(cross-posted at Deny My Freedom and Daily Kos)

For some time now, it’s been known that smoking is bad for your health. More than 4,400 kids start smoking each day. It’s been proven for some time that advertisements by tobacco companies are geared towards getting kids to start smoking. And given the long list of ailments one can contract due to prolonged exposure to cigarette smoke, whether it be primary or secondhand, one would wonder how any rational person could become hooked on a eventually fatal habit.

But it’s with a large amount of apathy that I read about today’s judgment on a lawsuit against cigarette manufacturers that essentially amounted to nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

A federal judge ruled Thursday that the nation’s top cigarette makers violated racketeering laws, deceiving the public for years about the health hazards of smoking, but said she couldn’t order them to pay the billions of dollars the government had sought.

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler did order the companies to publish in newspapers and on their Web sites “corrective statements” on the adverse health effects and addictiveness of smoking and nicotine.

She also ordered tobacco companies to stop labeling cigarettes as “low tar,” “light,” “ultra light” or “mild,” since such cigarettes have been found to be no safer than others because of how people smoke them.

Well, why don’t I care about this ruling? First of all, it’s not going to do anything to tobacco companies. They’ve shown their creativity in marketing their products to a population group that is legally not allowed to use them (teenagers); forcing them to not include phrases such as ‘low tar’ won’t do a damn thing to stop people from smoking. It’s only requires common sense to know that smoking a cigarette, no matter what kind it is, will cause you the same health problems:

Millions of Americans smoke “low-tar,” “mild,” or “light” cigarettes, believing those cigarettes to be less harmful than other cigarettes. In a new monograph from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) titled Risks Associated with Smoking Cigarettes with Low Machine-Measured Yields of Tar and Nicotine*, national scientific experts conclude that evidence does not indicate a benefit to public health from changes in cigarette design and manufacturing over the last 50 years.

“This report was made possible by the work and cooperation of scientists throughout the country,” said Scott Leischow, Ph.D., chief of the NCI Tobacco Control Research Branch. “The monograph clearly demonstrates that people who switch to low-tar or light cigarettes from regular cigarettes are likely to inhale the same amount of cancer-causing toxins and they remain at high risk for developing smoking-related cancers and other diseases.”

The fact is, though, that the main reasons for smoking have nothing to do with the health effects. It’s cool, it makes people feel like it relieves stress, peer pressure – whatever the reason, there’s been very little demonstrable effect that the labeling of cigarettes as potentially less deadly encourages more people to become comfortable to light up. One of my roommates last year is a smoker, but even if the store they visited was out of their normal cigarettes of choice, that didn’t stop them from buying something else. Today’s judgment really amounts to nothing much.

In recent times, there have been a few lawsuits that have resulted in large judgments for the plaintiffs. Most of the time, these cases rest on the basis that cigarette companies knowingly deceive consumers, particularly elderly ones who started smoking a long time ago when the health effects were not as clear.

Juries across the country have started to hold the cigarette industry responsible for their actions. In October, 2002, a Los Angeles jury issued a $28 billion punitive damages award (later reduced by a judge to $28 million) against Philip Morris (Betty Bullock v. Philip Morris). In June 2002, a Miami jury held three cigarette companies liable for $37.5 million in a tobacco lawsuit involving an ex-smoker who lost his tongue to tobacco-related oral cancer (Lukacs v. Philip Morris, et al, connected with a class action suit that is on appeal). Also in June, 2002, a U.S. District Court in Kansas awarded $15 million in punitive damages against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, calling the company’s conduct “highly blameworthy and deserving of significant punishment” (David Burton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, now on appeal before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals). In 2004, a New York jury awarded $20 million in punitive damages to the widow of a long-time smoker who died of lung cancer at the age of 57 (Gladys Frankson v. Brown and Williams Tobacco Corp. et al, Supreme Court of New York). The results in this tobacco lawsuit represent the first time that a New York jury has held a tobacco company responsible for an individual smoker’s death.

The appeals process in America is notoriously long; it’s likely that the tobacco companies can simply wage a war of attrition in monetary terms and win when the other side gets tired of the mounting legal fees. In addition, in some quarters, there’s a belief that the lawsuits are frivolous and are too costly. Furthermore, it’s difficult to say how much an eight-digit settlement will ultimately hurt companies that sell tobacco products, considering that 378 billion cigarettes were sold last year – and that was a 55-year low. In truth, trials that were supposed to begin to hold tobacco companies accountable haven’t particularly yielded much to this point beyond a burst of publicity.

What probably accounts for a decline in smoking are ads such as those run by TheTruth.com, whose eye-opening ads can do a lot to dissuade people, especially kids, from smoking. In the UK, there were some startling ads meant to shock parents into breaking the habit for the sake of their children. Education is the only realistic way to stop a decline in smoking – but oftentimes, it’s hard to see. Having traveled to Japan three times over the past decade or so, it’s been somewhat unnerving to see a population that seems to smoke more each time I go back. At my high school, plenty of students would smoke outside, in full view of security guards who often didn’t care about making them stop. I get the impression that programs such as DARE may prevent early childhood smoking, but the schooling that occurs in it only works on those who are highly impressionable. In time, the conversation will inevitably center around the core moral and ethical dilemma surrounding the sale of tobacco: should we be allowed to use a product that will cause harm to ourselves and those around us?

Anti-smoking activists argue that everyone has a basic right to freedom of expression, but only insofar as no harm comes to others as a result. When freedom of expression results in harm to others, society is morally obligated to restrict this freedom. Cigarette advertising, one form of free speech, causes grave harm. Of twelve published studies that have examined the effect of cigarette advertising, nine have shown that as cigarette ads increase, so too does smoking. And, smoking now accounts for at least 350,000 tobacco-related deaths each year. The costs of smoking to society as a whole are also staggering. According to a recent government report, cigarette smoking is responsible for an estimated $23 billion in health care costs annually and over $30 billion in lost productivity. Furthermore, cigarettes are the leading cause of residential fires and fire deaths in this nation. Society is morally obligated to ban the promotion of a product linked to so much suffering and devastation and that places such a drain on society’s resources.

[…]

Opposing restrictions on cigarette ads are those who agree that society has a right to restrict freedom of expression when the exercise of this freedom causes harm to others. But, they argue, while cigarettes themselves may be harmful, cigarette advertising is not. First, contrary to the critics’ claims, ads for cigarettes do not cause people to smoke, just as ads for soap don’t cause people to bathe. People take up smoking for a variety of reasons. For teenagers, it’s often peer pressure or imitating adults that factor in as the principal reason. In one five nation study, only 1% of the seven to fifteen-year-olds interviewed mentioned advertising as the most important reason they started smoking. At most, cigarette ads function to persuade people who already smoke to switch brands.

[…]

Deciding whether society should pass a sentence on selling smoke will require us to choose between an obligation to do all we can to prevent harm and suffering, and the value we place on freedom of expression and freedom of choice.

Where do you think the ethical boundaries should be drawn?