The Dutch addiction treatment sector has thrown its weight behind a lawsuit alleging tobacco companies conspired to get people addicted to their products, according to a story on dutchnews.nl quoting addiction specialist Robert van de Graaf.
‘We’ve had enough,” Van de Graaf was quoted as saying. “The criminal cigarette and all the dealers need to be tackled.”
The sector has been debating throwing its weight behind the case for a year and last week’s statement of support by the biggest Dutch cancer hospital was said to have been the final push. “We need to get on with it,” Van de Graaf said. “This product is so dangerous. It is unbelievable that it is sold in supermarkets.”
The case was started by lung cancer patient Anne Marie van Veen and lawyer Bénédicte Ficq who accused the tobacco firms of alleged ‘deliberate damage to public health’ and ‘forgery of documents’.
They aim not to win damages but to force tobacco companies to behave differently.
They argue that tobacco firms cannot hide behind the freedom of choice of people to smoke because the firms are deliberately influencing smokers’ behavior.
‘To limit that freedom, addictive chemicals such as nicotine and other additives are put into cigarettes,’ they say.
‘And [the companies] overcome our natural aversion to poisons by adding substances like menthol.’
The public prosecution department is currently looking at the complaint and will decide whether or not the tobacco firms have a case to answer.
Category: Litigation
More support for lawsuit
EU in denial over snus
The uptake of snus in Norway is being credited with almost eliminating cigarette smoking among young people living there.
In a note published on its website today, the New Nicotine Alliance (NNA) said that government figures showed the incidence of smoking among women aged 16-24 was down from 30 percent in 2001 to 0.1 percent, while the incidence of smoking among young men was down from 29 percent to three percent.
The NNA said that the fall in smoking among Norway’s young people did not appear to be the result of their switching to vaping because nicotine-containing electronic-cigarettes were only now being legalised.
A more likely explanation seems to be presented by a sharp increase that has occurred in the use of snus. During 2008-14, snus use among young women grew from five percent to 14 percent.
In neighbouring Sweden, where snus is also legal, 20 percent of the population use snus and there the adult smoking rate has fallen to five percent.
Last month the European Court of Justice held a hearing on whether the EU ban on snus outside Sweden should be lifted, an action that has been supported by the NNA.
Its trustee Professor Gerry Stimson was quoted as saying that any reasonable person looking at the spectacular graph for smoking among young Norwegians would be struck by how the fall accelerated after snus became available in 2002.
“This is no fluke,” he said. “The end of smoking is in sight in Norway and Sweden as people choose far safer snus instead.
“So reasonable people will ask why the UK government decided to urge the European Court of Justice to maintain the snus ban in the rest of the EU.”
His comments were echoed by the smoking-substitutes expert Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos who said there was absolutely no doubt that access to snus in Sweden and Norway had played a crucial role in the rapid reduction of their smoking rates.Trading rights under threat
The Indian government is asking the Supreme Court to apply a rarely-used classification to the tobacco industry that would strip it of its legal right to trade, according to a Reuters story.
The move is said to be aimed at deterring tobacco companies from challenging new regulations.
But the government reportedly is not seeking to ban tobacco.
According to a Reuters review of a previously-unreported court filing by the Health Ministry on January 8, India’s top court is being asked to classify tobacco as res extra commercium, or a thing outside commerce.
If applied, the classification would have far reaching implications in denying the industry’s legal standing to trade and in giving authorities more leeway to impose restrictions.
The Supreme Court’s application of the classification to the alcohol industry during the 1970s paved the way for at least two Indian states to ban alcohol completely and provided for stricter regulations.
R. Balasubramanian, a government lawyer who is acting on behalf of the Ministry of Health in pursuing the classification implied that the effects on the tobacco industry would be greater than they were on the alcohol industry. “It will be a fillip to this drive against tobacco,” he said.
Balasubramanian said, however, that the government was not discussing banning tobacco and the goal of invoking the classification was only to curtail the industry’s legal rights.An unusual case
A court in China’s Henan Province on Tuesday overruled an appeal filed by the family of a smoker who died of a heart attack after an argument with a man who had asked him to stop smoking in a lift, according to a Xinhua Newswire story.
The Intermediate People’s Court of Zhengzhou found that the behavior of the defendant Yang Jun was lawful and was aimed at safeguarding the public interest.
The court overruled earlier findings, rejected the plaintiff’s compensation claim, and asked the plaintiff to pay litigation costs of more than 14,000 yuan (about US$2,180).
The family of the elderly smoker had claimed more than 400,000 yuan from Yang following the incident in May, alleging that the argument had played a role in triggering the heart attack.
In September, the People’s Court of Jinshui District ruled that Yang’s behavior had not led to the death of the smoker but ordered Yang to pay compensation of 15,000 yuan to the family.
The family appealed against the court’s decision to the Intermediate People’s Court of Zhengzhou City. The court heard the appeal in November but pronounced the final judgement on Tuesday.
The Xinhua Newswire story said the case had attracted nationwide attention with many people criticizing the initial ruling against Yang and welcoming the final judgement.
Although there is no national law on indoor smoking in China, a 2011 regulation banned smoking in indoor public spaces including lifts.
But as of 2016, 18 cities, including Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen, had imposed smoking bans.
“Everyone, smoker or non-smoker, has the right to ask smokers to stop smoking in public venues,” said Jiang Yuan, an officer with the Tobacco Control Office, which operates under the Chinese Center For Disease Control and Prevention.
“The final ruling is support for national tobacco control and for those who get up the courage to say no to second-hand smoke.”Snus challenge imminent
A legal challenge against the EU’s ban on snus outside Sweden is due to be heard at the European Court of Justice on January 25, according to a note posted on the website of the New Nicotine Alliance (NNA).
The case was originally brought by Swedish Match, but the NNA, which is a charitable organization concerned with improving public health through a greater understanding of new, risk-reduced nicotine products and their uses, joined the case because it concerned the health of smokers in the EU.
‘It is not about markets and commerce, but about the right to be able to choose a safer alternative to smoking,’ the NNA said in its note. ‘For the NNA this case is about whether some 320,000 premature deaths from smoking can be saved in future years, as detailed by Dr Lars Ramström in his statement to the court.’ Since 1990, Ramström has been director of the Institute for Tobacco Studies, Stockholm, Sweden, an independent research institute focusing on the epidemiology of tobacco use and related policy matters.
The NNA says that the core of its case is that the ban on snus is both disproportionate and contrary to the right to health. ‘There is no need for the ban, and the ban, if upheld, will continue to contribute to excess mortality from smoking in Europe,’ it said.
‘This is the first time that a “right to health” argument has been used to challenge a bad tobacco law: we argue that the Court needs to examine the compatibility of the Tobacco Products Directive with both the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the harm reduction obligation under the [World Tobacco Organization’s] Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.’
Last year the ECJ asked all EU states and the EU Institutions to comment on the case, and it received five responses.
On January 25, all parties to the case will be given 15 minutes or so to expand on their arguments.
After the hearing, the Advocate General assigned to the case is due to examine the arguments and evidence, and to come up with a preliminary opinion for the court.
The court is due to reach a final decision later this year.
The NNA note is at: https://nnalliance.org/blog/223-campaign-to-legalise-snus-update-on-the-ecj-case.Lung-cancer data released
Health officials in England have defended a decision to hand over data on National Health Service cancer patients to a US firm linked to tobacco companies, according to a Press Association story.
Public Health England (PHE) said that it handed over the information after the statistical analysis firm William E Wecker submitted a data request under the Freedom of Information Act.
The health body said that it was legally bound to comply. It added that patient data was anonymised.
The comments were made after the Daily Telegraph revealed that data covering 179,040 lung tumours diagnosed between 2009 and 2013 – every case in England over the four-year period – was handed over to the data firm.
In its data request, the firm said it wanted to evaluate lung cancer trends in Australia, Ireland, the UK and the US.
The Press Association said William E Wecker described on its website its association with a number of tobacco companies, including Philip Morris International. But it is linked also to other bodies such as the American Medical Association.
‘William E Wecker Associates has established a track record of creative and effective applications of statistical and mathematical analysis to questions arising in regulation and litigation, in business and government,’ the company stated on its website.
The Press Association story is at: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180115/health-fitness/health-officials-defend-handing-cancer-data-to-tobacco-linked-firm.668048Warnings case to continue
India’s Supreme Court on Monday put on hold a lower court’s order that quashed federal rules mandating larger health warnings on tobacco packages, according to a Reuters story.
The Karnataka High Court last month struck down the Cigarette and other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Amendment Rules, 2014, which had enlarged the warnings to 85 percent of the two principal faces of packages of cigarettes and other tobacco products. The rules had been in force since 2016.
The Supreme Court, which heard petitions brought forward by tobacco-control activists, stayed the Karnataka court’s order on Monday, citing the need to protect the health of citizens.
The case is due to be heard next on March 12.
The introduction in India of bigger tobacco-pack health warnings has seen a number of false starts and U-turns.
The government issued a notification on October 15, 2014, requiring the printing of graphic health warnings on tobacco packs covering 85 percent of each of the two main surfaces. But the policy was referred to a parliamentary committee that recommended in March 2016 that, instead, the warnings should be set at 50 percent.
The government, however, decided at the end of March 2016 to go ahead with its requirement for 85 percent warnings from April 1 of that year.
In response, ITC, India’s dominant cigarette manufacturer, announced on April 2 that it had halted production at its cigarette factories because it was not ready to print the bigger, graphic warnings on its cigarette packs. The company said that its factories would be shut till clarity emerged on the matter.
The country’s other manufacturers also halted production on April 1 and bidi manufacturers followed their lead sometime later.
ITC said on April 2 that because the question of the legality of the new warnings had been and continued to be pending before the courts, it had not committed to investing substantial resources in creating the large number of printing cylinders and other tools necessary for a change to the warnings. The implementation of health-warning changes was an elaborate process entailing months of preparation and involving substantial costs.Puffing along in China
In China, a passenger is suing a local railway authority for allowing passengers to smoke on trains, according to a story in the China Daily.
The Beijing Railway Transport Court held a hearing on Wednesday in respect of a case brought by a female passenger surnamed Li against the Harbin Railway Bureau (HRB).
While traveling on June 9 from Beijing to Tianjin on train K1301 operated by HRB Li noticed ‘lots of passengers’ smoking between two carriages, though the company’s ‘safety tips’ state that smoking is banned everywhere on the train.
After filing a series of complaints that generated no useful response, Li decided to sue, demanding compensation for her ticket, valued at 102.5 yuan ($13), her legal expenses, and 1 yuan as compensation for her mental suffering.
She demanded also that the HRB issue a smoking ban on train K1301, which is not a high-speed train, and on the platforms at Beijing and Tianjin stations, and the removal of smoking areas and ashtrays.
In court, the defendant argued that the case was a dispute of transportation contract in name only and was essentially a public interest lawsuit. It demanded the court dismiss Li’s request since her claim did not meet the conditions in either case.
HRB said it believed it had fulfilled its contract obligations as the passenger was transported to her destination safely. Setting up smoking areas and ashtrays was a humane management measure rather than a violation of law.
“The complete ban of smoking on regular trains that often take 30 hours to finish a journey is unrealistic,” according to an HRB agent. “Otherwise some people would smoke in the carriages, which is much more dangerous.”
What smoking bans?
A prisoner has lost his attempt to enforce the smoking ban in English and Welsh jails after the supreme court ruled that crown premises are effectively exempt from the enforcement of health regulations, according to a story in The Guardian.
The unanimous judgment from the UK’s highest court will prevent the inmate from calling the National Health Service’s smoke-free compliance line to report breaches of the ban.
Lady Hale, the president of the supreme court, said she was driven with “considerable reluctance” to conclude that when parliament passed the 2006 Health Act, prohibiting smoking in offices, bars and enclosed areas, it did not mean to extend it to government or crown sites.
Sean Humber, head of the prison law team at the law firm Leigh Day who represented the inmate, said: “Why shouldn’t those living, working or visiting government properties be subject to the same laws, and indeed benefit from the same legal protections, as the rest of us?
“This judgment has far wider implications than simply the issue of smoking in prisons. It confirms that thousands of government properties, including, for example, courts and jobcentres, are not covered by the provisions of the Health Act prohibiting smoking in enclosed places. While many of these buildings even have signs saying it is against the law to smoke in them, these turn out to be incorrect.”
The Guardian’s story is at: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/19/jails-exempt-smoking-ban-uk-supreme-court-rules.
Huge warnings struck down
A court in India on Friday struck down regulations that have required tobacco companies to cover 85 percent of their packaging with graphic health warnings, according to stories in The Hindu Online, the Times of India and Reuters.
The companies were said to have won an important but partial legal battle against the union government.
The Hindu said that the Karnataka High Court on Friday had declared as unconstitutional the Cigarette and other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Amendment Rules, 2014, which had enlarged the warnings to 85 percent of the principal area of packages of cigarettes and other tobacco products.
The court, however, had rejected the challenge made to the rules laid down in 2008.
The 2008 rules, which had required 40-percent warnings, would remain in force until the union government framed fresh rules or amended the 2008 rules.
A special division bench comprising Justice B.S. Patil and Justice B.V. Nagarathna delivered the verdict on a batch of petitions filed by the Tobacco Institute of India and tobacco manufacturers before the high courts of Karnataka, Calcutta, Delhi, Bombay, Gujarat, and Rajasthan, challenging the 2014 rules. All these petitions were transferred by India’s Supreme Court to the Karnataka High Court.
The Times report said that some public health experts felt that the court’s decision might cause harm to India’s global image.
According to Reuters, the government lawyer in the case, Krishna S. Dixit, confirmed the rules had been struck down but said he would appeal to the Supreme Court.
