Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cigarette makers lose appeal in landmark case
AP via SFGate ^ | 5/22/9 | NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

Posted on 05/22/2009 9:23:34 AM PDT by SmithL

WASHINGTON, (AP) --

A federal appeals court on Friday largely agreed with a landmark ruling that found cigarette makers deceived the public for decades about the heath hazards of smoking.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington upheld the major elements of a 2006 ruling that found the nation's top tobacco companies guilty of fraud and violating racketeering laws.

The ruling said manufacturers must change the way they market cigarettes. It bans labels such as "low tar,""light,""ultra light" or "mild," since such cigarettes have been found to be no safer than others because of how people smoke them.

It also says the companies must publish "corrective statements" on the adverse health effects and addictiveness of smoking and nicotine.

The changes have not taken affect while the case has been under appeal.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; Government; US: Kentucky; US: North Carolina; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: attacklawyers; cigarette; lawsuit; pufflist; tobacco
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

1 posted on 05/22/2009 9:23:34 AM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

If the tobacco companies had the guts, they should pull out of the US market. I’d love to see how the anti smoking pols react when they see that tax base vanish.


2 posted on 05/22/2009 9:25:49 AM PDT by MAD-AS-HELL (Hope and Change. Rhetoric embraced by the Insane - Obama, The Chump in Charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Fascism on the march. Damn, I hate the courts.


3 posted on 05/22/2009 9:26:59 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
The changes have not taken affect while the case has been under appeal.

"Taken 'affect'"? WTF? Don't they have editors at that paper? How about spellcheck?

4 posted on 05/22/2009 9:27:32 AM PDT by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MAD-AS-HELL

I agree. The nanny state wants to demonize smokers, but they’re addicted to the money.

Of course, all those people living longer will require medical care and that will increase the “need” for national health care.


5 posted on 05/22/2009 9:28:53 AM PDT by PLMerite ("Unarmed, one can only flee from Evil. But Evil isn't overcome by fleeing from it." Jeff Cooper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Deceived the public,a lot of that going around now aday.


6 posted on 05/22/2009 9:29:37 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Really all they need to do is add the word “flavor” to the existing labels and they would be mostly accurate. Though Ultra Lights would have to be labeled “Ultra Light No Flavor”


7 posted on 05/22/2009 9:31:00 AM PDT by Domandred (Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan

I was really effected by your last post. It was an affective attempt at supporting good grammar. ;) Irregardless, they should have edited it. But I ain’t no expert. I’m not sure where this is going to.


8 posted on 05/22/2009 9:33:41 AM PDT by TSgt (Extreme vitriol and rancorous replies served daily. - Mike W USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Guess they never should have agreed to the huge bailout they provided to the government a few years back. Did not seem to protect them from anything.


9 posted on 05/22/2009 9:34:58 AM PDT by edcoil (IF CA rolls pollution standards back to 1990 levels, lets roll CA spending back as well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeWUSAF

Your funny.


10 posted on 05/22/2009 9:35:20 AM PDT by Travis T. OJustice (I can spell just fine, thanks, it's my typing that sucks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Maybe the court waited until Obama told them what he wanted. After all, he IS a smoker and can claim he was deceived.


11 posted on 05/22/2009 9:37:06 AM PDT by spaced
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

Yeh, the MSA was a protection racket that provided no protection.


12 posted on 05/22/2009 9:42:48 AM PDT by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Waiting for the lawsuit against Al Gore’s deceit about the
“dangers” of man made global warming. Fraud on a massive scale.


13 posted on 05/22/2009 9:43:14 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (If you like the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, the IRS, and the Post Office, you'll love govt Health Care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz; Eric Blair 2084; CSM

puff


14 posted on 05/22/2009 9:43:26 AM PDT by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe

Did anyone expect any other outcome?


15 posted on 05/22/2009 9:45:55 AM PDT by Gabz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MAD-AS-HELL

A lot of the foreign cig makers have pulled out. Just wasn’t worth the risk.


16 posted on 05/22/2009 9:47:44 AM PDT by razorboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
So they should use "effect" rather then "affect"?

:-)

17 posted on 05/22/2009 9:51:39 AM PDT by Hardastarboard (I long for the days when advertisers didn't constantly ask about the health of my genital organs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan

You had to axe dat?


18 posted on 05/22/2009 9:59:47 AM PDT by LasVegasMac (Islam: Bringing the world death and destruction for 1400 years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MAD-AS-HELL

If the government had any guts they’d just ban them outright.

Guts are lacking in the public and the government these days... leadership is a lost art across the board.


19 posted on 05/22/2009 10:02:54 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Domandred
"Really all they need to do is add the word “flavor” to the existing labels and they would be mostly accurate. Though Ultra Lights would have to be labeled “Ultra Light No Flavor”

You're right, add the word "flavor", because smokers chose their cigarettes that way -- not just menthol or non menthol, but also for tar/nicotine ratio that is ultimately "flavor".

This ruling makes no real sense. A low nicotine cigarette may not be any "safer", but it makes it easier for someone to eventually quit smoking based on weaning themselves off of their physiological dependence on nicotine. Instead they've made quitting an all or nothing game. It's stupid.

20 posted on 05/22/2009 10:07:43 AM PDT by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson