Source: The Economist, (3/29/97): TOBACCO'S BRUTUS The treachery of Bennett LeBow should encourage Big Tobacco to drop its Big Lie that smoking is safe Having behaved so often with imperial arrogance, America's tobacco bosses have now been stabbed in the back by one of their ownand soon after the Ides of March to boot. On March 20th Bennett LeBow's Liggett Group broke ranks with Big Tobacco and reached a settlement with the industry's tormentors. It has promised to give state governments a portion of its profits for a quarter of a century, admitted that cigarettes cause cancer and that nicotine is addictive, undertaken to say so on its cigarette packets, and offered to disclose documents recording the industry's internal strategy discussions. In return, more than 20 state governments that had been suing to recover the costs of caring for sick and dying smokers will drop their actions against Liggett. Now that he has kicked the industry's habit of denying that there is anything the least bit unwholesome about smoking, Mr LeBow finds his motives impugned by the tobacco bosses who have continued for years to insist with straight faces at congressional hearings, against all the evidence, that they do not believe nicotine to be addictive. He may indeed be motivated by a desire to save his shareholders' fortunes rather than the lives of smokers. But Mr LeBow's motives are not the point. The balance of power is beginning to turn against the tobacco firms in America, and if the industry is to save itself it had better now consider following his example. People should be allowed to smoke, and companies should be allowed to sell them cigarettes. Like many other products, cigarettes both give pleasure and cause harm. In a free society, people should be allowed to indulge in pleasures that cause damage to no one but themselves. Consistent with this, there is a case for restrictions on the way in which cigarettes are advertised and sold: because cigarettes are addictive and dangerous, children are at risk of being hooked by a bad habit before they are old enough to make a reasoned calculation of the odds. As rich countries become more healthconscious, it makes both business sense and moral sense for the tobacco industry to defend its activities on the grounds of some such liberal balancing of freedom and restraint. In America, however, the tobacco companies have not tried to defend themselves on these lines at all. Until the defection of Mr LeBow, their posture has been one of absolute denial, coupled with a vain attempt to conceal the facts about smoking's dangers. Contrary to research evidence in its p05session, the industry has refused to acknowledge that nicotine is addictive. Contrary to its public assertions, it is suspected of having targeted some of its marketing explicitly at children. Predictably, the obstinacy of the companies has. stoked the fury of smoking's opponents, many of whom need no inducement to trample down the notion of free choice. Encouraged by a sympathetic White House and by a growing climate of intolerant fingerwagging, America has already gone too far in its crusade against smoking. In some jurisdictions smoking is now banned in any public place, even outdoors. Indeed, much of the litigation currently in train against the tobacco companies smacks of hypocrisy. Some plaintiffs may not have known when they began their habit that tobacco was dangerous, but most of those seeking damages are refusing to take responsibility for their own informed decisions. As for the state lawsuits that prompted Liggett's settlement, these border on the ludicrous. If state governments can sue tobacco firms for pushing up their healthcare costs, why not sue the makers of cheeseburgers and skis for increasing the number of heart attacks and broken legs? Now, there92s a thought Just possibly, Liggett's decision to come clean will persuade the rest of the industry to drop the Big Lie, confess that smoking is dangerous, and see whether they can arrive at a settlement under which they limit their past liabilities but remain free to sell their products in a manner that combines full disclosure of the dangers, protection of children and freedom of adult choice. The alternative is an unedifying war to the finish between an increasingly unpopular group of companies and an increasingly intolerant public. The lesson from the Ides of March is that the tobacco companies can no longer be as certain as they once were of prevailing in such a battle.