Well, but the thing is, the “profits of the companies” are the money from “those who were deceived into buying their products”. So I don’t really know how you could do it another way.
Captain Amazing, but how have the tobacco companies profit margins changed? Take a look at the stock price history chart for RJ Reynolds on this page. And then, based solely on share price, how can you convince even yourself that the company’s profits have been dealt any long term damage? From the period of time following the tobacco settlement, the price of the company’s stock dropped for a total of about 18 months.
I grant this is a very quick and dirty analysis - but it sure doesn’t say to me that RJ Reynolds feels very punished.
I do not believe that any further lawsuits or settlements will have any different effect, either. For example - what’s going to happen to the economies of Virginia, Maryland, North and South Carolina if tobacco becomes illegal tomorrow? Because of that, I don’t believe that any sudden changes will be allowed to happen. And, frankly, if sin taxes could get people to stop smoking - it would have worked already. At this point, sin taxes are enacted to raise revenues, not to reduce use. Anyone with a weak habit has already gotten out from under the monkey. (Not 100% true, but at this point diminishing returns is taking over, big-time.)
Sorry, as mmuch as we’d like it to be true, this has nothing to do with the GOP whores caving to their big tobacco donors.
If you’re miffed, blame the federal appeals court.
Earlier this year, when the original Clinton Administration case (based on federal racketeering law) came up before the court, its teeth were pulled. The courts ruled the 50s era mafia statutes can not be used in an attempt to punish Big Tobacco for past deception and can only be cited for present-day and future misbehavior. You really think lawyers for for the government will be able to convince a (non-jury) court that cigarette manufacturers are libel for $130 billion because based on what they’re doing today or what they might due in the future? The face-saving $10,000,000,000.00 offer was made because they lost in round 1.
I favor the elimination of all laws of prohibition, including all laws against drugs, gambling, and prostitution.
Well, two things: (1) quite a lot of their money was made from the sale of other products (e.g., RJR owns Nabisco) and from investments, but (2) the money should be paid to the victims, i.e., those whom they swindled with their advertising and lies. I see no reason why government should profit at all.
Actually, RJR Holdings, Inc. is the parent company of RJR Nabisco & RJ Reynolds Tobacco Holdings - and a whole lot of others. RJR Tobacco Holdings, which comprises at least a dozen separate tobacco concerns, is a separately traded stock under the name Reynolds American, Inc. Ticker symbol is RAI.
I agree with ADUSAF to a point, Otto-If we’re smokers because our parents are shitty, and their parenting skills aren’t up to par, what does that say about gay peoples’ parents?
Talk about a ridiculous, shitty thing to say of you.
Sam
Sure took them a while to find about it. If, as you say, this case “pulled teeth”, how come it took them until now to react? Generally, when I’ve had teeth knocked out, I was presently aware. Acutely aware.
will support a tobacco ban when they begin to ban alcohol, and when Big Alcohol is forced to pay billions to people with liver failure due to drinking to much. Or when Big Alcohol has to pay billions to offset the medical costs of people hurt from drunk drivers, and the costly dialysis needed for the destroyed livers.
The smoking ban is the biggest farce in history. Any idiot who didn’t realize that inhaling SMOKE might be bad for you, deserves what they get.
Dob, the only difference in the situations is that the big Alcohol companies didn’t conspire to hide the truth about their product for generations and lie about the damage it caused its users. The evils of hooch use have been known about for centuries. The evil if the little brown weed that is tobacco weren’t known until studies were performed, and then after that, Big Tobacco lied about the results and whatnot.
Sam
:dubious:
Please! This has all been hashed and rehashed. Alcohol and tobacco are entirely different things. Alcohol in moderation is not harmful, and there is evidence that moderate wine drinking can even be beneficial. Tobacco is always harmful, even in moderation. Ask your own doctor. The tobacco companies knew that, and during WWII provided free cigarettes to GIs, knowing that they would be addicted when (if) they returned home. Tobacco companies also manipulated the amount of nocitine in their product with full knowledge of it’s addicting effects. There is no legitimate comparison between alcohol and tobacco.
As far as banning is concerned, that’s been tried with alcohol. It didn’t work. Banning tobacco won’t work either, and, as has been pointed out, banning drugs has had no positive effect.
At any rate, the point of the OP was that the governrment has apparently rolled over and presented its ass crack to the tobacco industry, hopeful of more support for Republican candidates in the future. The Pubbies take a little fucking now so they can continue to give us a big one later.
Unless being gay is a choice, I really don’t see the analogy.
First, unlike the tobacco companies, Big Alcohol did not spend years trying to deceive the public into thinking that overconsumption of booze did not damage your liver or kill your brain cells even when it knew otherwise. Also, unlike the CEOs of the tobacco industry, nobody from Anheuser-Busch or Seagrams recently went before Congress, took an oath, and then blatently lied about the negative effects of their products. As was mentioned earlier by Liberal, it’s these egregious acts of fraud and misrepresentation that are at the crux of the government’s suit against the tobacco industry.
Second, this thread is not about banning smoking or tobacco. It’s about how the Justice Department under the Bush Administration, despite having the advantageous position in its suit against the tobacco companies, caved in with an unexpected suddenness that even shocked the defense. Because of that, this thead, in a bigger sense, is also about the unholy influence the tobacco lobby now seems to have on the Republican Party and the conservative movement as a whole. They are more concerned with pleasing the tobacco lobby then pursuing justice or the health and welfare of the populace.
Well, considering that a large portion of the public seems to think it’s a choice, they might see the analogy. I personally don’t think it’s a choice and that’s not the point(I wasn’t trying to construct an analogy, either, I was tryng to lay an ad hominem attack as Otto had).
The point is that it was a shitty, stupid, ignorant, insulting thing of Otto to say, and I responded in-kind.
Sam
I don’t mind that people smoke, I just continue to find it odd that tobacco is legal while marijuana isn’t.
And no, I’ve never done either, nor do I ever intend to. I just can’t see a reason not to treat the two of them the same way.
Bullshit.
There’s no law against being served in a restaurant without shirt and shoes. There’s no law against going to a fancy restaurant without a coat and tie. But the proprietors of those businesses never had any trouble telling offenders to get out. The police will damn well do something about someone not leaving after being asked to, because there’s already a law against that: tresspassing.
Uh… who the hell recommends marijuana tea?
THC and cannabidiol are not soluble in water. A “tea” made with marijuana will leave most of the active ingredients in the discarded matter. Water plays a role in making THC-containing products like marijuana ghee or refined hash oil – to remove the unwanted crud. Water is mixed with a water-mmiscible solution containing the goods, all the water-soluble stuff migrates there, and the (dirtied, buzzless) water is separated and disposed of.
Sorry for the hijack.
Maybe not tea, but I know for a fact that it’s good in brownies.
And if you read the precedents, you would realize your law suit will be thrown out of court, if you try to base it on having read the warnings but failing to take note of them. That’s not what the modern claims have been about. Suits against tobacco started winning when the incredibly long history of flat out lies by the tobacco industy began to become public, mainly through industry insiders going public. They have then been further helped by evidence that not only were they lying, but that they were deliberately making the product more addictive in full knowledge of the health effects.
You see, claims that tobacco is unhealthy went nowhere. They are products liability claims, and ‘good’ tobacco is pretty clearly exempted from being seen as defective in this way. That’s why no one won a case on that theory. Liberal is right here. The successful cases have been based on fraud - not just in lying to Congress, but in lying to the public at large. Add in the nicotene spiking and you have a despicable group of companies. Now, the suits being taken over by the states is just simply wrong - and very very bad law IMHO. The effects of the Multi-state settlement are just bizarre. In a recent case in Florida (Engel) with a massive award against Philip Morris ($150 billion in punitives), when the manufacturer appealed every state AG intervened on the defendant’s side in the litigation, seeking to protect their cash cow.
I would not ban smoking, and think it may well be over-restricted now, but I would happily take every executive from big tobacco since 1954 (The Frank Statement) and subject them to at the bare minimum personal civil liability if not criminal charges. I don’t see that what they did is anything short of reckless endangerment.