New Orleans Civil District Judge Richard Ganucheau, retired and without a courtroom over which to preside, has been temporarily appointed to officiate a case initially filed in 1996. Over the course of the suit, estimated to last anywhere from six months (at the very least) to over a year, he must determine the degree to which tobacco companies are responsible for smokers’ addiction and health.
The Louisiana Supreme Court has narrowed the initial trial down to three chief concerns: children as a target for tobacco promotions, exploitation of consumers via manipulated nicotine content and the alleged conspiracy against consumers.
Plaintiffs are requesting that tobacco companies, as recompense for allegedly conspiring against and manipulating the general public, finance programs to monitor the health of smokers and to assist smokers in the transition to becoming non-smokers.
Tobacco companies maintain that smoking is solely a personal choice a consumer makes. Furthermore, the medical attention the plaintiff is soliciting has yet to be confirmed effective.
The plaintiff in this suit makes a particularly weak request in this case, by — to all intents and purposes — requesting that tobacco companies take responsibility for marketing and otherwise efficient business tactics, while refusing to take responsibility for buying and smoking cigarettes. Tobacco marketing and production has been highly practical and effective, though not always ethical. But at least it has been smart. No one in today’s America is unaware of the health risks associated with smoking.
In a similar case executed in West Virginia, plaintiffs asking for health
monitoring for smokers (screens for emphysema, cancer and other lung diseases) were flatly refused. In this vanguard class-action lawsuit, the jury sided with the defense, asserting that apprehensive smokers should just drop the habit.
Billboards, magazine ads, and commercials are suggestive. They do not force consumers to do anything, much less fork over the outrageous price cigarettes go for these days, light a match and smoke. And though the habit is indubitably a difficult one to kick, are we so willing to say we’re incapable of succeeding? Why are we so ready to ask for money and for help when we’ve yet to take responsibility for our actions?
Dr. Davis Burns, a researcher at the University of California School of Medicine in San Diego, developed the requested program in the West Virginia suit, and is the first — and key — witness in the Louisiana trial. Following years of research observing the health of smokers, he devised a medical agenda that includes examinations for lung cancer and CT scans to visualize otherwise undetected lung tumors. The main glitch in his entire health plan/defense is the afflictions are conducive of a supposedly “defective product.” There’s nothing defective about cigarettes that contain tar, nicotine, and other carcinogens; that’s the way they are engineered. And it may not be just or decent, but it’s the industry. And at a tobacco company, just like any other company, making the best-selling product is all in a day’s work.
Tobacco companies are constantly badgered to take responsibility for everything from successful production to efficient marketing. It’s time for consumers to step up and start taking responsibility for how they spend their time, money and health.