Tobacco.org

• Tobacco case set to resume Monday  

The trial on claims by the state of Vermont that R.J. Reynolds Co. misled consumers about the health risks of smoking a new kind of cigarette resumes Monday at Chittenden Superior Court in Burlington after a two-month hiatus.

The state, which is arguing the case on behalf of 36 states, contends that Reynolds has marketed Eclipse, a cigarette that heats rather than burns tobacco, as safer than conventional cigarettes despite having no scientific evidence to back its advertising claims.

Judge Dennis Pearson presided over 20 days of testimony in the case in October and, in a ruling late last month, said he will allow Reynolds five more days to wrap up its defense against the state's claims.

Based on recent court filings, Reynolds lawyers intend to focus part of this week's testimony on an 11-year-old statement by the Attorney General's Office that criticized the company for not doing more to promote Premier, another "safer" cigarette it had developed.

Jump to full article »

Cigarette packs must have graphic warnings  

At least two brands of cigarettes produced by each cigarette companies here must have graphic health warnings as of two days ago.

Forty per cent of space on the front of the boxes must have one of six pictures showing the health effects of smoking. . . .

Health Minister Datuk Liow Tiong Lai said by March 1, all brands produced by the cigarettes companies here would be required to carry the graphic warnings. Speaking after chairing the MCA presidential council meeting here yesterday he said: "From June 1, there will be a total ban on the sale of cigarettes packs without graphic warnings."

Jump to full article »

• Breaking the habit ($$) 

From today, cigarette packets on the mainland are supposed to change radically - with a warning of a specific disease and a picture that leaves the smoker in no doubt about the possible consequence of his choice.

The change is a result of Beijing having signed up to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which came into force on January 1, 2006 and mandated that packaging regulations be implemented after three years.

Mainland China is the world's largest tobacco producer consumer, with 350 million smokers, one-third of the global total. One million people die each year from smoking-related diseases, while 540 million suffer the effects of others' smoking, with 100,000 dying annually from illnesses caused by passive smoking, according to Ministry of Health figures.

Article 11 of the FCTC sets out the rules for the packaging of cigarettes. It provides that packaging must ensure that "the truth of the effects of tobacco use be properly reflected in the packaging and labelling of tobacco products, including the use of picture warnings that even the least literate members of society can readily understand".

It prescribes that 30 per cent to 50 per cent of the main display area be covered with a warning, including a picture.

Jump to full article »

Malaysia, India better off than Pakistan 

The Network for Consumer Protection has applauded the announcements made by the Malaysian and Indian governments regarding the introduction of pictorial messages on cigarette packs from January 1 and February 1, respectively, and has urged the Government of Pakistan to move fast in this direction.

Pictorial messages show the devastating effects of tobacco smoking on the human body in graphic form and have more persuasive power than small printed messages on the side of cigarette packs. Graphic pictorial messages on cigarette packs are a requirement of the World Health Organization's (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). Many countries around the world including the United Kingdom, Australia, Belgium, Brazil and Canada have introduced large pictorial health warnings on cigarette packs.

Pakistan is a signatory to FCTC. . . .

With a literacy rate of hardly 50%, Pakistan needs to introduce pictorial health messages to effectively warn against smoking.

Jump to full article »

• Decision opens door to Wisconsin smoker suits  

In light of the U.S. Supreme Court opinion last week in Altria Group v. Good, Wisconsin consumers can plausibly sue tobacco companies under at least two different statutory provisions, sec. 100.20 and sec. 100.18.

Section 100.20, entitled "Methods of competition and trade practices", provides generally, "(1) Methods of competition in business and trade practices in business shall be fair.

Unfair methods of competition in business and unfair trade practices in business are hereby prohibited."

This is, for all material purposes, identical to the Maine statute at issue, which provides, "Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are declared unlawful." Me.Rev.Stat.Ann., Tit. 5, sec. 207.

However, sec. 100.18 of the Wisconsin statutes, entitled "Fraudulent representations," is even more applicable to suits alleging that the marketing of light cigarettes is misleading . . .

The downside to suing under sec. 100.18 is that it contains a three-year statute of repose, and the discovery rule does not apply, limiting the potential damages, and the number of potential plaintiffs. . . .

One problem consumers are likely to face should they bring similar suits in Wisconsin is that the "unconscious" and "unknowing[]" behaviors described above are frequently not unconscious or unknowing.

Many smokers of light cigarettes who engage in these nicotine-enhancing behaviors do so "unconsciously" only in the respect that, having consciously done so for so many years, the behaviors become subconscious.

Jump to full article »

Lung cancer to overtake breast cancer  

Lung cancer will soon kill more females than breast cancer as women lag behind men in getting the anti-smoking message, according to the latest snapshot on Australian cancer rates.

Today's report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reveals that women who took up smoking in the 1970s and 1980s are now paying the price, as lung cancer outstrips breast cancer as a cause of death for the first time.

The report, Cancer In Australia: An Overview 2008, predicts that lung cancer rates in women are expected to grow by 0.4 per cent a year until 2010 but will fall by 1.1 per cent for men.

"It's tragic because there is not a lot you can do to prevent breast cancer but there is no reason for having so many people diagnosed with lung cancer when it stems from smoking," the chief executive of the Cancer Council of Australia, Ian Olver, said yesterday.

He called for a price rise on cigarettes and continued graphic advertising campaigns outlining the broad range of smoking's side effects, such as cardiovascular and gum disease.

"One in five people are smokers, so the advertising campaigns are graphic, but they need to remain as intense as they are now to make sure people get the message," he said.

Jump to full article »

SUPREME COURT DECISION PROMPTS MOVE TO RE-OPEN PHILIP MORRIS LAWSUIT 

On Thursday, December 18, 2008, St. Louis attorney Stephen Tillery of Korein Tillery filed a motion in the case of Price v. Philip Morris (Madison County, Illinois Circuit Court, cause No. 00-L-112) to re-open the $10.1 billion judgment in Price v. Philip Morris based on a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court rendered earlier this week. . . .

“The final order dismissing the Price case was not actually entered until December 18, 2006. When it ruled earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court decision came just a couple of days before the two year deadline under Illinois law which allows challenges to set aside judgments,” said Stephen Tillery.

Jump to full article »

Americans Split on Light Cigarette Court Ruling 

Adults in the United States are divided over a recent Supreme Court decision, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 42 per cent of respondents believe smokers should be able to sue tobacco makers for advertising claims related to light cigarettes, while 45 per cent disagree.

In addition, 22 per cent of respondents believe cigarette companies should be held financially liable for health problems that develop if someone smokes a cigarette today.

On Dec. 15, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled--in a 5-4 decision--that smokers can seek legal action against tobacco companies in state court for making fraudulent claims related to light cigarettes, which purportedly have lower tar and nicotine levels. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the companies that sold these products had a "duty not to deceive" the public through advertising or marketing. . . .

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that smokers could sue tobacco makers for advertising claims over so-called "light" cigarettes that they claim are fraudulent. Do you agree or disagree with this ruling?

Agree

42%

Disagree

45%

Not sure

12%

Jump to full article »

Altria Ruling Ignites Legal Moves  

Mr. Tillery says the U.S. Supreme's Court's 5-4 decision "eviscerates" the legal basis for the Illinois court's ruling and could breathe new life into his case. He was nearing a final deadline for finding a basis to revive the suit.

Altria spokesman Jack Marshall said the Illinois plaintiffs have tried once before to have the case reopened and were rebuffed by the state Supreme Court. "We believe the plaintiffs' second attempt is also meritless and will be rejected by the Illinois courts," Mr. Marshall said. . . .

"An entire class of litigation has been revived thanks to [the] ruling," said Edward Sweda, an attorney with the Northeastern University's Tobacco Products Liability Project. "Those lawsuits were on the precipice of being eliminated."

Mr. Sweda said there are roughly 40 cases pending in 22 states. The Illinois case that Mr. Tillery is attempting to revive is the only one that has gone to trial, Mr. Sweda said.

Adding to those numbers, a new class-action lawsuit making similar allegations was filed in New York federal court Thursday by a Flushing, N.Y., man seeking economic damages on behalf of New York smokers of Marlboro Lights.

Jump to full article »

• Madison County $10.1 billion tobacco verdict at issue in new rulings 

Stephen Tillery was the first lawyer to beat the tobacco industry in court over its marketing of light cigarettes -- but he never got the ultimate prize.

In 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed a $10.1 billion verdict he won in Madison County Circuit Court in a class action case against cigarette maker Philip Morris.

But now, guided by an unrelated U.S. Supreme Court opinion last week, Tillery says he's preparing to revive the case and will try to collect.

A law professor predicts he will be thwarted by a small but key difference in the cases. . . .

Beckett said the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision involved the state of Maine's deceptive practice statute and whether it was preempted by a federal statute or FTC rulings.

Illinois is different, Beckett said, because its deceptive practices law has an exemption for companies that follow federal standards. "The Maine statute had no 'exemption' provision like the Illinois statute," Beckett said. Tillery's litigation may still have had an impact. Today, a pack of Philip Morris' Marlboro Lights is no longer emblazoned with the label "Lowered Tar & Nicotine."

Jump to full article »

• Litigation against tobacco industry - tactics and fallout  

* Slide 1: Tobacco industry tactics – Influence over policies –Use of litigation as a tool

* Slide 2: Litigation & Tobacco Control Use of litigation as a means of achieving public health policy goals Litigation can complement to a broader, comprehensive approach to tobacco control policy making Though it is believed that public health goals are more directly achievable through the political process than through litigation . . .

* Slide 6: Is the Industry Prepared? Industry strategy in 80’s to counter second- hand smoke issue

* Slide 7: Is the Industry Scared? That’s why the tobacco industry is paying over 250 Billion U$ Dollars to all 50 states in USA as damages (Settlement) Though the industry earned some longevity but the industry is definitely on way out . . .

* Slide 9: The GTC Case in California THEREFORE, default having been entered by the clerk against GTC, as requested by Plaintiff, JUDGMENT is accordingly entered in favor of the Plaintiff and against GTC with respect to all claims, . . .

* Slide 10: Initiating Through Litigation SUPREME COURT ORDERS IN MURLI S. DEORA Vs. UNION OF INDIA CASE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION d in the Third Cause of Action, for a total assessed penalty of $50,000 in addition to the penalty specified in Paragraph C of this judgment. D. GTC shall, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order, shall appoint an agent for service of process in California (pursuant to Revenue & Taxation Code section 30165.1(f)(1) for enforcement of this judgment and order until this judgment is satisfied, the order is obeyed and the injunction is dissolved. E. -------------

* Slide 10: Initiating Through Litigation SUPREME COURT ORDERS IN MURLI S. DEORA Vs. UNION OF INDIA CASE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION . . .

* Slide 14: Implementation Through Litigation The case of “Pictorial Warnings” in India . . .

* Slide 22: The restriction of “depiction of smoking” smoking” in movies case IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . .

* Slide 23: The “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Act” Organizations Act” Verdict . . .

* Slide 24: The Solution

Tobacco Companies have explored all corners of the legal system but still……… There are limited versions of the GAME (More or less similar across the world) The way to beat them in their own game is to BE BETTER PREPARED (Understand all the versions of the legal games the industry plays) & BE PROACTIVE AND AGRESSIVE

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Suit shows that there are no real 'light' cigarettes  

According to the complaint, the tobacco companies were aware of this phenomenon, but continued to market light cigarettes, touting their tar and nicotine content.

In this case it may seem a small distinction, but it's an important one: Touting that cigarettes are low in tar and nicotine is not the same as promising they're safe or safer. It's the smoker, not the company, that engaged in the compensating behavior, so in the end it may well be that the companies will not be held liable.

The tobacco companies are not blameless in the long history of smoking related illness and death. But there is a point at which consumers can and should be expected to know better.

Knowing what we know, there is a legitimate public-policy debate to be had over whether all cigarettes should be outlawed. But as long as they're legal, it is up to individuals to protect themselves from this hazard by choosing not to use a product that is never safe to use in any formulation.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: 'Light' cigarettes and lawsuits  

Altria rightly argued that state lawsuits were preempted by Congress' decision to impose a national approach to warning consumers about the dangers of smoking. The federal labeling act says: "No requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health shall be imposed under state law with respect to the advertising or promotion of any cigarette." . . .

Congress adopted a national standard for cigarette warning labels for two reasons: to protect citizens of states that wouldn't require such warnings of their own, and to spare tobacco companies, whose products are marketed nationally, the burden of complying with different state standards. Monday's decision neutralizes the second objective. We don't often agree with Justice Clarence Thomas, but he was right to warn in his dissenting opinion that the ruling "will have the perverse effect of increasing the non-uniformity of state regulation of cigarette advertising, the exact problem that Congress intended ... to remedy."

Congress can overturn this decision by making it clearer that it intends to prohibit state lawsuits like the one in Maine. It might combine that legislation with even tougher warning labels specifically rebutting the false promises of "light" and low-tar cigarettes.

Jump to full article »

Pictorial warnings way to reduce smoking 

Although many people know that smoking is bad for health, but smokers do not give much thought to the effects on their health until they have been smoking for years. "They also tend to be less aware of effects other than lung cancer e.g. heart disease, stroke, cancers of mouth, pancreas, urinary bladder and kidney, baldness, impotence, infertility, abortion, premature birth, low birth weight babies etc.," said Professor of Community Medicine Colonel (r) Dr. Muhammad Ashraf Chaudhry while talking to 'The News' on rising trend of smoking in Pakistan.

He said that studies have revealed that many smokers still do not know that tobacco causes diseases and premature death. "Many others know little beyond a vague notion that 'smoking is bad for you'," said Dr. Ashraf adding there is a clear need for effective ways to inform and alert smokers and provide information on how to reduce their tobacco-related risks. "Given the uniquely hazardous nature of tobacco products, tobacco manufacturers and government bear a responsibility to ensure the highest levels of health knowledge possible among smokers.

Mandated labels on tobacco products are an effective way to inform smokers of the hazards of smoking, encourage smokers to quit, and discourage non-smokers from starting smoking. Many countries require health warnings on tobacco products. "However, messages given in small print on the side of the pack clearly lacks salience and persuasive power as compared to larger messaging placed on the front of the packs," said Dr. Ashraf adding evidence from Canada and Brazil show that the large warnings with photos introduced recently are effective in discouraging smoking and increasing public awareness of the health effects of smoking.

Many countries around the world including Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, Switzerland, Finland, Singapore, Thailand, Uruguay, India, Chile, Venezuela, UK, Norway, Iceland etc. have introduced larger pictorial health warnings on cigarette packs, with dozens more preparing to do so in near feature.

To a query, Dr. Ashraf said that current Pakistani warnings on cigarette packs are woefully ineffective

Jump to full article »

Anti-smoking lobby wants plain packets  

PLAIN cigarette packaging is set to be the next battleground for anti-smoking groups, after they won another series of victories yesterday.

VicHealth chief executive Todd Harper said anti-smoking groups would lobby the Federal Government next year to legislate for plain cigarette packaging, which would show nothing but a large, graphic health warning and the name of the brand.

The State Government yesterday announced bans on smoking in cars containing children and in schoolyards. Retailers will also have to put cigarettes in a cupboard or under the counter, announced only by a plain sign and a price board.

Mr Harper said packaging would be the next focus. "The packet is where the tobacco industry positions a lot of the image and attributes that they want to appeal to existing and new smokers," he said. "This would be resisted very strongly, but that shows how important it would be to achieve low levels of smoking."

Jump to full article »