Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wbk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-18T01:29:53.231Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Tobacco: How Law Saves – and Kills Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Gordon Silverstein
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access

Summary

Efforts to protect privacy and save the environment, reduce poverty, end segregation, assure integration; and demands for fiscal responsibility, an end to political corruption, better and more equitable representation, the reform of the criminal justice system, and the allocation of the war powers – all these and more are problems that are being increasingly structured, framed, shaped, and constrained by judicial rules and automated legal procedures. Legal language dominates our political debates and has for a long time. Law's allure is deeply embedded in a American political system in which an intentionally fragmented government interacts with a political culture deeply suspicious of politics and imbued with a language of rights and rules, liberty and equity.

This is not an argument against the use of law, legal language, or judicial process – these are woven into the fabric of the American political system. Instead, this book is an effort to encourage politicians, policy advocates, and scholars alike to understand when and how these tools can be used most effectively and when their use, when a reliance on law, and legal language, and judicial decisions poses the greatest risks for the goals of those who choose to turn to the law and the courts. The question is not whether law and judicial process is to be employed or not, but rather when and under what conditions.

Type
Chapter
Information
Law's Allure
How Law Shapes, Constrains, Saves, and Kills Politics
, pp. 245 - 265
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Kagan, Robert and Nelson, William, “The Politics of Tobacco Regulation in the United States,” in Radin, Robert and Sugarman, Stephen, eds, Regulating Tobacco, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, p 11Google Scholar
Nocera, Joe, “If It's Good for Philip Morris, Can it Also Be Good for Public Health?”, New York Times Magazine, June 18, 2006, p 46Google Scholar
Derthick, Martha A., Up in Smoke: From Legislation to Litigation in Tobacco Politics (2nd ed.), Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2005, p 8Google Scholar
Kelder, Graham and Daynard, Richard, “The Role of Litigation in the Effective Control of the Sale and Use of Tobacco,” 8 Stanford Law & Policy Review63, 67 (1997)Google Scholar
Mather, Lynn, “Theorizing about Trial Courts: Lawyers, Policymaking and Tobacco Litigation,” 23 Law & Social Inquiry4, 904 (1998)Google Scholar
Fritschler, Lee and Hoefler, James, Smoking and Politics (5th ed.), Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1996, p 89Google Scholar
Bianchini, Maria, “The Tobacco Agreement That Went Up in Smoke: Defining the Limits of Congressional Intervention into Ongoing Mass Tort Litigation,” 87 California Law Review703, 710 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, Robert, “A Sociolegal History of the Tobacco Tort Litigation,” 44 Stanford Law Review853, 863 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenhouse, Linda, “The Supreme Court: Court Opens Way for Damage Suits over Cigarettes,” New York Times, June 25, 1992, p 1Google Scholar
Strum, Charles, “Major Lawsuit on Smoking Is Dropped,” New York Times, November 6, 1992, p B1Google Scholar
Viscusi, W. Kip, Smoking: Making the Risky Decision, New York: Oxford University Press, 1992Google Scholar
Saad, Lydia, “The Survey Data Reviewed: Smoking and American Values,” 9 Public Perspective1 (1998)Google Scholar
Kagan, Robert, “The Tort Law System,” Chapter 7 of Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001Google Scholar
Bacigal, Ronald, The Limits of Litigation: The Dalkon Shield Controversy, Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 1990Google Scholar
Schuck, Peter, Agent Orange on Trial: Mass Toxic Disasters in the Courts, Cambridge: Belknap, 1986Google Scholar
Fausset, Richard, Jarvie, Jenny and Weinstein, Henry, “Legal Legend Dickie Scruggs Pleads Guilty in Bribery,” Los Angeles Times, March 15, 2008, p 1Google Scholar
Biskupic, Joan, “Activist Jurors Help Carve out New Law,” Washington Post, Aug. 30, 1999, p 1Google Scholar
Moore, Mike, “The States Are Just Trying to Take Care of Sick Citizens and Protect Children.” 83 ABA Journal53 (1997)Google Scholar
Correia, Edward and Davidson, Patricia, “The State Attorney Generals' Tobacco Suits: Equitable Remedies,” 7 Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy843 (1998)Google ScholarPubMed
Broder, John, “Cigarette Makers in a $368 Billion Accord to Curb Lawsuits and Curtain Marketing,” New York Times, June 21, 1997, p 1Google Scholar
Freedman, Alix and Hwang, Suein, “Peace Pipe: Philip Morris, RJR and Tobacco Plaintiffs Discuss a Settlement,” Wall Street Journal, April 16, 1997, p 1Google Scholar
Pertschuk, Michael, Smoke in Their Eyes: Lessons in Movement Leadership from the Tobacco Wars, Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2001Google Scholar
Waxman, Henry A. (D-CA), “A Look at the Tobacco Settlement: Don't Sign it; On Balance, a Bad Deal for Public Health,” Washington Post, June 29, 1997, p C3Google Scholar
Schwartz, John, “Advisory Panelists Strongly Critical of Tobacco Deal,” Washington Post, June 26, 1997, p A3Google Scholar
Connolly, Ceci and Mintz, John, “For Cigarette Industry, a Future without GOP Support,” Washington Post, March 29, 1998, p 1Google Scholar
Schwartz, John. “Tobacco Firms Say They'd Rather Fight,” Washington Post, April 9, 1998, p 1Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, David, “Cigarette Makers Quit Negotiations on Tobacco Bill,” New York Times, April 9, 1998, p 1Google Scholar
Reich, Robert, “Regulation Is Out, Litigation Is In,” USA Today, February 11, 1999, p A15Google Scholar
Richards, Mark and Kritzer, Herbert, “Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court Decision Making,” 96 American Political Science Review2, 305–320 (2002)Google Scholar
Richards, Mark, Kritzer, Herbert and Smith, Joseph, “Does Chevron Matter?” 28 Law & Policy4, 444–69 (2006)Google Scholar
Martin, Andrew, “Wall Street Finds a Lot to Like about Tobacco,” New York Times, January 31, 2007, p 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×