It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Big Tobacco Makes Secret Plea To Avoid Payout

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Big Tobacco Makes Secret Plea To Avoid Payout


www.huffingtonpost.com

Four cigarette makers that control nearly 90 percent of U.S. retail cigarette sales have until Feb. 19 to persuade the government not to go to the Supreme Court and ask the justices to step into a landmark 10-year-old racketeering lawsuit.

In 2006, a judge ruled that the industry concealed the dangers of smoking for decades. Despite that finding, lower courts have said the government is not entitled to collect $280 billion in past profits or $14 billion for a national campaign to curb smoking.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Soulless sadistic bastards! Sorry just my first knee jerk reaction.

When i consider what my grandmother went through in her last 10 years of battling emphysema, which ultimately took her life and with the country struggling to make ends meet... we should put them out of business by liquidating and absorbing all their assets. Followed with a clear warning to the rest of corporate america, that if any org is caught lying to it's customers and attempting to hide assets from the government, they will meet the same swift demise.

Besides isn't it already a well established protocol/policy, for the government to claim a convicted drug dealers assets?

www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 16-1-2010 by The Blind Eye]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Sorry I like killing myself to much to give up smoking..

Besides You do know Big Phama kills more people than smoking does per year right? You know all those good drugs that help most but kill some...

Oh and Drinking.. Theres another.. Not a complaint there either.. Interesting that..

Sorry I smoke because I know its killing me, I dont need some add on TV to tell me its bad for me... People should know better than assume something that tastes like crap probably is crap in your system no simple way of putting it..

I honestly think people just make the excuse to play stupid to get some payout..

The only thing hard about quitting is the nicotine and the hand movement thing... And well thats pretty much covered now isnt it..

Anyway you wanna take Big Tobacco for thier shenanigans then attack the rest...



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   
My father died of lung cancer and I remember watching him try to gasp for air while in the hospital and it was a hard time watching this 6'4" tall man be reduced to a withering rail in no time.

But,

He made the decision to smoke. Just as people who drink alcohol then crash and kill someone else and/or themselves. Including those who suffer kidney damage from years of drinking. The same can also be said for lots of other products as well. We have had it drilled into our minds that smoking is bad, and it is thats clear. However there are many more people killed by alcohol related use compared to smoking. People who smoke can quit and recover, people who drink are immediate threats to others immediately.

There is no comparison.

I don't blame tobacco companys for the decisions that individuals make including my Dad. They know its bad for them to smoke and they do it anyway. There are many stop smoking methods, patchs & medicine now available that do work. However the best thing that works is to just quit, the excuse of "its too hard" is the same used by people with low self control & discipline. I quit after 15 years all at once and have been "smoke free" for 10+ years now.

Tobacco companys are no different from wine makers, beer makers, liquor distillery's, natural herb companys, chocolate makers and the myriad of other companys that produce & manufacture addictive based products. The only difference is that people will not go after alcoholic beverage manufacturers because the government already tried that once and it did not work. Somewhere along that time frame the government switched to placing it's focus on the tobacco industry for what reason I haven't figured it out yet. But II'll bet there is a reason for them to be so focused on that industry. It reminds me of the "M" laws that do not make sense either.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Sorry i can't buy into this type of twisted amoral rational.

There is no justification for such criminal acts and motives. When an industry deliberately goes out of it's way to hoodwink the public for the sole purpose of profit/greed, when people's lives are at stake, the government has an obligation to it's people to step in and make sure justice is served.

Having a hand in the illness and death of millions, making a mockery of scientific research, wasting valuable time and tax dollars in court proceedings and now attempting to avoid paying for the crimes they have committed... as i said this pervasive popular notion/belief that under all and any circumstances that profit proceeds people, has to change.

...and what better way to make that change now versus later, then to make an example of big tobacco once and for all.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Smoking is bad for you? Noooo.
I been smoking for 15 years now and I didnt know smoking could hurt me.
Lets make these cigarette companies pay for their shinanigans~~!
I want...hmmm... ONE MILLION DOLLARS! That sounds about fair!

(for those slow ones out there...that was sarcasm).

Why dont people just leave us smokers alone?
Why dont people just get a life and worry about themselves instead of
what law obiding citizens are doing?
When these tobacoo companies get fined, who pays for that? WE DO!
All these stupid tax hikes on cigaretts is ridiculous. It doesnt make people quit, all it does is make them smoke cheaper cigarettes. All it does is make the tobacoo industry richer and the rest of us poorer.
I used to pay $3.50 for a pack of marlboros. Now they are over $5.
I hope the courts make the right decision on this one.
Smokers have been punished enough.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Common Good
Smokers have been punished enough.

Agreed, but the punishment you list is no where near the punishment the actually smoking takes out on your system and pocketbook. i.e. Your health and home insurance is higher for a good reason.

As for this notion that all you are doing is effecting yourself, you really don't know what it's like to work, dine or live around someone who smokes, when you are a nonsmoker. It makes your clothes and breath reek ...and the air you fill makes you feel sick and nauseous.

There is also, a fire hazard to be concerned with, as well as damages to furniture and car interiors... plus the littering of cigarette butts.

So yes i think we have a right to bud into your business and push you around when your habit so adversely affects us... not to mention yourself.

[edit on 18-1-2010 by The Blind Eye]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 02:27 AM
link   
if the "passes" it will set a precedent that cannot be followed; especially pertaining the aforementioned pharma.

and blind eye your not a vice cop and laws pertaining vices should be illegal.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by The Blind Eye
 


I can give you about 3 billion other things that kill you besides smoking..

I can start with the fluoride in the water, or the crap that people inhaled during the industrial age in the US.. Think Rust Belt.. or rush hour..

I can give the big pharma drugs, The fast food, the GM food, lead paint, vacinations, and on and on and on..

Point is, if you are stupid enough to put something that you light and smokes and stinks and not think its bad for you, You have to really think about your surroundings... Really, are you that naive to think that smoking ISN'T bad for you?



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Blind Eye

Originally posted by Common Good
Smokers have been punished enough.

Agreed, but the punishment you list is no where near the punishment the actually smoking takes out on your system and pocketbook. i.e. Your health and home insurance is higher for a good reason.

As for this notion that all you are doing is effecting yourself, you really don't know what it's like to work, dine or live around someone who smokes, when you are a nonsmoker. It makes your clothes and breath reek ...and the air you fill makes you feel sick and nauseous.

There is also, a fire hazard to be concerned with, as well as damages to furniture and car interiors... plus the littering of cigarette butts.

So yes i think we have a right to bud into your business and push you around when your habit so adversely affects us... not to mention yourself.

[edit on 18-1-2010 by The Blind Eye]



Reply to first paragraph- Im VERY aware of what smoking does to me.(I should know I been smoking for 15 years).I dont need someone else telling me how bad it is for me. Lots of things are bad for me, but do people complain about any of that other stuff? NOPE. And, I dont have health insurance.

Reply to Second Paragraph- I HIGHLY DOUBT that you work around people who are constantly smoking in your face unless YOU are around them when they are doing it, and chances are, when they are doing it, they are outside, so I doubt that really effects you and if itdid, you can always not be around them when they do? When it comes to dining, you non-smoking cigarette nazis have pushed through enough laws as it is that there is no longer any smoking in restraunts or bars(so you are good there). And if you really cared about living with a smoker that blows itin your face, ask them to smoke outside(if it really bothers you that much). That way you have fresh clothes all the time =).

Reply to third and fourth Paragraph- If it is my car interior, andmy furniture, then wtf does it matter to anyone else? I like holes in my interior and my furniture, it gives it character. Im really not taking this third paragraph seriously, how could I?)
You THINK you have a right to butt into MY buisness...but you dont, because its MY buisness, I am not effecting you in anyway. I amonly effecting myself, and I am ok with that until the day I quit.


Bottom Line- You all have done enough to smokers. You got all the stupid laws you could passed through, and us smokers are obliging. How much farther do you have to impede on other peoples lives before you are happy? I think there are MANY, MANY, MANY other harmful substances that you are exposed to everyday(Like a poster above me stated).
You wake up in the morning, you use the water to brush your teeth...guess what,,you are putting poison in yourbody. You walk outside of your homebefore going to work, guess what, you are breathing in toxic chemicals from car exhausts. I can go on forever, but nooooo, we have to get the smokers, because they are "different" and they do whatever the hell they want to do, and we canthave that now can we? If I choose to poison my body willingly with cigarettes , then that is MY choice, not yours or anybody elses. (Lights up one for you). MMM..cheap Pall Malls. I miss my Marlboros, and thanks to you, I am now putting more chemicals into my body with these cheap cigarettes than I was before. Thanks.

Edit to add-


[edit on 18-1-2010 by Common Good]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 04:05 AM
link   
My last cigarette was on Dec 14th 2009. I have not had one since. I have smoked for almost 30 years. I still crave one now and then. Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances on this planet and the numbers of dead that tobacco has left in it's wake is staggering.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 05:18 AM
link   
The millions of people that didn't die from tobacco is too staggering. Smoking is just a money maker for all involved except the consumer. I believe it's more likely the radiation dust from the 50's is causing the lung cancer is a more likely cause than smoking. Smoking was just an easy target I say that and I have never smoked.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 


I agree, we should be going after all sources of pollutants... and at every opportunity we are making steady progress in requiring industries to be more and more responsible for their production wastes, and the governments loose reg on our water standards is a matter of educating the public on to build support for reform. Where the tobacco industry is concerned, we also need to take every opportunity to make them accountable for their actions... and over and over they have proven to be enemies of the state. An industry that has lied and killed in the name of profit, and when that isn't enough they have gone after our children, in hopes of recruiting a new generation of smokers. How much greed and lack of character do you need to see before you acknowledge your part? What would it say about you, if you decided tomorrow to take the money you would normally spend on cigarettes for a year, and donate it to a worthy cause?

It's a cop out to pass the buck/blame to big tobacco, where do you think they get their money from?



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by The Blind Eye
 


Are you now trying to make me feel bad because I spend my money on cigarettes and not on what you would like me to spend it on?
WOW.

Oh, and btw, I never said that we had to go after those other pollutants, I said cigarette smoke is just as bad as the rest. Do you have selective reading?



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 


Nice dodge


...but seriously
...answer the questions...



How much greed and lack of character do you need to see before you acknowledge your part? What would it say about you, if you decided tomorrow to take the money you would normally spend on cigarettes for a year, and donate it to a worthy cause?

It's a cop out to pass the buck/blame to big tobacco, where do you think they get their money from?



[edit on 18-1-2010 by The Blind Eye]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   
On the post:

This doesn't seem to be a move to avoid a payout, but a move (like any normal lawsuit) to reach a mutually beneficial settlement. If the companies broke the law, then they should be held accountable and no about of logic manipulation should function to excuse them of that.

On smoking:

I don't think it's any secret that purposefully inhaling smoke (filled with chemicals) into the area of the body that transfers oxygen into your blood (quite a vital and sensitive area) is bad for you.

Perhaps one might have noticed the telltale signs. Coughing, sore lungs, nasty phlegm, etc.

It doesn't take a scientific study to tell anyone it's bad for you. They did, however, manipulate the contents of the product to make it highly addictive and to make sure that the addictive agents were most effectively introduced into your body to ensure addiction.

That is seriously wrong on every level.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Cool down Folks - Nothing to see here except just another piece of anti-smoking propaganda.

The case referred to here is a RICCO case. It had to do with avoiding the payment of taxes on cigarettes back in the 1990s by smuggling. It has NOTHING to do with "hiding the dangers of cigarette smoking from the public"

The anti-smokers wanted a very large payout to be part of the fine structure imposed by the courts. They asked the district attorneys to request something like 14 billion dollars to be donated from the tobacco companies directly to them.

The district attorneys looked at the request but the basis for it was illegal. You can't legally impose a penalty for forward costs based on RICCO .

The anti-smokers are mad as hell that they didn't get more blood money from smokers on top of the Master Settlement Agreement. Now who is going to pay their 6-figure salaries?

I very much think that inhaling smoke (filled with chemicals) is good for you.
Our ancestors inhaled smoke from cooking fires and the burning of organic material for heat for milennia. Our respiratory systems were built by evolution and developed under this stress.

Anti-smoking has been nagging us for over 60 years. The rate of smoking in the population has decreased by half since 1975. That was 40 years ago. Has our health gotten any better?

Nope - rate of lung cancer has increased.
Rate of asthma has increased astronomically - (no wonder our respiratory systems have become hypersensitive because they didn't grow in the challenge of smoke).
Rate of obesity has increased with increases in diabetes and other obesity related diseases.

Would anyone out there care to find a disease rate that has decreased due to the decrease of smoking in the population over 40 years ago? Surely we should be starting to see some benefit by now?

How about identifying just one disease that smokers get that non-smokers don't?

BTW - the chemicals in cigarette smoker are not put there by the tobacco companies. The chemicals in question are all the by-product of combustion and are generated whenever an organic is burned. That means candle-burning, wood-burning, bbq's, burning of fossil fuels in our cars etc.

burningissues.org...

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


Again another crafty side step, what's up with you guys?

Equating the direct inhalation of a concentrated smoke source such as a cigarette with that of a camp-fire or candle?

Attempting to dilute the point by comparing smoker related illnesses to those of others, without any concrete details/stats etc?

Defending a pointless expensive hazardous habit/addiction that was created and maintained at all costs, by a lying, coning, bribing, tax cheat of an enterprise.

Then ending the post by spinning anti-smokers into "control freaks". (yes i realize this is your nick as well, i'm rolling with it
) These "freaks" you are so eager to discredit, are the people who have saved countless lives and saved many more from being plagued by smoker related illnesses.

So in sum what you want is to be able to smoke in peace, and hell with everyone else?
(note: they are intricately connected)

[edit on 19-1-2010 by The Blind Eye]

[edit on 19-1-2010 by The Blind Eye]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Now let us factor in another cost that we must all bare for the average cigarette smoker. When you consider 5.5 trillion cigarettes are used worldwide annually and that 35% on average litter (estimated 1.69 billion pounds (845,000 tons) of butts wind up as litter worldwide per year)... we're talking about a huge economic and environmental impact, like no other... a clear negative for more than just aesthetic reasons; cellulose acetate (a form of plastic) is what makes up the filter/butt which due to it's use also contains trace amounts of cadmium, arsenic, lead as well as other toxins. Each butt can take as long as other forms of plastic to fully decompose... and now if that wasn't enough to add injury to injury, there is the ingestion by children and small animals which mistake butts for food.

...and you want us to 'butt' out of your business? ...with regard to this addiction, your business in supporting this industry and all it's sick ramifications... is our business... for it is more then just you who is adversely affected by your chosen past-time.

sources:
www.preventcigarettelitter.org...
www.mdpi.com...
www.cdc.gov...
www.bloomberg.com...

[edit on 1-2-2010 by The Blind Eye]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I would advise most that the real problem here is not one of 'tobacco' per se.

It is the issue of mega corporations avoiding legal repercussions for what they do.

Many have rightly pointed out that there are currently hundreds of corporations in this country producing toxic, and in many cases significantly damaging products - but politically appointed regulators seem to avoid scrutinizing them.

So it was with tobacco. In fact, it can be said that aside from war industries, the 'big' tobacco industry was the trail blazer of avoiding 'public' scrutiny by influencing the political desires of our 'representatives' and those whom they appoint.

True - tobacco firms should be brought to some equitable justice for using the tools of racketeers and criminals in a blatant disregard for public safety in the name of profit - but hey, they are corporations right? They are legally only obliged to maximize profit.... just like their contemporary counterparts who have us consuming questionable substances, or exposing us to dangerous radiations or materials....

This should not be about tobacco. It should be about due process ENABLING the pursuit of PUBLIC SAFETY without interference from the profiteering mega industries that can now be more than cynically said to run the country.

Get off the human suffering angle, it is too much of a generalization to contend that smokers get into their health care crises via an avenue of deceit or treachery. Truth is, smoker smoke because it is a traditionally honored cultural activity that has been with mankind since the dawn of dirt! Yes, like everything else too much - too often - will destroy your health.

Bad on me for having been a smoker.

But this issue is more important than that. It is about being above the law. It is about having the tools and freedom to usurp processes intended to help the community and keep us safe. These people knew that if their product was scientifically exposed for what it is they would not be a tenth as rich as they are today. THAT'S what they need to answer for, THAT'S why they are akin to 'Racketeers'... and they got away with wit because as usual - our POLITICAL celebrities KNEW what they were participating in, and let it slide - so they could continue their Hollywood lifestyles at the expense of those who trusted them.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join