Tobacco production hurts the environment

Tobacco production is an global issue that continues to increase every year and all year round. The environment is taking a downfall because tobacco production causing our environment problems and people problems. A good example is child labor. Many tobacco farms need child laborers; this is uncalled for and disgusting.

Tobacco is also using up a lot of water. It’s known that pesticides are added to the water used that results in soiled water supplies. There is also need for a bunch of wood because the wood can cure tobacco leaves. All those trees used for something that can and will kill human beings. The forests are becoming more depleted just to put tobacco plantations there. This messes up the soil and leads to soil degradation that we do not want. The land is impacted a lot by tobacco products and there doesn’t seem to be any stopping the production of tobacco anytime soon.

Tobacco Free Initiative by World Health Organization

WHO has planned a new initiative for reducing health hazards arising due to tobacco consumption all over the world which is currently at all time high, in developed countries every third person is using tobacco either as smoking or chewing. Smoking bans at public places have also not helped reduce the consumption of tobacco. The world Health Organization has selected the theme of Tobacco Free Initiative for the upcoming 20th World No Tobacco Day, which is scheduled on 31st May, 2009. All tobacco products display the warnings that using tobacco may be injurious to health, several campaigns have been done by NGOs to create awareness by displaying ads postures and banners every where. WHO particularly approves of warnings that contain both pictures and words because they are the most effective at convincing people to quit. This day will be focused towards increasing awareness about the health concerns and genetic character to be passed on to kids if parents smoke. WHO will also help out people who wants to quit or minimize the use of tobacco through free camps thereafter.

Why do cigarette companies still exist?

People say that tobacco is a drug and that it is addictive. If this is true, why is is still legal to smoke? The only difference that I see between cigarettes and drugs, is that it doesn’t mess with your head. Or does it?
We all have seen people who are craving a smoke, but can’t have one. Their attitudes change and they get rude with other people. Cigarettes can kill you just like any other drug. I have known people to steal a pack of smokes, so the addiction does make people do things they might not normally do.
People want their smokes so bad that they are willing to pay five dollars a pack. Most people will take their last five bucks and buy smokes instead of food. This is not a good habit to form.
The cigarette companies make a lot of money, a lot of money that people could spend on other things if the tobacco companies werent’ around.

What are your thoughts on the smoking ban?

What are your thoughts on the smoking ban? Do you agree with it? I did not think it would go over that well, and while I have heard complaints from smokers, I think it is working out well.
Some people took out their aggressions on the bar and restaurant owners. While it was not their fault the no smoking ban went in effect, they have nothing to do with it. There is nothing that says that you can not go outside and enjoy your cigarette, then come back in to the bar or restaurant.
I have heard many people who do not smoke that are in full agreeance to this no smoking ban. They say it is nice to go into a bar and leave not feeling like you smoked a full pack yourself. Either way it does not bother me. Smoke was something I learned to tolerate, so I did not care either way. But for someone who is bothered easily by smoke, I can see where the problem would be.

Smoking a cigarrette outside?

Surely avoid this type of question when you go to dinner at this innovative German restaurant.

In most developed countries, smoking is prohibited in the interior of public buildings, bars, restaurants and other closed environments.

Hence we must add that much of Europe remains hidden under the snow during the winter, so the “pleasure of smoked a cigarrette” after eating, often become a nightmare.

The owner of “Maltermeister Turm,” a restaurant in the city of Goslar, had a brilliant idea: set up a way for smokers to enjoy their cigarettes without leaving the building and at the same time, without violating the law prohibiting the consumption to snuff on the inside.

Meet the “corner for smokers.” Three simple holes in the wall of the restaurant that will allow you, vicious, smoking his cigar delicious without disturbing other diners and without having to leave the establishment.

How does it work? Very simple. Asome head and arms, turn the cigar and enjoy the gentle aroma of snuff.

And as it is, take a moment to visit the chef’s suggestions.

Check the best tobacco products here: http://allthemarket.net/main/page_products_cigars.html

Big Tobacco Blowing Smoke

In 1998 a few states including California and New York sued and settled with tobacco companies for a sum of $206 billion. The money was to be put toward health care for the ailing health of smokers.

However as of 2006 the tobacco companies have yet to pay and Calfornia has sued to recieve their money. The cigarette producers say that they don’t owe them any money because the agreement signed says they don’t have to pay if their stocks fell, and their stocks did fall.

California Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer filed the lawsuit to keep the companies from taking back more than $154 million that they owe that state. New York has also said that they would sue to get their share that is owed to them.

Minnesota Cigarette Tax Challenged

Here’s something new — a suit *for* the smokers. TwinCities.com reports that three smokers have filed a suit over Minnesota’s 75-cent-per-pack fee:

Three smokers who pay the state’s 75-cent-per-pack “health impact fee” that a judge has declared illegal want their money back.

Two Minneapolis law firms filed the lawsuit Monday on behalf of the three individuals and are seeking class-action status on behalf of all the state’s smokers.

Ramsey County District Judge Michael Fetsch ruled Dec. 20 that the fee violated a multibillion-dollar 1998 settlement between the state and the tobacco industry. His ruling means the state may have to repay about $100 million that the state collected between August and December. The state is appealing that ruling.

The new lawsuit, filed in Hennepin County, says ordinary smokers “ultimately bore the economic burden” of the fee because tobacco distributors passed on the extra cost on to consumers, so they should get any refund. It says the 14 defendants, including tobacco manufacturers and wholesalers, aren’t entitled to keep the potential windfall.

The plaintiffs so far are a Stillwater woman and men from Maple Grove and St. Paul.

Attorney Marshall Tanick said they have precedent on their side. There are cases in which government-imposed revenue sources have been ruled invalid or illegal, he said. In those cases, such as utility rates, courts have ordered the relief be given to those who paid the unlawful fee or tax, he said. His firm, Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen, joined with the firm of Heins Mills & Olson in filing the lawsuit.

The Minnesota Supreme Court has agreed to hear the state’s appeal of Fetsch’s ruling in April. In the meantime, the state is still collecting about $20 million a month but is required to bank the money while the appeal is pending.

Philip Morris *wins* a case

AP is reporting that “the Illinois Supreme Court handed the tobacco industry a huge victory Thursday by tossing out a $10.1 billion fraud judgment against Philip Morris USA over the marketing of its “light” cigarettes.”

The Illinois case came to the state’s high court from Madison County Judge Nicholas Byron, who in March 2003 ordered the company to pay $10.1 billion — $5 billion in compensatory damages, $3 billion in punitive damages and $2.1 billion in interest.

The cigarette maker argued the case should never have been declared a class-action on behalf of some 1.1 million light cigarette smokers who bought light cigarettes in Illinois.

“Industry critics warned that the Illinois decision does not insulate U.S. cigarette companies from future lawsuits. There are at least 40 similar suits pending against companies like Philip Morris and Reynolds American, any of which could result in awards into the billions of dollars, tobacco opponents said.”

Here are some of those pending suits:

— In Oregon, an appeals court is considering a $100 million punitive damage award to the estate of a 53-year-old lung cancer victim;

— In Florida, the state Supreme Court is reviewing a $145 billion punitive damage award in the Engle class action case that was overturned on appeal;

— In New York, lawsuits charge major tobacco companies marketed light cigarettes as being less harmful than regular cigarettes despite knowing they deliver comparable amounts of tar and nicotine.

Class action against Philip Morris ok’d

Jim Suhr of the Associated Press is reporting that a Missouri court is going to allow a class-action suit against Philip Morris:

ST. LOUIS - A Missouri appeals court has ruled that a lower court appropriately certified as a class-action case a lawsuit accusing Philip Morris USA of misleading smokers about the health risks of its so-called “light” cigarettes.

Tuesday’s ruling by the Missouri Court of Appeals was cheered by attorneys who pressed a similar lawsuit in Illinois against the cigarette maker, which in that case was ordered to pay a $10.1 billion consumer-fraud judgment. Philip Morris - now part of Altria Group Inc. - has appealed that to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Tuesday’s ruling upheld St. Louis Circuit Judge Michael David’s decision last year to let the Missouri lawsuit’s original plaintiffs represent potentially thousands of other smokers of light cigarettes. Both Missouri rulings essentially found a class-action format appropriate in dealing with claims that Philip Morris misled smokers into thinking light cigarettes were less harmful than regular ones, violating Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act.

Appeals court decertifies tobacco class action

On May 6th, Reuters reported that a New York appeals court decertified a tobacco class action suit.

The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a 2002 ruling that “had established the nationwide class for smokers to seek punitive damages from the tobacco industry for denying and concealing the health risks associated with tobacco.”

Even some foes of the tobacco industry opposed setting up a class certification in the case, saying that it would have stopped individual plaintiffs from receiving punitive damages in individual lawsuits, leading lawyers who receive a percentage of damages awarded to decline taking the cases.

“The problem from our point of view with the class certification is that it had the effect of stripping punitive damages out of every individual case and therefore making it more difficult and unlikely for plaintiff’s lawyers to bring these cases,” said Richard Daynard, a Northeastern University law professor who filed a brief for public interest groups urging the decertification.

Defendants in the case included “Altria Group Inc., Reynolds American Inc.’s, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Brown & Williamson units, Vector Group Ltd.’s Liggett unit and Loews Corp.’s Lorillard unit.”

Next Page »