Tobacco politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tobacco politics refers to the politics surrounding the use and distribution of tobacco.

In the United States, from the 1950s until the 1990s, tobacco industries wielded great influence in shaping public opinion on the health risks of tobacco. Despite the efforts of public health advocates, scientists, and those affected by smoking, both Congress and courts favored the tobacco industry in policy and litigation. It was not until the 1990s when public health advocates had more success in litigating against tobacco industries, including the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement between major tobacco companies and 46 state attorneys general. Although public opinion in the United States on cigarette smoking is more unfavorable, many large tobacco companies continue to find success internationally.

As of 2018, 169 states have signed the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which governs international tobacco control. However, many nations have had difficulty complying with the FCTC, with higher rates of smoking especially in developing nations. There are currently close to one billion smokers worldwide.

Taxation

Tobacco has been taxed by state governments in the United States for decades. The cumulative revenue of US tobacco taxation exceeded $32 billion in 2010, creating a major source of income for government.

The Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act of 1978, a law which makes cigarette smuggling a felony punishable by up to 5 years in federal prison, is used to prosecute smugglers who avoid paying the taxes on cigarettes. The proposed Stop Tobacco Smuggling in the Territories Act of 2013 (H.R. 338; 113th Congress), if it passes during the 113th United States Congress, would update the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act to include American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam, which were previously not covered by the law. However, although the bill passed the House, it died in the Senate.

Lobby

Major tobacco lobbying companies include Altria Group (the parent company of Philip Morris USA), Philip Morris International, and Reynolds American.

20th Century

A. Bradford Hill, alongside Richard Doll, published several studies demonstrating a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer.

 

In the early 1950s, several studies demonstrated a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer. Worried that these studies would negatively impact tobacco consumption, tobacco companies met together and hired the public relations firm Hill & Knowlton. In 1954, tobacco companies published a joint press release called "A Frank Statement", which cast doubt on studies linking smoking and cancer and called for more research. In addition, these tobacco industries formed the Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC), which challenged the science of smoking's relation to cancer. TIRC's first director was Clarence Cook Little, whose background in genetic science gave TIRC the appearance of scientific credibility. Other scientists who were skeptical of the causal link between smoking and cancer also joined the Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) of TIRC, although many of these scientists expressed concern over TIRC's strong denial of the link between cancer and smoking.

In 1964, the Surgeon General released a report confirming the causal link between smoking and cancer. Tobacco industries formed the Tobacco Institute, a trade association that acted as a lobby for tobacco industries in Congress. This lobbying was generally successful, as the tobacco industry was well-funded and southern states relied on tobacco revenues. For example, after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) mandated warning labels on cigarette packages, tobacco companies successfully requested Congressional regulation in place of FTC regulation. The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA) of 1965 originally required cigarette warning labels to include a warning of cancer, but this was removed from the final bill.

Although tobacco companies had considerable influence throughout the twentieth century, anti-tobacco advocates also had some successes. In 1967, anti-tobacco advocates successfully argued that the fairness doctrine of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mandated time for anti-smoking advertisements equal to time allotted for smoking advertisements. In 1998, amidst growing evidence against tobacco companies, especially after the release of several industry documents, and growing public attitudes against smoking, states and tobacco companies entered a Master Settlement Agreement. This settlement included payments to states, restrictions on advertisements, and free access to internal industry research, although some have criticized the settlement for shielding the industry from future lawsuits, granting a monopoly to the largest tobacco companies, creating "client states" dependent on settlement payments, and shifting the cost of cigarettes to individual smokers rather than companies. In addition, tobacco companies have expanded their operations abroad, arguably undermining the impact of the settlement.

21st Century

Tobacco companies continue to play a large role in politics, although not as extensively as in the twentieth century. In 1990, the contributions of tobacco lobbies totalled to over $70 million. In 2017, tobacco lobbies paid $21.8 million. Tobacco companies tend to donate more to Republican candidates, contributing over $50 million since 1990 to Republicans, including Vice President Mike Pence. Proposals for relaxed electronic cigarette regulation, such as the Cole-Bishop Amendment in the 2017 omnibus bill and FDA Deeming Authority Clarification Act of 2017, have emerged, none have passed yet. In 2006, courts ordered tobacco companies to run anti-smoking advertisements, but tobacco companies delayed this order through multiple appeals until 2017. As of 2017, tobacco companies must now run advertisements detailing the negative health impacts of smoking for a year.

Litigation

The lawsuits brought against various tobacco manufacturers, attempting to hold them responsible for wrongful death, injury, or medical expenses related to cigarette smoking and other tobacco use. Cases have been brought both by individual plaintiffs and by government officials, including U.S. State Attorney General. Punitive damages for the plaintiff have often been awarded as a result of a successful litigation. However, the vast majority of court decisions have been in favor of the defendant tobacco companies.

History

The history of tobacco litigation in the United States can be divided into three waves: (1) from 1954 to 1973, (2) from 1983 to 1992, and (3) from 1994 until today. During the first two waves, tobacco companies had enormous success, winning all but one of their cases, with the only case they lost, Cipollone v. Liggett, being reversed.

During the first wave, a growing abundance of evidence linked tobacco to death and disease. Individual smokers filed lawsuits against the tobacco industry, claiming negligence in manufacturing and advertising, breach of warranty, and product liability. However, the tobacco industry responded by challenging the science of smoking causing disease and claiming that smokers assumed any risks.

During the second wave, plaintiffs charged tobacco companies with failure to warn about the addiction and disease risk of cigarettes and strict liability. The tobacco companies argued that people assumed the risks of smoking and that federal laws preempted state laws, which the lawsuits were filed under. In addition, the tobacco industry poured a massive amount of money into these cases, trying to overwhelm plaintiffs with legal costs. An internal memorandum by an attorney for the RJ Reynolds tobacco company described their strategy as, “To paraphrase General Patton, the way we won these cases was not by spending all of our money, but by making that other son of a bitch spend all [of] his.”

The third wave of tobacco litigation was much more successful for plaintiffs, with plaintiffs winning 41% of cases between 1995 and 2005. It also saw a greater number and variety of lawsuits overall. State attorney generals charged the tobacco industry of using misleading marketing, targeting children, and concealing the health effects of smoking. These cases resulted in settlements across all fifty states in the United States.

Recently, there has been mixed success for plaintiffs in tobacco litigation. In Florida, a large class action lawsuit was rejected, because the court argued that each individual case must be proven. As a result, thousands of individual lawsuits were filed against tobacco companies, but many of these verdicts are now in appeal. Smokers have also challenged light cigarettes, alleging that tobacco companies falsely advertise light cigarettes as healthier. Tobacco companies argue that 'light' refers to the taste, not the filters, and also used preemption arguments. Although the Supreme Court ruled in Altria Group, Inc. v. Good (2008) that federal law does not preempt certain state consumer protection laws, no courts have ruled on these laws being violated.

Significant cases

• 1992: In Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. the US Supreme Court held that the Surgeon General's warning did not preclude suit by smokers against tobacco companies on several claims, and that the federal laws on tobacco regulation aren't worded to override state laws.
• 1995: The Supreme Court of Canada in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) upheld the constitutionality of the federal Tobacco Products Control Act, but struck out the provisions which prevented tobacco advertising and unattributed health warnings.
• March 2001: The US Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court's ruling that the Food and Drug Administration could not class tobacco as a pharmaceutical, so could not control its production through the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. (FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.)
• June 2002: A District Court in Kansas awarded $15 million in punitive damages against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco after calling the company's conduct "highly blameworthy and deserving of significant punishment." (David Burton vs. R.J. Reynold's Tobacco)
• June 2002: A Miami jury held three cigarette companies liable for $37.5 million in a lawsuit involving an ex–smoker who lost his tongue to tobacco–related oral cancer. (Lukacs vs. Philip Morris)
• October 2002: A Los Angeles jury issued $28 billion in punitive damages against Philip Morris. This was later reduced to $28 million. (Betty Bullock vs. Philip Morris)
• 2003: A Madison Country, Illinois jury awarded $10.1 billion against the tobacco company Philips Morris for deceptive cigarette advertising in a class action led by attorney Stephen Tillery (Price v. Philip Morris).
• 2004: A New York jury issued $20 million to the wife of a long-term smoker who died of lung cancer at the age of 57. This was the first time that a New York court had held a tobacco company liable for an individual smoker's death. (Gladys Frankson vs. Brown and Williams Tobacco Corp)
• 2005: In Imperial Tobacco v. British Columbia the Supreme Court of Canada found that the provincial Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, which allowed the government to sue tobacco companies, was constitutionally valid.
• 2007: Philip Morris USA v. Williams led to the US Supreme Court to tell the Oregon Court of Appeals to reconsider its earlier judgment and lower the case's punitive damages amount in light of State Farm v. Campbell. The appeals court ultimately upheld their original damages.
• 2008: The Altria Group v. Good US Supreme Court case said that state law is not preempted by a federal law regarding cigarette advertisement regulations.

Grounds of claims

Civil Rights

Tobacco companies have marketed menthol cigarettes specific to African Americans; groups have pursued civil rights remedies in court.

Design defects 

Claims of design defects allege that tobacco companies designed tobacco products with additional adverse health risks. Examples of design defects include cigarettes that increase addiction risks and deliberately choosing to not develop less harmful cigarettes.

In response, tobacco companies have argued that they have not intentionally made cigarettes more dangerous, but instead carefully and thoughtfully design the least hazardous tobacco product for smokers.

Strict liability 

Strict liability means that tobacco companies must be responsible for possible damages or injuries resulting from cigarettes.

Product liability 

The liability of the product lies on the manufacturer.

Depriving of health hazards information 

Lawsuits against tobacco companies have asserted that tobacco companies mislead the public on the risks of smoking, environmental smoke, and nicotine addiction.

Defenses

Volenti non fit injuria 

Volenti non fit injuria, or "to a willing person, no injury is done", is a common law doctrine which states, when applied to these cases, that there is no damage to someone who willingly places themselves in a position where they are negatively affected by tobacco consumption.

Contributory negligence 

Contributory negligence is a common law defense to a claim based on negligence, that before the cases, the adverse effects were unknown. This has been one of the commonly used defences. Most of them will assert that it was the plaintiff himself that has contributed to his own injury as he has prior knowledge of the harm associated with tobacco smoking.

Tobacco advertising fails to influence non-smokers

Tobacco companies argue that tobacco advertisements are intended for smokers choosing between brands of tobacco products. Moreover, advertising has a limited effect on influencing smoking behavior. Therefore, tobacco advertisements do not play a role in driving non-smokers to smoke.

Epidemiology cannot show causation

Tobacco companies claim that epidemiological evidence cannot show direct causation in individuals. This reasoning was used in the 2005 McTear v. Imperial Tobacco Limited case in Scotland, arguing that the plaintiffs could not reasonably prove that the plaintiffs’ smoking caused lung cancer. In addition, tobacco companies challenge the way epidemiological evidence is collected.

Tobacco politics and litigation outside of the United States

Introduction

Litigation also continues in several countries outside the United States. Citing third party reimbursement, several countries, such as Bolivia, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, have filed lawsuits both in the United States and in their own courts against tobacco industries. Individual suits have also been filed in a multitude of countries, including Argentina, Finland, France, Japan, Ireland, Israel, Norway, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey.

Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC)

The World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) represents an important landmark in international tobacco control governance. The treaty was formalized on February 27, 2005, and currently, 169 states have signed the treaty. The United States is one of seven countries that have signed but not ratified the FCTC. The FCTC encourages states to reduce tobacco production and use through measures like cigarette taxes, restrictions on advertising, clean air controls, and tobacco smuggling legislation.

Initially, the concept of an international tobacco control treaty received little enthusiasm. However, in 1998, Gro Harlem Brundtland became director general of the WHO, creating momentum for the FCTC. Organizations and events within the United States also played a key role in the creation and adoption of the FCTC globally. The American Public Health Association helped support the development of the FCTC, while the wave of successful tobacco litigation helped generate interest in tobacco control. In addition, the FCTC lacks mandates on transboundary tobacco issues. As a result, implementation of the treaty fell short, despite widespread ratification. In response, organizations such as Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation increased their philanthropic contributions to the WHO. This resulted in the creation of MPOWER, which focuses on implementation of FCTC.

Australia

In Australia, tobacco companies have faced several lawsuits, although not to the scale of litigation in the United States. In 1991, the Federal Court found advertisements denying environmental smoke to be misleading. In the 1999 case Nixon v. Philip Morris (Australia) Ltd, plaintiffs claimed tobacco companies misled them on the risks of smoking, although Courts ruled the case could not continue as representative proceedings (similar to class action lawsuits in the United States). Personal injury cases are less common in Australia, as unsuccessful plaintiffs must pay the legal fees of the defendant, less profit incentives exist for Australian lawyers, and momentum from successful tobacco litigation has not been generated.

McCabe v British American Tobacco (2002) was the first personal injury case outside the United States to win a verdict against a tobacco company. The plaintiff Rolah McCabe, who was diagnosed with lung cancer, claimed British American Tobacco Australia misled her in estimating the risk for smoking cigarettes. The verdict was later overturned, although McCabe died before the court proceedings finished. This case has been influential in litigation and legislation concerning document destruction, as British American Tobacco destroyed several documents in this case.

In 2005, a court-enforceable settlement between the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and Philip Morris (Australia) Limited, British American Tobacco Limited, and Imperial Tobacco Australia Limited, was reached. The companies agreed to stop describing cigarettes as “light” and “mild” and provide $9 million for corrective advertising, in exchange for the ACCC to no longer pursue certain legal action against the companies. Afterwards, the companies started to describe cigarettes with terms such as “rich”, “classic”, “smooth”, “fine”, “ultimate”, “refined”, and “chilled”.

Tobacco companies have not been the only defendants in tobacco litigation. In cases regarding environmental smoke, the defendants are often the owners or managers of locations where environmental smoke occurs. In Meeuwissen v Hilton Hotels of Australia Pty Ltd (1997), the plaintiff argued environmental smoke in a nightclub constituted unlawful discrimination based on disability, and was awarded $AU2000 in compensation. Aside from disability discrimination, environmental smoke lawsuits have also cited common law negligence, occupational health and safety law, and occupiers’ law. The result of such litigation has been increased bans on smoking in the workplace and certain public places.

Tobacco companies have also initiated litigation domestically and internationally, claiming government measures against tobacco have infringed on their commercial rights. In 2011, the Australian government introduced plain packaging legislation. Philip Morris Asia Limited challenged this directive under a bilateral trade agreement with Hong Kong, but did not succeed. Cuba, Honduras, Dominican Republic and Indonesia also filed a World Trade Organization complaint, but the WTO upheld the plain packaging law in 2017.

China

Although China faces many tobacco-related health problems, with over 1.2 million tobacco-related deaths per year, the government has had a limited response. The tobacco industry provides 7 to 10 percent of tax revenue for the government, while also providing many jobs in agriculture, sales, and other businesses. In addition, the government considers anti-smoking measures as potentially destabilizing, given the resentment and unrest it could cause.

The tobacco industry and some bureaucratic institutions oppose anti-smoking measures. In China, the tobacco industry is heavily monopolized. The largest firm is China National Tobacco Corporation (CNTC), which is also the world’s largest tobacco firm and makes up about 32 percent of the global market. The CNTC is described as a “de facto industrial and business agency” as it is also run by the national regulatory agency, the State Tobacco Monopoly Administration (STMA). Some have criticized the STMA/CNTC for the overlap between government and business (zhengqi bu fen).

Some regional governments also oppose tobacco control policies. For example, in Yunnan Province, tobacco is the largest industry, with tobacco taxes supplying one half of its local government revenue. Other provinces like Guizhou, Henan, and Sichuan, also rely heavily on revenue from tobacco production.

The Chinese government has implemented some tobacco control measures. Through the 1980s and 1990s, the national government and local governments implemented various bans on smoking in public places. In 2005, the PRC ratified the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). In 2009, the government raised the tobacco consumption tax, although this did not reduce smoking, as the government required wholesale and retail prices to remain the same. In 2011, the National People’s Congress (NPC) passed the 12th Five-Year Plan, which included a call to completely ban smoking in public places. However, many of these laws have been weakly enforced.

Japan

After the Meiji Restoration in the nineteenth century, Japan began taxing tobacco. Historically, tobacco revenue has been used to fund military endeavors. In the late nineteenth century, following the deficits from the Sino-Japanese War and in preparation for the Russo-Japanese War, the government imposed a monopoly over tobacco production. In 1985, this monopoly was privatized into what is now Japan Tobacco (JT), although the government still exhibits great influence over and benefits from tobacco tax revenue. In 1999, Japan Tobacco created its international branch, Japan Tobacco International (JTI). JTI is now the world’s third largest transnational tobacco corporation (TTC).

In 2014, the Tokyo High Court ruled that there was not definitive scientific evidence that passive smoking causes cancer, although the evidence they were presented was discredited outside of Japan.

In 2017, in preparation for the 2020 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games hosted in Tokyo, the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry called to ban smoking in public facilities. Japan has some of the least stringent tobacco control measures in the world. The food service industry, which includes public premises like restaurants and bars, strongly opposed this measure. In 2018, the plan for a total smoking ban was revised to include certain exceptions, such as separate rooms for smokers in restaurants in exempting “small-scale” establishments.

Russia

In Russia, smoking is very prevalent, with tobacco industries wielding great influence in Russian politics. Several Russian Duma members have also worked within the tobacco industry. After a protest caused by cigarette shortages in 1990, transnational tobacco companies began to invest in the Russian tobacco market, particularly in production. This growth in industry has been accompanied by an increase in smoking, and Russia has the highest rates of smoking in Europe.

Although the Russian government has attempted to implement tobacco prevention and control programs, most of these have had limited success. In the mid-1990s, the Federal Ministry of Health recommended several tobacco control measures, but failed to provide funding for their enactment. In 1999, the Duma introduced national tobacco control legislation. However, this legislation was substantially watered down after measures like limitations on advertisement were removed. In 2006, the Duma passed limited tobacco advertising regulations, which still allowed for small warnings on cigarette packs without graphics. In 2010, Prime Minister Putin approved the “Concept of the Government Policy on Combating Tobacco Use for 2010-2015.” Although the concept set forth several goals and concrete policy suggestions, such as complete bans on all tobacco advertising, it was not legally binding. When the Ministry of Health and Social Development (MoHSD) proposed tobacco legislation based on the concept, the bill was suspended within two days. Although many Russian representatives helped develop the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), Russia was one of the last countries to sign the FCTC.

In 2017, the Ministry of Health proposed a cigarette ban that would apply to all born after 2014, although some have expressed concern that a ban would result in a cigarette black market.

Tobacco industry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The tobacco industry comprises those persons and companies engaged in the growth, preparation for sale, shipment, advertisement, and distribution of tobacco and tobacco-related products. It is a global industry; tobacco can grow in any warm, moist environment, which means it can be farmed on all continents except Antarctica.

Tobacco, one of the most widely used addictive substances in the world, is a plant native to the Americas and historically one of the half-dozen most important crops grown by American farmers. More specifically, tobacco refers to any of various plants of the genus Nicotiana (especially N. tabacum) native to tropical America and widely cultivated for their leaves, which are dried and processed chiefly for smoking in pipes, cigarettes, and cigars; it is also cut to form chewing tobacco or ground to make snuff or dipping tobacco, as well as other less common preparations. From 1617 to 1793 tobacco was the most valuable staple export from the English American mainland colonies and the United States. Until the 1960s, the United States not only grew but also manufactured and exported more tobacco than any other country.

Tobacco is an agricultural commodity product, similar in economic terms to agricultural foodstuffs: the price is in part determined by crop yields, which vary depending on local weather conditions. The price also varies by specific species or cultivar grown, the total quantity on the market ready for sale, the area where it is grown, the health of the plants, and other characteristics individual to product quality.

Since 1964 conclusive medical evidence of the deadly effects of tobacco consumption has led to a sharp decline in official support for producers and manufacturers of tobacco, although it contributes to the agricultural, fiscal, manufacturing, and exporting sectors of the economy. Laws around the world now often have some restrictions on smoking, but almost 6 trillion cigarettes are still produced each year, representing over a 12% increase since the year 2000. China accounts for over 40% of current world production. Tobacco is often heavily taxed to gain revenues for governments and as an incentive for people not to smoke.

History

For a history of how tobacco has been grown and marketed, see tobacco, smoking and articles on similar topics.

Position of industry

The phrase "tobacco industry" generally refers to the companies involved in the manufacture of cigarettes, cigars, snuff, chewing tobacco and pipe tobacco. China National Tobacco Co. has become the largest tobacco company in the world by volume. Following extensive merger and acquisition activity in the 1990s and 2000s, four firms dominate international markets - in alphabetical order:

• Altria formerly Philip Morris Cos.
• British American Tobacco
• Imperial Tobacco
• Japan Tobacco

Altria, formerly called the Philip Morris Cos. (Philip Morris Companies Inc.), still owns the Philip Morris tobacco business in the United States, but Philip Morris International has been fully independent since 2008. In most countries these companies either have long-established dominance, or have purchased the major domestic producer or producers (often a former state monopoly). Until 2014 the United States had one other substantial independent firm, Lorillard, which Reynolds American, Inc. acquired. India has its own major player, ITC Limited (25.4%-owned by British American Tobacco). A small number of state monopolies survive, as well as some small independent firms. 

Tobacco advertising is becoming increasingly restricted by the governments of countries around the world citing health issues as a reason to restrict tobaccos appeal.

Industry outlook in the United States

Anti-smoking ad, 1905

 

The tobacco industry in the United States has suffered greatly since the mid-1990s, when it was successfully sued by several U.S. states. The suits claimed that tobacco causes cancer, that companies in the industry knew this, and that they deliberately understated the significance of their findings, contributing to the illness and death of many citizens in those states.

The industry was found to have decades of internal memos confirming in detail that tobacco (which contains nicotine) is both addictive and carcinogenic (cancer-causing). The industry had long denied that nicotine is addictive.

The suit resulted in a large cash settlement being paid by a group of tobacco companies to the states that sued. Further, since the suit was settled, other individuals have come forth, in class action lawsuits, claiming individual damages. New suits of this nature will probably continue for a long time.

Since the settlement is a heavy tax on the profits of the tobacco industry in the US, regressive against smokers, and further settlements being made only add to the financial burden of these companies, it is debatable if the industry has a money-producing long term outlook.

The tobacco industry has historically been largely successful in this litigation process, with the majority of cases being won by the industry. During the first 42 years of tobacco litigation (between 1954 and 1996) the industry maintained a clean record in litigation thanks to tactics described in a R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company internal memo as "the way we won these cases, to paraphrase Gen. Patton, is not by spending all of Reynolds' money, but by making the other son of a bitch spend all of his." Between 1995 and 2005 only 59% of cases were won by the tobacco industry either outright or on appeal in the US, but the continued success of the industry's efforts to win these cases is questionable. In Florida, the industry has lost 77 of the 116 "Engle progeny" cases that have gone to trial. The U.S. Supreme Court has also denied the industry's major grounds for appeal of Engle cases.

In June 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama signed into law the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act which has been called a "sweeping anti-smoking" bill. Among other restrictions, this Act banned the use of any constituent, additive, herb or spice that adds a "characterizing flavor" to the tobacco product or smoke (Section 907)(a)(1)(A). The aim of this ban is to prevent children and teenagers from becoming addicted to cigarettes at a young age with the US Department of Health and Human Services citing that "studies have shown that 17 year old smokers are three times as likely to use flavored cigarettes as are smokers over the age of 25". This ban however does not apply to menthol cigarettes, which are exempt from the bill.

Lawsuits against the tobacco industry are primarily restricted to the United States due to differences in legal systems in other countries. Many businesses class ongoing lawsuits as a cost of doing business in the US and feel their revenue will be only marginally affected by the activities.

Large tobacco companies have entered the electronic cigarette market by either buying some of the small e-cigarette companies or by starting their own e-cigarette companies. By 2014 all the major multinational tobacco companies had entered the e-cigarette market. They did so either by buying existing e-cigarette companies (including Ruyan, the original Chinese e-cigarette company, which was bought by Imperial Tobacco) or by developing their own products. A 2017 review states, "The tobacco industry dominates the e-cigarette market." All of the large tobacco companies are selling e-cigarettes. A 2017 review states, "Small companies initially dominated the ENDS market, and these firms had no links to the tobacco industry. Today, however, all transnational tobacco companies sell these products. Increased concentration of the ENDS market in the hands of the transnational tobacco companies is concerning to the public health community, given the industry's legacy of obfuscating many fundamental truths about their products and misleading the public with false claims, including that low-tar and so-called "light" cigarettes would reduce the harms associated with smoking. Although industry representatives are claiming interest in ENDS because of their harm-reduction potential, many observers believe that profit remains the dominant motivation."

Major tobacco companies are dominating the political and policy-making environments just as they have in conventional cigarette policy making. As they have done to influence tobacco control policies for conventional cigarettes, the large companies often try to stay out of sight and work through third parties that can obscure their links to the tobacco industry. The one difference from the historical pattern of industry efforts to shape tobacco policy from behind the scenes is that there are also genuine independent sellers of e-cigarettes and associated users (so-called vape shops) who are not necessarily being directed by the cigarette companies. These smaller operators are, however, losing market share to the big tobacco companies, and the real political power is now being exercised by the cigarette companies. The cigarette companies try to take advantage of the existence of independent players while acting through the industry's traditional allies and front groups.

Tobacco control

On May 11, 2004, the U.S. became the 108th country to sign the World Health Organization's Global Treaty on Tobacco Control. This treaty places broad restrictions on the sale, advertising, shipment, and taxation of tobacco products. The U.S. has not yet ratified this treaty in its senate and does not yet have a schedule for doing so. 

Most recently, there has been discussion within the tobacco control community of transforming the tobacco industry through the replacement of tobacco corporations by other types of business organizations that can be established to provide tobacco to the market while not attempting to increase market demand.

On February 20, 2007, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Altria Group (formerly Philip Morris) did not have to pay $79.5 million in punitive damages awarded to Mayola Williams in a 1999 Oregon court ruling, when she sued Phillip Morris for responsibility in the cancer death of her husband, Jesse Williams. The Supreme Court's decision overturns a ruling made by the Oregon Supreme Court that upheld the award.

On April 3, 2008, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit threw out a $800 billion class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of a group or class of people who smoked light cigarettes. The plaintiffs' lawyers were confident that they would be able to win this suit due to the success of the Schwab case  wherein tobacco companies were found guilty of fraud-like charges because they were selling the idea that light cigarettes were safer than regular cigarettes. The ruling by the three-judge panel will not allow the suit to be pursued as a class, but instead need proof for why individual smokers chose light cigarettes over regular cigarettes.

Production by country or region

Map of tobacco production across the world

 

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates the following production of unprocessed tobacco by country/region in 2000. (Figures are in thousands of tonnes.)

Country or region	Production in thousands of tons
China	2,298.8
India	595.4
Brazil	520.7
United States	408.2
European Union	314.5
Zimbabwe	204.9
Turkey	193.9
Indonesia	166.6
Russia	116.8
Malawi	108.0

Cigarette Production by Factory

Much of global tobacco production is used in the manufacturing of cigarettes. The following is a chart compiled by Dr. Robert Proctor detailing the largest cigarette factories, accompanied by their estimated annual death toll due to the harms of cigarettes to health.

Tobacco industry in popular culture

The tobacco industry has had a long relationship with the entertainment industry. In silent era movies, back-lit smoke was often used by filmmakers to create sense of mystery and sensuality in a scene. Later, cigarettes were deliberately placed in the hands of Hollywood stars as an early phase of product placement, until health regulating bodies tightened rules on tobacco advertisement and anti-smoking groups pressured actors and studio executives against such tactics. Big Tobacco has since been the subject focus of films such as the docudrama The Insider (1999) and Thank You For Smoking (2005). 

These issues have also constituted a recurring storyline in the AMC series Mad Men, from season 1 beginning with the pilot episode ("Smoke Gets In Your Eyes") through season 7's midseason finale, "Waterloo".

History of tobacco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Tobacco has a long history from its usages in the early Americas. It increased in popularity with the arrival of Spain to America, which introduced tobacco to the Europeans by whom it was heavily traded. Following the industrial revolution, cigarettes were becoming popularized in the New World as well as Europe, which fostered yet another unparalleled increase in growth. This remained so until scientific studies in mid 20th century demonstrated the negative health effects of tobacco smoking including lung and throat cancer.

Early history

Tobacco was first discovered by the native people of Mesoamerica and South America and later introduced to Europe and the rest of the world.

Tobacco had already long been used in the Americas by the time European settlers arrived and took the practice to Europe, where it became popular. Eastern North American tribes have historically carried tobacco in pouches as a readily accepted trade item, as well as smoking it in pipe ceremonies, whether for sacred ceremonies or those to seal a treaty or agreement. Tobacco is considered a gift from the Creator, and tobacco smoke is seen as carrying one's thoughts and prayers to the spirits.

In addition to its use in spiritual ceremonies, tobacco is also used in ethnobotany for medical treatment of physical conditions. As a pain killer it has been used for earache and toothache and occasionally as a poultice. Some indigenous peoples in California have used tobacco as one ingredient in smoking mixtures for treating colds; usually it is mixed with the leaves of the small desert sage, Salvia dorrii, or the root of Indian balsam or cough root, Leptotaenia multifida (the addition of which was thought to be particularly good for asthma and tuberculosis). In addition to its traditional medicinal uses, tobacco was also used as a form of currency between Native Americans and Colonists from the 1620s on.

Religious use of tobacco is still common among many indigenous peoples, particularly in the Americas. Among the Cree and Ojibwe of Canada and the north-central United States, it is offered to the Creator, with prayers, and is used in sweat lodges, pipe ceremonies, and is presented as a gift. A gift of tobacco is traditional when asking an Ojibwe elder a question of a spiritual nature.

European usage

The earliest image of a man smoking a pipe, from Tabaco by Anthony Chute.

 

Of the four plants of the Americas that spread to the rest of the world in the Columbian Exchange—potato, maize, tomato, and tobacco—the last is the only one used in every country. Greek and Roman accounts exist of smoking hemp seeds, and a Spanish poem c. 1276 mentions the energetic effects of lavender smoke, but tobacco was completely unfamiliar to Europeans before the discovery of the New World. Las Casas vividly described how the first scouts sent by Columbus into the interior of Cuba found

men with half-burned wood in their hands and certain herbs to take their smokes, which are some dry herbs put in a certain leaf, also dry, like those the boys make on the day of the Passover of the Holy Ghost; and having lighted one part of it, by the other they suck, absorb, or receive that smoke inside with the breath, by which they become benumbed and almost drunk, and so it is said they do not feel fatigue. These, muskets as we will call them, they call tabacos. I knew Spaniards on this island of Española who were accustomed to take it, and being reprimanded for it, by telling them it was a vice, they replied they were unable to cease using it. I do not know what relish or benefit they found in it.

Following the arrival of Europeans, tobacco became one of the primary products fueling colonization, and also became a driving factor in the incorporation of African slave labor. The Spanish introduced tobacco to Europeans in about 1528, and by 1533, Diego Columbus mentioned a tobacco merchant of Lisbon in his will, showing how quickly the traffic had sprung up. Jean Nicot, French ambassador in Lisbon, sent samples to Paris in 1559. The French, Spanish, and Portuguese initially referred to the plant as the "sacred herb" because of its valuable medicinal properties.

Nicot sent leaves and seeds to Francis II and his mother Catherine of Medici, with instructions to use tobacco as snuff. The king's recurring headaches (perhaps sinus trouble) were reportedly "marvellously cured" by snuff (Francis II nevertheless died at seventeen years of age on December 5, 1560, after a reign lasting less than two years). French cultivation of herbe de la Reine (the queen's herb) began in 1560. By 1570 botanists referred to tobacco as Nicotiana, although André Thevet claimed that he, not Nicot, had introduced tobacco to France; historians believe that this is unlikely to be true, but Thevet was the first Frenchman to write about it.

Swiss doctor Conrad Gesner in 1563 reported that chewing or smoking a tobacco leaf "has a wonderful power of producing a kind of peaceful drunkenness". In 1571, Spanish doctor Nicolas Monardes wrote a book about the history of medicinal plants of the new world. In this he claimed that tobacco could cure 36 health problems, and reported that the plant was first brought to Spain for its flowers, but "Now we use it to a greater extent for the sake of its virtues than for its beauty".

Sir Walter Raleigh introduced "Virginia tobacco into England. "Raleigh's First Pipe in England", included in Frederick William Fairholt's Tobacco, its history and associations.

 

John Hawkins was the first to bring tobacco seeds to England. William Harrison's English Chronology mentions tobacco smoking in the country as of 1573, before Sir Walter Raleigh brought the first "Virginia" tobacco to Europe from the Roanoke Colony, referring to it as tobah as early as 1578. In 1595 Anthony Chute published Tabaco, which repeated earlier arguments about the benefits of the plant and emphasised the health-giving properties of pipe-smoking.

The importation of tobacco into England was not without resistance and controversy. Stuart King James I wrote a famous polemic titled A Counterblaste to Tobacco in 1604, in which the king denounced tobacco use as "[a] custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse." That year, an English statute was enacted that placed a heavy protective tariff on tobacco imports. The duty rose from 2p per pound to 6s 10p, an increase of 4,000%, but English demand remained strong despite the high price; Barnabee Rych reported that 7,000 stores in London sold tobacco and calculated that at least 319,375 pounds sterling were spent on tobacco annually. Because the Virginia and Bermuda colonies' economies were affected by the high duty, James in 1624 instead created a royal monopoly. No tobacco could be imported except from Virginia, and a royal license that cost 15 pounds per year was required to sell it. To help the colonies Charles II banned tobacco cultivation in England, but allowed herb gardens because doctors said it had medicinal purposes.

Tobacco was introduced elsewhere in continental Europe more easily. Iberia exported "ropes" of dry leaves in baskets to the Netherlands and southern Germany; for a while tobacco was in Spanish called canaster after the word for basket, canastro, and influenced the German Knaster. In Italy, Prospero Santacroce in 1561 and Nicolo Torbabuoni in 1570 introduced it to gardens after seeing the plant on diplomatic missions. Cardinal Crescenzio introduced smoking to the country in about 1610 after learning about it in England. The Roman Catholic Church did not condemn tobacco as James I did, but Pope Urban VIII threatened excommunication to anyone smoking in a church.

In Russia, tobacco use was banned in 1634 except for foreigners in Moscow. Peter the Great—who in England had learned of smoking and the royal monopoly—became the monarch in 1689, however. Revoking all bans, he licensed an English company to import 1.5 million pounds of tobacco per year, the monarchy receiving 28,000 pounds sterling annually.

Asia

The Japanese were introduced to tobacco by Portuguese sailors from 1542.

Tobacco first arrived in the Ottoman Empire in the late 16th century, where it attracted the attention of doctors and became a commonly prescribed medicine for many ailments. Although tobacco was initially prescribed as medicine, further study led to claims that smoking caused dizziness, fatigue, dulling of the senses, and a foul taste/odour in the mouth.

A tobacco plantation in Queensland, in 1933.

 

Sultan Murad IV banned smoking in the Ottoman Empire in 1633. When the ban was lifted by his successor, Ibrahim the Mad, it was instead taxed. In 1682, Damascene jurist Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulsi declared: "Tobacco has now become extremely famous in all the countries of Islam ... People of all kinds have used it and devoted themselves to it ... I have even seen young children of about five years applying themselves to it." In 1750, a Damascene townsmen observed "a number of women greater than the men, sitting along the bank of the Barada River. They were eating and drinking, and drinking coffee and smoking tobacco just as the men were doing."

Australia

Although Nicotiana suaveolens is native to Australia, tobacco smoking first reached that continent shores when it was introduced to northern-dwelling Indigenous communities by visiting Indonesian fishermen in the early 18th century. British patterns of tobacco use were transported to Australia along with the new settlers in 1788; and in the years following colonisation, British smoking behaviour was rapidly adopted by Indigenous people as well. By the early 19th century tobacco was an essential commodity routinely issued to servants, prisoners and ticket-of-leave men (conditionally released convicts) as an inducement to work, or conversely, withheld as a means of punishment.

United States

Economic history in the American colonies

In the Eastern United States, gold and silver were scarce, which made it harder for colonists to trade with Native Americans. The cultivation of tobacco in the Chesapeake area was essential to solving this problem. Without silver and gold to trade to the Chesapeake tribes, colonists traded tobacco for essential natural resources. This started in the 1620s. Tobacco was also used as a currency in the colonies, used for paying fines, taxes, and even marriage licenses.

The increasing demand for tobacco in Europe fueled the slave trade. In the colonies land was at a premium because tobacco required lots of land to cultivate. This created a problem for the institutionalized practice of indentured servitude. Indentured servants were promised land of various amounts in their contracts. This land became harder to part with due to tobacco.

The uncultivated Virginia soil was reportedly too rich for traditional European crops, especially cereals like barley. Tobacco "broke down the fields and made food crops more productive" by depleting the soil of nutrients.

With the profitability of the land rapidly increasing, it was no longer was economically viable to bring in indentured servants because they were promised physical benefits at the end of their tenure. What the plantation owners wanted was workers who could legally not be paid and would be able to work long hours in the hot sun. Their conclusion was to turn to another institutionalized practice: slavery. The demand and profitability of tobacco led to the shift in the colonies to a slave-based labor force. Tobacco is a labor-intensive crop, requiring lots of work for its cultivation, harvest, and curing. These tasks were carried out during the colonial period by slaves.

Tobacco's impact on early American history

The cultivation of tobacco in America led to many changes. During the 1700s tobacco was a very lucrative crop due to its high demand in Europe. The climate of the Chesapeake area in America lent itself very nicely to the cultivation of tobacco. The high European demand for tobacco led to a rise in the value of tobacco. The rise of value of tobacco accelerated the economic growth in America. The cultivation of tobacco as a cash crop in America marks the shift from a subsistence economy to an agrarian economy. Tobacco’s desirability and value led to it being used as a currency in colonies. Tobacco was also backed by the gold standard which meant that there was an established conversion rate from tobacco to gold.

The increasing role of tobacco as a cash crop led to a shift in the labor force that would shape American life and politics up through the Civil war. In order to keep up with demand tobacco plantation owners had to abandon the traditional practice of indentured servitude in the Americas. In order to pursue maximum profits, the plantation owners turned to slavery to supply them with the cheap, fungible labor that they needed to keep up with increasing production.

Early cultivation of tobacco

In the first few years of tobacco cultivation in the colonies, the plants were simply covered with hay and left in the field to cure or "sweat." This method was abandoned after 1618, when regulations prohibited the use of valuable potential animal food for such purposes. It was also abandoned because a better method of curing tobacco had been developed. In this new method the wilted leaves were hung on lines or sticks, at first outside on fence rails. Tobacco barns for housing the crop were in use by the 1620s.

During the curing period, which lasted about four to six weeks, the color of the tobacco changed from a greenish yellow to a light tan. Mold was an immense danger during this time. Once again, a planter relied on his experience to know when the tobacco was ready to be removed from the sticks on which it hung, a process known as "striking."

At last, when the tobacco was ready, and preferably during a period of damp weather, workers struck the tobacco and laid the leaves on the floor of the tobacco barn to sweat for somewhere between a week or two. Logs could be used to press the tobacco and increase its temperature, but with that there came a danger. The heat might become too intense and mold spoil the crop.

After sweating, the next step was sorting. Ideally, all the tobacco should be in a condition described by cropmasters as "in case". This meant that the tobacco had absorbed just the right amount of moisture; it could be stretched like leather, and was glossy and moist. If tobacco were too damp, it would rot in transit; if too dry, it would crumble and be unsalable.

In the early years at Jamestown the settlers paid little heed to quality control, this attitude soon changed due to both the market and to regulations. Over time, the settlers began to separate the tobacco into sections of equal quality. The leaves were then tied together in Hands, bunches of five to fourteen. The Hands were returned to platforms to sweat. When they were once again "in case", the inspection of the crop could take place and the final processing for export begin.

Early on, the preparation of tobacco for shipping was very simple. The tobacco leaves were twisted and rolled, then spun into rope, which was wound into balls weighing as much as a hundred pounds ( 45 kilograms ). These balls were protected in canvas or barrels, which would then be shipped to Britain. Although the export of bulk tobacco was not outlawed until 1730, a large barrel called a "hogshead" soon became the favored container throughout the colonial period. Even though its capacity varied slightly, governed by the regulations of the day, the average weight of the tobacco stored in a hogshead barrel was about a thousand pounds ( 450 kilograms ).

These barrels were transported in a variety of ways to the ships on which they would be carried to England. At first, captains of merchant vessels simply traveled from one plantation dock to the next, loading up with barrels of tobacco as they moved along the river. Other ways included employing northern smugglers to ferry tobacco to England.

Plantations in the American South

This 1670 painting shows enslaved Africans working in the tobacco sheds of a colonial tobacco plantation.

 

In 1609, English colonist John Rolfe arrived at Jamestown, Virginia, and became the first settler to successfully raise tobacco (commonly referred to at that time as "brown gold") for commercial use. Tobacco was used as currency by the Virginia settlers for years, and Rolfe was able to make his fortune in farming it for export at Varina Farms Plantation.

When he left for England with his wife Pocahontas, a daughter of Chief Powhatan, he had become wealthy. Returning to Jamestown, following Pocahontas' death in England, Rolfe continued in his efforts to improve the quality of commercial tobacco, and, by 1620, 40,000 pounds (18,000 kg) of tobacco were shipped to England. By the time John Rolfe died in 1622, Jamestown was thriving as a producer of tobacco, and its population had topped 4,000. Tobacco led to the importation of the colony's first black slaves in 1619.

Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, tobacco continued to be the cash crop of the Virginia Colony, as well as The Carolinas. Large tobacco warehouses filled the areas near the wharves of new, thriving towns such as Dumfries on the Potomac, Richmond and Manchester at the Fall Line (head of navigation) on the James, and Petersburg on the Appomattox.

There were also tobacco plantations in Tennessee, like Wessyngton in Cedar Hill, Tennessee.

Modern history

A historian of the American South in the late 1860s reported on typical usage in the region where it was grown:

The chewing of tobacco was well-nigh universal. This habit had been widespread among the agricultural population of America both North and South before the war. Soldiers had found the quid a solace in the field and continued to revolve it in their mouths upon returning to their homes. Out of doors where his life was principally led the chewer spat upon his lands without offence to other men, and his homes and public buildings were supplied with spittoons. Brown and yellow parabolas were projected to right and left toward these receivers, but very often without the careful aim which made for clean living. Even the pews of fashionable churches were likely to contain these familiar conveniences. The large numbers of Southern men, and these were of the better class (officers in the Confederate army and planters, worth $20,000 or more, and barred from general amnesty) who presented themselves for the pardon of President Johnson, while they sat awaiting his pleasure in the ante-room at the White House, covered its floor with pools and rivulets of their spittle. An observant traveller in the South in 1865 said that in his belief seven-tenths of all persons above the age of twelve years, both male and female, used tobacco in some form. Women could be seen at the doors of their cabins in their bare feet, in their dirty one-piece cotton garments, their chairs tipped back, smoking pipes made of corn cobs into which were fitted reed stems or goose quills. Boys of eight or nine years of age and half-grown girls smoked. Women and girls "dipped" in their houses, on their porches, in the public parlors of hotels and in the streets.

Until 1883, tobacco excise tax accounted for one third of internal revenue collected by the United States government. Internal Revenue Service data for 1879-80 show total tobacco tax receipts of $38.9 million, out of total receipts of $116.8 million. Following the American Civil War, the tobacco industry struggled as it attempted to adapt. Not only did the labor force change from slavery to sharecropping, but a change in demand also occurred. As in Europe, there was a desire for not only snuff, pipes and cigars, but cigarettes as well. 

With a change in demand and a change in labor force, James Bonsack, an avid craftsman, in 1881 created a machine that revolutionized cigarette production. The machine chopped the tobacco, then dropped a certain amount of the tobacco into a long tube of paper, which the machine would then roll and push out the end where it would be sliced by the machine into individual cigarettes. This machine operated at thirteen times the speed of a human cigarette roller.

This caused an enormous growth in the tobacco industry that lasted well into the 20th century, until the scientific revelations discovering health consequences of smoking and tobacco companies' usage of chemical additives was revealed. 

In the United States, The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) became law in 2009. It gave the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to regulate the manufacture, distribution, and marketing of tobacco products to protect public health.

Health concerns

A lengthy study conducted in order to establish the strong association necessary for legislative action.

 

Nazi Germany saw the first modern anti-smoking campaign, the National Socialist government condemning tobacco use, funding research against it, levying increasing sin taxes on it, and in 1941 banning tobacco in various public places as a health hazard. 

In the UK and the USA, an increase in lung cancer rates was being picked up by the 1930s, but the cause for this increase remained debated and unclear.

A true breakthrough came in 1948, when the British physiologist Richard Doll published the first major studies that proved that smoking could cause serious health damage. In 1950, he published research in the British Medical Journal that showed a close link between smoking and lung cancer. Four years later, in 1954 the British Doctors Study, a study of some 40 thousand doctors over 20 years, confirmed the suggestion, based on which the government issued advice that smoking and lung cancer rates were related. The British Doctors Study lasted till 2001, with result published every ten years and final results published in 2004 by Doll and Richard Peto. Much early research was also done by Dr. Ochsner. Reader's Digest magazine for many years published frequent anti-smoking articles. 

In 1964 the United States Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health likewise began suggesting the relationship between smoking and cancer, which confirmed its suggestions 20 years later in the 1980s.

Partial controls and regulatory measures eventually followed in much of the developed world, including partial advertising bans, minimum age of sale requirements, and basic health warnings on tobacco packaging. However, smoking prevalence and associated ill health continued to rise in the developed world in the first three decades following Richard Doll's discovery, with governments sometimes reluctant to curtail a habit seen as popular as a result - and increasingly organised disinformation efforts by the tobacco industry and their proxies (covered in more detail below). Realisation dawned gradually that the health effects of smoking and tobacco use were susceptible only to a multi-pronged policy response which combined positive health messages with medical assistance to cease tobacco use and effective marketing restrictions, as initially indicated in a 1962 overview by the British Royal College of Physicians and the 1964 report of the U.S. Surgeon General. 

In the 1950s tobacco companies engaged in a cigarette advertising war surrounding the tar content in cigarettes that came to be known as the tar derby. The companies repositioned their brands to emphasize low tar content, filter technology and nicotine levels. The period ended in 1959 after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman and several cigarette company presidents agreed to discontinue usage of tar or nicotine levels in advertisements.

In order to reduce the potential burden of disease, the World Health Organization(WHO) successfully rallied 168 countries to sign the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in 2003. The Convention is designed to push for effective legislation and its enforcement in all countries to reduce the harmful effects of tobacco.

In science

The tobacco smoke enema was the principal medical method to resuscitate victims of drowning in the 18th century.

As a lucrative crop, tobacco has been the subject of a great deal of biological and genetic research. The economic impact of Tobacco Mosaic disease was the impetus that led to the isolation of Tobacco mosaic virus, the first virus to be identified; the fortunate coincidence that it is one of the simplest viruses and can self-assemble from purified nucleic acid and protein led, in turn, to the rapid advancement of the field of virology. The 1946 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was shared by Wendell Meredith Stanley for his 1935 work crystallizing the virus and showing that it remains active.