E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
WASHINGTON -- A federal judge on Tuesday ordered tobacco companies to publish corrective statements that say they lied about the dangers of smoking and that disclose smoking's health effects, including the death on average of 1,200 people a day.
U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler previously had said she wanted the industry to pay for corrective statements in various types of advertisements. But Tuesday's ruling is the first time she's laid out what the statements will say.
Each corrective ad is to be prefaced by a statement that a federal court has concluded that the defendant tobacco companies "deliberately deceived the American public about the health effects of smoking."
Among the required statements are that smoking kills more people than murder, AIDS, suicide, drugs, car crashes and alcohol combined, and that "secondhand smoke kills over 3,000 Americans a year."
The corrective statements are part of a case the government brought in 1999 under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations. Kessler ruled in that case in 2006 that the nation's largest cigarette makers concealed the dangers of smoking for decades, and said she wanted the industry to pay for "corrective statements" in various types of ads, both broadcast and print. The Justice Department proposed corrective statements, which Kessler used as the basis for some of the ones she ordered Tuesday.
Tobacco companies had urged Kessler to reject the government's proposed industry-financed corrective statements; the companies called them "forced public confessions." They also said the statements were designed to "shame and humiliate" them. They had argued for statements that include the health effects and addictive qualities of smoking.
Kessler wrote that all of the corrective statements are based on specific findings of fact made by the court.
"This court made a number of explicit findings that the tobacco companies perpetuated fraud and deceived the public regarding the addictiveness of cigarettes and nicotine," she said.
A spokesman for Altria Group Inc., owner of the nation's biggest tobacco company, Philip Morris USA, said the company was studying the court's decision and did not provide any further comment. A spokesman for Reynolds American Inc., parent company of No. 2 cigarette maker, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., said the company was reviewing the ruling and considering its next steps.
The statements Kessler chose included five categories: adverse health effects of smoking; addictiveness of smoking and nicotine; lack of significant health benefit from smoking cigarettes marked as "low tar," "light," etc.; manipulation of cigarette design and composition to ensure optimum nicotine delivery; and adverse health effects of exposure to secondhand smoke.
Among the statements within those categories:
- "Smoking kills, on average, 1,200 Americans. Every day."
- "Defendant tobacco companies intentionally designed cigarettes to make them more addictive."
- "When you smoke, the nicotine actually changes the brain — that's why quitting is so hard."
- "All cigarettes cause cancer, lung disease, heart attacks and premature death — lights, low tar, ultra lights and naturals. There is no safe cigarette."
- "Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and coronary heart disease in adults who do not smoke." "Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, severe asthma and reduced lung function."
- "There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke."
Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said the department was pleased with the order.
Matt Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, called it an important ruling.
"The most critical part of the ruling is that it requires the tobacco companies to state clearly that the court found that they deceived the American public and that they are telling the truth now only because the court is ordering them to do so," Myers said in an interview. "This isn't the last word, but this is a vitally important step because this should resolve exactly what the tobacco companies are required to say."
In July, a federal appeals court rejected efforts by the tobacco companies to overrule Kessler's ruling requiring corrective statements. The companies had argued that a 2009 law that gave the Food and Drug Administration authority over the industry eliminated "any reasonable likelihood" that they would commit future RICO violations.
In her ruling Tuesday, Kessler ordered the tobacco companies and Justice Department to meet beginning next month to address how to implement the corrective statements, including whether they will be put in inserts with cigarette packs and on websites, TV and newspaper ads. Those discussions are to conclude by March.
Related stories:
- Secondhand smoke laws may cut heart attack, study finds
- 1 in 5 smokers lights up while in the hospital
Leave a Comment:
Whatever changes they make to these statements, smokers are going to smoke. We all know the risks involved. Especially the younger generation who are provided many presentations and excessive information regarding the dangers of smoking in school among other places.
I agree, and at this point, it is more punishment for an industry that attempted to lie anyway. It isn't like people don't know, but it is about companies not getting away with lying.
If only every industry was held to account that way...
I find this to be utterly ridiculous. We did away with public shaming as a form of punishment over a century ago. This hearkens back to the days of forcing certain women to wear the "scarlet letter (A)" on their clothes. On top of that, including this wording in these ads will accomplish nothing. It will not stop anyone from smoking. It is far more important to have the ads explain the dangers of smoking than to try and publicly shame the tobacco companies. The money for ads should be used to educate people about the dangers of smoking to try and keep them from starting or to get them to quit, not that most people are not already aware of the dangers. To force the companies to run ads with these statements is nothing more than public shaming and does little to help accomplish the goal of reducing smoking. This is about a spiteful judge wanting to embarrass the companies and her ruling should be struck down as not in keeping with the purpose of the justice system. Also, regardless of the "findings of fact" forcing a company to make what amounts to incriminating statements may not be constitutional under the 5th amendment. This is no different than forcing someone convicted of a crime to state that they are guilty of the crime. This is not done and people are allowed to maintain their innocence despite what the verdict said or any "finding of fact." How often have people been convicted only to be found to be innocent much later. Should they have been forced to confess and abandon their claims of innocence? I am not saying that I think that the tobacco companies are innocent, only that they have the right to continue to maintain their innocence regardless of any verdict or "finding of fact" the same way a convicted criminal has that right.
Thank you, JS, for going into way more detail than I ever wanted to haha.. Very well said. The fact of the matter is, none of these changes are going to prevent anyone from smoking. Simple as that, 'nuff said.
News Item, 2034: A Federal Judge today ordered coal and carbon burning industries to publish a statement admitting that they lied to the American public when they called global warming a hoax and made statements denying that human activity played a part in our planet's climate change. With Florida, most of the coastlines and all of Old New York now under water it will come as little or no consolation to the former residents of these areas.
1200 a day, talk about population control, just imagine where We would would be without those deaths, it's like Aids, bet that one is man made also ... Oh and lets not forget Alcohol or Cancer, HELL We would be like CHINA people working just to eat forget about getting ahead, but even without an enormous population Greed makes up for it, We still lead the world on that one.
You scumbag, uneducated, teaslugs are amazing. Just utterly amazing. go suck some more Koch.
JS in SD --
Corporations feel shame?
Do you believe corporations are people too?
Maybe the ignoramic judge should have just ordered them to publish books and up the price of a pack of cigarettes to around ten dollars a pack to help pay for the book and state in the book how they and the government lied to the people for more than a hundred years about the effects of the carcinogenics the government gave them permission to use in their product to addict smokers so they keep paying the government billions of dollars a year in tax revenue as well as pay tobacco companies hundreds of million a year as well as higher insurance rates for health insurance.
What the court neglects to say is that they also knew for many decades and sided with the governments coverups and awarded the government tens of billions of dollars in so called fines and damages for the effects tobacco cause those they addict and those around them as well and the courts also told the actual victims that they could not sue the tobacco companies or the government for many decades for the lives tobacco took and the damages it did to them and the family survivors. The courts themselves are equally to blame for any and everything tobacco has done and is still doing to it's victims.
AzDrummer89 wrote:
Yes, we know the risks now. I think I am a lot older than you (based on your handle and picture), and the Surgeon General's first warning did not even appear on cigarettes until 1966. Although I was never a smoker, I can tell you that even in the 1960's and 1970's, there was not much said about how bad cigarettes are for you. The media was not a pervasive as it is today with the Internet, and 24/7 news cycles.
The tobacco industry knew they were bad for people's health for most of the 20th Century, yet they hid it, and made billions of dollars while millions of people died.
YO, JUDGE GLADYS!!!!
Maybe you should read a history book. We've had warnings on cigarette packs for 46 years. Cigarette companies are not allowed to advertise on TV or radio for 42 years. Cigars and smokeless tobacco advertising has recently been restricted also.
If anyone in America doesn't know that smoking is bad for you by now they're simply a buffoon. Now, you have a right to smoke so this excess is ridiculous.
Judge
JudyGladys needs to put down "Fifty Shades of Grey" and read the Constitution a few more times.“Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.” ― Ronald Reagan
Everyone is different. Not everyone gets sick and dies from cigarettes as not everyone who has had unprotected sex has not gotten AIDS.
Ever see movies from the early 1930's where smoking is actually promoted? How about the old T.V. commercial where supposed doctors promote smoking as "it cools the blood and promotes concentration"?
I did an experiment over the summer. I went to a local park and put a small sign 10 feet apart for 50 feet in a line. Each sign stated; "Walk towards me and stop when you smell cigarettes". Most people stopped at 20 feet or less and swore they smelled smoke until I showed them it was an electronic cigarette.
Send this judge to DC to rule on the lies that have been spread from this place. Then make them all walk the streets with signs and tv ads saying yes we lied and took your money. lol wait they will us our money for the ads so just make them walk the streets of DC and thier home districts.
@COinFL Corps are not people but go ask a lawyer if corps have alot of the same legal rights as a person. thats what important. When a copraration has the legal rights of a person and its main is shareholder value, those 2 can toxic if one is not careful!
Almost 100% of those 1200 people a day also live in radon, electromagnetic fields in their homes as well as the environmental factors such as air pollutants whether or not they can see it in their air and allergies all their lives that trigger genetic cancers. They drink alcohol and eat excessively of canned foods processed with many preservative chemicals. They get sick and even if they don't smoke, if they mention they walked by a smoker, the cause of death is then blamed exclusively on the smoker. Now they claim that even if a smoker goes down the street and smokes and goes back home, their kids and family can catch cancer just from touching their clothes or body from contact nicotine. Then they wonder why we just don't take them seriously anymore.
Time for a JUDGE to tell POLITICANS they all lie.....and the JUDGE can start within the D.C. beltway.
So, just what will these "JUDGES" rule on next ?
If someone is guilty then put them in jail other wise this judge is loopy. In her treatment of the corporation she has just said they are people. I smoke, choose not to stop and could not care any the less about others. I am a bad citizen by not running under the false flag of caring as you lefties do. When someone can tell me how secondhand smoke outside in the open hurts someone else I may buy it. But I live in cali and am sick and tired of listening to the cry babies and their constant whining about what I do. How about this if you see me smoking go around cuz I am not moving. I have not met a liberal yet who is not fighting for some cause and this judge is just another liberal. Is this judge going to go back in time and punish the doctors who prescribed cigarettes for asthma in the fifties. The funniest thing is how many really old people I know who drink and smoke. The companies are not responsible for my habit and neither is this judge.
Soooo cigarette manufacturers have been LIEING about their product??? lol read the labels. In the meantime find out whats been going on in Egypt.
as to smokers - denial is not only a RIVER in EGYPT. You folks would do your body damage WILLFULLY and then expect everyone ELSE to pay for your medical care.
If the industry is required to make such statements, then they should be allowed to add to the statements to correct the misleading impression that the judge is trying to impose. The statements I'd suggest is that "Since the judge said we have to include a statement about smoking killing more people than ..... (the list).... you should be aware that the judge is misleading you. Drugs, suicide, car crashes, and alcohol, may kill you the first time, smoking will not! Whatever activity you decide to partake of, use your own brains to make a decision. You can't rely on the government to decide for you as they change their minds all the time depending on the political winds. Oh, and welcome to the Soviet Union, cause your freedoms are being attacked by the socialists, like this judge!"
put a fork in it
I have yet to meet any smoker in denial and as far as you paying my medical expenses, I pay far more than you do for medical insurance. 200$ per month, right off the top is purely because I smoke and it is to help pay your share. It is to help keep down the cost of the non smokers insurance premiums as I was told in a corporate note from Kaiser Permanente.
I've been paying for many years and have never used my health insurance. I seem to be much healthier than the non smokers around me. So I guess the bottom line is that I am already paying for your medical care each and every paycheck in the form of an extra 100$ to help keep your cost down.
That would put a different spin on things - if the health care industry said 'We're not treating any smoking-related illnesses' and the insurance companies said 'We're not covering any smoking-related conditions.' Maybe then more people would think twice about smoking. Our insurance rates just may go down a little. But the health care industry wants y'all to keep puffing away........
gee common sense, that's exactly how things are now.
Ya for the Judge - I think the Judge should also require all the politations, government agencys, (judicial branch or not) to also admit to lying - why not clean the slate - hell, the government already has won suit after suit from the tobacco industries - may be they should clean their own house
This ruling is not so much about the danger of smoking that now most prople are aware of, it is more about punishment for having deliberately, with malice of forethought, lied to the people.
Since the tobacco companies knew of the danger that could result in painful death, it borders at minimum on intentional 1st. degree manslaughter for every death that can positively be prooved as a result of smoking. I think that should not cover for anything current or recent past, but what was done before the correct information was available.
If we don't kick their ass then stuff like this will keep happening.
Couldn't they say the same about most Drug Manufactures, Food Producers, etc...
Remember, todays rulings can pave the way for future litigations...
Mike..............you are completely delusional if you think your extra $200 in insurance premiums go for nonsmokers, you are in denial. I worked in a hospital and the people that came in gasping for breath and hooked to oxygen tanks because of emphysema and lung cancer were the smokers. A lot of them were uninsured and cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars during the last year of their smoking lives, which by the way almost always ends during the sixth decade of life if they started in their teens.
You might be a statistical anomaly yourself, but you might not be either and by the time you reach 60.......you'll probably be coughing your lungs out as well, just like the rest of them, with one foot in the grave.
"AzDrummer89
Thank you, JS, for going into way more detail than I ever wanted to haha.. Very well said. The fact of the matter is, none of these changes are going to prevent anyone from smoking. Simple as that, 'nuff said."
If it stops one young person from starting then its a win. 'nuff said'
What I don't get is why something that is known to kill so many is even legal, how does it pass the FDA?
Smokers are going to smoke. I agree. Given that they are so bent on killing themselves, let's just round them all up and shoot them. It's quicker. It's cheaper. And, it prevents them from fcuking up the planet for the rest of us. If you really want to die, get on with it!!
This country couldn't begin to afford the lawsuit my generation could muster agaist it. Like many other veterans, I developed my smoking habit after being drafted into the military. Cigarettes were included in rations and deeply discounted to us 4 years or more after the Surgeon Generals warning appeared on cigarette packs. Give if up, fat is the next target and you're all in the cross hairs. Sorry, you gave in too easily on the no-smoking campaign!
hey, the war on fat is a good idea. fatties contribute just as much as tobacco smokers do to health care costs nationwide.
Missy-2451714
Really, I do not need you tell tell me anything. I have the kaiser letter in my file cabinet. Yes, I am already paying to keep non smokers premiums down. If you are a member of Kaiser Permanente, then yes, I am paying to keep your premiums down and it is you yourself that is in denial. My grandfather died with emphysema. He got it from his wood stove. Emphysema has many causes with tobacco being just one of the causes. Lung cancer? Lung cancer can be genetic as well as environmental. Tobacco again, is just one of the causes. You being the professional and all should have already have known this or just maybe it is you, yourself, that is in denial.
BP-2252891
They will never ban tobacco. At the very least they could ban the additives they currently allow tobacco industries to put into tobacco. It's a multi billion dollar a year business for the government. The only reason they even pretend to fight big tobacco is realizing it will drive up the cost of tobacco and thus the tax revenue they bring in and they can then also slide higher tax rates on smokers as they realize they are going to pay because they gave the tobacco industry the red light to add the poisons that cause a deeper addiction. This so called attacks on the tobacco industry is a farce made to simply raise tax revenues.
kids smoke. the same thing happens with the next generation, over and over again, creating new lifelong tobacco smokers. this must be stopped. outlawing tobacco is a good idea, as there are absolutely nothing healthy about smoking tobacco. legalizing marijuana is an even better idea and a good alternative to tobacco. they could make strains very low in THC so that the rush of any type of high could be comparable to the rush one gets from smoking cigarettes. however, i agree that outlawing tobacco will never work. what's more, outlawing it would put tobacco into the unregulated black market, which would make it even more accessible to kids....there's no easy answer but it's clear that tobacco is a huge problem we face.
Years back, I went to many smoke filled bars and clubs. Guess how many people collapsed and died on the floor from smoke inhalation? None. Zero. Now, the next time you pull into your garage judge, leave the car running, get out and shut the garage door and let the garage get filled with the same amount of smoke (i.e. exhaust). As you breath this in, you will be dead within hours! The more lethal second hand smoke is obvious judge. When are all you righteous yuppies going to get off of this bandwagon and start addressing more pressing, more dangerous issues??
when tobacco stops being consistently linked to the hundred thousands that die on an annual basis for simple personal use.
Why dont they do something about the polluted air outside, and the polluted lakes and rivers and the food that causes cancer the idiots, that bothers me more than someone smoking, i dont smoke but i dont care if someone else smokes they should have rights , People who smoke that is there own business idiots always interfering in peoples lives, walk past a person coughing because they have a smoke lite up then hop in your SUV and start it up, tired of idiots go after some real propblems imagine making a man who fought in the war who is in a retirement home in a wheelchair and has to wheel outside in the snow off the property to have a smoke sickening pukes should be ashamed
Deisel and gas kill people the fumes cause cancer i dont want transports and planes polluting so go after the big gas companies sue them for polluting the earth why stop at smokers go outside and take a deep breath of that fresh air thats so good for you or have a drink out of your nearest lake or river this world is going down quick
big corporations should pay for all health costs
Does anybody know a way to quit? I tried everything but have an unconscious willpower to keep smoking.
I tried just about everything. The gum makes me sick. Anything they make that you take orally makes me sick. My kids are all over me about it.
Can anybody let me know a full-proof way to quit? (without sarcasm as in "stop smoking")
This would be greatly appreciated.
The tobacco companies are selling a product they know will make their customers seriously ill and/or kill them. So what's the big deal about lying about it?
People are going to do stupid things and apparently there is no way to stop it.
And it's just not smokers. Look at the people the electorate puts in office, over and over again and nothing in DC changes.
I want to see Ford be made to publicly admit that they have lied all these years about one of their models being a galaxy.
this thread is crazy....
big tobacco was engineering their products to be more addictive until about 2000 through decades of lawsuits
smoking clearly kills and degrades lives
second hand smoke kills and also degrades lives
anti smoking campaigns and labels clearly work because smoking rates are down a lot
so it will definitely help for big tobacco to have to admit publicly what they did... and they should... millions are dead and millions more suffer from asthma and various other diseases because of this product and the way it was engineered to be more addictive than crack.
Education and public shaming seem to be working to a degree. Fewer people are smoking and those that do smoke are usually on the lower end of the economical scale and have less education than most non smokers.
The real problem here isn't they are killing themselves, because that is there business and they have a right to, but the cost to the rest of us to take care of them before they kill themselves. The taxpayer ends up paying for these smoker's care all the way to heaven's door.
@ Creek Dog
Talk to your doctor and/or search for a help line in your area. You'll need a good support network as well. You are trying to quit a drug that is as addictive, if not more in some, than heroin. Good luck and best wishes sir!
I wish the tobacco companies could be ordered to apologize to my father. They killed him in 1973.
Starderup - Your father killed himself. Smoking was his choice of instrument.
This ruling isn't really about smokers, smoking, or the adverse health conditions caused by smoking. It seems to be about the Judiciary's need to become the protector of society en masse rather than simply deciding questions of guilt or innocence based on the tenets of law.
Shaming was made non-permissible by the Supreme Court in the early 1970's~ Now we see a rather ignorant woman sentenced to holding a sign professing to be an idiot, persons sentenced to holding signs in front of stores they have stolen from and so on.
No one is thinking about what happens to a person wrongly convicted and having to hold up a sign saying "I did this" when they really didn't.
If our Courts can force behavior, we need new courts, or judges. This judge chose a punishment of her own that the prosecution hadn't even asked for. "Corrective Statements"? What if you, or I, am convicted of a crime for which the penalty is a statement we do not believe in or of? The Government has no right to abridge our freedom of speech, nor does it hold the right to force us to say anything! Look up Miranda. Post conviction those convicted of a crime are not required to say a damn thing. Now judges want to put words in our mouths. If society cannot make its own decision on whether a company lied or not, we are in a sad day. If our society is in the shape where the Judiciary feels it has to force a company to say "I lied" to reach a large enough cross section of its product demographic, we need a new society. You cannot fix stupid, no matter how hard you try.
Take smoking out of the equation. This Judge is in effect forcing a company to say something it would not have of free will.
Have any books, say a Bible, you want burned? Wait till a court tells a pastor he has to add a side comment on Sunday before he preaches that The Bible has not been proven and that anything you read within is believed to be, by that court, conjecture.
Every high school should have a health, pink, non smoker's lung in a jar next to a diseased, blark-tar, smoker's lung in the school's corridor display case !! Made me stop in one day !
Makes one wonder how many other dangerous products (including electrical transmission lines) that paid "prostitute" scientists have lied about for years in their phony research studies!! Prostitute scientists being paid by "For profit Only" , immoral, criminal, greedy corporations !"
But what about all of the health benefits?!?
Good luck on getting these weasels to admit they lied thru their teeth and killed thousands...you would have better luck getting big Pharma to admit they put mercury (Thimerosol) in vaccines and caused thousands of Autisn cases.
Mike, if you paid in at 200 a month for 50 years, you will contribute aa gran total of $120,000. Your first bypass will exceed that cost. My father thought the same as you, until he found himself in the hospital for a double bypass, and an aortic aneurysm because of his smoking. You may "seem healthier than those non smokers around you", but you will eat your words when you realize the damage later in life. My fathers first visit to the ER cost him in excess of $320,000.. You are the one that I'm subsidizing with my health care costs. But keep denying it, just like my dad did. You're just cutting your life short.
Smoking pales in comparison to abortion deaths....... where is that label?
@Creek Dog, it can be extremely difficult, or even impossible. Nicotine is highly addictive, and actually modifies the receptor neuron sites in the brain.
The mother of a long-time friend smoked for almost 60 years. Had a lung removed at the age of 71. Got home from the hospital a week after surgery; the first thing she did was light up a smoke. And she was hauling around an oxygen tank at the time!
It amazes me that the same hard a$%$ who would say that an alleged burglar or someone commiting a petty crime get what they deserve when the homeowner or shopkeep kill them, but will argue til you are out of breath that it is unfair, or even unconstitutional to hold a corporation (even one who knowingly kills) responsible for their actions. You folks define hypocracy.
P.O. - If lying to the public were an actual crime they sould be going after a lot more than just tobacco companies.
Any time now the 'medical weed' advocates should be weighing in with how much healthier their high is.
Brain, I agree with you 100%!
mediamaniac, you're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
@ Creekdog
Try switching to all natural cigarettes like Winston's or Natural American Spirits. That'll make a huge difference, they don't do the sugars and chemicals to make free base nicotine. Switch to lights then ultralights then add in Ecigs till you're exclusively on Ecigs. If you can't quit from there no matter what, then @!$%# it you're just breathing in water vapor and nicotine.
These ARE forced public confessions, and they ARE designed to shame and humiliate the companies!
That's the point!
You've been caught murdering, and lying about murdering, and you're complaining that you're being forced to say "Oops!"??
And do you really think they care. No one in those companys will feel shamed or feel humiliated.
and that accomplishes what? BMW, Mercedes and others were forced to admit they used slave labor during WW2. That did nothing except make people say "OK, they must be a good company now..." Which, actually, gives them a sort of cloak that will allow them to lie more now that they are trusted more. Waste of time, money and power.
What is accomplished is the truth. Energy companies are today using the same fake study, and disinformation scheme to muddy the waters with evidence for climate change, as the tobacco companies did for years. In some cases the same organization that worked for the tobacco companies is involved.
Former tobacco company executives will now only be remembered as people who killed millions for profit. Energy company executives need to know they will be remembered the same way.
They misled people about the dangers of smoking while at the same time they "intentionally designed cigarettes to make them more addictive". Yes, I know it's just history now, just like the millions of lives prematurely put six feet under, but the legacy of wealth for the families of the perpetrators continues.
For cripes sakes, people have known this for more than fifty years. It is no secret. The government was just as involved as the tobacco companies. They gave them the rights to keep producing and give them the rights to produce today. The courts have made billions just in government versus tobacco companies suits and talk about double jeapordy... how many times over the past 50 years have we read the courts fined the tobacco companies billions of dollars for the damages tobacco has caused it's victims. Thing is that only the government collects for damages. The victims just keep paying until they die and then they pass the remaining effects onto their survivors.
There is no "double jeopardy" for law suits. They should fine them out of business if you ask me I don't feel sorry for them for one minute. Hey how about we switch from a war on Pot to a war on cigarettes?
Bob-313113.
WHAT??!! Good Grief, take your meds.
Though I hate smoking...even the smell of it, I think this will be shot down. The fact is that there are ample warnings on packages cautioning people about the effects of smoking. If this does pass, will everyone that ever lost a family member to lung cancer then file a suit saying thier family member was lied to ?
I do not sympathise with tobacco companies....just saying.
The warnings are on the packages now, but years ago cigarette manufacturers used actors pretending to be doctors to convince people that smoking was good for your health. The people affected by that early advertising are probably all dead now, but does that mean that the liars should be forgiven?
Thumbs up. What do the tobacco companies not understand about the ruling? Lol...
"Oops"....it's taking these guys forever to make my BACONATOR! But it's ok because I ordered 2 Diet Cokes to wash it down!
Who is telling you that it is perfectly healthy to eat and drink that?
Oh, right, nobody is.
Tobacco products is one of the most regulated products today , i know tobacco harms people health but so does to many big macs, tobacco is a legal product.
Difference is....you can have a big mac or 2 on occassion and as long as you eat healthy the rest of the time and exercise...you'll be fine. There IS NO SAFE NUMBER OF CIGARETTES and even Occassional use IS CUMULATIVE!
Randy,
Very true. Makes me want to do a healthy "fat" doobie! Surely, not all smoke is created equal! Certainly, there are no carcinogens in this smoke! Without the added nicotine (forced habitual) the hallucinogenic affect seems to be enough for people to become hooked on it! As with cigarettes in the 1940's, that used personal image to appeal, once addicted, the govt. taxed the hell out of it! Now, the have a hard time convincing people to quit, then trying to replace the revenue generated from smoking. Sure, sure, all the sin tax collected on cigarettes goes towards education. Right! this is, however, they way it was sold to us. Twenty-years from now, with legalized (taxed) marijuana, they'll be preaching the same ill health benefits smoking a doobie. In reality, there are nearly as many carcinogens in marijuana cigarette as there is in one made from tobacco. Difference? Not enough people toking to tie lung cancer to it. With stupidity rampant in this country, we'll give them all the time they need to generate a study.
rms123 --
Your attempt to equate tobacco with marijuana goes against science; marijuana is less harmful than tobacco (however, if the tobacco companies got control of commercial production of marijuana I could see them tampering with it to make it truly addictive). But what really makes me mad about your post is the part where you say "Twenty years from now, with legalized (taxed) marijuana..."
Twenty years?!!! Just legalize it now already!! I don't have twenty years to wait.
Wrong/ I smoke Pot aka Marijuana and the only reason that pot is less problematic is that a person doesn't smoke 20 to 40 joints a day! I smoke 1 1/2 packs (30) Cigarettes a Day and have been doing so since I was 12 years Old...I'm 55 now and still going strong...But just think if I smoked that many Joints a Day do You really think I'd still be alive...Have you ever smoked a Dozen Bowls of pot through a pipe and then cleaned it out/ That same Sh#t is in Your Lungs...The One and Only reason that it's not such a big problem is that Your not going to Smoke even close to the Same amount of Pot!
Daniel, if you smoked 30 cigarettes through a pipe and then cleaned it out you would find that same black goo. You are right that most pot smokers would not smoke 20 to 40 joints a day. When I smoked, I was good with two or three puffs at the end of the day. That equals about a tenth of one cigarette per day.
One is illegal, the other is not. Go figure...
Cannabis actually doesn't harm the lungs, it keeps the lungs clean, healthy and working better than a non-smokers lungs, and even those who smoke Tobacco as well. Cannabis actually protects you from and cures cancer. Cannabis is in no way harmful, dangerous, toxic or unsafe in any way. Btw, those who do smoke Cannabis which i am one as i am a medical Cannabis patient, we who smoke actually hold in the smoke for more than 10 seconds, for each hit. Also, Cannabis has no carcinogens, and it's not radioactive unlike Tobacco which is radioactive because of the Tobacco companies. Btw, Tobacco can actually be grown, and smoked without causing ANY negative side effects or health complications. Natural homegrown Tobacco doesn't have any radioactivity and doesn't contain the MANY MANY MANY unnecessary chemicals Tobacco does. Please people, do your research on the matter. And no it's not up to me to post sources/links to this information, i had to find this out myself so, so can you.
The more you smoke, the more you buy = cha ching $$! That is mostly why pot is not legal. Not enough people smoke it and no one smokes 20-40 joints a day, so sales would not be that high (grin) for tobacco industry.
Plus, pot is not addictive as they like to claim. I can smoke a 1/2 joint a day, stop for weeks or months, then smoke again and repeat it over and over. I smoked 1-2 packs of cigarattes DAILY, until I quit, with help from nicorette gums and started a jogging program to help keep me busy doing something about smoking.
Twenty years cigarette free! I certainly understand how hard it is to quit, but it can be done. You have to do something - anything, but do nothing.
yeah...one year cigarette free here...tried to quit for years, couldn't do it. then my wife got pregnant and we didn't want to put our baby in danger. so we quit. cold turkey. i'm surprised i made it through...here's hoping to another twenty years.
also, marijuana indeed would be a lucrative business. as the healthiest alternative to alcohol, tobacco, illicit hard drugs, and even prescription drug use, sales would skyrocket.
Sabnock,
You forgot stuff: And marijuana can cure diabetes, and acne, and thyoid disease, it can reduce succeptibility to nuclear bomb explosions, prevent obesity (the munchies aren't real-the lamestream media made that up), and it can makes dictators become leaders of democracies, and it reduces the risks of dying in a sandstorm. All that and it is risk-free...yay! And best of all, I don't have to post any data; look it up yourself people...but only after you hold the smoke to 10 seconds or more.
Too funny, Sabnock. But people actually believe this stuff.
Daniel, my father thought the same as you, until he found that he needed a double bypass and had an 8 centimeter aortic aneurysm. It all came crashing down on him one day, as I suspect it will for you. Smokers deny any ill health effects until they hit them. Wait until you cant breathe because of emphysema, then say... but... but...
Studies assessing the anticancer properties of cannabinoids have shown that they inhibit the proliferation of a wide range of cancers, including brain cancer, prostate cancer, oral cancers, lung cancer, skin cancer, pancreatic cancer, biliary tract cancers, lymphoma, and breast cancer.
The dual effects of delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol on cholangiocarcinoma (biliary tract cancer) cells: anti-invasion activity at low concentration and apoptosis induction at high concentration.
The anticancer effect of Delta (9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the principal active component of cannabinoids has been demonstrated in various kinds of cancers.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19916793
Cannabinoids inhibit cellular respiration of human oral cancer cells.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20516734
Anti-proliferative and apoptotic effects of anandamide in human prostatic cancer cell lines: implication of epidermal growth factor receptor down-regulation and ceramide production.
RESULTS: ANA induced a decrease of EGFR levels on LNCaP, DU145, and PC3 prostatic cancer cells by acting through cannabinoid CB(1) receptor subtype and this leaded to an inhibition of the EGF-stimulated growth of these cells.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12746841?dopt=Abstract
Cannabinoids reduce ErbB2-driven breast cancer progression through Akt inhibition
Results
Our results show that both Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the most abundant and potent cannabinoid in marijuana, and JWH-133, a non-psychotropic CB2 receptor-selective agonist, reduce tumor growth, tumor number, and the amount/severity of lung metastases in MMTV-neu mice. Histological analyses of the tumors revealed that cannabinoids inhibit cancer cell proliferation, induce cancer cell apoptosis, and impair tumor angiogenesis. Cannabinoid antitumoral action relies, at least partially, on the inhibition of the pro-tumorigenic Akt pathway. We also found that 91% of ErbB2-positive tumors express the non-psychotropic cannabinoid receptor CB2.
http://www.molecular-cancer.com/content/9/1/196
Inhibition of skin tumor growth and angiogenesis in vivo by activation of cannabinoid receptors
http://www.jci.org/articles/view/16116/version/1
Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits epithelial growth factor-induced lung cancer cell migration in vitro as well as its growth and metastasis in vivo
http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v27/n3/abs/1210641a.html
Cannabinoid Receptor-Mediated Apoptosis Induced by R(+)-Methanandamide and Win55,212-2 Is Associated with Ceramide Accumulation and p38 Activation in Mantle Cell Lymphoma
We have recently shown that cannabinoids induce growth inhibition and apoptosis in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), a malignant B-cell lymphoma that expresses high levels of cannabinoid receptor types 1 and 2 (CB1 and CB2).
http://molpharm.aspetjournals.org/content/70/5/1612.abstract
Cannabinoids as potential new therapy for the treatment of gliomas (brain cancer)
http://www.expert-reviews.com/doi/abs/10.1586/14737175.8.1.37
Cannabinoids Induce Apoptosis of Pancreatic Tumor Cells via Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress–Related Genes
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/66/13/6748.abstract
Pot Compound Protects Against Alcohol-Induced Brain Damage
Researchers hypothesized that CBD is neuroprotective because it possesses anti-oxidant properties. Anti-oxidants, such as vitamin C and vitamin E, are believed to help the body protect against the deleterious effects of free radicals (unstable atoms that can damage cells and may accelerate the progression of cancer and age-related diseases).
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/314/2/780.abstract?sid=4498b396-f35c-49c8-9709-900ffa17e299
@Sabnock
'Cannabis actually doesn't harm the lungs, it keeps the lungs clean, healthy and working better than a non-smokers lungs, and even those who smoke Tobacco as well.'
Inhaling heated minute particles (smoke) into the lungs causes a sticky tar residue to collect in the lungs. One is far safer steeping the cannabis in boiling water and drinking as tea.
All tobacco contains nicotine (the addictive, poisonous substance that keeps people hooked) therefore there is no 'safe' tobacco.
..
They don't have to admit it in order for anyone with any intelligence at all to already know it.
You mentioned the word 'intelligence' smokers dont have any of that.
for USA/no party.talk about dumb.i guess we can put you in their with them.i guess you forgot about the wmd lie.how many died in Iraq,or the next time you eat and you get food poisoning cause they did not what to spend the money to make sure it was safe to sale or when that dunk wipes out that family.dont just blame 1 group when there is a lot more lies going on.thks 2012
John Australia: Do you ever drink, drive, fly in planes, water ski, boat, ride an ATV etc.. Everybody dies, some by accidents some by old age. Let people choose to run their own lives.
Stunned By The Age - yes, people do choose to live their own lives, BUT tobacco companies have laced cigarettes with nicotine in order to make cigarettes addictive. This way, when people CHOOSE to stop smoking, they can not. Tobacco companies have taken away the ability to choose to stop smoking by lacing cigarettes with nicotine.
If you disagree, when please tell me why there is ANY nicotine in cigarettes. Other than to make cigarettes more addictive, they have no value and add NOTHING to a cigarette. Please consider than when making statements such as yours above.
Nicotine in cigarettes gives a regular user a "kick" much like caffiene in coffee. A first time user, it might make a little dizzy.
JOHN ROBERT, I hate to break it to you, but the nicotine is already in the tabacco, that's why people grew it to smoke/chew/snort in the first place.
TylerisaTool,
You and I are about the same age. Yet somewhow, smoking was never seen as accepable when I was growing up, and none of the kids in the upper eschelons of academics at my high school smoked. Actually, the jocks didn't either as it was well-known, even in the 1970s, to be unhealthy. So smokers of our generation were either unintelligent or too weak to resist the advertisements and peer pressure. Or both. You clearly grew up in a culture in which your elders saw fit to push a deadly habit on their offspring - which is sad and not your fault, of course. On the other hand, my Dad smoked and worked hard to quit, and certainly did not encourage any of his kids to take up the habit. We watched with pride as he beat the habit with sheer willpower. So, even among the prior generation, there was enough data to make them think about quitting (and the stronger among them to actually quit). Heck, my GRANDPARENTS quit, though before I was born, so didn't see them do it. So, you can't blame all this on your elders...as we said back then, "that's a cop out".
So, which descriptor fits you is not for me to say, but there are no alternatives. There was already too much data and it was too widely disseminated by that time.
But I do agree that @2012 is completely unintelligible and off topic.
@Nightwalker, yes, nicotine is a natural component of tobacco, but the cigarette companies were boosting the amount to encourage the addiction.
It's like saying that because beer and 151 proof rum both contain alcohol the effect of each on a drinker is the same.
Tobacco is an addictive drug, highly addictive. They have a history of lying about its risks even when they knew. They hired Drs. to muddy the waters on the link with cancer. I know a couple of people who trained in Otolaryngology at Wash U. (St. Louis) back in the 60's and 70's and a very prominent otolaryngologists lab was funded by big tobacco and his research goal was to muddy the waters on the link between cancer and tobacco.
Tobacco in and of itself is a mildly (actually very mildly) addictive drug or product. The same tobacco, now laced with nicotine is a "highly addictive" drug or product. If cigarette makers never began the (highly unethical) process of adding nicotine to cigarettes, people would have a MUCH easier time quitting.
After reading people's response's not one has thought about the government and the food and drug administration have not done there job from the beginning! It is your governments fault as well for not recognizing the dangers of any product and the food and drug administration for not banning the product long ago. I used to work in health and safety, they remove products all the time as they learn that they pose a danger so what do you expect of the millions of people that smoke? what has been done is families have turned against each other! Grand parents that have been addicted for years are not allowed to see there grand children because they smoke and there home smells of smoke and there clothes smell to so they can't touch them and on and on. the government should be up there to! MEAN WHILE TELL THE PEOPLE THAT SMOKERS ARE NOT BAD OR DISGUSTING ! THAT MAKES THEM THE MOST HATED. THANKS BY THE WAY!
So why aren't the tobacco companies charged in criminal complaints for knowingly endangering the lives of people? Why aren't the executives in charge at the time sent to prison? Or forced to disband their "criminal enterprise" (since they were convicted under the RICO statutes)?
Because they have LOTS of money and spend lots of it on lobbyist.
And the government collects LOTS of tax revenue from tobacco products.
should do the same with alcohol
In general alcohol is considered to be non-addictive.
Note that I'm not saying that alcoholism doesn't exist. I'm saying that the vast majority of drinkers do not become alcoholics.
but it is addictive. it's so addictive that your body goes through withdrawal when you try to quit. you can even die trying to quit.
Sure hope they go after All you can eat resturants next for fat pepole who eat to much bad food
Yeah, and all the bars and liquor stores, and the grocery stores for selling beer and wine, and auto makers for selling cars that produce carbon monoxide, and the guys who make Twinkies... Wait! We already got them!
Nodak - Your comment has nothing to do with the topic.
I can't recall all you can eat buffets lying to people about their food.
I"m looking forward to the day when smokers wake up and file a class action suit against the Federal Government for forcing the tobaddo companies to sell individuals and addiction (20 class A cigarettes) instead of allowing them the "pleasure" of having a cigarette once in a while. But what the hey, the government makes BIG money off o their addiction and now they are taking food off of their tables so they can support their addictions.
Just another vendetta against tobacco.
Just ban tobacco and start looking at other sources of cancer and health problem! Won't ever happen because the different government entities want the tax money.
Also if they found other causes they could not blame tobacco.
So if this goes through, does that mean consumers will have an iron-clad lawsuit on their hands for the years and years of being lied to?
cough..cough....hack..couch..hack,hack....cough,,cough....hack.......got a light?
The ruling is appropriate. However tobacco companies don't lie. Companies are not capable of perpetuating a falsehood. These lies and coverups are the results of the PEOPLE in charge of operating these companies.
I am all in favor of the companies being fined into oblivion and publicly humiliated, but the PEOPLE in management positions who are responsible should also be fined into oblivion, publicly humiliated and prosecuted for the FELONY CRIMES they have commited. I am reminded of the infant deaths in China resulting from (purpously) tainted infant formula. The CEO of that company was charged with the crime, convicted and was soon executed. Do not 1200 deaths from tobacco per day count as mass murder?
But corporations are people. The Supreme Court said so.
Meanwhile, as the forum bots post their auto-posts, the real people start posting their thoughts. Anyone who's watched Penn & Teller's "Bull@!$%#", episode here: that this anti-smoking lobby is nothing but a fraud by the EPA to scare people stupid with lies and misinformation and restrict liberties for grown adults.
Move on folks, nothing to see here but the harassment of innocent people.
OK Gladys, how about fast food, breweries, auto makers ...... ......?
Our government and its resposibility to protect people around the globe from what we have learned from our mistakes is disgusting. Our government does not rquire that the tobbaco companies put the warning on packages they sell to third world countries. They do not care that we are starting to kill innocent people around the world becauseof profits being made. Our government therefore should be charged as an accesory to murder in thse countries. It should also be sued and held accountable for not protect the citizens of this world, yet we will go and fight a war in Iraq or Afganistan because their leaders are murdering people. So how can we justify our actions and yet condemn those of another nation.
HA HA Garry, what a stretch. By the way, the 'government' YOU speak of is YOUR government not mine. I love my country...even if ditty brain Obama is president.
Parents are still stupid enough to have their babies in the back seat of the car with the windows up while they smoke.
Lets not mention that you can still smoke in casinos and many other places where people gather.
The only thing California is doing right is trying to stop smokers from subjecting normal people to their second hand smoke. Go California.
Normal people???
for usa/no party.i guess this fool never lived in ca... smog smog smog..choke on that.....thks 2012
...please.
Yeah, it is so weird to go into restaurants outside of California and smell smoke. At that point, I leave. If the place doesn't smell good, nothing will taste good. I don't trust smokers' taste-buds.
And 2012, California is not smoggy. It is only a major issue in the Los Angeles area and Bakersfield. To your new unspoken question, yes, there is more to California besides just LA.
About time those that smoke, are looked at for who they are. Drug addicts.
Wow sharp, drug addicts? Ah well, at least its legal so smokers are safe so far.
One sure way to get smokers to cut down or quit is to make cigs with NO filters! The bits of tobacco in the mouth are gross to most. This will also eliminate the mess of butts that are everywhere.
Young people, be smart and stay away from this filthy habit. Regardless of what you might think...it is not cool...you look foolish doing it, and it will most likely kill you. Why would anyone spend $50.00 per carton just to kill themselves ? Couldn't you use that $50.00 per carton fee on something more meaningful ? Put it in and IRA, or money market, or a savings account.
or purchase guns and ammo to protect yourself from all these busybodies in America.
Porchdog/Amen Brother the Only thing we need saving from is other Peoples Stupiditty...like most of the Holier Than Thous that are on here!
It is about time. They lied and they know it. Screw them. Truth is honesty...REAL honesty...not what you WANT to be the truth.
Yes, the tobacco companies lied so they deserve their punishment. Now if only those in government could be held accountable for all the lies they have told to perpetuate their agenda....
Protect the Innocent --
I wish! I wish we could start with Halliburton, Cheney, and the whole Bush dynasty.
Ummm, is oral sex ...really sex? Get real CoinFL
Wow! What GREAT precedent!!!! "perpetuated fraud and deceived the public regarding______________"(fill in the blank). Think of ALL the applications for that!!!!!!