Tuesday, January 19 1999
Thank you Dick for accepting our " rendez-vous ".
May I ask you to introduce yourself ?
I am Richard (Dick) Daynard. I'm a law professor at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston. I've been Chairman of the Tobacco Products Liability Project since its founding in 1984, as well as President of its parent organization, the Tobacco Control Resource Center.
1. Litigation played a very important role in tobacco control. What influence do you think the "AG's settlement" will have?
Does it mean the end of litigation against the tobacco industry in the US?
I think the AG's settlement just whets people's appetite for tobacco litigation. After all, $208 billion is a lot of money. And to get it, it not enough to ask -- you have to sue for it.
Nor are there any lack of plausible plaintiffs. For example, Medicaid (which the AG's were suing for) covers only about 10% of smoking-related illness. The other 90% is paid for by employers, insurance companies, union health and welfare funds, and the federal government. They're all potential plaintiffs. Furthermore, health care is just one element of damages which a smoker can collect. Individual smokers, and classes of smokers, are suing to recover their lost wages, compensation for pain and suffering, etc. And cases brought by ETS victims are also becoming more common.
2. Are you aware of what the federal government intends to do as far as the settlement money is concerned?
Clinton has stated that he wants about half the money for the next five
years for federal programs, including smoking prevention programs.
Although the federal government is probably entitled to this money
(they pay more than half of the state's Medicaid expenses, after all),
it seems unlikely that they will get it in the end. Congress will
probably pass a law permitting the states to keep the money. Clinton
has indicated that would be OK with him, so long as the money went for
tobacco control and other programs he advocates.
While the congressional Republicans would probably prefer giving the
states carte blanche, they probably couldn't muster an override to a
presidential veto. So Clinton and Congress will probably cut a deal,
which will be good for tobacco control (since some states would
otherwise devote little or nothing to tobacco control programs).
3. I read about lawsuits filed in the US by foreign states against the tobacco industry. Can you tell us more about those cases?
Guatemala, Panama, and Nicaragua have filed suits in US federal courts against US tobacco companies and BAT, seeking recovery of their tobacco-caused health care costs. As the industry says, these are "copycat suits", modeled on the successful AG litigation. So much the worse for the industry! I have no idea at this point whether US courts will permit the cases to remain here -- if so, they have a reasonable chance of prevailing. Other governments are filing similar suits in their own courts, including the Canadian province of British Columbia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. A Marshall Islands court recently ruled that US and British tobacco manufacturers could be sued in the Marshall Islands, since they knew that some of their products would end up there, injuring Marshall Islanders and causing excess health care expenditures.
4. Do you foresee new regulatory initiatives at the federal level in the near future? For instance concerning labeling?
I think Clinton will seek regulatory initiatives, such as confirming the FDA's authority to regulate tobacco products. I also think the Republicans will drag their heels, so chances for passage are not good. The hope is that the plummeting Republican poll ratings, as they continue to ignore public sentiment in an effort to drive Clinton out of office, will lead their leadership to conclude that doing the right thing on tobacco will help rehabilitate their image. The fear is that they, and Clinton, and the tobacco industry will work out yet another version of the immunity deal.
5. WHO wants to propose an international convention to regulate the tobacco industry. How do you feel about this initiative?
It would obviously help, when fighting the hydra-headed tobacco industry, to have governments throughout the world attacking the industry simultaneously. A strong international convention would move tobacco control forward, especially in countries that have taken few steps thus far. One possible danger, however, is that a convention that was watered down sufficiently to achieve consensus could set the standard so low as to discourage effective tobacco control actions. Tobacco control is dynamic, and any attempt to standardize a fixed and unambitious tobacco control agenda could easily become an obstacle to strong and viable initiatives. But the Convention has great possibilities, so long as we don't fall in the trap of thinking that any Convention would be better than none at all.
Thank you Dick for taking the time to be with us today.
Comments