Pubdate: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA) Copyright: 1998 Mercury Center Contact: http://www.sjmercury.com/ Author: Joanne Jacobs CONFESSIONS OF AN ILLOGICAL, TOBACCO-HATING VOTER I spent a day last month clearing out my brother's house. On every table and every floor of every room lay computer magazines, mail and dozens and dozens of empty Camel cigarette packets. My brother was 42 when his heart failed. His 43rd birthday was -- would have been -- last week. Peter started smoking again in his 30s, years after he kicked the cigarette habit. It was ``an adult choice'' for him, as the cigarette companies claim it is for everyone. He knew there was a family history of heart disease, though he took his own health for granted. Logically, I can't blame Joe Camel for killing my brother. I blame Peter for being so damned stupid. But what's logic got to do with it? I'm going to vote for Proposition 10, which adds a 50-cent tax to every pack of cigarettes, just to stick it to the tobacco companies. The tax is expected to raise $750 million in the first year, less in future years as higher prices keep some teenagers from starting the habit. The money will fund child care centers, pre-schools, parent education, children's health services and the other programs to help kids get a good start. If I cared about logic, I'd say: worthy cause, bad precedent. Proposition 10 backers are talking about the value of early education for disadvantaged children, implying that they'll guarantee school success and prevent crime, drug abuse, teen pregnancy and acne. In other words: This is vitally important and incredibly cost-effective but not worth taxing ourselves to pay for. Let's do it, they imply, for free. The seductive idea of ``free money'' also appears in Proposition 5: Help Indian tribes for free by expanding gambling. And Proposition 9: Legislate cheaper utility rates. (One of its authors wrote Proposition 103, which told us we could legislate cheaper car insurance rates.) This is a troubling trend. I don't believe in something for nothing, and it makes me nervous to decide spending priorities by initiative. Proposition 10 bases our commitment to children's programs on the number of Californians who buy cigarettes, which seems . . . peculiar. Sticking smokers with pre-school bills seems unfair. I don't care. Regardless of all that, I'll vote for the cigarette tax. I can blame Joe Camel if I want to. I think it's a sure winner, even though tobacco companies have spent $20 million to defeat it. Taxing cigarettes lets us feel morally superior while profiting from the industry we despise and demonize. In the process, we risk getting hooked on dirty money. Politicians' greed killed the tobacco bill, which was supposed to ratify a $368 billion settlement between cigarette makers and states suing to recover smokers' health costs. Democrats saw a windfall for social programs; Republicans saw a way to cut taxes on families, and throw more money at drug interdiction. The cost ballooned to $516 billion over 25 years. Without protection from liability suits and Food and Drug Administration regulation, the tobacco industry had no incentive to agree. As the politicians fought over how to spend the smoking windfall, the industry launched a $40 million ad campaign to stress the windfall for tort lawyers, at the expense of working-class Americans. Consensus collapsed, and GOP leaders sidelined the bill. Perhaps the industry has more money than it knows what to do with. In 1990, a Philip Morris executive proposed that the giant tobacco company get better press by acquiring a newspaper chain, wire service or other major media outlet: If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. The March 20, 1990, document titled ``Top Secret Operation Rainmaker,'' turned up in a search of documents released as part of the state of Minnesota's lawsuit against tobacco companies, which was settled in May for $6.6 billion. Anti-smoking activists released it last week during a National Conference on Tobacco and Health. So far, there's smoke but no smoking gun: No other ``Operation Rainmaker'' documents have turned up. As takeover targets, the memo suggested Knight Ridder, the Mercury News' parent corporation; Copley News Service; United Press International; USA Today, and others. The memo argues that the only way for Philip Morris to ``improve the climate for the marketing and use of tobacco products'' is to ``own a major media outlet.'' In addition, the unidentified author recommended buying a science magazine, such as Omni, to manipulate reporting of research on the effects of smoking. If Philip Morris had bought Knight Ridder, I would have quit my job. I could not cash a paycheck made good by the sale of cigarettes to teenagers or to adults. I know it's a legal business, and I think it should remain legal. Drug Prohibition has caused enough crime problems without adding Tobacco Prohibition. I understand that many Americans prefer the risks of smoking to life without nicotine. It should be their choice, not the decision of big-nurse government. I just don't want a cut of the action. It's dirty money. Joanne Jacobs is a member of the Mercury News editorial board. Her column appears on Mondays and Thursdays. You may reach her at 750 Ridder Park Dr., San Jose, CA 95190, by fax at 408-271-3792, or e-mail to --- Checked-by: Patrick Henry