1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
  1. ZenobiaSky
    20770.jpg A newly released US Surgeon General’s report shows that cigarette smoking is even more hazardous than previously thought. The report reveals that smoking causes more diseases, kills more people and costs the United States more in medical bills and other economic losses than has previously been reported.

    Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids president Matthew L. Myers said cigarettes were more deadly today than they were 50 years ago because of actions taken by the tobacco industry.

    “Smokers’ risk of death from all causes, compared to those who never smoked, has gone up significantly over the past 50 years,” said Myers on the report, which comes 50 years after the first Surgeon General’s report on smoking and health.

    Citing the report, Myers further said: “Today’s cigarette smokers, both men and women, have a much higher risk of lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease than smokers in 1964 despite smoking fewer cigarettes.”

    The report points to changes in the design and composition of cigarettes as the only reasonable explanation for the increased risk of lung cancer.

    It is said that the United States has actually made remarkable progress in the past 50 years and cut smoking rates to 18.1 percent in 2012, or by more than half from 42.4 percent in 1965.

    However, tobacco use continues to have a devastating impact on the health of individual Americans and the nation as a whole.

    Each year, smoking kills 480,000 Americans, causing about one out of every five deaths in the US. It costs the country at least US$289 billion in medical bills and lost productivity, which is nearly $100 billion more than previously reported.

    “Without urgent action to reduce smoking, 5.6 million children under age 18 alive today will die prematurely from smoking-caused disease,” according to the report. (ebf)

    The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | World | Sun, January 19 2014, 1:22 PM


  1. Hey :-)
    Surgeon general pushes end to smoking

    One in 13 children could see their lives shortened by smoking unless the nation takes more aggressive action to end the tobacco epidemic, the U.S. Surgeon General said Friday — even as, astonishingly, scientists added still more diseases to the long list of cigarettes’ harms.

    [IMGR=''white'']https://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=36762&stc=1&d=1390125536[/IMGR]“Enough is enough,” acting Surgeon General Borish Lushniak declared at a White House ceremony unveiling the 980-page report that urges new resolve to make the next generation a smoke-free generation.

    “The clock is ticking,” Lushniak said. “We can’t wait another 50 years.”

    On the 50th anniversary of the landmark 1964 surgeon general’s report that launched the anti-smoking movement, far fewer Americans are smoking — about 18 percent of adults today, down from more than 42 percent in 1964.

    But the government may not meet its goal of dropping that rate to 12 percent by 2020, the new report cautions.

    Nearly half a million people will die from smoking-related diseases this year. Each day, more than 3,200 youths smoke their first cigarette. New products such as e-cigarettes, with effects that aren’t yet understood, complicate public health messages.

    And if current trends continue unabated, 5.6 million of today’s children and teens will go on to die prematurely during adulthood because of smoking, the report says.

    What’s particularly remarkable is that 50 years into the war on smoking, “we’re still finding out new ways that tobacco maims and kills people,” added Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Tobacco is even worse than we knew it was.”

    Lung cancer and heart disease have long been known to be the top causes of death for smokers. Friday’s report adds more entries to the official list of smoking-caused diseases, many of them costly chronic illnesses that people struggle with for years. Included are Type 2 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, erectile dysfunction, the macular degeneration that can blind older adults, and the birth defects cleft palate and cleft lip. Also new to the list are two additional cancers — liver and colorectal.

    Smoking is costing the nation nearly $300 billion in medical bills, lost productivity and other costs, officials said. Yet Frieden said states are spending less than $1.50 a person on tobacco control each year when they should be spending about $12 a person.

    The report urges increased use of proven tobacco-control measures, including price hikes for cigarettes and expanding comprehensive indoor-smoking bans that currently cover about half the population.

    The report also encourages research into newer ideas, such as whether lowering the amount of addictive nicotine in cigarettes would help people quit.

    Here are some ways the smoking landscape has changed between the 1964 surgeon general’s report and Friday’s:


    1964: The surgeon general declares that cigarette smoking increases deaths.

    2014: About 20.8 million people in the U.S. have died from smoking-related diseases since then, a toll the report puts at 10 times the number of Americans who have died in all of the nation’s wars combined. Most were smokers or former smokers, but nearly 2.5 million died from heart disease or lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke.


    1964: Heavy smoking is declared the main cause of lung cancer, at least in men. “The data for women, though less extensive, point in the same direction.”

    2014: Today, lung cancer is the top cancer killer, and women who smoke have about the same risk of dying from it as men. As smoking has declined, rates of new lung cancer diagnoses are declining nearly 3 percent a year among men and about 1 percent a year among women.


    1964: Male smokers were dying of heart disease more than nonsmokers, but the surgeon general stopped short of declaring cigarettes a cause of heart disease.

    2014: Today, heart disease actually claims more lives of smokers 35 and older than lung cancer does. Likewise, secondhand smoke is riskier for your heart. Smoke-free laws have been linked to reductions in heart attacks. Friday’s surgeon general report also finds that secondhand smoke increases the risk of a stroke.


    1964: Smoking in pregnancy results in low-birth-weight babies.

    2014: Friday’s report says 100,000 of the smoking-caused deaths over the past 20 years were of babies who died of sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS, or complications from prematurity, low birth weight or other conditions related to parents’ smoking. And it adds cleft palate birth defects to that list of smoking risks to babies.


    1964: The more you smoke, the bigger the risk of death.

    2014: Smokers are estimated to shorten their lives by more than a decade. But stopping can lower that risk; sooner is better.


    1964: That first report focused mostly on lung effects and couldn’t prove whether certain other illnesses were caused by smoking.

    2014: Doctors now know that smoking impacts nearly every organ of the body, and Friday’s report says medical care for smoking-caused illnesses is costing the country more than $130 billion a year. Add to that lost productivity of more than $150 billion a year.


    1964: Cigarettes were the major concern. “The habitual use of tobacco is related primarily to psychological and social drives, reinforced and perpetuated by pharmacological (drug) actions of nicotine.”

    2014: “The tobacco industry continues to introduce and market new products that establish and maintain nicotine addiction,” Friday’s report says. The percentage of middle and high school students who use electronic or e-cigarettes more than doubled between 2011 and 2012.


    1964: That first report called for “remedial actions” to reduce smoking. Warning labels on cigarette packaging started appearing a year later.

    2014: With warnings now everywhere, Friday’s report says, “We know that increasing the cost of cigarettes is one of the most powerful interventions we can make.” In 2012, the average price of a pack of cigarettes was $6, largely reflecting an increase in state and federal taxes. For every 10 percent increase in the price, there’s a 4 percent drop in smoking.

    By Lauran Neergaard
    Photograph Pat Wellenback AP
    January 18 2014
    Washington AP, Las Vegas Review Journal
  2. kumar420
    these fools think that by merely campaigning about the dangers of smoking will convince an entire next generation that it isn't worth it? i wish that were true, but no way in hell. so long as cigarettes are readily available, people will smoke. the only way to really ensure the cessation of smoking as a habit is to outlaw nicotine, which will never happen. the uproar from the tobacco industry and lobbyists, not to mention smokers, would have them backpedaling in no time at all

    edit: ahh missed the part about increasing costs. if they can get the price per pack to 20$, even some of the most hardcore smokers might just up and quit
    again, never gonna happen, big tobacco will make a fuss
  3. jazzyj9
    Kumar420, they are not fools for trying to protect lives of others. I agree big tobacco is a powerful force with a lot of influence on the government because lobbying and political funding. That's why it's important to use as many means as possible to discourage people from smoking. It is really a dangerous habit and does shorten lives and can decrease the quality of life also.

    I see it quite often working in health care, smokers in their 30s coming in for bypass surgery after heart attacks.

    It's impossible to predict the future, to say something will never happen. There have been a lot of things that have happened that some people might have thought impossible, like the end of segregation in the U.S. and South Africa. It took way too long but it happened.

    I think a big reason why people smoke is because of despair, the belief that things can never change. Tobacco seems to numb emotions in some people. My mom who was a long time smoker (20 years of 1 to 2 packs a day) described smoking as an "aside". Like in a play, when actors would take a break from the play. She said it was an escape, for 10 minutes or so, she could take a break. She finally managed to quit through a comprehensive program that involved a support group and cognitive behavioral therapy. She also replaced the habit with healthier ways of dealing with emotions and started exercising to make her heart healthy again.

    It is possible to significantly reduce tobacco use by a variety of means and it is also possible for even the most hard core smokers to quit.
  4. kumar420
    I didn't mean they were fools for trying to save lives, I meant they were fools for thinking such a half-assed campaign would actually work for a society where smoking has been a significant part of the culture for such a long time. If you really think about it, the blue-collar workers are the most significant portion of the smoking population. For construction and other trade workers, garbage disposal guys, kitchen staff, office types, smoking is as much a part of their day as meals, coffee and sleep. Its the same for me, I really don't feel like getting out of bed unless there is a cigarette involved. Smoking is one of the highlights of my day unfortunately, and as you said, there's probably a fair amount of despair involved there.

    I started to ramble a bit there, but the tl;dr of it all is that smoking has become a culture and a way of life, as ridiculous as that sounds. Its going to take a hell of a lot more than the surgeon general making an announcement about something that everybody knew anyway and stepping up the 'smoking kills' advertisements, anti-drug classes for kids and fining people for dumping cigarette butts. If you really want smokers to consider quitting, have a teaching hospital open their observation room in surgery during lung surgery on a smoker. Witnessing a person lying there with their most intimate secrets open (and rotting) to see might just have the shock value required to make a die-hard smoker quit.
  5. Hey :-)
    Where in these news reports does it state that this is their thinking ?

    I am interested in your statistics and sources.
  6. Healer
    PARENTS have tons more to do with what they're kids do. I remember as a kid i was 100% against smoking. My dad started smoking when i was 10 and I hated it. After smelling the smoke on him, and noticing when he goes out to smoke, I started smoking at 13. If my dad never smoked I really don't think I would now.

    Campaigns are a shitty way to attempt to make a change. Parents can do more to keep their kids cigarette free. If they themselves are. Maybe even regulations on the shit big tobacco lathers on their cigarettes? 50 years of smoking and the cigarette is getting increasingly more deadly...I can't kick this stupid addiction/habit. At least recently I've been able to only smoke when I'm drinking alcohol, other than that I might give in every 2-3 days and smoke one or two.
  7. Hey :-)
    Campaigns raise awareness. IMO this is not a bad thing.

    Unfortunately fear producing stories and packet images may result in a fear response, which can compel one to light up.

    This seems a double edged sword. Nevertheless, smoking kills. It does not do so straight away. It may be the most insidious crime against humanity.
  8. jazzyj9
    Kumar 420, you make a good point about the entrenchment of smoking in our culture and that part is challenging to make changes to. Things are changing though. Thirty years ago, people smoked inside buildings in the U.S. and it was more socially acceptable to smoke.

    You mention smoking being a highlight of your day, and I think that is probably true for a lot of other smokers. Life is hard and can be drudgery and that is unfortunate. People have different ways of dealing with the challenges of being alive. There are other ways to cope with struggles, besides cigarettes.

    Taking care of our bodies with healthy food and exercise and other self care activities can decrease the need and want for tobacco. Sometimes adding these things are enough to cause a change in desire for tobacco (and other drugs too). It's also a good harm reduction practice, to add healthy activities to our routines.

    I think that's a good approach for people who don't respond to scare tactics, creating a more supportive and nurturing environment. My mom told me that when she saw pictures of lung cancer it made her so nervous she would have to have a cigarette. But when she started exercising she found that the desire for cigarettes decreased a lot.
  9. kumar420
    Doesn't explicitly state that this is the way they're going to go about it or when they are going to do it, but I made a few assumptions:
    'The clock is ticking' implies that action must soon be taken to address the problem, and when a government addresses substance-related issues, its always with campaigns and publicity, which is absolutely useless in today's media saturated environment. I don't even notice the warnings on cigarette packs and buses and billboards anymore. TV ads, news articles, magazine advertisements, even endorsements from respected physicians all blend into the media morass, and rarely get any genuine attention or promote change.

    No stats, no sources. I said 'if you REALLY THINK ABOUT IT'- i've noticed than a significant portion of construction workers perpetually chain smoke, same with restaurant workers and office workers. I've seen entire groups of construction guys puffing away all day long, when the current cigarette goes out, another immediately replaces it. You look at the ground at most construction sites and there's a carpet of butts almost an inch deep in some places. As for kitchen workers, there is ALWAYS a huddle of people smoking out the back of any restaurant. As soon as they get a break, its outside for a cigarette. Just finished work, i'm going out for a smoke before I go home. Just had lunch-time for a cigarette and a coffee.
    Its exactly the same outside office buildings. Rain or shine, 35 degrees above or below zero, there's always a huddle of people puffing away madly before they have to return to work. Sit around long enough, and you'll see the same groups of people coming out every hour or two, in almost a perfect cycle.
    Working outside also seems to increase the amount that people smoke during work hours- concreters, stonemasons, plumbers, electricians, shit, even landscapers can be seen with a cigarette perpetually hanging from the corner of their mouths, streams of smoke constantly issuing from nostrils

    Can't say i've noticed the same about white-collar businessmen (unless they are asian- not trying to be racist here, but asian businessmen almost always seem to smoke) doctors and lawyers. Its usually work for several hours, go and grab a smoke when I have the time, IF I have the time. Funny how people who make more money seem to think their time is more important. I probably would too, if I could visualize dollars pouring down the drain whilst I stood outside smoking.
  10. Hey :-)
    I agree you made a few assumptions. You also did not define 'work'. In terms of a positive campaign, how many avoided smoking related deaths is considered a success ?

    I did. That is why i asked you for statistics and sources rather than personal experience.
  11. kumar420
    If they can cut the incidence of people starting smoking by 75%, that is a good START. If they can reduce the amount of smokers by 30-40%, that's an even better step in the right direction. Unfortunately smokers tend to be particularly hard headed about their habit, at least until they are ready to try to quit. The difficulty is also compounded by big american tobacco companies like Philip Morris who contribute to the campaigns and budgets of the very politicians who are trying to tackle the issue, making it a somewhat hypocritical method of generating exposure, no matter how pure and benevolent the sentiment behind it is.

    I don't think there's any documents relating to the division of smokers amongst different social classes. But if there was, I'd hazard a guess that those in the lower income brackets would smoke more.

    People will smoke if they want to smoke, people will try to quit if they want to quit. Human beings are particularly stubborn creatures, its going to take an entire coalition to even begin to make a tiny dent in the social, medical and ethical problems caused by tobacco. Such an organization would benefit from proving that legal drugs are just as dangerous as illegal ones

    Although I do have an idea for a tactic that might work- post videos of smoker autopsies all over facebook and twitter. If people can see firsthand what happens when you die of lung cancer and get dissected by a hungover grad student, they might be a little bit more concerned about what they put in their bodies. Me, I still don't give a shit. But I'm a diehard
  12. AKA_freckles
    I feel like what this article is tiptoeing around is that fact that all the harmful additives that big tobacco adds is what is making them deadlier. I have smoked on and off for years, never more than 10 a day, and I switched to American spirits 15 years ago. My friends laughed at me, but I am absolutely sure buying additive free tobacco is the next best thing you can do besides quitting all together.
  13. jazzyj9
    Big tobacco does add chemicals to cigarettes to make them more addictive; but non-additive cigarettes are still very harmful. I haven't read any studies to show they are less harmful although it makes sense that they would be. I think the next best thing to quitting might be the e cigs. Occasional cigarettes and on and off smoking can still give people cancer, heart disease, and lung disease. Not to be discouraging to people who are trying to reduce use and buy additive free cigarettes, but that doesn't mean they are safer.
  14. kumar420
    As a smoker first and an e-cigarette user second, I'm not sure of the effectiveness of switching from one to the other. I told myself I was going to quit the cigs, but after a week of nicotine induced headaches, a scab on the back of my throat from sheer dryness and several fits of sheer irritation, I just said fuck it and went back to the smokes. Its been the same for a few buddies- the electronic cigarette just doesn't have the same effect as a cigarette. Its cleaner, and it tastes better, but lacks the quintessential rush (so to speak) of a cigarette. Which is ironic, because that rush is probably caused by all the extra shit in cigarettes. So in a sense smokers aren't mere nicotine addicts, they are toxin addicts.
  15. Hey :-)
    Top Lessons from 50 years of fighting the tobacco industry

    In 1964, defeating Big Tobacco seemed impossible. Today, firearms, alcohol and processed food pose similar challenges

    [IMGR=''white'']https://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=36803&stc=1&d=1390328665[/IMGR]In 1964, defeating Big Tobacco seemed impossible. Today, firearms, alcohol and processed food pose similar challenges

    This month's 50th anniversary of the First Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health provides a bittersweet reminder of the promise and the limitations of public health activism to curb corporate promotion of behaviors and lifestyles associated with premature death and preventable illness and injury. In the half century since the report was released, the proportion of Americans who smoke has been cut in half. A new report in the Journal of the American Medical Association estimates that tobacco control efforts in the United States have prevented 8 million premature deaths and extended the average lifespan by on average almost 20 years of life for the people who did not take up smoking because of prevention campaigns, higher tobacco taxes or smoking bans. Overall, the success in reducing tobacco use has added 2.3 years to the life of the average American man and 1.6 years to the average American woman.

    But this progress could have been achieved in far less time had not every preventive policy been opposed by the tobacco industry and had politicians beholden to the tobacco lobby severed these ties more quickly. These delays doomed many more to tobacco-related illnesses. And despite the progress in this country, the estimated toll from tobacco in this century is 1 billion premature deaths, more than 10 times the toll for the 20th century. The main reason so many more people will fall ill and die painful, early tobacco-related deaths is that the tobacco industry has adapted the lessons on marketing and undermining regulation that it learned in the United States to emerging markets in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

    Sadly, the tobacco industry is not alone in contributing to America's poor health standing among developed nations. In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings, the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day. Another 73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds. While the scientific knowledge and technology to significantly reduce this toll are available, like the tobacco industry, the gun industry and its allies in the National Rifle Association have steadfastly blocked any progress to make guns less accessible or safer.

    Similarly, the alcohol industry contributes to alcohol related injuries and illnesses by aggressive marketing, expanding the density of alcohol outlets, and designing products such as wine coolers and malt liquors to appeal to young drinkers. A recent study found that between 2001 and 2009, youth exposure to television alcohol advertising increased by 71%. Excess alcohol consumption accounts for about 4,700 annual deaths among underage drinkers. Another study estimated that the combined market value for the alcohol industry of illegal underage drinking and adult problem drinking accounted for between 37.5 and 48.8% of consumer expenditures for alcohol.

    How has it come to pass that corporations now have a stronger influence on the health of Americans than public health officials, doctors or hospitals? How have corporations succeeded in convincing so many officials in the White House, Congress and the supreme court that protecting profits is a higher national priority than protecting public health?

    In the last decades, a corporate consumption complex has solidified its influence on American politics and the economy. This web of consumer corporations, the bankers and hedge funds that lend them money, the trade associations that lobby for them, and the global ad agencies that market their products has been able to use its campaign contributions, lobbying and lawsuits to achieve its business goals even when the majority of Americans disagree with these. Like the military industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower warned about before he left public office, the corporate consumption complex threatens our democracy as well as our health and environment.

    Are there lessons from our partial successes in cutting tobacco use that could be applied to reducing the power of the corporate consumption complex and its brand of hyperconsumption? I suggest three.

    1. Efforts to reduce tobacco use succeeded when Americans came to believe that the right to breathe clean air trumped the tobacco's industry's right to promote its products without public oversight. Today, we need to mobilize parents to demand our children's right not to be shot and not to be targeted by marketing of fast food, sugary beverages and snacks that have contributed to a 176% increase in the prevalence of diabetes between 1980 and 2011.

    2. Part of the success in reducing smoking came from forcing Big Tobacco to reimburse state governments for the costs of caring for people with tobacco-related illnesses. Enacting policies that would require processed food producers to reimburse taxpayers and victims of the diet-related diseases exacerbated by their promotion of high fat, sugar and salt diets and alcohol producers for those injured or killed by the binge drinking.

    3. Fund independent hard-hitting prevention campaigns designed to undo the deceptive advertising Big Tobacco had sponsored. We can do the same thing by counterbalancing the media and ad campaigns today targeting young people to eat bad foods and glamorize guns.

    In 1964, most observers thought it was politically impossible to defeat the tobacco industry and to bring about significant reductions in tobacco use. Today, changing the practices of the firearms, alcohol and processed food industries seems a similarly daunting task. But if we can apply the lessons from tobacco to accelerate changes in harmful business practices, perhaps we won't need to wait another 50 years to prevent the deaths, illnesses, injuries and rising healthcare costs that today's science could avert.

    By Nicholas Freudenberg
    Photograph Alex Segre Alamy
    Tuesday 21 January 2014
    The Guardian
  16. kumar420
    Big tobacco, alcohol and pharma are the biggest fucking crooks this world has ever seen (excluding banks)... They don't give a shit how many people die as a result of using and abusing their products. They donate to awareness groups, fund treatment programs but in my opinion, its all bullshit pandering to the consumers to make like they give a shit, but actually only care about their bottom line. I'd venture a guess for every billion dollars made, maybe 100$ goes towards preventing problems associated with using these products. Pretty fucking good profit margin...
    Its like david with his slingshot against goliath on steroids and crank. Totally unfair advantage on the part of the big corporations... Infinite lawyers and money can stall justice forever.
  17. Hey :-)
    U.S. tobacco companies' appeal to delay court-ordered advertising blitz

    U.S. consumers will likely have to wait until 2015 or later to see a court-ordered advertising blitz detailing tobacco companies' deception, a lag of nine years after the original ruling, a court heard on Wednesday.

    [IMGR=''white'']https://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=36851&stc=1&d=1390494443[/IMGR]Tobacco lawyers said at the hearing in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., that they planned to push forward with an appeal about the wording of the ads, even after they struck an agreement this month with the Justice Department and anti-smoking advocates about what the ad campaign would look like in newspapers and on television.

    The companies have fought the lawsuit since President Bill Clinton's Justice Department filed it in 1999, alleging the cigarette makers engaged in racketeering by hiding from the public the health consequences of tobacco use.

    They lost the lawsuit and an appeal, and they were ordered to place the ads, known legally as corrective statements. U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler said Wednesday the latest appeal would likely delay the ads until 2015 or later.

    "I'm of course concerned about the delays," Kessler told lawyers at the hearing. "The bottom line is the public is not getting what I would consider to be the benefit of the corrective statements."

    Defendants Altria Group Inc, Lorillard Inc and Reynolds American Inc argue that the proposed wording of the ads would violate their free speech rights.

    One of the proposed ads begins: "A federal court has ruled that the defendant tobacco companies deliberately deceived the American public by falsely selling and advertising low tar and light cigarettes as less harmful than regular cigarettes."

    Kessler ruled for the government in August 2006. It has since taken more time to implement her ruling than it did to hold a trial and issue a judgment.


    The next step is for Kessler to approve the logistics of the proposed ad blitz. The sides agreed this month the campaign would include a year's worth of network TV advertisements in prime time, weeks of newspaper ads and more than a decade of declarations on tobacco company websites. The agreement even goes into details such as font and type size.

    [IMGR=''white'']https://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=36852&stc=1&d=1390494514[/IMGR]Once Kessler approves, a federal appeals court in Washington is expected to take up the speech question and rule perhaps in 2015, according to an estimate Kessler made in court.

    "It will take some time, your honor, but I think that reflects the weightiness of the issues at stake," Noel Francisco, a partner at the law firm Jones Day who represents Reynolds American, told the judge.

    A further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court by whoever loses on the speech question "seems entirely possible," Justice Department lawyer Daniel Crane-Hirsch said.

    Kessler said in 2012 that the ad campaign would not violate the companies' speech rights because the wording is factual and not controversial.

    Crane-Hirsch and tobacco lawyers warned Kessler the process could take even longer if she were to modify the logistics of the ad campaign that they have hammered out. Fox Broadcasting Co and the National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters, for example, have filed court papers asking that some of the ads go on their networks.

    Separately, the sides are still arguing over how tobacco companies should change their advertising at points of sale.

    Howard Crystal, a lawyer who represents anti-smoking advocates as part of the lawsuit, urged Kessler to move quickly. "We'd like to get finality," he said.

    Early in the long-running case, the Justice Department hoped to extract $280 billion from the companies to pay for a smoking cessation program and other remedies.

    It later dropped the demand to $14 billion, and then Kessler ruled she could not force them to pay for such a program at all.

    The case is USA v. Philip Morris USA, et al, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 99-cv-02496.

    By David Ingram
    Photographs Telegraph, GuardianLV
    Thursday 23 January 2014
    Reuters Washington
  18. kumar420
    So does this mean that the average american taxpayer is going to have to foot the bill for the ad campaign? If so, thank god I live in Canada. (Not that I currently pay much in taxes, just tobacco and alcohol duties)
  19. MikePatton
    One solution comes to my mind: legalize Cannabis. Not only will you automatically reduce tobacco use because really, who would buy tobacco when the same store has weed? I know I wouldn't. And the money saved on enforcement plus the money made on taxes could easily go to make the final blow on Big Tobacco.
  20. Delfonic-the33rd
    You might be right, but I and many of my friends love nothing better than a cigarette after a bowl or joint. Also I know this is on the topic of American use of tobacco and in America we usually smoke joints with unadulterated weed, but in many places all over the world peoples use of marijuana goes hand in hand with tobacco through spliffs. Where they mix the two. Then there are blunts, yes the tobacco isn't smoked, but a large portion of Americans don't use wraps, they buy cigarillos or cigars.

    While I'm all for the legalization of cannabis, I don't think it would have a huge impact on tobacco or Big tobacco.
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!