Tobacco Lawsuits

[I Miss Trudeau]

Everyone has known about cigarette smoke since the 1950s.  (You smoke, you take a risk... )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can you think of any other products sold for ingestion that are permitted to contain toxic chemicals? Do you suppose we would permit General Mills to introduce a cereal sprinkled with cyanide and not hold them liable for the ensuing illnesses and deaths?

There is no comparison between automobile exhaust and second-hand smoke.  (Cars disturb us all, smokers can be avoided.)

You're right. There is no comparison. Cars are a neccesity for life, at least where I live. Cigarettes aren't.

IMT, why this jihad against smokers but not against drivers?  Are you a  fundamentalist? Are you a, hmmm, vegetarian?

Wow. You managed to include a whole lot of meaningless buzz words there for maximum effect. Well done!

[Leader Circle]

Dear Leader Circle,

Lonius,

Do you think McDonalds has some additives that make their food addictive?

If it's ok to sue tobacco companies, couldn't a case be made for suing McDonalds?

While greasy fast food may be addictive to some, grease it is not considered an 'additive to enhance addiction'. ('Rotten Ronnie's' always gives me a stomach ache...if I ever go there again perhaps that's what I'll ask for)

Were they to experiment with adding ammonia to enhance the 'kick' of the euphoric high from the grease, then they might be dancing in the lawsuit category...a link from a tobacco study...

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/regulation/html/additives.html

Changing the chemical form of nicotine increases the 'kick'

In a paper entitled, 'Cigarette concept to assure RJR a larger segment of the youth market' RJR talk about the 'kick' of nicotine:

"Still with an old style filter, any desired additional nicotine 'kick' could be easily obtained through pH regulation."20 (RJR 1973)

The pH also relates to the immediacy of the nicotine impact. As the pH increases, the nicotine changes its chemical form so that it is more rapidly absorbed by the body and more quickly gives a 'kick' to the smoker."21 (RJR 1976)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Quite interesting Lonius!

I read a book not long ago, about a chemist who was killed for his formula for some additive to make burgers for some fast food chains more addictive. It was total fiction, but a great read and makes you wonder sometimes about MickyD's.

I watched the show "Supersize Me" and was quite amused at the effects eating only McDonalds had on him.

If the courts will allow such lawsuits as these, what stops money hungry lawyers from going after big cash cows like McD's?

[Riverwind]

Everyone has known about cigarette smoke since the 1950s.  (You smoke, you take a risk... )

It is not that simple. Nicotine is an addictive substance which means it is no longer simple matter of choice - quiting usually requires medical intervention and treatment of some sort. I have spoken to recovering heroin addicts that have told me nicotine addiction is tougher to kick than heroin.

The issue here is not about morality - it is about product liability. Any company that sells a product with proven deadly side effects is sued out of business. Why do we let tobacco companies off the hook? Dow-corning was sued out of business because of defective breast implants? Are you suggesting that our product liability laws are too strict an that we should let companies sell defective products that main and kill because consumers always have a 'choice' to purchase a product?

The argument regarding cars is a red herring. In the case of cars society has to balance to dangers of car pollution with the benefits provided. There are no benefits to society from smoking.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Sparhawk,

There are no benefits to society from smoking.

At the end of a stressful day, a relaxing smoke keeps me from killing. Seriously, though, it is not only addictive but 'habit forming' (I believe there is a difference, and cigarettes have both).

Why do we let tobacco companies off the hook?

Billions in tax revenue, nothing more. If it were a simple case of 'personal freedoms', it would have been deemed a dangerous and 'defective' (by choice) product that would have been taken off the market.

Are you suggesting that our product liability laws are too strict an that we not let companies sell defective products that main and kill because consumers always have a 'choice' to purchase a product?

That is the claim pushed by the tobacco companies, and it is not challenged by the gov't because of the enormous tax revenues.

[Riverwind]

Are you suggesting that our product liability laws are too strict an that we should let companies sell defective products that main and kill because consumers always have a 'choice' to purchase a product?

That is the claim pushed by the tobacco companies, and it is not challenged by the gov't because of the enormous tax revenues.

The punitative taxation levels on tobacco products do not mean the gov't 'approves' the products. I am sure gov'ts could be pushed to give up the revenue if it was pratical to ban the substance without creating a huge illegal marketplace.

In other words, I am saying that any kind of legal a harrassment is justified because it is better than the alternative of banning the stuff. So the 'government makes money off tobacco therefore tabacco companies should be left alone' argument is not particularily compelling.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Sparhawk,

if it was pratical to ban the substance without creating a huge illegal marketplace.

That is the second biggest problem. The first one is...

I am sure gov'ts could be pushed to give up the revenue

I am pretty sure they wouldn't.

In other words, I am saying that any kind of legal a harrassment is justified because it is better than the alternative of banning the stuff.

I would be in favour of both.

[B. Max]

Could it be like the second hand smoke scam, there is no proof and this is just another shake down.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. Mmhmm. Thats right. You can file the health effects of tobacco under the same heading as global warming, second hand smoke, a spherical earth, a heliocentric solar system and evolution. Just be glad that your tin foil hat keeps you safe from such nonsense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can you come back to earth for a minute and tell us why the government would pass such legislation. Could it be because the tobacco companies weren't going to roll over for them and the government new they couldn't win without stacking the deck. I've looked at some of these studies you refered to and what the government payed anti smoking zelots claim the studies say is simply not true. My guess is that the government was afraid this would all get dragged out in court and expose the entire racket for what it is. A shake down.

[cybercoma]

The risks of taking "fat burners" (etc...) with ephedrine in it were much less than the risk of dying from smoking. Ephedrine was taken off the market, why isn't tobacco?

[Canuck E Stan]

Tell me what will happen if the Liberals decriminalize marijuana or as the NDP want, legalize the stuff,who will the government sue when the same health issues crop up with the weed?

How can the hypocrites in Ottawa pretend to be all upset about Canadians' health issues about tobacco and at the same time start all over with the same problems with marijuana.

Sounds like government brains have been affected by inhaling.

[cybercoma]

Tell me what will happen if the Liberals decriminalize marijuana or as the NDP want, legalize the stuff,who will the government sue when the same health issues crop up with the weed?

How can the hypocrites in Ottawa pretend to  be all upset about Canadians'  health issues about tobacco and at the same time start all over with the same problems with marijuana.

Sounds like  government brains have been affected by inhaling.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

when you grow weed in your basement, it doesn't have all the chemicals in it that tobacco does. even tobacco leaves in the field can't be handled by workers without protective clothing. if the oils from the leaves get into the worker blood stream it can kill them.

You could cuddled with your marijuana plant and not have that problem.

[Canuck E Stan]

cyber,

I don't smoke....anything but from what I've been reading about marijuana it's not any better than tobacco,chemicals or not.

NIDA InfoFacts: Marijuana

A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers(9). Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.

Even infrequent use can cause burning and stinging of the mouth and throat, often accompanied by a heavy cough. Someone who smokes marijuana regularly may have many of the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers do, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, a heightened risk of lung infections, and a greater tendency to obstructed airways(10). Smoking marijuana increases the likelihood of developing cancer of the head or neck, and the more marijuana smoked the greater the increase(11). A study comparing 173 cancer patients and 176 healthy individuals produced strong evidence that marijuana smoking doubled or tripled the risk of these cancers.

So, according to this report,it's as bad if not worse that tobacco. The question then goes back to who will the government sue, and how much will health care be burdened with this new "tobacco".

[Guest eureka]

There have been a number of such studies, Canuck Isn't it strange that we let ourselves be overwhelmed by the new crazies?

Marijuana is a dangerous substance: that much has been known for a long time. We just have not yet developed an anti-dope mentality.

[Canuck E Stan]

How can some embrace this substance while condemning tobacco? We talk about health care as being the number one priority for Canadians, then sit back and accept this as if it won't affect our lives in the least.

Issues like sueing the tobacco companies become a "feel good" answer to our ills but we still refuse to see the fault of something similar. When we ever learn.

[PocketRocket]

Okay. So let's have a look at where the money from a cigarette purchase goes.

We know the government takes a fair chunk in taxes. How much???

Hard to say. I tried a search simply to find out how much money/pack is tax.

This was the only site I could find with an exact dollar figure....

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2260

Cigarette tax revenues rose from $2.26 billion in 1982 to $6.3 billion in 1993 (in Canadian dollars). This occurred despite decreased smoking and increased purchases of cigarettes on the black market. (Cigarette taxes in Canada during this period climbed from an average 59 cents to $3.86 per pack.)

....unfortunately, it's quite old information. (If anyone has newer figures, feel free to correct this info)

Nonetheless, tobacco prices, and presumably taxes as well, are considerably higher now than then.

So, let's say (just for sake of argument) that on each pack of cigs, the tax is $3.75 (lower than the figure given above).

That means a pack-a-day smoker would be paying $1,368.75 each year in taxes on his cigarettes alone.

What is the government doing with this money???

Are they investing it in health care??? Health insurance??? Yeah, right.

If they were to do so, then there would be no such ballyhoo over whether either smokers or tobacco companies should ante up these costs.

Likewise, if the tax portion of cigarette costs were invested in medical/health insurance, then it would cover FAR more than the smokers themselves.

The Canadian government, in taking tobacco taxes with one hand, while saying "Shame, shame" and wagging it's finger with the other, is kind of like a pimp giving a speech on the evils of prostitution.

So, in the spirit of true fairness, if we are going to sue tobacco companies for health care costs, we should be doing the same with fast-food franchises, candy producers, bacon producers and makers of any high-fat foods, not to mention manufacturers of skateboards, snowboards, skis (both snow and water), and just about anything else which is a regular "cause" of higher health-care costs.

What the hell, let's just sue big-business out of existence

[Guest eureka]

Why not sue the goverment that steals the taxes. Would this extortion stand the test of Sec. 1 of the Charter?

[PocketRocket]

Canuck E Stan: with all due respects, I cannot take the link you provided too seriously, for a few reasons.

First, there are lots of somments like "One researcher said....", without naming the researcher.

Second, there are also several references to "Studies show.....", without naming where the studies were done.

Few of the references to effects of pot ever specified dosage, which gives the implication that ANY amount of use will cause the specified effects.

Also, the results of test on mice gave no information of amounts of dosage given, nor the form it took.

(Hell, you can poison a mouse with too much vitamin-C. In fact, you can kill a man by giving him too much oxygen. Why don't we ban that, too???)

And finally, it's straight form the National Institute on Drug Abuse, hardly a disinterested party, and definitely an organization with an agenda.

This particular page is more of a political speech than a serious report.

I'm still dizzy from the spin

[Riverwind]

So, in the spirit of true fairness, if we are going to sue tobacco companies for health care costs, we should be doing the same with fast-food franchises...

Who says the government needs to be fair? Maybe the government should be fair and legalize the used of PCBs and DDT again - after all consumers can exercise their free choice and not buy products that are containminated with these chemicals.

The gov't has three choices when faced with a substance like tobacco:

1) Ban it.

2) Use punative taxes, regulations and lawsuits to make life as miserable as possible for companies that sell the product (and make it as expensive as possible for consumers that use it).

3) Ignore it.

The gov't knows it should do 1) but it does not want to repeat the mistakes of drug prohibition. The gov't can't do 3) so that leaves 2).

Tobacco companies may whine and complain about the unfairness of it, however, they should be thankful that the substance is not banned altogether and that they still have an opportunity to make some money.

It is very important for the gov't to preserve the right to be a PIA to purvayors of 'legal but undesirable' substances because some drugs will eventually be made legal and the gov't needs tools to curb their use.

The 'its-a-legal-product-leave-them-alone' defence cannot/should not apply because outright prohibition is generally a bad idea but the gov't has a right to express its extreme displeasure.

[Canuck E Stan]

pocket,

Here's a link that's closer to home.

Nowhere is marijuana more popular among students than in Canada. Canadian youth (along with youth in Australia, France, Ireland, UK and the US) are among the highest consumers of marijuana in the world.

Marijuana,is it safe

It appears that marijuana has no clinically relevant chronic effects on any part of a healthy body, except for the lungs. This is mainly due to the effects of combustion rather than marijuana itself (marijuana smoke contains about 50% more of certain carcinogens than the same amount of unfiltered tobacco). Long-term, heavy use results in increased symptoms of bronchitis, coughing, and wheezing.

There is no evidence of effects on the human gastrointestinal, endocrine (regulating hormones and reproduction), or immune systems. Over the years, studies of marijuana have shown various physical effects, but these tend to be slight and are associated with doses that are higher than usual human doses (often in animal studies). THC can cause cardiac problems in patients already suffering from high blood pressure or heart disease; however, this potential risk is much lower than with amphetamines and cocaine.

This is the portion that makes it like tobacco,

This is mainly due to the effects of combustion rather than marijuana itself (marijuana smoke contains about 50% more of certain carcinogens than the same amount of unfiltered tobacco). Long-term, heavy use results in increased symptoms of bronchitis, coughing, and wheezing.

and like tobacco it depends on how much is used.

I think there are health risks that are under played by the media and users, but the potential for health problems are there. There is no mention of cancer in this government link,but I believe that Lung cancer would be another negative health effect of marijuana.

Then throw in the negative mental problems caused by marijuana, and our health system will again be over burdened.

Why would someone want to Legalize this substance?

I believe this lawsuit by the government will be opposed heavily by the tobacco firms and end up costing the taxpayers millions and carry on for years and never get resolved.

[ConservativeJoe]

I think we have missed the bigger picture. The most damaging aspect of marijuana is that it tends to cause the individual using it to vote Liberal.

John

www.conservativejoe.com

[Canuck E Stan]

more bad news for the Canadian tobacco industry.

Two Quebec legal firms said Friday a class-action suit has been filed claiming $17.8 billion from the industry, on behalf of about 1.78 million Quebecers addicted to nicotine. Each smoker was asking for $10,000 from Rothmans, JTI MacDonald and Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., claiming they were deceived about the true nature of the tobacco products.

Sure makes Klein's $400 seem like pittance...

...only 1.7 million Quebecers? I thought everybody in Quebec smoked.

... $10,000,...didn't we all use to live in Quebec and smoke?

[Yodeler]

I think we have missed the bigger picture.  The most damaging aspect of marijuana is that it tends to cause the individual using it to vote Liberal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have a valid point there, but what about onother point brought out here, namely that .. "marijuana smoke contains about 50% more of certain carcinogens than the same amount of unfiltered tobacco."

That's lung cancer city if you ask me!

PS - Did you know that, TO THIS DAY, the Canadian government cannot answer a simple question .. "Which of the hunderds of tobacco carcinogens are cancer causing?" Strange, isn't it?

PPS - We know that the consumption of crude oil is highest ever, we know that they managed to cut out the lead and lower the amount of some carcinogens spewed into the air we breath .. but I'll be damned that they can't answer a simple question .. "ARE THE LUNG CANCER CAUSING ONES AMONG THEM?"

Are they playing some crude joke on us?

[Riverwind]

You have a valid point there, but what about onother point  brought out here, namely that .. "marijuana smoke contains about 50% more of certain carcinogens than the same amount of unfiltered tobacco."

A smoker can go through 20-40 cigarettes per day - someone who smokes more than one joint day is likely an addict who will need rehab long before lung cancer becomes a concern.

In addition, marijuana can be used in other forms (like hash oil) which do not have the same cancer causing effects.

[B. Max]

I think we have missed the bigger picture.  The most damaging aspect of marijuana is that it tends to cause the individual using it to vote Liberal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have a valid point there, but what about onother point brought out here, namely that .. "marijuana smoke contains about 50% more of certain carcinogens than the same amount of unfiltered tobacco."

That's lung cancer city if you ask me!

PS - Did you know that, TO THIS DAY, the Canadian government cannot answer a simple question .. "Which of the hunderds of tobacco carcinogens are cancer causing?" Strange, isn't it?

PPS - We know that the consumption of crude oil is highest ever, we know that they managed to cut out the lead and lower the amount of some carcinogens spewed into the air we breath .. but I'll be damned that they can't answer a simple question .. "ARE THE LUNG CANCER CAUSING ONES AMONG THEM?"

Are they playing some crude joke on us?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's probably because the amounts are so small that it can't even be described as a carcinogen. I suspect they are well aware of what happened in this court case but they are certainly not going to tell anyone.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html

[Yodeler]

A smoker can go through 20-40 cigarettes per day - someone who smokes more than one joint day is likely an addict who will need rehab long before lung cancer becomes a concern.

Did you ever try prescription marijuana? You'd need 40 joints plus to get any kick out of it. Does the government care? No siree!

Why is it that the Canadian government encourages moderation in most other unhealthy habits, like drinking and eating, but when it comes to tobacco inhalation they're ready to swear on the bible that one cigarette a day is more than enough to send one to an early grave?

I LOVE my beer, but if I drunk the amount I'd love to drink I'd be gone in a jiffy.

I LOVE my wiener schnitzels, but if I ate them to my fill every day I'd be gone just as fast.

I LOVE my cigarettes, but if I smoked them as I smoked them when I lived in the clean air of the Alps, I'd be asking for trouble also.

I eat right! I exercise right! I smoke right!

So HOW DARE the overweight , out of shape Liberal politicians tell me I'm costing Medicare money with my quarter a pack a day habit?

In addition, marijuana can be used in other forms (like hash oil) which do not have the same cancer causing effects.

Whats wrong with tobacco cookies?

[err]

You have a valid point there, but what about onother point  brought out here, namely that .. "marijuana smoke contains about 50% more of certain carcinogens than the same amount of unfiltered tobacco."

A smoker can go through 20-40 cigarettes per day - someone who smokes more than one joint day is likely an addict who will need rehab long before lung cancer becomes a concern.

In addition, marijuana can be used in other forms (like hash oil) which do not have the same cancer causing effects.

Maybe pure tobacco doesn't have as many carcinogens as hemp, but when you douse it in licorice, saltpeter, and about 150 other chemicals, then coat it in plastic so it stays fresh, I would bet that what comes in a cigarette is more dangerous to your health than mountain grown marijuana.....

I would challenge the contention that hemp has more carcinogens...

(A "Marketplace" special several years ago stated that the average cigarette's tobacco has about 200 chemicals added.)