By Robert J. Samuelson

Wednesday, November 25, 1998; Page A21

We may have closure -- at least temporarily -- to the anti-smoking crusade of the 1990s. The agreement between state attorneys general and the tobacco companies for the industry to pay the states roughly $200 billion over 25 years may quiet the controversy. If so, this will be the agreement's main benefit, because otherwise it is a parody of good government policy. It imposes a steep tax on a poor part of the population, offers only modest health benefits and deepens popular confusion about the public consequences of smoking.

Let's concede the small possible health gains. The agreement will raise cigarette prices; tobacco analyst Martin Feldman of Salomon Smith Barney figures that retail prices will go from an average $2.07 a pack now to $2.90 in the year 2000. (Indeed, cigarette companies already have announced a 45-cents-a-pack increase.) Higher prices might reduce the number of smokers by a few percentage points of the population. But it seems unlikely that the restrictions on advertising (banning billboards and promotional giveaways) will lower teen smoking. In the 1990s, the country has been awash in anti-smoking news stories and TV programs that are worth billions in counter-advertising. Meanwhile, some surveys show teen smoking has risen. This seems to confirm the industry's contention that advertising mainly determines which brands people smoke, not whether they smoke.

Let's also note that the agreement aids the tobacco industry. By reducing the threat of lawsuits, it bolsters companies' stock prices. Still, the great myth of this struggle is that, just because cigarettes are unhealthy and the tobacco industry is often dishonest, the people on the other side must be morally superior. In truth, they -- meaning plaintiffs' lawyers, politicians and public-health advocates -- also frequently pursue their goals with a single-minded dishonesty and hypocrisy. And their motives are often selfish: personal enrichment (the lawyers), power and popularity (the politicians) and ego gratification (the public-health advocates).

Little wonder the results are disheartening. Almost everyone has long known that smoking is dangerous, as a review of surveys by Lydia Saad for the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at the University of Connecticut reveals: In 1954, 70 percent of the public thought smoking "harmful," and 42 percent thought it "one of the causes of lung cancer"; by 1990, these responses were 96 percent and 94 percent. Most Americans also think that smokers decide for themselves whether to smoke. A 1997 poll asked who is "more responsible for . . . smoking-related illnesses," smokers or tobacco companies. By 76 percent to 17 percent, respondents said smokers.

The debate's central issue ought to be: How much is society entitled to penalize smokers for their decisions, because -- in society's view -- those decisions are unhealthy? Should present smokers be punished (via higher taxes) to deter future smokers? Should Congress order the Food and Drug Administration to mandate safer, and maybe less satisfying, cigarettes? These hard questions pit Americans' belief in personal freedom against the desire to protect public health. Precisely because the questions are hard, anti-smoking advocates diverted the debate to three other ideas, all dubious.

First, smokers aren't responsible for their behavior. As teens, they're seduced by industry ads; then they can't stop because smoking is addictive. Second, smoking creates huge social costs -- mainly higher health spending -- that nonsmokers pay through higher taxes. Finally, the tobacco industry should be punished and forced to compensate nonsmokers for smoking's social costs.

Well. Even if smoking is addictive, people can -- often with pain and hard work -- break addictions. There are now more ex-smokers than smokers. As for higher government costs, studies have shown that because smokers die earlier than nonsmokers, they create savings for government through lower lifetime health and pension costs. The states' anti-tobacco suits alleged that smokers raised states' health costs under the Medicaid program. This, too, is unproven; the industry's analysis disputed it.

But suppose smokers lack free will and raise government's costs. Still, the industry could not pay those costs directly without going bankrupt. The money always has had to come from smokers through higher cigarette prices -- the equivalent of a tax increase. Anti-smoking advocates rarely discuss this, because the implications are devastating. Smokers have low incomes. Only 20 percent of cigarette taxes are paid by those with incomes over $50,000; 34 percent are paid by those with incomes under $20,000 and 19 percent by those with incomes between $20,000 and $30,000. And smokers already pay steep federal and state cigarette taxes (now averaging about 58 cents a pack) that more than cover any possible public costs they create.

As a result, the anti-smoking crusade becomes a reverse Robin Hood arrangement: It sanctifies soak-the-poor taxes and robs the poor to pay the rich. The attorneys general's agreement now enshrines this. The rich, of course, are the private lawyers who represent the states in their tobacco suits. The agreement allows up to $500 million in annual fees for perhaps a few hundred and at most a few thousand lawyers. For how long? Arbitrators will decide; these payments come atop fees to be paid in four existing state settlements that will almost certainly total billions. The cigarette dispute has evolved into a welfare program that may create some instant billionaires and many multimillionaires.

Because none of this can be defended, it is camouflaged. For self-interested reasons, the anti-smoking advocates never openly described public choices. Beyond taxing smokers to cut smoking, politicians want to keep the taxes -- and not to rebate them. Public-health advocates covet extra money for pet programs; and lawyers crave their fees. All this has involved an adept manipulation of courts and legislatures. A gullible public -- aided by a pliant press -- embraced the anti-smoking hysteria. Because the campaign succeeded, it will inspire assaults against other industries. We can't tell the target (whether alcohol or autos or fatty foods) or the tactics. But it's just a matter of time.