NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
The Tobacco Issue: Where the Responsibility Lies Political-Legal Issues: The legal and political issues surrounding the tobacco industry include whether or not tobacco companies should be held liable for tobacco-related deaths of smokers and those related to second-hand smoke, as well as whether or not elected officials should be accepting money from the tobacco industry in order to win elections. When deciding where the responsibility lies in the case of tobacco, the facts can be turned to favor either side on the issue. However, the tobacco industry has followed the government's guidelines, since guidelines have been established, while the government seems to want to place blame for peoples' habits on the manufacturers of products that people choose to use. Tobacco Litigation: The first issue to examine is the issue surrounding the use of the judicial system in finding responsibility for the epidemic surrounding the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry is the defendant in the majority of cases brought before the judiciary and, historically, the majority of the cases have been decided in favor of the industry. In a landmark case in 1988, the tobacco industry won a huge victory against Rose Cipollone.
Ms. Cipollone died a horribly painful death from cancer. The defendant in the case was Philip Morris. Philip Morris' council argued that it was the woman's choice to smoke.
This woman had even testified that she had gone to church every Sunday to pray that she would not get lung cancer. She knew the risks involved with smoking and chose to continue smoking. Philip Morris won the case. (Byrne, 189 - 190). For years the tobacco industry won case after case involving cancer victims that had smoked. Even today, much of the litigation by smokers has been decided in favor of the industry. In July of 1999 the Louisiana District Court, 19 th District decided the case of Robert Gilboy et al.
V. The American Tobacco Co. , et al. in favor of the defense. The jury was not convinced that 45 years of smoking had caused Mr. Gilboy's lung cancer.
In the case of the Estate of Burl Butler, et al. V. Philip Morris, Inc. , et al. , the Jones County, Mississippi Circuit Court, 2 nd District jury found the tobacco industry defendants not liable for the alleged second-hand smoke related wrongful death of Mr. Butler.
This case was decided in June of 1999. An important win for the defense was gained in Kansas City, Missouri in May of 1999. The case of Michelle Steele et al. V. Brown and Williamson Corp. was decided in U.
S. District Court in Kansas City. The trial was the result of a wrongful death suit brought by the children of Charles Steele. The children were suing the tobacco company for their father's death by lung cancer at age 56. Mr. Steele had smoked cigarettes for years.
The outcome in this trial is not as important as the comments made by the jury foreman in the case. Mr. White, the jury foreman, was quoted as saying that Mr. Steele knew what he was doing. He knew that cigarettes were bad for him, but that they gave him pleasure. He decided that the pleasure outweighed the dangers. (Trials, 1 - 3).
While there have been some significant victories for the defense, there have been several recent verdicts from the judicial system in favor of the plaintiffs. The tobacco industry has already paid out billions of dollars in settlements over the past several years. In an April 1999 case, Charles Connor V. Lorillard et al. , a six-person jury found in favor of the plaintiff for liability in the death of a former Kent smoker.
The jury awarded $ 2 million in punitive damages and $ 225, 000 in compensatory damages to Mr. Connor. The case was decided in a Baltimore, Maryland City Circuit Court. In March of 1999, Philip Morris suffered a loss in the case of Joann Williams-Branch v. Philip Morris, Inc. A Portland, Oregon jury ruled that the company was liable for the death of Jesse Williams and awarded $ 81 million to the plaintiff.
This was not the first loss for Philip Morris. In an earlier case, decided on February 9, 1999 by the Superior Court of California, San Francisco, Henley v. Philip Morris, Inc. , et al. , the jury awarded $ 50 million in punitive and $ 1. 5 million in compensatory damages to a smoker with lung cancer. The suit was brought on behalf of an older woman that was dying of lung cancer.
She had smoked Marlboro brand cigarettes for most of her life. The jury found Philip Morris liable for product defect, failure to warn, negligence, fraud, false promise, express warranty, and conspiracy. The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $ 25 million, but the total award was still $ 26. 5 million for a person making a conscious decision to smoke cigarettes despite warnings that they are bad for a person's health. (Trials, 1 - 6). The U. S. Government - Legislative Branch: While the main issue before the judicial system is liability, the legislative branch of the U.
S. government has also been heavily involved in the tobacco issue throughout history. This brings the issue of regulations to the forefront in this matter. Since the first major restrictions, the 1965 Labeling Act requiring warning labels on all cigarette packages, there has been a steady stream of legislation concerning the tobacco industry.
In 1990, a federal law went into effect to permanently ban smoking on all flights within the continental U. S. , as well as flights between the continental U. S. and Puerto Rico or the U. S. Virgin Islands.
This law covered flights of less than six hours that originated or terminated in Alaska or Hawaii, in addition to the flights within the continental U. S. In 1992, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) approved a resolution to urge restriction of smoking on all international flights. This led to the implementation of a complete smoking ban on any and all flights by July 1, 1996. (Involuntary Smoking, 1 - 2). The following list, taken from the American Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Multistate Master Settlement Agreement of November, 1998, is just a smattering of the extensive legislation that has involved the tobacco industry over the years. This list is not all-inclusive and does not begin to tell the story of government interdiction into private industry: .
There are 46 states, including the District of Columbia, that restrict smoking in public places, the most extensive of the clean indoor air laws to include restaurants and private workplaces (20 states)... Forty-one states have laws that restrict smoking in state government worksite's... All 50 states restrict the sale of tobacco products to minors. Twenty-three of the states may suspend or revoke a retail tobacco product license for violation of youth access laws... Twenty-two states restrict the distribution of free samples of tobacco products... Twenty-four states restrict the sale of tobacco products in vending machines...
Forty-six states require licensing of anyone selling tobacco products... The multi-state Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) of 1999 requires the discontinuation of certain types of outdoor advertising, most notably billboards... The MSA also prohibits the use of cartoons by participating manufacturers in advertising, promotion, packaging, or labeling of any tobacco products... All 50 states have an excise tax on cigarettes. Forty-two of these also have excise taxes on smokeless tobacco products...
Thirty states have preemption provisions in their tobacco control laws, which means that localities cannot implement any more restrictive laws than the state has mandated. The above listing only touches the surface of tobacco legislation. The laws have become very restrictive of the tobacco industry. However, it was not always this way. In 1933, the legislature actually passed laws that protected the industry. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 allowed the legislature to implement marketing quotas and price supports for tobacco farmers.
These quotas and price supports effectively raised the farm-level price of tobacco. This led to slightly increased prices for tobacco products to consumers, which served to lower the consumption of tobacco products. It also allowed U. S. tobacco manufacturers to remain competitive in the world market for tobacco.
Under the tobacco program, marketing quotas were set each year and were very successful in yielding higher prices for U. S. tobacco on both the U. S.
and world markets. (Snell, 1). The current legislative situation has changed dramatically from this law. There are currently over 50 bills pending in the House of Representatives and the Senate concerning tobacco in some way, the vast majority of which are for further restrictions being placed on the tobacco industry. This tremendous activity helps to explain why the executive branch of the U. S. government has also thrown its considerable resources against the tobacco industry by filing suit in the federal courts against the industry giants.
The U. S. Government - The Federal Suit: The U. S.
government, through the Department of Justice, filed a civil lawsuit against the major tobacco manufacturers for recovery of healthcare costs associated with the use of tobacco products. The government is attempting to recover billions of dollars the federal government spends yearly on smoking-related healthcare costs. The government alleges that the cigarette companies have conspired since the 1950 's to defraud and mislead the public and to conceal information about the effects of smoking. The government's suit relies on three federal statutes, including the Medical Care Recovery Act, the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, and the civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute. The government alleges that the RICO statutes apply to the cigarette companies because they have been defrauding the public by releasing misleading research, falsifying documents, and failing to warn consumers of research the companies conducted that confirmed that cigarettes were hazardous to health. The federal government's suit is similar to the ones filed by the states, which resulted in more than $ 200 billion in a settlement paid to the states, but focuses on the costs incurred through the Medicare program, which is solely funded by the federal government.
The government allegedly spends over $ 20 billion per year to treat smoking-related diseases. (DOJ, 1 - 3). The government's lawsuit alleges a substantial cost to American taxpayers for the care of millions of Americans who smoked and incurred alleged smoke-related illnesses. The cost to the taxpayer is the central issue in the case. The "cost" the government reports is not the true cost when scrutinized in its entirety. Cigarette smoking actually results in a net gain for the government. The government spends more money treating nonsmokers, since they live much longer than smokers do.
Also, since the government profits from excessive tax revenues received from smokers and tobacco companies, the government has greatly benefited from the tobacco industry. (Barr, 6). To put the issue into perspective, figures are available for just three counties in northeastern North Carolina that show just a small amount of the exorbitant revenues the government collects from the tobacco industry. These three counties are not even located within the heart of tobacco country. However, they generate over $ 287. 4 million in excise and sales taxes for the state and federal government each year. Each acre of tobacco results in $ 21, 616 in federal excise taxes per year. (Contain, 1).
These figures do not include the subsequent sales tax levied on the purchase of a pack of cigarettes, effectively taxing the tax on a product. The government's claim that smoking costs taxpayers money is unfounded. The government is making a net profit each year from the tobacco industry. The government's case is also hindered by the 1947 ruling by the U. S. Supreme Court that the federal government cannot recover medical damages from private companies without statutory authorization from C...
Free research essays on topics related to: philip morris, billions of dollars, second hand smoke, tobacco industry, u s government
Research essay sample on Second Hand Smoke U S Government
