Husband of 2-pack-a-day smoker gets $1.9M

[Oliver]

Husband of 2-pack-a-day smoker gets $1.9M (http://us.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/13/florida.tobacco.award/index.html)

A Florida jury awarded a 92-year-old man $1.9 million in compensatory damages for the death of his wife, a former two-pack-a-day Marlboro smoker who started when she was 16 and died in her 70s, attorneys said Thursday. The jurors put the total award at $5.3 million but found that Philip Morris USA was only 36.5 percent responsible for the lung cancer that plaintiffs said killed Leon Barbanell's wife. full story (http://us.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/13/florida.tobacco.award/index.html)


Why didn't he get the 1.9 quattuordecillion he surely deserved for his wife lack of responsibility, causing her death pretty much by herself? :boggled:

Also, what's up with the claim that "Philip Morris USA was only 36.5 percent responsible for the lung cancer"? How in the world did they make up that number? :boggled:

And for the record: I'm smoking a cigarette right now, a Marlboro, to be specific. [Just in case I get some financial health-related problems Marlboro is responsible for to 30-something percent anyway]

[DC]

crazy

[Aepervius]

I am not sure for the rest of the world, but as far as I remember correctly (which is not a given) but in the US the tobacco company were hit hard with lawsuit, because for dozen of years they pretended smoking was harmless, while fully knowing it was not. Due to this , they were liable.

I can only assume in the case above somebody did some calculation on the time between when the woman starting smoking, when it was known / the lawsuit against tobacco company was, then assign 50% responsibility to her 50% to the company before the process, and 100% responsibility after the process and when it was written everywhere "tobacco will KILL you give you lung cancer". That seems to come roughly correct in the numbers ranges to come up with a 36.5%, could also be they pulled the number out of thin air.

[Puppycow]

Individuals cannot be held responsible and accountable for their choices. Only teh eevil companies can.

She died in her 70's? That's about par for the course anyway.

But just in case: I also started smoking at 16 too. (Quit 3 years ago. :D) But if I die of lung cancer anyway I want a couple million to go to my heirs too.

[MikeSun5]

:eek: That is pretty effed up. What's that old man going to do with all that loot?

I am not sure for the rest of the world, but as far as I remember correctly (which is not a given) but in the US the tobacco company were hit hard with lawsuit, because for dozen of years they pretended smoking was harmless, while fully knowing it was not. Due to this , they were liable.

I wonder if that's where the prosecutors were going... I mean the couple was really old. Maybe that's the reason for the 36.5%. Maybe Philip Morris was lying to her about cigs being harmless for only 36.5% of her smoking life.

If that's the case, I gotta call my mom and dad. They both smoke. Maybe they can get paid for being lied to for like 15% of their life.

[a_unique_person]

I think it's good. Not because the husband deserves the money, but because the cigarrette companies did specifically target children and non smokers. They need to be made accountable for the widespread damage they have done. This is only the start.

[DC]

I think it's good. Not because the husband deserves the money, but because the cigarrette companies did specifically target children and non smokers. They need to be made accountable for the widespread damage they have done. This is only the start.

but meanwhile the tabaco industrie admits its bad for your health.
so every smoker, including me, knows he is stupid.

[Pardalis]

but meanwhile the tabaco industrie admits its bad for your health.
so every smoker, including me, knows he is stupid.

But wouldn't that make you stupid too? :confused:

[DC]

But wouldn't that make you stupid too? :confused:

including me = moi inclusive = mich eingeschlossen = also me.

yes thats what i said. and you bolded it

ETA: autocritique isnt unknown to me.

[Pardalis]

Glad we agree on something.

[DC]

Glad we agree on something.

i dont think so, i ment it in regard to smoking. you propably agree on me beeing stupid in general :) but thats ok, it was what i expected.

[a_unique_person]

but meanwhile the tabaco industrie admits its bad for your health.
so every smoker, including me, knows he is stupid.

I'm talking about targetting minors, which has something the tobacco industry has actively done. Cigarettes are highly addictive, and if you get them when they are young, by the time they are adults, it's already too late.

[DC]

I'm talking about targetting minors, which has something the tobacco industry has actively done. Cigarettes are highly addictive, and if you get them when they are young, by the time they are adults, it's already too late.

ah okey, good point.

i regret that i found it cool when i was a teenager, it made me start, just to be as cool as the big guys.

[Monketey Ghost]

Non smoker here. I hate tobacco. I hate the way it smells. I hate people who smoke in restaurants, in bus shelters, wherever they damned well please. I hate them smoking on the sidewalks now that they've been kicked out of the buildings, I hate having to hold my breath for fifty feet as I walk past a long row of pathetic tobacco addicts.

That said, this award is ridiculous and people should suffer for the negative results of their own choices which they made countless times.

[DC]

i feel hated :) but can fully understand you.
i take away your right to breath smokeless air.

[Monketey Ghost]

No... I have to be honest in my hypocrisy: if everyone were smoking the rolled up plant parts that I approve, it'd be fine with me.

Some people like cucumbers better pickled.

[a_unique_person]

Non smoker here. I hate tobacco. I hate the way it smells. I hate people who smoke in restaurants, in bus shelters, wherever they damned well please. I hate them smoking on the sidewalks now that they've been kicked out of the buildings, I hate having to hold my breath for fifty feet as I walk past a long row of pathetic tobacco addicts.

That said, this award is ridiculous and people should suffer for the negative results of their own choices which they made countless times.

They were addicted, and they often started when they were minors.

[DC]

They were addicted, and they often started when they were minors.

excuses

[drkitten]

excuses

Not really. By definition, minors are not responsible for their own choices. Also by more or less by definition, the victims of a fraud or of misleading advertisement are not responsible for their own choices.

If the tobacco companies deliberately targeted minors (as they did) and deliberately presented cigarettes as safe while knowing that was a lie (as they also did), then they, not the victims, are responsible for the victims' injuries.

[Ian Osborne]

Fair or not, it's great to see the tobacco industry getting its butt kicked! :D

[DC]

Not really. By definition, minors are not responsible for their own choices. Also by more or less by definition, the victims of a fraud or of misleading advertisement are not responsible for their own choices.

If the tobacco companies deliberately targeted minors (as they did) and deliberately presented cigarettes as safe while knowing that was a lie (as they also did), then they, not the victims, are responsible for the victims' injuries.

http://www.leshop.ch/images/ProductsBig/7613600001877.JPG

No chance you dont know its deathly in Switzerland.

[Kestrel]

They were addicted, and they often started when they were minors.

And years later as adults, with the full knowledge of the hazards of smoking, they kept on smoking.

[Tumbleweed]

Odd, usually the causation has to be 50% or more. But the other foot has yet to drop. Judges ubiquitously lower damages. Why they even bother to ask the jury for a monetary amount is beyond me. Take Exxon Valdez for example----

[Tumbleweed]

And years later as adults, with the full knowledge of the hazards of smoking, they kept on smoking.
And here I thought that was what addiction was all about: you go on doing things that are bad for you. My mistake!

[Tumbleweed]

So can adult child who has health problems sue his chain smoking parents for his exposure to second hand smoke? Both in the home and in the womb?

[Information Analyst]

Non smoker here. I hate tobacco. I hate the way it smells. I hate people who smoke in restaurants, in bus shelters, wherever they damned well please. I hate them smoking on the sidewalks now that they've been kicked out of the buildings, I hate having to hold my breath for fifty feet as I walk past a long row of pathetic tobacco addicts.
The ban on smoking in most enclosed public spaces in the UK has been good in some ways, but in many respects has just displaced smokers to the open air. Restaurants, pubs and bars are infinitely nicer places to be in, but the absence of the haze of tobacco smoke in some nightclubs (at least, the ones I frequent!) do make you realise how much it was masking. Most have had to contrive semi-external smoking areas of varying effectiveness, where I occasionally join my smoking friends. Luckily, I never learnt how to inhale, but do enjoy the occasional cigar in those circumstances.

[JihadJane]

Very good. Let's screw all the rest of the corporate, death-dealing criminals for all they're worth.

[Kestrel]

And here I thought that was what addiction was all about: you go on doing things that are bad for you. My mistake!

Smokers are addicted to nicotine, not to smoking. They can satisfy this addiction in other ways, such as chewing nicotine gum, that don't have the horrible health consequences of smoking cigarettes.

[drkitten]

And years later as adults, with the full knowledge of the hazards of smoking, they kept on smoking.

Because they were addicted and therefore not capable of stopping. And, of course, the cigarette companies knew the product they were peddling was highly addictive and didn't bother to mention THAT either or provide any mitigation, which makes them responsible for the addiction.

[drkitten]

No chance you dont know its deathly in Switzerland.

No chance you don't know it is deadly now. How long have those labels been there? (In the USA, only since 1965, which means people in 1964 didn't necessarily know.)

[Ernie M]

:eek: That is pretty effed up. What's that old man going to do with all that loot?


He could buy cleaning supplies to remove the tar and nicotine from the walls and ceiling of where they lived. Maybe buy some paint, or hire some painters to freshen up the place.

He could buy the book, Ashes to Ashes: America's Hundred-Year Cigarette War, the Public Health, and the Unabashed Triumph of Philip Morris. Then he can read about the health hazards and so many other issues- he should have been aware of long ago.

[DC]

No chance you don't know it is deadly now. How long have those labels been there? (In the USA, only since 1965, which means people in 1964 didn't necessarily know.)

only since 1965?
we only have em a couple of years. mmhh

[slingblade]

Smokers are addicted to nicotine, not to smoking.

I don't find that to be my case.

[Scootch]

Smokers are addicted to nicotine, not to smoking. They can satisfy this addiction in other ways, such as chewing nicotine gum, that don't have the horrible health consequences of smoking cigarettes.

It was that kind of logic that got me to quit smoking. I had reasoned that I would quit smoking but not give up nicotine. I used the patch and after 4 weeks I was able to quit the patch.
So if you want to quit smoking, just get your nitotine another way (and dont put a time frame on it, just continue to take it until you can no longer feel any benefit from it and then quit that). Also carry a cigarette with you as something to hold or put in your mouth, that also helps with the cravings.

This worked for me and I was a two pack a day smoker for 15 years.

[Oliver]

only since 1965?
we only have em a couple of years. mmhh


Excellent, I'm going to call my lawyer right now. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451d93669e73a.gif

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

I feel kind of bad for folks who started smoking back when the tobacco companies covered up damaging information, but in this day and age, what fool can claim they had no awareness of the negative effects of smoking? Why would you ever start that crap? I don't care if you're thirteen, I knew better than to start when I was a child. It has got to be the stupidest habit I can imagine- paying for the privilege of ruining your health. It's a farce.

[Pardalis]

Very good. Let's screw all the rest of the corporate, death-dealing criminals for all they're worth.

Your comments always come through like if someone had farted in an assembly. You can slightly hear it, it's kind of annoying, but otherwise the discussion continues as if nothing happened.

[LostAngeles]

Odds are, lung disease from smoking will be what claims my mother. I refuse to support her habit. I will not find her lighter or her cigarettes for her, I will not let her smoke in my house, and unlike my sister, I will not bring her home cartons of cigarettes.

She's quit quitting and has opted to accept her impending lung disease from this.

I wouldn't sue over it. She was 8 when the labels went on. She was capable of quitting while carrying me. She's fully responsible for this and knows it.

[a_unique_person]

And years later as adults, with the full knowledge of the hazards of smoking, they kept on smoking.

I just said they were addicted. The word addicted has a meaning.

[skeptical]

A couple of points. First, I realize this may sound like a ridiculous verdict at first blush, but one has to keep in mind that this woman started smoking when she was 16. It says she died "in her 70's", but doesn't specify what year she died. Assuming she died a few years ago, let's say in 2005 and she died when she was exactly 70 years old, that means she started smoking in 2005 - 54 = 1951.

Now, warning labels did not start appearing on cigarettes in the US until 1966, between 1996-1970 the warning simply said "cigarettes may be hazardous to your health", that's about as lame a warning as you can get. Even from 1970 to 1985 the label simply said "the surgeon general has determined that cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health", which is better but still very unspecific. The phrase "dangerous to your health" does not give any indication of the scope of the danger. Not until 1985 were there specific warnings as the exact nature of the danger.

In addition to this, for decades prior to the warnings, tobacco companies knew their products were dangerous, knew they were addictive and continuously covered it up. They even portrayed smoking as part of a healthy lifestyle.

So, even assuming the warnings beginning in 1966 were effective, that would mean she smoked for 15 years under a false impression of the safety of cigarettes FOSTERED by the manufacturer who knew they were dangerous. If you take the POV that the 1966-1970 warnings were not effective (and I don't think they were), then for at least 20 years she smoked without adequate warning. You could go further and argue that not until 1985 did the warnings truly become effective, which would make the total time 35 years.

My guess is that the jury decided that the warnings beginning in 1970 were effective, so she smoked for 54 years total, out of which 20 the tobacco companies were responsible, so that gives 54/20 = 37% (their actual figure was 36.5, so maybe I'm a little off on the year she died)

The weird thing is that the article says the $1.9M was _compensatory_ damages, which seems really high. Normally when you see an award this high a lot of it is punitive damages because that is based entirely on the profits the company made during their wrongful actions and not actual damages inflicted. Of course, the article might be wrong on that count.

In any case, I think you can argue that the award is too high strictly for compensatory damages, but I don't see how it can be argued that from at least 1951 to 1966 the tobacco company is liable for promoting a product as safe all the while knowing it was not. The same rules apply to any company, If a car company sold a car for 15 years and promoted it as safe all the while knowing it was severely defective, I think any reasonable person would conclude that someone damaged in that car should be compensated.

[applecorped]

Because they were addicted and therefore not capable of stopping.

People don't quit smoking?

[a_unique_person]

People don't quit smoking?

People do, with varying degrees of difficulty. Some people never manage it, some do after several attempts, a few just give it up. Hence the term 'addiction'. Get them young when they are impressionable, then they become addicted.

[applecorped]

People do, with varying degrees of difficulty. Some people never manage it, some do after several attempts, a few just give it up. Hence the term 'addiction'. Get them young when they are impressionable, then they become addicted.

I didn't start until I was in my 30's - can I still sue?

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

I didn't start until I was in my 30's - can I still sue?


How absurd to start smoking at such an age. I cannot understand such a thing. Unless you're joking.

[applecorped]

How absurd to start smoking at such an age. I cannot understand such a thing. Unless you're joking.

Well, I also quit in my thirties but I must be able to at least partially sue someone for something, no? (hack, cough):o

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Sue the popular kids who made smoking look cool.

[a_unique_person]

I didn't start until I was in my 30's - can I still sue?

Why are you asking me?

[applecorped]

Why are you asking me?

Aren't you a lawyer?

[MikeSun5]

I've seen a few posts here that imply that cigarette companies could/should be sued because minors get addicted and minors can't be held accountable for their actions. That won't stand up in court. You have to be 18 to buy tobacco products. Therefore, tobacco companies aren't responsible for supplying those underage children who smoke. You'd have better luck suing your older brother or a group of old friends.

The next implication I saw was that the companies could be sued because their advertisements are geared towards children. This also won't stand up in court. Esurance's advertisements are all cartoons, and kids can't buy insurance. They could just say they're appealing to an adult's "youth" or "inner child."

The stuff that tobacco companies do is despicable, but not illegal.

[Ian Osborne]

My guess is that the jury decided that the warnings beginning in 1970 were effective, so she smoked for 54 years total, out of which 20 the tobacco companies were responsible, so that gives 54/20 = 37% (their actual figure was 36.5, so maybe I'm a little off on the year she died)

Excellent work - well done! :D

If a car company sold a car for 15 years and promoted it as safe all the while knowing it was severely defective, I think any reasonable person would conclude that someone damaged in that car should be compensated.

Quite. I'd go a step further than that, and ask how any company can sell with impunity a product that will shorten the life of a third of its users. Can you imagine a car company getting away with that one?

[Oliver]

Quite. I'd go a step further than that, and ask how any company can sell with impunity a product that will shorten the life of a third of its users. Can you imagine a car company getting away with that one?


Cars can be deadly as well, yet there aren't big warning symbols or notices on cars. I suppose that means that car companies are responsible to at least 100% whenever there is a car accident. Also: Inhaling the exhaust fumes can cause lung cancer and death as well, so from now on I will drive like hell and inhale exhaust fumes on a daily basis and whenever something happens to me, I or my relatives sue the car companies for a trillion bucks due to the lack of huge warning notices on front lids, trunks and doors since I couldn't possible be responsible to 100% due to my addiction to cars. :)

[Ian Osborne]

Car accidents are caused by the incorrect use of the product. And unless we completely change the way the world works, you just can't get away from road transport. No one needs to smoke.

[JihadJane]

The stuff that tobacco companies do is despicable, but not illegal.

That's simply a reflection of which drug the lawmakers used.

[drkitten]

I've seen a few posts here that imply that cigarette companies could/should be sued because minors get addicted and minors can't be held accountable for their actions. That won't stand up in court. You have to be 18 to buy tobacco products.

Actually, given that they deliberately targeted people who are under 18 in their advertisement campaigns, it not only will stand up in court, but it did. The fact that they were deliberately enticing minors to break the law (which, legally speaking is a crime) actually turned out to be one of those points that blew up in their face at the trial a number of years back.

The next implication I saw was that the companies could be sued because their advertisements are geared towards children. This also won't stand up in court.

Again, not only "will," but "did."

Esurance's advertisements are all cartoons, and kids can't buy insurance. They could just say they're appealing to an adult's "youth" or "inner child."

They could,.... but if the discovery process reveals that they're deliberately targeting the under-16 demographic, then if Esurance says that, they're provably commi9tting perjury. Which, again, is not a good way to win a case. Judges don't like it when the defendant gets on the stand and tells a deliberate and provable lie.

[skeptical]

Cars can be deadly as well, yet there aren't big warning symbols or notices on cars. I suppose that means that car companies are responsible to at least 100% whenever there is a car accident. Also: Inhaling the exhaust fumes can cause lung cancer and death as well, so from now on I will drive like hell and inhale exhaust fumes on a daily basis and whenever something happens to me, I or my relatives sue the car companies for a trillion bucks due to the lack of huge warning notices on front lids, trunks and doors since I couldn't possible be responsible to 100% due to my addiction to cars. :)

I can only assume this post is meant to be joke. The comparison is not remotely analogous. A valid analogy would be that a car company claims that a given car has air bags, anti-lock brakes and power steering, when in reality the car has no air bags, inherently shoddy brakes and steering that it knows goes out above 30 mph. The car company knows this and yet advertises the car as safe and fun to drive.

Are you seriously suggesting that a car company should not be at fault if you buy such a vehicle under the impression it is safe and you are injured in it when the steering goes out going 50 mph, your brakes fail and the non-existent air bags don't deploy?

[skeptical]

I didn't start until I was in my 30's - can I still sue?

Probably not because when you purchased the product it clearly labeled all the known risks. If you had started prior to 1966, then probably yes. (assuming you live in the US)

Of course, the strict answer is that you can _always_ sue assuming you can find a lawyer who can come up with some creative complaint, which you almost always can. The question is can you survive a motion for failure to state a claim, which you probably would not.

[MikeSun5]

Actually, given that they deliberately targeted people who are under 18 in their advertisement campaigns, it not only will stand up in court, but it did. The fact that they were deliberately enticing minors to break the law (which, legally speaking is a crime) actually turned out to be one of those points that blew up in their face at the trial a number of years back.

I was looking it up, and I think you're talking about the 1998 tobacco settlement. I'm no lawyer, but it seems like there must have been some other factors because that doesn't make much sense to me. In most states, it's not illegal for an underage kid to smoke tobacco, it's only illegal for them to purchase it. The people selling it to them are commiting a more serious crime... I guess since the tobacco companies were the ones actually supplying the tobacco, they were the easiest to blame.
Anyway, flavoring tobacco with oranges or whatever doesn't seem like a super effective ad campaign for a kid, IMO. Even flavored tobacco tastes gross. Kids know that. ;)

[Puppycow]

If the tobacco companies deliberately targeted minors (as they did)

What is the evidence for this?

[a_unique_person]

What is the evidence for this?

The Camel was a dead giveaway. Also in Australia, just before cigarette ads were to be banned on TV, the young teenage girl market was very small. They blitzed the TV with ads aimed at teenage girls. The result was a massive increase in smoking rating in that target.

[MikeSun5]

This thread reminded me of some old vintage cigarette ads (http://listverse.com/2009/06/27/top-10-unbelievable-vintage-cigarette-posters/). Knowing what we know now about tobacco, most of these are hilarious.

My favorite is Ronald Reagan sending smokes to all his friends for Christmas. :D

[Puppycow]

The Camel was a dead giveaway. Also in Australia, just before cigarette ads were to be banned on TV, the young teenage girl market was very small. They blitzed the TV with ads aimed at teenage girls. The result was a massive increase in smoking rating in that target.

Joe Camel? That's it? How can you prove that it was deliberately aimed at minors? And what specific law was violated? The law, AFAIK, was against selling the product to minors, not against adverts that might appeal to minors as well as young adults.

BTW, I started smoking at age 16 and quit at age 35, so it isn't impossible to quit. I bought my first pack from a vending machine. Later I also purchased from some mom & pop retailers. I don't think I ever bought directly from a tobacco company.

[MikeSun5]

Joe Camel? That's it? How can you prove that it was deliberately aimed at minors?

I'm playing the devil's advocate here, but Camel has been pretty shady with their advertisements in the past. "Joe Camel" may not be aimed directly at kids, but G.I. Joe sure as hell was (http://www.medicalassistants.info/img/thumb/CigGIJoe.jpg).

[a_unique_person]

Joe Camel? That's it? How can you prove that it was deliberately aimed at minors? And what specific law was violated? The law, AFAIK, was against selling the product to minors, not against adverts that might appeal to minors as well as young adults.

BTW, I started smoking at age 16 and quit at age 35, so it isn't impossible to quit. I bought my first pack from a vending machine. Later I also purchased from some mom & pop retailers. I don't think I ever bought directly from a tobacco company.

I think you just answered your own question. :confused:

http://www.oncolink.com/resources/article.cfm?c=3&s=8&ss=23&id=1568



"We found that cigarette brands popular among youth are still preferentially advertised in magazines with high levels of youth readership," Dr. Siegel said. "Despite what tobacco companies would like people to believe, we find strong evidence that the companies are still specifically targeting kids in magazine advertising."

Advertising expenditures of youth brands in youth-oriented magazines increased by 3.7% between 1995 and 1998 and by 15.2% in 1999. In 2000, expenditures declined to a level slightly higher than the level before the Master Settlement Agreement, the researchers found.

In addition, when Drs. Siegel and King looked at the percent of children exposed to cigarette advertising in magazines, they found no changes since the Master Settlement Agreement. "The average percent of kids exposed to magazine ads for the youth cigarette brands in 1998 was 85% and in 2000 the average was 82%," Dr. Siegel said.

[Kestrel]

I think you just answered your own question. :confused:

http://www.oncolink.com/resources/article.cfm?c=3&s=8&ss=23&id=1568

What the article failed to mention is that the brands popular with young smokers are the same brands (http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k3/cigbrands/cigbrands.htm) smoked most often by older smokers.

Among past month smokers, Marlboro was the brand used most often in the past month by youths aged 12 to 17 (55 percent), young adults aged 18 to 25 (54 percent), and older adults aged 26 or older (38 percent) (Figure 2). Older adults aged 26 or older reported a greater diversity of brand preference compared with youths and young adults. Among past month smokers, the 5 brands used most often by youths and young adults accounted for 91 percent of youth smokers and 89 percent of young adult smokers, whereas the 5 brands used most among smokers aged 26 or older accounted for only 62 percent of smokers in this age group.

This makes a lot of sense if you realize that the attraction of smoking is primarily social. Young people start smoking because the other members of their peer group smoke. If your friends smoke Marlboros, you start with the same brand.

[a_unique_person]

The comparative lack of tobacco regulation in many countries and government willingness to embrace tobacco growing and manufacturing in return for substantial financial inducements makes these markets ripe for industry exploitation and there is every sign that this is occurring.10 (http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/ch10references) Investment by the international tobacco companies in foreign markets is typically associated with increased per capita consumption, particularly in low and middle income countries.350-352 (http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/ch10references) Coupled with this is the doubtless heartening news for the industry that in many countries smoking prevalence among young teenage girls is catching up with that of boys, that use of cigarettes and other tobacco products is widespread among children, and that many children are contemplating taking up smoking.353 (http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/ch10references) In countries where few women smoke, the female market is being aggressively targeted and the prevalence of female smoking is rising.354 (http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/ch10references) And as BATA itself points out, even if 'smaller percentages of populations will smoke ... the number of adults in the world over the age of 20 is forecast to grow by 11% by 2015.'19 (http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/ch10references)


http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-10-tobacco-industry/10-24-the-future-of-the-tobacco-industry