Who Really Profits From Smoking Bans?

COLUMBUS, Ohio (Map) - COLUMBUS, Ohio, July 23 /PRNewswire/ -- "Smoking bans in the U.S. have been funded by those who directly profit from the sales of Nicotine Replacement Therapies (NRT)," said Debi Kistner with Opponents of Ohio Bans. Robert Wood Johnson, the late CEO of Johnson & Johnson, established the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) tax exempt non-profit 501(c)(3) in the early 1970s. According to their November 2005 publication, "Taking on tobacco: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Assault on Smoking", from 1991 to 2005 the foundation paid $446,398,054 in tobacco-control grants. Grantees that did not move from tobacco education to tobacco control became ineligible for further grants.

As of March 31, 2008 the foundation owns 35,435,189 shares of Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) common stock (valued at nearly 2.3 billion dollars) and is one of the company's largest institutional holders. As a tax exempt foundation RWJF pays 1 percent tax on realized capital gains and dividends from its investments, while other investors pay 15 percent. Johnson & Johnson profits from the sales of Nicoderm CQ and Nicorette products. The foundation therefore directly profits from cigarette tax and smoking ban laws they've provided grants to create. In January 2008, 1,000,000 boxes of the company's nicotine replacement products were reportedly sold and Nicoderm CQ is touted as the "best selling smoking cessation patch in history". April 15, 2008, Forbes reported that Johnson & Johnson profit jumped 40% during the first quarter of 2008.

The foundation created the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids and has provided more than $84,000,000 in grants to fund that advocacy group. As a non-profit the foundation can't legally lobby but the center can. The center aggressively promotes increased taxation on tobacco products.

The foundation sponsors conferences on "how to identify ways to increase the use of evidence-based tobacco cessation treatments" and awarded the American Cancer Society a nearly $1,000,000 grant to "expand the use of tobacco cessation treatments". It's about the money, profits for stockholders and control. Tobacco control is the best marketing strategy that pharmaceutical dollars can buy.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has been warning the government for over a decade of the RWJF's desire to control the health care policies of this country. Following the pattern for tobacco control, the foundation has pledged $500,000,000 in grants for anti-obesity. Johnson & Johnson will profit once again from anti-obesity public policy advocacy through its Splenda brand of artificial sweetener.

Follow the money behind any ban, study, survey or poll. Questions are written and asked to solicit the responses desired by those who pay for the results. Do independent research. Don't believe everything you read. For example, the results of a survey released April 29, 2008 of 607 Ohio voters (hardly a sampling of Ohio citizens) showed 65% of respondents supported a 75 cents per pack cigarette tax increase to fund the economic stimulus package and fully fund more smoking cessation. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funded that survey.

Among those who lose under the foundation's advocacy are Ohio families who have invested their life savings, hard work and futures in owning their piece of the American Dream. In addition, charities no longer benefit from generous donations by private clubs. Smoking bans as draconian as Ohio's ban do harm businesses. The debate is over. The introduction of SB 346 is a welcome relief to these family owned businesses and private clubs who have lost billions in potential income (reference: Opponents of Ohio Bans press release of June 12, 2008). We owe a debt of gratitude to Senators Schuler, Seitz, Cates, Niehaus and the other co-sponsors of the bill. We strongly urge the House to quickly pass this legislation as many businesses are barely holding on.

"Why is it legal for a non-profit foundation to directly profit from stock that is driven by the sales of products coerced by a law that their grants create? Where are those, such as state attorneys general, who are supposed to protect consumers' interests? Why should a pharmaceutical company and their private foundation be profiting while Ohio's businesses fold? We believe these questions raise important issues that must be addressed by Ohio legislators," said Pam Parker with Opponents of Ohio Bans.