Government Slashes 120 BILLION For Tobacco Fine

[rpm]

link

On Tuesday, the Justice Department flinched just as it was wrapping up a lawsuit against the cigarette makers. The government had been expected to seek $130 billion to finance a national quit-smoking program. Instead, the government asked for $10 billion.

So why the retreat? At best, it's puzzling. At worst, suspicious.

Two congressmen, both Democrats and tobacco adversaries, are questioning whether "improper political interference" played a role in Justice's action. Wednesday, Reps. Henry Waxman of California and Marty Meehan of Massachusetts, as well as several senators, asked the department's inspector general to look into what prompted the unexpected reduction in the requested remedy. Even the presiding judge said, "There may be some additional influences being brought to bear" on the government's decision.

Whatever the reason for that decision, it fits with the government's pattern — in both the White House and Congress — of backing down just as it's about to gain leverage that could reduce smoking.

Why would Bush's Justice Department suddenly ask for less than 10%? Follow the money...

[storch]

why would you want to hurt one of our most productive exporters?

[Shuckins]

A 130 billion dollar settlement?  Sounds suspiciously like a deliberate attempt to kill the industry.

Victimization is becoming a national cult.  The results of smoking addiction are beyond dispute, but the only parties involved in it that are NOT being held responsible for that addiction are the addicts themselves.  Of the millions of smoking addicts in this country I'll bet you can count the ones who didn't know it was addictive on one hand...and have fingers left over.

I hope the whole deal falls through, simply because if it doesn't, it's going to continue the very dangerous victimization trend...complete with lawyers, legal suits, and new regulations passed by spineless congressmen.

[lazs2]

shouldn't we be suing the people who are smoking right now?   I mean... they know the risks.. the companies are only supplying a legal product with all the proper warnings.

lazs

[Mighty1]

I always thought the lawsuit was wrong anyway.

Why not punish Krispy Kreme for making people fat?

Or sue Hillary's parents?

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Mighty1

Or sue Hillary's parents?

  Count me in if it`s a class action.

[eagl]

I'd say slash it to zero.  People know smoking is bad for you, and they'd smoke even if there was zero advertising.  You don't see colombian drug lords putting up joe camel billboards, and they move plenty of product too.  The cig market was a fixed size (fixed percentage of population), and all the "evil" advertising and chemical adjustments simply adjusted market share between the various brands.

Suing a company for marketing and selling a legal product is insane.  Getting away with it is worse.  Getting the government to carry the banner is flat out market manipulation.  If stopping smoking is such a big deal that the government needs to get involved as a matter of national interest, then just suck it up and ban tobacco products.

I think the lawsuits are BS but I'd support an outright ban.  The cig taxes and lawsuits are a symptom of a welfare and victim based society, and the players are only interested in where the money goes.  An outright ban would at least be honest.

[Eagler]

I hope they reduced the lawyers compensation proportionately

[lazs2]

In light of current warnings and education about cigs...Any lawsuit is silly in the extreme.

I also would not support a ban for that reason.

I wouldn't support a ban on swimming either even tho it would save a lot of lives and, consequently, money.

I don't smoke or really swim much tho.

lazs

[Chairboy]

To maintain internal consistency, you would support the legalization of marijuana too, right?

[lazs2]

I would not ban pot.

I would ask that anyone under the influence not be allowed to drive or work with me tho for safety reasons.

lazs

[rpm]

Originally posted by Eagler
I hope they reduced the lawyers compensation proportionately

I think federal procecutors are on salary.

[DoctorYO]

the issue of the lawsuit was not if smoking is dangerous or not, it was the false and restrictive advertisement to our youth and general public..  not to mention all the folks that got cigs in their rations during ww2..

thats the issue, the deception of the whole industry, and the punitive damages to enshure they dont partake in that kind of behavior again...

thats where the large settlement came from..  not if smoking is bad or it is not..

you people got this whole case all wrong..

Im personally for no regulation but if a company is making crap thats clearly harmful (smoking) and then has audacity of authoring numerous reports on the subject(while contradicting those reports in public), attempts to shred them but has a whistleblower thwart their plans.. and in the process of the investigation they find out they were in a consortium (most major companies) to target our youth, some punishment needs to be administered.. (i personally cant decide what becuase some of these peoples claims are frivilous)

thats the point of the lawsuit and thats whats this case is all about..  not if smoking is good or bad..


DoctorYo

[eagl]

What false advertising?

They said "smoking makes you cool".  Guess what... In the world I live in, and in every country I've ever been in, smoking IS cool.  Try banning cigs in Italy or Belgium, get your teeth kicked in by guys who... well... look cool.

I don't smoke because it's bad for your health.  I get irritated when others smoke near me because it makes me choke and smell bad.  But blame the tobacco companies for selling a product that was at one point something that EVERYONE wanted?  What a load of crap.

If it's a natl. emergency, ban it.   If it's causing a health care crisis, quadruple insurance rates for smokers or flat-out deny care for smoking-related illnesses.  Heck, even go so far as to label smokers as suicidal since a long-term smoker is probably going to die from something caused or made worse by smoking.  But as long as smoking is legal, developing, marketing, and selling smokes to an overeager customer base is a bunch of crap.

If they want to take anone to court, they should charge parents of underage smokers with child neglect and see how far that gets, because just as much blame lies with the parents of smokers as with the tobacco companies.  What's that?  Parents can't be held accountable for what their kids do?  Then how can the tobacco companies be held liable for somehow forcing kids to smoke?

The whole idea is retarded.  It's like suing Boeing or Airbus for 9-11, with a case being built around a charge of "they enticed terrorists to fly by their glamorous travel ads."

[rpm]

Originally posted by eagl
The whole idea is retarded.  It's like suing Boeing or Airbus for 9-11, with a case being built around a charge of "they enticed terrorists to fly by their glamorous travel ads."

It's more like suing American for pilot error on Flight 1420 or PanAm for failing to take adequate security measures on Flight 103.

Originally posted by eagl
What's that? Parents can't be held accountable for what their kids do? Then how can the tobacco companies be held liable for somehow forcing kids to smoke?

Parents ARE liable for their children's actions. Let your kid throw a rock thru a store window. Guess who is liable for the damages.

Originally posted by eagl
But as long as smoking is legal, developing, marketing, and selling smokes to an overeager customer base is a bunch of crap.

Underage smoking is not legal. Intentionally targeting children as a new customer base isn't either. It was proven thru subpoenaed internal company memos that they deliberately did just that.

Originally posted by eagl
What false advertising? They said "smoking makes you cool".

Big tobacco is not selling shoes, jewelry, or cars. They are selling cigarettes and they were telling kids smoking was cool.
Oh, and just for the record, I am a smoker and have been since I was in Jr. High. Why did I start?
Because it was cool.