Tobacco.org

STEIN: Obama’s Questionable Stimulus Plan  

I would argue that over the long term, oil companies' profits relative to sales are not above average for industrial or financial companies. But even if they were, why punish the owners of the oil companies, who are largely pension plans, group or individual, and individual investors? Why should we punish some American firefighters who own oil company stocks more than American firefighters who own drug company stocks or tobacco stocks? Why tax away the savings of some Americans because they happen to own a share in a company that supplies a totally legal, absolutely indispensable product like oil? I don't get that at all.

Jump to full article »

Social factors key to ill health 

Social factors - rather than genetics - are to blame for huge variations in ill health and life expectancy around the world, a report concludes.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has carried out a three-year analysis of the "social determinants" of health.

The report concludes "social injustice is killing people on a grand scale". . . .

The report, drawn up by an eminent panel of experts forming the WHO's Commission on the Social Determinants of Health, found that, in almost all countries, poor socioeconomic circumstances equated to poor health.

The differences were so marked that genetics and biology could not begin to explain them.

Jump to full article »

Researchers: Merck Vioxx study was designed to market the painkiller; company disputes that 

A 1999 Merck & Co. study of its since-withdrawn painkiller Vioxx, touted to participating doctors and patients as meant to show whether Vioxx caused fewer stomach problems than another drug, was primarily a stealth marketing strategy, researchers report.

The true purpose was to get lots of doctors and patients in the habit of using Vioxx just in time for its launch, according to doctors who uncovered internal Merck memos discussing the strategy behind the study, called ADVANTAGE. They did so while reviewing roughly a million Merck documents for plaintiffs' lawyers preparing for trials in Vioxx lawsuits.

Drug companies are widely suspected of doing many such "seeding," or marketing studies, but there's been no "smoking gun" proving it before, according to the Annals of Internal Medicine, which published Merck's original report on ADVANTAGE in 2003 and will publish the new report Tuesday.

An accompanying editorial, co-authored by Annals editor Dr. Harold C. Sox, states the journal was not told the true purpose of ADVANTAGE

Jump to full article »

Physicians' Group Responds to Smear Tactics by American Meat Institute and Tobacco/Meat Industry Front Group 

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) responds to news releases published recently by the "Center for Consumer Freedom" (CCF), a group funded by the tobacco, meat, and junk food industries, and the American Meat Institute (AMI), a meat-industry organization that promotes consumption of processed meats and other unhealthful products. . . .

According to exposes in major media outlets, CCF was founded by tobacco lobbyist Rick Berman with more than $3 million from Philip Morris and continues to receive funding from industries that market unhealthful products. Through CCF and other front groups, Berman has fought against stricter limits on legal blood-alcohol levels, improvements in minimum wage, health information for consumers, and other progressive efforts that his commercial clients view as contrary to their interests.

Over the past few years, CCF has escalated its attacks against organizations that warn the public about the health risks associated with alcohol, meat, and other junk food products. Berman has admitted publicly that his MO is to "shoot the messenger" by trying to disparage the credibility of his opponents. His employees do not attempt reasoned discussion of the scientific issues about health. The long list of public health advocates in CCF's line of fire includes former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani for speaking out against drunk driving, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for tackling food safety, the World Health Organization for addressing obesity, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

Jump to full article »

VCU administrators resign from leadership posts 

Several Virginia Commonwealth University administrators are stepping down following an investigation into the improper awarding of a bachelor's degree to Richmond's former police chief.

University officials confirmed the resignations but aren't linking them to the diploma investigation. . . .

The resignations come in light of double controversies, the Monroe degree and a task force looking into the implications of the university's acceptance of research contracts from tobacco giant Philip Morris USA.

Jump to full article »

Wider impact for punitive damages ruling?  

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to drastically slash a punitive damages award against Exxon over the 1989 Valdez oil spill from $2.5 billion to $500 million has lawyers debating whether the ruling will have an impact on punitive damage awards beyond maritime cases. . . .

The Court held in a 5-3 decision that an appropriate punitive damages award should not exceed an amount equal to the compensatory damages in the case, which totaled $507.5 million.

However, the Court relied heavily on an analysis of punitive damages generally.

Some attorneys say the case has widespread implications.

Jump to full article »

UPDATE:US Supreme Court Orders Reduction In Exxon Valdez Award 

The U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday said punitive damages are allowed in a lawsuit over the 1989 Valdez oil spill by a 5-3 vote but ordered lower courts to reduce the $2.5 billion award to no more than $507.5 million.

Justice David Souter, in the court's majority opinion, said the punitive damages award should be brought into line with compensatory damages calculations made by lower courts earlier in the litigation.

"The award here should be limited to an amount equal to compensatory damages," Souter wrote, adding the high court ruling endorses a $507.5 million amount calculated by a federal trial judge in 2002. The original award in the lawsuit, not including interest and other costs, was $287 million.

The high court otherwise split evenly 4-4 on an important maritime law question in the case as a majority concluded that federal environmental laws don't bar punitive damages against the oil giant.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joined Souter in the majority holding limiting the punitive damages. Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer dissented, saying the court went too far in restricting punitive damages to a one-to-one ratio with compensatory damages.

Jump to full article »

• Exxon Valdez Award Cut to $507.5 Million by Top Court (Update2) 

A divided U.S. Supreme Court slashed the $2.5 billion punitive damage award against Exxon Mobil Corp. for the 1989 Valdez oil spill to $507.5 million, ending a 19-year legal saga over the worst such disaster in U.S. history.

The justices, voting 5-3, said the original award, which would have been increased by more than $2 billion with accrued interest, was excessive under federal maritime law. The $507.5 million figure is equal to the economic damages that a trial judge determined were suffered by thousands of Alaskan commercial fishermen involved in the case.

Writing for the court, Justice David Souter pointed to studies showing that punitive damages awarded in maritime cases were generally less than the amount of compensatory damages.

``A 1:1 ratio, which is above the median award, is a fair upper limit in such maritime cases,'' Souter wrote. . . .

The court divided largely along ideological lines. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy joined Souter in the majority. Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer dissented.

Jump to full article »

Kennedy has major cancer bill in Senate 

Sen. Edward Kennedy's battle with a malignant brain tumor is likely to put a dramatic personal stamp on a health care cause he first championed nearly 40 years ago: The nation's war on cancer.

Kennedy had already begun work on an overhaul of the 1971 National Cancer Act when his tumor was diagnosed . . .

Kennedy, who has been working closely with Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, plans to file the legislation in the coming weeks, an aide said Friday. . . .

"His work is pretty much unparalleled in the area of cancer in many ways, and we're excited about the possibility of this bill moving forward because he wants to address cancer in a comprehensive way," Smith said.

The bill Kennedy plans to put forth seeks to improve the coordination of cancer research, prevention and treatment while giving more money to the National Cancer Institute and other public research agencies.

Jump to full article »

• Legal Theory Seeks to Curtail Tort Cases  

In 2001, after years as a lawyer for pharmaceutical and tobacco companies, Daniel Troy was tapped as President George W. Bush's general counsel of the Food and Drug Administration. Almost immediately, the FDA filed several friend of the court briefs on behalf of medical device and drug companies being sued in state courts. The briefs argued that it is not the place of state judges and juries to question the safety of a drug that FDA scientists have approved.

Troy was applying the preemption principle -- which argues that federal regulations of a product preempt consumers from suing the maker of that product in state civil courts. Troy left the FDA in 2004, but the U.S. Supreme Court subscribed to his logic earlier this year in a ruling that preempted lawsuits against makers of medical device. It could do the same this fall, in a case about consumers' right to sue drug companies. The Bush administration's once obscure legal argument for curtailing lawsuits against industry has become the nation's predominant opinion.

But at a congressional hearing Wednesday, Democrats threw down the gauntlet. The House oversight committee said that it has had many disagreements with this administration, but this preemption principle is offensive. Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Ia.) spent most of the day arguing that for 100 years FDA regulations have coexisted, and benefited, from state civil suits. If the preemption principle prevails in the court this fall, the committee said Congress would write legislation saying that FDA regulations do not take away a consumer's right to sue.

Jump to full article »

Marijuana may up heart attack, stroke risk 

Heavy marijuana use can boost blood levels of a particular protein, perhaps raising a person's risk of a heart attack or stroke, U.S. government researchers said on Tuesday.

Dr. Jean Lud Cadet of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, part of the National Institutes of Health, said the findings point to another example of long-term harm from marijuana. But marijuana activists expressed doubt about the findings.

Jump to full article »

• Incense Sticks 'Pose Toxic Health Risk' 

Burning incense may be good for your spiritual wellbeing, but they could damage your health.

The fragrant smoke, used in religious ceremonies and to scent rooms, contains a cocktail of harmful chemicals linked to physical disorders, scientists say.

Joss sticks contain carbon monoxide and other toxic fumes

The research suggests that breathing in the toxic fumes is as bad for the health as inhaling tobacco smoke. . . .

The researchers, from Taiwan and the US, urged people to keep rooms ventiliated when burning the sticks.

Jump to full article »

Pot smoking blows executive meeting  

The conference rooms on the 14th floor of the Hotel Grand Chancellor are high enough for most executives, but teenagers smoking marijuana in a nearby fire escape may have unknowingly elevated proceedings.

The teenagers regularly gathered on a fire escape between the hotel and the Wilson Parking building on Cashel Street to smoke marijuana, but the distinctive fumes floated up the stairs and seeped into a room where as many as 600 executives were gathered for conferences.

Hotel Grand Chancellor general manager Tim Stonhill said the smell had led to complaints.

Jump to full article »

Teen Marijuana Use Linked to Later Illness 

Teenagers who smoke marijuana put themselves at risk for future mental illness and higher rates of depression, according to a report to be released today by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Although fewer teens overall are smoking marijuana, the report said, there is growing concern that those who do, particularly those who view the drug as a way to cope with depression, do not understand its consequences. It also is not clear whether their parents, who might have indulged when they were younger, understand the risks, experts say.

The report, whose release coincides with the start of Mental Health Awareness Month, said studies show links between marijuana use and risk of mental illness later in life, and that use could increase the risk by as much as 40 percent.

Jump to full article »

A smoking gun in the drugs debate 

Dr Alex Wodak's plan to have the Government sell cannabis in little packets at the post office wasn't just a throwaway line to a bunch of senile hippies at the Mardi-Grass festival in Nimbin last weekend. . . .

But just because there are Australians who smoke cannabis is not a sound reason to legalise the drug, particularly at a time of mounting scientific evidence of its long-term devastating health effects, in particular its link to schizophrenia.

It is exactly the wrong time to legalise cannabis, just as its popularity among young people is diminishing, as shown by the latest Australian Secondary School Students' Use of Alcohol and Drug Survey. . . .

It is irresponsible for a doctor in his position to play down serious research showing the link between marijuana and schizophrenia, and not just for those who are already psychotic.

What he is doing is no different from the tobacco industry denying the links between smoking and lung cancer.

Medical opinion is moving against him, with the journal The Lancet, on July 28 last year, recanting its 1995 editorial which claimed smoking cannabis was not harmful to health, and citing studies which showed "an increase in risk of psychosis of about 40 per cent in participants who had ever used cannabis".

Jump to full article »