Punitive damages in tobacco lawsuit

Re “Courting trouble,” editorial, Nov. 2

Your editorial about Philip Morris vs. Williams, pending in the U.S. Supreme Court, argues that deterrence of threats to the public health ought to be the product of sensible legislation rather than individual lawsuits. But this lawsuit is the implementation of sensible legislation.

Before the Supreme Court, Oregon (joined by California) argued that state legislation authorizes “punitive damages to punish past misconduct and ... deter future injurious conduct,” rather than requiring prosecution using tax dollars. Here, the misconduct fully qualified for punishment and deterrence.

Internal corporate documents exposed a carefully orchestrated campaign to convince smokers that smoking was not unhealthy and that the nicotine in cigarettes was not addictive, when the company knew these were lies. When misconduct is this reprehensible and this profitable, punitive damages must be proportioned to the enormity of the misconduct. Neither due process nor existing precedent requires anything different.

ROBERT PECK

Washington

The writer, president of the Center for Constitutional Litigation, argued the oral arguments last week in the Philip Morris vs. Williams case.

*

The editorial about punitive damage awards in civil lawsuits concluded that the better way to curb smoking, obesity and other threats to public health is legislation. The Times is wrong.

Neither legislation nor criminal process should be used to alter social behavior. The law is to protect individual interests from oppression, not to impose majority will upon the minority.

Besides, our prisons are already full. If perceived threats to public health justify legislation to curb behaviors such as smoking and overeating, then why not also legislate away unhealthy foods, alcohol, gambling, tattoos, video games, boxing, suntans and mountain climbing?

JIM AND MARLENE ARDEN

Valley Village, Calif.