The tobacco companies must be pleased at how the landmark anti-smoking settlement made 10 years ago with 46 states is working out.
Implicit in the 1998 settlement, which exempts the tobacco companies from most forms of litigation, was that the states would spend a good portion of the $294 billion they'd be divvying up over the next 25 years on anti-smoking campaigns.
Sadly, on average only 4 percent of that money has been used to campaign against smoking. South Carolina this year didn't devote one dime to the program.
Small wonder that after several years of decline, teenage smoking in most states has begun to pick up again. That's good news for Big Tobacco -- it makes it easier for them to recruit new smokers.
In addition to anti-smoking programs, the states were also expected to spend billions to fight tobacco-related illnesses. Expressing widespread expectations at the time, one of the state attorneys-general who negotiated the pact said, "We should spend this money to fund cancer research, offer health insurance to the poor, keep kids from smoking and arrest those who sell tobacco to our children."
Yet, of the $61.5 billion the 46 states shared between 2000 and 2006, only 30 percent went toward health care, says the federal Government Accountability Office. That's pathetic.
The other 70 percent or so of the money has been spent on everything but health care.
Some of the spending might have been for good causes, such as boosting college scholarships, improving schools, hiring more police, etc., but it shouldn't have come out of tobacco settlement money.
Especially shameful was the money spent on "bridge to nowhere" programs such as buying new carts and sprinklers for a New York golf course, and for tax breaks in Illinois and Ohio.
Most, if not all, of the states involved in the settlement are having an awful time in the current economic downturn maintaining their Medicaid obligations and health insurance programs for kids. Had they been spending their tobacco money as originally intended, they wouldn't be having that problem.
This newspaper was one among many critics who pointed out 10 years ago that, though we approved of the settlement in principle, we doubted very much that the money would be spent as promised.
Politicians are notorious for breaking promises, and we suspected they'd pull a bait-and-switch again.
This is one time we wish we'd been wrong.
Comments
The huge settlements with tobacco companies was a tax on smokers since it was paid for by increasing the price of tobacco. The fact that the states squandered the "free" money is par for the course. Who's surprised? Only the very misinformed. This may be a good time for another huge settlement.
Didn't the AC editorial staff write an editorial last week that stated the exact opposite? Please refresh my memory.
shivas, if your memory had a refresh button, I'm sure you would have used it by now.
This will all change on Jan 20 th. President elect Obama would never use the old bait & switch tactic. Remember his campaign promises. He will lower taxes for everyone earning less than $250,000 and he will balance the budget in his first term.
I am shocked -- SHOCKED! -- to learn that government agencies have not spent money as it was intended to be spent! In fact, I don't believe it! One might as well suggest that New Orleans spent decades of levee upgrade funds on things like bridge widening, and tourist marketing campaigns. Absurd. CLEARLY, the states have simply made it LOOK like they spent the $ on other things, so as to trick the evil tobacco companies. When their sneaky, sneaky plan comes to fruition, it will be clear that all children refuse to smoke, cancer has been cured, and the tobacco companies are now growing bunnies.
The only thing that could possible shock me is the realization that I am not shocked in the first place...These people don't care who are what happens as long as their bottom line is healthy....:-)
Now that we have defeated the evil tobacco companies, we need to broaden our horizons to start taxing other vices to make up for the poss in tax revenue. I would suggest Alcohol, followed by fast food outlets ( a huge health problem) and finally Gasoline distributors that are selling products that really affect our breathing. A final consideration would be the largest pulluter in the nation which is GOLF courses. Wereally need to ban the use of fertilizers and pesticides on golf courses to stop the ground water polution they are creating. By the way an idea for the tobacco problem may be to have some cessation programs, although that would dry up the tax income faster if people quit!
I know older people who have gotten into smoking may not have known better, but for the past 30 years or more we have been told that smoking can cause cancer, etc so for people that have started in the last 30 years I do not feel entirely bad for them. I do not like smoking, but this is a free (pretty free anyways) country. With the right to choose to smoke comes the responsibility of accepting the repurcussions. I see alot of Truth commercials on tv against smoking. They may not be paid for by the state, but either way there is anti smoking campaigns out there. Local governments are coming up with smoking bans for public areas. Right now with the economy hurting we may not want to cripple big tobacco too much. If they still employ alot of US citizens we might need them right now sadly.
When you start talking about banning alcohol and golf, then that's the day I turn into a gun-totin', patriciathomas lovin, right-wing nut. Well, I think I do have some sort of pervervish affinity towards patriciathomas, but I can't really remember. Too much alcohol, I am sure.
I'm with my best bud shivas on this one!!!
So what's new ?
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
