-=> On 12-15-97  18:10, David Hartung did testify and affirm <=-
-=> to Justin Baustert concerning Re: [1/2] SMOKING COSTS <=-
 -=> Quoting Justin Baustert to Jim Deberry <=-
 
 JD> I have followed but not replied to this thread from the start. If I
 JD> remember correctly and please correct me if I am wrong you made some
 JD> statement that "we found a way to get around the constitution". Right
 JD> or wrong?? My  question is, "why would anyone who is supposed to be
 JD> enforcing our laws tryto get around the constitution? I have seen no
 JD> explanation from you answering this  question. You can continue to
 JD> obfuscate the issue or you can answer the question can't you?
 
 JB> I'm pretty sure if you followed the thread extremely closely, you
 JB> would have  seen my explanation of the above statement.  I'm past the
 JB> point of answering  it again, but you might be able to get Robert Craft
 JB> to find the explanation  in his archive..
 DH> Justin, as I pointed out in my reply to you, if your statement was
 DH> misinterpreted, it was because of the words you chose. As Rush would
 DH> say, words mean things.
Here's Justin's original post - lines 4-6 contain the
pertinent comments: 
 Area: LIMBAUGH(F 
  Msg#: 17270                                        Date: 07-06-97  10:54
  From: Justin Baustert                              Read: Yes    Replied: No 
    To: Mark Logsdon                                 Mark: Reply              
 
  Subj: Re: cigarette advertisins
 ML> Look deeply into the Constitution and see if you can find anywhere it
 ML> says that the government has the authority to restrict or prohibit
 ML> tobacco advertising.  That's the real issue.  The issue is not
 ML> whether the sport will suffer.  If you're willing to compromise the
 ML> Constitution for some "politically incorrect" cause, then you'll
 ML> sacrifice it for any cause.  Think about it.
This litigation has zero to do with the Constitution..  The
Attorneys-General 
banded together as they were tired of waiting on Congress to do something 
about it.  Congress would have had to go through the Constitution, luckily
we 
have found a way around it.  The original suit was mainly to get money back 
to the states for what we have been paying in medical costs caused by 
smoking.  After we realized that our case was so solid, we started adding in 
all the extras (curbing advertising, penalties if percentages don't go 
downward in minors, etc.).  It was up to the tobacco companies to decide if 
they wanted to settle or take it to court.  They knew they'd lose in court, 
so settling was their only option.  $350 billion dollars is better than
going 
out of business outright (at least in their eyes).
In case you're wondering where this information comes from, it's mainly 
first-hand. I work for the AG (Drew Edmondson) in Oklahoma
JB
Telegard v3.02/mL
Origin: Courier Central \ Cashion, OK \ 405.433.2665 (1:147/92)
... Off-topic, yes, but useless knowledge should not be wasted...
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/5
---------------