|
 he
federal government’s war on tobacco seems to be going nowhere. First
came Attorney General Ashcroft’s unexpected announcement that the
Justice Department is considering a settlement of its litigation against
the cigarette giants. Then, U.S. officials interceded on behalf of
domestic tobacco companies to challenge discriminatory and protectionist
foreign-trade restrictions, despite emotional appeals and dubious
scientific claims oozing from the World Health Organization.
If there was any doubt whether President Bush would squander tax
dollars on the Justice Department’s suit, it was dispelled by the
May 23 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
A unanimous court — joining seven other appellate courts that
have considered these issues — threw out tort and racketeering
(RICO) claims by foreign governments and union health funds against
cigarette makers. In the similar Justice Department suit, federal
judge Gladys Kessler had dismissed all allegations except RICO.
Now that the higher court has spoken, she’ll reject the rest of
the case.
Naturally, Justice's suit was cynically promoted as a way to protect
our health. Mouthing that same concern, the Clinton administration
was an early and eager supporter of the World Health Organization’s
Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The WHO called for a laundry
list of tobacco restrictions, many of which would undermine the
sovereignty of its member states and impact U.S. domestic priorities,
not only in the health arena, but also in tax, employment, agriculture,
trade, and legal policy.
Never mind that cigarette companies and tobacco growers were effectively
excluded from the WHO negotiations. Never mind that regulation of
commerce in a perfectly legal product would be controlled by an
arm of the United Nations — the same body that considers the
United States unfit to serve on its Human Rights Commission with
the likes of Sudan, China and Libya. And never mind that the WHO
has a history of misleading the public about the risks of second-hand
smoke.
"Passive Smoking Does Cause Lung Cancer, Do Not Let Them Fool You."
That was the deceptive headline of a March 1998 press release from
the WHO. Researchers examined lung cancer patients in seven European
countries and found “no association between childhood exposure to
environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer risk.” For non-smoking
adult workers and non-smoking spouses of smokers, the study concluded
that “neither increased risk was statistically significant.” Contrast
those conclusions with the blatant propaganda in the WHO’s press
release.
In its draft treaty, the WHO proposed an end to duty-free sales,
advertising restrictions, product content regulations, educational
programs about the risks of cigarettes, a ban on public smoking,
and much more. Tell that to Japan, where the largest tobacco shareholder
is the government, or to China, where the state cigarette monopoly
generates roughly 10 percent of the country’s tax revenues. The
WHO would also “coordinate taxes for tobacco products at internationally
determined minimum tax rates.” Northwestern University professor
Michael Evans estimates that the retail price of cigarettes in the
United States would soar to $8.10 per pack.
If that didn’t drive consumers to the black market, the WHO would
ratchet up the price another few notches by employing bizarre tort
theories — crafted by U.S. trial lawyers--that would impose
retroactive liability, regardless of fault, on a single unpopular
industry. That’s what we can expect from global governance —
repetition on a worldwide scale of contemptible government-sponsored
litigation designed to extort billions of dollars from manufacturers
of a product that consumers elect to purchase despite the known
risks.
Bravo if President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft prefer the
rule of law. They need to resist blandishments from international
bureaucrats duped by billionaire trial lawyers, who would eagerly
recycle a fat part of their legal fees to support the administration’s
political opponents.
|
