It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Cigarette makers lose appeal in landmark case

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 22 2009 @ 02:56 PM

Cigarette makers lose appeal in landmark case

WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court on Friday agreed with the major elements of a 2006 landmark ruling that found the nation's top tobacco companies guilty of racketeering and fraud for deceiving the public about the dangers of smoking.

The government filed the civil case under a 1970 racketeering law commonly known as RICO, used primarily to prosecute mobsters in cases in which there has been a group effort to commit fraud.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 02:56 PM
That's a strong coffee: Philip Morris execs are being compared to mobsters. Is Obama planning to hit the smokers with another sin tax to pay the Pakistani generals for services rendered?

Can I help you?

Two packs of AlCapone lights, please.

Are you aware of the fact that "lights" is a scheme thought up by those Philip Morris mobsters?
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 03:10 PM
ya there is no less chemicals in lights than there are in reg

i wont smoke a light anyway

i do find it compelling that they are talking about racketeering and fraud, but lets face the facts

these guys have already got away

unless u guys got pics of execs going to prison?

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 03:14 PM
uhhhh is there an article to go along with this "landmark case" ?

and i'll tell ya, there is a difference between lights and fulls, i've smoked both, and lights were never as good as the fulls to me. i would love it if there were less chemicals in all smokes, but either way it doesn't really phase me. i smoke because i want to, not because of advertising. life is too short not to enjoy yourself, and i thoroughly enjoy smoking

later, i'm gonna go light up a pall mall now.

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 09:57 PM
Lights just aren't the same. Too much filter on them, that's the main difference. I smoke 'cause i wanna as well, it's my body, i have the right to harm it for whatever reason. Found this essay on that topic. Was going to start a thread about it, but i think it might do more good here, seeing as how we're on the topic.

A good many people don't want to live longer healthy lives. That's their choice and you have to respect it, no matter how they arrived at their present view, or how much you suspect they'll change their tune later once health crumbles and the science of longevity looks even more feasible. One of the most fundamental freedoms is the freedom to wind down your life in the manner of your own choosing - a freedom that's actually sadly lacking these days. If you can't even die on your own terms without government employees hounding you to obey just how deep are the depths of your slavery?

Pretty much sums it up.

As for the case, cigarette prices will most likely rise once more. Just smoke half a pack a day: it's enough to keep you (relatively) sane.


[edit on 22-5-2009 by TheAssociate]

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:58 PM
There are parts of this I don't agree and they are lying.

The requirements, which have been on hold pending appeal, would ban labels such 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.

It is a known fact that TAR is the main contributor to Lung Cancer.
To say that Low Tar cigarettes are just as dangerous as high tar cigarettes is medical B.S.

There is also a cigarette holder that has filters that on top of Low Tar cigarettes, also gets rid of a LOT OF TAR.
By doing this, you lessen your risk of Lung Cancer.

The fact that they want to do away with all labelling tells me they actually want more people to die of smoking related diseases. As you won't be able to differentiate between brands. This to me smells like more llike what they are accusing the Cigarette companies of. It's a form of collusion.

Even the Cigarette companies had an agreement amongst themselves not to compete over which smokes were the least hazardous.

District Judge Gladys Kessler heard accusations that the companies established a "gentleman's agreement" in which they agreed not to compete over whose products were the least hazardous to smokers.

My doctor told me years ago that Low Tar cigarettes were less risky (I wouldn't go so far to say "better for your health" ) than high tar cigarettes.
That was back when it was PC to give that advice.

posted on May, 23 2009 @ 02:42 AM
Basically to make a "light" cigarette they take a regular cigarette and punch holes in the filter so when you take a drag you inhale more air than you normally would with a "full flavor" cigarette. FDA testing methods show that statistically yes, you do inhale less carcinogens with a "light" or "ultra light" cigarette as compared to others. In conclusion yes lights are technically no different than regulars when compared to tobacco content, BUT with the "light" delivery system of vented filters you DO NOT inhale the same amount of carcinogens as "full flavor"

[edit on 23-5-2009 by imeddieone4202003]

posted on May, 23 2009 @ 03:07 AM
The big tobacco companies have been adding additives and chemicals to cigarettes to make them more addictive for a long time.... In 1995 there was a recall of Marlboros due to too much of something they added. That was the brand that I'd smoked for years and found out about the recall half way through a carton. I wheezed and coughed like I was dying and felt like I was too.... That was when I started making my own smokes and using a holder with a tar trap. There is a brand of additive free tobacco that I started smoking on a regular basis after being diagnosed with COPD and dark spots had shown up on my lungs on X Ray. All symptoms are gone and most medical people think I am a non smoker after listening to me breath.

top topics


log in