News (Media Awareness Project) - Tobacco's Brutus |
Title: | Tobacco's Brutus |
Published On: | 1997-04-13 |
Source: | The Economist, (3/29/97): |
Fetched On: | 2008-09-08 16:56:13 |
TOBACCO'S BRUTUS
The treachery of Bennett LeBow should encourage Big Tobacco
to drop its Big Lie that smoking is safe
Having behaved so often with imperial arrogance, America's tobacco bosses
have now been stabbed in the
back by one of their ownand soon after the Ides of March to boot. On
March 20th Bennett LeBow's Liggett Group broke ranks with Big Tobacco and
reached a settlement with the industry's tormentors. It has promised to
give state governments a portion of its profits for a quarter of a
century, admitted that cigarettes cause cancer and that nicotine is
addictive, undertaken to say so on its cigarette packets, and offered to
disclose documents recording the industry's internal strategy
discussions. In return, more than 20 state governments that had been
suing to recover the costs of caring for sick and dying smokers will
drop their actions against Liggett.
Now that he has kicked the industry's habit of denying that there is
anything the least bit unwholesome about smoking, Mr LeBow finds his
motives impugned by the tobacco bosses who have continued for years to
insist with straight faces at congressional hearings, against all the
evidence, that they do not believe nicotine to be addictive. He may
indeed be motivated by a desire to save his shareholders' fortunes rather
than the lives of smokers. But Mr LeBow's motives are not the point. The
balance of power is beginning to turn against the tobacco firms in
America, and if the industry is to save itself it had better now consider
following his example.
People should be allowed to smoke, and companies should be allowed to
sell them cigarettes. Like many other products, cigarettes both give
pleasure and cause harm. In a free society, people should be allowed to
indulge in pleasures that cause damage to no one but themselves.
Consistent with this, there is a case for restrictions on the way in
which cigarettes are advertised and sold: because cigarettes are
addictive and dangerous, children are at risk of being hooked by a bad
habit before they are old enough to make a reasoned calculation of the
odds. As rich countries become more healthconscious, it makes both
business sense and moral sense for the tobacco industry to defend its
activities on the grounds of some such liberal balancing of freedom and
restraint.
In America, however, the tobacco companies have not
tried to defend themselves on these lines at all. Until the defection of
Mr LeBow, their posture has been one of absolute denial, coupled with a
vain attempt to conceal the facts about smoking's dangers. Contrary to
research evidence in its p05session, the industry has refused to
acknowledge that nicotine is addictive. Contrary to its public
assertions, it is suspected of having targeted some of its marketing
explicitly at children. Predictably, the obstinacy of the companies has.
stoked the fury of smoking's opponents, many of whom need no inducement
to trample down the notion of free choice.
Encouraged by a sympathetic White House and by a growing climate of
intolerant fingerwagging, America has already gone too far in its
crusade against smoking. In some jurisdictions smoking is now banned in
any public place, even outdoors. Indeed, much of the litigation
currently in train against the tobacco companies smacks of hypocrisy.
Some plaintiffs may not have known when they began their habit that
tobacco was dangerous, but most of those seeking damages are refusing to
take responsibility for their own informed decisions. As for the state
lawsuits that prompted Liggett's settlement, these border on the
ludicrous. If state governments can sue tobacco firms for pushing up
their healthcare costs, why not sue the makers of cheeseburgers and skis
for increasing the number of heart attacks and broken legs?
Now, there92s a thought
Just possibly, Liggett's decision to come clean will persuade the rest of
the industry to drop the Big Lie, confess that smoking is dangerous, and
see whether they can arrive at a settlement under which they limit their
past liabilities but remain free to sell their products in a manner that
combines full disclosure of the dangers, protection of children and
freedom of adult choice. The alternative is an unedifying war to the
finish between an increasingly unpopular group of companies and an
increasingly intolerant public. The lesson from the Ides of March is that
the tobacco companies can no longer be as certain as they once were of
prevailing in such a battle.
The treachery of Bennett LeBow should encourage Big Tobacco
to drop its Big Lie that smoking is safe
Having behaved so often with imperial arrogance, America's tobacco bosses
have now been stabbed in the
back by one of their ownand soon after the Ides of March to boot. On
March 20th Bennett LeBow's Liggett Group broke ranks with Big Tobacco and
reached a settlement with the industry's tormentors. It has promised to
give state governments a portion of its profits for a quarter of a
century, admitted that cigarettes cause cancer and that nicotine is
addictive, undertaken to say so on its cigarette packets, and offered to
disclose documents recording the industry's internal strategy
discussions. In return, more than 20 state governments that had been
suing to recover the costs of caring for sick and dying smokers will
drop their actions against Liggett.
Now that he has kicked the industry's habit of denying that there is
anything the least bit unwholesome about smoking, Mr LeBow finds his
motives impugned by the tobacco bosses who have continued for years to
insist with straight faces at congressional hearings, against all the
evidence, that they do not believe nicotine to be addictive. He may
indeed be motivated by a desire to save his shareholders' fortunes rather
than the lives of smokers. But Mr LeBow's motives are not the point. The
balance of power is beginning to turn against the tobacco firms in
America, and if the industry is to save itself it had better now consider
following his example.
People should be allowed to smoke, and companies should be allowed to
sell them cigarettes. Like many other products, cigarettes both give
pleasure and cause harm. In a free society, people should be allowed to
indulge in pleasures that cause damage to no one but themselves.
Consistent with this, there is a case for restrictions on the way in
which cigarettes are advertised and sold: because cigarettes are
addictive and dangerous, children are at risk of being hooked by a bad
habit before they are old enough to make a reasoned calculation of the
odds. As rich countries become more healthconscious, it makes both
business sense and moral sense for the tobacco industry to defend its
activities on the grounds of some such liberal balancing of freedom and
restraint.
In America, however, the tobacco companies have not
tried to defend themselves on these lines at all. Until the defection of
Mr LeBow, their posture has been one of absolute denial, coupled with a
vain attempt to conceal the facts about smoking's dangers. Contrary to
research evidence in its p05session, the industry has refused to
acknowledge that nicotine is addictive. Contrary to its public
assertions, it is suspected of having targeted some of its marketing
explicitly at children. Predictably, the obstinacy of the companies has.
stoked the fury of smoking's opponents, many of whom need no inducement
to trample down the notion of free choice.
Encouraged by a sympathetic White House and by a growing climate of
intolerant fingerwagging, America has already gone too far in its
crusade against smoking. In some jurisdictions smoking is now banned in
any public place, even outdoors. Indeed, much of the litigation
currently in train against the tobacco companies smacks of hypocrisy.
Some plaintiffs may not have known when they began their habit that
tobacco was dangerous, but most of those seeking damages are refusing to
take responsibility for their own informed decisions. As for the state
lawsuits that prompted Liggett's settlement, these border on the
ludicrous. If state governments can sue tobacco firms for pushing up
their healthcare costs, why not sue the makers of cheeseburgers and skis
for increasing the number of heart attacks and broken legs?
Now, there92s a thought
Just possibly, Liggett's decision to come clean will persuade the rest of
the industry to drop the Big Lie, confess that smoking is dangerous, and
see whether they can arrive at a settlement under which they limit their
past liabilities but remain free to sell their products in a manner that
combines full disclosure of the dangers, protection of children and
freedom of adult choice. The alternative is an unedifying war to the
finish between an increasingly unpopular group of companies and an
increasingly intolerant public. The lesson from the Ides of March is that
the tobacco companies can no longer be as certain as they once were of
prevailing in such a battle.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...