On the eve of a high-stakes struggle in Congress over sweeping regulation of the nation's cigarette companies, the tobacco-control movement is badly fractured, beset by philosophical differences, personal animosities and tactical disagreements.
Reflecting the deep divide in the anti-smoking movement, critics of a proposed national tobacco settlement have organized a new coalition to challenge rival groups that are willing to grant legal protections to cigarette makers in exchange for public health gains--the quid pro quo at the heart of the proposed $368.5-billion national tobacco settlement.
The new coalition, called Save Lives, Not Tobacco, is expected to urge Congress to pass sweeping anti-smoking legislation without granting the industry its cherished goal of immunity from the most threatening types of lawsuits.
The group's formation, to be announced in coming weeks, underscores the bitter ideological debate and personal hostilities that have festered within anti-smoking ranks over whether it is necessary to cut a deal with cigarette makers to achieve public health goals. The split is likely to further complicate the already thorny task of moving major tobacco legislation through Congress next year.
The more militant health and consumer groups, such as the American Lung Assn. and Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, oppose any special legal protections for tobacco firms, including restrictions on class-action lawsuits or limitations on punitive damages. They maintain that the civil justice system should not be changed for the sake of one interest group, especially a rogue industry such as tobacco, which has been linked to the deaths of 400,000 Americans a year.
Tobacco companies "should get no protection--nothing," said Bill Godshall, director of SmokeFree Pennsylvania. "The tobacco industry should be treated like every other corporation."
Moreover, Godshall and other activists contend that accepting any restrictions on lawsuits that could lead to huge damage awards against the tobacco industry would eliminate the strongest deterrent to industry misconduct and consequently undermine public health goals.
Their more moderate counterparts, such as the American Cancer Society and the National Center for Tobacco Free Kids, regard such legal protections for cigarette makers as a necessary evil. Banded together in a coalition called Effective National Action to Control Tobacco, or ENACT, they generally believe sweeping anti-smoking measures will never be passed unless the industry gets something in return.
