$400bn tobacco trial of the century

[wellard]

Major cigarette makers go on trial today in the US government's $400 billion racketeering case.It charges the tobacco industry with deliberately deceiving the public about the risks of smoking since the 1950s. Justice Department lawyers are due to present opening arguments in the trial that has been five years in the making and is expected to last six months and feature more than 100 witnesses.

The 1999 lawsuit targets Altria Group Inc. and its Philip Morris USA unit; Loews Corp.'s Lorillard Tobacco unit, which has a tracking stock, Carolina Group; Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group; Reynolds American Inc.'s R.J. Reynolds Tobacco unit and British American Tobacco Plc unit British American Tobacco Investments Ltd.

The government presentation of its case to US District Judge Gladys Kessler was expected to take up most, if not all of today. Justice Department officials want the industry to give up $400.83 billion worth of past profits and are seeking tougher rules on marketing, advertising and warning claims on tobacco products.

The companies have denied the government's allegations and say they have drastically changed their marketing practices since 1998, when they signed a landmark settlement with state attorneys general that severely restricts marketing and subjects cigarette makers to oversight.

Lawyers for the cigarette makers are scheduled to respond with their opening statement following the government's presentation. Later in the week, the government is scheduled to call former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner David Kessler as its first witness.

In testimony already filed with the court, Kessler has described how the FDA investigated youth smoking during the 1990s and found "that a major focus of cigarette manufacturers was to deliver adequate doses of nicotine to consumers."

Reuter


If the cigarette companies are found guilty, and legal history is against that, Should the directors be jailed or for that matter be given the death sentance? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Oh, God, suing Phillip Morris and Loews parent company. Frikkin great, my cigarette and movie prices will go up so the government can get a bit more money to turn around and use to help boost the population in poor communities. It's lose, lose, and lose.

Leave these companies alone. They make a product any f-tard knows is bad, and they even advertise against themselves. Cigarettes are actually good for you, you idiots. Corporations are benevolent. Respect the hive mind. M'kay?

[Djinn Raffo]

Though they make a product everyone knows is bad and individuals choose to use it of their own volition.. the costs of that treating smoking related ailments on health care is a burden for everyone and not an individual choice. At least here in Soviet Canuckistan I don't see why action should not be taken. Now what that action constitutes.. well I have no idea but that's open for debate.

[Timber Loftis]

costs of that treating smoking related ailments on health care is a burden for everyone and not an individual choice.

Well, not if we use my plan. Complete freedom -- with ramifications. Smoking waives any access to public health care for pulmonary related diseases. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

Wanna hear how my plan provides that failure to wear a seatbelt results in a waiver of insurance rather than a fine by the government?

The problem with these very logical and sensible plans is that when someone is lying there dying, we have to willing to still enforce the rule. "Sorry, bub, no health care for you -- you're a goner, make your peace."

[Zero Alpha]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Frikkin great, my cigarette [and movie (???)] prices will go up

Cheapest Solution EVER:

Quit Smoking

Cost incurred: negative(weekly expence of ciggies)

thats right, this solution gives you more money than before

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Wanna hear how my plan provides that failure to wear a seatbelt results in a waiver of insurance rather than a fine by the government? The problem with these very logical and sensible plans is that when someone is lying there dying, we have to be willing to still enforce the rule. "Sorry, bub, no health care for you -- you're a goner, make your peace."

I think that is a very fair and accurate comparison with the monies wasted by smokers. Equally stupid yet intentional actions which result in high health care expenditures based solely on the actions of the patient. An expenditure which the innocent client base if forced to eat over and over and over.

The only difference between the two actions is that smoking is legal but riding unrestrained in a vehicle isn't.

Timber, you are two for two so far this week. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by Zero Alpha: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Frikkin great, my cigarette [and movie (???)] prices will go up

Cheapest Solution EVER:

Quit Smoking

Cost incurred: negative(weekly expence of ciggies)

thats right, this solution gives you more money than before [/QUOTE]I take it this is your first exposure to TLs cynical side?

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: Though they make a product everyone knows is bad and individuals choose to use it of their own volition.. the costs of that treating smoking related ailments on health care is a burden for everyone and not an individual choice.

That's the problem in a NUTSHELL, it should be left to the individual to pay for things themselves, it really is but most people don't know that! Who pays for gov't health care that's right tax payers, who pays for insurance health care that's right the insured. If you can't pay to bad, I can't pay for a new car, should society buy me one cause my self estem might be hurt and my health suffer? "Hale" no and people realize that. What we have now is crybabies wanting everything they can get for nutt'n. Nutt'n in life is free.

as CDB says "I ain't asking for nothing that I can't get on my own, if you don't like the way I'm living you just leave this long haired countryboy alone"

[Aerich]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Well, not if we use my plan. Complete freedom -- with ramifications. Smoking waives any access to public health care for pulmonary related diseases. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

I've been pushing that idea around for a while, although not so drastically. I favour increased health premiums. Well, multiplied premiums, say by a factor of 3-5. Or possibly a hefty deductible.

This case is going to make a lot of industry lawyers very rich.

[wellard]

Originally posted by wellard: Major cigarette makers go on trial today in the US government's $400 billion racketeering case.It charges the tobacco industry with deliberately deceiving the public about the risks of smoking since the 1950s. In testimony already filed with the court, Kessler has described how the FDA investigated youth smoking during the 1990s and found "that a major focus of cigarette manufacturers was to deliver adequate doses of nicotine to consumers." If the cigarette companies are found guilty, and legal history is against that, Should the directors be jailed or for that matter be given the death sentance? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

If someone wants to smoke no worries, thats there problem and I am hoping that this is not another smokers rights debate... we have all stated our opinions on that. What I'm getting at is IF (and it is a big IF) they are found guilty of deliberatly deceiving the public Could the directors eventually face jail or even manslaughter/ murder charges?