Ask the Scholar
Page 4 of 101
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
Tobacco- Liability
Tobacco Liability
T
HE ADMINISTRATION suggested some
summer with the state attorneys general who had
conditions the other day for granting the
sued them.
tobacco companies the limited liability they
What the companies seek from the deal-what
seek as part of a broad tobacco bill. The position it
they thought or hoped they were buying last
took was general and more than a little vague. That
summer-are the liability limits that only Con-
irked some members of both parties, who, in the
gress can grant. The industry thinks these will
name of leadership, want more. But for now, we
provide it with a steady platform, which it currently
think there's virtue in such fuzz. The liability
lacks, on which to continue to do business into the
question, as the administration itself suggested in
future, even if on a reduced scale. Mr. Ogden said
its testimony before the House Judiciary Commit-
the other day that any such provisions should be
tee, is absolutely the last that ought to be settled.
written to "make more achievable the recovery of
First are all the other aspects of the bill-what will
appropriate compensation for deserving injured
be done to discourage smoking, what the industry
parties than historically has been the case."
will give. Then will be time enough to measure and
One question he raised was whether that might
decide what if anything it ought to get in return.
require a larger fund than was contemplated in the
The testimony was from the Justice Depart-
deal last summer, which put annual limits on what
ment. "If there is agreement on a comprehensive
the tobacco companies could be called upon to pay.
bill that advances the public health by fulfilling the
He suggested that Congress might want to ask the
president's five principles," said David Ogden,
companies for their own "calculations and research
counselor to the attorney general, "then reason-
concerning the likely dollar requirements of those
able provisions modifying the civil liability of the
injured by tobacco products." The deal last sum-
tobacco industry would not be a deal breaker."
mer also involved a ban on punitive damages for
That's hardly a bowlful of enthusiasm; it sounded
past behavior and on class actions. Mr. Ogden
suggested that a cap on punitive damages might be
about right to us.
an alternative to a ban and that Congress, if it
The five principles are to deter young people
agreed to limit class actions, needed to think about
from smoking by taxing or otherwise driving up
other mechanisms "to improve injured tobacco
the price by as much as $1.50 a pack after inflation
users' access to justice," meaning give them some
over 10 years; reaffirm the full authority of the
other way to collect.
Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco
But the problem of how much and how to
products; secure an industry agreement to limit
transfer money from the companies to people for
advertising and abandon other marketing tech-
damage that tobacco already has done, while
niques, particularly those aimed at young people;
hardly trifling, seems to us to be far less important
put in place assorted anti-smoking programs; and
than the problem of how to prevent further
provide some protection for tobacco farmers and
damage. First, they should do what they can to
their communities. The price-increasing payments
deter smoking; then will be time enough to clean
the president rightly seeks are larger than those to
up after it and provide the companies with their
which the companies agreed in negotiations last
platform. If, in fact, Congress wants to do that at all.
The Washington Post
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9. 1998!
Page data
- Page
- 4
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- photo
- Media ID
- e8f9d4871984ce39
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 26413612
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "26413612",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26413612",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Tobacco Liability [1]",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26413612",
"collections": [
"Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)",
"Bruce Reed's Tobacco Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/12/4136/26413612/content/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2011-0299-S-Tobacco/2011-0299-S-Tobacco-JPG/Box_270/42-t-7367462-20110299S-270-013-2015/42_t_7367462_20110299S_270_013_2015_Page_001.JPG",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/12/4136/26413612/content/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2011-0299-S-Tobacco/2011-0299-S-Tobacco-JPG/Box_270/42-t-7367462-20110299S-270-013-2015/42_t_7367462_20110299S_270_013_2015_Page_001.JPG",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/12/4136/26413612/content/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2011-0299-S-Tobacco/2011-0299-S-Tobacco-JPG/Box_270/42-t-7367462-20110299S-270-013-2015/42_t_7367462_20110299S_270_013_2015_Page_001.JPG",
"imageCount": 101,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "26413612",
"label": "Tobacco Liability [1]",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26413612"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "26413612",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26413612",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Tobacco Liability [1]",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26413612",
"collections": [
"Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)",
"Bruce Reed's Tobacco Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/12/4136/26413612/content/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2011-0299-S-Tobacco/2011-0299-S-Tobacco-JPG/Box_270/42-t-7367462-20110299S-270-013-2015/42_t_7367462_20110299S_270_013_2015_Page_001.JPG",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/12/4136/26413612/content/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2011-0299-S-Tobacco/2011-0299-S-Tobacco-JPG/Box_270/42-t-7367462-20110299S-270-013-2015/42_t_7367462_20110299S_270_013_2015_Page_001.JPG",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/12/4136/26413612/content/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2011-0299-S-Tobacco/2011-0299-S-Tobacco-JPG/Box_270/42-t-7367462-20110299S-270-013-2015/42_t_7367462_20110299S_270_013_2015_Page_001.JPG",
"imageCount": 101,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26413612",
"naId": 26413612,
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"otherTitles": [
"42-t-7367462-20110299S-270-013-2015"
],
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 4,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "photo",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/12/4136/26413612/content/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2011-0299-S-Tobacco/2011-0299-S-Tobacco-JPG/Box_270/42-t-7367462-20110299S-270-013-2015/42_t_7367462_20110299S_270_013_2015_Page_004.JPG",
"mediaId": "e8f9d4871984ce39",
"ocrText": "Tobacco- Liability\nTobacco Liability\nT\nHE ADMINISTRATION suggested some\nsummer with the state attorneys general who had\nconditions the other day for granting the\nsued them.\ntobacco companies the limited liability they\nWhat the companies seek from the deal-what\nseek as part of a broad tobacco bill. The position it\nthey thought or hoped they were buying last\ntook was general and more than a little vague. That\nsummer-are the liability limits that only Con-\nirked some members of both parties, who, in the\ngress can grant. The industry thinks these will\nname of leadership, want more. But for now, we\nprovide it with a steady platform, which it currently\nthink there's virtue in such fuzz. The liability\nlacks, on which to continue to do business into the\nquestion, as the administration itself suggested in\nfuture, even if on a reduced scale. Mr. Ogden said\nits testimony before the House Judiciary Commit-\nthe other day that any such provisions should be\ntee, is absolutely the last that ought to be settled.\nwritten to \"make more achievable the recovery of\nFirst are all the other aspects of the bill-what will\nappropriate compensation for deserving injured\nbe done to discourage smoking, what the industry\nparties than historically has been the case.\"\nwill give. Then will be time enough to measure and\nOne question he raised was whether that might\ndecide what if anything it ought to get in return.\nrequire a larger fund than was contemplated in the\nThe testimony was from the Justice Depart-\ndeal last summer, which put annual limits on what\nment. \"If there is agreement on a comprehensive\nthe tobacco companies could be called upon to pay.\nbill that advances the public health by fulfilling the\nHe suggested that Congress might want to ask the\npresident's five principles,\" said David Ogden,\ncompanies for their own \"calculations and research\ncounselor to the attorney general, \"then reason-\nconcerning the likely dollar requirements of those\nable provisions modifying the civil liability of the\ninjured by tobacco products.\" The deal last sum-\ntobacco industry would not be a deal breaker.\"\nmer also involved a ban on punitive damages for\nThat's hardly a bowlful of enthusiasm; it sounded\npast behavior and on class actions. Mr. Ogden\nsuggested that a cap on punitive damages might be\nabout right to us.\nan alternative to a ban and that Congress, if it\nThe five principles are to deter young people\nagreed to limit class actions, needed to think about\nfrom smoking by taxing or otherwise driving up\nother mechanisms \"to improve injured tobacco\nthe price by as much as $1.50 a pack after inflation\nusers' access to justice,\" meaning give them some\nover 10 years; reaffirm the full authority of the\nother way to collect.\nFood and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco\nBut the problem of how much and how to\nproducts; secure an industry agreement to limit\ntransfer money from the companies to people for\nadvertising and abandon other marketing tech-\ndamage that tobacco already has done, while\nniques, particularly those aimed at young people;\nhardly trifling, seems to us to be far less important\nput in place assorted anti-smoking programs; and\nthan the problem of how to prevent further\nprovide some protection for tobacco farmers and\ndamage. First, they should do what they can to\ntheir communities. The price-increasing payments\ndeter smoking; then will be time enough to clean\nthe president rightly seeks are larger than those to\nup after it and provide the companies with their\nwhich the companies agreed in negotiations last\nplatform. If, in fact, Congress wants to do that at all.\nThe Washington Post\nMONDAY, FEBRUARY 9. 1998!"
}