THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, March 24, 1996 TAG: 9603230015
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J4 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 59 lines
The tobacco industry's protective legal dike is crumbling. Last week, the Liggett Group agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit against the industry by turning over part of its profits to an anti-smoking campaign.
Now, three former employees of Philip Morris USA have come forward to say what common sense all along dictated: that company executives knew nicotine was addictive and manipulated levels of the drug in cigarettes to (take your choice) satisfy the smoking public or guarantee that there would be an ongoing source of customers for the product.
To say that the week has been cataclysmic for the industry is no overstatement.
The settlement by Liggett, makers of L&M and Chesterfield cigarettes and the smallest of the Big Five manufacturers, marks the first time a major tobacco company has broken ranks to accept some responsibility for the lethal effects of its products.
And while allegations of nicotine manipulation have circulated for years, the affidavits of two former scientists and a former production manager at Philip Morris facilities in south Richmond are the most compelling evidence to date that deliberate fiddling occurred.
The developments come as the industry is under legal assault on multiple fronts: The large class-action suit in New Orleans settled by Liggett continues against other manufacturers; several grand juries are probing the industry; and five states - Florida, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Minnesota, and West Virginia - are trying to recover some of the billions of Medicaid dollars spent each year on smoking-related illnesses.
Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration is urging regulation of nicotine as a drug.
Tobacco companies say smoking's a private decision, and largely it is. But the private realm intrudes on the public when taxpayers become liable for the cost of tobacco-related illnesses covered by Medicaid.
Whether tobacco companies should help foot that medical bill is open to debate. Virginia ought to keep its options open as that debate continues. It's true that tobacco remains a valuable cash crop and a leading export for the state, but years of economic dependence on a product should not blind public officials to countervailing health costs.
Yet tobacco-friendly forces in the 1996 General Assembly succeeded in passing legislation that appears to weaken the state's hand if it ever tries to recoup Medicaid expenses. The legalese in the ``medical assistance services'' bill, which doesn't mention the tobacco industry by name, makes it hard to predict the precise impact.
The sponsor, Del. Ward Armstrong, who hails from the tobacco-growing Southside, said he was trying only to codify an existing right of companies to use certain legal defenses if they're sued in Medicaid cases.
Whether Armstrong or his critics are right, Gov. George Allen should veto House Bill 1392. If it only clarifies an existing right, it's unnecessary. If it limits the attorney general's options, it's unwise. by CNB