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 JJacobs@sjmercury.com.

Checked-by: Patrick Henry