Posted on 04/09/2022 9:12:48 AM PDT by rellimpank
Pinocchio puffed a cigar on Pleasure Island (1940). The Caterpillar blew hookah smoke in Alice’s face (1951). Fumes curled from Cruella de Vil’s cigarette holder (1961).
By 1965, nearly 43% of American adults smoked — but by 2021, that had plummeted to just 12.5%. It wasn’t just grotesque pictures of diseased lungs or the surgeon general’s warning that changed minds: Lawsuits against big tobacco companies — spearheaded by state attorneys general — forced them to pay out more than $200 billion in damages. They agreed to change the way they market tobacco products, financed a $1.5 billion anti-smoking campaign, opened previously secret industry documents and disbanded trade groups that officials said conspired to conceal damaging research from the public.
Could pending legislation in Sacramento have a similar impact on the gun industry? Yes, it could, said Connie Pechmann, professor of marketing at UC Irvine’s Paul Merage School of Business. (Cue the Disney-esque twinkle in lawmakers’ eyes.)
“Many of the tobacco cases succeeded because of the companies’ deceptive or misleading marketing techniques, targeting young people or implying the products were safe,” said Pechmann. “Those cases go on to this day, winning millions for people harmed by tobacco products. That technique has worked over and over again, and there’s a movement among litigation attorneys to adopt a similar approach with the gun industry.”
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
—and more Commiefornia news—
It’s the user not the maker. Will CA go after car manufacturers or knife makers?
The firearm manufacturers still have the upper hand on this issue, but will they play that card??
Step 1. Require all FFL’s you do business with to sign a Terms of Use agreement mandating that they will NEVER Sell any Firearm or Ammunition to an “Officer of the Court” or Public Employee. Any violation is an Immediate action to Cut you off from all purchasing and a $20,000 fee for every violation.
I doubt any of them have the balls to do this, even though it is Perfectly LEGAL so Step 2 would be to Stop ALL SALES to the entire State.
If media represe tations are the problem — STOP encouraging BASTARDY.
There isn’t a Bill of Rights amendment for smoking.
The tobacco settlement began with a corrupt Mississippi DA/AG with a packed biased jury in Winston County, Mississippi. Very little of the money went to the people that claimed damage by tobacco and the companies and the majority went to Moore, the Mississippi AG, that controlled how the money was spent. The majority of the money went to Democrat organizations and the NAACP and Moore still directs how it is spent. Once the decision was made in Mississippi the other greedy states followed suit.
I believe Barrett blacklisted California government agencies quite a few years ago after they banned .50 BMG in the state.
It’s way too hard going after thugs and criminals.
Not this Californian....And, speaking on behalf of
the other millions of Californians who provided
more popular votes for Trump than almost all, if not
all, other states in 2020, I would say that this
is a California GOVERNMENT thing. I regret that
there were those in my state who recruited businesses
to my state in the 1960s and 70s. The resulting
population explosion turned California into libtard
utopia. It should have served as a warning but then
you have well meaning people like Rick Perry when
he was Texas governor. And, to this day there are
those from great places like Idaho who STILL
recruit Californians. On the other hand, not all
Californians who flee are liberals. They are those
who are fleeing our dumpster fire and are
characterized by their invisibility in their
new locales. Such people voted conservative in
Cali and will continue to do so in their new states.
Can they please provide the amendment that covers tobacco?
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.