Re: The Recent Trend in "Collective Contracts"

[Tim May <tcmay@got.net>]

At 12:06 PM -0700 7/11/97, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 11, 1997 at 11:28:39AM -0700, Tim May wrote:

>> The agreement halts future lawsuits, thus depriving those who have not yet
>> sued, or even those who have not yet contemplated suing, from seeking
>> redress in the courts.
>
>I don't think it is correct that the deal halts future lawsuits from
>other parties, only from the signers of the deal.

Well, what more is there to say? You obviously have not bothered to follow
this issue, or you would surely know that a key provision of the deal, and
probably one of the main things that made it somewhat attractive to the
tobacco companies is that it put an end to future lawsuits.

(How could it be otherwise, as a deal? If the tobacco companies paid out
$360 billion to the current crop of folks suing them (some fraction to the
suers, some fraction for education and health programs, etc.), and then in
5 years or so _another crop_ of folks demanded "their" hundreds of
billions, and so on forever....)

Here is just one of the recent news stories on this point:

"Tuesday July 8 11:59 AM EDT

"Lawyer sues over tobacco deal

"CHICAGO, July 8 (UPI) _ Attorney Kenneth Moll says the agreement between
more than three dozen states and the tobacco industry will
compromise the rights of individuals and he has filed suit challenging that
part of the agreement that protects cigarette-makers from future
suits. "

Now is it clearer to you what we've been discussing? Jeesh.

(I could spend more time with HotBot or Alta Vista digging up more news
stories, inclduding the actual text of the agreement, such as it has been
publicized, but I don't plan to spend my time recapping the obvious. Check
out the news stories in the June 20-22 period for more details than you can
read in a day of reading.)





>> BTW, we're not the only ones who think this agreement, and the enabling
>> legislation which is supposed to come from Congress, raise very serious
>> constitutional questions.
>
>Could you find a reference to this putative enabling legislation? I
>think it is a figment of somebody's imagination.  My impression was
>that the "stick" wasn't new legislation, but rather the imminent
>regulation of nicotine as a drug.  There *may* be such legislation in
>the works, but it seems completely unnecessary for the anti-tobacco
>forces to accomplish their aims, and, in fact, a stupid thing to
>depend on.

I just plain give up on you, Kent. You obviously have not been reading or
following the news. The "deal" requires Congressional action...there have
been scads of stories on this precise point, and Clinton is already making
noises about not signing the legislation unless details are changed. Again,
spend a few minutes in a search engine. (Try typing "tobacco" into Yahoo's
news search engine, for example.)

No point in even debating someone who is ignorant of the basics in the debate.

--Tim May


There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."