Robert McCallum wasn't just in the same Yale class as Dubya. He was also in Skull and Bones with him.
Posted by lysias at June 9, 2005 08:58 AMMcCallum used to be R. J. Reynolds attorney, which calls into question why the Ashcroft and Gonzales Justice Departments thought a man with industry ties should even be involved with this litigation in the first place.
It's standard Bush operating procedure: When your henhouse needs guarding, go looking for a fox with a connoiseur's taste in chicken.
Posted by Matt Davis at June 9, 2005 08:58 AMWhere is the outrage?
I dread to ask...what more stinky stuff will rise to the top with this evil and morally corruput administration...
Posted by jillian at June 9, 2005 09:30 AMIt's so corrupt I can't even get my head around it. Sorry.
Posted by firedoglake at June 9, 2005 09:44 AMI'm beginning to think Steve's right: GOP internal polling must have them convinced that it's time to loot while the looting is good, and forget about the electoral consequences. This move is really, really blatant, and lots of people are fed up with Big Tobacco.
Posted by Matt Davis at June 9, 2005 09:47 AMho hum. Bush and GOP are corrupt. Media shields them. Dems fidget and moan. Another day in Bushworld.
Posted by T2 at June 9, 2005 09:48 AMThis is just another outcome from last years election, they think that they can get away with anything. It's about time for another 'gay married terrorist' scare to pump the poll numbers up.
Posted by rlprather at June 9, 2005 09:55 AMSo, let me see if I can summarize your positions on smoking from the last week or so:
"Smoking marijuana is good. Those damn bastards in the Supreme Court want to deny folks access to marijuana, and that's just wrong!"
"Smoking cigarettes is bad. Those damn bastards in the Bush Administration are allowing Big Tobacco to sell death to the American public!"
I say, legalize everything. Let folks smoke, drink or shoot-up whatever they want. It'd be far less expensive than trying to enforce ridiculous drug laws.
Posted by muckdog at June 9, 2005 10:19 AMFirst thank you, Steve Soto. This is amazing. Typically you have to weed through the complexities before establishing connections. But increasingly it just seems like this administration does not understand the concept of "DEGREES OF SEPARATION". As Jillian rightly asks "WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?"
Posted by Bad Ass at June 9, 2005 10:20 AMI say, legalize everything. Let folks smoke, drink or shoot-up whatever they want.
muck, you ignorant slut! Where did anybody say that cigarettes should be illegal?
What is illegal is the cigarette companies colluding to cover up evidence that they knew their products were killing people; hence the $130 billion.
Posted by Matt Davis at June 9, 2005 10:23 AMMatt,
Muck constantly pulls out the strawman because it's the only argument he has.
Well, that plus "hey, everything's fine!"
Posted by Matt Davis at June 9, 2005 10:39 AMJust thought that maybe there are a few ethical problems here. The ABA Rules of Professional conduct provide that a lawyer may not represent a party adverse to a former client unless the former client gives consent in writing.
Also, a government lawyer may not participate in a matter involving a former private client unless the appropriate government agency gives it's informed consent, confirmed in writing.
So, I wonder who all signed off on this?
Posted by Dick(no, not that one) at June 9, 2005 10:59 AMI say, legalize everything. Let folks smoke ... whatever they want
Actually muckdog, I'm a little more libertarian than you might think. The idea of giving adults absolute autonomy on private choices, provided that they aren't harming others in the process, is an idea I could argue for.
The problem is that the evidence shows that the tobbaco conglomerates, begining in 1954, did engage in a conspiracy to hide the facts about smoking from the public.
This harming others is what they should be punished for.
Look, I live on tobbaco road, there is a large cigarette producer who employs thousands within 30 miles of my home. The sudden destruction of the tobbaco industry would add at least one percent ( and probabally more) to our local unemployment rate long term. I really don't want my neighbors to lose their jobs, especially with no alternitive available.
The idea of smoking the brown weed, that the government is o.k. with, or the green weed, which they call evil should be a personal decision that shouldn't be punished. Large corporations conspiring to hide facts about addiction and premature death is a different issue and should be punished.
Posted by rlprather at June 9, 2005 11:18 AMYeah great. Let's legalize heroin and have thousands of junkies running around breaking into homes for something to pawn so they can get their next fix. Sounds great.
Posted by muckcat at June 9, 2005 11:26 AMIt must be nice to have the moral relativity of tobacco industry execs.
To be able to sleep comfortably at night, go to church with a clear conscience, and buy that nice, big house without any worries or regrets about how my lifestyle is made possible.
Imagine how easy and happy life must be when you get to that point. Most people feel guilty when I don't drop a dollar into the Salvation Army jug at Christmastime or refuse to buy cookies from a GirlScout. But here these guys are, thousands upon thousands of deaths a year, and they're big dilemma is do I get the Hummer in red or black?
I always wanted to ask the CEO of Phillip-Morris what the key is to selling your soul. Does he give it out a little piece at a time or does he just sell it off in one big chunk?
Posted by Jason at June 9, 2005 11:32 AMMatt, here's a newsflash for ya... Excessive use of everything is bad for you. I just read that somebody drank too much water, and died. Where is the $130 billion lawsuit against the water district for selling a product that KILLS?!?!?!
These are lifestyle choice issues. I don't think Big Tobacco, fast food companies, etc., should be fined for providing products that people want.
Ridiculous.
Posted by muckdog at June 9, 2005 11:33 AMif you legalize it, you then: prescribe it, control it, and keep the junkies under watch. It reduces health problems, deaths and xmited diseases, and gets them off the stuff when they ask for help.
Of course those evil radical Commie Socialist Dutch (how can anyone who wears wooden shoes be trusted?) can't show us a plan already proven to work - that might work here! Better to fill our prisons with drug users - it's a great use of money, and those prison guards are guaranteed to vote [R].
Posted by Flamethrower at June 9, 2005 11:38 AMThese are lifestyle choice issues. I don't think Big Tobacco, fast food companies, etc., should be fined for providing products that people want.
Again: muck, you ignorant slut! We aren't fining them for providing products that people want. We're fining them for colluding to hide their knowledge of how deadly those products were.
Read, muck; read. Knowledge is power.
Posted by Matt Davis at June 9, 2005 11:43 AMif you legalize it, you then: prescribe it, control it, and keep the junkies under watch.
Keep the junkies under watch? Well that whole plan doesn't sound like it will be cheap.
It reduces health problems, deaths and xmited diseases, and gets them off the stuff when they ask for help.
Great. Let's encourage them to ruin their lives and then help them when they hit rock bottom. Super.
Got any good links on the effect of legalizing drugs in Holland? I'd be interested in seeing an unbiased analysis of drug use rates and disease rates and such.
Posted by muckcat at June 9, 2005 11:55 AMGot any good links on the effect of legalizing drugs in Holland?
Drugs are not really legal in Holland; they are tolerated. Heroin (use) is, however, legalized in Switzerland. The results are statistically encouraging. I don't have time to find you a link, but a few minutes on Google should suffice.
Remember, muckcat, a large part of the reason that junkies do fucked-up things is because heroin costs so much. Legal heroin, even taxed up the proverbial wazoo, would be substantially less expensive than illegal heroin, which carries a significant risk premium.
Posted by Matt Davis at June 9, 2005 11:59 AMLets see: the government knows that a substance is poison to humans, but allows it to be sold in order to collect tax money on it. ugh. The same government knows that people that don't use the substance can be poisoned by it also. ugh, ugh.
Posted by T2 at June 9, 2005 12:00 PMRemember, muckcat, a large part of the reason that junkies do fucked-up things is because heroin costs so much. Legal heroin, even taxed up the proverbial wazoo, would be substantially less expensive than illegal heroin, which carries a significant risk premium.
So as long as all the junkies are able to hold down a steady job between fixes we should be alright.
Thanks. I'll look into Switzerland.
Posted by muckcat at June 9, 2005 12:05 PMLets see: the government knows that a substance is poison to humans, but allows it to be sold in order to collect tax money on it.
I actually think this is the correct policy, both on cigarettes and other toxic recreational substances like heroin and alcohol. People like their vices. They like them a lot. Fighting those vices with the criminal law system is a huge fucking waste of social resources. If you regulate and tax it, you actually have resources coming in to the system.
Posted by Matt Davis at June 9, 2005 12:07 PMIt seems to me the set up in Switzerland is not exactly legalized heroin use. It's a program whereby those already addicted are given access to the drug in a controlled fashion. A far cry from selling heroin to anyone on the street in the open market.
Posted by muckcat at June 9, 2005 12:16 PMYou are correct, sir. My memory failed me.
Posted by Matt Davis at June 9, 2005 12:20 PMwell of course, Matt, you can't get cirrosis of the liver by simply sitting in a bar where everyone else is drinking. You can't become a junkie by watching someone shoot up. You can die of lung cancer by second hand smoke. If it were only the smoker hurting himself..yeah tax the shit out it and make money. By your reasoning, why isn't pot legal and taxed.
Posted by T2 at June 9, 2005 12:38 PMJust what America needs to compete in the 21st century, legalized narcotic escapism.
Posted by Otto at June 9, 2005 12:43 PMBy your reasoning, why isn't pot legal and taxed.
Because the government isn't using my reasoning. I think your second-hand smoke objection is a good one, incidentally, but I still lean toward the liberty interest.
Posted by Matt Davis at June 9, 2005 12:56 PMI think your second-hand smoke objection is a good one, incidentally, but I still lean toward the liberty interest.
The liberty interest. I can appresiate the Libertarian point of view but the idea of legalizing the use of heroin is a bit much for me. Even the use of pot is debatable. The second hand smoke issue is a serious one. If you want to worry about personal liberty worry about things like mandatory seatbelt use. The fact that the guy in the next car doesn't have a seatbelt on does nothing to impair his ability to safely drive his car and it does nothing to endanger me. If he wants to become intimate with his windshield in the event of an accident that's his problem.
Posted by muckcat at June 9, 2005 01:03 PMThe fact that the guy in the next car doesn't have a seatbelt on does nothing to impair his ability to safely drive his car and it does nothing to endanger me.
Quite true. Notice, however, that if we get the Universal Health Care that we progressives usually want, paternalistic measures such as mandatory seat belts and smoking bans begin to seem necessary to deal with the problem of free-riding.
Posted by Matt Davis at June 9, 2005 01:18 PMI am going to repeat what Dick just said because it is so important:
Just thought that maybe there are a few ethical problems here. The ABA Rules of Professional conduct provide that a lawyer may not represent a party adverse to a former client unless the former client gives consent in writing.
Also, a government lawyer may not participate in a matter involving a former private client unless the appropriate government agency gives it's informed consent, confirmed in writing.
So, I wonder who all signed off on this?
This is important. Can someone FOIA Justice on this and "follow the signatures?"
btw - I'm with Matt on the liberty & tax stuff.
Never understood why Big Tobacco was targeted more than alcohol, which to me is a bigger and more deadly poison, a more-rapidly dead poison, and a greater-killer-of-the-innocents poison.
Never understood why th Big Tobacco Settlement money went for public school education and shaming of smokers, but not A PEEP in the school programs about the deadliest drug of all, alcohol.
Posted by cranky at June 9, 2005 01:18 PMMatt, there's a big difference between reading and comprehending. You should try the latter sometime; it might be a real eye opener!
Posted by muckdog at June 9, 2005 01:23 PMmuck, I know it may be impossible for you to believe, but you and I agree on this issue. Why do you keep trying to pick a fight?
Posted by Matt Davis at June 9, 2005 01:27 PMTrue Matt.
It's a conundrum. Personally I don't typically find myself thinking like a libertarian. I don't find things like seatbelt laws troublesome. They have clearly proven effective in reducing the severity of injuries in automobile accidents. I think it's an example of appropriate government intervention. Are you supposing that smokers and non-seatbelt wearers are going to be refused treatment under a nationalized system?
Posted by muckcat at June 9, 2005 01:27 PMAre you supposing that smokers and non-seatbelt wearers are going to be refused treatment under a nationalized system?
I doubt it. (Although as I recall, the liver transplant people do try to serve first those whose liver problems are not of their own making.)
No, I think you would see harsher penalties for seatbelt violations, and even steeper taxation on cigarettes, rather than trying to interfere with the doctors, who are after all under an oath to provide care.
Posted by Matt Davis at June 9, 2005 01:31 PMNever understood why Big Tobacco was targeted more than alcohol, which to me is a bigger and more deadly poison, a more-rapidly dead poison, and a greater-killer-of-the-innocents poison.
Got some figures on that Cranky?
My understanding of the numbers is;
#1 - Tobacco related.
#2 - Poor dietary and exercise habits.
#3 - Alcohol related (including vehicular accidents).
I'd like to know how alcohol kills more 'innocents' each year than tobacco.
Posted by muckcat at June 9, 2005 01:33 PMIf you take cigarette-induced cancers and emphysema, and stack them up against alcohol-induced heart disease and cirrhosis, the smokes come out ahead. Because of problems with establishing causation, it's harder to show how many secondary deaths are attributable to second-hand smoke as opposed to alcohol-related homicide.
I'm pretty sure tobacco is a bigger overall killer, but alcohol is by no means innocuous, no matter what Spuds McKenzie and the twins would have you believe.
Posted by Matt Davis at June 9, 2005 01:38 PMCranky,
According to Dr.Spock.com nearly half the children in the country live in a home with at least one adult smoker.
Posted by muckcat at June 9, 2005 01:39 PMLiberty v. safety.
Fun can of worms we've opened isn't it?
Posted by sage at June 9, 2005 01:39 PMNoted libertarian nutjob Benjamin Franklin may have said it best:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Posted by Matt Davis at June 9, 2005 01:44 PMI didn't call libertarians nutjobs. I just said I don't have a problem with seatbelt laws. And I don't think Franklin was using 'security' in the sense of 'not getting thrown out of your car when you roll it over doing seventy miles an hour'.
Posted by muckcat at June 9, 2005 01:53 PMI didn't call libertarians nutjobs.
Then I'll do it. They have elevated the notion of individual liberty to a fetish; it's impossible to get pragmatic responses from them when, for instance, the liberty interest is outweighed by countervailing health considerations.
Liberty is dangerous.
Posted by Matt Davis at June 9, 2005 01:59 PMAnd another thing.
There's a reason there's a term alcohol abuse.
But I never hear anyone refer to tobacco abuse.
Odd that.
Posted by muckcat at June 9, 2005 02:00 PMActually, poor diet choices are a bigger killer than smoking. Eat healthy.
Posted by muckdog at June 9, 2005 03:59 PMThe key to this debate over which intoxicants are legal and which are not can be summed up in one word: responsibility.
As there is a serious lack of it in today's world, things that wouldn't otherwise cause problems do. Case in point: As I drive in to work each day, some tobacco addict who refuses to dirty the ashtray and reduce the resale value of their [select costly vehicle brand here] will create a spectacular shower of glowing embers as the butt gets donated to the California Amateur Highway Arsonist Association. Many of the huge wildfires that so enthrall the rest of the country begin this way.
Is there a law against doing this? Maybe. Is it enforced? I have yet to see or hear of an instance. Should there be a law against it? That will depend upon whether or not personal responsibility - the love child of so many societal evils - ever again becomes fashionable in Jesusland or any non-Red part of the former United States of America.
Posted by pessimist at June 9, 2005 05:17 PMIt seems that I have come late to the discussion. I'd like to bring it back around if I may. The issue is not really tobacco, alcohol or drugs. The issue is one of arrogance of power. That should be clear. The degeneration of the discussion to libertarianism, seat belts, blah blah is not the point. The point is that the Bush Admin has directed one arm of the government that it completely controls to do something that on it's face is counterintuitive at best and just plain unexplainable in the very least given the past history of lawsuits in this matter. It's not about Big Tobacco per se, but rather about abuse of power or the appearance thereof.
Try to focus all, k?
Posted by Michelle at June 9, 2005 06:57 PMTry to focus all, k?
Sure, 'chelle. 'Cuz Lord knows we don't have any interesting contributions on the matter of smoking that exist beyond your prescribed parameters of debate. It's not the tobacco; it's not the addiction; it's the lying.
Thanks for the wake-up call. This thread was doomed without you.
Posted by Matt Davis at June 9, 2005 07:04 PMLets get as much money out of them as we can before they go overseas. I hate America. Viva trial attorneys!
Posted by nancy at June 9, 2005 07:12 PMSorry to bring blah blah blah to the discussion.
I'll put down my keyboard now.
k?
Posted by muckcat at June 9, 2005 07:13 PMIf I am not mistaken, the initial post concerned the connections between the current administration and the attorney who proposed backing down on the specifications of the penalty. It had nothing, initially, to do with the merits of smoking, alcohol, drug, seatbelts or any of the other gripes that the thread degenarated into. It had more to do with the potential of undo influence on judicial related decisions (i.e. governmental game plans) which has the potential to permeate into other areas.
So sorry to have intruded upon you all's rant faux muck.
And 'att, more than happy to save your day :)
Posted by Michelle at June 9, 2005 07:47 PM
oh yeah, and little muck, put that keyboard wherever you like :)
Posted by Michelle at June 9, 2005 07:49 PMName calling.
Good.
Posted by muckcat at June 9, 2005 07:56 PMdefine name calling :)
or better yet get back to the topic of this administration using its power to change every little tiny way we live our lives. Get back to the fact that this administration has the ability to change verdicts. What happened to an independent judiciary? You worry about silliness like name calling. Tit tat. how productive.
Bush keeps his hedgemony and you quible about name calling.
Please do call me to task again. I do so love being disciplined :)especially about inconsequential things --
nevermind
This from a person who incorrectly corrected someone about a triviality in the next thread down while at the same time dispensing advice about how not to look snoobish.
LOL!
Posted by muckcat at June 9, 2005 08:19 PMwhatever makes your boat float muck :) wrong once wrong always? still this thread hasn't addressed the true theme of why it's OK to influence the outcome of a trial based on personal connections.
ok, I'll put it in question form :)
Why the hell should the Bush buddies get their way?
Why should the verdict, sentence, plea, be influenced by the administration? Correct me if I am wrong AGAIN but should the administration play favorites? Should the adminstration be able to influence the outcome of a trial?
whatever makes your boat float muck :) wrong once wrong always?
Look Michelle all you had to do was make your point instead of charging in here and disparaging everyone else. It's really that simply. So brush the chip off your shoulder and focus on being civil instead of coming across as a pompous ass.
Why the hell should the Bush buddies get their way?
Why should the verdict, sentence, plea, be influenced by the administration? Correct me if I am wrong AGAIN but should the administration play favorites? Should the adminstration be able to influence the outcome of a trial?
The Bushies should not get their way. The verdict sentence and plea should not be influenced by the administration. The administration should not play favorites and the administration should not be able to influence the outcome of the trial. All these things are clear as day. Everyone here understands the point of Steve's post. Excuse some of us for discussing other things, trivial some would say, that interest us.
wish I were in the time zone of rlprather. nothing personal muck or 'att. just saying.
late
You all need a dose of Perfect Circle's eMOTIVe.
Posted by Michelle at June 9, 2005 09:07 PM