However, with the amounts of money that the anti's receive in fundings from all their tobacco control programs and from the tobacco settlements it should go to insuring that there is HEALTH CARE for ALL

quote:

Originally posted by Jemeyes:
thanks Michael,

I agree that Justice should prevail However, with the amounts of money that the anti's receive in fundings from all their tobacco control programs and from the tobacco settlements it should go to insuring that there is HEALTH CARE for ALL

I don't think that would even start to covering everyone. I think we're approaching 2 trillion dollars spent on health care annually.

BTW, assuming the anti's money come from smokers, instead of spending that money on health care for all, I'd just as soon get my money back and spend it on what I want to spend it on.

squeezer, it dosen't look like we will be seeing any of that money in the forum of rebate checks on excess of tobacco tax on our smokes.. I still head to the res to get my smokes an have for quite some time.. and with out crook of a gover of this state she will buy all means try to increase the said tobacco tax more every year to balance the state budgets..

quote:

Originally posted by Jemeyes:
squeezer, it dosen't look like we will be seeing any of that money in the forum of rebate checks on excess of tobacco tax on our smokes..

Yeah, that's one of those things I won't ever be holding my breath for.

http://www.atmc.wisc.edu/ATMC%20capstone%20final.pdf

This is a long grant summation of a tobacco control "summit".
"Ultimately, the most engaging prospect raised by ATMC is whether the system-based
interventions developed under its auspices can be translated, as one participant said, “from
one system to another.” ATMC provided a model of practice-based research; the challenge
for the model is to apply it further, and see how far its effectiveness can reach."

As I understand the whole document to read-thru all the successes of the tobacco control and the money that comes with it, they are discussing using that blueprint for furthering their health causes, including obesity, physical inactivity, alcohol, food...and it looks by the closing paragraph-whatever the health care (and I use that term loosely) big business feels appropriate to them. Funded by Robert Woods Foundation of course, and the brain child of Dr Fiore at UW Madison, WI.
I was almost one of the lab rats for that...glad I ran in the other direction.

Here is an email I received regarding trying to find the money trail for WI state smoking bans. Still waiting for Fred Risser's money info to see who/how much for a total statewide ban, like Madison's-no smoking anywhere, except in your home (for now)


"
>Subject: proposed smoking bans
>Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:51:01 -0600
>
(name edited for anti attack purposes) at the wisconsin democracy campaign here. here is what we know about the proposed compromise smoking ban. It is supported by much of the state's tourism industry, including hotels, motels, bars and restaurant, amusement centers, bowling alleys, tobacco distributors and RJ Reynolds. They have contributed $1.45 million to legislators campaigns since 1993. They like this ban because it exempts bowling alleys and taverns, and restaurants with less than a 50-person capacity.
>
>The proposal passed the assembly 48-45 and awaits senate action. interestingly, even though the assembly vote was close, the amount of campaign contributions from the bill's supporters to legislators who voted for the bill versus those who voted against it was not close - $597,306 versus $232,805.
>
>those who oppose the bill include local governments, doctors, anti-smoking groups like the American Lung, Heart and Cancer groups, and the Marshfield Clinic. All told, these groups have contributed $620,105 to legislators since 1993.
>
>as far as risser's outright smoking ban goes. we can't tally the dollars for and against it yet. the proposal has not been introduced with a bill number yet. once that happens it will be posted on the ethics board web site where groups that lobby for and against it will have to declare themselves. at that point we can figure out the special interests who support and oppose it and then tally up their track record of campaign contributions.
>'hope this helps."