Background of Cigarette Litigation

Since the first major lawsuit settled against tobacco companies in 1998, there has been much controversy over whether or not these lawsuits are justified. On the pro side of the argument there is much evidence to support that the tobacco industries have long known about the dangers of cigarette smoking. Furthermore that this knowledge warrants the need for compensation. In addition the industry has concealed this knowledge from the public. On the con side of the argument evidence shows that these lawsuits have been based on false claims primarily in regard to health care costs for smokers. Furthermore, the regulations set by the settlement of the 1998 multistate lawsuit have established a legal president which allows individuals

When information was released to the public in 1939, tobacco companies found ways to discredit, and silence the public concern. In fact, previous to this tobacco manufacturers claimed an increase in health and medicinal properties for tobacco products. With the formation of the Council for Tobacco Research, in 1954, a direct link was sought between smoking and health related problems. Upon the finding of such evidence major cigarette manufacturers unite.

World War I, 1917-1918 played a big part in men taking up the habit of smoking. Along with their daily food rations, they were given all the cigarette’s they could smoke. In 2005, Anderson Cooper reported on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, that the US military was giving out packs of cigarettes to Iraqis with a phone number they could use to report terrorist activities. (Borio,

A recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada on the subject of smoking is the main topic of my articles. The landmark ruling made on September 30th gives the province of British Columbia ammunition against big tobacco companies. "The decision allows British Columbia to sue tobacco companies for damages related to smoking-related health care costs dating back 50 years" (Bell Globalmedia Inc [BGMI], 2005). Many expect the ruling in BC will act as a model for other provinces to follow suit. The resulting lawsuits could potentially cost Canadian tobacco companies like Benson & Hedges, Imperial Tobacco, and Rothmans hundreds of billions of dollars. Similar

was 35.1 billion dollars. With a product that kills so many of its customers, your only concern in this industry is to increase sales and make a profit. Definitely in the tobacco industry and most others, it is my opinion that you cannot cater to the best interest of both the company and the consumer. Even a good company with the best intentions will eventually come to a crossroad where choosing what is best for one will not have such a great outcome for the other. Their best interests will ultimately conflict, and you will be forced make a choice between the two.

According to the CDC, in 2012 cigarette and smokeless tobacco companies spent more than $9.6 billion on advertising and promotional expenses in the United States alone. This is an extremely atrocious amount of money to spend on a product that has been proven to harm or even kill its consumers. In addition, the world lung

Based in Irving Coffman's argument that “If tobacco companies have paid a financial settlement with several states due to the health problems it caused. Then, manufacturers of other legal harmful products such as alcohol and guns should also have to pay financial settlements in return for the problems they cause.” I strongly agree with his point of view in order to help prevent more people from damaging their health, and suffering later on. Moreover, if all the legal harmful manufacturers start to pay a financial settlement, then the prices of these products would raise up, which might help to limited people from buying these harmful products because not everybody can afford what others can. Before, most of the time that I was in my sport

Tobacco has existed for long as we have known about history, but due to the negative effects of it to the broader community Tobacco has sparked greater controversy across the globe. Many people argue that it is the government’s responsibility to protect the individual but on the contrary some disagree and believe it’s up to the individual. This essay will elaborate above mentioned aspects and lead to a logical conclusion.

Tobacco has been the center of much controversy in America since the late twentieth century. Increasing numbers of studies showing the harmful side effects of tobacco has also caused many insurance companies to increase coverage costs to those who use the product. Insurance rates have a directly proportional relationship with risk factors, so the increase in coverage costs of tobacco users means that they have a higher risk of health complications. The raising of insurance rates is a safety net for the company to protect their stock. On average, individuals who use tobacco products in Florida often pay twenty dollars more per month than individuals who do not

Only those young adults who admired these actors and smoked haveto suffer the cost of idolizing. Since there is no positive effect when smoking a pack of cigarette, the companies can only glamourize tobacco and lure young adults to purchase them. In early 1900s, many critiques have questioned the health effect of smoking and held

The United States is believed to be a free country, not monocracy. No one wants the government to charge them extra for the snacks they decide to eat. People want to make the choice to be healthy on their own. The choice is up to the individual it is not the governments` choice to make. No matter how much more the taxes the government puts on junk and fatty food, it will not stop people from eating them. 2.

do. However, it was a silent killer for many years until true scientific data had proven its

By 1967 broadcasters were airing one anti-smoking ad for every four cigarette ads, on prime-time television.      Bleary-eyed football fans who managed to hang on beyond the last bowl games witnessed history 90 seconds before midnight

Fortunately, the tobacco industry's behavior is likely to change due to the increasing legal and societal pressures. Much legislation has been imposed to tobacco firms based on codes of behavior, different government strategies and litigations, especially after 1980 where anti-smoking groups reactions, led to higher restrictions throughout

This problem of creating a trendy stylish image of cigarettes are hurting many people by recruiting new young smokers from all around the world, winning over sales due to the false image and then addiction. Third world countries are hurt the most by this unethical way of advertising because they don’t have money for this extra expense that they now need due to addiction. Critics claim that sophisticated promotions in a unsophisticated societies entice people who cannot afford the necessities of life to spend money on luxury- and a dangerous one at that. Every cigarette manufacturer is in the image business, and tobacco companies say their promotional slant is both reasonable and common. They point out that in the Third World a lot of people cannot understand what is written in the ads anyway, so the ads zero in on the more understandable visual image. Due to actions such as this and the negative effect it has on people economically and physically, this is a good example of how the tobacco industry is unethical.