Washington has become the 2004 “precedent-setting” test state for the anti-tobacco agenda. At virtual light speed citizens of Washington are now confronted with an expanded smoking ban in Pierce County that overrides current state exemptions for restaurants, taverns, bowling alleys, etc., the declared intention of other county officials to take the ban state-wide, Spokane County’s new policy that persons who currently work for the county or apply for new jobs with the county cannot smoke at work or at home (nonsmokers are the only permitted employees), and a direct challenge to current state preemption statutes that prohibit local government from passing smoking bans that are more stringent than state law.

Grant money, such as that from pharmaceutical Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is flowing into the state from special-interests to support promoting the smoking bans, and prospectively to pay for costs of counties defending the bans as well. Whether citizens of the state like it or not, it is clear that pharmaceutical special-interests will mandate our local affairs though a New Jersey private foundation. And it seems that there is an adequate supply of compliant politicians in Washington sufficient to enact that agenda, regardless of the expressed will of the people in that state, lead in large part by the state’s Attorney General and candidate for Governor Christine O. Gregoire. 

Not only has Ms. Gregoire publicly reversed her office’s 1998 written opinion that Washington preemption statutes prohibit county government from passing smoking bans that are more restrictive than state law, but she has also written a letter to Pierce County encouraging them. In effect, Attorney General Gregoire has voluntarily rescinded her office’s previous opinion regarding smoking bans, encouraged counties to challenge current state preemption statutes, and made it clear that she will wink at counties that ignore smoking ban exemptions already codified in state law for restaurants, taverns, bowling alleys, and casinos. Ms. Gregoire apparently believes that willfully violating the rights of 25 percent of the state’s population who chose to lawfully consume legal tobacco products, putting hospitality business owners at risk for their livelihoods, and giving a green light for counties to prospectively violate current preemption and exemption statutes enhances her qualifications to lead our state as its next Governor. Now that a challenge has been filed with the Washington Public Disclosure Commission to Ms. Gregoire receiving $360,000 in campaign donations from out of state through “Emily’s List” (Early Money Is Like Yeast – It makes the dough rise), a women’s advocacy group that is indirectly connected to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation through attendance of its staff at a RWJ Foundation conferences, we restate our previous question: Is the $360,000 in campaign donations received from Emily’s List by Ms. Gregoire a quid pro quo that acknowledges her “contribution” to pharmaceutical special-interest’s “Smoke Free” nicotine sales agenda? 

Accompanying that special-interest tobacco control agenda are, of course, mainstream media editorial opinion supporting the smoking ban and public citizen Letters to the Editor that proclaim the need for such bans to “protect the people and children.” Needless to say there has also been extensive media coverage of the Pierce County smoking ban in the news. In following the story of the hijacking of Washington public policy Norman Kjono has engaged in extensive E-Mail communications, followed by a lengthy telephone conversation, with reporter Kenneth P. Vogel of the Tacoma News Tribune. The text below is the unedited content of an E-Mail that was sent to Mr. Vogel January 11,2004. It was written in a format that answers questions Mr. Vogel asked Mr. Kjono, as well as to provide a thorough outline of issues, with extensive links to press coverage. From the below text Forces readers can draw their own conclusions as to the current status of smoking ban issues in the State of Washington.”

Mr. Vogel,

Thank you for your telephone call at approximately noon Thursday, January 8, 2004, which lasted about one-half hour. I appreciate that you took the time to discuss tobacco control issues with me, and that we had the opportunity to present our respective views. Please note that I have copied elected representatives, other news organizations, selected attorneys, and other persons or organizations on this E-Mail.

In our several E-Mail exchanges and our telephone conversation we discussed the Pierce County, Washington smoking ban that became effective on January 2, 2004. As of today, January 11, 2004, according to most recent reports, there will be a court hearing next Friday where a request for a permanent injunction for the ban will be presented. Depending on the outcome of that hearing it is anticipated that the Entertainment Industry Coalition may sue to block and/or overturn the Pierce County ban.

Many of our comments to each other have included rather direct discussion about one or the others views on the Pierce County smoking ban. Our comments have also included exchanges regarding objectivity and presumed motivations. I personally regard that as a healthy exchange, regardless of the fact that it at times became rather strained. However, as stated in my E-Mail it has been and is my position that:

Reporting, like beauty and truth, is also in the eye of the beholder. I do not question your right to report as you wish, as we at Forces do as well. Do as you wish. Let the public be informed as you choose (with my best wishes.) Let our readers make their own choices, that's what reporting is about.

In keeping with that view this E-Mail has five sections. These sections are:

Section 1: Background Letters to the Editor of the Tacoma News Tribune over the past week about the Pierce County smoking ban, plus The Tribunes editorial position on the ban, with links to the items referenced.

Section 2: Background Tacoma News Tribune news articles about the Pierce County smoking ban over the past two weeks, byline Kenneth P. Vogel, with links.

Section 3: My observations and comments regarding Philip Morris direct or indirect involvement with the Entertainment Industry Coalitions lawsuit regarding the Pierce County smoking ban, including my personal experience in such matters related to the March 15, 1994 Washington smoking ban in office work environments. This is the information that you requested I provide for you.

Section 4: Overview comments regarding Sections 1 to 3.

Section 5: Nicotine Market Share, a plausible explanation for conduct by 1998 tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) Settling States in promoting smoking bans nationwide, including the benefits that Philip Morris could enjoy from such action.

Please refer to the Youth Smoking graph. It contains a two page graphic and written summary of youth and adult smoking prevalence in context of significant tobacco control events and programs. The first page presents youth smoking prevalence data from 1975 to 2002, and the source is the University of Michigan's Monitoring the Future Study.  The second page presents Centers for Disease Control and Prevention historical adult smoking prevalence data for 1965 to 2001. Whatever else may be subject to debate about smoking and tobacco use it is undeniably certain that under anti-tobaccos 1991 to 1998 Project ASSIST, launched by the George H. W. Bush administration October 1991 and managed nationwide by the American Cancer Society in part through grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, youth smoking rates skyrocketed 43 percent, previously declining adult current smokers leveled off, and previously increasing adult former smokers (persons who quit) declined. And, through simple statistical trend calculations, its also becomes apparent that declines in youth and adult smoking, with dramatic increases in the cost of cigarettes since the 1998 tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, are at present merely equal to and in some cases less than declines in smoking prevalence during the late 1970s and early 1980s when tobacco companies decreased cigarette costs to stimulate demand. Having committed hundreds of millions to public health programs to ostensibly eliminate the health costs and dangers of tobacco use as alleged by anti-tobacco activists, we now find ourselves at the dawn of our new millennium with a stabilized and expanded tobacco source consumer base for Smoke Free nicotine delivery device products and a now-stable tobacco consumer base. That consumer base provides multi-billions each year in new tobacco revenues to Settling States through Washington Attorney General Gregoire's settlement.

Of great concern to me as a father of a teenage son who does not smoke is that today many young adults who contribute sales revenues to cigarette companies and tobacco settlement payments to our state were also part of the dramatically increased youth smoker population that materialized under Project ASSIST during the 1990s and are now part of the source consumer base for pharmaceutical nicotine delivery device products. In that regard please see a January 4, 2004 article in The New York Times, Getting Even With Nicorettes by David Colman, about a man who reportedly chews 72 pieces of nicotine gum per day, has reportedly been using that product for several years in increasing quantity, and who says that he offers pharmaceutical nicotine gum to nonsmokers. I ask that you consider that information in light of the anti-tobacco strategy propounded by Walton Sumner II, MD of Washington University in Saint Louis to replace cigarettes with nicotine inhalers, in part through using smoking bans to reduce opportunities to smoke, as previously brought to your attention through a link to my December 15, 2003 report at Christine, Queen of Nicotine, Raises Campaign Cash.  And I request that you consider the contents of this E-Mail in light of two additional articles that I have previously written, Lets Really Save The Kids and NAAGing Questions, both of which were brought to your attention during our E-Mail exchanges. As I mentioned, Lets Really Save The Kids was originally published in 1997 at Forces, International and later published by Greenhaven Press/ Lucent Books in its 2000 Contemporary Issues Companion Teen Smoking.  That work was published by Greenhaven under the title A Better Way To Talk To Teens About Smoking.

I am pleased to offer the following information for readers, as well as your and The Tribune's consideration, in the above context.

1. Letters To The Editor of the Tacoma News Tribune: An interesting and vigorous mix of opinion!  What is important and valuable to me about letters published by The Tribune is that a clear and balanced presentation of diverse views is provided. That public discourse is both important and worthwhile. Readers could review the letters below, running a comparative tally of key phrases used by those who Support and those who Oppose the Pierce County smoking ban. When the letters are reviewed as a batch, available at the same time, an interesting pattern develops. Perhaps readers can identify that trend as to both supporters and opponents of the ban in terms of Washington's tobacco control strategy and policy, published April 1993 in Planning For A Tobacco-Free Washington: to reduce public tolerance for, and to change public acceptance of, tobacco use. Where does the pattern fall in light of the written and published strategy and policy of tobacco control advocates to reduce tolerance for (to therefore promote intolerance of) persons who smoke? Let those who expressed their opinions on the ban speak to that issue in their own words. Through its publishing of diverse views on the Pierce County smoking ban the Tacoma News Tribune has provided a valuable public service, despite its clear editorial support of the ban: supporters and opponents alike have the opportunity to understand the expressed values, beliefs, and opinions of those who take a contra view on the same issue.

For context, I preface the below links to Letters to the Editor of The Tacoma News Tribune, with The Tribune's editorial position as expressed in Local Businesses Should Obey Smoking Ban, in which The Tribune expresses the editorial opinions:

At issue is whether the Washington Clean Indoor Air Act of 1985 - which permits bars, restaurants, bowling alleys and other establishments to maintain smoking sections - prevents the health board from passing the countywide ban.

The health board deserves credit for trying to keep custom-ers (sic) and employees from having to breathe secondhand smoke. The ideal outcome would be for the Legislature to pass a statewide ban on indoor smoking, similar to laws already in effect in California and four other states. At a minimum, lawmakers should at least grant cities and counties specific authority to do what Pierce County health officials are trying to do. The only reason there is any ambiguity at all about these local powers is the influence of the tobacco industry on the Legislature. It is time lawmakers shook free of that influence.

a.) January 2, 2004 Smoking Ban Another Move Toward Government Control, by Linda Smith. (Health Director) Federico Cruz's political maneuvering is an outrage. Do people know he is running for dictator - I mean, governor? I thought I'd better write now - while I still have freedom of speech.

b.) January 3, 2004 Blame Parents If Smoke Endangers Their Children, by Shirl Mcallister. I will support Barb's Westgate and the other establishments (defying the smoking ban) because they are business people using their own money to make a living. Their establishments are not supported by taxes. Cigarettes are not an illegal substance. So to Barb's I say: You go, girl. Hang out a sign that says smoking establishment and let the people choose whether to go in or not. After all, that is what makes us a democracy.

c.) January 3, 2004 OPEN MIKE, comments by Helena Shelley. In response to Julie Davies' comments Wednesday in Open Mike about the poor working stiff working in a smoking establishment: Why do they apply for jobs in smoking establishments if they don't like smoke?

d.) January 3, 2004 Public Doesn't Need A Ban That Effects Private Businesses, by Jo Anne Knight. Since when did privately owned restaurants, bars and bowling alleys become public places? I choose not to smoke and prefer nonsmoking areas in restaurants; however, that is my choice.

e.) January 5, 2004 Compromise Needed On County Smoking Ban, by Mary Elaine Lyle-Jackman. Small businesses where all of the patrons either smoke or accept the risk of being in that environment could continue to conduct business as usual. Big chains could make accommodations for both groups of customers. This would allow for freedom of choice for both groups.

f.) January 6, 2004 Readers Still Fired Up Over County's Smoking Ban.  A plethora of contrasting views from many readers of The Tribune. Consistent refrains from those who support the Pierce County's ban were first promoted by anti-tobacco activists: they do not like having to wash their clothes and hair immediately when they get home because of the stink, smokers kill nonsmokers, and smokers are addicts. Notable among the opinions expressed is that of Clyde D. Mathews: As I see it, smokers have no more right to smoke in public than they have a right to fire off an automatic weapon in public. The results can be the same; someone else can be seriously injured or killed. So let's treat smoking in public for what it is: assault with a deadly weapon.

g.) January 8, 2004, Soldiers Can Smoke In Iraq, Not In Pierce County, by Sandee McDonald: I'm a nonsmoker, but I think this smoking ban is stupid. We already have smoking and non-smoking sections, and that's enough.

h.) January 8, 2004 Remarkable That Smoking Itself Hasn't Been Banned by Michael Pelligrini  Personally, I wouldn't deny those addicts their drug; I smoked for 30 years, so I have a very high degree of empathy for people who are addicted to tobacco. But their addiction should not take precedence over the rights of others. Breathing secondhand smoke has been proved to cause just as many health problems as firsthand smoke. Citizens should not be subjected to hazardous conditions or have to suffer potential health problems simply because someone else wants to feed their addiction. Keep up the good work, and don't back down. Leave the ban in place.

i.) January 8, 2004, YOUR VOICE: Smoke-Free Restaurants Not Hard To Swallow, by Gary B. Clark. A complete ban on smoking in restaurants, like Pierce County's, is better; after all, smoke does not know how to stay in the smoking section. It did not look like any of these food service establishments were in dire financial straits due to banning smokers. Rather, the smokers somehow decided that they could eat without lighting up a cigarette while still chewing their last bite of food. It was fun going into a restaurant and being able to sit anywhere, without being next to obnoxious smokers. Mr. Clark also said: It is my understanding that California and other states also have taken action [with smoking bans] so people can enjoy the smell and taste of food without the added ingredient of cigarette smoke. (Bracket added.)

j.) January 9, 2004 Disagree With Law? Work To Change It, Don't Disobey It by Christine Graff I do, however, know that authorities need to enforce laws and ordinances, or they should never be passed. Those who are blatantly disobeying the ban should be either fined or their businesses closed down. Laws are meant to be obeyed, no matter how any individual feels about them. If you want to change them, then do so lawfully and set a good example for the rest of the community, especially children.

k.) January 9, 2004 County Has More Than Enough Smoke-Free Places, by B. E.. Miladinov No one is forcing any nonsmoker or employee to frequent a smoking establishment, and as long as it is posted in clear sight and the prospective employee informed, there should be no objection. There are so many smoke-free places in Pierce County that there is no reason to force everyone to comply with a smoking ban. Even many bars and bowling alleys are smoke-free now. There should be a place for everyone. We all know what happened to Prohibition, don't we?

l.) January 10, 2004 Judge Failed To Address Legality Of Pierce County Smoking Ban, by Dave Wilkinson  I have to wonder if Pierce County Court Commissioner Meagan Foley is smoking something, considering her logic for not suspending a smoking ban in Pierce County. (TNT, 1-8). She appears not to weigh whether this smoking ban is legal but rather whether local businesses lost enough money or if losses were due to weather. The lawyer for the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department equates smokers with murderers, stating they don't have a right to kill people.  What's next, a roundup of business operators or smokers on charges of murder or attempted murder?

m.) January 10, 2004 Patrons And Workers Have Choice Of Many Smoke-Free Facilities Tim Mellema  Linda Swensen's Jan. 6 letter epitomizes the nonsense from the politically correct, socialist agenda that the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department has enacted without a public vote. She argues that owners have the right to ban smoking in their own restaurants; that used to be correct. Now they have no choices, nor do their patrons. (Note Mr. Mellema identifies himself as a nonsmoker who hates the smell of smoke.)

I encourage readers to review the above thirteen links to Letters to the Editor in the Tacoma News Tribune. Draw a line down the center of a page and record how Supporters and Opponents of the Pierce County describe persons who smoke, the nature of secondhand smoke, and those who object to any form of civil disobedience to make a public point about the ban. Which person do you want as your neighbor or local public official, perhaps someone who you could go to ask for help on an important personal matter? Through the expressed views of many Washington residents on this subject perhaps we begin to understand the true value of this public discourse: in the final analysis its not about smoking at all, its about how we regard and treat our neighbors, our neighbors children, and members of our own communities. Through our choices of how we behave towards others we define the reality of our own cultural environment, for good or for ill. Which cultural environment do you choose: that defined by the written words of Supporters or Opponents?

Today, that decision is very important to nonsmokers and smokers alike because many of the same activists, funded by the same pharmaceutical special-interests, and using the same strategy and policies, have now turned their attention to anti-obesity. Sorry folks, but an obese nonsmoker can expect no more consideration for their rights or feelings under anti-obesity agendas than a skinny nonsmoker has received from anti-tobacco. Indeed, we can realistically expect that the negative labeling and unfavorable stereotyping of obese people will escalate because the revenue haul from a food settlement and new taxes on the fat content of foods will be hundreds of billions more than that of the tobacco settlement. The decibel level of toilet tongue about ones neighbors and fellow members of a community by anti-activists seems to be in direct proportion to the amount of money to be made by policy advocates, states, and special-interests through engaging in such behavior.

Perhaps it is time that we the people choose a better way, independent of our present special-interest corptocracy.

2. Tacoma News Tribune news articles regarding the Pierce County, Washington smoking ban, byline Kenneth P. Vogel, include those published over the past two weeks:

a.) December 27, 2003 Business Owners Declare War On Smoking Ban: As many as 40 bar and restaurant owners plan to willfully disobey the Pierce County smoking ban set to go into effect Friday and are raising money to sue to overturn it.

b.) December 27, 2003 Questions, Answers On Indoor Smoking Ban: Barring a court order, the countywide indoor smoking ban goes into effect Jan. 2. But a number of questions remain.

c.) December 29,2003 State Might OK Smoking Ban: Though Pierce County's smoking ban could face a legal challenge, Attorney General Christine Gregoire might have eliminated a hurdle that stymied a similar effort in King County. In 1998, the Seattle-King County Health Department aborted an effort to ban smoking after a lawyer in Gregoire's office issued an opinion asserting that state law blocks local smoking bans. Now Gregoire is distancing herself from that 1998 opinion. Earlier this month, she sent a letter to Tacoma-Pierce County Board of Health members encouraging them to move ahead with an indoor smoking ban.

d.) December 30, 2003 Tacoman Sues Over County Smoking Ban Ness said he sued because he believes smoking should be a matter of personal choice. No one forces nonsmokers to patronize smoking establishments, and their employees are not being forced to work there under duress, he said.

e.) December 31, 2003 Smoking Ban Remains On Schedule: For the second day in a row Tuesday, a Pierce County Superior Court commissioner declined to block the countywide smoking ban set to go into effect Friday. Marshall Ness, the retired mortgage writer who is suing the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department to overturn the ban, said he'll try to find a judge to hear his case today. But it appears increasingly likely that the Health Department will be allowed to begin to enforce the ban Friday.

f.) January 2, 2004 Smoking Ban: Today's the Day: As of today, smoking is prohibited in bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, mini-casinos, bingo halls, hotels, private clubs and most other non-tribal businesses in Pierce County. Smokers caught lighting up in one of those places can be fined $100 under the first-in-the-state ban, which will be enforced primarily by the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department. The agency also will be able to issue fines and warnings to businesses that violate the ban, as well as suspend or revoke their licenses.

g.) January 3, 2004 They'd Rather Fight Than Quit: Some Smokers Defy New Ban:   Give me a ticket. I could care less, said Carman, a retired pipe fitter and 50-year smoker, prompting nods of agreement from most within earshot.

h.) January 6, 2004 Owners To Sue So Smoking Can Stay: Roughly 120 people - mostly bar and restaurant owners - gathered Monday at a West End Tacoma restaurant to form and finance a group that plans to sue to overturn the days-old Pierce County smoking ban.

i.) January 9, 2004 Smoking Ban Still the Law:  A Pierce County Superior Court commissioner on Thursday refused to suspend the countywide smoking ban, saying there wasn't enough proof that bars, restaurants, mini-casinos and other businesses were losing money because of the week-old prohibition.

From your reports as cited above it should be readily apparent that we citizens in Washington could be facing a precedent-setting pitting of the will of special-interest pharmaceuticals through the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Settling States through the Legacy Foundation, and tobacco companies through Philip Morris, against the views and interests expressed by many businesses and The Tribunes readers regarding the Pierce County smoking ban. Where are the interests of Washington taxpayers, consumers, and parents represented in that equation?

From your January 11, 2004 article it is apparent that at least $92 million has been committed through its SmokeLess States program by the reportedly largest single shareholder of Johnson & Johnson, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. During the 1990s, while youth smoking rates were skyrocketing and while the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation was aggressively funding anti-tobacco activists, Johnson & Johnson was advertising its Nicotrol inhaler in prime time television advertising that featured a suave young man riding in a flashy red convertible while deeply inhaling his Nicotrol nicotine delivery device, to later be congratulated by an attractive young lady for his intelligent consumer choice. In addition, the foundation awarded a total of about $200 million in grants to anti-tobacco activists, such as the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, and our states Washington DOC, during the 1990s. Adding to that financial support of anti-tobacco the publicly stated budget for Project ASSIST was $135 million and Nicorettes GlaxoSmithKline paid millions more to the American Cancer Society for use of the society's seal in promoting Smoke Free nicotine delivery device products. Today the tobacco settlement adds millions more each year to Settling State tobacco control programs. In addition, Attorney General Gregoire's tobacco control task force recommended in its November 1998 report that Washington health policy be coordinated with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. From that information a logical and troubling question arises: what mercantile strategy could justify what can conservatively be estimated as a one-half-billion-dollar-plus commitment to mandating that tobacco consumers use Smoke Free nicotine products, and why would Philip Morris be interested in that?

As discussed in 5. Nicotine Market Share below, Washington citizens, taxpayers, consumers and parents may also confront the specter of tobacco companies like Philip Morris having vested interests to allow smoking bans to pass, in direct contradiction to the common perception that they would automatically be opposed to smoking bans. Our readers should bear in mind that Philip Morris was also opposed to FDA regulation of tobacco, which it now supports, and that the company has also reversed itself on its previous claims that there is no proof that secondhand smoke is harmful. It is also apparent that Philip Morris track record on smoking ban litigation leaves much to be desired in terms of its success for those who oppose such bans. Beyond allegedly capitulating to the claims of tobacco control advocates, those recent reversals of position by Philip Morris can be more plausibly explained in light of the fact that there is now a written tobacco control plan to replace cigarettes with highly addictive and fast acting nicotine inhalers (see W. Sumner's research paper Estimating The Health Consequences Of Replacing Cigarettes With Nicotine Inhalers for which a link is provided above), tobacco companies are preeminent professionals in the growing, harvesting and processing of the nicotine-bearing tobacco plant, and Philip Morris and other tobacco companies are still in the business of selling nicotine, as they always have been according to anti-tobacco activists. Considering those facts two important questions come to mind:

1. Where does the nicotine in pharmaceutical nicotine gums, inhalers, patches, and lozenges come from?
2. What difference does it make to Philip Morris whether it ships nicotine in tanker cars to pharmaceuticals or in cigarette cartons to retail stores?

Are the old nicotine dogs merely up to new addiction sales tricks, now with political and pharmaceutical allies? The above two questions give rise to a third question: what do we Washington parents, taxpayers and consumers do, should future events make it clear that today's Pierce County smoking ban is merely part and parcel of a much larger Smoke Free nicotine sales and distribution scheme, a scheme that began the 1990s and was dependent on dramatically increasing the youth and adult source tobacco nicotine consumer base to be successful?

3. My Comments Regarding Smoking Ban Litigation And Philip Morris: During our telephone conversation we discussed your report in The Tribune about gubernatorial candidate Frederico Cruz contacting the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to discuss a grant that would be used to defray an estimated $200,000 in costs for Pierce County to defend a lawsuit against its new smoking ban in restaurants, taverns, bowling alleys, etc. You stated to me that persons from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundations SmokeLess states program confirmed to you Mr. Cruz' inquiry. You restated that position in your January 11, 2004 article above, adding that Pierce County health had also applied for a grant from the tobacco settlements Legacy Foundation to defray the costs of defending its smoking ban, too.

It bears mention that the tobacco settlement appears to prohibit use of funds to lobby for or defend smoking bans, in fact there is language in Section VI. (h.) of the settlement regarding use of public education monies that is expressly clear on that subject. To what extent does use of tobacco settlement monies to defend a smoking ban violate tobacco settlement requirements, notwithstanding the undoubted hyper-technical legal distinction that will be made by lawyers between lobbying for a ban and funding defense of bans that are the product of paid lobbyists efforts? That question becomes critically important in light of the expressly clear language of Section VI. (h.) in the tobacco settlement:

The National Public Education fund shall be used only for public education and advertising regarding the addictiveness, health effects, and social costs related to the use of tobacco products and shall not be used for any personal attack on, or vilification of, any person (whether by name or business affiliation), company, or government agency, whether individually or collectively. (Italic added.)

In light of the above language I bring to your attention the comments already made by counsel for Pierce County Department of Public Health, Paul Lawrence of Preston Gates & Ellis, which you quoted in your January 9, 2004 article, Smoking Ban Still the Law:

"People are acting as if there's some kind of fundamental right to smoke in a public place, and I think there's no such right," Lawrence countered. "You don't have a right obviously to kill people."

Compare the quote from Mr. Lawrence with the language in Section VI. (h.) of the MSA. Mr. Lawrence clearly says that persons who smoke in public kill other people. Does not Mr. Lawrence therefore unmistakably negatively label, attack, and vilify persons who smoke in public as killers? I believe that not only is Mr. Lawrence's statement regarding the effects of smoking in public on others irresponsible, reckless, and spurious based on credible science about secondhand smoke but it also willfully and intentionally attacks and vilifies persons who smoke in public by negatively labeling them as killers.  Does the reckless and self-serving claim by a lawyer about a health effect of smoking in public being to kill ones fellow citizens hyper-technically override the express Section VI. (h.) prohibition against any personal attack on or vilification of, any person . . . whether individually or collectively? I do not believe so. Perhaps we are to believe that the language of the tobacco settlement, as personally negotiated by Attorney General Gregoire during high-profile public reports in 1998, were and are intended to only protect tobacco company executives and tobacco companies and not public citizens who consume their products. Where is Ms. Gregoire's concern for everyday citizens who purchase and consume legal tobacco products in Washington, compared to her obvious concern for the well-being of tobacco company executives, as expressed in the tobacco settlement language that she negotiated? From your published reports it appears that Attorney General Gregoire may actually facilitate payment of settlement money to counties and law firms that recklessly and maliciously attack, demean and vilify everyday citizens smoke as killers,  in direct violation of settlement terms that she personally negotiated to protect tobacco companies and their executives.

It therefore follows that, if the Legacy Foundation does fund a grant for Pierce County to pay Preston Gates & Ellis to defend its smoking ban, such payments could be made in violation of the express requirements in Section VI (h.) of the 1998 tobacco Master Settlement Agreement. Considering that Mr. Lawrence's statements are already in the public record through your reports, and that escalating the alleged dangers of secondhand smoke to the level of lethal is part and parcel of tobacco controls and Pierce County's agenda to pass smoking bans, it appears to me that there is a permanent fatal flaw to the Legacy Foundation paying the county, and therefore Preston Gates & Ellis, to defend the ban: it appears that such payments could only be made in contradiction with the express and clear requirements of Section VI (h.) of the tobacco settlement. Perhaps we citizens are to overlook that glaring and blatant contradiction, presuming citizens who smoke in public to not be, after all, persons within the meaning of that language, and further assuming that negatively labeling citizens who lawfully consume legal tobacco products as killers does not constitute an attack on or vilification of them. Should the Legacy Foundation actually fund one dime to defend the Pierce County smoking ban, that contradiction must be aggressively pursued in context of expressly clear tobacco settlement language.

An additional consideration is that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is a 501c(3) entity. To my understanding such entities are prohibited from lobbying.

You also mentioned Philip Morris' possible financial support for a lawsuit against Pierce County regarding that new smoking ban. Your January 6, 2004 article about smoking ban lawsuit fundraising Owners To Sue So Smoking Can Stay, did not mention Philip Morris involvement in financing that lawsuit. The impression I had from that article was that the $25,000-plus reportedly raised to oppose the smoking ban as of that date came from individual business owners. You also reported in the January 6 article that the plaintiff in that lawsuit would be the Entertainment Industry Coalition. So if Philip Morris is, in fact, financing a material part of an Entertainment Industry Coalition lawsuit to block or overturn the Pierce County smoking ban that would be news, based on public reports to date. Your January 9, 2004 article Smoking Ban Still the Law reported that the attorneys for both Philip Morris and the Entertainment Industry Coalition (the Seattle law firm of Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe) said Philip Morris was not involved in the coalitions lawsuit in any way. You also mentioned in your E-Mail to me on Friday that the story of Philip Morris potential financial involvement in the Entertainment Industry Coalitions lawsuit would be fleshed out.  As I mentioned, where that story goes will be of interest. Your January 11, 2004 article does, indeed, flesh out that idea by raising the inference that Philip Morris may be indirectly behind opposition to the Pierce County smoking ban through its membership in the Washington Restaurant Association and/or the Entertainment Industry Coalition.

During our telephone conversation I mentioned to you that I have had personal, first hand experience with Philip Morris and smoking ban litigation in the past, which we briefly discussed. You asked that I provide comments for the record about that experience. I agreed to do so, so long as I was permitted to tape that conversation to create a record of what I said. You refused to allow me to tape your questions and my responses on that subject. Accordingly, I informed you that I had no comments for attribution on that subject. Later in our conversation you raised the possibility of me sending an E-Mail that stated my views on the subject, to which I agreed. We discussed a format of two sections: a statement of facts and my comments (you referred to them, my speculation) about those facts. Those two sections are presented in a.) and b.) below.

Your January 6, 2003 article reports that the Entertainment Industry Coalition hired Mr. Sam Watkins, of the Seattle law firm Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe, as counsel to prospectively represent them in a lawsuit against Pierce County if a stay for the ban was not agreed to by the county. Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe is by all accounts most capable in such matters. The firm has extensive experience with smoking ban litigation issues dating back to their 1994 representation of Philip Morris in litigation regarding the states initial smoking ban in office work environments. I have no doubt that the coalition has selected able counsel to address such issues. Rather than questions about Heller Ehrman, it was the mention of Philip Morris possible involvement with the coalition in the same smoking ban lawsuit that prompted my comments to you.

I provide a statement of facts about my company, and my lay persons views about Philip Morris participation in litigation to oppose the Pierce County smoking ban based on that personal experience, below:

a.) Statement of facts regarding my company and Philip Morris about the 1994 Washington smoking ban in office work environments.

March 15, 1994 the State of Washington's Department of Labor and Industries promulgated its smoking ban in office work environments. At the time I was moving my company's facilities and building out our new space. Since opening office in King County my company had always paid attention to indoor air quality issues. We installed supplemental air systems in our first facility and maintained that commitment as the firm grew. By the date of the smoking ban in 1994 we had nine years experience in the design, installation, and maintenance of supplemental indoor air quality systems. We did so for a simple reasons: I believe that employees are entitled to a safe and pleasant work environment. Beyond addressing the issue of employees smoking on the premises, our systems also provided oft-commented-on relief from pollens and other allergy-causing indoor air quality constituents. That history of our company was presented to members of the Washington legislature and the department at the time of my testimony before the legislatures Joint Administrative Rules Review Committee (JAARC). I also testified before the Department of Labor and Industries in August 1994 and attended a meeting of the Governors indoor air quality task force in December 1994.

The Washington Department of Labor and Industries was clearly informed of the fact of our Indoor Air quality system prior to the September 1994 effective date of its smoking ban in office work environments. The department was invited on at least two occasions to participate in the installation and/or testing of our Indoor Air Quality system. Independent testing documented the fact that our system reduced particulates to at or below outside air on average over an eight hour work day, and that it reduced trace levels of nicotine to at or below levels of detection with smoking allowed on the premises at work stations. The departments response was to refuse our invitation to review our system and its test results despite the fact that it was well-aware of our activity, and to inform us in a February 1995 letter that we and our system were not in compliance with state requirements. In addition, deposition testimony of the departments director, Mark O. Brown, later established that Labor and Industries did not conduct any independent testing of Environmental Tobacco Smoke exposure or hazards in the State of Washington when it promulgated its smoking ban. In retrospect, it is transparent that the department could not acknowledge our online and well-documented systems performance and preserve its inflated claims about the material risks from secondhand smoke to sustain its authority to regulate tobacco smoke as an alleged material risk to employees. A glaring set of facts confronted the department about the alleged material risks of secondhand smoke: beyond the fact that the studies in the December 1992 EPA report on secondhand smoke report did not quantify actual exposure to secondhand smoke the report also did not consider in any material way the effects of improved ventilation and supplemental air systems in reducing the alleged degree of risk to employees. The departments obvious response was to studiously ignore, and to refuse to consider, any information or data that would contradict its predetermined conclusion that Environmental Tobacco Smoke constituted a material risk to employees. While promoting the 1994 smoking ban in the name of clean indoor air the departments Director Brown also eliminated 23 of 24 clean indoor air measures recommended by the Governors taskforce on indoor air quality that were included in the proposed regulation, by declaring all indoor air quality regulation other than Environmental Tobacco Smoke to be not appropriate in its Administrative Order of Adoption DLI 93-18.

The net result of our efforts was that myself and my company were ignored, despite presentation of credible information about ongoing Indoor Air Quality efforts to our legislature and the department, plus direct communications on several occasions with the departments staff. We later wrote off our $20,000 investment to install and test the system and sold the systems components for scrap value when we vacated the premises.

In 1994 and 1995 I was in verbal and written communications with lawyers at Heller, Ehrman, White and Mcauliffe, counsel for Philip Morris. I visited Philip Morris lawyer at his office in Seattle, and paid the firm for copies of hearing and deposition transcripts. I discussed a lawsuit opposing the 1994 smoking ban with Heller Ehrman attorneys, on the assumption that we had extensive data and correspondence with the Department of Labor and Industries to support a strong case. I was later informed that Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe would not represent me on instructions from its client Philip Morris. Having no other counsel to turn to on those issues we were forces to drop any consideration of a lawsuit regarding the 1994 smoking ban in office work environments.

b.) My personal layman's observations regarding Philip Morris and Washington smoking ban litigation.

Assuming that Philip Morris would pay a substantive portion of the costs for an Entertainment Industry Coalition lawsuit against Pierce County to block or overturn its new smoking ban, I believe that other business owners who financially contribute to that effort, and who have their own business interests at stake in that lawsuits outcome, should consider that Philip Morris mercantile interests are remarkably different from theirs. To what extent could a difference of interests influence the scope of issues addressed, and the likelihood of a successful outcome for Entertainment Industry Coalition members, were Philip Morris to become a significant financial contributor to that litigation? To what extent could Philip Morris considerable experience in managing tobacco and smoking ban litigation to support its own interests influence decisions by less experienced coalition members who may rely on Philip Morris views for strategy or issue recommendations, though their interests are diverse? Factors to consider include:

i.) Hospitality Industry Competition: Coalition members interests concern their individual businesses and the apparently negative effects that the Pierce County Smoking ban could have on their income from customers. A principal consideration in that regard is that the Pierce County smoking ban would not automatically apply to tribal casinos unless Native American tribes agreed to voluntarily enforce the ban. Even if a state-wide smoking ban were to be passed by the legislature during its current session ( which it has not done for the past two years), the thorny question of tribal compliance with the ban would still remain. This sets up a potential competitive situation between Entertainment Industry Coalition members and tribal casinos: absent independent sovereign authority, coalition members would be forced to comply with the smoking ban regulation where tribal casinos would not. In essence, a business decision that could dramatically effect the entertainment industry could become mandatory for one group and voluntary for another. The broader national interests of Philip Morris USA are not directly influenced by that competitive issue to nearly the extent that those of an individual non-tribal casinos are. What could very well be a mere negotiating trade-off or Philip Morris can be a life or death business decision for a non-tribal casino. The overall balance of the tribal issues weighs very heavily on Washington Entertainment Industry Coalition members local interests, but is of less economic import to Philip Morris nationwide interests.

ii.) Smoking Bans: According to your January 11, 2004 article, as well as many other news reports, Philip Morris now states that secondhand smoke may pose some health risks. Then why, as a corporate citizen, would Philip Morris fund opposition to smoking bans? Philip Morris vested interests are to not aggressively oppose smoking bans. According to the October 25, 2002 prospectus for Washington's $517 million offering of Tobacco Settlement Asset-Backed Bonds, Series 2 (page A-30), total tobacco consumption in the United States will have declined from 465 billion cigarettes in 1998 (the year of the tobacco settlement) to a projected 393 billion by 2003, a 15 percent decrease. Adult smoking prevalence (the percentage of adults who smoke) has remained essentially flat, and the number of persons who quit smoking has slightly declined. The general observation is that while a relatively constant number of adults continue to smoke on a per capita basis they are smoking slightly fewer cigarettes. The extent to which aggressive pharmaceutical nicotine agendas to replace cigarettes with Smoke Free pharmaceutical nicotine delivery devices, such as the mercantile strategy presented in detail by W. Sumner II, MD of Washington University in Saint Louis titled Estimating The Health Consequences Of Replacing Cigarettes With Nicotine Inhalers, may accelerate reductions in smoking prevalence and total tobacco consumption remains to be seen. Currently available data strongly suggest that smoking bans do not have a significant or dramatic effect on either smoking prevalence or total cigarette consumption because a relatively constant number of persons continue to smoke and they merely smoke modestly fewer cigarettes. In addition both tobacco companies and Settling States now enjoy the economic benefit of a 40 percent-plus increase in youth smoking under the George H. W.. Bush administrations 1991 to 1998 Project ASSIST, thereby providing the stability of another generation of more youth smokers to fund settlement payments to states. Those observations are supported by Dr. Sumner's conclusion that the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions goal to reduce adult smoking prevalence to 12 percent by 2010 may not be attainable. Added to these issues is the fact that, with modest declines in total cigarette consumption over several years, price increases can sustain overall profitability for tobacco companies. Kids and adult tobacco consumers lost through Project ASSIST, Settling States and tobacco companies walked away with a stabilized and expanded tobacco consumer base and billions per year in enhanced revenues. In light of these facts it becomes apparent that Philip Morris economic incentive to aggressively support litigation to block or overturn the Pierce County smoking ban, and thereby preserve its sales revenues from cigarettes, may be considerably less than that of coalition members who seek to provide a hospitable entertainment environment. Smoking bans influence consumers inclination to visit gaming or hospitality establishments and therefore can sharply reduce such businesses revenues, whereas the bans have a much more limited and less negative economic impact on Philip Morris. Would Philip Morris lay down on the Pierce County smoking ban, to protect its vested Master Settlement Agreement revenue sharing interests with Settling States such as Washington (see iv. Tobacco Settlement below)?

iii.) Previous Litigation Outcomes: Philip Morris filed suit to block or overturn the March 1994 Washington ban on smoking in office work environments. Today the ban is firmly in place, precisely as promulgated by the Washington Department of Labor and Industries in 1994. Philip Morris litigation efforts regarding the 1994 Washington smoking ban did not produce results similar to, or consistent with, those that would reasonably be anticipated by coalition members regarding the 2004 Pierce County ban. In July 1998 U.S. District Court Judge William L. Osteen ordered that the Chapters 1 to 6 and appendices of the December 1992 EPA report on secondhand smoke be vacated. Judge Osteen wrote a 90 page-plus Memorandum Opinion that accompanied his Order to Vacate. That memorandum included a scathing review of statistical methodologies employed by the EPA in reaching its scientific conclusions about the alleged dangers of secondhand smoke. Among Judge Osteen's statements was that the consequences of EPA methodologies were an ugly possibility with which this court is faced. The case was appealed to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, where it languished for more than four years. In December 2002 the 4th circuit ruled on that appeal. The appeals court ruled on jurisdictional grounds that because the December 1992 EPA report on secondhand smoke was not a final agency action it was not subject to review by Judge Osteen's district court. The 4th circuit did, however, make explicit statements regarding the importance of the issues regarding EPA methodologies and it was clear that the appeals court it did not rule on the merits of the case regarding EPA methodologies. The 4th circuit allowed a stay of 30 days for its order, to provide time for Philip Morris and other plaintiffs to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Philip Morris chose to not carry that appeal to the supreme court. Why would Philip Morris not carry their 4th circuit appeal to the supreme court, when a favorable decision could place secondhand smoke issues and EPA methodologies back in Judge Osteen's district court, from which a Memorandum Opinion that was overwhelmingly favorable to it on the merits of EPA's secondhand smoke conclusions and methodologies had already been issued in July 1998? Philip Morris and its counsel can, of course, provide the ultimate answer to that question. How would the interests of Washington Entertainment Industry Coalition members be enhanced today if the supreme court had ruled favorably last summer on Philip Morris December 2002 appeal? Clearly, the interests of coalition members would not have been hurt by an unfavorable supreme court ruling (the supreme court would merely be ruling on the 4th circuits jurisdictional order) to nearly the extent that they would be enhanced by the prospect of the case being back in Judge Osteen's court today as the result of a favorable ruling. Were issues regarding EPA conclusions and methodologies for secondhand smoke back in Judge Osteen's court today it is possible that the current nationwide aggressive push for new smoking bans, including Pierce County's, may not have occurred due to the prospect that the scientific basis for such bans could once again be scathingly rejected by our federal courts. The material point for coalition members is that is that when presented with an opportunity to pursue an appeal that could have the effect of supporting scientific objections to smoking bans Philip Morris made a decision to not do so.

iv.) Tobacco Settlement: In November 1998 a settlement, championed and negotiated in large part by our states attorney general Christine O. Gregoire, was reached between 46 states and major tobacco companies. The 1998 tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) crafted a tobacco sales revenue sharing partnership between Settling States like Washington and tobacco companies such as Philip Morris. With a nationwide cigarette market share in excess of 50 percent Philip Morris is the largest tobacco company beneficiary of that settlement. Notable among public perceptions about the tobacco settlement is a belief, vigorously promoted by politicians such as Ms. Gregoire, to the effect that the tobacco settlement taught tobacco companies a stern lesson. In fact, statements in the October 25, 2002 prospectus for Washington's $517 million offering of Tobacco Settlement Asset-Backed Bonds, Series 2 directly contradict such assertions. For example, regarding the MSA, on page 15 the prospectus says:

The settlement represents the resolution of a large potential financial liability of the PM's [participating manufacturers] for smoking-related injuries, the costs of which have been borne and likely will continue to be borne by cigarette consumers. (Brackets and italics added.)

On page 16 the prospectus says:

The MSA expressly provides that the payment of obligations of each PM are not the obligation or responsibility of any affiliate of such PM, and, further, that the remedies, penalties, or sanctions that may be imposed or assessed in connection with a breach or violation of the MSA will only apply to the PM's and will not apply to any other person or entity. (Italic added.)

And on page A-20 the prospectus says:

The projection of the real price of cigarettes is based upon its past behavior with an adjustment for the shock to prices due to the tobacco settlement. Cigarette prices increased dramatically in November 1998, as manufacturers raised prices by $0.45 per pack.

Considering that, under the Securities Act of 1933, all statements in a prospectus must be true and not misleading the above three statements not only provide a dramatically different view but they also present an extraordinary difference of interests between Philip Morris and Entertainment Industry Coalition members. What the 1998 tobacco master settlement agreement actually accomplished for Philip Morris was to resolve a large and potentially open-ended financial liability and to take its affiliates such as Kraft Foods and Altria Group parent of the hook, at no bottom line cost to it whatsoever, because the cost of the settlement would intentionally be defrayed in its entirety by passing on those costs to cigarette consumers through price increases. In addition, Kraft Foods and Altria Group bear no responsibility for any penalties that may be imposed due to violations of the MSA. It appears there is a distinct difference between what public statements are proclaimed to sell a tobacco settlement to the public and those written to sell tobacco settlement bonds to prospective bondholders. The terms of the tobacco settlement give Philip Morris extraordinary incentives to preserve and protect the settlement which coalition members do not have. To what extent may or could such extraordinary incentives influence Philip Morris recommendations or demands as to what strategy should be undertaken, or the scope of issues to be addressed, to block or overturn the Pierce County smoking ban? Are Entertainment Industry Coalition members aware of the incentives for Philip Morris and other tobacco companies that are created through the tobacco settlement language? To what extent would Philip Morris consider the interests of its revenue sharing partners states and anti-tobacco activists that support and promote smoking bans in recommending or demanding specific strategies to overturn the Pierce County smoking ban? Considering that the current anti-obesity health agenda is financed in large part by the same Robert Wood Johnson Foundation that financed many anti-tobacco activists, that those promoting the anti-obesity agenda are in large part the same health activists who also promoted anti-tobacco, and that the reportedly largest processed foods distributor in America, Kraft Foods, is an affiliate of Philip Morris, to what extent could those circumstances influence Philip Morris recommendations or demands regarding litigation of the Pierce County smoking ban? I do not know the answers to those questions, however it is apparent that raising and considering them has merit. Entertainment Coalition Members may want to consider them if Philip Morris does, in fact, financially contribute to their lawsuit.

4. Commentary On The Content of Sections 1 to 3: From the above information as presented in preceding sections, which includes the graphics and notes on historical smoking rates in Youth Smoking Rate, a few important observations can be made:

a.) A January 8, 2004 Letter to the Editor Remarkable That Smoking Itself Hasn't Been Banned by Michael Pelligrini questions why tobacco has not been banned. It should be intuitively obvious to anyone at this point that with the balance of a $206 billion tobacco settlement on line that cannot and will not occur. Beyond that, if everyone quit smoking because it was illegal what would happen to the now-well-stabilized tobacco source consumer base for pharmaceutical nicotine? When legislation was sponsored last year to ban the sale of tobacco products in North Dakota one of the first groups to oppose that legislation was the American Lung Association. Were tobacco to be banned the tobacco settlement revenue-sharing gravy train would dry up to allegedly anti-tobacco activists. Finally, beyond losing rich new tobacco settlement revenue streams, states that passed a ban on tobacco would also lose new tobacco tax revenues, such as Washington's I-773 60 cents per pack passed in 2001, levied over and above tobacco settlement costs.

b.) In a January 9, 2004 Letter to the Editor, Disagree With Law? Work To Change It, Don't Disobey It, Christine Graff states that authorities must enforce laws and ordinances. With the Pierce County smoking ban we face prospective violation of our states preemption laws regarding local smoking bans as well as violations of exemptions for restaurants, taverns, etc. that are set forth in our Clean Indoor Air act. In addition, my personal experience is that the Washington Department of Labor and Industries did not conduct tests and evaluation of actual Environmental Tobacco Smoke exposure, refused to do so when an opportunity was presented at no cost to taxpayers for equipment or testing, did not consider the positive effects of improved ventilation or supplemental air quality systems on the alleged risks of secondhand smoke, and provided a deficient economic analysis because it did not consider costs of the ban to employers who had installed supplemental air systems with an intended use of reducing the alleged risks of secondhand smoke. Finally, were the Legacy Foundation to fund defense of the Pierce County smoking ban it is possible that such payments would be made in violation of the settlements express requirements regarding use of the foundations funds, and if the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funds defense of the Pierce County ban it could raise legitimate questions regarding its 501(c)(3) tax status. Perhaps Ms. Graff should be more concerned about tobacco controls consistent pattern of ignoring or bypassing laws that do not suit its purpose than she is about tavern owners ignoring a ban that intentionally violates preemption statutes and current exemptions. The facts may yet demonstrate that those who stand up to and oppose the Pierce County ban are among the few involved in that issue who are genuinely concerned about honest enforcement of existing laws.

c.) Among the opinions expressed in several letters from readers in the January 6, 2004 Letters to the Editor titled Readers Still Fired Up Over County's Smoking Ban is that of Clyde D. Mathews: As I see it, smokers have no more right to smoke in public than they have a right to fire off an automatic weapon in public. The results can be the same; someone else can be seriously injured or killed. So let's treat smoking in public for what it is: assault with a deadly weapon. As noted above, Mr. Mathews views were echoed in effect by counsel for the Department of Health, Mr. Lawrence, in his recent public comments. In stark contrast to such opinions, U.S. District Court judge William Osteen expressed the view in his 90 page-plus Memorandum Opinion that EPA methodologies supporting a conclusion that Environmental Tobacco Smoke causes 3,000 deaths per year from lung cancer, and that ETS is a Class A carcinogen, were an ugly possibility with which his court was faced. Accordingly, Judge Osteen ordered that Chapters 1 to 6 and appendices of the December 1992 EPA report on secondhand smoke be vacated. In addition, a recent review of 52 studies regarding secondhand smoke by an international cancer research organization arrived at a risk factor of 1.26, compared to EPAs mere 1.19 at a confidence level of only 90 percent instead of the customary 95 percent. Please note that the EPA has refused to regulate other alleged health risks such as emissions from power lines because they failed to reach a threshold risk factor of 2.0 to 3.0. And a well-touted study that alleged secondhand smoke causes cardiovascular problems in nonsmokers was subject to strong peer review criticism because it did not even quantify the level of secondhand smoke exposure to which the study's mere 13 participants were exposed. There is a large body of credible information that legitimately raises strong questions about the credibility of science that supports anti-tobaccos exaggerated and inflated claims about the dangers of secondhand smoke. Considering that information, I believe that people who are concerned about the integrity of our health policy and how we govern ourselves as a people are well-justified in regarding those who make irresponsible claims about public smoking being the equivalent of assault with a deadly weapon such as an assault rifle as being ignorant and self-serving crackpots.

Perhaps it is well past time that the State of Washington, Pierce County, our Attorney General, and tobacco control advocates get credibly serious about important issues such as smoking bans. I believe that we passed long ago any responsible and honest approach to these issues by government agencies and staff who are supposed to be conducting the peoples business in a competent manner.

5. Nicotine Market Share: Philip Morris has stated that it now supports FDA regulation of tobacco, despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected such regulation. The supreme court stated in its opinion that if what the FDA claimed about the dangers of tobacco use were true than FDA could not regulate tobacco because it would violate its own mandate to regulate drugs that are safe and effective for use. Notwithstanding the supreme courts ruling and comments Philip Morris has now publicly supported FDA regulation of tobacco through its recent support of such Congressional legislation. Philip Morris now contends that there are some risks associated with secondhand smoke at that reasonable restrictions on smoking in public places should be enacted. Why would Philip Morris make such statements?

Where does the nicotine in nicotine gums, patches, inhalers, lozenges bottled water, and soft drink additives such as that announced by Duke University in 2001, come from? Nicotine is a substance that is unique to the tobacco plant. Tobacco companies are experienced professionals in the growth, harvesting and processing of nicotine-bearing tobacco, as well as establishing the levels of nicotine in consumer products. As set forth in the October 25, 2002 prospectus for Washington's $517 million offering of Tobacco Settlement Asset-Backed Bonds, Series 2 cigarette consumption tables, it is apparent that a dramatic or sharp decline in cigarette consumption has not occurred since the tobacco settlement. From Centers for Disease Prevention and Control prevalence statistics it is also apparent that sharp declines in the number of persons who smoke has not occurred. Given the relative stability of the tobacco nicotine market, and the dramatic increase in the non-smoked nicotine market, it is plausible that the demand for nicotine has increased, rather than decreased. The logical suppliers for that increased nicotine demand are tobacco companies, even though the tobacco would not be grown in the Continental United States. I asked Geoffrey C. Bible, then-CEO of Philip Morris, in a letter where the nicotine in gum, patches, etc. comes from. I did not receive a response to that question.

What difference would it make to Philip Morris or other tobacco companies whether they ship nicotine in tanker cars to GlaxoSmithKline for use in Nicorette gum and NicoDerm CQ patches, and to Pfizer for use in Nicotrol inhalers, or in bulk cigarette cartons to retail stores? I believe that what we could truly witnessing with the Pierce County smoking ban is the logical extension of a $500 million-plus investment in the marketing of, and mandating that consumers use, Smoke Free nicotine delivery device products. Based in presently available information I believe that future events could well prove that to be the case. That such a strategy would necessarily be dependent on reversing declining youth and adult smoking prevalence trends as of the early 1990s to successfully craft a stabilized tobacco user source consumer base is, to me, repugnant, reprehensible and outrageous.

While the Nicotine Market Share issue is somewhat more speculative compared to the preceding four above, it certainly merits careful consideration. Where Philip Morris or any affiliate of the company to be a current or prospective nicotine supplier to Smoke Free nicotine product manufacturers that fact would materially influence the company's market share position: Philip Morris would win either way smoking ban litigation goes because the bans would increase demand for Smoke Free nicotine delivery device products. Entertainment Industry Coalition members, however, are in a distinct Win-Lose situation with the Pierce County smoking ban because there is no offsetting benefit to them for customers lost.

The above completes my statement and comments regarding the Pierce County smoking ban, as well as Philip Morris possible participation in litigation with the Entertainment Industry Coalition to oppose ban (assuming for the sake of discussion that such participation has occurred or may occur.) While the above issues are admittedly limited, and discussion of them is quite brief compared to the total scope of issues, they are sufficient to illustrate the fact that the interests of the public, Entertainment Industry Coalition members and Philip Morris are more diverse than an assumed common interest to oppose a local smoking ban might imply.

Best Always,