Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on December 15, 2005, 10:09:20 am
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4532390.stm
[q]
he Illinois Supreme court has reversed a verdict against tobacco firm Philip Morris for $10.1bn (£5.7bn) in damages.
The court issued instructions to dismiss a class action suit that had been brought against the US cigarette giant in 2003.
The case centred around accusations that the firm had defrauded customers into thinking 'light' cigarettes were safer than regular cigarettes.
Shares in the firm's owner Altria Group rose 5% on the news to a fresh high.
"Even though this was a well-anticipated reversal... the market still has reacted positively to the ruling in pushing up tobacco stocks, because this removes yet another legal impediment to the survival of the industry," said Tim Ghriskey, chief investment officer for Solaris Asset Management.
According to the court's findings, tobacco companies had been specifically authorised by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to describe their 'light' cigarettes as low in tar and nicotine.
However, the court was deeply divided over the decision.
Writing for the majority, Justice Rita Garman said "the FTC has specifically authorized the use of the terms... . PM USA [Philip Morris] may not be held liable under the Consumer Fraud Act, even if the terms might be deemed false, deceptive or misleading."
[/q]
Wait... let me understand this. The court threw out the case as the FTC specifically granted permission for the tobacco company to make a statement that is/was patently false? i.e. exempted them from the law? How the **** can that be allowed?
-
Thats what it looks like to me :WTF:
-
There's nothing in the consumer fraud act I just checked to say that having say-so from some over body exempts you from violating the act. So I don't know where that's come from. I wouldn't mind seeing a more detailed explanation of the court's findings on this one if you have a link?
-
'Light' cigarettes are lower in tar and nicotine compared to their full-flavor or non-filtered related brands. Doesn't make them any less addictive or dangerous...
or prone to overtaxing by the self-righteous governments of this country.
-
Why can't they simply refile the action and include the FTC as a co-defendant?
-
There's nothing in the consumer fraud act I just checked to say that having say-so from some over body exempts you from violating the act. So I don't know where that's come from. I wouldn't mind seeing a more detailed explanation of the court's findings on this one if you have a link?
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2005/December/Opinions/Html/96236.htm
I've not read the whole thing. Interesting to note that one bit specifically states the 'light' cigarettes are actually more toxic.
-
I have to disagree with study a bit on that.
The only reason that 'light' cigarettes can be considered more toxic is light smokers have a tendency to inhale more deeply than full-flavor smokers, plus they make a habit of covering up the breather holes in the cigarette filter with their fingers, and they will smoke more.
It's not often you'll find someone who can go through two packs a day of a non-filter cigarette like Lucky Strikes, but you'll find plenty of people who smoke 2 or more packs a day of Virginia Slims or whatnot.
-
or prone to overtaxing by the self-righteous governments of this country.
You try living in a country where indoor smoking is alowed and see what it does for your views on "self righteous governments" and ciggerettes :rolleyes:
-
As an aside on the (likely forthcoming) debate on passive smoking, IIRC the Irish have seen significant health benefits to bar, restaurant, etc staff since banning smoking in said places.
-
Oh there's no doubt about that. We all know it. Banning smoking is a great benefit to those who don't smoke. I'm glad to have these government agencies to make decisions for us about that because offering a CHOICE to business is too much to ask.
Furthermore, since smoking is now the taxable cash-cow ('immoral' behavior is easily taxable), maybe it's time to even the playing field and tax junk food out of existence. Obesity is just as deadly.
-
Since i have stoped smoking 1 and half months ago i actualy got more anti smoking then a person who never smoked:)
-
Oh there's no doubt about that. We all know it. Banning smoking is a great benefit to those who don't smoke. I'm glad to have these government agencies to make decisions for us about that because offering a CHOICE to business is too much to ask.
Do you smoke?
-
Since i have stoped smoking 1 and half months ago i actualy got more anti smoking then a person who never smoked:)
that's called nic-fitting, or wise behavior.
Just as one who is on a diet shouldn't go to an all-you-can-eat buffet thing, one who is trying to quit shouldn't go to a place where smoking occurs.
-
Just as one who is on a diet shouldn't go to an all-you-can-eat buffet thing, one who is trying to quit shouldn't go to a place where smoking occurs.
But what if people everywhere smoked, then what do you do? Stay locked up in your room all day with your $3,000 SharperImage air cleaner?
-
Do you smoke?
But what if people everywhere smoked, then what do you do? Stay locked up in your room all day with your $3,000 SharperImage air cleaner?
No, I don't. What I have a problem with is greedy governments rubbing their hands together now that they have a small group to make money off of. "Oh, we want to build a new freeway. Let's tax THESE folks", and yet the fatties who are putting a ridiculous drain on our healthcare system get a free pass because they 'just can't help themselves'. Tax fast food.
I have never lived in an age where everyone could smoke everywhere they wanted to. Where I live it is banned in the obvious places (hospitals, grocery stores, banks, movie theaters, etc). Restaurants can set up isolated smoking sections, and it is still permitted in bars. A few bars have made themselves non-smoking establishments. There was a very ugly voter showdown a few years ago about this.
Either that or make people weigh themselves in an IRS office before the tax year to determine what their benefit (or penalty) will be based on how overweight they are. Sounds perfect.
This is totally unbalanced. All the smoking bans are, pardon the pun, smokescreens. Keeping it out of grocery stores, movie theaters, airline flights, no problem. But restaurants and bars ought to have the option of putting in non-smoking sections. Or choosing (key word, 'choice') to be a bar that allows smoking, or one that doesn't.
-
I have never lived in an age where everyone could smoke everywhere they wanted to. Where I live it is banned in the obvious places (hospitals, grocery stores, banks, movie theaters, etc).
Smoking was banned in those places in the US before I was even born.
Where I live, you can smoke anywhere you want to (except for the western restraunts, but I never go to those places because I don't eat western food anymore).
-
Smoking was banned in those places in the US before I was even born.
Where I live, you can smoke anywhere you want to (except for the western restraunts, but I never go to those places because I don't eat western food anymore).
Wow, that is surprising to hear. I thought that smoking restrictions were pretty universal in the States as far as public places go.
As you might have guessed, it's not so much smoking restrictions I have a problem with. Accomodating everyone is challenging, to say the least. I am all for separating smoking and non smoking areas, plus allowing business owners to decide for themselves whether or not they will accomodate smokers. Of course, the rule is, if you're going to allow smoking you must allow for non-smoking.
My problem is taxation. The only reason smokers are taxed so heavily is because it is a 'moral' issue. All that crap about rising health care costs is pure b.s. A smoker in the advanced stages of emphysema or lung cancer is out of luck unless they can foot the bill themselves (with the exception of life-threatening emergency care). More than enough stuff has come out about what states have really been doing with the tax money they are collecting from cigarette sales. This is being done on pure morals. Obesity-related health care costs are just as financially devastating (ho ho ho) as smoking related illnesses, but the fatties still have a 99 cent value menu to choose from. Does this seem right to you? Fast food is every bit as addictive as nicotine is, and just as likely to kill you at a young age.
You know, you'd think with all the money being collected from cigarette taxes, some organization would be sinking dough into finding some genetic way to render tobacco harmless.
I can remember when smoking was permitted on airplanes. I can even remember smoking on one myself on a flight from Phoenix to Chicago. My roomate flew from Los Angeles to Sydney on the last U.S. based international flight that permitted smoking.
I don't mind no more smoking on airline flights. This is NOT a bad thing. There's enough crud in an airplane's air supply on it's own without adding smoke to it. Likewise for grocery stores, banks, etc. I can just barely remember an advertisement for Kool's or something like that on television. I have given away my age now, no?
Ultimately, my predicition, the FDA will regulate nicotine and make it illegal for sale in the United States. Probably all at once. I can't wait to see that. 25% of the US population in nicotine withdrawl simultaneously. Those will be fun times.
-
Smokers are taxed highly because they're addicted to the stuff. That and (in the UK, because we have the NHS) the enusing healthcare costs for lung disease, etc.
-
Anti-smoking laws vary from state to state.
-
Thing is with the UK, is that the amount of money taxed every years out of ciggarettes is treated like car Tax etc, i.e. only the minutest of a percentage ever finds it's way to the NHS. As a smoker, I'd actually be happy if Tobacco was simply banned, cut's out that 'willpower' bull**** if you simply can't get the stuff.
That said, smokers are societies' health scapegoat, far far more money is spent, for example, on overeaters with heart conditions than smokers with lung conditions.
-
Wow, that is surprising to hear. I thought that smoking restrictions were pretty universal in the States as far as public places go.
They are, but I don't live in the states anymore. I live in Nanjing, China.
Here the tobacco companies are all owned by the government. So all the profits go to the government. From what I have heard, that is quite a lot of cash.
-
Addiction is good for helping remove dissent, too. For one thing, think of all that dopamine floating around in the smokers brain.
-
Funny thing is that, mentally, watching TV has a very similar effect on the brain to smoking.
-
I figure if you want to smoke...do it in private and I won't care. Light up at a bus station or something that I'm at and I'll be miffed. Generally I'll be gone soon, so I usually don't make a deal out of it. I figure if people want to risk killing themselves and getting addicted to satisfy a little rebellious mood, sure, go ahead.
Of course at the same time, if a law gets passed to ban smoking, I won't be too sympathetic 'til someone can give me a reason why besides 'because I feel like it'. (At least, tobacco smoking).