TOBACCO FIRMS TARGETED BLACKS, DOCUMENTS SHOW

WASHINGTON--Damaging information about the tobacco industry was disclosed
here Thursday as a congressman released documents detailing the industry's
attempts to specifically target African Americans, in particular African
American youths.

Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), who released the material, said: "These
documents make clear that the tobacco industry was targeting blacks,
including black teenagers, at the same time the industry knew that tobacco
was addictive and caused lung cancer and other smoking-related disease."

For example, a 1973 R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. marketing profile included a
study of black smokers ages 14 to 20. A 1973 Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp. document on blacks said that the bulk of sales increases in the
company's Kool brand was among 16- to 25-year-olds.

"At the present rate, smokers in the 16- to 25-year age group will soon be
three times as important to Kool as a prospect in any other broad age
category."

A 1978 Lorillard Tobacco Co. research study noted that the success of its
Newport brand had been "fantastic during the past few years." While the
study said the brand was being purchased by black people of all ages, it
emphasized that "the base of our business is the high school student."

Thursday's disclosures come on the heels of the release of a cache of RJR
marketing documents in mid-January that provided the broadest picture to
date of industry targeting of teenagers. And in the last two weeks,
attorneys representing Minnesota in its massive case against the industry
have introduced in court several dozen internal industry documents
providing new details about how the industry knew years ago about both the
health hazards and addictiveness of its products.

Attorneys in Minnesota are also anxiously awaiting a judicial ruling on
whether they can obtain 240,000 more documents that the industry is trying
to keep secret, on top of the 33 million pages of company documents that
the state has gathered. Much of it is still under seal but is expected to
emerge during the trial.

Conyers noted that lung cancer accounts for 25% of all cancer cases in
African American males, compared to 14% of all cancer cases in the general
population. Moreover, he said that from 1950 to 1985, the occurrence of
lung cancer increased 220% among black men, compared to 86% among white
men.

"Now, we know that part of the blame lays squarely at the feet of the
tobacco industry."

The veteran congressman released the documents as the House Judiciary
Committee held a hearing on the proposed $368.5-billion national tobacco
settlement.

"Unfortunately, eight months after the settlement was announced, we still
don't have a complete picture of the extent to which these marketing
tactics were executed and the degree they were utilized by other members of
the tobacco industry," Conyers said. "That is why I am today calling for
the complete release of all incriminating industry documents. Until this
information is disclosed, Congress cannot intelligently determine whether
the proposed civil liability relief [the industry seeks] is appropriate or
ascertain the necessary amount of funds and smoking relief programs which
needed to be provided in the black community to counteract the pervasive
marketing of cigarettes they have faced."

At the hearing, the Clinton administration, tipping its hand for the first
time on a key aspect of the mammoth settlement now under consideration in
Congress, said it could accept special legal protections for tobacco
companies. David Ogden, a counselor to Atty. Gen. Janet Reno, told the
committee that limits on liability for the companies may be the price of
securing the tobacco industry's agreement to scale back its marketing and
advertising and finance anti-smoking programs.

"If there is agreement on a comprehensive bill . . . then reasonable
provisions modifying the civil liability of the tobacco industry would not
be a deal-breaker," Ogden said.

Ogden made clear, however, that the legal protections for the industry must
be narrowed considerably from those that were part of the settlement
reached last year between the tobacco companies and the 40 states that had
sued them. He repeatedly emphasized that restricting liability is not the
administration's preference, and at the end of the day, many lawmakers and
experts were still confused about exactly what the administration will
accept.

Special legal protection for the tobacco industry is the linchpin of the
proposed settlement. The industry agreed to drastically limit marketing and
advertising aimed at children, accept regulation by the Food and Drug
Administration, finance programs aimed at deterring young people from
smoking and partially reimburse the states for their tobacco-related health
costs in exchange for limits on their liability in damage suits.

The settlement depends on Congress to give the companies their legal
protections and limited immunity from antitrust laws so that they can agree
on prices for their products. But many lawmakers are reluctant to grant
such preferences to an industry that is under criminal investigation by the
Justice Department.

The legal protections sought by the tobacco companies and included in the
settlement are:

* No future class-action or multi-case lawsuits against the companies.

* A cap starting at $2 billion and rising to $5 billion on the annual
payments by the industry in judgments and settlements of lawsuits brought
by individuals.

* No more lawsuits by states against the companies.

* No punitive damage awards against the companies for past conduct.

In commenting on the settlement, Ogden suggested that Congress consider
combining limitations on the tobacco companies' liability with provisions
to make it easier for plaintiffs to recover damages from the industry. To
date, individual smokers have won only one claim against the industry for
tobacco's health effects.

Justice Department lawyers appeared to have in mind something along the
lines of the workers' compensation system. "There have been
compensation-type schemes developed under which procedures have been
simplified . . . that would be one option," said Ogden.

Ogden emphasized that Congress needs to give the industry incentives to
turn over all its documents. Secret documents have proved to be the most
powerful weapon for plaintiffs and lawyers against the industry. He
proposed that punitive damages "be retained with respect to claims based on
facts not disclosed by the tobacco manufacturers to Congress and the
public."

The administration's willingness even to entertain limitations on the
companies' liability opened the door to the possibility that Clinton would
give members of Congress the political cover many are seeking on the highly
charged issue. Some committee members heralded Ogden's testimony as a major
development, while others derided the administration for refusing to lay
out the specifics of its position.

When Ogden started to explain his position, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) cut
him off. "Spare me that . . . I resent the administration's unwillingness
to get specific," he said.

Similarly critical were anti-smoking advocates who believe it is a mistake
to give away the legal remedies that have helped bring the industry to the
bargaining table. Today's testimony "surely weakens the administration's
negotiating position on what are 'reasonable' limitations on civil
liability law," said Alan Morrison, the director of Public Citizen's
litigation unit.

The documents Conyers released were obtained during recent litigation,
including a San Francisco case in which attorneys had sued RJR over its
controversial Joe Camel campaign. In addition to the ones involving African
Americans, there were several dealing with general teen marketing. These
included a 1972 B&W memo about attempts to lure young smokers with sweet
cigarettes, including the use of artificial ingredients to generate a cola
taste.

"It's a well-known fact that teenagers like sweet products. Honey might be
considered," noted the memo, which was marked "confidential."

Copyright Los Angeles Times