Tobacco Companies

India banned smoking in public places, leaving public health officials with a tough task: getting the nation's estimated 120 million smokers to stub out their cigarettes. As more countries have clamped down on smoking in recent years, Indians have freely puffed away at playgrounds, railway stations, sidewalk cafes and even hospitals. No more; and a violator will get a $5 fine. For years, anti-smoking laws in the nation of nearly 1.2 billion people have been widely ignored. And tobacco companies have fought the government to keep warnings off boxes.

Tobacco companies are expected to file papers Monday seeking dismissal of a Justice Department lawsuit aimed at recovering billions of dollars that government health insurance programs have spent to treat smoking-related illnesses. Philip Morris Co., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc. and other cigarette makers are scheduled to file their response in federal court to the landmark Justice Department civil case against the industry.

Re "County Fair Finds Itself the Butt of Controversy Over Tobacco Firm," Aug. 20: The Philip Morris spokeswoman says, "It's silly to think that anyone is going to start smoking because they attend a concert or see a sign." If Philip Morris truly believes that, then why not just give the L.A. County Fair the money and forgo the Marlboro signs and booths? What Philip Morris is doing at the county fair concerts is advertising, pure and simple--and advertising is, by nature, designed to get people to use the product.

After setting a record high in 2003, tobacco companies spent less money marketing and advertising their products in 2004 and 2005, a federal agency said Thursday. Promotional spending by the five largest U.S. cigarette makers dropped to $14.15 billion in 2004, down from $15.15 billion in the previous year, and fell further to $13.1 billion in 2005, according to a report issued by the Federal Trade Commission.

Re "Tobacco Companies Sue State," April 3: I am appalled at the sheer hypocrisy and greed of R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard in suing to stop California's anti- tobacco advertising campaign. These tobacco companies claim that California's Department of Health Services ads are "vilifying" them. Yet how can one vilify two of the leading companies in an industry that the U.S. surgeon general contends kills 430,000 Americans every year? How can one further hurt the reputation of companies that have a long, documented history of deliberately targeting minor children with advertising for their addictive and deadly products?

A tobacco industry bid to block Connecticut's $1-billion lawsuit has been turned back by a federal judge. U.S. District Judge Peter C. Dorsey is letting Connecticut proceed with a suit in state court that attempts to recover from tobacco companies the taxpayer money spent on treating smoking-related illnesses. Connecticut Atty. Gen.

Tobacco company rep David Howard waxes enthusiastic when he talks about a new product his employer, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., has developed: a pellet of finely cured tobacco, binders and flavoring that dissolves in the mouth in 10 minutes. Under test market in two U.S. cities — Denver and Charlotte, N.C. — Camel Orbs will join two dissolvable tobacco lozenges already on the market if it graduates to broader distribution. And Howard is optimistic it will. "These products provide smokers with an option to enjoy the pleasure of nicotine without bothering others," Howard said.

The FDA's deliberations over a possible ban on menthol cigarettes have touched off a firestorm of debate within the African American community, and among public health groups divided about how to wean black consumers from their heavy dependence on cigarettes spiked with the minty flavoring. On Monday, the debate among African American organizations burst into the open after the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People, or NAACP ,  joined ranks with the anti-smoking group, the American Legacy Foundation , in calling for a ban on menthol as a cigarette flavoring.

A federal judge urged the U.S. government and cigarette makers Monday to renew efforts to settle the landmark racketeering case that accuses the industry of conspiring to downplay the dangers of smoking. U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler in Washington described the closed meeting as a "routine informational discussion with the parties urging them, once again, to consider the advantages of settling this case rather than the risks of litigating it."

The decision by the United States Supreme Court deregulating tobacco advertising must be seen for what it tried to do, not only for what it actually did ("Justices Say States, Cities Can't Limit Tobacco Ads," June 29). The purpose of banning the advertising of tobacco products to children was not meant to prevent speech by tobacco companies to children but to prevent sales by tobacco companies to children. Without the mechanism of advertising restraint we must turn to more traditional methods to protect our children by reducing tobacco sales to children.