advertisement
07 October 2008

Light cigarette claims on trial

Lawyers for a US tobacco maker are arguing that Washington is to blame if anyone felt tricked into thinking that light cigarettes are less dangerous than regular smokes.

0
Lawyers for the biggest US tobacco maker went before the Supreme Court on Monday to argue that Washington is to blame if anyone felt tricked into thinking that light cigarettes are less dangerous than regular smokes.

If the highest court in the United States rules against Altria - whose Philip Morris unit is best known for Marlboro cigarettes - tobacco manufacturers could find themselves being forced to pay out staggering legal settlements to ex-smokers.

Three residents of the northeast state of Maine who puffed on Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights for 15 years want to use a state law to sue for allegedly deceiving smokers into thinking that light cigarettes are healthier cigarettes.

Altria counters that cigarette packaging falls under the domain of the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which failed to act despite being aware that light cigarettes were no less a health hazard that regular cigarettes.

You have misled everyone
"You have misled everyone who have bought these cigarettes for a long time," Samuel Alito, one of the nine Supreme Court justices, told Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, an attorney for the FTC.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs were meanwhile peppered with questions from the bench as to why their case focused on public deception, rather than on the relationship between smoking and health.

Light cigarettes offer lower levels of tar and nicotine, but health experts say they do not eliminate the dangers posed by smoking.

At the heart of the case is the possibility that cigarette manufacturers used every trick in the marketing book to pitch their products.

A legal matter
Altria - whose stable of brands also includes Benson and Hedges - contends that a section of a federal law that deals with cigarette labelling and advertising trumps anti-tobacco legislation implemented at the state level.

That law was adopted in 1966, however, when smoking's impact on health was not as clear as it is today.

Quite apart from the obvious health aspect of the case, the Supreme Court will clarify the legitimacy of such exemption clauses.

A federal court in Maine initially ruled in favour of Altria, before an appeals court overturned its ruling.

In the Supreme Court on Monday, Altria's lawyer Theodore Olson argued that if Congress went through the trouble of drafting an exemption clause, it was certainly with the intention of seeing federal law taking precedent over state law. – (Sapa-AFP)

Read more:
Stop smoking Centre
Light cigarettes not light at all

October 2008

 
NEXT ON HEALTH24X
advertisement

Read Health24’s Comments Policy

Comment on this story
0 comments
Comments have been closed for this article.

Live healthier

The debate continues »

Working out in the concrete jungle 7 top butt exercises for guys 10 things pole dancing can do for you

The running vs. walking debate

There are many different theories when it comes to the running vs. walking for health and weight loss.

Veganism a crime? »

Running the Comrades Marathon on a vegan diet Are vegans unnatural beasts? Can a vegan be really healthy?

Should it be a crime to raise a baby on vegan food?

After a number of cases of malnourishment in Italy, it may become a crime to feed children under 16 a vegan diet.