Tobacco Companies
Microsoft Internet Browser
Guns
Intel

Meat

Fat

Reuters 11/13/98 ".In the second lawsuit brought against the gun industry by a major U.S. city, Chicago said Thursday it is suing firearms manufacturers and sellers to recoup the cost of urban gun violence. Chicago's $433 million suit, announced by Mayor Richard Daley and filed in Cook County Circuit Court, alleges gun makers and dealers violated public nuisance laws by knowingly designing, marketing and distributing firearms so they fall into the hands of the city's criminals. ``The Second Amendment doesn't allow these types of weapons in our communities,'' Daley said, referring to the constitutional clause that ensures the right to bear arms.."

Atlanta Journal-Constitution 11/30/98 Bill Rankin ".In the past month, both New Orleans and Chicago filed suit against the gun industry seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. Lawyer Wendell Gauthier and other prominent plaintiffs' attorneys who led a class-action lawsuit against Big Tobacco are bankrolling the New Orleans complaint, which closely imitates lawsuits filed by states that sought compensation for public expenses related to smokers' illnesses."

Washington Post 1/21/99 Saundra Torry ".The tobacco industry, caught off guard by President Clinton's threat to file a massive federal lawsuit against cigarette makers, lashed back yesterday, dismissing the plan as nothing but a "political gesture," the continuation of "a witch hunt against a legal industry." ."

The Heritage Foundation 1/29/99 Edwin Feulner ".If someone commits a crime with a firearm, most people would agree you hold the individual accountable. But there's a disturbing movement afoot to hold gun manufacturers responsible for the acts of criminals. In October, the city of New Orleans filed a lawsuit against leading gun companies, arguing that they should be held financially liable for the cost of handgun violence. Since then, Chicago has filed a similar lawsuit. And the mayor of Philadelphia has proposed that 100 or more cities file similar lawsuits simultaneously later this year-just to let everyone know how serious they are ."

AP 2/1/99 Freeper Jon in GA ".A Florida appeals court has overturned a landmark $1 million award to the family of a smoker who died of lung cancer. In June, a Jacksonville jury ordered Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. to pay the family of Roland Maddox $1 million. In an unsigned one-paragraph order, the appellate court on Friday vacated the award and ordered the case transferred to either Palm Beach County or Broward County in south Florida and not Jacksonville, some 275 miles away.."

Grassroot Republicans Website 2/7/99 Ken Carroll ".At least two groups composed of people vocally opposed to Clinton have been hit this week. Clinton is already trying to make life tougher on gun owners, bringing the National Rifle Association into a conflict, but it is his remarks regarding Christianity which are truly distressing. At an annual prayer breakfast hosted by congressional members, Clinton proclaimed that "Adolf Hitler preached a perverted form of Christianity." Not only is Clinton's statement historically inaccurate, but the context of his speech shows it aimed at Christian conservatives. Clinton said, " . . . throughout history people have prayed to God to aid them in war. People have claimed repeatedly that it was God's will that they prevail in conflict. I do believe that even though Adolf Hitler preached a perverted form of Christianity, God did not want him to prevail." Claiming what Hitler did, by any stretch of the imagination, could be referred to as "Christianity" whether it was "perverted" or not is extremely insulting to followers of Christ. The insinuation is that Christianity is not that far from Nazi beliefs. If you think those are innocent words, replace "Christian" with any other religion and see if it jogs your conscience a little. Would you openly tell a believer of any faith that Hitler preached a perverted form of their religion? Would you say it to a Moslem or a Jewish person? Clinton supporters may say it was a slip of the tongue, but that boat won't float. This is a man so careful in his phrasing and parsing of public words that he claims he misled and deceived people and still did not lie. Bill Clinton knew exactly what the ramifications of his words were and how this message would be taken. ."

Wall Street Journal 2/8/99 Robert Levy Freeper the Raven ".rather than go to war against the government's money grab, the tobacco companies tried to bribe the politicians. That capitulation--the unprincipled surrender of its right to market a legal product--has spawned Mr. Clinton's new assault on the industry: a proposed tax hike of 55 cents per pack and federal litigation to recoup health costs connected with smoking. ....Whenever Mr. Clinton needs money, he calls for Philip Morris. Mr. Clinton simply bypasses the legislative process--not to mention the Constitution--and asks federal courts to create new law. Never mind that the Justice Department has said repeatedly that the federal government has no statutory authority to bring a direct suit to recover smoking-related damages.."

AP 2/9/99 Freeper buffalo bob ". Following heavy lobbying by the National Rifle Association and others, the Georgia Senate has approved a bill that could bar Atlanta from pursuing its liability lawsuit against the gun industry. By a 44-11 vote, lawmakers on Monday approved legislation that would prohibit local governments from suing gun makers. The bill is expected to be passed by the House, which approved a similar measure last year, and signed into law by Gov. Roy Barnes.."

Charleston Post and Courier 2/18/99 Editorial ".Following the lead of the states' big-money settlement with Big Tobacco and further revealing society's retreat from individual responsibility, several U.S. cities are suing the gun industry. Such litigation previously sank under the weight of illogical justifications. But recent rationalizations for the cities' suits, including those filed by Chicago, Miami and New Orleans, tap into the noble-yet-vulnerable intentions of many Americans too easily misled on proper delineations between personal, business and government accountability. Suing cities now typically charge manufacturers with "negligent marketing." . Though the demonization of the gun industry - like the spreading demonization of other legal industries that make potentially harmful products - is grand news for lawyers, it is alarming news for those industries and their consumers. Equally alarming is the cities' cynical use of the civil court system to wage battles that should be fought in legislatures. Most of the cities suing the gun industry admit that their goal isn't to win, but to force a settlement - and possibly bankrupt the defendants. The gun industry's opponents would say, "Good riddance," to such an outcome. But is running firearm makers out of business the correct role of courts - or cities?.."

AP 2/20/99 Paul Shepard ".Since gun-related crimes hit minority communities at high rates across the country, the NAACP is considering joining the growing number of cities filing lawsuits against gun makers, NAACP president Kweisi Mfume said. ``We represent a significant constituency that is disproportionately affected by gun violence. The time has come for us to look at the proliferation of handguns,'' Mfume said at the association's annual meeting Saturday.."

WORLD Magazine 3/6/99 Bob Jones Freeper Stand Watch Listen "… Blame-shifting lawsuits are on the rise against the tobacco industry and gun manufacturers as plaintiffs seek to punish companies for how people use their products. So far, the judicial system seems unwilling or unable to kick the habit................MS ESTRICH, like other liberals, acknowledges that "courts, particularly federal courts, are anti-majoritarian, undemocratic institutions." But, she argues, if the democratic process doesn't yield suitably "progressive" laws, then it's perfectly proper for a handful of jurors to impose their will on millions of voters........Why not sue the Keebler elves to recover the social costs of obesity?…"

Fox News 3/4/99 Reuters "…Three Senate Democrats introduced legislation Thursday designed to give cities, counties and states more financial incentives to sue gun manufacturers. The bill offered by Sens. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Dick Durbin of Illinois, and Charles Schumer of New York, would let localities challenge gunmakers in court for federal as well as local costs associated with treating crime victims…"If enough cities successfully sue the industry it could be brought to its proverbial knees,'' Lautenberg said. He said the bill would fortify cities that already have filed gun suits and encourage more cities to do the same…."

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review 3/10/99 Editorial Freeper starlu "…If a man wielding a maul fatally bludgeons another man, should the maul manufacturer be answerable in the dastardly deed? How about if a woman driving, say, a GMC Jimmy forces another vehicle off the high way in a fit of road rage. The second driver dies. Should General Motors be just as culpable as the Jimmy driver for vehicular homicide? No. And no. So, why do government officials in our cities keep insisting that gun manufacturers be held liable for those who use their products in unsafe and/or illegal ways? …"

THE WASHINGTON TIMES www.washtimes.com 3/10/99 Helle Bering Freeper Bayou City "…The toll taken by communism in its various forms in this century has probably on the whole exceeded that of fascism. Those who spend their time thinking about these dark matters, such as British historian Robert Conquest, place the death tally somewhere around 100 million people, covering the Soviet Union, Red China, Cambodia's killing fields, Latin America and Africa's communist insurgencies, etc…."

USA Today 3/17/99 Wendy Koch "…In a potential new front in the tobacco wars, the city of Philadelphia is considering a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against the tobacco industry to recover the costs of fighting fires caused by cigarettes. "We're looking at the fire department, this huge part of our budget, being expended because cigarette companies won't make safer products," says Stephen Sheller, a lawyer hired by the mayor to study a lawsuit's feasibility. Sheller says cigarettes cause 23% of the city's fires…."

Washington Post Reuters 4/2/99 Trailer Trash "...A Utah couple, fed up with a neighbor's smoking, has filed a lawsuit seeking to bar him from lighting up at home, saying his smoke is making them miserable. Matthew and Amanda Parrish of Centerville are suing Douglas MacFarlane, who lives downstairs in their condominium complex. The Parrishes claim his smoke wafts into their living quarters, state court clerk Shelby Brown said today. The lawsuit, which was filed in February in state court, is believed to be the first to challenge the right of people to smoke in their own homes, said a spokeswoman for attorney Michael Stout, who represents the Parrishes...."

Radio news report - WKY, 930 am Oklahoma City 5/13/99 "...The Oklahoma News Network has just reported that the American Airlines, the 2nd largest air carrier is being sued by the Dept of Justice. It seems that the AA is forcing out the competition at Dallas FortWorth Airport by driving the prices very low until the competition is unable to sustain biz...then the AA raises prices..."

ABC News.com 6/1/99 Sandra Sobieraj / AP Freeper dirtboy "..."The boundary between fantasy and reality violence - which is a clear line for most adults - can become very blurred for vulnerable children," Clinton said. The $1 million joint study by the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department, expected to take up to 18 months, will examine industry marketing practices much as the government investigated tobacco ad campaigns that it determined were aimed at tempting to kids to smoke...."

Reuters [OL] 6/2/99 via NewsEdge Corporation "... A Mississippi jury Wednesday handed the tobacco industry its latest courtroom victory when it ruled that the estate of a barber shop owner who died of cancer was not entitled to damages in a suit brought over second-hand smoke. The estate of Burl Butler had sought $650 million in compensatory damages plus additional punitive damages, claiming Butler had been the victim of second-hand tobacco smoke. But a Jones County jury ruled for the tobacco companies, according to Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., the U.S. unit of British American Tobacco Plc, which makes brands such as Kool, GPC and Lucky Strike. ``The industry showed that credible evidence does not exist to show that ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) causes lung cancer in nonsmokers even at the highest levels likely to be encountered in real-world environments,'' Andrew McGaan, attorney for Brown & Williamson, the U.S. No. 3 tobacco company, said in a prepared statement....."

Reuters 6/6/99 Gail Appleson "...At least 12 more municipalities are planning to sue gun makers this year and the first class action against the firearms industry is expected to be filed in the next few months, lawyers said Saturday. Their comments were made at a major gun litigation conference sponsored by the American Bar Association with participants from the gun and insurance industries, city and county governments as well as the personal injury bar...."

Freeper brityank Libertarian Party 6/6/99 "...A new federal commission that will study whether entertainment companies market violence to children is a case of "intimidation by bureaucrats" and almost certainly won't accomplish anything useful, the Libertarian Party said today. "America already has a mechanism to protect children against violent entertainment: It's called parents," said Steve Dasbach, the Libertarian Party's national director. "It's unlikely that a handful of bureaucrats will be as effective as tens of millions of concerned parents."...."

Baltimore Sun 6/11/99 David K. Martin "...WASHINGTON -- Critics of U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno have attacked her for either ignoring or whitewashing one Clinton administration scandal after another. Whether you agree with them or not, you have to wonder about the core competence of Ms. Reno's Justice Department when it asks Congress to provide $20 million to hire more lawyers and so-called "expert witnesses" to sue the U.S. tobacco industry. The Justice Department wants to spend $15 million to hire 40 new lawyers to make a federal case against the tobacco industry and throw in an additional $5 million to pay for "expert witnesses" in the trial. The department already has hired Minneapolis trial lawyer Michael Ciresi to give its new tobacco hires a primer on how to sue the nation's cigarette makers...."

Business News 6/16/99 Danny Westneat "…Bill Gates came to the U.S. Capitol yesterday and did a simple thing that may resonate for months to come: He talked. He talked about computers, about software, about patent laws, about how immigration laws are limiting his company's ability to hire top talent. He sat at round tables in small rooms and talked with all the top politicians here except the president…. The Microsoft chairman talked in public, at a hearing on technology. More important, he talked in private, to Democrats, Republicans, staffers, and to some of the city's media moguls. The gabfest was conducted with one goal in mind: to convince political leaders that Gates actually likes and respects government. Many politicians assume the reverse is true, especially as the Department of Justice engages the company in a landmark antitrust trial. "They have made huge progress on Capitol Hill, and the difference is noticeable from a year ago," Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., said of Gates and his company, which has become a major political-campaign donor. "They are doing a good job of coming here and reaching out, something they didn't used to do. "I believe that, among Republicans, Microsoft has made inroads here to the point that it has almost isolated (Sen.) Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) as the only one who now opposes the company."…."

AP 8/14/98 Bill Baskervill "A federal appeals court today said the Food and Drug Administration has no authority to regulate tobacco and threw out FDA restrictions on the sale of cigarettes to minors. .

Washington Post 9/6/98 Thomas Edsall "The nation's most influential and aggressive trial lawyers stand to win billions of dollars in fees from lawsuits against the tobacco industry and plan to use those sums in part to fund Democratic candidates and battle business in the courts, Congress and state legislatures.."

National Post 7/2/99 Alexander Rose "...In Nazi Germany, for instance, abstinence from tobacco was a "national socialist duty" (Hitler gave a gold watch to associates who quit the habit, though this didn't stop them lighting up in the Berlin bunker once they heard the Fuhrer had committed suicide).... Tobacco taxes were raised, unsupervised cigarette vending machines were banned, and there were calls for a ban on smoking while driving. Thanks to the Ministry of Science and Education, and the Reich Health Office, posters were produced depicting smoking as the typically despicable habit of Jews, jazz musicians, Gypsies, Indians, homosexuals, blacks, communists, capitalists, cripples, intellectuals and harlots. Zealous lobbyists descended into the schools, terrifying children with tales of impotence and racial impurity. One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel -- upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast -- liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths...... It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase "passive smoking" (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus ("Tobacco and the Organism"), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League....."

NAACP 7/14/99 "…Kweisi Mfume, President & CEO of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) announced plans to file an injunctive class-action lawsuit to force gun manufacturers to distribute their product responsibly….. According to a 1998 National Vital Statistics Report, African American males between the ages of 15-24 are almost five times more likely to be injured by firearms than white males in the same age group. Black females in that category are almost four times more likely to be injured by firearms than white females. Firearm homicide has been the leading cause of death among young African American males for nearly 30 years…..The NAACP received funding for the first phase of the litigation from the Open Society Institute and the Irene Diamond Fund and is receiving the pro bono representation of Denise Dunleavy, Esq. and the Manhattan law firm of Weitz & Luxenberg. Joshua Horwitz, Executive Director of the Educational Fund to End Handgun Violence, and attorney Elisa Barnes, Esq., who earlier this year was victorious when a federal jury ruled against the industry’s negligent marketing practices, will both serve as co-counsel in the lawsuit…."

Philadelphia Daily News / Salon 7/16/99 "…When Paul Jannuzzo, vice president and general counsel of Glock Inc., the Smyrna, Ga., gun manufacturer, heard that the city of New Orleans was preparing to sue the gun industry, he couldn't believe the hypocrisy. Jannuzzo had been working with New Orleans to help the city swap around 10,000 guns in its possession - most of which had belonged to criminals - in exchange for 1,700 new Glock .40-caliber pistols for its officers. The deal was worth $613,000. Thus the city of New Orleans was dumping onto the street the same "unsafe" product it was now suing Glock and several other companies for distributing…."

Libertarian Party 7/15/99 George Getz "…The NAACP is making a "racist mistake" by filing a lawsuit against gun manufacturers -- and is following in the shameful footsteps of the Ku Klux Klan, the Libertarian Party charged today. "With this lawsuit, the NAACP is not only attacking the civil rights of African-Americans, but is also continuing the legacy of the KKK and other racist organizations that have historically tried to keep guns out of the hands of blacks," said Steve Dasbach, the party's national director…"

WorldNetDaily.com 7/8/99 Jon E Dougherty "…For instance, the San Francisco Unified School District board just voted to ban -- of all things -- Oreo cookies, Nutter Butters, Snackwell products, Cheez Whiz and Jell-O puddings because they are made by companies owned by tobacco corporations. Amazingly the district chiefs do not see the irony -- and hypocrisy -- in their actions. One advocate for tobacco-free public places lauded the San Francisco school's decision, saying, "Teens need to show them (tobacco companies) that they can't be pushed around." And yet, the school district is pushing teens around by making this decision for them -- all because they think it's their right to do so and their place to do so. It makes you wonder if there is a single thinking parent in the entire school district -- just one or two who are capable of making such decisions for their children themselves…."

Opinion 7/12/99 Michael Rivero "…First it was the tobacco industry, sued in the name of covering health costs. Then it was the gun industry, sued in the name of paying the victims. Then it was the auto industry, sued for faling to anticipate drunk drivers recklessl driving into their product. Now, it's the health care industry, exposed to new lawsuits in the name of the patients "rights"…. Who gets rich? The lawyers and the government. Even the titular plaintiffs in the record setting GM settlement will only get a fraction of whatever the award is finally set to; the government gets the rest in taxes. The lawyers also pay taxes on their portion of the settlement. This is not justice; this is pillage, the looting and sacking of American industry by a goverment that cannot balance it's books and is out to grab all available cash by any means it can get away with…."

Augusta Chronicle 7/10/99 "…As head of the U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General Janet Reno, with an annual budget of $20 billion, oversees more than 9,100 government lawyers. But that's not enough. She's now requesting Congress to come across with an extra $20 million so she can hire yet another 40 lawyers. The new personal injury litigators will be charged with ``recovering the expenses of federal health care programs for tobacco-related illnesses.'' Never mind that her own Justice Department attorneys have advised that this plan -- first proposed by President Clinton in his State of the Union speech -- likely won't fly in court, unless the feds can get a settlement from Big Tobacco, as the states did. But there is little incentive now, especially since Wednesday's big class-action victory against tobacco, for the industry to settle. There's nothing in it for them unless the government protects them from such suits. It's too late for that now…."

Wall St. Journal 7/23/99 "...Seems that Bill Gates can't even give it away. For most of the 1990s, of course, Mr. Gates has been tied up with a Justice Department that believes it knows the computer market better than any of its players. Ralph Nader accuses the Microsoft CEO of thinking he is "immune to public scrutiny." Now comes a visiting professor at Johns Hopkins who suggests that even the money Mr. Gates is donating to charity really doesn't fully belong to him...."

CASHILL NEWS 7/27/99 "...As writer Nora Ephron once said, "I get more cynical each day, and I still can't keep up." Case in point: A person can sing about alcohol, drugs and tobacco on a CD but is prohibited from buying air time and talking about them. I recently heard Eric Clapton's "Cocaine" on the radio and I couldn't imagine a better ad for the stuff. Similarly, a person is prohibited from advertising tobacco on a bill board, but is able to "billboard" tobacco use in a movie or even show a literal billboard with tobacco on it...."

Wall Street Journal 7/28/99 Paul Barrett "...The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is considering joining the legal assault against the gun industry, said people familiar with the situation. Such a move would sharply escalate the antigun court fight already being waged by 23 cities and counties around the country. A HUD spokesman said only that the agency is monitoring the litigation and has "no plans" to file a suit...."

Usatoday 7/29/99 Thor Valdmanis Paul Davidson "...After several failed attempts to settle a nasty antitrust battle out of court, the government is refocused on breaking up software giant Microsoft. Senior officials at the Justice Department have approached at least two leading technology investment banks in recent days, requesting a detailed analysis of how best to break up the world's most valuable company - a complex study that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Bankers at the two firms, who requested anonymity, said Justice officials wanted an assessment of where the logical breakup points of Microsoft were and a valuation of what the market reaction would be. Both firms declined, worried about the impact of siding with a Justice Department that they say is viewed in the business community as interventionist....."

Bloomberg - Top World News 8/7/99 Greg Wiles "...Los Angeles County and three county supervisors are suing gun makers, distributors and retailers, including Sturm, Ruger & Co. and Tomkins Plc's Smith & Wesson, claiming they illegally promoted handgun sales to criminals. The suit claims the gun manufacturers violated California's pro-consumer business law by engaging in unfair and deceptive practices, marketing the weapons to disreputable dealers and designing guns that appeal to criminals. The manufacturers also failed to sell handguns that incorporate reasonable safety features, the filing said..."

business week 8/16/99 William Symonds "...At the center of this hurricane are the world's gun manufacturers, a diverse group ranging from true-blue American brand names like Smith & Wesson and Colt's Manufacturing to foreigners like Italy's nearly 500-year-old Beretta to idiosyncratic tiny players like W.S. Daniel, a company in Ducktown, Tenn., that makes mail-order assault-weapon kits. They're all dependent on America as the world's largest consumer firearms market--and they're all running scared and increasingly divided on how best to defend themselves. ''I've been in this industry 36 years, and this is the most awesome set of circumstances I've ever seen,'' says Robert G. Morrison, chief operating officer of Miami-based Taurus International Manufacturing Inc., the U.S. arm of Brazilian handgun producer Forjas Taurus. Not since George Washington established the Springfield (Mass.) Armory to defend the young republic has the American gun industry faced a more serious crisis. Trouble looms on every front. Politically, the companies are facing the prospect of a Big Tobacco-like meltdown of their power in Washington and clout with state legislatures, a development that could lead to tough new regulations that aren't riddled with loopholes. While handgun registration is still unlikely, measures that would make it harder for criminals to buy weapons at gun shows and limit the number of firearms purchased at one time seem more viable every day. Legally, gunmakers are facing an onslaught of lawsuits they can barely afford to fight, much less lose. These cases are based on the controversial theory that manufacturers are partially responsible for gun violence. The suits seek millions to cover local government expenses for health care and policing. That's a scary prospect to many gun executives because the business is financially shaky. While 1999 will be a strong year, thanks in part to fears of new restrictions on ownership, most executives expect the market to steadily shrink over the long term. ..."

AP Wire 8/13/99 Kalpana Srinivasan The advent of casket stores, Internet sales of coffins and keen competition in the cemetery and funeral industries is prompting federal regulators to consider expanding a 15-year-old rule governing funerals. The funeral rule was issued to protect grieving family members from unnecessary costs and purchases at funeral homes. Now the Federal Trade Commission is looking at casting a wider regulatory net to include other providers of funeral goods...."

Smith-Wesson.com 8/15/99 L E Schutz "...On June 3, 1999 the City of Boston and the Boston Public Health Commission joined a number of other cities in filing a lawsuit against Smith & Wesson and other members of the firearms industry. As in several of the other cases, the complaint has been signed not just by attorneys employed by the City, but by outside lawyers from New York, Washington, D.C. and representatives of an anti-firearm organization, individuals with their own social agenda. Although those bringing the suit say it is not about money, it asks for $100 million plus, and the law firms will get 25% of whatever is exacted from the firearms manufacturers as their only payment for handling this matter...The implications of the suit are that Smith & Wesson has no concern about firearms safety, whether it be applied to the handgun itself, or to safe and responsible storage of the gun. Nothing could be further from the truth. For nearly a century and a half Smith & Wesson has been, and continues to be, a leader in firearms design, innovation, manufacturing quality, safety and training. Smith & Wesson has lawfully and responsibly manufactured firearms in the State of Massachusetts since 1856. Every Smith & Wesson firearm is sold with an owners manual that clearly warns the purchaser about the dangers and responsibilities that accompany ownership. Since 1997, before the President and Congress began debating the merits of gunlocks, Smith & Wesson was providing a Master Lock gunlock with every Smith & Wesson shipped. Even before that Smith & Wesson guns were being shipped in lockable boxes and before that with lockable trigger devices that owners could lock if they were not going to secure their gun in another manner. Since 1955, Smith & Wesson has offered semi-automatic pistols that utilize a magazine disconnect which renders the gun incapable of firing when the magazine is removed. This feature has been incorporated into the training of many police departments and is responsible for saving the lives of officers every year. The similar pistols shipped to the non-law enforcement market also contain this feature. Other features of Smith & Wesson handguns include manual safeties, firing pin safeties and hammer blocks. Smith & Wesson handguns also require significant pressure on the trigger to cause the gun to discharge. In order for a Smith & Wesson gun to fire, the trigger must be pulled all the way to the rear and held, thus preventing the gun from accidentally firing if the trigger is bumped or the gun is dropped...."

Wall Street Journal 8/16/99 Vanessa O'Connel & Paul M. Barrett "...Since last fall, 26 municipalities have sued the gun industry, accusing it of flooding the market with handguns, many of which end up in criminal hands. There is an incongruity in the municipalities position, though: Most of the cities suing the gun industry are themselves, in effect, gun suppliers--and some could be accused of a degree of carelessness in how they unload police weapons and confiscated firearms... The cities say they need to sell or trade in the weapons to cut the cost of obtaining new, higher-power model--much as old police cars are auctioned off for cash...Thousands of these castoff guns have turned up in crimes, such as last week's shooting rampage in Los Angeles by neo-Nazi Buford O. Furrow Jr...[T]he confessed killer allegedly murdered a mailman of Filipino descent with a Glock 26 pistol......But it wasn't an isolated incident. Data obtained by The Wall Street Journal under the Freedom of Information Act show that at least 1,100 former police guns were among the 193,203 crime guns traced last year by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Because of inconsistencies in how the agency compiles gun-trace data, any such annual count of former police guns connected to crime "probably represents the tip of the iceberg," says Howard Andrews, a Columbia University bio-statistician who assisted the Journal in its analysis...."

Investors Business Daily 8/27/99"…Surprise, surprise. It seems the states are spending millions from the tobacco settlement money on items unrelated to anti-smoking programs. We knew the deal was just a cash grab for spending- addicted officials. Last year 46 states reached an agreement with U.S. tobacco companies. In return for protection against future lawsuits, the companies are paying $206 billion to the states. The out-of-court settlement was reached after the states filed suit against the companies to recover public money spent on tobacco-related illnesses. Less than a year after the deal, states have conveniently forgotten why they attacked the industry in the first place A report updated this week by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and the American Heart Association reveals the settlement for what it is: a sham. Twenty-seven states have decided how they'll use their shares of the deal. Of those, only six will spend 25% on anti-tobacco programs. The groups think that's a fair figure. It seems low to us, though, if the goal of the high-minded states is to end the scourge of smoking. Six states have even decided they won't spend a penny on the intended purposes. …"

The Washington Post 8/30/99 Joan Biskupic "…Tobacco hasn't been the only business newly buffeted by this wave of juror outrage. In February, for the first time, a jury decided to hold gun manufacturers responsible for the criminal use of their products. Again, some jurors said the industry had it coming. Lawsuits condemning cigarettes and guns are nothing new. Advocacy groups have campaigned for years against the tobacco and firearms industries, using the courts as a weapon. What is new is that juries are listening. These verdicts coincide with a national trend of juries assessing harsher and harsher damages against corporate defendants, such as the $4.9 billion verdict returned last month against General Motors Corp. for six people whose car exploded -- and reduced on appeal last week to about $1 billion. But they add a new element. Jurors in these cases were staking out new territory in American law, asserting their interest in issues broader than the behavior of a single corporate defendant. Unlike past product liability verdicts, such as those against the Ford Pinto or the Dalkon shield, where a single company was targeted, juries are focusing on broad social problems -- smoking-related disease, gun violence -- that traditionally have been addressed through legislation…."

Investor's Business Daily 9/3/99 Kevin Butler "…Can gun makers escape the legal noose that hanged tobacco? Later this month, we may find out. Gun makers are trying to dismiss some of the lawsuits filed against them by 28 cities and counties o far). Local governments are hoping to repeat the states' lucrative legal victory over tobacco companies by suing gun makers for the criminal misuse of firearms. Their suits claim the $1.3 billion industry allows criminals to get guns. It's also liable for failing to install safety devices that could prevent gun crimes. Criminal-misuse suits are an emerging gambit in the product-liability game. Manufacturers have rarely been found liable for what criminals do with their products. That's one reason gun makers are seeking to dismiss some of the suits. But the cities and counties hope to start a trend. ….Some worry that if juries follow the Brooklyn court's lead on gun makers, other industries will be targeted. Lawyers may next target carmakers for designing sports cars capable of reaching unlawful, unsafe speeds. Plaintiffs may also blame alcohol makers for inducing criminal behavior. ''The gun cases are saying that a product is defective because the person who used (it) committed a wrongful act, and something should have been done to stop that wrongful act,'' said Victor Schwartz, a Washington lawyer and critic of the suits. ''Product liability has never been extended that far, in my judgment.'' It's not for lack of trying. Plaintiffs have sued the makers of air guns, carbon-dioxide cartridges, glue and even slingshots on criminal-misuse grounds - without much success. In 1996, plaintiffs failed in their quest to make producers of Black Talon bullets liable for the Long Island Railroad massacre. …"

Tampa Tribune 9/7/99 "…Until President Clinton announced that his administration would sue the tobacco companies to recover the costs that smoking supposedly imposes on Medicare and related programs, Attorney General Janet Reno and others in the Justice Department consistently insisted that the federal government did not have the authority to file such a lawsuit. Neither she nor any number of federal prosecutors working for her would do anything to help the states that sued to recover the costs of Medicaid payments made by them on behalf of sick smokers. Nevertheless, the department and Clinton thought the federal government would share in the spoils when the tobacco companies, neutered by state laws crafted to eliminate their legitimate defenses, agreed to a $260 billion settlement. When the states refused to share, Clinton abruptly reversed course and decided the federal government would sue on its own…..Reno's problem is that she has no statute to point to that authorizes the lawsuit, so she must devise a theory to justify the government's move. We suspect that's why the department wants the $20 million appropriation, and we agree with Gaziano that lawmakers should refuse to pay unless Reno can explain the department's change of heart. If Congress appropriates the money, the department is likely to take the position that an appropriation amounts to an authorization to sue, which may or may not be persuasive to a judge. For example, this newspaper topped a July story with the headline ``Justice Department gets clearance to pursue tobacco industry lawsuit'' after the Senate took a neutral position on the appropriation….."

Wall Street Journal 9/11/99 Paul Barrett "...Some Southern California companies well known for making inexpensive handguns are choosing to fold or seek bankruptcy-court protection, rather than fight a wave of municipal lawsuits. But larger mainstream gun makers are thought to be much less likely to take this approach, according to industry lawyers. At least three small companies that make so-called Saturday Night Specials, cheap weapons commonly associated with crime, so far have chosen to shut down or seek shelter from creditors under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code...."

Wall Street Journal 9/20/99 Johnathan Turley ".... Where there is war, there are war profiteers. The tobacco wars are no exception. In the wake of huge personal-injury awards and the U.S. tobacco companies' settlements with state governments, the war profiteers are racing to court to get their share of the spoils. The latest litigants include foreign governments, health-insurance companies and the federal government. All are seeking to claim their own shares of the tobacco purse. The new litigants have one thing in common: They have actually suffered no injury from tobacco. Their legal theories range from the implausible to the incredible, but hope springs eternal when billions of dollars are in the balance. Six countries have just consolidated their cases in a federal court in Washington, D.C. These newly found tobacco victims include Guatemala, Brazil, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Panama and Venezuela. A dozen other countries, including Russia, are reportedly considering lawsuits of their own. The six countries claim that they were shocked--shocked!--to learn that tobacco could be harmful to their citizens. This epiphany appears to have occurred shortly after U.S. tobacco companies agreed to fork over $200 billion to the states in the tobacco settlement. These nations now insist that, like the American states, they too were deceived about the risks of smoking and, due to this deception, they allowed their citizens to engage in a harmful practice. Now, racked with guilt, they have come to express their outrage--and seek massive damages....."

Washington Post David Vise Lorraine Adams 9/22/99 "...The Justice Department plans to file a mammoth civil lawsuit against the major tobacco companies as early as today, alleging that cigarette smoking costs the federal government billions of dollars annually in health-related expenses and seeking to recover those funds on behalf of taxpayers, sources familiar with the matter said yesterday. The lawsuit charges that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer and other diseases that have resulted in an estimated $25 billion annually in health claims paid to veterans, military personnel, federal employees, and the elderly through Medicare payments. It also includes claims that tobacco companies engaged in consumer fraud by conspiring to conceal from the public the risks of cigarette smoking. In its allegations of industry collusion, the government plans to invoke the powerful federal civil racketeering statute, sources said....."

the Oregon Daily Emerald 9/17/99 Chris Aster "....In the age of political correctness and veggie burgers, there are few practices as popularly reviled as smoking. With cigarette prices skyrocketing thanks to taxes and the $209 billion settlement the tobacco companies made with the state government, smokers are beginning to receive what amounts to a bum deal. Even while lighting up in the smoking section of a greasy spoon diner, a smoker can expect dirty looks from adamant non-smokers sitting nearby. While fewer and fewer locations make concessions for smokers, the neighborhood tavern has always been a refuge. Now, however, even smoking in bars is a topic of heated debate. On New Years Eve 1997, the state of California put into effect a law that banned smoking in all enclosed public places. This included all bars and restaurants. ....In a study conducted by the American Beverage Institute, 59 percent of the bars surveyed had experienced a loss in business after the ban was established....."

http://news.excite.com/news/u/990922/15/news-tobacco-reax 9/22/99 UPI "....One of the targets of today's Justice Department lawsuit against the tobacco companies claims the court action is part of a White House "political agenda." In a statement, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. says, "The White House clearly is frustrated by its inability to advance a political agenda against the tobacco industry and its consumers.... "The White House has a pattern of attacking the tobacco industry when public attention is focused on other problems within the administration," the statement added. "President Clinton's calls for higher cigarette taxes or for a federal tobacco lawsuit have consistently appeared during high points in the impeachment controversy. Now that Congress and the public are focusing on the handling of the Waco, Texas, incident and the pardon of FALN terrorists, the administration is again trying to divert public attention by bashing the tobacco industry." ....."

Washington Post 9/23/99 Lorraine Adams David Vise ".... A massive Justice Department lawsuit against tobacco companies filed in federal court yesterday provoked industry outrage and raised questions about whether the Republican-controlled Congress would agree to fund the costly litigation. Cigarette manufacturers denounced the suit, which charges the industry with racketeering and seeks billions of dollars for federal health-care costs, as politically motivated and without legal or factual basis. They were joined by broader business interest groups that warned of possible ramifications for other politically unpopular industries. "I think the business community in this country should feel very insecure now," said Bruce Josten, executive vice president for government affairs for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "What's dangerous and new here, in a precedent-setting sense, is the concept of suing an industry for money to fund government programs, plain and simple." ...."

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation 9/22/99 Press Release "....On the day the Clinton Administration announced with great fanfare a lawsuit against the tobacco industry, the U.S. Department of Justice very quietly dropped its 5-year criminal investigation against the manufacturers. ``The Justice Department today admitted that its five-year investigation of alleged criminal activity within the tobacco industry has been closed with no findings of any wrongdoing,'' said Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation. ``The Justice Department's confirmation of 'no pending Criminal Division investigations of the tobacco industry' was buried at the bottom of a news release announcing the federal government's lawsuit against the tobacco companies. ``Over the past half-decade, Justice Department officials have selectively leaked information relating to secret grand jury inquiries in an effort to cast a cloud over the actions of employees of Brown & Williamson and others. ``Today's announcement by the DOJ confirms B&W's statements over the years that neither the company nor its employees have engaged in any illegal activities. ``Until today, the Justice Department refused to confirm for Brown & Williamson that the investigations had ended, despite news media reports over recent weeks that the probes had been concluded.'' ...."

USA Today 9/23/99 James Freeman "....The lawyers who helped state governments sue the tobacco industry are due to receive billions of dollars - dollars that rightly belong to taxpayers. The South Carolina law firm of Ronald Motley is taking home $304 million from the Mississippi case. Not to be outdone, Richard Scruggs, brother-in-law of Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, was recently awarded $339.8 million for his work on the Mississippi case. Scruggs will collect a whopping $847.8 million in fees thanks to the settlements in Mississippi, Texas and Florida. Scruggs can take this huge pay-out because there's plenty to go around - lawyers will receive an amazing total of $8.2 billion just from those three cases. The lawyers who get to share in this legal jackpot were chosen by state attorneys general and (what a coincidence!) many of the lawyers were huge campaign contributors to the attorneys general. In Texas, the FBI is investigating how former Attorney General Dan Morales selected lawyers to participate in the Texas case against the tobacco companies...."

New York Times 9/26/99 Barry Meier David Johnston "….After five years and millions of dollars, the Justice Department's criminal investigation of the tobacco industry boiled down to this: one misdemeanor charge against an obscure biotechnology company. Prosecutors had scrutinized whether industry executives lied and perjured themselves in 1994, when they testified before Congress that cigarettes were not addictive. Investigators had plowed through corporate documents for evidence that cigarette makers manipulated the level of nicotine in their product. Whistle-blowers were interviewed by prosecutors, and company scientists testified before grand juries. But on Wednesday, Attorney General Janet Reno announced a broad civil lawsuit accusing cigarette makers of racketeering and fraud and seeking to recover billions in health-care costs related to smoking. Justice officials also publicly acknowledged a decision that had been clear for months -- that the criminal inquiry had been closed. "It was a case that the criminal division decided they were not likely to win," said a Justice Department official. How the government's investigation of an entire industry came to an end without producing indictments is the story of an ambitious effort made more difficult by the complex science of cigarette making, disagreements between federal officials, disappointing witnesses and an unfavorable court ruling. ….."

Washington Weekly 9/27/99 J Peter Mulhern "….

Enter Stage Right 9/20/99 Lawrence Henry "…..A learned friend of mine used an interesting, if sickening, word the other day. We were talking about smoking as a social issue, and he said, "Smoking has extrinsics." I presumed that he was talking about so-called "second-hand smoke." No, he said. "I mean smoking smells bad to other people." And so society, through government, is entitled to regulate and restrict smoking….. People drive by our house regularly with their car stereos turned loud enough to shake our windows. ….Other people park sloppily up and down my street, taking up extra spaces. Still others fire up circular saws, drills, and Shop-Vacs as they remodel their houses. In the yard behind us, tenants barbecue chicken on warm summer nights. A thrifty neighbor collects huge bags full of discarded soda cans. Every Tuesday, on trash collection day, Chinese and Vietnamese old people who live in the nearby housing projects tear apart our garbage sacks on the street, looking for recyclable aluminum and glass. School children leave chewing gum wads on the sidewalk. Dogs poop here and there, and some dog owners just leave it. My learned economist friend has a century-old sumac tree in his back yard, a tree he has decided not to cut down, even though sumac is widely reviled as a "weed tree" hereabouts. It provides him shade; it also sheds its leaves and seed pods on other people's yards, where other people have to clean them up….…..Today, I may get annoyed at my neighbors with their power tools and their loud music, their sloppy parking, their smoky barbecues, their hoorawing get-togethers around Monday Night Football, their ant-calling collections of empty soda cans. But I would never invoke the law to change their behavior - it seems ludicrous to me even to think of it…."

The New York Times 9/24/99 Richard Epstein "…. With great fanfare, the Federal Government has announced that it and the American public have been duped in an adroit campaign by tobacco companies, a deception that has forced Medicare to spend billions of dollars in treating tobacco-related illnesses. The gist of the Government's racketeering and fraud lawsuit, which was filed on Wednesday, is that for the past 45 years, the industry concealed the health hazards of smoking and the addictive effects of nicotine. This argument is entirely without foundation. In legal theory, the key element to any successful civil fraud claim is "differential knowledge" -- A cannot deceive B if B already knows the truth. In this case, therefore, it is not enough to show that tobacco companies hid information about the dangers of smoking. The Government must show that the companies knew something that the Government did not: that smoking was potentially harmful. That contention seems impossible to prove. The addictive properties of nicotine have been known and debated for ages, and for the last 40 years the Government has regulated all aspects of tobacco production and distribution. For instance, the Government has prevented tobacco companies from making certain health-related claims about their products -- like the assertion that lower levels of tar carry lower health risks. Since 1964, the Government has prescribed the warnings that go on all cigarette packages and advertisements. More recently, Congress conducted hearings intended to force tobacco executives into public confessions of wrongdoing. Given this evidence, could any claim that the Government did not know of tobacco's dangers be credible? ….."

Bob Lonsberry 9/24/99 "…. It's about tyranny. And I don't use that word lightly. It's about a fundamental tyranny of the federal government. An unconstitutional theft of billions of dollars. A taxation without representation. The president is going to use assets and employees of the United States to sue the tobacco industry, hoping to take as much as $25 billion a year from it. In theory, this is an approximate compensation for federal expenses to treat smoking-related illnesses. In fact, it's armed robbery. And it's proof that power is corruptive and evil and that vigilance in the face of government excess is the obligation of every American. First, the weakness of the president's argument. Contrary to what the administration would have you believe, government is the prime beneficiary of smoking in America. Combined federal and state taxes on cigarettes are typically more than 10 times as much as the profit on those products. Repeated for emphasis: Government makes much more from cigarettes than does the industry that makes them. ….. The Founding Fathers had a pretty clear view of how greedy government could get. They had experienced it first hand. When they crafted the Constitution and the country it would define, they knew that taxes must be levied by a democratically-elected body with close accountability to the people. That way, the people could choke off government excess. The people would, in effect, be taxing themselves and therefore serve as a limit on government greed. It's a nice theory, and mostly it works. But President Bill has found a way around it. Instead of taxing by legislative decision, as the Constitution requires, Bill Clinton seeks to tax by judicial decision. Instead of having legislators levy a tax, he is hoping judges will do it. The problem with that is, judges do not have the constitutional authority. Period. They and the president may pretend otherwise, but they do so dishonestly. Because a fine or judgement of $25 billion a year is functionally the same as a tax of $25 billion a year. ….."

Wall Street Journal 9/24/99 Paul Barrett "….Efforts to settle litigation against the gun industry are intensifying, as representatives of the industry and the municipalities that have sued it prepare for a meeting scheduled for Monday in Washington. Also at the table, either in person or by means of a representative, will be public officials who have threatened to sue the industry but so far have held off, saying they would prefer to negotiate curbs on the marketing and distribution of handguns….."

CNSNews.com 9/24/99 Amy Ridenour "….The Clinton Administration Justice Department suffered yet another blow to its already sagging credibility September 22 when it announced the filing of a multi-billion dollar civil suit against U.S. tobacco companies. As with many pronouncements from the Clinton Justice Department, this one requires close scrutiny. First of all, despite Attorney General Janet Reno's comments in announcing the suit, the government does not lose money from smoking: it profits from it. An analysis by Professor W. Kip Viscusi, the former director of Harvard Law School's Program on Empirical Legal Studies, shows that because smokers have an 18-36 percent chance of dying sooner than they would if they did not smoke, smokers tend to use substantially less Social Security and Medicare benefits and other expensive government programs. This saves the government approximately 32 cents for every pack of cigarettes sold. In addition to saving 32 cents per pack, says Viscusi, government taxes average 53 cents per pack. So government profits 85 cents per pack of cigarettes sold in the United States. This figure, incidentally, does not include the $246 billion tobacco companies agreed to give state governments last year to settle state-initiated lawsuits. Meanwhile, according to the New York Times, tobacco companies make an average profit of 28 cents per pack. Government profits from tobacco more than tobacco companies do……"

US Newswire 9/23/99 Max McGarrity "….Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) applauds the U.S. Justice Department for filing a lawsuit against "Big Tobacco," but recommends it also begin preparing a case against major meat producers and retailers. "Meat consumption is just as dangerous to public health as tobacco use," says Neal D. Barnard, M.D., PCRM president. "While President Clinton and many legislators are rightly concerned about lives and money lost each year to tobacco consumption, they're ignoring the devastating effect of meat consumption," Barnard says. A study conducted by PCRM and published in Preventive Medicine in 1995 calculated that meat consumption is directly responsible for as much as $61 billion in annual U.S. medical costs. The conservative study looked at just seven health problems linked to meat consumption, including heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. "An estimated 1.3 million Americans die of cancer, heart disease, and other heavily-meat related causes each year," Barnard says. "It's time we looked at holding the meat producers and fast-food outlets legally accountable. Without their powerful influence, America would have a healthier diet and a healthier national treasury."…."

Knight Ridder Newspapers 9/16/99 Usha Lee McFarling "….Obesity experts offered a radical agenda Wednesday to reduce the growing ranks of overweight Americans, including proposals to tax high-fat foods and make insurers cover weight loss programs. Calling the fat problem a "ticking time bomb in the health care system," many experts who gathered here for the first annual conference on obesity and public policy proposed several activist solutions. Among them: lengthening the school day to give kids more exercise, spending a lot more money to research the causes of obesity as well as the "fat tax" and expanded insurance for weight loss treatments. More than half of adult Americans, about 97 million, are estimated to be overweight. Of those, 39 million are considered obese, or more than 30 pounds overweight. More than 20 percent of children are overweight, a number that has doubled in recent decades. Extra pounds are more than unsightly. They contribute to 300,000 deaths each year. The annual cost of treating health problems related to obesity has been estimated at $100 billion. "While we have this two-day meeting, 1,800 people will be dead from problems related to obesity," said Judith S. Stern, a professor of nutrition at the University of California at Davis and vice president of the American Obesity Association. "This is a national emergency." Stern said her organization will push Congress for a fivefold increase in funding for obesity research at the National Institutes of Health, which now spends $103 million on it each year. The nation's top doctor, Surgeon General David Satcher, is already convinced. …."

F.R. Duplantier 10/3/99 "....In a recent issue of Foundation Watch, published by the Capital Research Center, editor Patrick Reilly offers "a list of key elements in the anti-tobacco campaign that are repeated in the current campaign for gun control." The first element he cites is the proclamation of a public health crisis. "Americans are generally less suspicious of government programs that appear to address health concerns, even when individual behavior and legitimate business practices are restricted," Reilly observes.....The focus on children is another element borrowed from the anti-tobacco campaign. "Many foundation grants awarded to gun control advocates are used to address the impact of gun violence on youth and children's access to guns," Reilly reports. "In truth," he points out, "the problem of youth access to guns is not as large as it has been portrayed, especially among young children. In 1996, only 40 children under age five died from accidental gun wounds." .....Making their case in courts rather than legislatures is another key element. "Foundations learned from last year's failed effort to pass federal tobacco-control legislation that lawmakers are hesitant to dramatically expand legal and regulatory constraints on major industries," says Reilly. "The courts, however, are not so reluctant..... Blaming the product and its manufacturer, rather than the negligent consumer, is yet another element common to both the anti-tobacco and anti-gun campaigns. "Anti-tobacco lawyers have argued that tobacco companies are guilty of negligent marketing, especially to minors," Reilly remarks. "Anti-gun forces have followed the same strategy, accusing the gun industry of negligence for failing to adequately prevent gun violence and for marketing in high-crime communities." The case against gun makers is patently absurd, of course, but then so was the case against tobacco merchants. Alan Gottlieb takes the threat seriously, and he's responding to it -- by suing the suers! His Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is sponsoring a "damage action" against the NAACP and various anti-gun mayors for "conspiracy to violate civil rights, abuse of process, and undue burden on interstate commerce. The anti-freedom politicians and the NAACP want to blame everyone but themselves for creating all the gun violence," Gottlieb contends. But the real purpose of their lawsuits, he claims, is "to win in the courts what has been rejected at the polls and to destroy gun makers," thereby effectively restricting gun ownership...."

WSJ 10/5/99 Review and Outlook "...Frolicking trial lawyers have become a fixture in the political garden, but now the stakes are higher than ever. It's increasingly clear that the Democratic Party, with virtually no ideological link to the private economy, is now reduced to redistributing income through litigation. This week the House will debate patients' litigation rights. Last month the GOP House slowed the law mills by passing legislation that would bust up the tort lawyers' class-action block party by transferring certain cases to federal court. The White House swore to veto the bill. Democrats in Congress are pulling out all the stops for their pals at the plaintiffs bar. The class-action bill has turned Rep. John Conyers into a states' rights convert, ignoring the Constitution's Commerce and Takings clauses, both of which seem to offer some protection against shakedowns by capricious non-federal courts. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat and Clinton flunkie, was last seen trying to tack a provision onto the bill to ensure it wouldn't apply to the tobacco and gun cabal. Message to two industries currently in the trial lawyers' sights: Don't look for any help from us.....Now the biggest pot of gold since tobacco is coming into focus: the HMOs. Last week Richard Scruggs, veteran of the tobacco and asbestos shakedowns, made clear the HMOs have moved to the top of his to-do list, and no doubt he's counting on Congressional Democrats to pry open the vault with a "patients bill of rights." ......The signs suggest Americans are losing patience with politician-protected lawyers who have recently moved on from tobacco and guns to tackle health issues like "toothbrush abrasion." The lawsuit lobby has no natural allies, unless you count the Naderites. Paying the lawsuit tax has become a fact of life for practically every industry across America. Sea World was just hit by a several-million-dollar lawsuit from the family of a 27-old man because it didn't post signs warning against the dangers of skinny dipping in the killer whale tank. Yet trial lawyer money talks loudest of all now to many Democrats. Mr. Conyers hails from an auto-making district where GM was just hit with a $4.9 billion verdict that even the New York Times called "outrageously high." You have to wonder whom he considers his real constituents. For our part, we're glad this battle is heating up when it is. American voters may have a chance to take back their politics in 2000...."

Los Angeles Times 10/4/99 Myron Levin ".....Mobilizing against smoking bans and lawsuits that could cost them billions, tobacco companies are engaged in a far-reaching campaign to discredit evidence that secondhand smoke is harmful to human health. Nowhere is the strategy more evident than in a legal battle over the evidence that has occupied at least 10 courts, including U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, where it appears likely to be resolved in the industry's favor. In the latest phase of the discovery battle, Philip Morris is fighting USC researchers to get access to a single computer disk containing raw data from an influential five-city study, known as the Fontham study, that found a causal link between lung cancer and secondhand smoke. The company wants to scrutinize the data in hopes of casting doubt on the evidence, which is weaker for secondhand smoke than for some other environmental hazards. ......Researchers from USC and other institutions involved in the Fontham study say the industry's relentless pursuit of the data could have a chilling effect on future health research.......The industry counterattack produced a big victory last year when a federal judge in North Carolina ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency had made procedural and substantive errors in a landmark report in January 1993 that concluded that secondhand smoke is a significant cause of lung cancer in nonsmokers. Federal officials have appealed the ruling. ....... "Methinks," said Davidson, "they [researchers] doth protest too much." ..... "

Wall Street Journal 3/19/98 ".....The World Health Organization has completed the largest ETS study ever, involving 7 European countries. They compared 1,542 healthy people with 650 lung cancer patients. It examined people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers and those who grew up with smokers. The study results are constant with the fact there is no additional risk of lung cancer from ETS. Also, "There is no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood". ...."

WSJ Interactive 9/29/99 Paul Barrett "....Colt's Manufacturing Co., the storied gun maker, is restructuring in a way that will shrink significantly its role in producing handguns for the consumer market. The restructuring stems from several causes, but in one sense it is the most drastic response so far by a major gun maker to the wave of municipal litigation pending against the firearm industry. Lawsuits filed by 27 cities and counties across the country specifically target the sort of handguns that Colt's is planning to move away from. Internal company documents show Colt's, West Hartford, Conn., is in the process of spinning off into a separate company its controversial project aimed at producing a high-tech "smart gun" that can only be fired by an authorized user. The documents also indicate the remaining core business will be focused more narrowly on production of military small arms, an area that Colt's has emphasized heavily over the past two years. New York financiers Donald Zilkha and John Rigas, who control the manufacturer, have used Colt's as a vehicle to acquire other makers of small military arms, and the restructuring appears to be another step in that direction. In fact, there are rumors in the gun business that Colt's is close to a new acquisition of a rival, but those rumors couldn't be confirmed......One risk the restructuring creates is a negative reaction from activist gun owners, who could perceive a withdrawal from the consumer handgun market as another indication of Colt's bending to gun-control proponents. Gun owners in New Jersey, California and other states mounted a boycott of Colt's products last year, partly in response to the company's development of the smart gun, which also was seen as a manifestation of weakness in response to gun foes....."

National Post Online 10/6/99 Jonathan Rauch "....Is former U.S. senator Bob Dole a racketeer? No other conclusion is possible once you have read the Clinton administration's lawsuit against the tobacco industry. It is, without a doubt, the most astounding legal document of our day, and not only because it reveals Bob Dole's life of crime. The tobacco companies, according to the administration's filing, have "sought to deceive the American public about the health effects of smoking." They denied that smoking causes disease, denied that tobacco is addictive and "consistently stated" that they did not market to children. The alleged result is that many Americans -- the administration does not say who exactly -- became addicted to cigarettes. "As a consequence of defendants' tortious and unlawful conduct, the federal government spends more than $20-billion annually for the treatment of injuries and diseases caused by defendants' products." But the suit contains a fundamental logical flaw: The government suffered no net damages. There is nothing to recover. Just the opposite. Washington's tobacco-related health spending is more than offset -- to the tune of tens of billions of dollars a year -- by the government's earnings from cigarette taxes, and by its savings on health and pension benefits that smokers don't live to collect. Making a profit and then suing for compensation is cheeky, even by lawyers' standards....."

National Post Online 10/6/99 Jonathan Rauch "....In Lawsuit Land, smokers were naifs fooled by tobacco giants. In real life, polls show that most have known since at least the early '50s that cigarettes are dangerous and hard to quit. Every pack and every ad has carried a warning since 1964. In standard legal theory, writes Richard A. Epstein, a University of Chicago law professor (who has consulted for Philip Morris), where there is no actual deception, there can be no civil claim of fraud. True, some individual smokers may have been deceived. But the administration seeks to build its case on statistics rather than on identifying any injured people. .... "

National Post Online 10/6/99 Jonathan Rauch "....The lawsuit's appendix lists 116 counts of illegal racketeering. Of those, fully 25, by my count, consist of press releases issued by the tobacco companies. Thus, on or about May 16, 1988, the defendants, through their trade group, "did knowingly cause a press release to be sent and delivered by the United States mail to newspapers and news outlets. This press release contained statements disputing the addictiveness of cigarette smoking." By mailing the release, the companies committed -- I am not making this up -- mail fraud......Counts 109, 110, 111, 112 and 113 consist of the testimony given before Congress, in 1994, in which the chief executives of five tobacco giants denied that smoking is addictive and denied manipulating the amount of nicotine in cigarettes. The hearings were televised: five counts of wire fraud....... So, does this mean that President Clinton should have been impeached for wire fraud when, on national television, he denied having sex with Monica Lewinsky? And poor Bob Dole. As a presidential candidate in 1996, he was asked in a televised interview if he thought tobacco is addictive. He replied, "Some people who've tried it can quit easily, others don't quit. So I guess it's addictive to some and not to others." You can send your contributions to the Bob Dole Racketeering & Wire Fraud Defense Fund to me at the National Journal. In its lawsuit, the Clinton administration has redefined fraud and racketeering to mean, in effect, publicly disagreeing with the Clinton administration...."

Ft Worth Star-Telegram/Washington Post 10/5/99 George Will "....Let us stipulate that the companies, without which the world would be better, have been deceitful about the addictiveness and harmfulness of cigarettes. But to prove fraud, government must show that its tobacco policy has been substantially affected by the companies' duplicities, and that the companies prevented government and the public from knowing the truth. Good luck. The government says, with a straight face: "Members of the public believed in the truth and completeness of the statements made by" the companies, and "relied upon the statements . . .and demonstrated that reliance by purchasing and smoking cigarettes, and by refraining from trying to quit or reduce their consumption of cigarettes." But there are about as many ex-smokers as smokers in America, and history suggests why....... The government's suit seeks recompense from tobacco companies for expenditures that the government, BECAUSE OF THE COMPANIES' FRAUD, incurred treating smoking-related illnesses. Well. The government knows something about tobacco-related fraud. Hundreds of jurisdictions have banned indoor smoking, partly because of a 1993 Environmental Protection Agency report that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) kills 3,000 Americans a year. In 1998, a federal judge accused the EPA of "cherry picking" the data for the report and said that the EPA "publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun"; violated procedural requirements in the pertinent law by excluding input from the tobacco industry; "adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion", did not "disseminate significant epidemiologic information"; "deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines"; and "failed to disclose important findings and reasoning." EPA's fraud was minor compared to the government's pretense that smoking costs it money. Various studies demonstrate that government reaps substantial savings because of the premature deaths of smokers who (by the way, cigarettes are the most heavily taxed consumer good) collect few if any retirement health care and nursing home benefits. When you hear a figure like 427,743 "premature" deaths from smoking (according to the Centers for Disease Control, that is the annual average, 1990-1994), bear in mind that nearly 60% of those deaths were people 70 or older, nearly 45% were people over 75, nearly 17% were people over 85. With what certainty in those cases can the government establish "smoking-attributable mortality?" But, then, one certainty is that accuracy is not the hallmark of the government's tobacco policy. ...."

CNSNews.com 10/7/99 Susan Jones "....United Parcel Service reportedly plans to stop delivering handguns through its ground service, because of concerns that some of those firearms shipments may be stolen along the way. The Allentown, Pennsylvania Morning Call reports the new UPS Policy begins on Monday. "We're trying to protect ourselves from employees stealing and criminals stealing," UPS spokesman Bob Godlewski told the newspaper. UPS says it will continue to ship long guns by ground, but starting next week, it will ship handguns only by overnight air service, which would cost about $25 more per gun. ...."

The Associated Press, via News Plus 10/7/99 Katharine Webster "....In the largest study ever done on obesity and mortality, researchers reported today that people run the risk of dying earlier simply because they are overweight. The risk was there even among people who didn't smoke and were otherwise healthy during their middle years, according to the study of more than 1 million Americans. It was conducted by the American Cancer Society and published in today's New England Journal of Medicine. It settles once and for all any lingering questions about whether weight alone increases the risk of death and disease, said Dr. JoAnn Manson, a Harvard University endocrinologist and preventive-health specialist. "The evidence is now compelling and irrefutable," Manson said. "Obesity is probably the second-leading preventable cause of death in the United States after cigarette smoking, so it is a very serious problem." The study found an especially clear association between excess weight and a higher risk of dying from heart disease or cancer....."

Christian Broadcasting Network 10/14/99 David Snyder ".....Searching for a scapegoat in the battle against crime, municipalities around the nation have targeted the manufacturers of handguns. More than two dozen cities and counties have filed individual lawsuits against gun manufacturers. Their first victim was Colt's Manufacturing, inventor of the six-shooter, which announced this week it would severely restrict future retail sales of handguns. On the other hand, the first municipal lawsuit was resolved last week in the gunmakers' favor. An Ohio judge threw the lawsuit filed by the city of Cincinnati out of court on the grounds that it was vague and unsupported by legal precedent....."

The New Australian 10/4-10/99 Dr Aaron Oakley ".....An important characteristic of activists is that they are prepared to use any argument - true, half-true or false - to support their ideological agenda. Hence truth plays second fiddle to expediency. This article examines a canard popular with anti-nuclear activists - that there is no level of radiation which is safe. This myth will be exposed along with certain activists who have repeated it. since 1959, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has dictated that regulations be based on the assumption that the effects of low doses of radiation may be derived by linear extrapolation from the effects of high doses (this is called the linear hypothesis). For example, 10,000 mSv of radiation (a very high dose!) would be expected to kill those exposed within hours, and by assuming a linear relationship, we would expect that a dose of 1 mSv would kill 1 in 10,000 people. The fact that we are not dropping like flies (background radiation averages about 2.4 mSv/year globally) immediately brings the hypothesis into question...."

AP 10/15/99 ".... A federal judge Friday blocked Los Angeles County from banning gun sales later this month at the world's biggest gun show. The ruling came in a lawsuit brought by the operators of the Great Western Gun Show, which opens Oct. 29 at the county fairgrounds. Great Western Shows Inc. challenged an ordinance that was enacted by the county Board of Supervisors in the aftermath of a shooting rampage at a Jewish community center last summer. ..."

Richmond Times-Dispatch 10/12/99 ".....Our favorite news blooper remains this 1997 Associated Press report about a health study: "Men and women who averaged one drink a day had a 21 percent lower risk of death than non-drinkers." And it's not because we love our Schlitz. It's because the sentence is so hilariously false: Drinkers face precisely the same risk of death as everyone else, which is 100 percent. The same goes for thin people. But don't tell that to Eugenia Calle, who works for the American Cancer Society and who has just finished a study on obesity. "The message" of the study, she said, "is we're too fat and it's killing us. We need to come up with ways as a society to eat less and exercise more." Harvard's JoAnn Manson concurs: "It's going to take a coordinated campaign to turn this around -- at the community level, at the environmental level, with changes in the food industry and marketing industry, having more bike paths and sidewalks." This is becoming a more and more popular view. A couple of years ago Yale's Kelly Brownell gained notoriety when he proposed a "Twinkie tax" on high-fat foods, just like the tax on cigarettes: "To me, there is no difference between Ronald McDonald and Joe Camel," he said. Last month, participants at an American Obesity Association conference declared obesity a "national emergency." Surgeon General David Satcher calls obesity "a major public health problem . . . that deserves much more attention than it receives." .......Ostensibly, obesity costs society money because of lost productivity, medical treatment for diabetes, clogged arteries, and so forth. Empirically, the assumption might not hold true any more than it holds true for smokers. Smokers incur higher medical costs, but because they pay steep cigarette taxes and die earlier -- thus saving expenditures on pensions, Medicare, and Social Security -- smokers save government more than half a dollar per pack, on average. The assumption behind the calculus, however, is that individuals have a re-sponsibility to stay fit not for their own good, but for the good of the collective. The slippery-slope argument gets woefully overused, but it is hard not to wonder: First cigarettes, then fat -- then what? Is the problem not really a gluttony for power? ....."

Reason Online 10/7/99 "....In 1994, when states started demanding that tobacco companies compensate them for the cost of treating smoking-related illness under Medicaid, critics wondered how many other industries could be sued on similar grounds. Don't be silly, these worrywarts were told. Cigarettes are unique. Yet even before the states had wrapped up their tobacco litigation in a $206 billion package, Round 2 had begun: Last fall, two major cities filed suit against manufacturers of firearms, seeking compensation for costs associated with gun violence. New Orleans claims that handguns are "unreasonably dangerous" because they do not incorporate safety features that would prevent unauthorized people from firing them. Chicago argues that gun makers have created a "public nuisance" by supplying too many firearms to dealers in the city's suburbs. Several other cities, including Atlanta, Detroit, Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Boston, have filed suits of their own, and still more are expected to join the list. And the NAACP also plans to file a suit of its own......The idea that guns are a public nuisance is closely related to the idea that guns are viruses causing an epidemic of violence, the subtext of research funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In the April 1997 Reason, Don B. Kates, Henry E. Schaffer, and William C. Waters IV dissect the misuse of public health concepts by advocates of gun control. By using litigation to raise prices and drive manufacturers out of business, gun controllers can reduce access to firearms without confronting the Second Amendment. In the March 1996 Reason, Daniel D. Polsby considers what might happen if the courts treated the right to keep and bear arms like other constitutional rights. The hostility toward guns expressed in the New Orleans and Chicago lawsuits is shared by most news organizations. In the November 1995 Reason, William R. Tonso shows that sheer ignorance is an important reason for this attitude....... "

Los Angeles Times 10/14/99 James Pinkerton ".....Magicians call it misdirection: the art of getting audiences to look in the direction the magician wants them to, so they miss the trick. Today, politics itself is being misdirected. Some of the biggest controversies in the United States--debates over gun control, auto safety, health care policy and pharmaceutical development--are no longer being decided by the democratic process or by the rule of law as traditionally understood. Sure, the politicians continue to talk, but their words are increasingly just part of the illusion. The real tricks, and some very big bucks, are being generated by a small group of trial lawyers who are pulling the ultimate trick: They are making the substance of politics disappear. ....Why hasn't this angle been covered much? Two possible explanations. First, journalists mostly support this legal onslaught against industries and products they don't like. Second, to cover the story of how trial lawyers are preempting politics, elite newsies would have to travel to tort hot spots such as Hayneville, Ala. In 1996, for example, a jury there heard the case of one Alex Hardy, who apparently fell asleep at the wheel of his Chevy, leading to an accident that left him paralyzed. Yet plaintiff's lawyers claimed, against all reason, that the vehicle was defective. Hardy was awarded $150 million in a case that has set a low standard for auto liability cases since....."

Los Angeles Times 10/14/99 Henry Weinstein "....In the latest courtroom assault on corporations selling legal but controversial products, Rhode Island's attorney general on Wednesday sued eight companies that used to manufacture lead paint, which banned for residences in 1078 put continues to be a major health problem for children living in older buildings. The lawsuit is expected to be the first of many against the paint industry by state attorneys general, and Sen. Jack Reid (D-R.I.) is currently drafting legislation that would facilitate a federal suit against the industry. Rhode Island's suit seeks damages for tax money expended treating people made ill by lead and funds for an abatement program to 'get the lead out of Rhode Island's children, homes and buildings." ...."

FoxNews Mike Crissey 10/18/99 "....Texas became the ninth state to sue Publishers Clearing House over its sweepstakes Monday, saying its advertising was deceptive and primarily duped senior citizens. The lawsuit filed in Travis County asks for damages and an injunction against the Port Washington, N.Y.-based company. Texas Attorney General John Cornyn called the company's mailings "letter bombs, filled with deceptions." The state accuses the company of creating a false sense of urgency; inflating the likelihood of winning by sending people simulated checks, deposit slips and tax forms; and asking people to return a map telling the Prize Patrol how to get to their homes....."

Investor's Business Daily 10/21/99 ".....There are lots of ways for Americans to lose those freedoms they claim to hold so dear. They can be conquered by dictators, they can be over-regulated by bureaucrats and they can be sued by trial lawyers. It seems that no one is safe anymore from a growing pack of trial lawyers looking for deep pockets and a sympathetic jury. And while the plaintiffs may win, the rest of us lose our money and our freedom...... Last week, a jury returned a $2.3 million damage award to 13 American Airlines passengers ''traumatized'' in a 28-second bout of air turbulence on a Los Angeles-to-New York flight in 1995. Of course, $2.3 million is pocket change for these kinds of lawsuits, but more are expected to be filed soon.....Again the plaintiffs and their lawyers may win while the rest of us lose in this case - through higher ticket prices and a loss of freedom in the not-so-friendly skies. No industry or company is safe. Take health care. The House has just passed legislation that will permit trial lawyers to sue managed care companies and employers for punitive damages. That's on top of current efforts to sue managed care companies. But employers who buy managed care plans are in trial lawyers' sights too. Large companies that self-insure have been shielded from this type of litigation by federal law. The Senate version would keep that protection..... Is there a reason for this litigation explosion? Yes, and it's called the contingency fee, which makes the trial lawyer a stakeholder in the lawsuit....."

Fort Worth Star-Telegram 10/24/99 Bob Norman ".....Because of the criminal actions of a few, it has become politically correct to blame gun shows for the ills of mankind, even though the vast majority of guns used in crimes never came from any gun show. Although federal law provides for the unlicensed sale of one's personal gun collection, large or small, it has become apparent that because of the aforementioned criminals, it behooves responsible gun show promoters to take steps to insure that any gun sold at a gun show goes only to a purchaser who has had a background check. Starting with my February 2000 show at the Will Rogers Center, only persons with a federal firearms license will be allowed to sell guns. Although the law allows for the unlicensed sale of personally owned guns, there is no provision in the law for private individuals to conduct the background check. Only those with licenses have access to the checking system and it is illegal for licensees to not do the background check. Will this stop gun crime? Of course not, and I do not fool myself into thinking that it will. Classified ads in newspapers, flea markets, garage sales, notices on bulletin boards and Internet commerce, among other things, will insure that unchecked persons can still buy guns......"

U.S. News And World Report 11/1/99 Marianne Lavelle Angie Cannon ".....Even the mighty six-shooter is no match for trial lawyers this year. In recent weeks, after a small group of powerful attorneys had aimed two dozen cases at the gun industry, the legendary Colt's Manufacturing Co. threw up its hands, cutting back on sales of consumer handguns. About the same time, the stocks of managed health care organizations tumbled as much as 30 percent when some of the same litigators, calling themselves "the Re- pair Team," sued the HMOs. And another legal cadre-again, with many familiar faces-squeezed a $3.75 billion settlement for users of the dangerous diet drugs fen-phen- the largest pay- off ageement ever by a single company. But even that stunning figure fades beside the $246 billion the plaintiffs' bar smoked out of Big Tobacco companies last year. In recent months, the nation's loose-knit fraternity of trial lawyers-a dozen fabulously successful firms leading a vanguard of thousands-have emerged as an awesome force, shaking the courtroom, the boardroom, and the back room....... Perhaps the best illustration of their new political muscle is the behind-the-scenes tobacco machinations at the White House this year. President Clinton's advisers wanted to file a civil lawsuit against the tobacco industry to recoup federal Medicare costs, as the states had done. But the Justice Department had qualms. Who you gonna call? Tobaccobusters! The trial lawyers who had represented the states were summoned to the White House for brainstorming sessions to help fashion a strategy to persuade cautious Justice. "It was a first," says plaintiffs' lawyer Richard Scruggs of Pascagoula, Miss., about the confabs. What does it mean? "We are now . . . moving these issues with more substantive political participation, helping our friends with information and ideas," says Washington, D.C., attorney John Coale....."

San Diego Tribune 10/24/99 Dave Barry ".....There is big news in the War on Smoking. The U.S. Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against the cigarette industry, boldly charging that the industry was lying - and it KNEW it was lying - when it claimed that it never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, Whoops! Wrong lie! ....."

INSIGHT Magazine 11/8/99 Tobacco Suit YES Richard A. Daynard ".....The lawsuit filed on Sept. 22 is making two very different types of claims. First, it seeks reimbursement for the more than $20 billion each year that it asserts federal taxpayers have lost as a result of the industry's conduct..... The second claim of the lawsuit alleges that the tobacco companies' repeated use of mail fraud and wire fraud, together with their creation and use of front groups to facilitate the fraud, brings them squarely within the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. Under RICO, a court can require the defendants to disband their conspiracy and cease their misdeeds, to take steps to undo the harm they have caused (in this instance, by funding corrective advertising campaigns and smoking-cessation clinics) and to disgorge the full amount of their ill-gotten gains......"

INSIGHT Magazine 11/8/99 Tobacco Suit No Rep Bob Barr "...The theory underlying the lawsuit is legally and factually flawed. Even worse, it attempts to set a dangerous new precedent allowing unelected officials to engage in massive interference with private commerce. Factually, the lawsuit turns on the argument that smoking costs the government money. While that argument sounds right at first blush and is unquestionably accepted by political leaders and media pundits, it isn't actually true. Reduced to an issue of government "cost," cigarette smoking represents a net gain in government revenue. As studies by the Congressional Research Service and the New England Journal of Medicine have demonstrated conclusively, the government spends more money treating nonsmokers, because they live much longer than smokers. Combined with the massive tax revenues the government obtains from tobacco, it is clear the government has benefited greatly from the growing, sale and use of tobacco. Based on these facts, if the federal government gets involved in tobacco lawsuits at all, it should be as a defendant, not a plaintiff. Legally, this lawsuit is even more absurd and pernicious. As early as 1947, the Supreme Court ruled the federal government cannot recover medical damages from private companies without statutory authorization from Congress..... "

INSIGHT Magazine 11/8/99 Tobacco Suit NO Rep Bob Barr "....Another bridge was crossed a couple of years ago when state governments, correctly smelling a windfall in revenues for their cash-strapped treasuries, jumped into the fray. The tobacco companies, despite a string of victories in court, made a calculated -- but, as it turns out for the rest of us, disastrous -- decision to settle rather than fight. The die was cast. A green light was given to every aggrieved consumer and government entity aggressively to seek out and destroy whatever product met the criteria of the tobacco lawsuits: legal, widely used, profitable, disfavored by the ruling intelligentsia and the so-called national media and subject to some colorable claim that it harmed someone, somehow, somewhere. Virtually every major sector of our economy is now a potential defendant......"

INSIGHT Magazine 11/8/99 Tobacco Suit NO Rep Bob Barr "....Then, just a few months ago, a trial balloon was floated to gauge whether Congress and the American people would wake up and sense the danger (but they haven't). A federal agency very carefully, quietly and cleverly began to involve itself in the gun lawsuits being brought by big-city mayors and trial lawyers. The federal agency wasn't Justice. That would be too obvious; too much, too fast. It was HUD. That's right, the Department of Housing and Urban Development..... under such a theory, any federal agency would be justified in suing any manufacturer of any product found to have harmed anybody because, in today's regulatory world, there is always a "federal" dollar somewhere, administered by an eager federal agency enjoying lengthy and laudatory language in its enabling legislation about the public "good," "welfare" or "safety ...."

INSIGHT Magazine 11/8/99 Tobacco Suit NO Rep Bob Barr "....The most insidious element of this latest foray by our esteemed Department of Justice is the precedent it sets. The federal government's tobacco lawsuit is almost certain to be thrown out of court (hopefully before Justice can extort a settlement). The most pernicious aspect of this case -- and the other tobacco and gun lawsuits -- lies in its underlying assault on our legal system and its relationship to our system of commerce in the United States....... The principle at stake here is simple, and it has been recognized throughout America's history. To encourage free enterprise and reflect American ideals of freedom and self-responsibility, manufacturers have never been held liable for the misuse of a lawfully manufactured nondefective product. The reason for this bedrock principle had been, until now, consistently adopted by courts and supported by government action: If a manufacturer of a lawful, nondefective product was liable for the subsequent use or misuse of that product, manufacturers, not surprisingly, would not manufacture goods. If they did, they necessarily would subject themselves to liability based on acts of persons not under their control. ..... "

WorldNetDaily 10/26/99 Jon Dougherty "….As the United Nations and the World Health Organization put the finishing touches on a new global treaty designed to curb worldwide tobacco use and advertising, controversy has arisen from a previous -- but little publicized -- study completed by WHO in March 1998 concluding there is no link between second-hand smoke and cancer. According to the London Telegraph, which first publicized the study last year, researchers at the WHO found "that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer, but that it could even have a protective effect." ….. The study, seen by the Telegraph, also stated, "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) exposure during childhood." In an earlier report, the Telegraph published a story calling the mania over passive cigarette smoke a "false alarm" because researchers at Colorado State University found that lung cancer rates of women married to smokers are 60 percent lower than previous studies had shown, and that the extra risk may even be statistically "negligible." The Colorado team, led by Dr. Geof Givens, reexamined some 35 previous studies on the effects of passive cigarette smoke. They found that similar studies debunking the second-hand smoke theory were often overlooked because, according to the Telegraph, "scientists think that the results are not worthwhile, or they are rejected by scientific journals." ….."

AP 10/26/99 Robert Jablon "….Obesity is a U.S. epidemic that has surged in the past decade and now affects nearly one in five adults, killing some 300,000 a year, a collection of new studies suggest. The studies, which will be published in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association, are the latest to spread the warning that Americans are getting fatter - and that fat kills. ``Obesity is a major cause of mortality in the United States,'' concludes one of the surveys. One study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that the number of Americans considered obese - defined as being more than 30 percent over their ideal body weight - soared from about one in eight in 1991 to nearly one in five last year. …."

Reuters 10/25/99 Elif Kaban "….The world's beleaguered cigarette makers faced the prospect of fighting on a new front Monday as U.N. talks began to hammer out the first international treaty to curb tobacco use and its advertising. The talks are aimed at agreeing on a legally binding and potentially industry-hobbling treaty against tobacco, focusing on a global ban on cigarette advertising, an increase in taxes on tobacco products and the right to a smoke-free environment. ….. The WHO has made the fight against tobacco a policy priority. This month, it launched an inquiry into the tobacco industry, alleging that it mounted a systematic global effort to undermine its policies against smoking……"

Jewish World Review 10/25/99 Mona Charen "….LEE SANCHEZ JR. was the victim of a terrible accident. He had parked his 1990 Chevy pick-up truck on a hill. Leaving the motor running and the transmission in park (so he thought), he got out of the truck. Somehow, the transmission shifted out of park and into something experts later called "hydraulic neutral." And since the truck was on a hill, it rolled backwards and over Sanchez. He died from his injuries. Naturally, this being 1990s America, Sanchez's relatives sued General Motors arguing that the company was liable for failure to design a slip-proof transmission......

Enter Stage Right 10/25/99 David Ridenour "…..When the federal government announced on September 22 that it was suing U.S. tobacco companies to recover funds the federal government spends each year on smoking-relating health costs, more than one person quizzically asked: But doesn't the government support tobacco farmers? Yes. This seeming inconsistency in the government's tobacco lawsuit is just one of many contradictions that ultimately show the lawsuit for what it truly is: a flawed legal filing designed more to build the political fortunes of a discredited and impeached administration than to do anything positive for the people or government of the United States. The federal government's tobacco lawsuit is insincere, deceptive and, ultimately, hypocritical. The government itself distributed cigarettes free to servicemen until 1974, a full decade after the famous 1964 Surgeon General's warning, in its report, "Smoking & Health - Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service," advising all America that smoking causes disease. To win the case, among other things, the government must prove that it paid Medicare benefits to smokers while unaware of tobacco's danger, despite the aforementioned Surgeon General's report made public before Medicare's creation….."

Washington Times 10/31/99 Bonner Cohen "….While the study's title, "Influence of Environmental Change on Degradation of Chiral Pollutants in Soil," seems innocuous enough, its findings are another matter. The study deals with chirality, a characteristic exhibited by chemicals with asymmetric molecules. The asymmetry causes molecules of the same chemical to exist as mirror images of one another. Since many of the building blocks of living organisms - including sugars, amino acids and proteins - are also chiral, the effects of chiral pollutants depend on how well the toxic portions of the pollutant fit together with molecules of living things. "Our study emphasizes the fact that much of the historical environmental data collected on pollutants is unreliable because so many of the chemicals are chiral, and the data do not distinguish which mirror images of certain chemicals were present and which were harmless," says Mr. Lewis. "The good news is that trace amounts of many of the environmental pollutants EPA is most worried about - including some DDT derivatives, PCBs and plasticizers - aren't as bad as previously thought." ….."On the other hand, he warns, "measures intended to protect the environment, such as using treated sewage sludge as a fertilizer, will likely increase the persistence of the more toxic forms of some pesticides." …."

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation 10/29/99 "….PRNewswire/ -- Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation today issued the following statement: Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation said today that a previously sealed FBI investigation uncovered by the news media ``has now exposed the truth behind the soon to be released film 'The Insider' and shows that the government's key witness lied to federal agents and fabricated death threats. ''The question now,`` said Brown & Williamson, ''is how can Disney continue to promote a film based on fabrications and lies?`` The FBI investigation also raises serious questions about the actions of CBS ``60 Minutes'' producer Lowell Bergman and the U.S. Justice Department's five-year investigation of the tobacco industry.

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation 10/29/99 "….The FBI's conclusions are outlined in the affidavit of an FBI agent responsible for investigating the 1996 Jeffrey Wigand death threat. Wigand, a former Brown & Williamson employee, is being portrayed in the soon-to-be- released film as a hero and ``the key witness on the biggest public health reform issue in U.S. history.'' In the affidavit, the FBI concludes that Wigand faked death threats and placed a bullet in his own mailbox. The agent found probable cause that Wigand committed a crime and as a result was seeking a search warrant of Wigand's home. The FBI agent's sworn affidavit includes a forensic analysis of Wigand's home computer by the FBI's crime laboratory in Washington, D.C. The document states that ``subsequent examination revealed fragmentary portions of the threat message were stored on the hard drive of Wigand's Compaq Presario 150 personal computer.''

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation 10/29/99 "….The FBI also reported that a CBS ``60 Minutes''-hired bodyguard apparently used Wigand's computer to type a copy of the threat letter and that it ``appeared to (the CBS-hired bodyguard) to be an exact match to a copy of the threat letter.'' The FBI's sworn affidavit concludes that Wigand's official statement to the FBI was ``untrue and misleading and in violation of'' federal law that makes it a crime to lie to a federal investigator. ``While Brown & Williamson has emphatically stated that we did not threaten Wigand or his family in any way, many media reports and Wigand himself have implied that Brown & Williamson was behind the threats. In fact, we think the Hollywood film, 'The Insider' accuses Brown & Williamson of this and has invented scenes in the movie to dramatize such threats,'' the company said. …."

NewsMax 10/29/99 Ollie North "…..Washington: When Bill and Hillary roared into Washington from the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas, they brought with them the generous support of the trial lawyers lobby. And since Clinton & Clinton took charge of the White House, they have shown their gratitude by launching a rash of federally-inspired lawsuits aimed at the heart of legitimate, lawful, albeit politically-incorrect, American businesses. First, it was Microsoft, then "Big Tobacco." Now, it's the firearms industry. If the Lawyer-in-chief can't get what he wants through regulation, he tries legislation. When legislation fails, he turns the matter over to his cronies at the bar for litigation. The result is a Constitutionally contorted form of legal mayhem in which the executive branch uses the judicial branch to alter laws that were never passed by the legislative Branch……"

Florida Times-Union 10/28/99 "….Drug companies are about to find out what Kenneth Starr, Linda Tripp and others learned in the past few years. Interfering with the presidential agenda in this administration can be painful. To put it another way: Bill Clinton doesn't get mad. He gets even. When drug companies opposed his scheme to create a new federal entitlement for prescription drugs, they came into the cross-hairs. It wasn't just a matter of getting labeled ''special interests.'' That is pro forma when business interests get involved in politics. Nor was it a matter of being accused of disseminating ''falsehoods'' - although for this president to make that charge is ironic to an extreme. Now, however, the fun begins. Clinton has ordered a study of prescription drug costs. This is no in-depth study, to be done in scientific detachment. This study will be done in 90 days. Its purpose is clear. As the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, ''He will undoubtedly use the study to hammer Republicans and industry officials who oppose his plan to offer a voluntary drug benefit as part of the federal health program for the elderly.'' …."

Reuters 10/26/99 Edward Tobin "....New York state's highest court Tuesday upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss five class action suits brought against U.S. tobacco companies, in a ruling industry analysts said highlights a trend in pending tobacco cases. A spokesman for the Office of Court Administration in New York told Reuters that the New York State court reaffirmed the lower appellate division's July 1998 decision to dismiss the cases. The 7-0 decision marks a reprieve for U.S. Tobacco companies that have watched their stocks plummet last week after a Florida state court ruling that could expose them to billions of dollars in punitive damages in connection with sweeping class action verdicts against them....."

Houston Chronicle 10/26/99 Cal Thomas ".... Vice President Al Gore said last week, in a bid for the largely uncommitted environmental vote, that if he becomes president, he will sign an executive order banning any new offshore drilling for oil and gas along the California and Florida coasts. What would the oil companies do with their 36 existing leases off California and 146 off Florida for which they have already paid billions of dollars, but have yet to begin drilling? Gore seems to be saying, "Let them eat crude."..."

Philadelphia Daily News 10/26/99 Gary Kleck "….If Eliot Spitzer, New York State's attorney general, has his way, more of the nation's gun manufacturers will follow the lead of the Colt's Manufacturing Co. and cut back big parts of their business to please the advocates of gun control. When Colt's announced it would cease making handguns for the civilian market, it cited financial problems attributable in part to pending lawsuits filed by 28 cities and counties against gun makers, including Colt's. New York State has not filed one of these suits, but Spitzer's threat of one has persuaded the gun makers to negotiate with him about his demands that they stop making lower-priced handguns and submit their businesses to oversight by an appointed monitor….."

San Jose Mercury News 10/26/99 William Rusher "…. BY now it is pretty well understood among thoughtful people that the savage attacks of the state and federal governments on the tobacco industry have nothing to do with the public's health and everything to do with money: hundreds of billions of dollars, which politicians have discovered they can gouge out of the tobacco companies (who of course pass the cost along to their customers) in lieu of more taxes. After all, the federal government kept on subsidizing tobacco farmers for decades after the Surgeon General began warning that cigarettes can cause cancer and other fatal illnesses. Bear in mind that Philip Morris nets just 28 cents on every pack of Marlboros it sells, but the government takes several times that amount. If the government were really serious about saving the lives of America's smokers, it would simply ban the sale of cigarettes. But no -- that cash cow has to be kept alive and producing at all costs.. .Since the greed of our politicians is literally bottomless, observers have been waiting to see which other profitable industry will be targeted next. A good many people think it will be the alcoholic beverage industry, which has tons of money and whose products kill many thousands of people and cause endless misery to afflicted families every year. The alcoholic beverage producers can hardly claim they didn't know the damage alcohol does, or didn't realize that, for certain people at least, alcohol is, quite literally, fatally addictive. Yet they keep on selling the stuff, and raking in billions…..Rather, my own guess is that the politicians' greedy glare will next fasten on the gun manufacturers (and indeed, the first lawsuits against them have already been filed). Here, the hysteria whipped up for more and more gun-control laws has already paved the way. The gun manufacturers will be easy to cast as cold-blooded villains….."

Cato 10/26/99 Doug Bandow "…..It's hard to be sympathetic to "Big Tobacco." The companies profit handsomely from a product that kills. Why shouldn't the federal government seek reimbursement for costs caused by smoking? "The tobacco companies should answer to the taxpayers for their actions," argues President Clinton. His argument is superficially appealing, but he should apply the principle consistently. For instance, poor people get into car accidents and the government pays their medical expenses. Why shouldn't Chrysler, Ford and General Motors have to reimburse the Medicaid program? Some people without adequate private health insurance get injured while hang-gliding, rock-climbing, skateboarding, surfing, and engaging in any number of other risky activities. The Justice Department should sue the product manufacturers and property owners. Moreover, the government covers the medical bills of people who are shot, abuse alcohol, fall off of ladders, get injured playing football, trip down stairs, and suffer heart attacks after a lifetime of eating high-cholesterol foods, red meat and sugar. Washington could fill the courts with reimbursement lawsuits……. Then there's the already high tax on cigarettes, averaging almost 53 cents a pack. That is pure government profit. It's obviously tempting to say: Let the tobacco industry pay. But constitutional principles as well as corporate revenues are at stake. Legal extortion has no place in a nation that claims to be governed by the rule of law. …."

NY Times 10/25/99 AP "… In one of its largest environmental enforcement actions, the government today filed lawsuits charging that 32 electric utility plants made illegal repairs to facilities, causing the release of massive amounts of air pollutants throughout the Midwest and East Coast. The lawsuits, filed by the Justice Department on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency, seek to force the facilities to install appropriate air pollution control technology. The suits were filed in federal courts in Atlanta, Indianapolis, Tampa, East St. Louis, Ill. and Columbus, Ohio. The suits allege that 17 electric utility plants -- owned by American Electric Power, Cinergy, FirstEnergy, Illinois Power, Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Company, Southern Company, Tampa Electric Company or their subsidiaries -- violated the Clean Air Act by making major modifications to many of their plants without installing the equipment required to control smog, acid rain and soot. ….."

Fox News/REUTERS 11/3/99 "….Armed with a slew of reports that Americans are getting fatter by the day, the U.S. Agriculture Department said Wednesday it was stepping up its assault on poor eating habits. Starting early next year, the department said it will launch a Web site where Americans can evaluate their diets and track changes in their eating. The USDA said it will also hold a national summit to focus more attention on healthy eating and will bring together researchers, academics and food industry experts to analyze why Americans eat what they do…..Glickman acknowledged the new guidelines would likely be controversial, but said it is the government's role to guide Americans into adopting a healthier lifestyle……"

American Lawyer Media 11/8/99 Robert Levy "…Judge Jackson defines the market as operating systems for single-user desktop PCs that use an Intel-compatible microchip. Thus, notes economist Alan Reynolds, Apple's 10 percent market share doesn't count because Apple uses a Motorola chip. Nor does Sun Microsystems' share -- Sun's sales were up 30 percent in 1998 -- because Sun, too, isn't Intel-based and its Solaris system is multi-user. As for the Linux craze, it came too late to be included in the market share calculations. Then there are hand-held computer systems -- sales climbed 61 percent in 1998 -- sub-notebooks and set-top TV boxes, each of which uses a non-Intel chip. Finally, 15 percent of PCs are marketed "naked" -- i.e., without an operating system….. The central point is this: The government's focus in this case has been to safeguard Microsoft's competitors rather than protect consumers -- which is, after all, the purpose of the antitrust laws. To be sure, the Justice Department tried mightily to link one objective to the other. But the government's own witness, M.I.T. professor Franklin Fisher, when asked whether consumers have been harmed by Microsoft, responded, "On balance, I'd think that the answer is no." Contrast that with Judge Jackson's assurance that Microsoft "harmed consumers in ways that are immediate and easily discernible." Even the Washington Post -- no fan of Microsoft -- conceded editorially that "the government's allegations of harm to consumers seem pretty speculative."….."

National Review 11/10/99 Lawrence Kudlow "….The Clinton administration is on a re-regulatory rampage, and Microsoft is just the tip of the iceberg. The Justice Department website brags about a hundred anti-trust suits filed since 1994: IBM, Georgia-Pacific, Cisco Systems, CBS, NBC, Time Warner, Sony, General Electric, Westinghouse, Alcoa, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, MCI, Sprint, Citigroup, Staples, and Intel, to name a few. Just the other day the department blasted off on seven utility companies. Numerous product liability and re-regulatory issues are now floating around Congress, the courts and the Clinton executive branch. Resolution of these issues could substantially affect steel, defense, property and casualty insurers, satellite broadcasters, tobacco, HMOs, hospitals and pharmaceuticals. And this list doesn't even include the myriad of economic sectors that may suffer from overzealous global warming policies….."

WorldNetDaily 11/9/99 Jon Dougherty "..... "It's the economy, stupid," was the theme of Bill Clinton's first presidential bid in 1991. The point, we were told, was that this man Clinton would be good for business. Uh-huh. The American economy, by all facts and figures, is indeed moving along swimmingly, but it is doing so despite the man who would be king for life, if only we'd let him. The Clinton administration's army of bureaucrats have foisted a ton of new costly regulatory burdens on U.S. businesses since 1992, and still many industries have succeeded anyway. Many more, however, have gone the way of the Dodo bird, leaving America's once receptive climes for the business-friendly environments of other countries awash in poverty. Therefore I can only conclude that the government's attack on Microsoft has more to do with a warped quest for power than sound legal principles. Success must really bother those in government who want Americans to rely only upon them for survival....."

New York Post 11/9/99 Jonathan Foreman ".... IT made $7 million over the weekend and won rave reviews from many critics, but "The Insider" might also earn the Walt Disney Co. a massive lawsuit from Brown & Williamson, the tobacco company that serves as the movie's villain. And the cigarette giant could well have a strong case. "The Insider" implies that company executives engineered death threats and suborned FBI agents. A company can sue for libel if it is portrayed in a false and defamatory light and if it suffers injury as a result. As for whether "The Insider" has injured Brown & Williamson, the company is now polling filmgoers outside cinemas in seven cities across the country to determine how negatively they perceive it after seeing the movie. ....Unlike many films that dramatize real events, "The Insider" doesn't trouble to change the name of the corporation it attacks. That's a big deal because it depicts unquestionably felonious conduct against Wigand and his family and strongly suggests that Brown & Williamson is responsible......"

WorldNetDaily 11/8/99 Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr. "… Is free enterprise legal in America or not? That is the fundamental question raised by federal judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's 207-page "Findings of Fact" against Microsoft. Here's a judge who has been openly biased from the beginning, who didn't know how to turn on a computer a couple of years ago, and who even the New York Times says had to learn about software as the trial progressed. This judge, pretending to know more than hundreds of millions of freely choosing consumers, now calls Microsoft a monopoly and demands that it be smashed. For all the mind-numbing rhetoric, the invocations of outdated economic models, and the intricate legalese, there is one enormous, gaping hole in the judge's argument: Microsoft committed no crimes in the normal sense in which that word is used. Nowhere does the judge show that Microsoft committed fraud, stole, coerced, broke contracts, or threatened anyone or any company with violence. It didn't take advantage of any government regulations to erect legal barriers to its competitors and it didn't benefit from any subsidies. The company has not aggressed on anyone's property or forced any producer or consumer to pay the company money, to sign any contract, or to buy its products……"

Cato Institute 11/8/99 Robert Levy "…. Here's the lesson that high-tech companies can glean from Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's findings in the Microsoft case: If you're sufficiently ambitious, competent, and hard-working; if you're willing to risk your time and fortune; if you succeed at rising above your competition by serving customers with better products; then watch out, because our government will come down on your neck with the force and effect of a guillotine. Jackson's knee-jerk recitation of the Justice Department's line is a mockery of objectivity, scornful of the facts, and congenial only to those who prefer a sterile marketplace in which vigorous competition becomes legally actionable…..&q