Tobacco.org

• Government of Ontario lawsuit is "hypocrisy", says Imperial Tobacco Canada 

Imperial Tobacco Canada is stunned that a province in which close to 50 per cent of tobacco products purchased are illegal is targeting the legal industry while continuing to turn a blind eye to illegal tobacco sales.

"We find it unbelievable that the Government of Ontario - a senior partner in the tobacco industry for more than 50 years - would use taxpayers' dollars to sue legal tobacco companies rather than invest in eliminating the contraband market which, today, accounts for almost 50 percent of the cigarettes purchased in Ontario," said Donald McCarty, Imperial Tobacco Canada's Vice President of Law.

Recent studies have shown that the huge increase in illegal cigarettes in Ontario seems to have ended the thirty year decline in smoking rates, and signal an increase in the amount of youth smoking illegal cigarettes.

"Why isn't the Ontario government going after the illegal manufacturers with the same zeal that it goes after the legal industry?" added Mr. McCarty.

Jump to full article »

We find it unbelievable that the Government of Ontario - a senior partner in the tobacco industry for more than 50 years - would use taxpayers' dollars to sue legal tobacco companies rather than invest in eliminating the contraband market
Imperial Tobacco Canada, on Ontario's lawsuit.

Canadian Cancer Society welcomes Ontario government's lawsuit against the tobacco industry 

"The lawsuit filed today will begin the process of holding the industry accountable for the harm they have done to the health of Ontarians," says Rowena Pinto, Senior Director, Public Affairs, Ontario Division, Canadian Cancer Society. "The tobacco industry's addictive products are responsible for 30% of cancer deaths."

Cost-recovery litigation could significantly benefit public health. In other jurisdictions, litigation has resulted in restrictions on the marketing practices of the tobacco industry.

Jump to full article »

• Clove and tobacco importer sues FDA to prevent ban 

The top distributor of clove-flavored tobacco products in the U.S. is asking a federal court to decide whether its new filtered cigars fall under a new federal ban on flavored cigarettes.

Kretek International Inc., which imports Djarum brand tobacco products from Indonesia, sued the Food and Drug Administration Sept. 22.

The company claims the FDA, which was granted authority to regulate tobacco in June, has threatened to ban its products and the regulator is causing the company to lose money.

Jump to full article »

• Court Revives Smoker's Lawsuit Against Altria  

9th Circuit reinstated an Alaska widow's lawsuit against Altria Group's Philip Morris USA on behalf of her smoker-husband who died of lung cancer because her state product liability claims were not preempted by federal law.

Dolores Hunter sued on behalf of her deceased common-law husband, Benjamin Francis, but Altria and Philip Morris argued that the state claims against them and retailer Alaska Commercial could not go forward because a victory would result in the ban of sales of cigarettes in Alaska. . . .

the circuit found that Altria, failed to show a "clear conflict between Hunter's claim and federal law," and that U.S. laws "do not provide strong evidence of a federal policy against more stringent state regulation."

The three-judge panel in Anchorage sent the lawsuit back to the Alaska state court.

Jump to full article »

Court of Appeals Docket #: 06-5267 ($$) 

09/22/2009 PER CURIAM ORDER, En Banc, filed [1207501] denying petitions for rehearing en banc [1199505-3] [1199502-3] [1199499-3][1199496-3][1199466-3] Judge Sentelle, Ginsburg,* Henderson,* Rogers, Tatel, Garland,* Brown, Griffith and Kavanaugh* [06-5267, 06-5268, 06-5269, 06-5270, 06-5271, 06-5272, 06-5332, 06-5367, 07-5102, 07-5103] (Circuit Judges Ginsburg, Henderson, Garland and Kavanaugh did not participate in this matter)

09/22/2009 PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1207502] denying petitions for rehearing [1199505-2][1199502-2][1199499-2][1199496-2][1199466-2] Judge Sentelle, Tatel and Brown [06-5267, 06-5268, 06-5269, 06-5270, 06-5271, 06-5272, 06-5332, 06-5367, 07-5102, 07-5103]

09/28/2009 MOTION filed [1208442] by British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd. and Altria Group, Inc., Lorillard Tobacco Company, Philip Morris USA Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company in 06-5267, Philip Morris USA Inc. and Altria Group, Inc., British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd., Lorillard Tobacco Company and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company in 06-5268, Altria Group, Inc. and British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd., Lorillard Tobacco Company, Philip Morris USA Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company in 06-5269, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Altria Group, Inc., British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd., Lorillard Tobacco Company and Philip Morris USA Inc. in 06-5270, Altria Group, Inc., British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd., Lorillard Tobacco Company, Philip Morris USA Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company in 06-5271, Lorillard Tobacco Company and Altria Group, Inc., British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd., Philip Morris USA Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company in 06-5272, 06-5332, 06-5367, 07-5102, 07-5103 to stay mandate (Response to Motion served by mail due on 10/13/2009)

Jump to full article »

• PHILIP MORRIS, et. al. v. USA: Appeal From The Judgment Of The United States District Court For The District Of Columbia (PDF) ($$) 

Pursuant to FED. R. APP. P. 41(d)(2) and D.C. Circuit Rule 41(a)(2), Defendants respectfully move this Court to stay issuance of its mandate pending the filling and disposition of timely petitions for writs of certiorari. This Court recognized the substantial nature of the arguments raised by Defendants—and the risk of irreparable harm confronting Defendants—when it issued a stay pending appeal. For similar reasons, a stay is also warranted pending the filing and disposition of Defendants’ petitions for certiorari.

A stay is appropriate because the Panel’s opinion raises substantial questions for certiorari, including: (1) whether a court of appeals is required to undertake de novo review of factual findings in a case that squarely implicates a defendant’s First Amendment rights; (2) whether corporations can be part of an “association in fact” RICO enterprise; and (3) whether jurisdiction over this case was extinguished by the enactment of new federal legislation that imposes comprehensive regulation on every aspect of Defendants’ business. The balance of equities also weighs strongly in favor of a stay because, in the absence of a stay, Defendants would be required to incur substantial, unrecoverable expenses to comply with the district court’s injunctions during the pendency of their petitions for certiorari. No other party would be prejudiced by the issuance of a stay because Defendants’ business will continue to be subject to stringent government oversight by the States and the federal Government while their petitions for certiorari are pending.

Jump to full article »

PHILIP MORRIS, et. al. v. USA: Order denying petition for panel rehearing (PDF) ($$) 

Upon consideration of the petitions of Philip Morris USA Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Lorillard Tobacco Co., Altria Group Inc., and British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd. for panel rehearing, it is ORDERED that the petitions be denied.

Jump to full article »

• PHILIP MORRIS, et. al. v. USA: Order denying rehearing en banc (PDF) ($$) 

BEFORE: Sentelle, Chief Judge, and Ginsburg,* Henderson,* Rogers, Tatel, Garland,* Brown, Griffith, and Kavanaugh,* Circuit Judges

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the petitions of Philip Morris USA Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Lorillard Tobacco Co., Altria Group Inc., and British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd. for rehearing en banc, and the absence of a request by any member

Jump to full article »

PHILIP MORRIS, et. al. v. USA: Order denying motion for partial vacatur (PDF) ($$) 

O R D E R

Upon consideration of appellants Philip Morris USA Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., and Lorillard Tobacco Co.’s suggestion of mootness and motion for partial vacatur, the opposition thereto, and the reply; and the letters of the United States and Philip Morris USA filed pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 28(j), it is

ORDERED that the motion be denied.

Jump to full article »

Cigarette makers plan U.S. Supreme Court appeal  

Several tobacco companies plan to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a May ruling in a racketeering lawsuit that requires them to disclose more about the dangers of smoking and bars them from selling cigarettes as "light" or "low tar."

The companies asked the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. on Monday not to enforce its May 22 ruling until the nation's highest court can decide whether to hear their appeal. The appeals court declined on Sept. 22 to reconsider the case.

Monday's motion seeking a delay was filed on behalf of Altria Group Inc (MO.N) and its Philip Morris USA Inc unit, British American Tobacco Plc (BATS.L), Lorillard Inc (LO.N) and Reynolds American Inc's (RAI.N) RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co.

Jump to full article »

Smoking Habit Took the Life of El Cajon Woman 

A dropped cigarette apparently sparked a fire that engulfed a mobile home at an East County trailer park over the weekend, killing a woman inside, authorities reported on Monday.

Karen Hunter, 64, died Sunday evening as flames spread through her residence at the El Capitan Mobile Home Park . . .

Investigators determined that "smoking materials" -- likely a dropped cigarette -- ignited a living-room couch, Zech said. Hunter's friends and neighbors told authorities she was a smoker.

The fire, which also killed Hunter's four pet birds, caused an estimated $75,000 damage to the trailer and its contents.

The woman's cat was missing following the blaze, according to Zech.

Jump to full article »

Editorial: Ban smoking on N.J. beaches  

While a smoking ban on beaches and parks may secure New Jersey's standing as a leading nanny state, it would be a savvy economic strategy to bolster the state's billion-dollar tourism industry while saving lives.

A couple of Shore towns have already enacted smoking limits. But at the rate individual communities are going to ban smoking on the beaches, it could take years to safeguard large numbers of bathers from the health risks of secondhand smoke.

Even better, a North Jersey lawmaker, State Sen. Barbara Buono (D., Middlesex), plans to introduce a measure to ban smoking on all 127 miles of Jersey beaches and in parks, citing "empirical data which support the passage of this public-health and environmental-protection measure." . . .

Jersey also stands to gain from the growth of ecotourism by visitors eager to bird-watch at the Shore and hike and climb in the parks. Clearing the air at the Shore and in the parks would only enhance the state's attraction for these visitors.

There's certainly room for a spirited debate later this fall on Buono's smoking bans in parks, but her proposal to ban lighting up at the Shore is a winner.

Jump to full article »

Documents 

This section contains key documents and news articles relevant to the defense of Dr. Enstrom's UCLA epidemiologic research dealt with by the Scientific Integrity Institute. Additional items will be posted soon.

1) 1990 UCLA Applications to ACS to Fund CA CPS I Study

January 22, 1990 UCLA Grant Application Letter to ACS Intramural Committee (http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/Intramural012290.tif)

March 29, 1990 UCLA Grant Application Letter to ACS Extramural Committee (http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/Extramural032990.tif)

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Studies offer evidence smoking bans do help 

Two recent reports on the health impacts of public smoking bans reinforce the sound policy decision local elected officials made when they limited indoor smoking here in Beaufort County. . . .

If these study results bear out here, we should be seeing some positive impacts. The Bluffton, Beaufort County and Hilton Head Island bans have been in place for more than two years.

Many communities across the state, including the city of Beaufort, followed suit after the state Supreme Court turned back legal challenges to local smoking ordinances.

Restaurants, bars and other workplaces have adjusted to the smoking rules with no major ill effects. The fact that the bans were enacted about the same time certainly helped.

We salute local elected officials who pushed for and voted for ordinances that could a big difference in our community's health.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Hard evidence 

A new Kansas University study on public smoking bans provides just the kind of evidence Gov. Mark Parkinson needs to help promote a statewide smoking ban. . . .

The KU researchers have their sights set on a nationwide ban, but a statewide ban in their home state would be a good first step. A statewide ban needs to minimize exceptions that would water down its health benefits. The Lawrence law wouldn’t be a bad example to follow.

Jump to full article »