Product Liability?

By Norman E. Kjono

What is the liability of an organized enterprise that aggressively sells a new belief to consumers that they are permanently addicted to a product that the enterprise describes as "The only product that, when used as directed, kills"?

How absolute does that tobacco control product liability become when it is established that the only way the enterprise can profit is to stabilize and expand youth and adult smoking populations? How will juries react to the observation that tobacco control activists systematically go after children, and that their programs have the predictable effect of increasing youth smoking?

Think about that for a moment: Tobacco control tells consumers on the one hand their product of choice will kill them, but on the other hand anti-tobacco activists tell consumers that they have no choice but to continue using it; in fact, tobacco control virtually mandates such use.

Before the tobacco control enterprise began its aggressive sales pitch in 1988 to convince consumers they are and were addicted to tobacco according to Centers for Disease Control "National Health Interview Surveys" data adult Former Smoker populations steadily increased. Beginning in 1990, immediately after Dr. C. Everett Koop's report that declared nicotine addictive, the adult Former Smoker population group stabilized, fewer people quit each year.

That stabilization of youth and adult smoking populations serves the vested interests of tobacco control promoters, through assuring large numbers of smokers to provide sales revenues that fund tobacco "settlement" payments, and to pay increased tobacco taxes.

Add a significant fact: The State of Washington, Department of Public Health, through its Assistant Secretary Jackson L. Williams, now acknowledges a causal relationship between tobacco control programs and increased youth smoking. Assistant Secretary Williams characterized increased youth smoking rates and increased youth smoking persistence as "previous effects of anti-smoking campaigns" in a recent letter to Norman E. Kjono.

The State of Washington's response to their own acknowledgment that anti-tobacco programs have increased youth smoking rates? Well, to do more anti-tobacco programs, of course! This round will be kicked off during the next few weeks with a Seattle based Internet "reality" show featuring celebrities from MTV.

We've said it for years: Tobacco control is not about consumer's health or "Saving the Children." Tobacco control is, and always has been, about fleecing a state-defined "Target Group" of citizens who lawfully consume legal products. More kids stating today is more bucks for tobacco control activists in the future. My God, what would happen to the tobacco control revenue gravy train if youth smoking actually declined below levels in the 1980s?

We just never dreamed that tobacco control would ever have the brass to publicly admit that their promotions increase youth smoking rates, and then launch a whole new round of programs focused on kids that they know will produce more children who continue to smoke. Even Joe Camel was never so blatant in his pursuit of kiddee consumers.

Deny it as you wish, but a stark reality still presents itself: The tobacco control enterprise cannot rake in its "settlement" revenues over the next 25 years if kids quit smoking or do not start. The only reality that works for tobacco control revenues is a stabilized and expanding youth tobacco consumer market. Tobacco control lives and breathes through other people's children.

Follow the ongoing story created by correspondence with public officials. There are two .PDF documents related to this installment:

1.) Mr. Kjono's letter of April 23, 2001 addressed to Washington Secretary of Health Mary C. Selecky. (4 Pages)

2.) Enclosures to Mr. Kjono's April 23 letter, including copies of previous correspondence from the Washington Department of Health. (4 Pages)