Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

UP IN SMOKE : Only 3 percent $246 billion tobacco settlement funds have been spent on prevention...
ncpa.org ^ | Friday, August 12, 2005

Posted on 08/12/2005 8:47:04 AM PDT by InvisibleChurch

UP IN SMOKE

Daily Policy Digest

LEGAL ISSUES

Friday, August 12, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last week, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) filed suit challenging the 1998 tobacco settlement on constitutional grounds. The CEI believes the deal, reached between a bloc of 46 states and the country's largest tobacco companies, violates the Compact Clause found in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State."

According to Investor's Business Daily (IBD) the $246 billion tobacco settlement was supposed to be used to treat tobacco-related illnesses and for antismoking education. Instead, many states have spent the money on other things:

Five states plus the District of Columbia have yet to commit their first dollar of the settlement to prevention, and another 15 have spent the minimum. Since the program began, only 3 percent of settlement funds have been spent on prevention. States have done better when it comes to health-related spending, accounting for about 33 percent of the funds spent this year. But they're still shortchanging those they said they'd help, and last year spent a mere 19.8 percent. Where's the money going?

Nearly half (44 percent) of last year's payment was used to offset budget shortfalls, and more than a third (36 percent) was used for the same purpose the year before. When Gray Davis was governor, California sold $2.4 billion of its share to balance the budget; but the Golden State has hardly been alone in turning future income from the deal into immediate cash -- at a large loss. For their part, tobacco companies have had to raise prices to pay for the sham settlement. No big deal, say nonsmokers. But wait: Once the lawyers and politicians who fleeced Big Tobacco target another industry, it'll be more than just smokers who'll get burned, says IBD.

Source: Editorial, "Up In Smoke," Investor's Business Daily, August 12, 2005.

For text (subscription required):

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=2

For more on Tobacco Company Suits:

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/leg/


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS: fraud; pufflist; tobacco
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

1 posted on 08/12/2005 8:47:06 AM PDT by InvisibleChurch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

Rush was right...again.


2 posted on 08/12/2005 8:52:23 AM PDT by Blue Turtle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

Let me get this straight. This money was extracted from the tobacco companies because they lied about the health effects of tobacco, and the states promised it would go for treatment and prevention of the use of tobacco, but now it turns out that the states have lied as well...so who gets the money now? (rhetorical question)


3 posted on 08/12/2005 8:56:25 AM PDT by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

Cash Cow. Is it right to buy cigarettes from terrorists to say FU to the PC stalinists?


4 posted on 08/12/2005 8:58:10 AM PDT by johnb838 (In peace sons bury their fathers. In time of war, fathers bury their sons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch
Extortionate tobacco taxes are being used as a cashcow to feed the bottomless maws of government spending. Antitobacco "progressives" feel like useful idiots duped by greedy politocos because they can't keep the tobacco tax loot for themselves. Well, Duh.

Sure baby, we'll respect you in the morning.

Bwaaaahaaahaaahaa!

5 posted on 08/12/2005 9:06:54 AM PDT by NaughtiusMaximus (The liberals promised to move to Canada but they lied . . . bwaaaaah.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spok

On the news yesterday we were treated to the "Jennings effect" which is people who saw how fast cancer killed Jennings are going to quit. Oh poop oh dear. What are the states going to do without their cash cow?


6 posted on 08/12/2005 9:14:30 AM PDT by Sunshine Sister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

Didn't the lawyers get a huge chunk of this settlement?


7 posted on 08/12/2005 9:21:04 AM PDT by RexBeach (Pardon me, but is that a malaise sandwich in your pocket or are you just glad to be in a funk?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch
The tobacco companies spend a great deal of effort to deflect or derail smoking prevention campaigns; these efforts are often focused on state legislatures. Evidently with some success.

I should mention that this very week, my father was diagnosed with stage IV large cell carcinoma of the lungs. He quit smoking 25 years ago after having been a two-pack-a-day smoker for about 25 years. (The risk for lung cancer diminishes after quitting smoking but unfortunately not all the way to zero: some of the damage to the lungs is permanent. Many lung cancers occur in former smokers.) His prognosis is daunting: he has a 40% chance of responding to chemotherapy.

I've learned a lot about lung cancer this last week. Lung cancer is not the most common cancer, but it is by a wide margin the leading cause of death by cancer. There are about 165,000 lung cancer cases per year in the US, and there are about 150,000 deaths caused by this malignancy per year (28 percent of all cancer deaths). Here's the key statistic: 1 in 10 smokers or former smokers get this disease; their risk is 15 - 20 times greater than non-smokers. 85% of lung cancers are fatal within 5 years.

8 posted on 08/12/2005 9:23:35 AM PDT by megatherium (extremely angry at tobacco companies just now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

Does this surprise anybody?


9 posted on 08/12/2005 9:30:42 AM PDT by Christopher Lincoln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blue Turtle

Someone should have a closer look at how Skip Humphrey lassoed the tobacco settlement money (and a lifetime job for himself and his leftist clones) in Minnesota.


10 posted on 08/12/2005 9:36:09 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Scratch a Liberal. Uncover a Fascist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sunshine Sister

Never fear. Cheeseburger and Cookie tariffs are near.


11 posted on 08/12/2005 9:38:43 AM PDT by WideGlide (That light at the end of the tunnel might be a muzzle flash.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch
States obviously don't want anti-smoking efforts to be too successful as many balance their state budgets with tobacco taxes. It is the ultimate hypocrisy to on one hand try to prevent people from smoking by eroding their rights and then profiting on the sale of tobacco.
12 posted on 08/12/2005 9:43:55 AM PDT by The Great RJ (rtable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

13 posted on 08/12/2005 9:45:27 AM PDT by Boston Blackie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WideGlide

You got that right. However there may be some backlash from us poor dupes that can't see for ourselves how we are killing ourselves. I'm going to enjoy a hamburger for lunch today as a matter of fact


14 posted on 08/12/2005 9:56:12 AM PDT by Sunshine Sister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

I've never been able to figure out why Philip Morris runs anti-ciggarette ads. Does it actually help them?


15 posted on 08/12/2005 10:03:08 AM PDT by Asphalt (Join my NFL ping list! FReepmail me| The best things in life aren't things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch
"According to Investor's Business Daily (IBD) the $246 billion tobacco settlement was supposed to be used to treat tobacco-related illnesses and for antismoking education. Instead, many states have spent the money on other things:"

Looks like smokers have a huge class action suit against the states. Time to sue them into oblivion.
16 posted on 08/12/2005 10:14:21 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: megatherium

"my father was diagnosed with stage IV large cell carcinoma of the lungs. He quit smoking 25 years ago after having been a two-pack-a-day smoker for about 25 years."

This may be news to you, but everyone dies sooner or later. How old is your father?


17 posted on 08/12/2005 10:20:01 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

It was always about the cash.


18 posted on 08/12/2005 10:21:50 AM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Asphalt
I've never been able to figure out why Philip Morris runs anti-ciggarette ads.

I'm not certain, but I think it is part of the settlement that they run ads to get rid of their customers. Crazy world, ain't it?

19 posted on 08/12/2005 10:33:49 AM PDT by InvisibleChurch (Mr. Chambers! Don't get on that ship! The rest of the book, "To Serve Man", it's... it's a cookbook!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch; All
I live in NC and have helped farm tobacco. Is tobacco good for smoking or chewing....no. However, when it first hit the news, that very day, I told my wife, friends, and coworkers that the case was nothing more than a deliberate money grab by the lawyers and politico-ho's. I was right then and I'm still right now.

I told everyone then, that eventually, people would be suing McDonald's and other fast food establishments for health related problems due to individual irresponsibility...just like that of smoking.

When you been around 'animals' long enough, the smell of manure is always easy to detect.

20 posted on 08/12/2005 10:48:40 AM PDT by RSmithOpt (Liberalism: Highway to Hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson