Comments on: A newsfilter post on DOJ vs Big Tobacco.

A newsfilter post on DOJ vs Big Tobacco.

brownpau — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 09:25:38 -0800

"It's clear the government hasn't thought through what it's doing." The war? No, he's talking about the DOJ tobacco trial, which is wrapping up with government lawyers suddenly and inexplicably dropping the penalty against Big Tobacco companies from $130bn to just $8bn. A far cry from the $280bn originally sought. More inside.

By: brownpau

brownpau — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 09:26:54 -0800

WaPo via MSNBC
AP via Guardian
Moonie Times
Reuters
Tobacco On Trial.
(Full disclosure: Kind of a self-link; I set up Wordpress for tobacco-on-trial.com, but the blogger himself is Tobacco News Guy Gene Borio.)

By: iron chef morimoto

iron chef morimoto — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 09:39:54 -0800

The thing that makes that quote funny is that it comes from one of Altria's lawyers. That's like OJ mouthing off at the jurors after the verdict. "Were you guys here during all that DNA stuff?"

By: scheptech

scheptech — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 10:04:47 -0800

$8bn. A far cry from the $280bn originally sought. Let's see, down $272bn over an eight month trial... figuring 21 working days per month, 8 hours per day... that's a reduction rate of over 200 Million dollars per hour. No wonder them lawyer guys get paid so good... I wonder how much cigarette smoke will have to inhaled to pay for them.

By: eriko

eriko — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 10:27:26 -0800

inexplicably inexplicable Function: adjective Pronunciation: "i-nik-'spli-k&-b&l," occuring as the result of a campaign contribution. - in·ex·pli·ca·bil·i·ty /"i-nik-"spli-k&-'bi-l&-tE, (")i-"nek-(")spli-/ noun - in·ex·pli·ca·ble·ness /"i-nik-'spli-k&-b&l-n&s, (")i-'nek-(")spli-/ noun - in·ex·pli·ca·bly /-blE/ adverb Mr. Montoya, white courtesy phone, please.

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 10:27:39 -0800

So, within 48 hours of the Supreme Court ruling that the government has the right to prosecute people with cancer for smoking pot, the government has responded by essentially negating punitive action against the world's largest covert purveyor of carcinogenic substances. I'm not even sure what kind of emotional response I have to that- I'm not really angry, and I'm not really sad. It's almost just a bizarre kind of awe at the sheer sadomasochism of it all.

By: Danf

Danf — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 10:29:31 -0800

A lot of my (state sponsored) pension is in tobacco stocks. . what a mixed bag for me. . .

By: SirOmega

SirOmega — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 10:37:09 -0800

This doesnt affect the state's settlements right? My state funds a scholarship program with their part of the settlement money so I sure hope that doesn't get cut off.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 10:39:37 -0800

The more I look at what the US government is doing, the more I have to see the current administration as people who decide to scuttle a ship at high seas. The main difference is, that when people scuttle a ship it's usually for an easily identifiable reason.

By: brownpau

brownpau — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 10:48:35 -0800

~~$8bn~~ $10bn. Sorry.

By: edgeways

edgeways — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 12:03:07 -0800

It's amusing how the current government seems unable to make many high profile trails actually, you know, stick. The Anderson verdict the other week, now this... Hell Martha should have fought.

By: Mr_Zero

Mr_Zero — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 13:25:16 -0800

Hell Martha should have fought. It would not have mattered. Martha had the unfortunate disadvantage of not being a white male republican.

By: surplus

surplus — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 14:17:34 -0800

My favorite decision the past few days was when the US Supreme Court overturned the Arthur Andersen conviction. Andersen ex-employees rejoiced. They said they felt "vindicated". As if Enron's fraud did not happen on Andersen's watch, as if Andersen's auditors were not negligent.

By: futureproof

futureproof — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 14:33:30 -0800

Some more news on the subject Looks like there is a huge conflict of interest here.

By: Deathalicious

Deathalicious — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 14:59:08 -0800

Well, I for one am sure that once it becomes clear that there is a political motivation/conflict of interest behind this change, once people discover that one of the head US Attorneys for the case once filed briefs for R.J.Reynolds Tobacco Co.,, that this settlement won't go through as planned. *crickets* Uh, anybody buy that? What a shame that our government blows goats. Whenever people ask, "Why is money such a big deal?" answer: "This is why." Unfortunately, I just don't see the US being a democracy in any shape or form by the end of this century, if not sooner.

By: futureproof

futureproof — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:33:16 -0800

I'm thinking sooner.

By: BrotherCaine

BrotherCaine — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:54:26 -0800

It's a democratic republic, not a democracy.

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 16:33:09 -0800

Hello, let me briefly introduce me I really am an ex-smoker, I quitted in december :) ! Really, it's possible and it's not even really or seriously hard. Ok it wasn't for me but I was an heavy smoker and I'm no Superman. I smoked more or less one pack of cig per day for the last 10 years, that makes (average) $4*365*10=$15000 I wilfully gave the tobacco companies to increase enormously my chance of getting some deadly lung cancer. Stop Giving Money to them ; same goes to alcohol producers if you are into alcohol , same will have to apply to gasoline pretty soon..same will have to apply to electricty a little later. But lets start from tobacco. Each and every consumer you take away from tobacco companies make an HUGE damage..just 10 people make $150K minor income in 10 years..and you only need 100 people to have the same effect in one year. Expecially ex-smokers have motives to attack tobacco companies : they didn't really care about the effects of their products ..so neither should we care about the effects of counter propaganda on them ; if we can't get back our money, lets move it into other hands.

By: Bort

Bort — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 16:52:39 -0800

elpapacito: Congrads! I too quit in December. From 2 packs a day to quitting cold turkey - I haven't had one cigarette since. Personally, I don't hold the companies responsible for my previous addiction. I don't care if the tobacco companies are fined or not. HOWEVER, I do care a great deal about the conflicts of interest that seem to be so casually ignored by our government.

By: Dark Messiah

Dark Messiah — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 19:55:51 -0800

I'm a smoker and a self-professed dumbass. I don't feel tobacco companies owe me anything; I willfully purchase and consume their products. I did so from the very start of my habit / addiction. If nothing else, I'd like to see tobacco companies be forced to fund a cure to nicotine addicition; so that anyone who wants to quit can do so. Not all of us have the iron will required to fight an addiction to a legal, easily accessible substance. Go ahead, sell us our poison. But make sure we've got something to help us stop using the stuff if we so choose.

By: pkingdesign

pkingdesign — Thu, 09 Jun 2005 00:16:13 -0800

Actually I've always thought that forcing Phillip Morris (and all the other big tobacco companies) to pay for anti-smoking advertisements was pretty strange. Right? I mean, they're still out there producing/selling/lying about cigarettes 24 hours a day. All over the world. It doesn't make any sense for a company to produce a product and also help people stop using it. If Phillip Morris (and others) actually believed in the commercials they're paying for and the guides to quitting on their web site, wouldn't they just stop making tobacco products? Wouldn't that be a far more efficient way for them to help people quit? All of that aside, this whole story is ... just like most of the other stories I read about our gov't.