Drug Intervention Classes

October 6, 2005 9:57 pm by Gene Borio

Hard on the down-at-the-heels filing by the unfortunate Guinto family, New York City’s Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment (C.L.A.S.H.) has also filed an intervenors’ brief, of sorts.

C.L.A.S.H. head Audrey Silk has sent a letter to Judge Kessler arguing that since Health Groups claimed DOJ didn’t represent their interests, and have been allowed to intervene,and since Defendants don’t represent the intertests of smokers, and since the costs of the Health Groups’ proposed remedies would undoubtedly come not from the tobacco companies but from the smokers who buy their products, “we too, ask to be heard.”

“Who’s looking out for us?”

Apparently, even though Ms. Silk writes that C.L.A.S.H. has members “all over the country,” membership is not large enough to afford a lawyer to handle a filing:

Unlike either the Public Health Intervenors or the Defendants, we do not have the financial means to hire professional legal counsel, and beg the court for consideration by means of this letter.

The lack of numbers for C.L.A.S.H. membership is unfortunate. When Ms. Silk says that the Intervenors “do not speak for us,” it is unclear if she is speaking for the few members of her own group, or for some substantial proportion of smokers at large. Some frankness here would help her cause, i.e., if she asserted that her group, however small, nevertheless does represent the interests of a large number of smokers. This disingenuous ambiguity, in light of the fact that testimony has been fairly established that over 70% of smokers do want to quit, damages her effort to seem representative of the interests of the country’s smokers. (Ms. Silk, meet the Guintos, below.)

Also unfortunate is the fact that often her assertions have been dealt with in the trial proper and/or are stridently illogical. For example,

If [today] there are twice as many ex-smokers as smokers, it destroys [the health intervenors’] foundation that free choice doesn’t exist.

Even the tobacco companies in their PR, as well as at trial, haven’t drenched this spurious concept with so much eau de fanatique.

Under the heading “Social Penalties,” Ms. Silk argues against the”denormalization” of tobacco use, and cites a number of harsh opinion pieces and near-anecdotal newspaper accounts of smoker-vilifiication and even murder. Professional journalists must wince at the knowledge that newspaper articles have been cited in this, and apparently other trials, as almost inherently unreliable as evidence.

Ms. Silk lays out a fairly good case that it is smokers who will pay for any remedies, through price increases. However, she leaves out the impact of the plethora of new tobacco companies with their cut-rate pricing and increasing market share. This time, the costs to the industry will be greater than can be covered by price increases. Perhaps they will come from the companies’ own advertising, promotion, PR, government lobbying and litigation budgets. Perhaps we will see fewer TV ads blaming parents for their kids’ smoking.

With regard to the Intevenors’ remedy which would send corrective communications to the smokers on the companies’ databases, Ms. Silk claims indignantly,

We, the consumers, who voluntarily provided the information currently on the referenced databases for purposes far removed from those contemplated in the remedy now being proposed, do not consent to the use of this information by either the Defendants, Plaintiffs or Intervenors for these stated purposes without our individual written consent. This, in our opinion, is a form of uninvited harassment and an infringement on our privacy. Furthermore, there exists no provision for individuals to be notified of the unexpected use of their private information so that they can choose to be removed from the database(s). The inconsideration and disrespect for our privacy is galling.

In conclusion, Ms. Silk states,

While we acknowledge that we don’t have formal standing in this case, we maintain that final judgments in the Plaintiff’s and Intervenors’ favor will directly affect our interests in a tangible, immediate, and profoundly negative way. We only appeal to the court to consider our interests in its final determination.

Judge Kessler posted the letter–PDF’d from the same incredibly bad fax machine which has been the source of several other PDFs–on the Docket without comment, only a brief sentence:

“Enclosed, for your information, is correspondence which the Court has received pertaining to the above-titled case.”

**———————————————————

CLASS ACTS

The only thing I can say about the Guinto Family filing is how incredibly powerful the boundaries of class and education are in our society. In the venue of this courtroom, where truly the elite of America has been at war in this rarified theater, it can be shocking to see the intrusion of a society where some, like Ms. Silk, “lack … financial means.” The contrast is glaring, if inevitable, and to some extent, perhaps, it must be accepted.

But to see “Paupers” like the Guintos flailing away with their broken wings in our legal system’s cage is completely distressing.

**———————————————————

Text follows of:

C.L.A.S.H. letter to Judge Kessler (.doc) (Sept. 26, 2005)

Judge Kessler’s note on the C.L.A.S.H. letter (Oct. 3, 2005)

Guinto Complaint (Sept. 22, 2005)

Here is the link to the full Guinto Motion to Intervene (Sept. 22, 2005)

**———————————————————

Full text of C.L.A.S.H. letter to Judge Kessler (.doc) (Sept. 26, 2005):

**———————————————————

C.L.A.S.H.

P.O. Box 1036, Brooklyn, New York 11234

Phone: (718) 253-8626

Pager: (917) 888-9317

Fax: (718) 253-8626

Email: nycclash@nycclash.com

September 26, 2005

Judge Gladys Kessler

United States District Court

For The District of Columbia

333 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001

RE: Case of United States of America v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al

Dear Honorable Judge Kessler,

NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment (C.L.A.S.H.) is an organization dedicated to advancing, promoting and protecting the interests of adults who choose to smoke cigarettes. Its membership consists of private citizens from all over the country. We receive no funding from, and do not communicate with, any tobacco company.

In light of the fact that special interest groups (aka the “Public Health Intervenors”) have been granted permission to intervene in the case of United States of America v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al (“Defendants”), for the purpose of proposing specific “remedies” should the Defendants be found guilty, we too, ask to be heard, since the “remedies” they propose will have direct, negative and punitive consequences for the members of NYC C.L.A.S.H. (and, in fact, for all American consumers of tobacco).

In plain language The Tobacco Free Kids Action Fund, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights, and National African American Tobacco Prevention Network felt compelled to file their motion when the U.S. Department of Justice (“Plaintiff”) reduced the remedies it originally sought against the Defendants, in that the DOJ was “no longer adequately representing” their interests.

Regardless of the type or degree of remedies sought, this case, from its beginnings, and now with this latest development of outside groups claiming to have a stake in the outcome, begs the question: Who’s looking out for us?!

If the Public Health Intervenors’ “remedies” were actually imposed, it is we, not the Defendants, who would actually pay – monetarily (through higher cigarette prices) and socially (as a result of anti-smoking ad campaigns that historically have demonized the cigarette smoker as much as the cigarette). Our interests are in dire need of equal judicial protection. While the Public Health Intervenors’ legal involvement is the result of a no-confidence vote on the part of the DOJ’s handling of the case, we equally have no confidence that the Defendants consider our interests at all. Any settlement agreed to by the Defendants will be done without our say.

Unlike either the Public Health Intervenors or the Defendants, we do not have the financial means to hire professional legal counsel, and beg the court for consideration by means of this letter.

However, we’d like to add that were this an official legal request, NYC C.L.A.S.H. would in fact have legal standing as already established by Federal Judge Victor Marrero in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Case # 03 Civ. 5463 (VM) “NYC CLASH v. City of New York…) (“Accordingly, the Court finds that CLASH has sufficiently demonstrated that it has associational standing to bring this action.” p. 12)

That our request for equal judicial protection has merit rests on the following historical evidence.

Monetary Penalties

Unarguably smokers, not the tobacco industry, pay, have paid and will pay in perpetuity, the penalties incurred by the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) between the tobacco industry and the 46 states. Increasing the price of cigarettes covered the cost of the settlement:

“Cigarette price increases have passed on those settlement costs to smokers.” [The deal was criticized as] “…accomplishing little but a very large transfer of wealth from smokers (through the tobacco companies) to state treasuries. On the day the settlement was signed, the major cigarette companies raised prices by 45 cents a pack to cover the cost of the annual payments.”

- (CRS Report for Congress; RL30058: Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (1998): Overview, Implementation by States, and Congressional Issues; C. Stephen Redhead, Specialist in Public and Environmental Health, Domestic Social Policy Division; Updated November 5, 1999)

“The MSA enabled the tobacco companies to raise prices on cigarettes nationwide — not just in participating states — to finance the deal. All smokers would pay the costs…” “To add injustice to insult, the MSA takes money from predominately low- to middle-income smokers and transfers it to wealthy trial lawyers…”

- (Unconstitutional Cartel; Mark Hillman, Treasurer, Colorado State; Wall Street Journal, September 20, 2005)

Once again, in the current case, any monetary judgments imposed on the Defendants will be instantly turned around and imposed on the smokers – a result both intended and clearly spelled out by the Intervenors themselves:

“In order to achieve the 10.5 percent reduction proposed by the Government, a

15.5 percent increase in the price of cigarettes would be required…”

(Intervenors’ Post Trial Brief, Section C, sub 1, sub c / p. 77)

(2)

Social Penalties

While we argue that the Defendants are not protecting our interests, we also argue strongly that the Intervenors aren’t either. No matter how much they profess to speak for smokers – repeatedly referring to us all as “addicted” at the convenient times throughout their brief to support the paternal notion that we’re helpless and addled and in need of their protection, as well as, implicitly, protection from ourselves – we emphatically state that they do not speak for us. We do not relinquish our individual interests – or the definition of our interests to any such third party.

Adults who freely choose to smoke cigarettes will not only pay any court-imposed fines intended to punish the tobacco companies, but will also be paying for the ad campaigns proposed – and, if adopted, overseen – by the Intervenors who proposed them. Historically, the kind of campaigns they support don’t stop at “education” about the health risks of smoking. As we’ll demonstrate below, these ads are designed to promote hatred of smokers and to demean them as human beings. And unfortunately, these ads have succeeded in those goals! As the Intervenors know, cigarettes don’t smoke themselves. People smoke them. So in order to promote their campaign against smoking they willfully and knowingly attack and vilify the smokers. Their stated goal here is to “denormalize” smokers, and to make the act of smoking “socially unacceptable.” We contend that we should not be forced to subsidize speech that attacks and demeans us.

Below are just a few examples among hundreds:

- TV ads from the California and Massachusetts Departments of Health, as cited in the Boston Phoenix, May, 6, 1994:

“One of the television ads …features a cartoon character, a smoker, who laments with Woody-Allen-like angst that he can’t quit. ‘Ah,’he says,‘it’s no use. I’m scum. I’ve always been scum.’”

- TV ad, American Heart Association, 1998:

“A gas chamber is a chamber filled with poisonous gas. If you’re with someone who’s smoking, you’re in one right now.”

- From Foundation for a Smokefree America’s web site at www.tobaccofree.org/univ….

Spokesman Patrick Reynolds “opens students’ eyes to the truth about tobacco ad campaigns which have targeted them. He uses humorous spoofs of cigarette ads. About the Malboro Country ad [below], he points out, “These smokers are gathered outside, because they aren’t welcome inside the building. Today, being a nonsmoker is the norm. If you smoke, you’re often not welcome around others.”

(3)

Note that it is not the cigarette ads that Mr. Reynolds spoofs, it is the smokers he denigrates.

That these ads are, in fact, directed at smokers is straightforwardly stated by public health spokesmen (emphasis ours):

- FromThe Christian Science Publishing Society; 1997

“Our idea is to make California a hostile environment for smoking,” says James Stratton, the state’s deputy director for prevention services. “We want to denormalize and deglamorize tobacco.”

- Dr. Jesse Steinfeld, former U.S. Surgeon General (Toledo Blade, 1/6/98)

“If somebody had told me that smoking would become an anathema and smokers would become pariahs, I would have said it would take two generations to accomplish that. It’s happened in 25 years, so I guess we did it in a single generation.”

- NY Newsday; 7/26/03

“Now, the image we have of a smoker is the person standing in the rain having a cigarette and that is hardly the glamorous image we had in the ’40s and ’50s,” said Russell Sciandra, head of the Center for a Tobacco-Free New York. “That’s going to have a tremendous impact on children’s perception of smoking.”

- Bridgeton News (NJ), 9/19/05

“A conference focusing on the dangers of second-hand smoke as well as a pending piece of smoking legislation will be held on Oct. 5. Titled, “You’re Killing Me,” the conference is being sponsored by the Southwest Council and Cumberland County Communities Against Tobacco”.

To emphasize our point: That “You’re” refers to the smoker, not the smoke.

(4)

To further illustrate that anti-smoking campaigns are interpreted as anti-smoker campaigns, we provide, as one example, a headline found in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (6/26/90):

“Study says smokers kill non-smokers”

One might be tempted to argue that the denigration of smokers as a means to convey the message not to smoke conveys that message alone. However, the evidence exists that these ads provoke hate speech and calls for aggressive behavior toward smokers – that their existence sanctions it in fact.

To wit:

Andrea Peyser is a columnist for the NY Post (named the 2005 Columnist of the Year by the New York State Associated Press Association) and, as such, a normally responsible member of society. But obviously something is driving her belief that it’s okay to write:

Message to cigarette junkies: You’ve lost. Get over yourselves. You can’t kill us now.

For the first time since Sir Walter Raleigh thought it would be a goof to stick a carcinogen in his mouth and light the thing on fire, smokers were banished from bars to the street corners and alleys where they belong, to indulge their pathetic habit with like-minded losers. The ugly truth is that smokers are not anything like junkies or alcoholics or prostitutes or anyone else who feels powerless over a hideous addiction. They are far, far worse. Smokers are alone among the degenerates of society in that they share their poison with everyone within breathing vicinity.

- “Cancer Sticking It To Whining Nico-Fiends”; NY Post, March 31, 2003

And more from Ms. Peyser (illustrating additionally that it’s good for youth to think like this):

His brother, Sam, is even more withering. “[Cigarette smoke’s] disgusting,” said Sam, 21. “My friends think [the smoking ban’s] great,” said Sam. As for Sam, he’d like to see smokers fined $1,000 for leaving butts on the sidewalk. And to have the “murderers” found liable for passive-smoke ills. Burned at the stake, perhaps? One thing at a time.

- “Breathing a Big Sigh of Relief”; NY Post, June, 6, 2003

Ms. Peyser is not alone. We have reams of such material by “responsible” journalists and private individuals. However, we’ll only provide you a few more examples:

Scum of society. There are more laws governing them than practically any other group. The media targets them more and more. There are commercials and multi-million dollar ads to make sure that the youth of America does not become future dregs that cloud up and make the world miserable for the rest of us. They can be found in every facet and group in the world. We hate them and we love to hate them. Smokers. While not a smoker myself, I’ve noticed a slight irony about them. Most everyone, liberal and conservative, hates smokers. In my opinion, at times smokers get more crap than any other racial, sexual or religious group, mainly because we allow them to be hated. The amount of

(5)

legislation focused on smoking worldwide is astounding. These laws act as green lights for the rest of the world to put people down based on a specific habit. Smokers are shunned; we give them dirty looks when we are forced to pass through their smoke. I do it too, even if I know its mean.

- “Smoking Out the Smoking Irony” by Garrett McCord; The California Aggie, April 19, 2004

This last author, Mr. McCord, not only “testifies” on our behalf over our claim that public health campaigns against smoking are intended to, and result in, hatred of a group of people, but drives home one of the most important facts that we plea with the court to consider: If it was any other group this kind of speech would be condemned.

To go one step further, we can prove that this speech does lead to physical consequences:

A 13-year-old New Smyrna Beach boy was beaten to death Friday by a 15-year-old boy who thought the victim had given cigarettes to the older boy’s little brother, authorities said.

- Orlando Sentinel; September 21, 2002

Most people cringe at the sight of a pregnant woman smoking. Some people feel strongly enough to say something in protest. But one local man took matters into his own hands early Friday when, according to police, he shot an expectant mother who refused to put out her cigarette.

- Times Picayune, October 5, 2002

Police began to consider the gang a domestic terrorist group after a series of violent attacks in the mid-to-late 1990s when Straight Edgers firebombed a McDonald’s and a leather store, blew up a mink farm and murdered a teenager for smoking in downtown Salt Lake City.

- Salt Lake Tribune, April 2004

In light of these examples (and there are many more we could offer) we repeat our argument that we should not be forced to subsidize any form of speech that has and will be used against our interests.

Infringements on Consumer Interests and Privacy

Whereas in the United States’ Notice of Filing Proposed Final Judgement and Order Pursuant to Order #964-A, Section III, sub V, sub 4, it states:

Conveying any express or implied health message or health descriptor for any cigarette brand in the brand name or on any packaging, advertising or other

(6)

promotional, informational or other material. Forbidden health descriptors include the words “light,” “ultra light,” “mild,” “natural,” and any other descriptors which reasonably could be expected to result in a consumer’s believing that the cigarette brand may result in a lower risk of disease or is less hazardous than other cigarettes.

As consumers of this product we disagree that “light,” “ultra light,” or “mild” has anything to do with being a “health descriptor” and protest this remedy to deny us information about the product we buy. Those terms actually describe taste and degrees of harshness. This would be the equivalent of barring coffee consumers from being able to discern by the packaging whether the blend they are buying is “smooth (mild),” “rich (medium)” or “bold (dark)” (reference Maxwell House Coffee) to suit their preference.

Whereas in the United States’ Notice of Filing Proposed Final Judgement and Order Pursuant to Order #964-A, Section III, sub V, sub 5, sub a, it states:

No Defendant shall utilize any Price Promotion in the marketing of the top five cigarette brands smoked by Youth aged 12 to 20 as determined by the NSDUH.

The “top five brands” ostensibly smoked by “youth” are undoubtedly the top five brands smoked by adults. Once again, any adults who smoke these five brands will be denied the opportunity to get any break in price. Or, in other words, again will be “fined” for alleged crimes allegedly done by others.

Whereas in the United States’ Notice of Filing Proposed Final Judgment and Order Pursuant to Order #964-A, Section III, sub IV, sub E, sub b, it states:

Each of the 12 onserts created pursuant to Section IV.E.3.a of this Final Judgment and Order shall also be formatted as a brochure by appropriate consultants retained by the IO for distribution by direct mail and sent by Defendant Cigarette Manufacturers to every adult smoker in the Direct Mail Marketing Database maintained by any Defendant Cigarette Manufacturer.

AND whereas in the Post-Trial Brief of Plaintiff-Intervenors, Section IV, sub A, sub 1, sub d, it states:

In addition to these responsibilities, the Public Health Intervenors recommend that the CAO should have the authority to develop and disseminate its own cessation public education messages, with no input from the defendants, to all smokers on any and all consumer marketing databases held by or controlled by the defendants.

We, the consumers, who voluntarily provided the information currently on the referenced databases for purposes far removed from those contemplated in the remedy now being proposed, do not consent to the use of this information by either the Defendants, Plaintiffs or Intervenors for these stated purposes without our individual written consent. This, in our opinion, is a form of uninvited harassment and an infringement on our privacy. Furthermore, there exists no provision for individuals to be notified of the unexpected use of their private information so that they can choose to be removed from the database(s). The inconsideration and disrespect for our privacy is galling.

(7)

In closing we’d like to both anticipate and counter a predictable response from the Intervenors. Following their established pattern, we surmise that they will seek to dismiss our concerns as being expressed by people “too addicted” to be able to stop smoking without their intervention or sheep who have been duped by the “evil” tobacco industry.

Richard Peto, Professor of Medical Statistics & Epidemiology at the University of Oxford, and best known for his work on the effects of smoking, told WebMD on August 2, 2000 (“It’s Never Too Late to Kick the Habit”): “We have twice as many ex-smokers as smokers.”

The majority of those ex-smokers quit without any (personal or pharmaceutical) aid. If there are twice as many ex-smokers as smokers, it destroys their foundation that free choice doesn’t exist.

We do indeed know smoking is risky. Many people who smoke choose the risks freely because their enjoyment outweighs those risks. To quote Radley Balko, policy analyst for the Cato Institute, “Healthists value longevity over a life well-lived. Abstention over indulgence. They believe adding years to the end of your life is the primary reason for living.” Of our choices we choose a life well-lived and to indulge. We don’t impose our choices on the Intervenors. Neither should they impose their choices on us. And did we mention tobacco is legal?

While we acknowledge that we don’t have formal standing in this case, we maintain that final judgments in the Plaintiff’s and Intervenors’ favor will directly affect our interests in a tangible, immediate, and profoundly negative way. We only appeal to the court to consider our interests in its final determination.

Respectfully,

Audrey Silk

Founder

www.nycclash.com

(8)

**———————————————————

Full Text of Judge Kessler’s note on the C.L.A.S.H. letter (Oct. 3, 2005):

**———————————————————

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 99-2496 (GK)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

and

TOBACCO-FREE KIDS ACTION FUND, et at,

Intervenors,

V.

PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., f/k/a PHILIP MORRIS INC., et al,

NOTICE

Enclosed, for your information, is correspondence which the Court has received pertaining to the above-titled case.

Gladys Kessler

United States District Judge

October 3, 2005

Copies via ECF to all counsel of record

**———————————————————

Full text of the Guinto Complaint

**———————————————————

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 99-CV-2496 (OK)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

and

TOBACCO-FREE KIDS ACTION FUND, et al.

Intervenors,

V.

PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.

f/k/a Philip Morris, Inc. at.

Defendants.

PROPOSED COMPLAINT BY THE GUINTO FAMILY (THE GUINTOS) - FATHER RAY,
MOTHER MARY, CHILDREN MICHAEL, DANIEL, AND JULIE

The proposed intervenors do not seek to present any additional cause of action, evidence in this case, nor do they seek to test any of the evidence that has already been produced in the Governments Amended Complaint. Rather, at this juncture, they seek only the opportunity to submit a brief concerning the issue of permissible and appropriate remedies.

The Guintos have been married for 24 years since 1981. The first 13 years of marriage they did not have cigarette smoking in their lives. The next 11 years of their marriage to 2005 and ongoing has been a battle to stop the Defendants’ Product of cigarette smoking from hurting us. The Guintos have been suffering for 11 years and

**———————————————————

ongoing smoking tobacco cigarettes filled with nicotine addiction injuries. The Guintos smoke even though the Guintos don’t want to smoke.

The defendants’ know the Guintos did not want or mean to start smoking. The
defendants’ have enabled the Parents and their Children injuries to continue for 11 years
and ongoing. The defendants’ have refused to take responsibility for their product. For 8 years and ongoing the defendants’ have refused to help us with our smoking addiction injuries _even though they know we did not want or mean to smoke_ (emphasis added). The Parents and their Children are harmed by their smoking addiction injuries.. The Guinto Family is exposed to the dangers of smoking cigarettes that cause imminent illness, and death. The defendants’ know that they are injuring the Guintos.

It started 11 years ago while a parent while in a hospital was being treated for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) for an extended amount of time. The patient when not in a sound state of mind was cutting self and other things–the parent during this time began smoking cigarettes. The parent developed a severe cigarette smoking addiction while the patient got better.

In the Guinto Family each member is affected by one another, as children affect
parents and parents affect their children when injured. The Guinto Family did not want or
mean to become a cigarette smoker. So, the Guintos received treatment from Doctors and Therapists for their Cigarette Addiction Injury. Patient Medical Records show before and
after cigarette smoking addiction injury occurred. The Guintos have tried every product
on the market to stop — “The Patch”, “The Nicotine Own”, and “The Smoke Away” to
name a few, with no results. The Guintos have not been able to quit for 11 years and
ongoing. One of the children during this time began cigarette smoking. The child also developed a smoking addiction injury.

The Guinto Family addiction injury did not get better, desperate, the Guintos asked the defendants’ for help with their smoking addiction injuries. The defendants’ replied by mailing information to the Guinto Family. The defendants’ responded by denying that cigarettes are addictive - that nicotine in tobacco would first have to be proven to be addictive by at least 2 Ex Expert Witness by the Guinto Family - before the Guinto Family can present their case with their doctors and therapists who treated them for tobacco addiction injury. Because the defendants’ deliberately gave the Guinto Family an Undue Hardship knowing that they are Paupers unable to pay for the ten’s of thousand of dollars for expert witnesses — the Guinto Family did not have the money to get expert witnesses so the case could not move forward– the defendants’ had the Guintos medical records, so the defendants’ knew that the Guintos did not want or mean to become cigarette smokers– the defendants’ have only enabled the Guintos injuries to continue. Instead the defendants’ keep the Guintos addicted to their product– the defendants’ have an obligation to know about their own products, Which they do, and to voluntarily do the right thing, but instead they do “future wrongful conduct” to hurt the Guinto Family.

The Guinto Family never stopped asking the defendants’ for help even up to and
during the Government’s RICO lawsuit. The defendants’ have always responded to keep
the Guintos injury addicted to their product. Many times the defendants’ could off helped us in the past and choice to do “future wrongful conduct”. Even know the defendants’ still choice to do “future wrongful conduct.

About two moths ago The Department of the Federal Attorney Office In Massachusetts told the Guinto Family to contact the Civil Department in Washington D.C. The Civil Department of Washington D.C. referred us to The Tobacco Division handling the Government RICO case. On the phone Daniel Crane Hearst of The Tobacco Division said they could not help us.

Indeed, this lawsuit is pertinent to the goals of the Guinto Family, which are to free the Guintos from tobacco addiction and thereby protect children and adults from serious and debilitating health problems caused by tobacco addiction; to protect the Guinto Family rights to breathe smoke-free air in the house. Accordingly, the Guinto Family interests in this matter are entirely consistent with each of the respective overall purpose.

The Guintos do not make any additional claims in this case. The existing parties do not represent the Guintos interests.

Respectfully submitted,

________

The Guinto Family — Father Raymond Guinto, Mother Mary C. Guinto, Children - Michael Joseph Guinto, Daniel T. Guinto, and Julie A. Guinto.

2 Elmwood Street

Everett, MA 02149

617-389-0152

September 22, 2005

**———————————————————

Here is the link to the full Guinto Motion to Intervene 9/22/05

4 Responses to “Drug Intervention Classes”

  1. krueger Says:

    Strange fizzlings at the end of a long journey, I guess.

    One small note regarding Silk’s statement: “if [today] there are twice as many ex-smokers as smokers, it destroys [the health intervenors’] foundation that free choice doesn’t exist.”

    You observe that even the tobacco companies in their PR, as well as at trial, haven’t drenched this spurious concept with so much eau de fanatique. True; instead the industry pushes the same concept in their PR but worded ever so much more carefully.

    Example: 2004 Philip Morris pamphlet says “every day, people show it can be done. As of 2002, more than half of the people who have ever smoked had successfully quit.”

    This is softer variation of a claim Philip Morris had made 10 years before that: nicotine wasn’t addictive because “People can and do quit smoking, according to the 1988 Surgeon General’s report, there are more than 40 million former smokers in the United States”
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/settlement/timelines/april94.html

    My guess is, Silk makes tobacco industry executives cringe. She’s saying basically the same thing as industry PR, but without the magic wording of top-flight industry PR talent. That probably doesn’t help them any.

    http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/archives/2004/10/04/were-from-philip-morris-and-were-here-to-help-you

  2. tobacco observer Says:

    This nonsense is indirectly Kessler’s fault for opening up this suit to any third party that feels like it has some interest in the tobacco industry. If you declare an open party, you shouldn’t be too suprised on what wanders in off the street.

    My guess is that the effect of these “interventions” will be approximately the same as all the others from the larger, more well-funded (and more articulate) groups. . .ie zero.

    None of them, including the curious musings of the Guintos, have so far managed to articulate a single coherent remedy plan that abides by the clear DCCA directive that civil RICO remedies be prospective and specifically tailored to prevent and restrain future RICO violations.

    Consequently, no matter how earnest, sad, or pathetic the appeal, they cannot form a basis for action in this case.

  3. Daniel Redford Says:

    I think this case should have ended long ago. Tobacco is a legal product that we have been warned of the harmful effects for decades. I am 51 years old and my grandfathers called cigarettes “cancer sticks”. I was taught from the forth grade up(in school) to never smoke and showed films of lungs of smokers and non-smokers. The smokers pay more than their share of taxes already and pay for the MSA between states and tobacco companies and will pay for any other penalties you may impose. The USA government,states and localities tax the smoker far more than should be allowed and all of these extra billions and billions of dollars are not going toward health related issues-but toward anything and everything else. Stop this now and dismiss the case between the USA and the Tobacco Industry NOW please. This has cost all parties too much as it is. And guess what—the taxpayers and smokers (also BIG taxpayers) will pay for it all!

  4. james wilshere Says:

    Mr Borio, Audrey Silk is on the ballot for the new york city mayoral race, I think you might be slightly misinformed as to the so called “few” clash members she represents!

Leave a Reply

The primary purpose of this site is to provide information in a timely manner. Postings should be informative. The usual rules apply: No libel, no profanity, no personal abuse, keep it on topic, and short.

If you are scheduled as a court witness, CHECK with your lawyer before posting anything here!