The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (June 2009)

Part of a series on
Tobacco
History
History of tobacco History in the United States
Biology
Nicotiana List of tobacco diseases Types of tobacco
Social impact
Demographics Health effects Tobacco industry Tobacco advertising Tobacco politics
Production
Cultivation of tobacco Curing of tobacco Tobacco products
v • d • e

Tobacco politics refers to the politics surrounding the use and distribution of tobacco.

Contents 1 Taxation 2 Lobby 3 Litigation 3.1 History 3.2 Significant cases 3.3 Grounds of claims 3.4 Defences 4 See also 5 References 5.1 Notes 5.2 Bibliography 6 External links

[edit] Taxation

Tobacco has been taxed by state governments in the United States for decades^{[citation needed]}. The cumulative revenue of US tobacco taxation was $14,974,713,000 in 2006, creating a major source of income for government.^[1]

[edit] Lobby

The tobacco lobby gives money to politicians to vote in favor of deregulating tobacco^{[citation needed]}. It is estimated that the United States tobacco lobby spends an average of $106,415 each day legislature meets.^[2]

Major big tobacco lobbying companies include Philip Morris, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. and Lorillard Tobacco Co. The tobacco lobby lost a chunk of its support when the U.S. National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) filed charges against the Tobacco Institute, a tobacco industry advocacy group.

This resulted in the Master Settlement Agreement, which forced the organization to disband and place all records on a website.^[3]

[edit] Litigation

The lawsuits brought against various tobacco manufacturers, attempting to hold them responsible for wrongful death, injury, or medical expenses related to cigarette smoking and other tobacco use. Cases have been brought both by individual plaintiffs and by government officials, including U.S. State Attorney General. Punitive damages for the plaintiff have often been awarded as a result of a successful litigation. However, the vast majority of court decisions have been in favor of the defendant tobacco companies.^[4]

[edit] History

There has been an increased number of deaths related to tobacco smoking in the past decades.^{[citation needed]} People are more aware of the risks and dangers that can be associated with tobacco smoking and those who brought an action against tobacco manufacturers have most often lost a loved one.^{[citation needed]} People have died as a result of lung cancer from tobacco smoking^{[citation needed]} and were often unable to prove that it was the cigarettes of the tobacco manufacturer that caused the person's death. Tobacco litigation is not new but has involved thousands of people in class-actions as well as individual private lawsuits since the mid-20th Century. There was an explosion of tobacco litigations in the mid 1990s, worldwide, but in the United States in particular.^[5]

The first major study that showed the causal link between smoking and lung cancer was published in a study done by Sir Richard Doll in 1950.^[6].

[edit] Significant cases

• March 2001: The Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court's ruling that the Food and Drug Administration could not class tobacco as a pharmaceutical, so could not control its production through the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. (FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.)
• June 2002: A District Court in Kansas awarded $15 million in punitive damages against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco after calling the company's conduct "highly blameworthy and deserving of significant punishment." (David Burton vs. R.J. Reynold's Tobacco)
• June 2002: A Miami jury held three cigarette companies liable for $37.5 million in a lawsuit involving an ex–smoker who lost his tongue to tobacco–related oral cancer. (Lukacs vs. Phillip Morris)
• October 2002: A Los Angeles jury issued $28 billion in punitive damages against Phillip Morris. This was later reduced to $28 million. (Betty Bullock vs. Phillip Morris)
• 2004: A New York jury issued $20 million to the wife of a long-term smoker who died of lung cancer at the age of 57. This was the first time that a New York court had held a tobacco company liable for an individual smoker's death. (Gladys Frankson vs. Brown and Williams Tobacco Corp)
• Altria Group v. Good
• Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
• Imperial Tobacco v. British Columbia
• Philip Morris USA v. Williams
• RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General)

[edit] Grounds of claims

This section requires expansion.

Design defects 

The design of tobacco products defectively causes adverse health effects.

Strict liability 

The strict liability of the product.

Product liability 

The liability of the product lies on the manufacturer.

Depriving of health hazards information 

There is an ongoing civil court case in Finland, where three plaintiffs have sued tobacco companies on the basis that they marketed "light cigarettes" as non-hazardous to health, a claim the plaintiffs initially believed, before contracting serious lung diseases.^[7][8] The Helsinki district court rejected the claim in 2008, and the appeals court considers the appeal in 2010. "Light cigarettes" are actually more hazardous to health than regular cigarettes — they contain less nicotine, so that the smokers tend smoke more of them. "Light cigarettes" were officially recommended against in 1986 and banned in 2002 in the European Union^{[citation needed]}. Other claims in the case are marketing to minors, purposefully aggravating nicotine dependency in smokers and denial of the hazards of passive smoking. The defendant Amer claims that the hazards of smoking have sufficiently been discussed publicly since the 1950s.

[edit] Defences

This section requires expansion.

Volenti non fit injuria 

Volenti non fit injuria, or "to a willing person, no injury is done," is a common law doctrine which means that someone willingly places themselves in a position where they are negatively affected by tobacco consumption.

Contributory negligence 

Contributory negligence is a common law defense to a claim based on negligence, that before the cases, the adverse affects were unknown. This has been one of the commonly used defences that defendants have used. Most of them will assert that it was the plaintiff himself that has contributed to his own injury as he has prior knowledge of the harm associated with tobacco smoking.

[edit] See also

• Operation Berkshire

[edit] References

[edit] Notes

[edit] Bibliography

[edit] External links