Smoke Gets In Our Eyes

By FROMA HARROP

Providence Journal-Bulletin

The admission by the maker of Chesterfields, L&M and other moribund cigarette brands that it knew smoking was bad for you is said to be "stunning."

Most of us are not stunned or even mildly surprised to hear the Liggett Group say what we have understood, for decades, to be true. Tobacco is addictive. It causes cancer. Cigarette companies seek out teen-age customers. Don't bother to stop the presses for that.

The people who find the Liggett Group's confession "stunning" are the lawyers and state officials who have made a career of suing tobacco companies. It offers them ammunition with which to plunder - not the meager treasury of Liggett - but the deeper pockets of such tobacco giants as Philip Morris.

Let it be said that this writer has no affection for cigarettes. She doesn't smoke. She is grateful for policies that protect her from the smoke of others in offices, restaurants and various public places.

She has seen the ravages unleashed by lifelong smoking habits. A dear friend and chain smoker has just undergone her latest torture treatment for throat cancer: She had her jaw replaced. This writer has also witnessed the frustration of many acquaintances as they tried time and again to quit smoking. She fully accepts the notion that cigarettes are addictive.

The question is what to do about it. If the 22 state attorneys general who have just settled a lawsuit with The Liggett Group wanted to follow what they say are their anti-smoking convictions, they would urge their respective states to ban the sale of cigarettes. This writer happens to believe that companies have a right to sell cigarettes and that smoking is a personal decision. However, she will respect the first state attorney general who gets up and demands, "No more smoking in Arizona, Connecticut" or any of the other states that joined the Liggett settlement.

Of course, that won't happen, because the states make too much money off of tobacco taxes. The attorneys general assert that they are just trying to force the cigarette companies to reimburse them for the amounts their Medicaid programs spend on treating tobacco-related illnesses.

As it happens, the states collect more in tobacco taxes than they spend subsidizing medical care to smokers. That fact weakens their claims against the cigarette makers, according to Richard Kluger, whose book Ashes to Ashes details the legal battles over smoking. Interestingly, the states levying the highest cigarette taxes, Washington (82.5 cents per pack), Massachusetts (76 cents), and Michigan (75 cents), were all involved in the suit.

Even setting aside the issue of tax collection, the argument that the nation is unfairly burdened by the cost of smoking-related diseases is highly misleading. Reputable studies show that smokers actually save society money over the long run.

The reason is that smokers tend to die earlier - about five years earlier than do nonsmokers. That means five fewer years drawing a pension, five fewer years collecting Social Security, five fewer years enrolled in Medicare. W. Kip Viscusi, a Duke University economist (who does not take money from tobacco companies), estimates a net savings to society of 83 cents per pack.

What are the likely outcomes of the Liggett settlement? We should expect some indignant responses from the Clinton administration, which will continue to tolerate the program that subsidizes tobacco farmers. Liggett's confession that its products are addictive and cause cancer could give oomph to the Food and Drug Administration's drive to regulate cigarettes. The companies argue the FDA has no such jurisdiction. That skirmish could prove lively. It is safe to predict that whatever happens, no administration or Congress will try to ban cigarettes.

Liggett's clever strategy will limit that company's exposure to suits and thus make it a more attractive takeover candidate for another cigarette company. It will also embolden the army of lawyers trying to sue other tobacco companies on behalf of clients who had repeatedly ignored the health warnings written on their cigarette packages.

Finally, it will result in an additional warning to appear on the Liggett brand packages, something about tobacco being addictive. That, industry analysts believe, will have no discernible effect on the sales of Chesterfields, L&Ms or Lark cigarettes.

Knight-Ridder/Tribune Information Services