Legalized Slaveryby Aaron K. Johnstun Mothers lie. Remember when monsters lived under your bed and lurked in the closet? They had two hideous faces and long claws. Every night at bed time you’d turn the lights out and sprint to bed. Your tiny legs would turn into turbo rocket boosters as with jet like speed you jumped the last few feet to your bed-- safely over the out-stretched hands of the monsters under your bed. Finally in bed you’d lay awake listening to every creak and moan. Every shadow dancing on the wall was sure to be a stalking scaly beast. To scared to move for fear that they’d hear you, you’d lie still as they crept up on you. Finally, the split second before the moment of attack you’d explode from your bed, leaving months worth of furniture dust floating in your wake. The emergency escape route always led to the safe zone--mom and dad’s bedroom. Both would groggily wake up at your entry. Mom always being the more compassionate of the two would give the comfort. Night after night she would lead you back to bed reassuring you that there were "no such thing as monsters." Sometimes mothers say things just to get you back to sleep. Unfortunately she lied to you. Well, maybe not literally. The real monsters she didn’t tell about don’t have claws and fangs but wear dark pinstripe suits and sit in fat cushy chairs. Inside their penthouse C.E.O. suites they overlook their prey--the American people. The monsters I’m talking about are the tobacco manufactures of America; namely, R.J. Reynolds, Phillip Morris and other tobacco manufacturers; famously known for producing Camel, Winston, Marlboro and a myriad of other cigarette brands. Since 1954, the tobacco industry has racked up the court room frequent-flyer miles with over 600 appearances. Not once in all 600 some odd attempts have the plaintiffs been able to beat the giant. That’s a record even the Nebraska Corn-Huskers Football program can be jealous of. The recent avalanche of new tobacco legal troubles began with a 1996, Florida lawsuit. In a landmark decision a jury awarded a family compensation for the loss of loved one--their father, who happened to smoke (Tobacco Litigation 304). This case marked a possible turning of the tide for anti-tobacco lobbyists. For the first time in over 40 years the giant stumbled. That single verdict set a legal precedence for our nation equivalent to "the shot heard round the world." Now, state after state is jumping on the "band-wagon," suing tobacco manufactures on the basis of Medicaid reimbursement. We live in a day of rampant lawsuits and liberal rewards for those suits. People sue restaurants for burning themselves with the restaurant coffee. Sadly, juries award millions to such ridiculous suits. With this in mind its easy to empathize with the tobacco companies legal situation. Over the past 40 years they’ve literally spent billions of dollars in litigation costs. So why all of a sudden are the tobacco companies being ganged up on by American lawyers. (One might view this scenario as villain vs. villain) After all, the tobacco guru’s go out of their way to tell the public about the "possible" harmful effects their product causes. One might ask, what’s the big deal if someone gets enjoyment out of a cigarette as long as I’m not choking on it-- its their lungs? And hey, if their dumb enough to smoke a "cancer-stick" then they deserve to live with the consequences. Everybody knows that smoking causes cancer. Even illiterate smokers know what the Surgeon General warning labels say. In the past tobacco lawyers have relied on two chief arguments: First, they have argued that smokers must prove that smoking has specifically caused their illness--which is difficult to do. Second, if they overcome the first obstacle they argue that even if their product does cause health diseases they have warned the public of the "possible" harmful effects. For years the tobacco companies have buffeted the fiery darts of anti-tobacco prosecuting attorneys with these two arguments--and quite well at that. Since cigarettes don’t actively carry heart disease, emphysema and lung cancer it has been difficult for prosecuting attorneys to convince juries beyond a reasonable doubt that tobacco is the sole cause. In comparison, if a tick carrying lyme disease bites a deer the deer will contract the disease. Smoking’s link between product and disease to date is undiscovered. The only evidence of cause and effect lies in statistics. It was this type of evidence that administered the knockdown blow in the Florida case. The lawyers showed through statistics that smokers contract heart disease and lung-cancer more frequently than non-smokers, linking the disease to the tobacco product. Up to this point statistical evidence had been disregarded in the courtroom. Jurors bought into the stats, sending shockwaves through the tobacco industry (Tobacco Litigation 304). Even if the prosecution finds success in linking tobacco to cardiovascular diseases they face another peak to climb. Since the early 1960's tobacco companies have warned consumers of the possible risks associated with smoking. Every advertisement has a companion warning of the hazards involved with smoking. These warnings in the past have waived the liability of tobacco companies. In the past smokers have shouldered 100% of the consequences. Juries reasoned that smokers chose to smoke based on and informed decision. In the last year secret inter and intra-tobacco company memorandums between lawyers, researchers, and high-ranking company officers have shed a new light on the tobacco companies knowledge of their products defectiveness. The implications of these documents suggest fraud, conspiracy and deceit. With the admission of these secret memorandums there seems to be three reasons why tobacco companies are liable to the American public: 1) The documents overwhelmingly suggest tobacco companies for years have engaged in a campaign to addict illegal under-aged smokers. 2) The company memorandums and former employee testimonies directly link a conspiracy to mis-lead the American public on issues such as, nicotine addictiveness, and health risks. 3) The tobacco companies knew decades ago the damaging effects of their products. What if your peers pressured you into using an addictive substance at the age of thirteen? A substance so addictive that it ranks with the likes of heroin and opium. You begin a habit of using this substance because advertising portrays it as being a grown-up activity. A typical youthful folly that unfortunately turns into a life-long habit. Besides wasted money on the substance you will spend thousand of dollars on increased doctor visits because of poor health. In such a scenario should an individual singularly bear the consequences of a habit that their peers seduced them into doing? Any ethically responsible person would say no. Does such a scenario sound hypothetical? In reality the average age smokers starts in their early teens. In 1995, 34.8% of high school students say they had smoked in the last month. Of that 34.8%, 3,000 of them become regular smokers each day. That equates to 1,095,000 kids that are hooked on smoking each year (Parker-Pope 1). Hey, I’m the first to admit that I knew as a child--a young child--that cigarettes were harmful. I even knew it when I stopped by the "Gas n’ Go" on the way home from elementary school to purchase candy cigarettes. I would hurry into the store and purchase them. I felt "cool" to have them with me. The package in my shirt pocket gave me a sense of toughness and sophistication. Walking home I would suck on one for a while pretending to smoke. Being a child, the sugar eventually overcame my will power, and I would devour it, repeating the process until they were all gone. Fortunately I didn’t take candy cigarettes a step further. Candy cigarettes and gimmicks such as free T-shirts, gym bags, knives, hats, and other items with company logos all add to the lure of tobacco products. For years tobacco companies have pointedly targeted youthful audiences with these and other items. For instance, in Hong Kong clothing stores pass out American cigarettes. Cigarette companies also sponsor teen activities such as Salem’s virtual reality dome where Asian teenagers play laser tag. Empty cigarette packages are also redeemed for movie passes, concerts and disco’s (Selling Cigarettes 22). All activities and promotions involved with Asian countries such as Hong Kong are an example of tobacco companies flagrant campaigns to addict their next generation of customers. Yet another instance of them leading boys to "Pleasure Island." Consider a statement found in a letter prepared by a tobacco company. "Starters (referring to teenaged beginners) no longer disbelieve the dangers of smoking, but they almost universally assume these risks will not apply to themselves because ‘they’ will not become addicted. Once addiction does take place, it becomes necessary for the smoker to make peace with the accepted hazards. This is done by a wide range of rationalizations (Herbert 37)." With the introduction of Phillip Morris’s Joe Camel in 1988, adolescent smoking went from 0.5% to 32.8% in a three year period. The adult percentage virtually remained the same. Phillip Morris, however, isn’t the only tobacco company with kids in their cross-hairs. R.J. Reynolds has been in the business of seducing kids long before Joe Camel came along. A company memorandum from the early 1970's states, "The fragile, developing self-image of the young person needs all of the support and enhancement it can get. Smoking may appear to enhance that self-image in variety of ways . . . . This self-image enhancement has traditionally been a strong promotional theme for cigarette brands and should continue to be emphasized (Herbert 37)." Since 9 out of 10 smokers start in their teens it stands to reason that tobacco companies would target teenagers. "Take them out of the mix and the tobacco companies would soon disappear" reports Bob Herbert of the New York Times (37). At such an age kids are highly susceptible to rebellion and very naive to the long-term consequences. Once addicted they become the next generation of smokers. Besides breathing problems, statistics show that cigarette smoking causes heart disease, strokes, heart attacks, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and lung cancer. The ugliest side affect of smoking happens to the most innocent creature in the world--an unborn fetus. If a pregnant mother smokes within the first few days of pregnancy her baby can be damaged for life. Often times a women may not even know she is pregnant at this point. Not only does it damage the fetus physically and mentally but smoking causes pregnancy complications, such as, low birth weight, premature births or miscarriages (Core Concepts 136). Not only have tobacco companies known of these dangerous side effects for decades but they have willfully tried to cover up their knowledge. One memorandum in 1977 from a lawyer to a now retired tobacco researcher asks to ‘bury’ a study if it showed that nicotine produced the same withdrawal effects as morphine or caffeine. This same researcher, a Mr. Thomas S. Osdene, recently refused to testify in a Texas lawsuit regarding tobacco. Apparently his decision was legal as he exercised his Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself with his own testimony (Meier 15). On August 23, 1997 Steven F. Goldstone, chairman of the RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp (the parent of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.) testified on the effects of tobacco. He stated, "I have always believed that smoking plays a part in causing lung cancer. What that role is, I don’t know, but I do believe it." His testimony strengthened the belief that not only have tobacco companies covered up the real dangers of smoking, but, they have known of the dangers for decades (Meier 7). On another occasion a lawyer working for the Ligget company taking notes in a 1981 meeting of tobacco lawyers wrote, "Cigarettes kill people beyond a reasonable doubt (Meier 18)." No doubt tobacco companies have known for decades the ramifications of their products use. No true red-blooded American wants to take away another’s right to do something they find pleasure in. Smoking has been as much American as baseball, college football, apple pie, and mom. After all, hasn’t an after dinner smoke been a tradition of noblemen and peasants alike for centuries. The issue at stake concerning smoking in most Americans minds is Americana itself--the very principles this country was founded upon--life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So why should we concern ourselves if someone finds pleasure in smoking. Why then, the sudden holy crusade to cleanse our nation of this seemingly obscure filth when its been on the earth almost since the beginning of time? If you want to engage in a hazardous activity such as rock-climbing or smoking should that be your choice? That’s the American way. This is the great argument of the tobacco trial lawyers. "How can we be responsible for another persons action when they have previously known of its hazards and having willingly partaken of it?" Similarly, can the rope manufacturer be responsible for the fallen rock climber? It would seem that the rock climber and the tobacco manufacturers is a fair comparison. But, in reality, high-risk entertainment such as rock climbing, does have differences from pleasurable smoking. The only fair comparison between a tobacco company and a rope manufacturer would be if the rope manufacturer knowingly made a defective product and sold it to the public. Such is the tobacco companies case. Not only have they known of their products defectiveness, but they aggressively advertise for new customers. The tobacco companies knew their "climbers would fall in the field." As a child, I knew a man named Ward McCordson. My dad and I would visit him often. hated to go because of the tubes that he always had running in his nose and mouth. As a young child this scared me. My dad explained to me that he needed the tubes in order to breath. Everywhere Ward went he was shackled to his oxygen tank. Despite his condition he smoked habitually. Eventually he died of emphysema. His lungs simply could not function anymore. His master, cigarettes, had taken him to the grave leaving behind two young children and a wife. Was Ward free to choose if he would smoke? As a beginner he was able to choose, but once the addiction took place he became a servant to a substance. Each time he would "light-up" in front of me--like a slave warns another potential one-- he firmly advised me to never begin. The issue with smoking boils down to freedom. But, with smoking the freedom to choose is lost once the participant is adequately addicted. After addiction takes place they become a slave to a heartless master, as the case with my friend Ward. Freedom doesn’t exist in smoking. Its only a smoke-screen labeled "freedom,"designed to mask the wicked intentions of greedy men. Basically the entire controversy comes to this, cigarettes are a harmful substance and known to cause terminal illnesses. America can no longer pay billions in smoking related Medicaid expense. In 1996, our nation spent 50 billion dollars in smoking related health-care expenses. Every day 1,145 Americans die from smoking (Parker-Pope 1). Like DDT and other pesticides that have been banned, cigarettes and its harmful carcinogens and tars should be banned. In addition, any party that knew of its lethality should be held liable. That doesn’t mean smokers walk away scott free. In fact they will endure the harshest sentence of all. Their loss of good health will rob them of some of life’s greatest pleasures such as a sunset walk on the beach with a spouse or playing one on one basketball with their child. Millions of people like my friend, Ward, are so addicted to cigarettes that they can only think of where their next cigarette is coming from. They have become mindless slaves to a substance protected by so called "free" enterprise. America is addicted to cigarettes. Our advertising, taxes, jobs, and government all benefit financially from tobacco sales. In the end though, we have only sold our souls to the devil by benefitting from tobacco products. The only responsible ethical solution to the problem is to ban it. If we can’t find the moral courage as a country, as the worlds leader of truth and virtue, to ban cigarettes we can only reap what we have sown. We tell ourselves we’re free. We even have any amendment to our Constitution that tells us slavery is illegal. Yet, everyday we allow monsters to lurk amongst us, stalk our children, and prematurely kill our parents and grandparents. Like puppets we dance for them and fill their pockets with gold only to be tossed aside when we can no longer benefit them financially. The opportunity is here in front of us to cut the strings and liberate ourselves. Anything less than a gradual restriction and then banning of cigarettes is nothing more than painting our current prison bars a different color. A researcher for the Ligget tobacco company stated it best when he asked this question in a May 15, 1978 letter; "Is it morally permissible to develop a safe method for administering a habit-forming drug when, in so doing, the number of addicts will increase (Concept 1)?" America’s answer to that question is a resounding no.
Works Cited Meier, Barry. "Tobacco Researcher Said to Decline to Testify." New York Times 15 May 1997: 15. - - - . "Chief of R.J. Reynolds Says Smoking Has Role in Cancer." New York Times 23 August 1997: 7. - - - . "Tobacco Lawyers’ Papers Are Made Public." New York Times 7 August 1997: 18. Parker-Pope, Tara. "The Settlement: Facts abut the Global Tobacco Business." The Wall Street Journal 23 June 1997: 1 "Selling Cigarettes in Asia." New York Times 10 September 1997: 22. Herbert, Bob. "Seeking New Smokers." New York Times 2 May 1997: 37. "The Concept of Less Hazardous Cigarettes." American Online 3 November 1997 Available: http//www.gate.net/~jcannon/liggett/78051501.640.html Insel, Paul M., Roth, Walton T., Peterson, Ray A., and Rollins, L. McKay. Core Concepts in Health. London: Mayfield, 1996.
Annotated Bibliography "American Cancer Society’s Plan to Immunize Tobacco Industry." American Online. 5 December 1997. Available: http://www.gate.net/~jcannon/acs.html#100 "The Settlement." American Online. 3 November 1997. Available: http:www.tobacc.neu/smoke01.htm Broder, John M. "Addiction Warning Isn’t Expected to Thin Ranks of Smokers." New York Times 22 March 1997: 9. Feder, Barnaby J. "Youth-Smoking Study Sees Little Effect in Sting Efforts." New York Times 9 October 1997: 16. Chelala, Cesar. "Us Tobacco Companies’ Smoke Screen Starts to Evaporate." The Lancet 29 March 1997: 932. "White Smoke, and Black." The Economist 28 June 1997:16. "Tobacco on Trial." The Economist 11 May 1996: 15. "Where There’s Smoke, There’s Lawyers." Forbes 16 December 1996: 74. Gleick, Elizabeth. "A Fork in Tobacco Road." Time 25 March 1996: 47. "Tobacco Outclassed." The Economist 15 February 1997: 59. "Tobacco’s Woe: Deep-Pocketed Plaintiffs." Us News & World Report 6 March 1995: 18. McCarthy, Michael. "US States, Tobacco Firms, and Medicaid Bills." News 23 July 1994: 253. Wagner, Betsy., and Mallory, Maria. "The Biggest Digarette Break Yet." US News & World Report 25 March 1996: 17. Nelson, Harry. "Us Lawsuits Against Tobacco Companies." Lancet 4 March 1995: 574. Broder, John M. "Whit House See Adverse Effects in Tobacco Plan." New York Times 9 July 1997: 1.
Levinson, Marc. "Smoke and Fire." Newsweek 25 March 1996:38. "Warning: Buying Philip Morris could be Habit-Forming." Fortune 28 April 1997: 394. |