Cracks in the Tobacco Cartel
At Forbes.com, Scott Woolley offers an update (sign-up required) on the seemingly quixotic efforts of tiny discount cigarette companies to fight the cartel established by the 1998 deal that settled state lawsuits against the leading tobacco companies. Amazingly, upstart tobacco companies are required to pay about 40 cents a pack toward the settlement even though they were not parties to the deal and did not even exist at the time of the torts alleged in the state lawsuits. The explicit aim is to prevent them from underselling the major firms and taking market share from them, which might endanger the states' tobacco profits.
"It is very common for vice to masquerade as virtue," noted one 2nd Circuit judge who heard a challenge to this cozy deal, which would be a clear violation of antitrust law if it hadn't been blessed by 46 attorneys general. Woolley reports that "a second zinger came after a deputy attorney general for New York declared that to believe the states had sold out to Big Tobacco, you would have to assume that 46 attorneys general are liars. 'That's tempting,' Judge Guido Calabresi shot back. 'It may be that when the states were offered a stake in a monopoly, they took it.'"
[Thanks to Christine Hall-Reis for the link.]
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Mr. Sullum,
Thanks for pointing this out.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em!
you would have to assume that 46 attorneys general are liars.
No problem here...don't we already assume they're lying by virtue of their moving lips? Why the sudden unwillingness to point out that an attorney general is just as likely to lie (or perhaps skirt the truth) in order to secure a victory or payday for the state s/he eventually wants to be governor of as any glove-waving defense attorney?
I'm thrilled that on the surface it would appear that at least one overblown lawyer in a black robe knows he's just that.
"Why the sudden unwillingness to point out that an attorney general is just as likely to lie (or perhaps skirt the truth) in order to secure a victory or payday for the state s/he eventually wants to be governor of as any glove-waving defense attorney?"
rst,
Like me,you must be from Washington State. Or does this happen often?
Calabresi for Prez.
Nah dude, Boston. Vacuous litigation is our bread and butter.
Wow, Chrissie has a doppelganger in Taxachusetts.
I feel so much healthier since we won that class action, don't you?
40 freakin' cents a pack! If that were espresso, by God, it'd be time for another Tea Party.
There are few groups of people on earth more worthless than the State Attorney Generals. The whole tobacco was just a ruse to raise taxes and steal money from smokers. The entire thing is about as disgracful of an episode in American jurispurdence as you can find.
49 lawyers are offered a deal for $250 *BILLION* dollars, and we're supposed to believe there was *NO* lying involved? Excuse me, I must be on the wrong planet.
The sad thing is that the public generally believes Big Tobacco is paying this bill: they're not... the money is all being levied as a unlegislated tax directly on smokers. And smokers weren't even invited to the conference table.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://cantiloper.tripod.com
The MSA will be judged historically as 100% worse than Prohibition. The states were not dependant on liquor taxes as they are on tobacco taxes today. The states went on an unprecidented spending spree upon signing the evil deal and they need ever increasing amounts of revenue to keep spending.
Smokers are switching brands and going on strike against the ever increasing taxation and regulation by the states. Support the new companies brands.
Help derail the gravy train and let your governor know you won't be the state patsy anymore. Demand change and you will get it.
http://change101.tripod.com/
Jan
"The entire thing is about as disgracful of an episode in American jurispurdence as you can find."
If only this were true. Alas, it's up against some stiff competition.
"which would be a clear violation of antitrust law if it hadn't been blessed by 46 attorneys general."
So what exempts the states themselves from being subject to the same federal anti-trust laws that is applied to business?
Gilbert, they are exempt because they're the gub'mint.
This means that either
A. They can do no wrong, so they must be right.
B. They're corrupt, bend over and take it.