Tobacco firms sued over low tar Cigarette - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ironman · 09-25-2006, 12:28 PM

I wasn't sure about where to post this, so, moderators, please fill free to move it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5378794.stm

Quote:

Tobacco firms sued over low tar
Cigarette

A lawsuit which accuses tobacco firms of duping smokers into thinking low tar or "light" cigarettes are less harmful has been given the go ahead in the US.

Federal judge Jack Weinstein has ruled that the case can proceed as a class action, involving potentially tens of millions of plaintiffs.

Experts estimate that if successful, the case could cost the tobacco industry up to $200bn (£105bn).

Defendants include Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds and British American Tobacco.

They are joined by Lorillard Tobacco and Liggett Group.

Low tar cigarettes were introduced in the 1970s.

'Disguise'

Spokesmen for Reynolds American, parent company of RJ Reynolds, and UK company British American Tobacco said each would now be appealing the judge's decision.

The appeal is likely to last up to a year.

Altria, parent of Philip Morris, declined to comment on the ruling until its lawyers could review the decision.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that the tobacco companies in question reaped between $120bn to $200bn in extra sales through the deception that light cigarettes are less harmful than full strength versions.

"They [the cigarette firms] understood that they were selling death," said attorney Michael Hausfeld.

The question, he added, was "how to disguise it...They put on 'lights'."

Defence attorneys had argued that the lawsuit relied on flawed data.

They also said that without surveying each and every smoker in the lawsuit it would be impossible to determine their motives for buying light cigarettes.

The link between smoking and lung cancer was first confirmed in 1954.

British American Tobacco said that to date there have been 60 class actions cases against tobacco companies in the US and none have been successful.

I've always been of the idea that there are two types of people in the world: 1.- smart, and
2.- plain and all "fucking stupid"

With that in mind, i've always thought that in the US "fucking stupid" type of people seem to be the constant object of frivolous and idiotic lawsuits because they're been manipulated by "smart" money seeking, gold digging attorneys. Examples about the latter abound, people that gets burned with "hot coffee", people that gets pranked in OD's toilet, etc... It seems that if you were stupid or naive enough to cause harm to yourself or others, the solution is to sue everyone's asses in a desperate and lucrative effort of not look like an idiot in front of everyone, cause, if it was McDonalds fault to serve me "hot coffe", i should not be embarrased about spilling it over my lap.

And in that line of idiotic lawsuits there are the sues against the tobacco industry. As stated in the article, the link between cancer and tobacco was discovered as early as 1952, yet, people has continued (me included) smoking. Now, if everyone knows that smoking is bad for yourself, and still you smoke, is the tobacco industry at fault or is it me? I'm taking a contious and well informed decision, so my guess is it's MY FAULT.

Yeah, we can argued that in this case, the Tobacco industry lead us to beleive that low tar tobacco was "less harmfull" than regular one, but isn't "less harmfull" equal to "harmfull anyway". Yeah, a .22 is deadly, just as a .45, maybe not as deadly as the .45, but deadly no doubt about it.

Should the Tobacco industry be held responsible for all the people that gets cancer over smoking? not as much as McDonald's should be liable for people that gets fat or the school i attended because I dropped out. Those were personal decisions that i made and me, and only me, nobody else, am responsible for those decisions and their consequences, so face them! and stop blaming everybody else. It's time for all of us to start assuming responsability over our actions

BadNick · 09-25-2006, 12:30 PM

I wish people like that would just go off and smoke a lot of high tar cigarettes ...and inhale each puff deeply.

Glory's Sun · 09-25-2006, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNick

I wish people like that would just go off and smoke a lot of high tar cigarettes ...and inhale each puff deeply.

I'm guessing you hate smoking/smokers and just wish we'd all die.

Ok, now before we go anywhere with this thread, let's not let it turn into the same type of thread the last few smoking ones did. Ok. I'm putting a warning in here right out the gate to hopefully avoid problems. Do I really need to put it in yellow?? I hope not.

I've never understood the reasoning behind alot of lawsuits. Especially these types of lawsuits. No one ever forced you to smoke. Now if the tobacco companies had disguised everything and made you think smoking was good for you it would be different. I can tell you that if I smoke a light cigarette and then smoke a full flavor, I can tell a big difference. So to me, this thing is unwarrented. However, the laws exist as they do and there's nothing against suing someone. If the judge let it get this far, then there's a case somewhere obviously.

Ustwo · 09-25-2006, 12:49 PM

I wonder if I could file a class action suit on all smokers on behalf of all of the non-smokers for second hand smoke.

Now that would be a fun case!

ngdawg · 09-25-2006, 02:54 PM

I have to be honest and originally bought the brand I smoke because of their constant advertising about its extremely low tar and nicotine numbers. People that have had one of mine call it 'air'.
I can't handle full-out cigs. They burn my throat and I can actually get dizzy off them. That being said, the ones I smoke are no less addictive, low nicotine notwithstanding.
My last lung xray-two years ago, was clear, but my gastroenterologist claims I have what 'could' be the start of emphysema. Scare tactic? Maybe. Not a real good one, though. Although I am trying to quit, I'm not doing it fast enough.
Would I sue or have my survivors sue? No. This isn't the only choice I've made with negative consequences and probably won't be my last. And that's the key word-CHOICE. No one should be suing because some choice they made wasn't a good one.

flstf · 09-25-2006, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I wonder if I could file a class action suit on all smokers on behalf of all of the non-smokers for second hand smoke.

Now that would be a fun case!

Yeah, the lawyers would have a field day with these kinds of suits. Then we could have the non-drivers sue those who drive spewing their noxious fumes. Might as well have the non-drinkers sue the drinkers for all the carnage on the roads. And then the non-cell phone using drivers ...oh forget it

ngdawg · 09-25-2006, 09:06 PM

Lawyers are quick to take these class-action suits because they are the only true winners. I have gotten more 'settlements' from so-called class action lawsuits....one was a check for just over $3 from a bankcard that was 'overcharging interest rates'; another was a voucher from the local Chrysler dealer for $252...of which I could get a check for $54 and use the rest toward the purchase of a new car within two years...yea, ok....gimme the damned $54. And when Metlife decided to trade on the stock exchange, it was decided that policy holders would receive dividends based on the opening stock price and policy they held. That $2.52 saved me from being homeless...

Anyone want to start a class action suit against class action lawyer practices?

The_Jazz · 09-26-2006, 05:23 AM

As I've done in previous threads, I have to defend the so-called "frivolous" lawsuits and everyone's right to file them.

As far as this suit goes, I honestly think that there's some merit to it. The accussation of misleading advertising could easily prove out based on what I've read above and in other spots. If you replace "low-tar" or "light" cigarettes as the product with like "low fat potato chips". We all love chips - they go with anything. You see the lower fat ones on the shelf and buy them thinking that you're doing yourself some good, only a few days later you suffer what's politely referred to as "anal leakage". There is a reason that warning is on the bag of chips - the manufacturer wants to be able to point out that a "prudent" person would have known about the issues/side effects of chips made with Olestra. There was no warning on "light" cigarettes saying that the health differences between them and the regular kind were negilible. If there had been, this would be a truely frivolous suit since consumers should have known. As it stands, the manufacturer misled their customers.

I will grant that there is a problem in the country with class action lawyers filing suit to line their own pockets, but there are lots of examples of class action suits bringing real, lasting change. The classic example is car safety which didn't even exist in the early 60's.

Ngdawg, do you realize that you gave 3 examples where you had been screwed over by the companies you did business with? A bank overcharged you (and all their customers), a car dealer did the same and when Metlife went from a mutual to a publicly traded company, you got a dividend (you'll have to explain why you have a problem with that since it was not a class action in any way). If you went to McDonalds and bought a cup of coffee for $0.98 and they charged you $3.98, you'd be upset, right? How is this different?

The MetLife deal happened because you were technically a stockholder in that company by having a policy with them (what's referred to as a mutual). When they went public, they had to pay off all the stockholders, and you should have received some form of stock as a part of the deal unless you accepted a buyout offer (and a lot of people did).

Going back to the McDonald's coffee example, I think that everyone here needs to look at the actual facts of the case, as have been pointed out on previous threads. The allegation wasn't that the coffee was too hot but that it was served in an unsecured container that spilled easily. The claimant tried to settle out of court several times but McDonald's wouldn't budge (nor would their insurance company, and I actually know those guys very well).

ngdawg · 09-26-2006, 05:54 AM

Screwed over is one thing...a class action lawsuit that nets people $3 is hardly a victory for the screwed, nor is a stock 'dividend' of $2+. That was basically my point, not that there was a wrong righted, but that after millions spent in defense and settlement, that's what anyone ends up with, while the lawyers reap the true rewards.
I agree-at least some class action suits have been beneficial in changing policy and indeed, that may be the true bottom line.
In this particular case of the tobacco companies misleading the public, again, I agree with that statement as I am one of the misled-addicted to a brand that sold itself purely on its ultra-low numbers. But the ultimate 'winners', regardless of outcome, will be the lawyers. I could very well write a testimony to my belief in and in falling for the falsehoods presented, but what benefit would it produce? In lawsuits filed previously against big tobacco for causing deaths, judgments that have gone for the plaintiffs are so tied up in appeals, they will probably never see a dime, but rest assured, the lawyers will.

BadNick · 09-26-2006, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

I'm guessing you hate smoking/smokers and just wish we'd all die.

....

Absolutely not!

I have never smoked in my whole life ...except the one day when I was about 12yo and instead of going to the movies with the money our parents gave us, we each got a pack of cigs and smoked the whole pack in a couple hours, felt sort of queezy after that, so I gave it up, but my brother and cousin continued to smoke for most of the over 40 years since then. My beloved wife smokes, I wish she'd quit since it is very damaging; several of my close friends smoke. I do want to point out that no one smokes in my car, and even my wife doesn't smoke in our house, she goes out into our yard ...rain snow or shine.

I do not hate any smoker, I feel sorry that they have an addiction. I also don't have any bad feelings toward smokers who enjoy their habit. In fact, each year I typically smoke a couple of what I consider "excellent" cigars and I enjoy that too but have no plan or need to increase my smoking.

My harsh/hyperbole comment above is directed mostly at "nuisance" litigation.

The_Jazz · 09-26-2006, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

Screwed over is one thing...a class action lawsuit that nets people $3 is hardly a victory for the screwed, nor is a stock 'dividend' of $2+. That was basically my point, not that there was a wrong righted, but that after millions spent in defense and settlement, that's what anyone ends up with, while the lawyers reap the true rewards.
I agree-at least some class action suits have been beneficial in changing policy and indeed, that may be the true bottom line.
In this particular case of the tobacco companies misleading the public, again, I agree with that statement as I am one of the misled-addicted to a brand that sold itself purely on its ultra-low numbers. But the ultimate 'winners', regardless of outcome, will be the lawyers. I could very well write a testimony to my belief in and in falling for the falsehoods presented, but what benefit would it produce? In lawsuits filed previously against big tobacco for causing deaths, judgments that have gone for the plaintiffs are so tied up in appeals, they will probably never see a dime, but rest assured, the lawyers will.

OK, I think that I muddied the waters with the MetLife stuff. For the record, there was no class action lawsuit against MetLife that I'm aware of. The reason that you got a dividend was that the nature of the company changed from private ownership to public. By the very nature of having one of several policy types with them, you owned stock in comany. When they took it public, you received a dividend payment just like all other policy holders.

I agree that the lawyers share of these judgements need to be reduced, although you do need to understand that they're taking considerable risk in most cases. They do all of the research, file all the paperwork and arrange for all the testimony (if it goes to court). They also find all the wronged parties and distribute the funds. Unfortunately, most target companies have found it cheaper to settle out of court rather than fight the truely frivolous suits which just rewards the less scrupulous lawyers out there. Doing away with class actions altogether, though, is a fantastically bad idea that take away everyone's ability to remedy the greatest wrongs done by corporate America.

flstf · 09-26-2006, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Going back to the McDonald's coffee example, I think that everyone here needs to look at the actual facts of the case, as have been pointed out on previous threads. The allegation wasn't that the coffee was too hot but that it was served in an unsecured container that spilled easily. The claimant tried to settle out of court several times but McDonald's wouldn't budge (nor would their insurance company, and I actually know those guys very well).

Yeah, but the vast majority of people have no problem with the way McDonald's and Starbucks etc.. dispenses their coffee. They could serve it up in insulated screwtop containers that cost $20 each but it is not necessary except for careless people like this lady.

It's like sueing baseball manufacturers for not furnishing helmets with each baseball because you might get hit on the head while playing catch. Coffee is hot, baseballs are hard, companies should not be held responsible when people screw up while using them.

Well maybe the baseball analogy is a bit over the top but I think most will agree that these suits are frivolous.

ngdawg · 09-26-2006, 07:29 AM

A prime example of 'bad' lawyering:
A good friend was involved in a rear-end collision-a Pepsi truck hit him, totalling his car and injuring his spine. The truck driver, new to the job, did not get cited by the police, but a report was made.
Said friend contacted a lawyer by phone and he took the case. They asked Pepsi for total coverage of the medical treatments plus $12,500(lost wages) and cost of the totalled car. A pitance to Pepsi. Pepsi countered with medical coverage for a limited time and $7,500, take it or leave it. The lawyer agreed. Then he took $3,000 of that and billed my friend an additional $2,000, for a total of $5,000 for 'services'.
Incensed, said friend demanded that the lawyer drop any claims to the additional monies because A: he didn't fight the counter; B: he made decisions without first running them by the friend and C: they'd never even met in person over the case.
The lawyer backed down and dropped the bill.
Suits like the OP and the above example are why lawyers are seen in such a bad light. We need them, no doubt and for every incompetent one, there are 3 excellent ones, I'm sure. I guess time will tell if this will have any positive effect, but I'm very sceptical.....maybe I should start on that 'testimony'....

Elphaba · 09-26-2006, 02:35 PM

Like ng, I took up B&H Ultra Lights when the Surgeon General's warning finally appeared on full strength cigarettes. The warning on ultra lights was a mere warning about cigarette smoke containing carbon monoxide, so I continued to justify my smoking because it wasn't anything worse than the city air I was breathing.

But the tobacco manufacturers were forced to correct the warning a few years ago and special attachments to each pack that said something to the effect that the low tar/nicotine claims where unproven or some such. Did I quit? No. So who's responsibility is that 1) I started smoking to begin with, and 2) continued smoking even after it became clear that ultra lights could not be considered "safe" any longer?

Was I deceived by the tobacco companies? Sure I was, but I was a willing participant in some regards. My husband survived lung cancer and I am *still* smoking. That speaks to the intensity of nicotine addiction and my lack of determination. Pathetic.

09-25-2006, 12:49 PM	#4 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I wonder if I could file a class action suit on all smokers on behalf of all of the non-smokers for second hand smoke. Now that would be a fun case! __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-25-2006, 02:54 PM	#5 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	I have to be honest and originally bought the brand I smoke because of their constant advertising about its extremely low tar and nicotine numbers. People that have had one of mine call it 'air'. I can't handle full-out cigs. They burn my throat and I can actually get dizzy off them. That being said, the ones I smoke are no less addictive, low nicotine notwithstanding. My last lung xray-two years ago, was clear, but my gastroenterologist claims I have what 'could' be the start of emphysema. Scare tactic? Maybe. Not a real good one, though. Although I am trying to quit, I'm not doing it fast enough. Would I sue or have my survivors sue? No. This isn't the only choice I've made with negative consequences and probably won't be my last. And that's the key word-CHOICE. No one should be suing because some choice they made wasn't a good one. __________________ Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

09-25-2006, 09:06 PM	#7 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	Lawyers are quick to take these class-action suits because they are the only true winners. I have gotten more 'settlements' from so-called class action lawsuits....one was a check for just over $3 from a bankcard that was 'overcharging interest rates'; another was a voucher from the local Chrysler dealer for $252...of which I could get a check for $54 and use the rest toward the purchase of a new car within two years...yea, ok....gimme the damned $54. And when Metlife decided to trade on the stock exchange, it was decided that policy holders would receive dividends based on the opening stock price and policy they held. That $2.52 saved me from being homeless... Anyone want to start a class action suit against class action lawyer practices? __________________ Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

09-26-2006, 05:23 AM	#8 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	As I've done in previous threads, I have to defend the so-called "frivolous" lawsuits and everyone's right to file them. As far as this suit goes, I honestly think that there's some merit to it. The accussation of misleading advertising could easily prove out based on what I've read above and in other spots. If you replace "low-tar" or "light" cigarettes as the product with like "low fat potato chips". We all love chips - they go with anything. You see the lower fat ones on the shelf and buy them thinking that you're doing yourself some good, only a few days later you suffer what's politely referred to as "anal leakage". There is a reason that warning is on the bag of chips - the manufacturer wants to be able to point out that a "prudent" person would have known about the issues/side effects of chips made with Olestra. There was no warning on "light" cigarettes saying that the health differences between them and the regular kind were negilible. If there had been, this would be a truely frivolous suit since consumers should have known. As it stands, the manufacturer misled their customers. I will grant that there is a problem in the country with class action lawyers filing suit to line their own pockets, but there are lots of examples of class action suits bringing real, lasting change. The classic example is car safety which didn't even exist in the early 60's. Ngdawg, do you realize that you gave 3 examples where you had been screwed over by the companies you did business with? A bank overcharged you (and all their customers), a car dealer did the same and when Metlife went from a mutual to a publicly traded company, you got a dividend (you'll have to explain why you have a problem with that since it was not a class action in any way). If you went to McDonalds and bought a cup of coffee for $0.98 and they charged you $3.98, you'd be upset, right? How is this different? The MetLife deal happened because you were technically a stockholder in that company by having a policy with them (what's referred to as a mutual). When they went public, they had to pay off all the stockholders, and you should have received some form of stock as a part of the deal unless you accepted a buyout offer (and a lot of people did). Going back to the McDonald's coffee example, I think that everyone here needs to look at the actual facts of the case, as have been pointed out on previous threads. The allegation wasn't that the coffee was too hot but that it was served in an unsecured container that spilled easily. The claimant tried to settle out of court several times but McDonald's wouldn't budge (nor would their insurance company, and I actually know those guys very well). __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

09-26-2006, 05:54 AM	#9 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	Screwed over is one thing...a class action lawsuit that nets people $3 is hardly a victory for the screwed, nor is a stock 'dividend' of $2+. That was basically my point, not that there was a wrong righted, but that after millions spent in defense and settlement, that's what anyone ends up with, while the lawyers reap the true rewards. I agree-at least some class action suits have been beneficial in changing policy and indeed, that may be the true bottom line. In this particular case of the tobacco companies misleading the public, again, I agree with that statement as I am one of the misled-addicted to a brand that sold itself purely on its ultra-low numbers. But the ultimate 'winners', regardless of outcome, will be the lawyers. I could very well write a testimony to my belief in and in falling for the falsehoods presented, but what benefit would it produce? In lawsuits filed previously against big tobacco for causing deaths, judgments that have gone for the plaintiffs are so tied up in appeals, they will probably never see a dime, but rest assured, the lawyers will. __________________ Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

09-25-2006, 12:30 PM	#2 (permalink)
BadNick Riding the Ocean Spray Location: S.E. PA in U Sofa	I wish people like that would just go off and smoke a lot of high tar cigarettes ...and inhale each puff deeply.

09-26-2006, 07:29 AM	#13 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	A prime example of 'bad' lawyering: A good friend was involved in a rear-end collision-a Pepsi truck hit him, totalling his car and injuring his spine. The truck driver, new to the job, did not get cited by the police, but a report was made. Said friend contacted a lawyer by phone and he took the case. They asked Pepsi for total coverage of the medical treatments plus $12,500(lost wages) and cost of the totalled car. A pitance to Pepsi. Pepsi countered with medical coverage for a limited time and $7,500, take it or leave it. The lawyer agreed. Then he took $3,000 of that and billed my friend an additional $2,000, for a total of $5,000 for 'services'. Incensed, said friend demanded that the lawyer drop any claims to the additional monies because A: he didn't fight the counter; B: he made decisions without first running them by the friend and C: they'd never even met in person over the case. The lawyer backed down and dropped the bill. Suits like the OP and the above example are why lawyers are seen in such a bad light. We need them, no doubt and for every incompetent one, there are 3 excellent ones, I'm sure. I guess time will tell if this will have any positive effect, but I'm very sceptical.....maybe I should start on that 'testimony'.... __________________ Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

09-26-2006, 02:35 PM	#14 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Like ng, I took up B&H Ultra Lights when the Surgeon General's warning finally appeared on full strength cigarettes. The warning on ultra lights was a mere warning about cigarette smoke containing carbon monoxide, so I continued to justify my smoking because it wasn't anything worse than the city air I was breathing. But the tobacco manufacturers were forced to correct the warning a few years ago and special attachments to each pack that said something to the effect that the low tar/nicotine claims where unproven or some such. Did I quit? No. So who's responsibility is that 1) I started smoking to begin with, and 2) continued smoking even after it became clear that ultra lights could not be considered "safe" any longer? Was I deceived by the tobacco companies? Sure I was, but I was a willing participant in some regards. My husband survived lung cancer and I am still smoking. That speaks to the intensity of nicotine addiction and my lack of determination. Pathetic.