Comments on: Drug Intervention Classes

By: james wilshere

james wilshere — Sun, 09 Oct 2005 00:24:56 +0000

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!

By: Daniel Redford

Daniel Redford — Sat, 08 Oct 2005 13:20:40 +0000

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!

By: tobacco observer

tobacco observer — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 22:13:27 +0000

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.

By: krueger

krueger — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 21:39:56 +0000

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