The proposed tobacco settlement does not impose stiff enough penalties and tobacco companies will, in essence be let off easy, Minnesota’s attorney general says.

The present proposed $368 billion tobacco settlement is dead-on-arrival, Minnesota Attorney General Hubert Humphrey III said Monday at the 1997 Dr. Arthur Grayson Memorial Symposium Ending the Tobacco Wars.

It was a sweetheart deal and would allow the tobacco industry to go on its merry way.

Advertisement

The symposium was organized by SIU School of Law professor Donald Garner, who first proposed that the tobacco industry should be liable for Medicare costs about 20 years ago. The symposium, funded by the Garwin Family Foundation, was sponsored in conjunction with the School of Law’s health law program.

About 30 people attended the day-long symposium at which the proposed tobacco settlement was discussed.

The $368-billion tobacco settlement between the government and the major tobacco companies was proposed in June by members of the FDA and the public health community. Under the agreement, the tobacco companies would pay the government $368 billion for many present class-action suits in return for immunity from further class-action suits or punitive damage suits.

President Bill Clinton proposed the addition of stiffer regulations. Clinton’s proposal focused on five key elements:Reducing youth smoking by increasing the price of cigarettes;

Giving the FDA full authority to regulate tobacco products;

Holding the tobacco companies accountable for any efforts to market products, while insisting on changes in the way it does business;

Meet other health goals including the reduction of secondhand smoke, the expansion of smoking prevention and cessation programs, strengthening of international efforts to control tobacco and the provision of medical research;

Advertisement*

Any tobacco legislation must protect tobacco farmers and their communities.

Humphrey, a noted national opponent of the tobacco settlement, said the new tobacco settlement will compromise public health and will not do justice to the 400,000 Americans who die every year from smoking-related causes.

The tobacco industry launched one of the greatest disinformation campaigns of all time in the early 50s, Humphrey said. They dismissed the revelation of the link of smoking to cancer as a public relations problem instead of a public health problem.

Humphrey said the industry reassured the public it would promise to tell the world the truth about the effects of smoking.

Tobacco is the No. 1 cause of death and disease today, Humphrey said. Think about all the loss of life to murder, drugs, alcohol, suicide and automobile accidents, add all these deaths up and tobacco still kills more people a year.

Humphrey said that in 1958, tobacco company scientists revealed that they knew nicotine was addictive and smoking caused cancer and heart disease. This discovery, he said, came six years before Surgeon General studies reported this.

The tobacco legislation and the lawsuits are not about should you smoke or not smoke, Humphrey. They are about bringing a rogue industry to justice.

The public health community has several goals it would like to see met by any proposed tobacco legislation.

We are seeking a couple of goals:First of all, full authority to the FDA to deal with the drug of nicotine. Second, iron-clad regulations regarding marketing of tobacco to kids, Humphrey said.

Some factions believe the proposed tobacco settlement is unconstitutional and places blame in the wrong hands.

There is no constitutional authority for Congress to legislate tobacco regulations, Robert Levy, constitutional scholar at the Cato Institute, said. Regardless, the American people have a personal responsibility to accept consequences of their own actions.

Levy is a noted opponent of the settlement and sees it as an intrusion and attack on the fundamental rights of Americans.

If people don’t think that these proposed regulations have tyrannical implications . . . well, I think we have just seen these tyrannical implications, Levy said in regards to the proposed FDA regulation on tobacco.

John Hopkins University’s John Slade, who led the fight for FDA regulation of tobacco, spoke on the regulatory aspects of the settlement. He addressed five key elements regarding the tobacco legislation.

Slade said any tobacco legislation should hold the tobacco companies accountable, address the advertising toward children, create cessation programs for adults, deal with the effects of environmental tobacco smoke and be flexible for the FDA to work with.

Garner said children especially should have the right not to be bombarded by tobacco advertising.

Levy supports stronger punishment for retailers who sell to minors and minors caught possessing tobacco products. He said he also would like to see Medicaid support for tobacco-related illnesses phased out.

In free society, not even Congress should be allowed to control what people consume, Levy said. Advertising restrictions are in direct violation of First Amendment rights.

Furthermore, Levy said the main responsibility rests with the smoker.

Risks of tobacco have been known for several years now, Levy said. Anyone unaware of risks of tobacco must have been living on a different planet.

Levy believes the legislation to regulate the tobacco industry would create more problems than it would solve.

The proposed legislation is sending a risky message to children that you can change the rules after the game has began, Levy said, and that you can look for someone else to blame for your mistakes.