Op Ed:
U.S. Supremes Blew Another:
Defy Historic Impacts of Cigarettes
To Save Philip Morris Billions

Arrogance costs money and the tobacco pushers have plenty of those death-stick dollars to spend.

Image: www.tobaccofreekids.org

(SALEM) - Tobacco propaganda to build addiction and hide health impacts is as old as the slave-trade on which this poison-product industry was first built. Slavery, you will recall, took nearly 100 years to be resolved, supported during that time by other Supreme errors.

For many years tobacco suppliers falsely claimed their product was no poison-pill in-a-roll, threatening human health; and that only personal choice should be the criterion for broad public usage.

That historic fact of impure propaganda is very openly acknowledged in the latest controversial decision by the U.S. Supreme Court --then so arrogantly ignored as to bring strong, stinging dissent from a highly respected Member of the Court.

Oregon’s “attention-getting” $79.5 million corporate crusher was bounced back --for a 2nd time vs Oregon’s own Supreme Court-- just as the Legislature considers added-tax as major discourager for oncoming addicts, whose healthcare costs are sure to end up paid in large part by taxpayers.

Some of whom --reflecting still more tobacco-profit/dollar propaganda-- even now protest anything authoritative voices show as wise procedure to hamper further addiction and use the added-tax to pay healthcare costs for Oregon’s kids.

How painful such concern has now become to “the industry” is mirrored in the heavy-cost public relations piece promoting the Philip Morris “good guy” stance on stabilizing nicotine content.

Ironically, that PR-shot was published here just in time to illuminate even more fully the ongoing Philip Morris (PM) overwhelming-dollar struggle vs the Oregon settlement already approved by our own Supremes...who should know the case more intimately than any split-Court seeking politically-potent decision in D.C.

The point of our Op Ed was to support and explain the Oregon plan to provide healthcare for every child via added-tax on every cig-package, that point was “heard” by PM loud enough to elicit the propaganda piece submitted so promptly.

That plan of action stands on its own merits, described in very strong detail both by former Governor Roberts’ Op Ed (2/8) in “The Big O” and in our own Op Ed.

DO NOT BE CONFUSED ABOUT THAT ESSENTIAL ACTION NOW!

Arrogance costs big money when translated into “Public Relations” and PM has plenty of those poison-product/earned dollars to spend.

Media pundits analyzing the Supremes’ bounce-back to the Oregon Court now state that both the decision and the bounce-back are deeply involved with the political pressures now known to be present on the U.S. Court, leading to such controversial actions as this one.

In the minority on this decision, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the minority: “The majority relies on a distinction between taking third-party harm into account in order to assess reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct --which is PERMITTED-- from doing so in order to PUNISH the defendant ‘directly’ --which is FORBIDDEN.

“THIS NUANCE ELUDES ME.” (Emphasis supplied.)

Justice Stevens was obviously well aware that the Oregon Court had reconsidered the case on first-return, only to see PM’s public conduct so reprehensible it returned the case to the Supremes for review, based on the extremely egregious advertising campaign in early years, notorious in communications research.

The simple fact, shorn of all legal massage, to its basic meanings, is that a history of known-deceitful public statement by a leading tobacco supplier is NOW cut away from the painful consequences for this defendant --while our highest U.S. Court acknowledges the historic facts.

The net impact is, clearly, to provide precisely the motivation for more --and more massive!!— lawsuits gathered into class-action format, thus crowding the courts while hampering true justice by distorted distinctions deemed dominating this time-around.

That can only cause further confusion, conflict, costs and legal chaos --defying in all common sense precisely what this majority stated it wished to avoid.

Who was it that said: “The law, sir, is sometimes a ass!”