GIVE JUNKIES LEGAL AID, THEN THEY CAN SUE PUSHERS FOR DAMAGES

At first sight the decision of a Los Angeles jury to award 2.17bn
pounds to one loyal, but now suffering, customer of the tobacco
manufacturer Philip Morris looks like an act of madness. But is there
method in it?

The recipient of this vast sum is Richard Boeken, now aged 56, and
dying of cancer. He took up smoking when he was 13 and apparently got
into the habit of getting through two packets of Marlboro a day. This
led, as it often does, to carcinoma of the lungs and brain, and hence
to his claim for compensation.

Health warnings were not on packets in those days, and Boeken claimed
that, like many others, he was duped into thinking that smoking was
"cool" by skilful marketing. Once started, he found that nicotine was
too addictive to give up before it was too late and he was struck
down by disease.

It is hard to believe that Boeken, even at 13, was not aware that
smoking might be a bit bad for you. Did his parents not warn him it
would stunt his growth? Had he not heard of smoker's cough? Did he
not realise intuitively that sucking smoke into his lungs might have
a downside?

As long ago as 1604, James VI of Scotland - also James I of England -
published his Counterblast to Tobacco, describing it as "loathsome to
the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain and dangerous to
the lungs", which pretty well hit the nail on the head 400 years ago.

But I suppose Philip Morris might have found the assertion that
tobacco has always been obviously very bad for your health an awkward
argument to make in court and, in any event, Boeken won his case. The
jury decided he deserved a cool $5.5m in compensation for his pain
and suffering, which they topped up with $3bn in punitive damages.
Three billion dollars, plus $5.5m, converted to sterling - well, you
do the maths. Philip Morris is appealing, but how many other smokers
are there now queuing up to get their million pounds of flesh? Are
the tobacco companies going to be in a position to cough up?

Even Richard Boeken was shocked by the amount. When he heard the
figure, he said: "I almost fell out of my chair." Had he actually
fallen out of his chair, no doubt the jury would have awarded a him
another billion or two for the hurt involved.

But is 2.17bn really enough? Two years ago the same court ordered
General Motors to pay 3.1bn to a family severely injured in a car
crash. Their Chevrolet had a design fault, of which the company was
aware. And the jury wanted to punish GM for calculating that it was
better business to pay compensation for claims as they arose, rather
than to recall their cars to make them as safe as possible.

Even in America not all litigants do quite so well. Earlier this year
a woman claimed she had been burnt by a scalding-hot pickle in a
McDonald's hamburger she bought in Tennessee. She settled for perhaps
a few thousand dollars, plus anything her husband got for the loss of
the benefit of her kisses while her mouth was sore. No doubt she had
been inspired by another female customer of McDonald's, who a couple
of years ago successfully sued them for $2.7m (reduced on appeal to
$500,000) for serving her with coffee which was too hot; it scalded
her when it spilt in her lap as she was driving away in her car.

This compensation culture has crossed the Atlantic. So far British
smokers have not squeezed out of judges the sort of sums Americans
get from their juries, but there are enough cases working their way
though our courts to worry the tobacco companies over here. And we
are getting the taste for suing our doctors, employers and large
companies. Policemen and prison officers, even soldiers, seem
particularly alive to the possibility of getting financial
compensation for the stress they experience at work.

We have our growing share of quirky cases, too. Recently a litigant
got 100,000 for being bullied at school, and it wasn't a pupil, it
was a teacher; an imprisoned murderer has sued a postmistress for not
delivering his copy of The Financial Times; a thief won 900 because a
police dog chased him while he was on a stolen motorbike and he was
left with a fear of dogs. Another prisoner sued for the loss of his
paintings.

Under the Human Rights Act the courts are exercising control over
government institutions, public bodies and other courts. You want to
recover Nazi gold or be compensated for being used as slave labour in
the war? Don't wait for your government to help you, go to court.

All in all, the courts are taking over the world. Elected governments
seem unable to control multinational companies that switch their
production round the world to suit their own needs. But judges and
juries lay them low with these vast orders for punitive damages for
their dangerous products: addictive tobacco, dangerous cars, hot
gherkins.

Governments should stop using the police and customs officers to wage
the war on drugs. It has not worked. But if they legalised narcotics
and then granted legal aid to every junkie once he thinks he has had
enough, soon every pusher would be sued into bankruptcy.

It might just work. And if not? Well, sue me.