Should the U.S. OK Tobacco Settlement?

It was a historic moment when lawyers for attorneys general of 40 states announced in June an unprecedented $365.8-billion settlement with the tobacco industry.

The agreement that took three months of intensive negotiations among tobacco industry lawyers, state attorneys general and private anti-tobacco lawyers included concessions such as a ban on smoking at most work sites, larger and more specific warning labels about the risks of cancer and other health problems as well as curtailing tobacco advertising.

However, long-term opponents worry that the settlement will give the tobacco industry an easy escape from the many lawsuits that are closing in. The deal grants immunities and sets a cap on how much cigarette companies can be sued for. But for such sweeping protections, the deal must be approved by Congress.

Should Congress approve the tobacco settlement?

Alex Andres of Woodland Hills, an 86-year-old anti-smoking activist:

“My feeling is it’s definitely a very bad deal. . . . You ought to remember you’re dealing with an industry that has been one of the worst industries and the most immoral industries since the beginning of human civilization. . . . They have been selling probably one of the most addictive products to children. . . . They’re going to make their money back. . . . They’re doing it for their benefit, and not for the benefit of the public.”

Richard Carleton Hacker, Sherman Oaks, author of “The Ultimate Cigar Book”:

“The entire issue, if you pardon the expression, is a smoke screen because it’s not going to accomplish what the government wants to accomplish, which is to stop people from smoking cigarettes. . . . As a policy of penalizing private industries, it sets a terrible precedent. . . . What do we do with the beef industry if a few years down the road we discover that red meat is really unhealthy? Do we go after those farmers? I think people have to be responsible for their own actions and the government should educate the people and anything more than that is getting pretty dangerous.”

Dr. Vanessa Tatum, an Inglewood pulmonologist:

“They should not approve it. . . . It would mean there would be no further investigating on a government level . . . of what is going on in the tobacco industry.”

Rep. Howard Berman (D-Mission Hills):

“I look forward to examining the tobacco settlement. It won’t escape a contentious debate and several proposed changes, but I hope--and I’ll be doing my part to ensure--that the deal we finally agree upon sets a landmark public health platform that protects the well-being of this nation.”

Andrew Weisser, spokesman for the American Lung Assn. of Los Angeles County:

“The American Lung Assn. is opposed to the settlement. . . . The Lung Assn. wonders why there is a rush to resolve this now. There should be additional time for documents to be uncovered and reviewed so that elected officials can make an informed decision. . . . Every penny [of the settlement] will be tax deductible. The American people will be underwriting the settlement with their taxes.”