Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
Risk of bladder cancer for smokers has increased since the mid-1990s, with a risk progressively increasing to a level five times higher among current smokers in New Hampshire than that among nonsmokers in 2001-2004, according to a new study published online November 16 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Furthermore, researchers found that among individuals who smoked the same total number of cigarettes over their lifetime, smoking fewer cigarettes per day for more years may be more harmful than smoking more cigarettes per day for fewer years.
It is well known that cigarette smoking causes bladder cancer, but the influence of various parameters of smoking history, including trends in risk over time, is unclear.
Dalsu Baris, M.D., Ph.D., of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, in Bethesda, Md., and her colleagues from NCI, Dartmouth Medical School, and the departments of health for the states of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, examined bladder cancer risk in relation to smoking practices based on data from a large, population-based case-control study conducted in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont from 2001 to 2004.
Jump to full article »
Attorneys from around the country descended Wednesday on the federal courthouse in Bangor for a conference on a class-action lawsuit against the makers of light cigarettes.
It is the first multidistrict litigation case ever assigned to U.S. District Court in Bangor.
Multidistrict litigation, or MDL, is the label the federal judiciary gives cases filed against the same party or parties in federal courts around the nation. Once cases have been combined, a three-judge panel assigns them to one federal judge.
At least 20 lawsuits from around the country have been combined in Bangor. The MDL has been assigned to U.S. District Judge John Woodcock, who has not handled one since his appointment to the federal bench in 2003. Moreover, the original Maine case that led to the 20-case MDL is once again in the hands of Woodcock, whom the U.S. Supreme Court reversed last year.
In a 5-4 a split won by the court’s liberals, the justices ruled in December that smokers may use state consumer protection laws to sue cigarette makers for the way they promote “light” and “low tar” brands. . . .
No hearings in the case will be held until January or February. Once Woodcock rules on whether the facts in a landmark case upheld earlier this year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C., Circuit can be applied to the MDL case, his decision is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. That decision also could go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Before the entire Panel: Plaintiffs in five actions pending, respectively, in the Southern District of California, the District of Colorado, the Southern District of Florida, the Eastern District of New York, and the Southern District of Texas have moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, to centralize this litigation in the Southern District of Florida.1 This litigation currently consists of eleven actions: four pending in the Eastern District of New York, two in the Northern District of Illinois, and one each in the Southern District of California, the District of Colorado, the Southern District of Florida, the District of Maine, and the Southern District of Texas, as listed on Schedules A and B.2
The briefing and oral argument on this Section 1407 motion largely centered on whether three of the eleven actions – Eastern District of New York Caronia and McLaughlin and Northern District of Illinois Cleary – should be excluded from centralized proceedings, thus limiting centralization to the eight actions listed on Schedule A, in which only Philip Morris USA Inc. (Philip Morris) and/or Altria Group, Inc. (Altria) are named as defendants. Philip Morris supports centralization as so defined, as do moving plaintiffs in their reply brief. . . .
The following defendants responded in opposition to inclusion of McLaughlin and Cleary in centralized proceedings: British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited, B.A.T. Industriesp.l.c., Lorillard Tobacco Co., Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Brown & WilliamsonTobacco Corp., and Liggett Group LLC. Philip Morris, which is the only defendant in Caronia, also responded in opposition to inclusion of that action. . . .
We conclude that the District of Maine is an appropriate transferee district for pretrial proceedings with respect to the eight actions listed on Schedule A. The earliest filed of the eight actions is pending in that district, and that action is substantially more advanced than any of the other actions. Moreover, Chief Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr., has the time and experience to steer this litigation on a prudent course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the District of Maine are transferred to the District of Maine and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable John A. Woodcock, Jr., for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action pending in that district and listed on Schedule A.
On September 10, 2009, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) entered a Transfer Order consolidating eight "light" cigarettes lawsuits in a Multidistrict Litigation and transferring them to the U.S. District Court, District of Maine for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (MDL No. 2068). The Light Cigarettes Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation will be presided over by the Honorable John A. Woodcock, Jr.
In the Transfer Order, the Panel noted that all eight lawsuits share factual issues as to whether Philip Morris and/or Altria engaged in deceptive marketing of their light cigarettes and/or manipulated the design of those cigarettes to deliver more tar and nicotine when smoked than when tested by the government. The Panel found that centralization in the District of Maine will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. An initial conference will be scheduled in the near future.
One of the eight lawsuits included in the Light Cigarettes Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation was filed by Parker Waichman Alonso LLP on behalf of a man who suffered economic damages as a result of misrepresentations made about Marlboro Lights cigarettes marketed by Philip Morris USA.
Beginning September 12th, smokers will not be able to light up when they are eating or drinking outside at restaurants.
The new state law bans smoking in outdoor dining areas. That includes restaurants, bars and snack bars. The law is modeled after Portland's smoke-free outdoor dining ordinance
Governor John Baldacci today signed into law a bill to prohibit smoking at state parks, beaches and historic sites. The bill's sponsor and the Department of Conservation don't think it will be difficult to enforce, but others question the need for such legislation.
Democratic state Senator John Nutting, of Leeds, says his bill to ban smoking cigarettes and other tobacco products at Maine's public parks and beaches stems from concerns about second hand smoke and littering. "A constituent last fall wrote me a very impassioned letter, who had taken her young two-year-old daughter to several state park beaches and always being a typical two-year-old, when she was on the beach she liked to put things in her mouth and ended up putting a lot of cigarette butts in her mouth."
Ten years after the November 1998 state tobacco settlement, we find that most of the New England states have failed to keep their promise to use a significant portion of the settlement funds to reduce tobacco’s terrible toll on America’s children, families and communities.
Health advocates said Monday that New England states have failed to deliver on a pledge to use settlement money from tobacco companies to pay for prevention programs, with most states funding programs at just one fifth of recommended levels.
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids released a report detailing how New England states will spend only 2.3 percent of the $1.8 billion in tobacco settlement and tax revenue on tobacco prevention programs this year when these programs save both lives and money by containing health care costs by preventing tobacco-related illness.
"We know for a fact that these programs save lives and reduce health care costs," said Don Gudaitis, CEO of the American Cancer Society's New England Division. "As more and more Americans face a threat of lack of access to health care and lack of access to health insurance, underfunding the most proven way to reduce health care costs is all the more intolerable."
Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island are funding tobacco prevention programs at less than 20 percent of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's recommendations, according to the report.
The report also said Maine and Vermont are the only New England states funding tobacco prevention at half the CDC's recommended levels.
Ken Jacobs made the switch to roll-your-own cigarettes a year ago to save money. With brand-name cigarettes going for $50 a carton, rolling his own cost only $8 to $10 for the same number of cigarettes.
But starting April 1, the roll-your-own cost will skyrocket because of a new federal tax on cigarettes and tobacco products.
"It's outrageous. It's insane," said Jacobs, who lives in Portland and was smoking Friday on Congress Street. . . .
Some smokers and smoke shop owners say the tax is unfair, while health organizations are hailing the legislation. The American Lung Association of New England says tobacco use will drop in Maine and other states because of the federal tax.
Courtney King, association spokeswoman, said the adult smoking rate is 20.2 percent in Maine and the high school rate is 14 percent. King said the double whammy of the tax increase and the recession could help accelerate the quit rate.
"But we don't have any hard facts," she said.
Maine Revenue Services predicts the federal tax will result in a $10 million drop in revenue from lost state taxes as smokers either choose to quit, smoke less or obtain tobacco tax-free over the Internet
The Maine supreme court has denied the appeal of a member of an Indian tribe in western New York state who ran afoul of Maine law by selling cigarettes by mail-order and over the Internet without a retail tobacco vendor license.
The Supreme Judicial Court on Tuesday upheld a lower court's finding against Scott Maybee of the Seneca Nation of Indians, who was fined $33,500 after being targeted by the Maine Department of Health and Human Services.
In light of the U.S. Supreme Court opinion last week in Altria Group v. Good, Wisconsin consumers can plausibly sue tobacco companies under at least two different statutory provisions, sec. 100.20 and sec. 100.18.
Section 100.20, entitled "Methods of competition and trade practices", provides generally, "(1) Methods of competition in business and trade practices in business shall be fair.
Unfair methods of competition in business and unfair trade practices in business are hereby prohibited."
This is, for all material purposes, identical to the Maine statute at issue, which provides, "Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are declared unlawful." Me.Rev.Stat.Ann., Tit. 5, sec. 207.
However, sec. 100.18 of the Wisconsin statutes, entitled "Fraudulent representations," is even more applicable to suits alleging that the marketing of light cigarettes is misleading . . .
The downside to suing under sec. 100.18 is that it contains a three-year statute of repose, and the discovery rule does not apply, limiting the potential damages, and the number of potential plaintiffs. . . .
One problem consumers are likely to face should they bring similar suits in Wisconsin is that the "unconscious" and "unknowing[]" behaviors described above are frequently not unconscious or unknowing.
Many smokers of light cigarettes who engage in these nicotine-enhancing behaviors do so "unconsciously" only in the respect that, having consciously done so for so many years, the behaviors become subconscious.
If tobacco companies deceived smokers of "light" and "low tar" cigarettes, smokers can sue them under state consumer laws, the U. S. Supreme Court decided on Dec. 15.
Five Justices agreed that federal labeling laws do not pre-empt suits in state courts alleging that tobacco companies violated a duty not to deceive smokers.
In West Virginia, the decision allows Circuit Judge Arthur Recht of Wheeling to lift a stay he imposed on all tobacco suits in West Virginia.
Recht, who handles tobacco litigation by appointment of the Supreme Court of Appeals, imposed the stay while awaiting the decision.
Tobacco firms can be sued under state law for deceptive advertising of "light" cigarettes, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a decision that could affect some 40 suits around the country seeking billions of dollars.
By a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled against Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA unit and held the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act does not bar or preempt such state court lawsuits. . . .
Vice Fund portfolio manager Charles Norton said the ruling removed one defense used in cases involving light cigarettes, but does not signal a shift in tobacco litigation.
"In spite of today's ruling, I expect the future of (light cigarette) litigation to continue to move in the direction that it has in recent years, in favor of the industry," he said.
A related case is before a U.S. appeals court.
In October, a three-judge panel in Washington, D.C., heard arguments on whether a lower court erred in finding tobacco companies conspired to lie about the dangers of smoking.
Companies, including Philip Morris USA, were found to have violated federal racketeering laws in 2006 by a U.S. District judge, who ruled the firms could no longer use expressions such as "low tar" or light" in their cigarette marketing.
Tobacco companies that marketed "light" cigarettes may be sued for fraud, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a 5-to-4 decision that will bolster dozens of lawsuits claiming billions of dollars in damages. . . .
Sixteen years ago, in a decision that produced no majority opinion, a four-justice plurality said the phrase "based on smoking and health" in the labeling law did not apply to pre-empt suits under state laws based on the "general duty not to make fraudulent statements." Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by three justices no longer on the court, wrote the plurality opinion in the case, Cipollone v. Liggett Group Inc. He conceded that the distinction he drew lacked "theoretical elegance."
Indeed, the lower courts have struggled to make sense of that fractured decision. At the argument of the Altria case in October, its lawyer, Theodore B. Olson, called the plurality opinion in Cipollone "baffling, confusing, litigation-generating."
Justice Stevens asked Mr. Olson whether the court would need to "reject the fraud analysis in Cipollone" for Altria to win. Mr. Olson said yes.
But Justice Stevens, writing for the majority on Monday, instead reaffirmed his plurality opinion in Cipollone and turned it into binding law. . . .
"It seems particularly inappropriate," Justice Stevens wrote, "to read a policy of authorization into the F.T.C's inaction" given tobacco companies' failure to tell the commission about studies concerning how "consumers of 'light' cigarettes actually inhale." . . .
Justice Thomas said that some kinds of fraud claims against cigarette makers may go forward, just not those concerning "smoking and health."
"Thus," he wrote, "if cigarette manufacturers were to falsely advertise their products as 'American-made' or 'the official cigarette of Major League Baseball,' state-law claims arising from that wrongful behavior would not be pre-empted."
Forbidding lawsuits based on health claims, Justice Thomas said, would not mean consumers lack protection, as tobacco marketing is subject to regulatory oversight.
The Supreme Court ruled that consumers can sue Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA unit under state unfair-trade laws for its advertising of "light" cigarettes, striking a blow against a broad effort by U.S. corporations to limit their exposure to suits filed under state law.
The 5-4 ruling rejected Altria's claim that federal cigarette-labeling laws, which bar states from imposing their own health warnings on cigarette packages, pre-empt consumer lawsuits.
The suit, filed under the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Law, alleges that Altria misled consumers into believing that light cigarettes, which contain less tar than regular varieties, were less dangerous to smoke. The suit says the companies knew smokers typically make up the difference in tar by taking longer or deeper puffs.
Similar suits are pending in other states, exposing the tobacco industry to a new avenue of attack by smoking opponents. . . .
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for a five-justice majority that included three other members of the court's liberal wing plus Justice Anthony Kennedy, said Maine's antifraud statute complements federal regulatory goals, rather than interfering with them.
He said the Federal Trade Commission "has long depended on cooperative state regulation to achieve its mission because, although one of the smallest administrative agencies, it is charged with policing an enormous amount of activity."
Justice Clarence Thomas, in dissent, said the majority's ruling defeats an "express congressional purpose, opening the door to an untold number of deceptive-practices lawsuits across the country." . . .
For Justice Stevens, the Altria ruling vindicates an opinion he delivered in a cigarette case 16 years ago. In Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Justice Stevens, citing a general presumption against pre-empting state laws unless necessary, upheld portions of a lawsuit . . .
Mr. Obama has said regulatory failures contributed to the nation's economic crisis. A Democratic administration is likely to view state action as complementing federal efforts to police markets, enforce environmental laws or promote workplace safety.