Public health advocates applauded the verdict, saying it is high time that the industry be held accountable for decades of deception about the dangers of smoking. But this anti-tobacco verdict seems to have triggered a major backlash against anti-tobacco causes -- and against litigation against tobacco companies in particular.

Among political commentators, it is not just the Rush Limbaughs of the world who are irate. Wrote Kathleen Parker, a columnist for the Orlando (Fla.) Sentinel, "It's sad, but [Boeken] made a choice, and now he's trying to blame someone with big pockets for his poor judgment. Juries should not help people like this pick those pockets."

An editorial in the Salt Lake Tribune complained: "Where was this guy living when he puffed all those packs -- a deserted island? Certainly he was not living in the United States, where, for almost 40 years, cigarette packs have carried government warnings that tell smokers probably the only thing more harmful to your health than smoking would be standing in the middle of a high-level nuclear waste dump for 40 years."

The emerging sympathy for tobacco companies -- as well as a renewed faith in their economic strength and prospect for growth -- was evident this week when Florida overturned its ban on investments in tobacco stock, deciding that its pension plans would benefit from the predicted impressive increases in the value of tobacco stocks. The Boeken settlement was a victory for anti-tobacco activists, but it had one unintended consequence: Its sheer size led many to side with the tobacco industry, ignoring just how egregious its deceptions have been.

Those who condemn the Boeken verdict raise four points:

	Print story E-mail story

First, they say that a $3 billion award is ludicrously inflated for any misdeed, if in truth there was one to begin with.

Second, they argue that it is outrageous for a person who is "stupid" enough to smoke to be enriched by tobacco dollars when he becomes ill.

Third, they maintain that the cigarette industry has been harassed and punished enough lately, what with agreeing under pressure to pay more than $200 billion to states as compensation for treating patients with smoking-related diseases, and acquiescing (at least in the case of Philip Morris) to Food and Drug Administration regulation. Parker's article is a prime example of this view: "The anti-tobacco zealots won't be satisfied, it seems, until they've achieved a de facto prohibition on smoking. Until they've driven Philip Morris and other cigarette makers out of business."

Fourth and most important, the critics of verdicts against tobacco companies maintain that smokers have long known all the dangers of smoking but still chose to smoke, and thus should assume all the responsibility for the health consequences of their habit. Limbaugh, for example, has cited the Boeken award as an instance of the legal system gone mad, emphasizing that "actions have consequences" and that the smoker, not the company, is responsible for the health damage caused by smoking cigarettes.

The issues raised by critics of the Los Angeles verdict -- and critics of lawsuits against cigarette companies in general -- are attractive and consistent with the American commitment to individual responsibility. Ultimately, however, they are flawed. A closer look at the actions of tobacco companies suggests that nearly any jury would have come to the same conclusion.

The Free Software Project
Read Andrew Leonard's book-in-progress on Linux and open source -- and post your comments.