http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/08/17/financial/f142051D61.DTLA federal judge ruled Thursday that the nation's top cigarette makers violated racketeering laws, deceiving the public for years about the health hazards of smoking, but said she couldn't order them to pay the billions of dollars the government had sought.

In her ruling in the long-running case, the judge said, "Over the course of more than 50 years, defendants lied, misrepresented and deceived the American public, including smokers and the young people they avidly sought as 'replacement smokers,' about the devastating health effects of smoking and environmental tobacco smoke (secondhand smoke)."Racketeering is a criminal offense. Am I the only one wondering why the heads of these firms are still out there making money, and not sitting in prison? Bastards. It's a shame they couldn't be ordered to pay the ~$1/4 trillion the government asked for. I suppose it's yet another failing of our legal system.

Judge is a moron.

She also ordered tobacco companies to stop labeling cigarettes 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.

Has she ever smoked a Marlboro Red as opposed to a Marlboro Light?

They are not the same.

I also suppose that every smoker who rolls their own is guilty of racketeering too.

Has she ever smoked a Marlboro Red as opposed to a Marlboro Light? They are not the same.No, the "lights" have little vents at the filter end which are designed to suck in air as well as smoke. However, the tobacco companies purposely positioned the vents such that, when hooked up to the testing machine, they show less nicotine, but in actual use, they are blocked and deliver the same dose of nicotine as any other cigarette.

These guys are nothing but criminals who profit at the expense of people's lives and the taxpayer's money. The #1 preventable cause of death. I am shocked that we permit them to operate, while spending countless billions on the pointless "war on drugs" to prevent far fewer deaths.I also suppose that every smoker who rolls their own is guilty of racketeering too.If you roll your own, market it as something safe, enter into a secret agreement with every other manufacturer to hide the dangers, and then push the product onto impressionable teens who think it's cool, then yes, you're guilty.

The #1 preventable cause of death. I am shocked that we permit them to operate, while spending countless billions on the pointless "war on drugs" to prevent far fewer deaths.

I don't see the big fuss. I read a signiture somewhere that read: "Remove all warning lables and let natural selection take it's course." I wholeheartedly believe in that.

I don't see the big fuss. I read a signiture somewhere that read: "Remove all warning lables and let natural selection take it's course." I wholeheartedly believe in that.I have no problem with suicide, but I see two problems here. First, people who were already nictoine-addicted were being duped into believing "light" cigarettes were better for them, when in reality they were just as dangerous.

Second, the bill for smoking-related medical care in the U.S. is about $75 billion a year -- money we non-smoking taxpayers are forced to pay through higher taxes and higher insurance premiums. We subsidize the criminals. Personally, I'd like my money back.

Too bad you can't jail a corporation.

Is there anyone with commonsense anymore? If someone believes that lite's, low tars, whatever, are somehow safe from the health problems caused by smoking they are only fooling themselves. Especially in this day and age. The anti-smoking craze is just too much. If someone wants to poison themselves with an unhealthy and expensive habit that's thier choice.

They can pretend all they want. The link between lung cancer and smoking has been known for over a half a century. Smoking was linked to ill health as early as the 16th century. The risk is the same if you smoke marlboro's or virgina slims menthol lite.

Plus, Racketeering is a bit of a stretch. Probably why she can't award the billions the government wanted. Big tobacco is pretty sleazy in general, but let's not pretend that they were somehow pulling the wool over people's eyes over the risk. Anyone who's ever been surprised that they fell victim to smoking's health risk either had their head burried in the sand or just didn't think it could happen to them.

This is from a life long non-smoker.

Too bad you can't jail a corporation.You can start with the directors and officers.Is there anyone with commonsense anymore? If someone believes that lite's, low tars, whatever, are somehow safe from the health problems caused by smoking they are only fooling themselves.Common sense would tell you that a "light" cigarette that advertises on its package lower "tar" and "nicotine" actually has lower levels of those substances. When you drink Diet Coke with the label 0 calories per serving, you assume it has 0 calories, not 120 calories just like the regular one.

Yes, you're well-informed and you were aware that this fraud was exposed years ago. But not everyone is, especially smokers, who tend to be in the lower socioeconomic brackets.

Common sense would tell you that a "light" cigarette that advertises on its package lower "tar" and "nicotine" actually has lower levels of those substances.

It is not a health food claim.

It is a description of how it tastes.

If you smoke a Marlboro Light and a Marlboro Red, you will experience the difference.

Nicotine itself is a very safe drug, it is safer than Tylenol actually(most drugs are).

The delivery system sucks, of course, all that means is those who are keeping Nicotine Inhalers(which is an awesome delivery system) illegal to buy are as culpable as ANY officer at a tobacco company.

Anyway, it really is not the nicotine which is the greatest force in the addiction. It is the grazing feeding(hand to mouth) behavior which is satisfied with smoking. Smoking is essentially an eating disorder more than anything else. If it were nicotine, you would have a substantial population of people who are addicted to nicotine patches or gums(and they are not).

You can blame our ancestors for being hunter and gatherers for passing those eating behavior triggers in our genes, just as much as any tobacco company CEO. Hell, Doritos or Planters Peanuts exploits the same triggers.

It is not a health food claim.
It is a description of how it tastes.
If you smoke a Marlboro Light and a Marlboro Red, you will experience the difference.No, it's specifically designed to fool people into thinking the "light" ones are safer. Until recently, "light" cigarette packages even listed mg values for nicotine and "tar" right on the front, as if to show how much safer than they are than a regular cigarette. And many "light" brands advertised how "full" their taste is, like a regular cigarette.

It was all a big fraud, to lure the more health-conscious people into continuing smoking, on the premise that they're doing something less dangerous. A grab at market share through false advertising.Anyway, it really is not the nicotine which is the greatest force in the addiction. It is the grazing feeding(hand to mouth) behavior which is satisfied with smoking.Then why can't a smoker nibble on a carrot and get the same satisfaction? Why do smokers suffer withdrawal if they stop? No, it's a drug addiction.

Its both kinds of addiction.

Nicotine is more addictive per part than heroin. Of course if a human took nicotine in the same quantities as heroin is taken, they would die of nicotine poisoning (nicotine is used, actually, as a gardening pest control).

The physical addiction is compounded heavily by the habitual addiction. It isn't simply the hand to mouth (though it is a large part), but also includes activities associated with smoking.

When I moved into my new place and didn't want it stinking of smoke, it took me a decent while to stop nic fitting during downtime in MMO's, for instance.

Some folks are incapable of not having a cigarette with their morning coffee, because they are so very used to getting their physical fix during that activity.

Its essentially pavlov's dogs.

No, it's specifically designed to fool people into thinking the "light" ones are safer. Until recently, "light" cigarette packages even listed mg values for nicotine and "tar" right on the front, as if to show how much safer than they are than a regular cigarette. And many "light" brands advertised how "full" their taste is, like a regular cigarette.
No, that is just stupid. No smoker choses their brand because of health benefits. Every smoker knows smoking is not good for them.

It was all a big fraud, to lure the more health-conscious people into continuing smoking,
Retarded people, more like it.

on the premise that they're doing something less dangerous. A grab at market share through false advertising.Then why can't a smoker nibble on a carrot and get the same satisfaction? Why do smokers suffer withdrawal if they stop? No, it's a drug addiction.
Any chemical which affects the locus coeruleus is going to be addictive. We are not talking about that.

Carrots rot, and would be the source of food borne illness if used as a substitute. That is a silly idea. Put 20 carrots in your back pocket for a day?

I DID chew through a dozen black Bic pens a week before I started smoking. If you could put nicotine on a small plastic tube, it would solve the problem, wouldn't it. Oh,, they do have them, they are just illegal to buy without a script, and cost 30 dollars a pack.

The tobacco industry defrauded smokers. They lied about the health risks, but that's almost immaterial. Worse they purposefully engineered the tobacco products to be more addictive than tobacco naturally is...and lied to us about it.

The tobacco industry defrauded smokers. They lied about the health risks, but that's almost immaterial. Worse they purposefully engineered the tobacco products to be more addictive than tobacco naturally is...and lied to us about it.
How?

Show me.

How?
Show me.Read the DOJ's Proposed Findings of Fact (http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/cases/tobacco2/U.S.%20Final%20Proposed%20Findings%20of%20Fact%20R EDACTED%20w%20BkMks%2020040701.pdf). It's very long, but you can read the index at the beginning to get a sense of it (and flip to a specific page if that topic interests you).

Basically, through a very complicated conspiracy, the tobacco industry did everything they possibly could to hide and lie about the dangers of smoking (including paying off "experts" to counter independent research), to prevent the truth from getting out, and to manipulate nicotine to increase levels of addiction. They expressly marketed the "light" products as being healthier, when they were not. They did everything they could to target kids and encourage them to illegally purchase cigarettes.

These guys are criminals who sought to maximize their profit while causing hundreds of thousands of deaths per year and costing the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars per year. They belong in prison.

No, that is just stupid. No smoker choses their brand because of health benefits. Every smoker knows smoking is not good for them.Everyone knows that soft drinks aren't good for them, so why does Diet Coke have such a huge market? Why are supermarkets littered with "light" junk foods, such as ice cream, cookies, cakes, and chips?

Because people, mostly fat people and/or women, believe it's healthier and won't make them fat. (That's not true either, but it's a whole other story.) The lesser of two evils, while still getting the pleasurable benefits.

There's nothing stupid about such a decision, provided you are getting the correct facts.Carrots rot, and would be the source of food borne illness if used as a substitute. That is a silly idea. Put 20 carrots in your back pocket for a day?Ok, gum. Whatever. There are a million possible substitutes, but smokers can't switch because they're addicted to nicotine.

How?

Show me.

Look it up yourself. The internal memos and documentation about how they genetically bred more nicotine concentration into the tobacco plants, and further increased the nicotine content of 'light' cigarettes to compensate for the increased filtration were discovered during the big suit filed by the States during the Clinton administration.

Here's a start (http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/documentquotes.html) though.

edit: Ah, Tuda found a more direct source.

I've never been big on the war on drugs...I think people should be able to decide for themselves if they want to take crack or heroine or cocaine or meth...but at least there folks have a relatively level playing field where they know exactly how addictive and bad these drugs are.

The fact that the tobacco industry was selling a dangerous consumer product was not, in and of itself, their problem. Alcohol is dangerous for consumption and yet is perfectly legal. Its the fact that they defrauded the public, hid health risks that they knew or should have known about, specifically engineered their product to be as addictive as possible, oh..and again, lied to the consumers.

Caveat Emptor is an ideal we've long since outreached as a civilized society.

Everyone knows that soft drinks aren't good for them
I'd call diet coke health neutral. Nothing in their advertising promises to make me healthier or even vless unhealthy. I haven't seen any good evidence that anything in it will harm me, I'm not a phenylketonuric.

There's nothing stupid about such a decision, provided you are getting the correct facts.Ok, gum. Whatever. There are a million possible substitutes, but smokers can't switch because they're addicted to nicotine.

Nicotine decreases anxiety and increases cognition, awareness, and alertness.


It is not a bad drug, in and of itself.


I am sure there are people who push chocolate as heathly. Do you believe them? It has chemicals that act a lot like nicotine does. I don't see you chasing after Mrs. See.

I'd call diet coke health neutral. Nothing in their advertising promises to make me healthier or even vless unhealthy. I haven't seen any good evidence that anything in it will harm me, I'm not a phenylketonuric.Aspartame (the sweetner they've been using for ~20 years) is toxic (http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/), causing a variety of symptoms. (Another fine product by Monsanto, our friendly agri-chem company.) Also, though it doesn't have calories, the added sweetness stimulates insulin response, which makes you hungrier and causes your body to deposit fat more readily. It's so sweet that it deadens your sense of sweetness, causing you to crave more.

The dangers of aspartame are so well accepted now, that companies are silently switching over to sucralose (brand name "Splenda"). Of course, that doesn't mean it's healthier, it's just a newer product and there aren't long-term reports yet. That means that down the road, when we find out all the health dangers of replacing three OH with three Cl in sugar, it will be harder to sue them.

No, in reality, diet drinks aren't the health-neutral, fitness-promoting drinks that are portrayed by the advertising.

Nicotine decreases anxiety and increases cognition, awareness, and alertness.

It is not a bad drug, in and of itself.What's your point? It's still highly addictive, and it is the weapon the tobacco companies use and manipulate. If you read the DOJ fact summary, it explains how the tobacco companies actively steered away from methods that might reduce the nicotine content.

Of course, the nicotine isn't what kills people, since cigarette smoke is a huge mix of carcinogens and dangerous gases, but that's besides the point.

Of course, the nicotine isn't what kills people, since cigarette smoke is a huge mix of carcinogens and dangerous gases, but that's besides the point.

That is two of my points.

A smokeless nicotine delivery system which mimics cigarette smoking habits should be available to anyone over 18.

And priced in the same range of cigarettes.

It is the anti-smoking nazis which keep it off the market.

If you read the DOJ fact summary, it explains how the tobacco companies actively steered away from methods that might reduce the nicotine content.

That is like the agriculture industry steering away from growing oranges with less sugar.



What an absurd notion.

A smokeless nicotine delivery system which mimics cigarette smoking habits should be available to anyone over 18.
It is the anti-smoking nazis which keep it off the market.What are you talking about? Go to any drug store, near the cigarettes, will be a huge display of nicotine patches, gums, and what not. Part of this huge DOJ lawsuit is to <i>promote</i> such things.

The only "nazis" who want to keep such things off the market is the tobacco companies, because they're designed to wean people off their drug.That is like the agriculture industry steering away from growing oranges with less sugar.
What an absurd notion.Oranges don't kill people.

Oranges don't kill people.

I have never ever heard of a nicotine overdose from smoking tobacco.

I did try some Skoal when I was in high school, and took too much and got sick.

I suppose you 'could' eat enough tobacco to kill you. Or if locked in a closet with 200 cartons of smokes, but that would be from asphyxiation, not really the nicotine.


Oh, and I see many more patients with diseases related to obesity(sugar kills) and other diet related illnesses than from smoking.

What are you talking about? Go to any drug store, near the cigarettes, will be a huge display of nicotine patches, gums, and what not. Part of this huge DOJ lawsuit is to <i>promote</i> such things.

None of those duplicate the 'grazing' behavior.

I have tried the gum, it is not the same.

And they are WAY more expensive because of the over regulation of the products. If mg for mg it cost the same as a smoke, it would be more successful.

Smokeless inhalers are illegal to sell(without a script). Go figure.

Oh, and I see many more patients with diseases related to obesity(sugar kills) and other diet related illnesses than from smoking.Fruit doesn't cause diabetes. An orange is low in calories, high in fiber, and contains a large percentage of sugar as fructose, which isn't even metabolized using insulin. If all those fat people in your hospital ate more oranges and less junk food with <i>refined</i> sugars, they probably wouldn't even be there.

Oh, and I see many more patients with diseases related to obesity(sugar kills) and other diet related illnesses than from smoking.Fruit doesn't cause diabetes. An orange is low in calories, high in fiber, and contains a large percentage of sugar as fructose, which isn't even metabolized using insulin. If all those fat people in your hospital ate more oranges and less junk food, they probably wouldn't even be there.None of those duplicate the 'grazing' behavior.
And they are WAY more expensive because of the over regulation of the products. If mg for mg it cost the same as a smoke, it would be more successful.They're not designed to replace cigarettes. They're designed to wean you off of them. There's no reason a normal person (non-smoker) would suddenly want to inject nicotine into their system, and a smoker who is weaned off of nicotine would see no point in continuing to waste money buying it.

As for the cost, since it isn't just a dried plant but a refined drug with a precise dosage, I would expect it to cost more. No surprise there.

Fruit doesn't cause diabetes. An orange is low in calories, high in fiber, and contains a large percentage of sugar as fructose, which isn't even metabolized using insulin.
Sugar is sugar, they are all broken down into glucose eventually. And is metabolized into fat if it is not pooped out or used by exercise and metabolism.

If all those fat people in your hospital ate more oranges and less junk food, they probably wouldn't even be there.
True.

They're not designed to replace cigarettes. They're designed to wean you off of them.
There should be a replacement strategy. Smokeless cigarettes don't cause cancer or COPD. Nicotine is not a known carcinogenic.

There's no reason a normal person (non-smoker) would suddenly want to inject nicotine into their system,
We are not talking about non smokers.

and a smoker who is weaned off of nicotine would see no point in continuing to waste money buying it.
I LIKE the effects of nicotine. It makes me feel good. Why would I want to wean off of it, besides the bad effects of the delivery system? 90 percent of the cost of cigarettes in in government regulation and sin taxes.

As for the cost, since it isn't just a dried plant but a refined drug with a precise dosage, I would expect it to cost more. No surprise there.
The TRUTH organization, the anti-smoking lobby says that tobacco companies are injecting exogenous nicotine into cigarettes to make them more addictive. If nicotine is so inexpensive to put additionally into cigarettes, it should be AS inexpensive to put the same drug into a plastic tube.
That is if we are to believe The TRUTH.

If nicotine is so inexpensive to put additionally into cigarettes, it should be AS inexpensive to put the same drug into a plastic tube.
That is if we are to believe The TRUTH.Nictoine patch makers don't have the luxury of drawing on decades of massive, ill-gotten profit to finance such ventures. They also don't have lifetime addicts as customers, or a worldwide addict base, so their overall profit is much lower. Hence, even if costs $X to draw Y mg of nicotine, the makers of nicotine patches would have to charge more.

Nicotine decreases anxiety and increases cognition, awareness, and alertness.


It is not a bad drug, in and of itself.


I am sure there are people who push chocolate as heathly. Do you believe them? It has chemicals that act a lot like nicotine does. I don't see you chasing after Mrs. See.

Other than its toxicity, nicotine really isn't that bad of a drug.

However, its delivery vehicles are rather killers, the Tobacco Companies knew that none of their delivery vehicles were safe, and purposefuly designed their products to be more addictive while misleading the public with 'light' cigarettes, in order to ensure that fewer people would be able to successfully stop using their delivery vehicles, even after the person realized how unhealthy it was.

You'll never see tobacco companies suggesting a pure nicotine inhaler device. Nicotine can be cheaply synthesized, as far as I know, so there would be no need for tobacco.

And given their still powerful lobby...and who's in Office and control's both houses right now, I rather suspect the tobacco industry will manage to keep inhalers off the shelves and keep ensuring that medicare and medicaid don't pay for smoking cessastion products or programs.

Nictoine patch makers don't have the luxury of drawing on decades of massive, ill-gotten profit to finance such ventures. They also don't have lifetime addicts as customers, or a worldwide addict base, so their overall profit is much lower. Hence, even if costs $X to draw Y mg of nicotine, the makers of nicotine patches would have to charge more.

I don't think so.

Caffeine pills(eg No-Doze) cost way less than a coffee does.

I don't buy it.

..in order to ensure that fewer people would be able to successfully stop using their delivery vehicles, even after the person realized how unhealthy it was.

Who are you talking about?

Every American smoker knows that smoking is bad for them. They want to do it anyway.

This concept that smokers were duped to smoke is a LIE. Where do you get this notion? Anti-smokers have turned off all viable forms of advertising for tobacco companies for over 30 years.

I don't think so.
Caffeine pills(eg No-Doze) cost way less than a coffee does.
I don't buy it.Pure caffeine is easy to come by, because it's a waste product of decaffeination. Coffee, on the other hand, is expensive to grow and will only grow in very specific climates.
Every American smoker knows that smoking is bad for them. They want to do it anyway.Why? Do they just wake up one day and say, "hey, it's time to fill my lungs with carcinogenic crap and build a nicotine dependence"?

No, usually they started as a kid because they thought it was cool and they saw other people doing it. Who do you think created that image of smoking as cool, and perpetuates it to this very day?

You're incredibly naive if you think tobacco companies still don't have powerful marketing practices towards children. Read the DOJ document.

Who are you talking about?

Every American smoker knows that smoking is bad for them. They want to do it anyway.

This concept that smokers were duped to smoke is a LIE. Where do you get this notion? Anti-smokers have turned off all viable forms of advertising for tobacco companies for over 30 years.


A 13 year old kid doesn't realize the dangers of smoking. Its that simple. Hell an 18 year old kid is barely cognizant of them.

Noone starts smoking at 21.

A 13 year old kid doesn't realize the dangers of smoking. Its that simple. Hell an 18 year old kid is barely cognizant of them.

Noone starts smoking at 21.

You must meet a lot more retarded people than I do.


I knew at 8. My daughters knew at 8, and would give me **** about it. One of them even asked Santa for me to stop smoking(well that is kinda retarded, but it shows the relational age thing).

I would say 13 year olds and 18 year olds have more of the "I am invincible syndrome" that most people have during their teens.

You must meet a lot more retarded people than I do.


I knew at 8. My daughters knew at 8, and would give me **** about it. One of them even asked Santa for me to stop smoking(well that is kinda retarded, but it shows the relational age thing).


You know speeding, drinking, and promiscuous sex are dangerous when you're a teenager also...but that doesn't stop you.

Those three things, however, are alot less addictive than tobacco.

I knew at 8. My daughters knew at 8, and would give me **** about it.If you knew at 8, why did you start? Are you just stupid?

There's a big difference between <i>knowing</i> in the abstract about a risk, and actually <i>appreciating</i> it. At 8, 12, or 15 you lack the judgment to appreciate risks, and that's exactly why the tobacco companies prey on young children.