Dumb Lawsuit: American Spirit Cigarettes Unhealthy Despite ‘Natural’ Claims - class action suit

[Axulus]

The company behind American Spirit cigarettes is being targeted in a class-action lawsuit.

A Florida law firm filed the suit this week against Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. and its parent company, Reynolds American Inc.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...-cigarettes-unhealthy-despite-natural-claims/

The users were already warned in every ad and pack of cigarettes. How dumb are they? Oh right, this is America where you can sue for anything negative that happens to you no matter how many times you were warned that your own actions were not safe.

Are the plaintiffs going to claim they can not be reasonably be expected to read?

 

[thebeave]

LOL. I remember when these cigs came out a few years ago. I thought it had to be some kind of joke. It just goes to show you how looney the whole organic and "all natural" food advocates have become. As much as I don't like their product, I hope American Spirit wins this case. I'm tired of seeing morons being rewarded for their own stupidity.

 

[barbos]

how are they different from ordinary cigarettes?

 

[ZiprHead]

how are they different from ordinary cigarettes?

They're a good bit more expensive than most brands.

 

[barbos]

I hate lawyers more than tobacco companies, so fuck that lawsuit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

LOL. I remember when these cigs came out a few years ago. I thought it had to be some kind of joke. It just goes to show you how looney the whole organic and "all natural" food advocates have become. As much as I don't like their product, I hope American Spirit wins this case. I'm tired of seeing morons being rewarded for their own stupidity.

Agreed, although I do think the plantiffs have something of a case here. They were trying to jump on the natural, organic bandwagon and pretend the lack of additives made it safer.

 

[bilby]

LOL. I remember when these cigs came out a few years ago. I thought it had to be some kind of joke. It just goes to show you how looney the whole organic and "all natural" food advocates have become. As much as I don't like their product, I hope American Spirit wins this case. I'm tired of seeing morons being rewarded for their own stupidity.

Agreed, although I do think the plantiffs have something of a case here. They were trying to jump on the natural, organic bandwagon and pretend the lack of additives made it safer.

In which case the plaintiffs should be going after the entire 'organics' industry. Anyone who thinks that the word 'natural' implies 'safe' is a victim of a much wider misinformation campaign than anything the tobacco industry has ever come up with.

 

[Nexus]

I don't know about long term safety, but to me the obnoxious smell from smoking is due to the chemical additives. So there is a big difference between regular and natural cigarettes in that regard.

 

[bilby]

I don't know about long term safety, but to me the obnoxious smell from smoking is due to the chemical additives. So there is a big difference between regular and natural cigarettes in that regard.

Certainly pipe tobacco and cigar smoke seems to be less acrid than cigarette smoke; but I would ascribe that to paper (which like everything else, is made of chemicals), which despite being 'added' to cigarettes, doesn't really fit the usual definition of an 'additive'.

Your post highlights the problem - there are lots of words used to sell stuff that either mean nothing at all, or mean something completely different when used by vendors than is understood by purchasers. This is a deliberate and largely successful attempt to mislead people into paying more for stuff; but by some smoke and mirrors is not able to be pursued as the fraud that it really is.

Given that cigarettes are made in a factory, I am struggling to see how there can possibly even be such a thing as a 'natural cigarette'; but clearly you think there is a distinction between 'regular' and 'natural' cigarettes that goes beyond the words printed on the packaging. Can you tell me what that difference is? What is the defining difference that separates all cigarettes into 'natural' vs 'regular'?

'Organic' doesn't mean 'Grown without the use of pesticides' - but buyers think it does.

'Natural' doesn't mean 'Completely unprocessed', nor 'healthful', nor 'safe for human consumption' - but buyers ascribe all of those meanings to the word.

'Chemical free' doesn't mean a vacuum or a superheated plasma - and in the absence of those two possibilities, I have no fucking clue what buyers think it means; but they seem to think it means 'safe', 'healthful' or 'clean'.

I'm sick of all this bullshit masquerading as information. But I doubt that this fraud will be proscribed by the courts any time soon; they stand to lose too much face, and the people who use these lies are very wealthy and powerful.

 

[abaddon]

Does anyone know if there are any additional chemicals in other cigarette brands that have toxic properties when lit and inhaled?

 

[Axulus]

LOL. I remember when these cigs came out a few years ago. I thought it had to be some kind of joke. It just goes to show you how looney the whole organic and "all natural" food advocates have become. As much as I don't like their product, I hope American Spirit wins this case. I'm tired of seeing morons being rewarded for their own stupidity.

Agreed, although I do think the plantiffs have something of a case here. They were trying to jump on the natural, organic bandwagon and pretend the lack of additives made it safer.

How did they pretend that when they had multiple warning labels on the product and adverts that it is NOT safer? I've seen their adverts before in magazines and remember seeing those accompanying warnings every time. You can't miss them.

Their advertisements typically emphasize better taste and green/eco friendly vibe and never that it is a safer alternative:

 

[bilby]

Does anyone know if any of the additional chemicals in other cigarette brands have any toxic properties when lit and inhaled?

EVERYTHING has toxic properties.

The question is, are the maximum plausible doses of any additional chemicals sufficient to reach levels where their toxicity is significant, in the context of the known toxicity of the primary ingredient - tobacco leaves.

The answer is likely to be 'no'; if you smoke enough to suffer ill effects from the additives, then you are almost certainly going to suffer severe ill effects from the tobacco.

Any stricter measure is meaningless. Tobacco itself doesn't have a constant and consistent chemical makeup.

 

[abaddon]

Does anyone know if any of the additional chemicals in other cigarette brands have any toxic properties when lit and inhaled?

EVERYTHING has toxic properties.

The question is, are the maximin plausible doses of any additional chemicals sufficient to reach levels where their toxicity is significant, in the context of the known toxicity of the primary ingredient - tobacco leaves.

The answer is likely to be 'no'; if you smoke enough to suffer ill effects from the additives, then you are almost certainly going to suffer severe ill effects from the tobacco.

Any stricter measure is meaningless. Tobacco itself doesn't have a constant and consistent chemical makeup.

And maybe it’s still likely to be ‘no’ even when you don’t split the effects of additives from the plant the way you did to make them seem totally insignificant. I was interested in the combined effect, but didn't make that clear in the question.

It looks to me that the answer is “I don’t know”.

I smoked these a few times before I quit smoking altogether. The claim of fewer chemicals had an appeal in the way that drinking 10 poisons can seem safer than drinking 20 (and quite possibly is). But they didn't satisfy the craving the way "regular" cigarettes did.

 

[bilby]

EVERYTHING has toxic properties.

The question is, are the maximin plausible doses of any additional chemicals sufficient to reach levels where their toxicity is significant, in the context of the known toxicity of the primary ingredient - tobacco leaves.

The answer is likely to be 'no'; if you smoke enough to suffer ill effects from the additives, then you are almost certainly going to suffer severe ill effects from the tobacco.

Any stricter measure is meaningless. Tobacco itself doesn't have a constant and consistent chemical makeup.

And maybe it’s still likely to be ‘no’ even when you don’t split the effects of additives from the plant the way you did to make them seem totally insignificant.

I am not trying to make anything 'seem' anything. I am saying that they ARE totally insignificant.

I was interested in the combined effect, but didn't make that clear in the question.

Do you imagine that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts? That seems very unlikely.

It looks to me that the answer is “I don’t know”.

That might be your answer. I'm less unsure than that; I don't know, but I have the background in biochemistry to make a pretty good guess.

I smoked these a few times before I quit smoking altogether. The claim of fewer chemicals had an appeal in the way that drinking 10 poisons can seem safer than drinking 20 (and quite possibly is). But they didn't satisfy the craving the way "regular" cigarettes did.

The claim is empty marketing bullshit.

Anyone who buys anything based on the claims made in the advertising or on the packaging is kidding themselves.

That goes double for claims like 'natural' or comments about 'chemical additives' (as opposed to the other kind, presumably).

Apparently there's a LOT of money in marketing crap to hippies.

 

[untermensche]

The company behind American Spirit cigarettes is being targeted in a class-action lawsuit.

A Florida law firm filed the suit this week against Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. and its parent company, Reynolds American Inc.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...-cigarettes-unhealthy-despite-natural-claims/

The users were already warned in every ad and pack of cigarettes. How dumb are they? Oh right, this is America where you can sue for anything negative that happens to you no matter how many times you were warned that your own actions were not safe.

Are the plaintiffs going to claim they can not be reasonably be expected to read?

Yes, it is sometimes possible for people to sue other people in America.

But these things are decided in the courts, not by some dictator somewhere.

There are some that don't even want the courts deciding. The big corporations harming and deceiving people.

 

[Axulus]

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...-cigarettes-unhealthy-despite-natural-claims/

The users were already warned in every ad and pack of cigarettes. How dumb are they? Oh right, this is America where you can sue for anything negative that happens to you no matter how many times you were warned that your own actions were not safe.

Are the plaintiffs going to claim they can not be reasonably be expected to read?

Yes, it is sometimes possible for people to sue other people in America.

But these things are decided in the courts, not by some dictator somewhere.

There are some that don't even want the courts deciding. The big corporations harming and deceiving people.

Are you saying that they are deceiving people when they say that the cigarette is not safer, or something else?

If people want to file a frivolous lawsuit, that is their right, but I hope the court imposes a penalty to pay for the defendant's attorney fees for filing such a bogus claim.

 

[Axulus]

Oh my, I can get rich, all these natural and organic beers, I thought they were safer for my health. At least American Spirit warned me their cigarette wasn't safer. These guys don't even have the courtesy to do that. Time to file dozens of class action lawsuits.

Or, even worse, "organic" spirits:

Can I also sue all the companies that sell "natural" and "organic" junk food for giving me high cholesterol, high blood pressure, diabetes, and/or heart disease?

 

[untermensche]

Yes, it is sometimes possible for people to sue other people in America.

But these things are decided in the courts, not by some dictator somewhere.

There are some that don't even want the courts deciding. The big corporations harming and deceiving people.

Are you saying that they are deceiving people when they say that the cigarette is not safer, or something else?

If people want to file a frivolous lawsuit, that is their right, but I hope the court imposes a penalty to pay for the defendant's attorney fees for filing such a bogus claim.

Show me where one so-called frivolous lawsuit ever made it to the courts.

How do you think the courts work?

Do you think there is no review of claims before matters are allowed to get into court?

You are nothing but a mindless shill for big business and the desire of big business to harm others without any cost to themselves.

That is what is behind all these efforts and phony arguments to try to destroy the ability of people to seek redress in the courts.

 

[Axulus]

Are you saying that they are deceiving people when they say that the cigarette is not safer, or something else?

If people want to file a frivolous lawsuit, that is their right, but I hope the court imposes a penalty to pay for the defendant's attorney fees for filing such a bogus claim.

Show me where one so-called frivolous lawsuit ever made it to the courts.

How do you think the courts work?

Do you think there is no review of claims before matters are allowed to get into court?

You are nothing but a mindless shill for big business and the desire of big business to harm others without any cost to themselves.

That is what is behind all these efforts and phony arguments to try to destroy the ability of people to seek redress in the courts.

LOL, only the most simple person could possibly think they are being led by the advertisement into thinking it is safer when it explicitly states it is NOT, I repeat, NOT, safer.

Is there no lawsuit you wouldn't support, no matter how inane?

 

[untermensche]

Show me where one so-called frivolous lawsuit ever made it to the courts.

How do you think the courts work?

Do you think there is no review of claims before matters are allowed to get into court?

You are nothing but a mindless shill for big business and the desire of big business to harm others without any cost to themselves.

That is what is behind all these efforts and phony arguments to try to destroy the ability of people to seek redress in the courts.

LOL, only the most simple person could possibly think they are being led by the advertisement into thinking it is safer when it explicitly states it is NOT, I repeat, NOT, safer.

Is there no lawsuit you wouldn't support, no matter how inane?

You do understand the purpose of modern advertising is to undermine rational markets and lead people to irrational emotional decisions?

All one has to do is watch one car commercial to understand this.

Pure emotional imagery.