Contrary to press reports that "public health" or "antismoking" organizations are participating in settlement talks with the tobacco industry, the major national health organizations have all quit "so that we can maintain our objectivity and properly play our role as advocates for the public . . ."
Virtually all of the national antismoking organizations þ those groups which are concerned solely with smoking þ have been shut out of the talks from their inception, possibly because they strongly oppose any settlement along the terms originally proposed by the tobacco industry.
While Dr. Lonnie Bristow, President of the American Medical Association (AMA), has now joined the talks, the AMA is organized primarily to represent the interests of doctors rather than the general public health, and has a checkered history in terms of its position on the smoking issue.
Thus, argues law professor John Banzhaf, Executive Director of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), those now at the negotiating table can hardly claim to represent the antismoking or public health community.
The trial lawyers, for example, stand to make billions of dollars from any negotiated settlement with very little work, and are generally regarded as untrustworthy by the public.
And, notes Banzhaf, they are obligated by the ethical rules of their profession to represent the monetary interests of their clients, rather than any general notion of the public health and welfare.
The Attorneys General likewise primarily represent the financial interests of the states and its taxpayers in recovering billions of dollars, and have no legal obligation to represent the health interests of younger Americans, especially in other states.
The office of Attorney General is also generally viewed as a stepping stone to higher public office. Thus, says Banzhaf, many may assume that the willingness of some of the Attorneys General to accept a quick settlement would be motivated as least in part by political considerations.