Big Cigarettes | DiscountCigarettesMall.Com Tobacco News

Log In

Special Offer

Cigarettes News 

Catalog

Big Cigarettes

Over 6000 plaintiffs in Florida continue to face arguments put forth by the cheap cigarettes industry. To those of us who have read major portions of documents produced by Big cigarettes and dating back as many as 70 years, the arguments made by the buy cigarettes industry in defending smokers claims are simply…well, so much fabrication, deception and lies

To the public at large, the propaganda put forth by Big cigarettes online and their lawyers does not sound quite as unreasonable, until the smoke cigarettes clears and the mirrors are removed.

Big cheap cigarette online argues that warnings against smoking cigarettes have been around for decades. They say that “everyone” knows smoking cigarettes might be hazardous to a person’s health. They hedge on whether smoking cigarettes buy cigarette online is addictive, but maintain that, even if discount cigarettes are addictive, smokers can quit if they really, really want to quit. Big cigarettes for sale investigates every plaintiff to try and determine other causes for their illness or death. They argue that it must have been something on that ship the plaintiff served on while fighting for their country in World War II. If it was not a ship, it must have been genetics; or it is the food the plaintiff ate; it’s a Martian virus; or its just, well, bad luck.
When you read the history of the cigarettes industry and when you read their own memos, research papers and marketing plans, a much different picture emerges than Big cigarettes wants anyone to fully see.

Yesterday, Massachusetts Justice Elizabeth Fahey issued an order in the case of Marie Evans, deceased v Lorillard cigarettes Company. The case was tried and after 14 days of hearing testimony and evidence, a jury rendered a verdict against Lorillard for the death of Marie Evans. Justice Fahey, of course, also heard the same evidence the jurors did and, as a part of her order, she reached certain conclusions and findings of fact that apply to Lorillard. The conclusions and factual findings, however, can be applied to any member of the Big cigarettes consortium equally.
Justice Fahey found:

Justice Fahey discredited “the testimony of Lorillard’s representative, Leonard Jones…”; “the evidence was overwhelming that Lorillard’s target market included children.”
That cigarettes were freely distributed to children on the streets in Massachusetts and that “at no time were (children) denied cigarettes or asked their age.”
An internal memo from Lorillard, dated June 5, 1978, outlined that one of cigarettes’s target markets was age 16+ and that Lorillard had worked with a promotion idea titled, “How to Reach Younger Smokers”, which set forth that: “the base of our business is the high school student.”
Even as late as 1990, cigarettes was obtaining market demographic data, including “teen study” for those 12 to 17 years old.
At least by 1939, cigarettes was in possession of 82 articles in scientific and medical literature relating to the development of cancer in lab animals exposed to ingredients in cigarettes.
In 1954, Big cigarettes released their “Frank Statement”; designed to be a response to the growing medical and scientific research showing the health risks of smoking cigarettes. In the “Frank Statement”, Big cigarettes claimed that “there is no proof that cigarette smoking cigarettes is one of the causes of cancer” and expressed that they “accept an interest in people’s health as a basic responsibility, paramount to every other consideration in our business. We believe the products we make are not injurious to health.”
Justice Fahey concluded that “even while advising the public of its research into smoking cigarettes and health, defendant’s main, if not sole, purpose was to increase its cigarette sales.”
That Lorillard has participated with the rest of the Big cigarettes confederation “to claim for decades that it was not yet proven that smoking cigarettes cigarettes causes cancer and denied that smoking cigarettes has been proven to cause disease.”
The evidence demonstrated that Big cigarettes engaged in a campaign to continue to deceive the public about the health issues of smoking cigarettes, which began in at least 1954 and the “campaign continued for decades, even after 1979…”
The Court accepted the testimony of a plaintiff’s expert that from the 1950’s through at least the 1990’s the public statements of Big cigarettes were “that cigarettes were not addictive and that it was not proven that cigarettes were injurious to human health. I (Justice Fahey) accept that while making these public statements, defendant’s scientists and researchers knew the opposite.”
Justice Fahey found that cigarettes are addictive and carcinogenic; and, that while “nicotine occurs naturally in cigarettes, Lorillard has, for decades, had the ability to enhance, and has enhanced, the amount of nicotine in each cigarette so as to ensure that each cigarette contains enough nicotine to be addictive”.
Justice Fahey also apparently analyzed the findings of other courts who have heard evidence against the cigarettes industry, including findings in the Engle case here in Florida and the US v Philip Morris case. Justice Fahey found she agreed with the following findings of fact by those courts:

a. Smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer.

b. Nicotine in cigarettes is addictive.

c. Big cigarettes placed cigarettes on the market that were defective and unreasonably dangerous.

d. Big cigarettes sold or supplied cigarettes that were defective.

e. Big cigarettes concealed or omitted material information not otherwise known or available to the public knowing that was false or misleading or failed to disclose a material fact concerning the health effects or addictive nature of smoking cigarettes cigarettes or both.

f. Big cigarettes concealed or omitted information regarding the health effects of cigarettes or their addictive nature with the intention that smokers and the public would rely on this information to their detriment.

g. Cigarette smoking cigarettes causes disease, suffering, and death. Despite internal recognition of this fact, Big cigarettes publicly denied, distorted, and minimized the hazards of smoking cigarettes for decades. The scientific and medical community's knowledge of the relationship of smoking cigarettes and disease evolved through the 1950s and achieved consensus in 1964. However, even after 1964, Big cigarettes continued to-deny both the existence of such consensus and the overwhelming evidence on which it was based.

h. "Cigarette smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer.

i. "By at least January 1964, with the issuance of the Surgeon General's 1964 Report, Big cigarettes knew there was a consensus in the scientific community that smoking cigarettes caused lung cancer and other diseases. Despite that fact, [it] publicly insisted that there was a scientific controversy and disputed scientific findings linking smoking cigarettes and disease knowing [its] assertions [was] false."

j. Big cigarettes also continued to insist publicly that there was no need to undertake research to develop 'safer' cigarettes, since [it] asserted that the cigarettes then being sold were not harmful to health....

k. Big cigarettes has been aware since the late 1950s of substantial evidence demonstrating that smoking cigarettes causes significant adverse health effects.

l. From at least 1953 until at least 2000, Big cigarettes repeatedly, consistently, vigorously- and falsely- denied the existence of any adverse health effects from smoking cigarettes. Moreover, [it] mounted a coordinated, well-financed, sophisticated public relations campaign to attack and distort the scientific evidence demonstrating the relationship between smoking cigarettes and disease, claiming that the link between the two was still an 'open question.'

m. More than forty years after Big cigarettes issued the “Frank Statement” and created TIRC, Big cigarettes’s essential position on the relationship of smoking cigarettes and health remains virtually unchanged. In April 1994, in the now-famous congressional hearings before the United States House of Representatives' Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, Big cigarettes executives asserted yet again that the causal relationship of smoking cigarettes and cancer had not been proven: the CEOs of ... Lorillard . . . publicly denied that smoking cigarettes caused cancer.

n. The statements of the CEOs were restatements of positions the companies continued to take publicly and uniformly at that time."

Nearly every judge that has examined the evidence, heard testimony and considered what Big cigarettes knew and when they knew it has concluded what Justice Fahey did. When an objective eye and ear is given to that evidence, it would seem that the inescapable conclusions are the same as those set forth by the Florida Supreme Court in the “Engle Progeny” cases.

I wonder if Big cigarettes knows how really “hot” it can get down here in Florida for them? Our judges and jurors generally approach their respective duties seriously. That is clearly bad news for Big cigarettes.

Other cigarettes news and tobacco market events you can find at links bellow:

   • Cigarettes & Tobacco News

   • Online Cigarettes Tobacco News

   • Discount Cigarettes Tobacco News

Marlboro | Camel | Lucky Strike | Winston | Kent | Davidoff | Karelia | L&M | Monte Carlo | Pall Mall | Red&White | Cigaronne | Esse | Glamour | Hilton | Lady | More | R1 | Parliament | Sobranie | Virginia Slims | Vogue | West | Classic | Bond | Chesterfield | George Karelias | Kiss | Prima | Style | Viceroy | Richmond | 555 | Delta | Dunhill | Magna | Muratti | Next | Rothmans | Salem | Non Filter | LD | Capri