Is a Deal with the Cigarette Industry in the Interest of Public Health?
The Answer Will Be Found in the Fine Print
By Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan
No matter what the outcome, 1997 will be remembered as a year of unprecedented crisis for the
cigarette industry in the United States. The Chinese w ord for “crisis” consists of tw o characters: one
meaning “danger”; the other, “opportunity.” Toward which of these opposites will the current crisis
propel the cigarette industry? The answer will have a major impact on the public health of this
nation in the 21st century.
The present danger for the industry, at least as perceived by the public, is the dual threat of FDA
regulation and multifaceted litigation. The present opportunity for the industry is the possibility of a
deal that may imperil public health for generations to come: a deal with Congress that would shield
cigarette companies from the current barrage of litigation—and particularly from the threat of both
individual and class-action private-sector law suits. Such a deal might ensure the viability of the cig-
arette as a commodity well into the next millennium.
The recent settlement—publicized widely but somewhat sketchily—between the Liggett Group
and the attorneys general of 22 states raises the spectre of a possible offer of Congressional or court-
sanctioned protection for the tobacco industry. Indeed, this settlement between the states and the
smallest of the major cigarette companies might become the prototype for a grand plan that all the
major tobacco companies may ultimately advocate. The likely crux of such a plan would be a trade-
off in which the industry pays money to the states in return for immunity from all lawsuits—and the
opportunity to do business as usual.
In this commentary I w ill:
briefly review the successes of the cigarette industry in crisis management during the past
five decades, as well as its pursuit of opportunity over danger.
describe the three distinct challenges the industry now faces: (1) FDA regulation, (2) law suits
brought by various states and cities to recoup the Medicaid funds expended in treating smok-
ing-related diseases, and (3) individual and class-action lawsuits.
explain w hy only one of these three challenges—the threat of class action and individual law -
suits—is ther eal threat to the industry.
suggest that both the ongoing public debate about possible future FDA jurisdiction over
tobacco products and the current focus on “state Medicaid suits” are principally red herrings
that may distract the American public from the cigarette industry’s primary goal: a
Congressionally mandated “global deal.” Such a deal would have the industry pay an as yet
undetermined sum of money to each of the 50 states, to reimburse them for smoking-related
healthcare costs, in return for protection from what the industry fears most: current and
future lawsuits filed by smokers—and the survivors of smokers—harmed or killed by ciga-
rettes.
argue that if Congress consummates any deal with the industry that includes shielding it
from current and future private-sector litigation, it would be an unparalleled setback for the
cause of public health in America.
present the details of the settlement betw een Liggett and the attorneys general—and of the
little-publicized separate but related deal that w ould offer Liggett complete protection from
all current and future lawsuits.
The Am erican Council on Science and Health gratefully acknowledges
the comments and contributions of the following individuals.
Richard Daynard, J.D., Ph.D.
School of Law, Northeastern University
Ru th Kava, Ph .D., R.D.
ACSH
Jack Raso, M.S., R.D.
ACSH
R.T. Raven h olt, M.D., M.P.H.
Population Health Imperatives
Kenneth Warner, Ph.D.
School of Public Health, University of Michigan
Larry White, J.D.
Berkeley, California
Norwood S. Wilner, M.S., J.D.
Jacksonville, Florida
View on Scribd