Opponents of Ohio Bans say "Just follow the money."

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.

http://opponentsofohiobans.com/