Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiUS Appeals Court Agrees Tobacco Companies Lied
WASHINGTON - Cigarette companies systematically lied for decades to hide the dangers of smoking, a U.S. appeals court said on Friday as it upheld a trial judge's racketeering verdict.
![[Cigarette companies systematically lied for decades to hide the dangers of smoking, a U.S. appeals court said on Friday as it upheld a trial judge's racketeering verdict. (REUTERS/Lucas Jackson)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/tobacco_lied.png "tobacco_lied.png")
But in a blow to anti-smoking groups, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia also upheld U.S. District Judge Gladys
Kessler's 2006 rejection of plans to force the companies to fund
smoking cessation programs, which could have cost them billions of
dollars.
The appeals court's three-judge panel ruled that the companies, including Altria Group Inc and its Philip Morris USA unit, violated federal anti-racketeering laws by conspiring to lie about the dangers of smoking.
"Defendants knew of their falsity at the time and made the statements with the intent to deceive," the court said in a 92-page ruling. "Thus, we are not dealing with accidental falsehoods, or sincere attempts to persuade; Defendants' liability rests on deceits perpetrated with knowledge of their falsity."
Other companies appealing Kessler's ruling were the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco unit of Reynolds American Inc, Lorillard Inc, Vector Group Ltd's Liggett Group, British American Tobacco Plc and its Brown & Williamson unit, as well as now defunct industry groups: the Council for Tobacco Research and the Tobacco Institute.
The case was filed in 1999 by the Clinton administration, which sought $289 billion in damages.
During the original trial, which began in 2004, the Justice Department under the Bush administration scaled back its demands to $14 billion for anti-smoking campaigns.
Kessler ultimately ruled the companies broke the law and could no longer use expressions such as "low tar" or "light" in their cigarette marketing. But she said she did not have the authority to force them to fund a smoking cessation program.
Philip Morris, Altria and Reynolds said on Friday that they would press on with their legal fight, although they had not yet decided if they would ask for a rehearing before the entire appeals court or ask the Supreme Court to consider the case.
Tobacco companies are already paying billions of dollars a year under a 1998 settlement agreement with state governments that also bars targeting children in cigarette advertising and puts other restrictions on cigarette ads.
Legislation working its way through the U.S. Congress would give the Food and Drug Administration power to control the advertising and manufacture of tobacco products.
CORRECTIVE STATEMENTS
In its ruling on Friday, the appeals court upheld an order requiring warnings on cigarette packages and demanding that tobacco sellers publish "corrective statements" on corporate web sites. They would also have to buy full-page advertisements in thirty-five major newspapers and put at least ten advertisements on a major television network.
In a victory for convenience stores and other retailers, however, the appeals court said the lower court overstepped its authority in requiring merchandisers to add countertop signs with the "corrective statements."
The National Association of Convenience Stores said the requirement would take away valuable counter space and cost the industry $82 million in lost sales annually.
The appeals court was highly critical of the tobacco companies, rejecting their arguments that they had never advertised "light" cigarettes as less dangerous.
The court also pointed to evidence that the companies knew that second-hand smoke was dangerous, dismissing their assertions that there was no "scientific consensus."
"Again defendants miss the point," the ruling said. "Regardless of whether a scientific consensus existed at any point, defendants may be liable for fraud if they made statements knowing they were false or misleading."
The court also found that tobacco companies were deceitful in asserting they were unaware that tobacco is highly addictive, citing numerous findings "all unchallenged --
(which) support the district court's conclusion that defendants were aware that nicotine creates a chemical dependency far stronger than a mere habit."
The decision follows a ruling by the Supreme Court in December that tobacco firms can be sued under state law for deceptive advertising of "light" cigarettes.
That case involved three longtime smokers from Maine who said Philip Morris was deceptive in advertising cigarettes as "light" or with "lowered tar and nicotine."
The Tobacco Products Liability Project said the Supreme Court decision, along with Friday's ruling, should help the 40 or so lawsuits filed nationwide which accuse cigarette companies of deceptively marketing light cigarettes.
"We're delighted with the opinion today," said Edward Sweda, of the advocacy group. "The government's presentation of the evidence provides a roadmap for plaintiff's attorneys."
The case is U.S. v Philip Morris USA et al, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, No. 06-5267.
The ruling was posted at: here
(Additional reporting by James Vicini; Editing by Gerald E. McCormick and Tim Dobbyn)
5 Comments so far
Show AllThey as much as told smokers that it was good for their health. Criminal. The suffering of Cancer....
If anyone is interested, www.invisismoke.com is giving away a Free electronic cigarette kit every month. The contest if Free to enter with no purchase necessary.
cheers
Tobacco's highly addictive? That depends on whether it's purely natural tobacco, or tobacco that's been altered, including with addictive additives. Pure, natural tobacco has nicotene but isn't very addictive, but what Big Tobacco provided for cigarettes was very addictive, because it wasn't purely tobacco.
There was a movie on tv last night and it's entitled, "The Insider", which is a somewhat fictionalised version of a true history from the 1990's. When considering whether to watch a movie, I check at IMDB.com and for reviews by Roger Ebert at Sun Times, while the latter are often linked in the "external reviews" page at IMDB. Following is his review on this movie.
(url broken over two lines, or just search at imdb.com and go to the "external reviews" page for this movie)
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/
article?AID=/19991105/REVIEWS/911050302/1023
The whistleblower is Jeffrey Wigand, his real name, and he worked in a high position at Brown & Williamson, in its lab(s). He battled a number of times in the 1990's, battled in official terms.
Following is the most recent article I found about this.
"'The Insider' Is Back
Former Tobacco Exec Testifies At Trial On Dangers Of Smoking",
by Francie Grace, Feb. 1, 2005
(url broken over two lines)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/01/national/
main670677.shtml
EXCERPT:
Wigand, who worked for Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. from 1989 to 1993, said company executives knew nicotine was addictive, despite assertions to the contrary, and manipulated nicotine levels in cigarettes to ensure smokers remained hooked.
"We understood at Brown & Williamson that every cigarette we made was manipulated to make sure that it delivered enough nicotine to keep smokers addicted," he testified
For nearly a decade, he has been testifying against the tobacco industry. His disclosures during a 60 Minutes interview and subsequent deposition in 1995 inspired "The Insider," a 1999 Oscar-nominated film about a tobacco industry whistleblower.
Seeking to discredit Wigand, Brown & Williamson lawyer David Bernick pointed to inaccuracies in past testimony. In 1995, for example, Wigand testified that the company had used rat poison in a brand of its pipe tobacco, believing it enhanced flavor.
Wigand acknowledged that was "technically misleading," but said the ingredient - coumarin - is a precursor to a substance used as rat poison.
Bernick also contended Wigand has benefited from regularly testifying in tobacco trials. Though Wigand said he has made less than $100,000 for his work on tobacco litigation, Bernick noted that trial lawyers have donated about $2 million to Smoke Free Kids, a nonprofit organization Wigand started in 1998.
END OF EXCERPT
"Smoke Free Kids" is his website.
JeffreyWigand.com
EXCERPT (continued):
...
The Justice Department is pursuing the case using a 1970 civil racketeering statute originally designed to prosecute mobsters. To win, the government must show the industry still is acting fraudulently or is likely to do so in the future.
...
In direct testimony filed before his court appearance and during Monday's proceeding, Wigand alleged that some policies at Brown & Williamson were driven by knowledge of the dangers posed by cigarette smoking and the potential litigation the company might face.
For example, the company stopped an internal research project into safer cigarettes because an executive was concerned such a project could be used in potential future lawsuits against the company "and would play into the hands of an adversary," Wigand said. Executives also feared that if the company produced a safer cigarette it would imply the standard product was unsafe and provide a long-denied link between smoking and health problems, he said.
The research continued at sister companies in England and Canada.
Wigand also alleged that Brown & Williamson explored using ammonia-based additives in its cigarettes to magnify nicotine's impact on a smoker. But in court, Bernick said studies found the additives affected cigarettes' taste.
The defendants in the lawsuit are: Philip Morris USA Inc. and its parent, Altria Group Inc.; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co.; British American Tobacco Ltd.; Lorillard Tobacco Co.; Liggett Group Inc.; Counsel for Tobacco Research-U.S.A.; and the Tobacco Institute.
END OF EXCERPT
I also found the following article during my Web searches yesterday (movie, on tv, was last night).
"The Man Who Knew Too Much
Angrily, painfully, Jeffrey Wigand emerged from the sealed world of Big Tobacco to confront the nation’s third-largest cigarette company, Brown & Williamson. Hailed as a hero by anti-smoking forces and vilified by the tobacco industry, Wigand is at the center of an epic multibillion-dollar struggle that reaches from Capitol Hill to the hallowed journalistic halls of CBS’s 60 Minutes."
by Marie Brenner, May 1996
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1996/05/wigand199605
Anyway, he testified as Roger Eberts says in his review; that the cies made cig's [more] addictive than they naturally would be, and that this was done with the inclusion of an addictive ingredient that was a known carcinogen.
I read years ago, however, that the cies also added or blended in, somehow, turpentine to make cig's burn non-stop and quickly, regardless of whether a person was smoking a lit cig. or not. I saw cig's burn by themselves non-stop, down to the filters, the whole length, minus a puff, by themselves once lit and placed in an ashtray, f.e. And what American Spirit (a brand of good quality tobacco products from an American Indian tribe in, I believe, New Mexico) says is that natural, pure tobacco's like wood, it doesn't burn alone; it needs oxygen to flow, or for accelerant, to burn. A pre-made cig. or a rolled one, unless made too loosely, should go out by itself when not puffed on, that is, for pure, natural tobacco.
And pure, natural tobacco is little harmful and relatively non-addictive, while nicotine, some scientists say anyway, is believed to possibly be a substance that can help provent alzheimer's disease. Tobacco, smoking, is also said to be a protection against airborne viruses. Plants naturally contain anti-bacterial, ... qualities.
Indigenous peoples have smoke for ages. Cubans, nearly all smoke cigars and live to a high average age, from what I've also read and which should be easy enough to verify. The smoke clean products and only natural tobacco though.
Corbell,
Do you smoke?
If you do, quit. Immediately. Do not look back. Use Zyban or whatever.
I guarantee you do not want the curse I am under for going too long.
If you don't smoke, then please...STFU. Your insipid rationalizations are propaganda and nothing more.
Anybody who reads this, "Do Not Smoke!"
Fuck the tobacco companies and their genetic material.
The court's upholding the racketeering verdict against big tobacco ought to open the floodgates of litigation against all the many mega-rackets plaguing this society. For many people, publicity of big tobacco's illegal and deadly profiteering was their first personal exposure to the gilded plague. Since then so many new mega-rackets have been exposed that big tobacco is almost lost in the big business noise. The common thread in the big business coalition is simple: Elite class war on people. And the people's solution is simple: We shift our individual exchange/association away from elites toward our local communities. Demoks resist. They are quietly invested in big tobacco promoting its expansion worldwide. And along with their Repuk bed-mates, Demoks are also invested in big pharma to treat big tobacco's tens of millions of new victims. Help get the "Marlboro Man", the "Great Satan", out of the oval orifice, by voting third party.