Tobacco News:

Lawsuits: Oxyfresh
RSS: http://tobacco.org/newsfeed/lawsuit/oxyfresh.rss
Choose type:
Search Term(s):
[Headlines Only] [Top Stories Only]
Oxyfresh
[1 - 4 of 4]
Categories
· Lawsuits
USA, by State
· California
Lawsuits
· Oxyfresh
Organizations
· Altria/Philip Morris

Smokers may sue cigarette makers despite prior ailments, state high court rules [Updated]  

Jump to full article: Los Angeles Times blogs, 2011-05-05

Intro:

The California Supreme Court decided unanimously Thursday that smokers may sue cigarette makers once they develop a disease such as lung cancer, even if they suffered different smoking-related ailments years earlier.

The decision is likely to keep alive lawsuits that might have otherwise been thrown out because of expired legal deadlines, and to permit new suits to be filed.

In the case before the court, a former smoker was diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in 1989 and a couple of years later with periodontal disease, both attributable to smoking. But she did not sue the tobacco industry until she was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2003.

Jump to full article »

Categories
· Lawsuits
· Labels/Lights
· Preemption
· Advertising/Promos
USA, by State
· Maine
Lawsuits
· Oxyfresh
Organizations
· Altria/Philip Morris
· Scotus
· FTC

Smoke Rings / How to fight big tobacco without ever talking about the health risks of smoking. 

At issue is the legality of "low-tar" labeling
Jump to full article: Slate, 2008-10-06
Author: Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine

Intro:

Federal pre-emption law stomps around in big boots. Whereas the states-rights "revolution" once celebrated the ingenuity of the various states when it came to working out complex legal problems, federal pre-emption doctrine strives for "national regulatory uniformity" and the consistency of clear federal laws. Thus, if Congress wants to, it may pre-empt or block state lawsuits in areas into which it plants its federal flag. The Roberts Court has been feeling all kinds of love for federal pre-emption lately, which is why Philip Morris is feeling giddy at the prospect of using it to deliver a "knockout blow" . . .

The facts don't look great for the smokers. Altria, Philip Morris' parent company, points to a 1965 statute, the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, which explicitly says that "no requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health shall be imposed under State law with respect to the advertising or promotion of any cigarettes." In other words, states can't go after cigarette companies for misleading ads connecting smoking and health. You can always mouth the word cancer, but if you say it aloud, federal pre-emption kicks in, and your lawsuit evaporates. For their part, the smokers contend that this case has nothing to do with advertising pertaining to "smoking and health." They just want to sue big tobacco for being big fat liars.

Former Solicitor General Ted Olson, representing Altria, points out that the Maine lawsuit is completely obsessed with "smoking and health" and is an obvious candidate for federal pre-emption. . . .

Everyone gets gotcha-ed at least once this morning. Justice John Paul Stevens nabs Olson for citing an Illinois case in which it turns out there was no federal pre-emption. The chief justice triumphantly gets Frederick to admit he misspoke when asserting that the smokers hadn't sought injunctive relief in this case. Then Olson has to explain in his rebuttal that he hadn't exactly abandoned the implied pre-emption argument; he just had better things to do. And when all the smoke clears, it looks to be another good day for big tobacco and another bad day for the folks harmed by it. Big tobacco blames the FTC for its deceptive claims. The FTC blames big tobacco for its deceptive claims. And the Marlboro Man tips his hat and rides off into the sunset.

Jump to full article »

Categories
· Health/Science
· Business (Tobacco)
· Tobacco Control
Lawsuits
· Oxyfresh
Organizations
· Altria/Philip Morris
· FDA

If It's Good for Philip Morris, Can It Also Be Good for Public Health? 

Jump to full article: New York Times Magazine, 2006-06-18
Author: JOE NOCERA

Intro:

When you talk to Steve Parrish about all of this, though, he doesn't use the language tobacco executives once used. He doesn't talk about "individual choice," nor does he pretend that cigarettes aren't addictive. On the contrary: "Cigarettes are addictive and cause the disease and death of hundreds of thousands of people every year," he said in one of our conversations. "When you set tobacco on fire and inhale it into your lungs, bad things happen." In another conversation, he said, "If fewer people died from smoking, that would be good for Altria's shareholders." He says that it is important to keep kids from starting to smoke and freely concedes that tobacco can never be viewed as just another product because it is so deadly. It can be quite startling the first time you hear him say these things.

Most amazing of all, Parrish says that tobacco needs to be regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. . . .

But in the months I spent talking to him and others at Altria, I came to a different view. In his own way, Steve Parrish really is trying to solve the cigarette problem. Without question, he is doing so in a way that will allow Altria and Philip Morris USA not just to survive but also to thrive � and there are many in the public-health community who view any such solution as abhorrent. But that doesn't mean that his central idea is wrong. When you dig into it, you discover there are good public-health reasons to embrace regulation � and compelling business reasons for Philip Morris USA to embrace it, too. "This isn't social work," says Michael Szymanczyk, Philip Morris USA's chief executive. . . .

I also came to believe that Parrish has another motivation. He is 56 years old. He has been with the company for 16 years. He's not going to be doing this all that much longer. And before he moves on to the next phase of his life, he'd like a little redemption � for his company, and for himself. . . .

What role did Parrish play in the tobacco wars? In the beginning, he led the charge against tobacco's enemies. In the wake of the "Day One" broadcast, Parrish was put in charge of something called the Action Team to orchestrate the company's response to its mounting problems. The first decision the company made was to sue ABC for libel. Philip Morris documents from that era include a draft of a presentation Parrish made to the board describing a Tobacco Strategic Attack Plan that included lawsuits and aggressive ad campaigns. He also commissioned polls and focus groups to figure out which countermessages would work best.

And more often than not, he delivered the message himself. . . .

He mentioned several times how struck he is now, looking at old tapes of himself engaging in angry debates with tobacco's enemies, at his own body language. He appears distinctly uncomfortable. But of course, he was saying things he didn't believe, denying the terrible toll cigarettes take. . . .

s.

One way to think about what Parrish has been doing ever since is trying to get to back to that place he and Philip Morris were on June 20, 1997, a place that could both reduce the harm caused by smoking � and rehabilitate his company. . . .

Altria has taken a number of similar steps. It stopped fighting local smoking-ban ordinances in 2004. It has chosen not to make candy-flavored cigarettes, even though Reynolds makes such a product. Unlike Reynolds, it runs no magazine advertising. . . .

In the public-health community, there are huge divisions as to whether reduced-harm tobacco products are possible, or whether it would even be a good thing if they were developed. . . .

To this day, Myers cannot admit that he and Steve Parrish have occasional contact and that they are both working toward a common goal: F.D.A. regulation. Such an admission would lead to accusations that Myers was consorting with the enemy rather than trying to fix a terrible problem.

Jump to full article »


Quotes from this article:

It is easy to hate Altria, and many people do. It is still, above all else, a company that makes its money from cigarettes. It still has all that history to live down. But nearly a decade after the failure to get F.D.A. regulation, hate may no longer be an emotion we can afford.
Joe Nocera, in his NYT Magazine article about Steve Parrish and Altria.

Despite .... the universal knowledge about the dangers of tobacco . . . lots of people still smoke.
Joe Nocera, NY Times writer, giving a little boost to Altria PR in his article.

When you set tobacco on fire and inhale it into your lungs, bad things happen.
Steve Parrish, Altria's senior vice president for corporate affairs.

Categories
· Lawsuits
Lawsuits
· Oxyfresh

Pennsylvania Attorney General Fisher Announces Multi-State Agreement with Promoter of Smoking Cessation Product 

Jump to full article: PR Newswire, 2000-08-15

Intro:

Attorney General Mike Fisher today announced that a multi-state agreement has been reached with a Washington-based company accused of making deceptive and unsubstantiated claims to consumers regarding the effectiveness of a smoking cessation product.

Fisher said Pennsylvania and 11 other states entered into an ``Assurance of Voluntary Compliance'' agreement with Oxyfresh Worldwide Inc., Spokane, Washington, to resolve claims that the ads, promoting the product, violated federal food and drug laws and the states' Consumer Protection or Public Protection Laws.

Jump to full article »