The Legal Battles Of Tobacco Companies

Big tobacco is losing in a war for the public to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and The Truth Initiative. Big tobacco being the large tobacco companies in the world like Philip Morris International, British American Tobacco, Imperial Brands, Japan Tobacco International, and China Tobacco. The CDC is a government operated agency that contributes to the overall health of the public. The Truth Initiative is the largest non-profit public health organization in the U.S. whose goal is to inspire tobacco free lives. Not only is Big tobacco losing, they may have already lost.

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.

In the case of Mulford v. Altria Group Inc. Case No. Civ. 05-659 MV/RHS (2007), Mexican smokers brought suit against manufacturer Philip Morris and Altria Group, Inc., for violating Federal Trade Commission Law and New Mexico Unfair trade Practices Act by deceptively marketing cigarettes as "light" and "lower in tar and nicotine". The Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs for the manufacturer fraudulent misrepresentation.

It has been proven that smoking is the cause of 30% of general cancer deaths and 80% of lung cancer deaths in the U.S. Lung cancer has also been found to be the biggest cause of cancer deaths among breast cancer, prostate cancer, and ovarian cancer. This year alone, 190,500 of about 600,900 cancer deaths will be caused by smoking tobacco. This means that one in every three cancer patients will die due to tobacco products. In fact, smoking tobacco caused such high amounts of lung cancer that tobacco companies are legally required to include a surgeon general’s warning that outlines the potential of developing cancer on their packaging. The numbers and warnings of smoking-related lung cancer can be seen everywhere from statistics to the companies themselves being held liable for the illnesses their products

The film Thank you for Smoking was produced in 2005 by TYFS Productions LLC and is a satirical comedy that follows the machinations of Big Tobacco's chief spokesman, Nick Naylor, who spins on behalf of cigarettes while trying to remain a role model for his twelve-year-old son. This film compares to a few of the readings that we have been studying in this class recently. Seeing the plot of the film in relation to the court case studies has helped me fully grasp the goings on of the court of law.

Tobacco companies denied the health effects of nicotine, knowing fully that the substance was highly addictive. The industry also used misleading advertising that never showed the negative effects of their products. They targeted children with their misleading marketing campaigns causing generations of smokers. As a result of these actions, the public is suffering the consequences. "The government of Canada spends 4 billion dollars in direct health care costs every year because of tobacco" (BGMI, 2005). The settlements resulting from lawsuits against tobacco companies will regain some of those costs and take off some strain on health care system due to the treatment tobacco related diseases. The settlements can also help treat current patients with emphysema, cancer and other smoking-related diseases.

Courts use a risk/utility analysis to determine whether the risks associated with certain inherently unsafe products are reasonable. To make the determination, courts weigh the availability of safer alternatives and whether the risks of using the product outweigh that product's utility. The myriad of lawsuits against tobacco companies certainly raise this issue to a point of controversy.

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

The Tobacco Products Control Act of 1989 sought to impose restrictions on the promotion of tobacco products. These restrictions concerned limitations in three commercial categories: advertisement, promotion, and labelling. Under the Act, tobacco products cannot be advertised, and products must be labeled with viable health warnings and a list of toxins. The packaging must be minimal, as to not be ostentatious to persuade Canadians from buying. Furthermore, the Act would prohibit the distribution of free samples. Appellants RJR-Macdonald Inc. dissented, stating the Act was a direct infringement upon the Charter’s s.2 freedom of expression clause, and appellant Imperial Tobacco Ltd. further dissented.

The use of tobacco is a very controversial topic here in the United States. The harmful side effects of tobacco are well known and consequently, many believe that it should be outlawed. Though this has not yet occurred, constant regulations on the industry and

     The war on smoking has existed for decades. With the advent of more tenacious laws prohibiting smoking in public locations, and most recently Minnesota’s historic tobacco settlement, many actions against “Big Tobacco” have become more successful. Anti-smoking campaigns have become more confrontational, directly targeting tobacco companies in an effort to expose its manipulative and illegal marketing tactics.      On the surface, last November's $206 billion settlement agreement between the tobacco companies and 46 states looks like a serious blow for Big Tobacco. In addition to the money, it contains some important concessions: a ban on outdoor advertising, limits on

(Yach, Brinchmann, Bellet page 4, 7 and Sloman page 85).This injustice, urged the department of justice to file a civil lawsuit in 1999, against the largest tobacco companies, to recover the cost that federal government has to spend on smoking-related illness each year.

The tobacco industry is a very unethical industry, due to the long term effects of tobacco on humans. The industry also does not assess the ethical and social responsibility the best way that it should. There are many factors that make the industry unethical; some of the reasons are the way the cigarette companies around the world Advertise, the way governments and cigarette companies make a huge profit from the sales of cigarettes, and the labeling health risks. I do believe however that there is something that the tobacco companies can do to better their strategy as far as their ethics go. I think that they should, always be looking for the best interest on their consumers, as well as advertise strictly

Of course one could quote ethical egoism here and argue that whatever the business of a company is, it is not responsible for its consumers and is right in selling its products for profits and every individual has the right to protect their interests which in this case would be their individual freedom to smoke cigarettes and evaluate by themselves how harmful smoking is to them. But this principal is based on an assumption that both entities; business and consumers are isolated from each other and information about cigarettes are available to all without discrimination. And this is of course is a very false assumption as we see in the movie of the continuous denial of the tobacco company in a lawsuit and under oath of the harmful effects and addictiveness of cigarettes due to nicotine and other carcinogenic substances in it. The obvious trick used by the seven executives of the tobacco company or “seven dwarves” in a lawsuit against them is the misuse of one of the arguments for lying to protect trade secrets in business by denying that they know that the substances in its product such as nicotine and coumarin is addictive and harmful to the user or smoker. Thus in conclusion the business itself is based on a premise of knowingly selling products that are absolutely injurious to the health of the consumer yet defending its interests by invoking their rights as a business to protect itself from disclosing information that will be used by other