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

COLUMBUS, Ohio, July 23, 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX News Network/ -- "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.

SOURCE Opponents of Ohio Bans

http://www.opponentsofohiobans.com

Copyright (C) 2008 PR Newswire. All rights reserved