I found your
article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer,
“Tobacco
Company Fights Cigarette Curbs,” to
be quite interesting.
My initial response was to question why the headline for your
article did not – more accurately – read “Tobacco Company
Files Suit to Enforce Federal Court Ruling.” Are we
citizens to believe that the Seattle-King County Department of
Public Health, and other state health departments, have
unlimited license to ignore previous rulings of our federal
courts and that companies that
lawfully
manufacture legal
tobacco products have no legitimate legal recourse?
I also read the statement by Mayor Nickel’s spokesperson,
Marty McOmber, with tongue firmly in cheek:
"It appears to be the tobacco industry once again trying to
use its legal muscle to try to undermine some common sense
public health regulations in this city and county."
As I read the above quote from Mr. McOmber the following
information from the referenced Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
documents came to mind:
Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation, SmokeLess States Project
“Major Accomplishments and
Highlights By State”
1994-2000:
http://www.smokelessstates.org/downloads/SLS_table_94_00.pdf
2001-2004:
http://www.smokelessstates.org/downloads/SLS_table_01_04.pdf
1994-2000
• Allocated $100
million of the first $323 million the state receives in
settlement payments, to tobacco prevention programs
• Increased tobacco excise tax $.48 a pack to $.82.5 (1994)
• Four-day “Camp Speak Out” funded in partnership with
ACS, train kids as advocates
• Slogan: “Tobacco Prevention Works”
• No statewide coalition, but through the SmokeLess States
grant lead agency Washington DOC funded five rural community
and ethnic specific groups
2001-2004
• Supported
passage of amendments to the Washington State CIA Act
• Commissioned legal opinion regarding status of state
preemption in Washington State
• Supported passage of Tacoma-Pierce County Board of Health
Resolution 200333527
• Supported continuing litigation and defense of Smoke Free
Pierce County through seeking of litigation support funds and
technical assistance
• “Secondhand Smoke Kills” API cable TV Puget Sound Region
(Korean, Tagalng, Mandarin, Vietnamese)
• “It’s Your Right” (Statewide TV coverage and Central WA
Spanish language TV)
• “Gift of Clean Air” legislative kick-off (earned)
• Sponsoring members ACS, AHA, ALAW, WAIPIPASA. Endorsing
organizations total over 30 organizations with statewide
representation and a diverse population and interest groups
Underlines in the above “Accomplishments” were added by me for
emphasis. You may recall that the 20032004 smoking ban in
Pierce County was overturned as violating state law by our
state superior, appeals and supreme courts. Are we citizens to
believe that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has an
unfettered right to apply millions of dollars of its legal and
political muscle to pass and defend
unlawful
regulations and punitive
taxes that support selling “Smoke Free” nicotine delivery
device products, but companies that sell other nicotine
delivery devices have no legal rights whatsoever?
Perhaps the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health
merely has an aversion to competition. Consider the statement
about rights earlier this year by the department’s Roger
Valdez:
Seattle
Weekly,
February 1, 2006
Roger Valdez Letter to the Editor, “Try the Patch”
“We have compassion for smokers battling a
powerful addiction . . . Affordable treatment is key: We offer
a free nicotine patch program, and we are advocating for
important changes in the law to mandate smoking cessation
treatment on demand for those with health insurance and offer
support for those with no coverage.”
Let’s get this straight, just to be sure we understand the
subject. The King County health department has every right to
distribute free samples of nicotine delivery devices of which
it approves, but other nicotine delivery device manufacturers
are to be prohibited from doing so? Such twisted logic is
particularly onerous in light of Director Alonzo Plough’s
apparent belief that their preferred nicotine delivery devices
should be prescribed for
children (see page 1, left panel of
King County Health NRT Advocacy attached).
Most troubling of all, however, is that your article appears
to parrot and support the beliefs about the rights of some
citizens versus the rights of others as also expressed by Mr.
Valdez:
Seattle
Weekly,
January 18, 2006
“Big Nanny Is Watching You,” By Philip Dowdy
Quoting Roger Valdez, Director of Tobacco Prevention,
Concerning I-901
Seattle-King County Department of Public Health
“Americans think they have a lot of rights they really don’t
have. Smoking is one of those things where people think they
have a right to smoke, but you don’t. . . . You have no right
to smoke. It’s an addiction. It’s something you should see a
doctor about. . . . The condo association can ban it, and you
have no legal recourse.”
Well, have at it, knock yourself out. However, the
folly of doing so is explained in my recent press release
about California’s Proposition 86, which would add $2.60 per
pack in new cigarette taxes. As I said in a
soon-to-be-published article for an attorney’s newspaper in
California, “. . . those who can be baited by intolerance to
charge their neighbor for benefits they enjoy can also be
readily switched to enacting multi-billion-dollar costs for
themselves.”
Since when were county health departments given authority
to determine, mandate and
enforce the legal or Constitutional rights of any
citizen? Of equal importance, how is it that news
reporters, such as, yourself apparently accept at face value
political interpretations of Constitution and law by health
activist laypersons, while ignoring the import of published
decisions by a federal court judge?
I respectfully recommend a primer in constitutional law.
You may want to begin by looking at the subjects of equal
protection of the law, prohibitions against special privileges
and immunities, and Washington’s constitutional mandate for
uniform taxation. When you have done so I trust that we may
observe considerably less spin in how the PI reports news
about tobacco issues. Media puffery is a poor substitute
Constitutional substance.
Finally, I request that you not even think about labeling this
E-Mail as a message from a “Front for Tobacco.” Not only am I
not compensated or employed by any tobacco company but my
research and writing is supported solely by my personal income
and resources. As to my views about some tobacco companies you
may find the facts in the one page summary attached,
Philip Morris & Tobacco Control, to be of
interest.
How could one who reports that tobacco control aggressively
advocates public policy that directly benefits the biggest of
Big Tobacco possibly be a “Front” for the same entity?
Accordingly, I would profoundly enjoy reading an investigative
report in the Post-Intelligencer about how tobacco control
advocacy for new cigarette taxes artificially inflates the
price to be charged to consumers for Philip Morris’ Aria
nicotine inhaler and how the company’s published support of
smoking bans clearly supports that market for its “Smoke Free”
nicotine delivery device.
In closing, I mention that it will be entertaining to observe
how the news media will further spin copy below the following
prospective
headline:
“King
County Health Promotes Philip Morris Nicotine Products By
Eliminating Them”
“King County
health announced today a new program to advance Philip Morris’
nicotine distribution interests by demanding restrictions on
some of the company’s delivery device products. Department
tobacco czar Roger Valdez said “Of course that makes sense.
The last thing we would want is for all of the nicotine
addicts in King County to be deprived of a deeply satisfying
dose of ‘clean’ nicotine.” Valdez continued, saying “People
need to understand that we’re the deciders. We’ve decided that
Marlboro is out and Aria is in. Support eliminating state
cigarette tax revenues! Get your “clean” nicotine here! . . .”
Best Always,
Norm Kjono
(425) 497-8187
|
|
