# Rampart Scandal **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 28, 2000, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rampart-scandal/17580 "2000-02-28T14:20:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2000, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rampart-scandal/17580/1 "2000-02-28T14:20:00Z")
By now we’ve all heard about the LAPD “Rampart Scandal”, where police officers manufactured evidence and put possibly-innocent people behind bars. As part of the tobacco settlement, L.A. is supposed to receive millions of dollars. The idea is that the city would spend the money on smoking-related projects: anti-smoking campaigns, research, medical subsidies, or whatever; but there are no restrictions on how the money may be spent. Mayor Riordan has suggested that the windfall be used to pay damage claims resulting from the Rampart Scandal instead of for its intended purpose. Debate topic: Is it right to use tobacco money to pay for unrelated damages? If lawsuits are meant to punish a wrong-doer, would paying with “free money” diminish the punative intent? Where will the tobacco-related causes get the money due to them if the city pays Rampart claims with it? ---
**Author:** ![Freedomx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4af34b/32.png) [@Freedomx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedomx)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2000, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rampart-scandal/17580/2 "2000-02-28T14:32:00Z")
> [@](#): > > would paying with “free money” diminish the punative intent This is not free money. It is money out of the pockets of smokers. So maybe that question should be phrased: "If lawsuits are meant to punish a wrong-doer, would transfering the liability to smokers diminish the punative intent on the police? ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2000, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rampart-scandal/17580/3 "2000-02-28T16:48:00Z")
Money out of the pockets of _smokers?_ No. Money out of the pockets of the larger companies that produce cigarettes, yes. And yes, I know the costs of these lawsuits will be reflected in higher costs for brand-name cigarettes. But smokers have always had the right to get tobacco and cigarette-quality paper straight from the source and roll their own damn coffin nails. Prices for those commodities will not be affected by suits against cigarette manufacturers. (Okay, they’ll be affected a _little_, but the ripple-effect will be greatly dampened by the time it reaches the tobacco growers and the cigarette-quality paper manufacturers.) My point is, the notion that smokers will indirectly foot the _entire_ bill – or even the majority of the bill – for suits against cigarette manufacturers is bogus. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2000, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rampart-scandal/17580/4 "2000-02-28T16:55:00Z")
Freedom, “Free money” was in quotes, indicating that it is not really free money. It was used as shorthand for money that is being given to the city that is not connected with revenue the city generated. I think I see a hijack coming. Rather than turn this into a debate on the rightness or wrongness of the tobacco settlement, I’d like to know if it’s right for the City of Los Angeles to use the tobacco settlement money to pay claims against the city that come out of the Rampart Scandal? ---
**Author:** ![Freedomx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4af34b/32.png) [@Freedomx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedomx)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2000, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rampart-scandal/17580/5 "2000-02-28T17:34:00Z")
I think tracer and I disagree on where the money comes from. The **ONLY** money that tobacco companies have is from smokers. I have a problem with this hidden, retroactive tax being imposed through the judiciary. I don’t think these suits unconstitutional and are leading the way to legislate through the law suits. The gun suits are only the next chapter in this legacy. Look to see this become a pattern in the future. Any unpopular industry will be demonized and then picked clean through lawsuits. No one will stand up and support the targets because the companies have been so demonized in the media that they are not PC to support. I thought this was going to be a sentence or two, but now I guess this does need it’s own thread. /hijack over Sorry about that. 🙂 In the end, I agree with you. I am against any liability being pushed off on to someone else. In addition to monetary damages, I am looking for some people to do some hard time for these crimes. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2000, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rampart-scandal/17580/6 "2000-02-28T21:49:00Z")
You raised a good point, Freedom. I’m going to continue that line in a new topic called “industry lawsuits”. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2000, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rampart-scandal/17580/7 "2000-02-28T22:06:00Z")
Money is fungible. Given that the city has to pay the judgement, why does it matter where the money comes from? As a result of the Rampart Scandal, the city now has less money to spend. Where they get that money won’t change that. ---
**Author:** ![Tominator2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e36b37/32.png) [@Tominator2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tominator2)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2000, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rampart-scandal/17580/8 "2000-02-28T22:10:00Z")
Johnny L.A. said: > [@](#): > > If lawsuits are meant to punish a wrong-doer, would paying with “free money” diminish the punative intent? Of course it would. That’s why Riordan wants to do it. If the suits were paid out of general funds like most suits taxes might have to be raised. Voters don’t like tax raises and might vote Riordan out. An exceptionally fore-sighted voting populace might actually vote someone in who’d institute changes to minimize the future likelihood of such practices. And the cops don’t want that. While I’m being cynical (and stirring up trouble), I wonder how far the LAPD would go to ensure that the next mayor was “pro-cop”? ---
**Author:** ![inertia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/d07c76/32.png) [@inertia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/inertia)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2000, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rampart-scandal/17580/9 "2000-02-29T00:23:00Z")
I’m not familiar with the Ca. rulings, but some of the other suits against Big Tobacco has been an effort to be refunded money the states have already spent in health care for the smokers who have been “mislead” by Big Tobacco’s denial that niccotine is an addictive drug. The reason this is not applicable to Big Guns Unlimited is that BGU has never said, “Guns are safe and will not kill you.” Versus BT which has for years manipulated the amount of the very drug which they professed was not addictive. I say “mislead” because everyone knows it’s bullshit that smokers don’t know that smoking is addictive and that it causes cancer. However, the suit is still legitimate in that the states really have spent that much money and have just not been able to prove it before. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2000, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rampart-scandal/17580/10 "2000-02-29T00:59:00Z")
The Ryan wrote: > [@](#): > > Given that the city has to pay the judgement, why does it matter where the money comes from? Because the tobacco lawsuit windfall is supposed to be earmarked _only_ for anti-smoking campaigns. ---
**Author:** ![Freedomx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4af34b/32.png) [@Freedomx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedomx)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2000, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rampart-scandal/17580/11 "2000-02-29T01:08:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Big Tobacco’s denial that niccotine is an addictive drug. The reason this is not applicable to Big Guns Unlimited I just want to hijack this again for a second and point out that the firearms industy is a tiny fraction of the size of the Tobacco company. Most firearms companies are still privately owned. BGU just doesn’t apply. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2000, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rampart-scandal/17580/12 "2000-03-03T00:36:00Z")
> [@](#): > > I think tracer and I disagree on where the money comes from. The ONLY money that tobacco companies have is from smokers. I doubt that you guys disagree on that. The real question is, if the tobacco companies’ costs increase, will the smokers’ costs increase by an equal amount, or will some of the cost increase be ‘paid’ for by reduction of dividends or reinvestment? There’s this simplistic model of the ‘free market’ going around that claims that every cost to a corporation is ultimately a cost to the consumer. That’s bullshit, pure and simple. If the market sets a certain price, then the corporation has to sell at that price, or go out of business. If selling at that price means reduction of profit to shareholders, that’s life. If more expenses come along, but the market won’t allow a higher price, the shareholders pay, not the customers. OTOH, if the market will bear a price for a product that is far above costs, then the shareholders profit at the expense of the customers. So, until we find out otherwise, fining the tobacco companies is just that, rather than a hidden tax on the customers. Besides, if people are genuinely addicted and can’t give up the cancer sticks when prices go up, all the more reason to find a better way to punish the people who profited off hooking those people on tobacco while they were still kids. After all, few people start smoking as adults. * * * _Second Place (tie), Most Valuable Poster_ (GD) _Second Place, Best Scientific/Expert Explanations_ (GD) Not that it’s gone to my head or anything.