Low-Yield Cigarettes = High-Yield Lawsuit?


Yesterday U.S. District Judge Jack B. Weinstein approved a class action lawsuit on behalf of every American who has ever smoked "light" cigarettes. The suit, which claims the tobacco companies tricked smokers into believing low-yield cigarettes were safer than regular cigarettes, seeks up to $200 billion in damages, an amount that could be tripled under the Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations Act. Weinstein's certification of the class is likely to be overturned on appeal, since it's hard to imagine how a trial could establish that tens of millions of Americans each individually relied, to his detriment, on the tobacco companies' implied representations about the relative hazards of light cigarettes. A similar problem recently proved fatal to a Florida class action that resulted in a jaw-dropping $145 billion verdict against cigarette makers.

But the problems with this case go beyond the difficulty of proving fraud en masse. If the health advantages of light cigarettes are a myth, it's a myth the federal government propagated and maintained. The government did not merely allow the tobacco companies to advertise the official tar and nicotine "yields" of their various brands; it required them to do so. The tobacco companies certainly took advantage of this requirement, competing against each other to produce the lowest yields, but that was precisely what the government expected and wanted to happen, in the hope that smokers would switch to less dangerous brands.

Research eventually indicated that the official tar and nicotine numbers, measured by an FTC-approved method using a smoking machine, were misleading. The basic problem is that people do not smoke like machines. When nicotine is reduced along with tar, which has been the general practice, people tend to smoke more intensely to get the dose of nicotine to which they're accustomed: They take more puffs, inhale more deeply, hold the smoke longer, and subconsciously cover tiny ventilation holes. The upshot is that light cigarettes are not necessarily safer than regular cigarettes and could in some cases even be more dangerous, if they increase the amounts of toxins and carcinogens to which a smoker is exposed for a given dose of nicotine.

The obvious solution is to keep the nicotine yield the same, or even boost it, while reducing tar delivery. But that would also be a reason to sue the tobacco companies, who already are accused of "manipulating" nicotine and "spiking" cigarettes to keep their customers hooked. As Wally Olson might put it, they're sued if they do and sued if they don't. You needn't sympathize with the tobacco companies to recognize the legal insanity of this situation.

NEXT: Dystopia, Limited

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wouldn’t it be great if tobacco companies started putting “Low Fat/Sugar Free” on their labels. Then we could have some cretin suing because he thought cigarettes would counteract his french fry and milkshake addiction.

  2. There was a big fuss over light and mild labels a while back in Canada. Then it was discovered the health ministry had encouraged tobacco companies to go ahead with the practice in the late 1970s.

  3. I wonder if a big tobacco loss could be leveraged to counter the ONDCPs arguments of “stronger pot”? I mean, the ONDCP attempts to link the tar and smoke in pot to the dangers it presents and at the same time touting the “increase in THC levels” as a reason to be afraid of it. Seems to me that this would be evidence that the higher the levels of the “addictive” substance the less harmful smoke and tar people will consume. Just sayin’.

  4. The government is the public’s enemy in this matter. I just love how they protect the old cigarette companies from competition, in order to keep the fat cash rolling in via these lawsuits and their various settlements. RJR, Phillip Morris et al would all have been out of business long ago if it weren’t for the protection money.

    When I was young, I thought it would be awesome start up my own tobacco company. I would have called it “Chad’s Death Sticks”. My entire ad campaign would be focused around how my products were deadly, and probably even more deadly than anyone else’s. I’d be able to undercut the competition because I wouldn’t be spending a buck a pack to pay off settlements and lawsuits, while offering a far more hip product.

    Then I learned that the government had effectively banned this, by forcing ANY company, not just the guilty, to chip into the funds.

    What irony – the government protecting the guilty in order to line its own pockets.

  5. I would love to see the tobacco companies start suspending sales to states that place a heavy burden on them. I would bet that just talking about suspending the sales would make many states tremble.

    Irony indeed. If you tax it, you approve of it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.