Thread: Smoke Nazis...AGAIN!!

Cigarette makers lose appeal in landmark case - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court on Friday agreed with the major elements of a 2006 landmark ruling that found the nation's top tobacco companies guilty of racketeering and fraud for deceiving the public about the dangers of smoking.
The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington upheld requirements that manufacturers change the way they market cigarettes. The requirements, which have been on hold pending appeal, would ban labels such as "low tar," "light," "ultra light" or "mild," since such cigarettes have been found to be no safer than others because of how people smoke them.
It also says the companies must publish "corrective statements" in newspapers and on their Web sites on the adverse health effects and addictiveness of smoking and nicotine.
Throughout the 10 years the case has been litigated, tobacco companies have denied committing fraud in the past and said changes in how cigarettes are sold now make it impossible for them to act fraudulently in the future. The companies have argued the ban on labels like "light" would cost them hundreds of millions of dollars.
Philip Morris USA and its parent company, Altria Group Inc., said they will appeal to the Supreme Court.
"The court's conclusions are not supported by the law or the evidence presented at trial, and we believe the exceptional importance of these issues justifies further review," Altria attorney Murray Garnick said in a statement.
The government filed the civil case under a 1970 racketeering law commonly known as RICO, used primarily to prosecute mobsters in cases in which there has been a group effort to commit fraud.
The suit was first filed in 1999 during the Clinton administration. The Bush administration pursued it after receiving early criticism for openly discussing the case's perceived weaknesses and attempting unsuccessfully to settle it.
The nine-month bench trial included live and written testimony from 246 witnesses and almost 14,000 exhibits in evidence. U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler heard accusations that the companies established a "gentleman's agreement" in which they agreed not to compete over whose products were the least hazardous to smokers. That was to ensure they didn't have to publicly address the harm caused by smoking, government lawyers said. Tobacco lawyers denied the contention.
"The government presented evidence from the 1950s and continuing through the following decades demonstrating that the defendant manufacturers were aware — increasingly so as they conducted more research — that smoking causes disease, including lung cancer," the appeals court wrote. "Evidence at trial revealed that at the same time defendants were disseminating advertisements, publications, and public statements denying any adverse health effects of smoking and promoting their 'open question' strategy of sowing doubt, they internally acknowledged as fact that smoking causes disease and other health hazards."
The government had asked Kessler to make the companies pay $10 billion for a national smoking cessation program, but Kessler said that wasn't within her legal authority. The government appealed that decision but the appeals court upheld it.
Besides Philip Morris and Altria, other manufacturers who were defendants in the lawsuit were: R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.; British American Tobacco Ltd.; Lorillard Tobacco Co. and Liggett Group Inc.
Liggett was excluded from the ruling because the judge said the company came forward in the 1990s to admit smoking causes disease and is addictive and cooperated with government investigators.
The appeals court ruled that two other defendants who were included in the District Court ruling — Counsel for Tobacco Research-U.S.A. and the now-defunct Tobacco Institute — be dismissed from the suit. Both are trade organizations for the cigarette manufacturers, but they did not manufacture or sell tobacco products.
The companies had no immediate response to the appeals court decision.
Charles Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said lawyers there were reviewing the decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

My favorite line of this is......

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington upheld requirements that manufacturers change the way they market cigarettes. The requirements, which have been on hold pending appeal, would ban labels such as "low tar," "light," "ultra light" or "mild," since such cigarettes have been found to be no safer than others because of how people smoke them.

So this ACKNOWLEDGES that this is a personal choice and they STILL place the blame on cigarette companies.

Smoke Nazis? By this do you mean the "Mengele"s who devised products that would addict millions while describing them as relatively safe? Yeah, they are pretty heinous.

I can actually see your point about fair trade issues and advertising messages (low tar, etc) and personal choice, BUT, the tobacco companies have earned every bit of the extreme scrutiny they suffer. Calling their opponents "Nazi" is entirely backwards.

Originally Posted by Davocrat

Smoke Nazis? By this do you mean the "Mengele"s who devised products that would addict millions while describing them as relatively safe? Yeah, they are pretty heinous.

I can actually see your point about fair trade issues and advertising messages (low tar, etc) and personal choice, BUT, the tobacco companies have earned every bit of the extreme scrutiny they suffer. Calling their opponents "Nazi" is entirely backwards.

Actually the anti-smoking crowd has WAY more in common with Nazis then the smokers. Hitler and his bunch despised smoking and worked hard to stamp it out.

Tobacco is a natural substance that the natives of this land enjoyed for thousands of years....so no Mengele's there.

Originally Posted by mjollnir

Actually the anti-smoking crowd has WAY more in common with Nazis then the smokers. Hitler and his bunch despised smoking and worked hard to stamp it out.

Tobacco is a natural substance that the natives of this land enjoyed for thousands of years....so no Mengele's there.

Do you encourage your children and other loved ones to smoke?

Did the natives smoke Marlboro's? Slickly marketed darts designed to deliver a shot of nicotine straight to the brain as efficiently as possible, treated with all kinds of chemicals to increase that effect whenever possible?

If somebody wants to enjoy tobacco, nobody is stopping them, unless they want to smoke out a room filled with people who have a right to not inhale their toxic smoke, of course. Nobody is suing cigar makers. Why? Because the issue isn't even the product. It's the marketing. They're saying that the marketing is fraudulent, misleading, a lie. Okay, fine. Sure. Whatever. Truth is, unless they say on the pack that they will almost certainly kill you and will make you feel like shit and have a perpetual mild head cold up until that point, the marketing will be a lie.

Personally, I don't know why cigarette companies bother fighting these lawsuits. They could just keep their money and spend it on developing new ways to package their poison. After all, it's not like they all went out of business when The Evil Man required them to put warning labels on all of their packs. Last I checked they were still making money hand over fist. Nicotine is incredibly addictive and there is a widely delivered mystique surrounding the smoke and cigarettes, with roots all over our culture, from lyrics in music to images in movies.

It's kind of like a crack dealer complaining that now that his product is illegal and the government says it's dangerous, that nobody is going to buy it.

What a waste of time and effort. I'd even respect them more if they said, "Fine. You want to do the marketing for us? Change the name to 'Death Sticks' instead of cigarettes? Do whatever you want. We'll print 'Marlboro - 20 Poison Gas Sticks' on the fucking label if you want us to. And we'll still sell them as fast as we can make them. Because everybody who smokes them in this country does so knowing they're really, really bad for them. And they don't give a shit. And it isn't because of the marketing. It's because they're addictive as hell."

If Phillip Morris put out that press release tomorrow, their sales wouldn't noticeably change. Hell, memos pretty much to that effect from within these companies have been made public already. And nobody cares.

Cigarettes shouldn't be illegal, though. They should be taxed. But not at random. All of the money from the cigarette tax has to go into the healthcare system. It bothers me when they tax cigarettes to pay for something totally unrelated. That's just wrong. Extorting money from a group of people that the government acknowledges are deeply addicted to this drug is really fucked up, isn't it? "Pay up if you want your fix. Er...what I mean is...cigarettes are bad...bad tobacco companies...naughty naughty!...your product is incredibly addictive!...naughty Phillip Morris!...I mean...if you smoke it's your choice and we're going to tax you to pay for highways...er...I mean...."

Originally Posted by mjollnir

Actually the anti-smoking crowd has WAY more in common with Nazis then the smokers. Hitler and his bunch despised smoking and worked hard to stamp it out.

Tobacco is a natural substance that the natives of this land enjoyed for thousands of years....so no Mengele's there.

Visit the oncology ward of a hospital or a hospice. Talk to a few patients who are ill because of smoking. That is, if they have the ability to talk. And let me know how happy they are with what tobacco did to them.

I have been smoking since I was 9, that was 41 years ago, I was also a cross country runner, on the swim team, and I set the mile record at Ft. Sill. I, before my leg gave out, was an avid hiker, I out hike the most non smokers that I know, going longer and faster between breaks. Shit there ain't a man alive that can out work me, and I am very healthy, say for my back which cause my leg to go bad.

Originally Posted by michaelr

I have been smoking since I was 9, that was 41 years ago, I was also a cross country runner, on the swim team, and I set the mile record at Ft. Sill. I, before my leg gave out, was an avid hiker, I out hike the most non smokers that I know, going longer and faster between breaks. Shit there ain't a man alive that can out work me, and I am very healthy, say for my back which cause my leg to go bad.

And I hope that you stay healthy. But smoking jeopardizes your health and the health of those around you who are subjected to your second hand smoke.

What about my rights as a nonsmoker. You light that cancer stick and as far as I'm concerned my right to stay healthy outways any rights you have. In matter of fact you walk into my area of influence you just lost your right to light up.

Originally Posted by steezer

What about my rights as a nonsmoker. You light that cancer stick and as far as I'm concerned my right to stay healthy outways any rights you have. In matter of fact you walk into my area of influence you just lost your right to light up.

July 2010 Wisconsin goes smoke free indoors.

Terrific!