Tobacco.org

Two Markets to Consider: SMOKE-FREE PROPERTIES & SECTION 8 

The Section 8 Program . . . A Market Niche to Consider & Understand

*Have questions about how the program works? *How to participate as a landlord? *Can you market your units to Section 8 applicants and still use your screening standards? *Want to have your property added to the list of available units?

Presented by City of Madison CDA, Dane County Housing Authority and AASCW

September 10, 2003

Jump to full article »

SMOKING IN CASINOS: Ban getting closer? 

Reportedly, ASHRAE is under pressure to adopt a zero-tolerance policy for smoke particles in the hospitality industry's air.

Wayne Mehl, a legislative analyst for the American Gaming Association, said that policy could result in lost billions in revenue for the gaming industry. . .

Both Australia and Delaware have taken positive steps, even though neither was required by ASHRAE to do so. Instead, they did it, at least in part, because they know secondhand smoke is a known carcinogen.

We've said for more than a decade that smoke-free casinos are a good idea. It is a matter of occupational safety for casino workers.

New Jersey should follow the lead set by Australia and Delaware and ban smoking in casinos now.

Jump to full article »

ARONSON: Two Recent Developments In Tobacco And Asbestos Cases Show How Mass Tort Litigation Should, And Should Not, Be Done 

In the asbestos case, the event was extraordinary: a request to the U.S. Supreme Court to stop a massive trial from going forward. On Monday, Chief Justice Rehnquist rebuffed the petition. As a result, West Virginia will now play host to as unwieldy a proceeding as has ever been attempted in an American court. . .

Among several major differences between the cases, two - one involving Stage I, the other involving Stage II - stand out.

A Major Difference At Stage I: The Asbestos Trial Is Far More Complex

The tobacco cases involve a single product under a single set of circumstances - prolonged exposure in the confined space of an airplane cabin. And the tobacco defendants all had well-defined shares of the market. . .

At bottom, the difference between [the Tobacco And Asbestos Cases] lies in the motives of the parties. The tobacco companies think they can win some of these cases at trial, and they have the track record to prove it. They've made concessions on issues that they think are losers, and have preserved for trial those issues where they think they can prevail. That makes a great deal of sense: making implausible, losing arguments can hurt a party's credibility in court, so sometimes it's best to just concede them. In the asbestos cases, in contrast, no one actually believes these cases can be tried... [T]he plaintiffs plainly don't. [T]hey have simply hoped that the threat of trial will force defendants to settle, or that an actual, wooly-mammoth proceeding - it's hard to call it a trial - will somehow coerce a deal. . .

The Florida tobacco case is a model of how mass tort litigation can proceed rationally and logically, with due process and fairness to both sides. But by that standard, the West Virginia asbestos juggernaut is a mockery.

Jump to full article »

• Tobacco Companies Ask Judge to Dismiss Owens' Asbestos Case  

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc. and four other cigarette makers asked a judge to dismiss Owens Corning's lawsuit seeking $33 billion to offset claims by people with cancer and respiratory illnesses.

Lawyers for the tobacco companies argued that Owens Corning could no longer continue the suit in California after a Mississippi judge threw out a case with similar claims in May.

``They made the decision they wanted to roll the dice first in Mississippi,'' said Joe Escher, R.J. Reynolds' attorney. ``You only get one shot at the same claim.''

Owens Corning, the largest U.S. insulation maker and its subsidiary, Fibreboard Corp., sued R.J. Reynolds, Philip Morris Cos. and three other cigarette makers in December 1997, seeking billions to help settle lawsuits with asbestos victims. The company alleged smoking contributed to cancer and other respiratory diseases developed by those victims. . .

Laura Remington, Owens Corning's lawyer, said it wasn't clear to what extent Mississippi law diverges from California law and asked Kawaichi to give the company's subsidiary, Fibreboard, its day in court.

``Owens Corning litigated in Mississippi,'' she said. ``Fibreboard didn't.''

Jump to full article »

Mealey's Reports Asbestos Companies Sue Tobacco Firms For Reimbursement of Past Asbestos Claims 

Reacting to the recent bankruptcies that have hit many of the major defendants in the asbestos industry, seven second-tier asbestos-related companies recently filed suits against several tobacco firms in Mississippi state court in Fayette, Miss., Mealey Publications, a Lexis-Nexis company, informed its readers today.

The companies -- Kaiser Aluminum, Asbestos Claims Management Corp., Combustion Engineering, T&N, Uniroyal Holdings Inc., A.P. Green Industries, and A.P. Green Services -- all seek reimbursement for the payment of past asbestos claims and contend the tobacco companies knew of a dangerous tobacco/asbestos synergy, yet failed to warn the public. The suits, also on behalf of a number of individuals, seek compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys' fees. . .

Specifically, the complaints contend that the companies have received thousands of claims from people who allege that they have suffered personal injuries as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products. The complaints allege that the overwhelming majority of these claimants were also smokers and that the injuries were caused, in whole or in part, by tobacco products.

``The Tobacco Defendants knew that their tobacco products, specifically including but not limited to cigarettes, were especially harmful to smokers who were also occupationally exposed to asbestos. Individually and in concert with each other, the Tobacco Defendants concealed their knowledge of the special risks of tobacco products to such workers and distorted the published scientific literature and the public debate about the true nature of the health risks to asbestos workers who smoked,'' the complaints allege.

The asbestos companies argue that the tobacco defendants intended and caused asbestos workers who developed lung diseases to seek compensation from the asbestos defendants. The suits also allege that the tobacco defendants unfairly shifted their civil liability to the asbestos companies and that the tobacco defendants ``carefully monitored the asbestos litigation, including through the Committee of Counsel, a group of in-house lawyers employed by the Tobacco Defendants.'' . .

Full coverage and copies of the complaints will be in the Feb. 23 issue. In the meantime, the Combustion Engineering complaint is available at www.mealeysonline.com. Document #01-010223-101.

Jump to full article »

The Tobacco Defendants knew that their tobacco products, specifically including but not limited to cigarettes, were especially harmful to smokers who were also occupationally exposed to asbestos. Individually and in concert with each other, the Tobacco Defendants concealed their knowledge of the special risks of tobacco products to such workers and distorted the published scientific literature and the public debate about the true nature of the health risks to asbestos workers who smoked.
Complaint from the Mississippi asbestos cases. <I>Mealey's Reports Asbestos Companies Sue Tobacco Firms For Reimbursement of Past Asbestos Claims</I>