Tobacco politics
Tobacco politics refers to the politics surrounding the use and distribution of tobacco, likewise with regulations.
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 that 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 tobacco use is generally unfavorable, many large tobacco companies continue to find success internationally, and tobacco companies have expanded into other product categories, such as electronic cigarettes, as traditional tobacco use declines.
As of 2018, 169 states have signed the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, 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 almost 1.3 billion smokers globally.
Tobacco control regulations
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, establishing a major revenue stream for government. That said, revenue from US tobacco taxation peaked in 2010 at $17.2 billion, and has steadily decreased every year since then with revenue in 2023 at $11.6 billion.The US Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act of 1978, a law that makes cigarette smuggling a felony punishable by up to 5 years in federal prison, is a means to prosecute smugglers who avoid paying duties on cigarettes. The Stop Tobacco Smuggling in the Territories Act of 2013, proposed during the 113th United States Congress, would have updated the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act to include American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam, which were previously not extended to by the law. Although the bill was successfully passed in the House of Representatives, after much debate and discussion, it ultimately failed to gain approval in the Senate. This failure could have been due to a variety of factors, such as opposition from senators with differing political views, concerns over specific provisions within the bill, or procedural hurdles that prevented it from moving forward. As a result, despite its initial success in the House, the bill was unable to proceed through the full legislative process and become law.
Cigarette advertising
In numerous parts of the world, tobacco advertising and sponsorship of sporting events is prohibited. The ban upon tobacco advertising and sponsorship in the European Union in 2005 prompted Formula One management to look for venues that permit display of the livery of tobacco sponsors, and led to some of the races on the calendar being cancelled in favor of more 'tobacco-friendly' markets. As of 2007, only one Formula One team, Scuderia Ferrari, received sponsorship from a tobacco company; Marlboro branding appeared on its cars in three races, all in countries lacking restrictions on tobacco advertising. Since 2018 Philip Morris International and British American Tobacco have circumvented the EU ban by using corporate mission statements and associated branding to link their ‘potentially reduced risk’ products to Formula One and Grand Prix motorcycle racing teams. In 2022, PMI and BAT spent an estimated $40 million sponsoring the Ferrari and McLaren teams. Advertising billboards for tobacco remain used in Germany, whilst the majority of EU member states have outlawed them.MotoGP team Ducati Marlboro received sponsorship from Marlboro, its branding appeared at the race in Qatar and China. On July 1, 2009, Ireland prohibited the advertising and display of tobacco products in all retail outlets.
Lobby
Major tobacco lobbying companies include Altria Group, Philip Morris International, and Reynolds American.20th century
In the early 1950s, numerous 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, 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 of TIRC, although many amongst these scientists expressed concern over TIRC's strong denial of the link between the two.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 mandated health warning labels on cigarette packaging, tobacco companies successfully requested Congressional regulation in place of FTC regulation. The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act 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 success. In 1967, anti-tobacco advocates successfully argued that the fairness doctrine of the Federal Communications Commission 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 have a large role in politics, albeit not as extensively as during the twentieth century. In 1990, the contributions of tobacco lobbies totaled 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 former Vice President Mike Pence. Although multiple 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. In a measure to curb the use of E-cigarettes among youth, the U.S. FDA banned the promotion and sale of flavored vaping products in January 2020.In 2017, Philip Morris International established the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World and fully funds it to endorse new tobacco industry products.
Litigation
s have been filed against varying tobacco manufacturers, attempting to hold them to account 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 the U.S. States 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 favour of the defendant tobacco companies.History
The history of tobacco litigation in the United States can be divided into three waves: from 1954 to 1973, from 1983 to 1992, and 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, in which the lawsuits were filed. 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 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 attorneys general charged the tobacco industry with 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 case must be proven. As a result, thousands of individual lawsuits were filed against tobacco companies, but many of these verdicts are now on 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 that federal law does not preempt certain state consumer protection laws, no courts have ruled on these laws being violated.