Tobacco politics

{{Short description|Politics surrounding the use and distribution of tobacco}}{{globalize|date=February 2015}} [[File:Tabakslobby.jpg|thumb|Gift offered by tobacco industry lobbyists to Dutch politician Kartika Liotard in 2013]] {{Tobacco}}

'''Tobacco politics''' refers to the politics surrounding the use and distribution of tobacco, likewise with regulations.

In the United States, from the 1950s until the 1990s, tobacco industries wielded great influence in shaping public opinion on the health risks of tobacco.<ref name="M.-2007">{{Cite book |title=The cigarette century: the rise, fall, and deadly persistence of the product that defined America |last=Brandt |first=Allan M. |date=2007 |publisher=Basic Books |isbn=9780465070473 |location=New York |oclc=71275531 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/cigarettecentury00bran }}</ref><ref name="Siddhartha.-2010">{{Cite book |last=Siddhartha |first=Mukherjee |date=2010 |title=The emperor of all maladies: a biography of cancer |publisher=Scribner |isbn=978-1439181713 |edition=1st Scribner hardcover |location=New York |oclc=464593321 }}</ref><ref name="Brandt-2012">{{cite journal |last=Brandt |first=Allan M. |title=Inventing Conflicts of Interest: A History of Tobacco Industry Tactics |journal=American Journal of Public Health |date=January 2012 |volume=102 |issue=1 |pages=63–71 |doi=10.2105/AJPH.2011.300292 |pmid=22095331 |pmc=3490543 }}</ref> Despite the efforts of public health advocates, scientists, and those affected by smoking, both Congress and courts favored the tobacco industry in policy and litigation.<ref name="Siddhartha.-2010" /> It was not until the 1990s that public health advocates had more success in litigating against tobacco industries, including the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement between major tobacco companies and 46 state attorneys general. Although public opinion in the United States on tobacco use is generally unfavorable, many large tobacco companies continue to find success internationally,<ref name="M.-2007" /><ref name="Siddhartha.-2010" /> and tobacco companies have expanded into other product categories, such as electronic cigarettes, as traditional tobacco use declines.

{{As of|2018|post=,}} 169 states have signed the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which governs international tobacco control.<ref name="Roemer-2005">{{cite journal |last1=Roemer |first1=Ruth |last2=Taylor |first2=Allyn |last3=Lariviere |first3=Jean |title=Origins of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control |journal=American Journal of Public Health |date=June 2005 |volume=95 |issue=6 |pages=936–938 |doi=10.2105/AJPH.2003.025908 |pmid=15914812 |pmc=1449287 }}</ref><ref name="World Health Organization">{{Cite web |url=https://www.who.int/fctc/signatories_parties/en/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090113054050/http://www.who.int/fctc/signatories_parties/en/|url-status=dead |archive-date=January 13, 2009 |title=Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control |website=WHO.int |publisher=World Health Organization |access-date=2018-04-06}}</ref> However, many nations have had difficulty complying with the FCTC, with higher rates of smoking especially in developing nations.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/health-25635121|title=Smokers edge close to one billion |last=Roberts |first=Michelle |date=2014 |work=BBC News |access-date=2018-04-18 }}</ref><ref name="Fidler">{{Cite news |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/02/has-a-global-tobacco-treaty-made-a-difference/386399/ |title=Has a Global Tobacco Treaty Made a Difference?|last2=Fidler |first1=Thomas |last1=Bollyky |first2=David |work=The Atlantic |access-date=2018-04-06 }}</ref> There are currently almost 1.3 billion smokers globally.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Tobacco |url=https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco |website=WHO.int |publisher=World Health Organization |access-date=2024-08-20 }}</ref>

== Tobacco control regulations == {{Main|Tobacco control}}

===Taxation=== {{Main|Tobacco taxation}} {{See also|Cigarette taxes in the United States}}

Tobacco has been taxed by state governments in the United States for decades.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK236771/|title=TOBACCO TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES|last1=Youths|last2=Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Preventing Nicotine Addiction in Children and Youths|date=1994|publisher=National Academies Press (US) }}</ref> The cumulative revenue of US tobacco taxation exceeded $32 billion in 2010, establishing a major revenue stream for government.<ref>{{cite SSRN |author=Gary Lucas Jr |date=October 10, 2011 |ssrn=1942068 |title=Saving Smokers from Themselves: The Paternalistic Use of Cigarette Taxes}}</ref> That said, revenue from US tobacco taxation peaked in 2010 at $17.2 billion, and has steadily decreased every year since then with revenue in 2023 at $11.6 billion.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Tax revenue from tobacco U.S. 2028 |url=https://www.statista.com/statistics/248964/revenues-from-tobacco-tax-and-forecast-in-the-us/ |access-date=2024-08-20 |website=Statista }}</ref>

The US Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act of 1978, a law that makes cigarette smuggling a felony punishable by up to 5 years in federal prison, is a means to prosecute smugglers who avoid paying duties on cigarettes. The Stop Tobacco Smuggling in the Territories Act of 2013 (H.R. 338; 113th Congress), proposed during the 113th United States Congress, would have updated the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act to include American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam, which were previously not extended to by the law. Although the bill was successfully passed in the House of Representatives, after much debate and discussion, it ultimately failed to gain approval in the Senate. This failure could have been due to a variety of factors, such as opposition from senators with differing political views, concerns over specific provisions within the bill, or procedural hurdles that prevented it from moving forward. As a result, despite its initial success in the House, the bill was unable to proceed through the full legislative process and become law.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr338 |title=Stop Tobacco Smuggling in the Territories Act of 2013 (2013 - H.R. 338) |website=GovTrack.us |access-date=2018-03-10 }}</ref>

===Cigarette advertising=== {{See also|Nicotine marketing|Regulation of nicotine marketing}} [[File:Ballet Star Kathryn Lee advertises Camel cigarettes, 1948.jpg|thumb|1948 advertisement for Camel cigarettes]]

In numerous parts of the world, tobacco advertising and sponsorship of sporting events is prohibited. The ban upon tobacco advertising and sponsorship in the European Union (EU) in 2005 prompted Formula One management to look for venues that permit display of the livery of tobacco sponsors, and led to some of the races on the calendar being cancelled in favor of more 'tobacco-friendly' markets. {{As of|2007|post=,}} only one Formula One team, Scuderia Ferrari, received sponsorship from a tobacco company; Marlboro branding appeared on its cars in three races (Bahrain, Monaco, and China), all in countries lacking restrictions on tobacco advertising. Since 2018 Philip Morris International (PMI) and British American Tobacco (BAT) have circumvented the EU ban by using corporate mission statements and associated branding to link their ‘potentially reduced risk’ products to Formula One (F1) and Grand Prix motorcycle (MotoGP) racing teams.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Motorsport Sponsorship |url=https://tobaccotactics.org/article/motorsport-sponsorship/ |access-date=2024-08-20 |website=Tobacco Tactics }}</ref> In 2022, PMI and BAT spent an estimated $40 million sponsoring the Ferrari and McLaren teams.<ref>{{Cite web |title=F1, Netflix and Cigarette Company Advertising |url=https://exposetobacco.org/campaigns/driving-addiction/ |access-date=2024-08-20 |website=STOP }}</ref> Advertising billboards for tobacco remain used in Germany, whilst the majority of EU member states have outlawed them.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Germany: Tobacco Control Policies |url=https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/legislation/policy-fact-sheets/germany/summary |website=TobaccoControlLaws.org |access-date=2024-08-20 }}</ref>

MotoGP team Ducati Marlboro received sponsorship from Marlboro, its branding appeared at the race in Qatar and China. On July 1, 2009, Ireland prohibited the advertising and display of tobacco products in all retail outlets.

==Lobby== Major tobacco lobbying companies include Altria Group (the parent company of Philip Morris USA), Philip Morris International, and Reynolds American.<ref name="OpenSecrets">{{Cite web |url=http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=A02 |title=Tobacco |website=OpenSecrets.org |access-date=2018-04-17 }}</ref>

=== 20th century === [[File:Austin Bradford Hill.jpg|thumb|upright|A. Bradford Hill, alongside Richard Doll, published several studies demonstrating a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer.]]

In the early 1950s, numerous studies demonstrated a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer.<ref name="M.-2007"/><ref name="Siddhartha.-2010"/><ref name="Brandt-2012"/> Worried that these studies would negatively impact tobacco consumption, tobacco companies met together and hired the public relations firm Hill & Knowlton.<ref name="Brandt-2012" /> In 1954, tobacco companies published a joint press release called "A Frank Statement", which cast doubt on studies linking smoking and cancer and called for more research.<ref name="Siddhartha.-2010" /> In addition, these tobacco industries formed the Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC), which challenged the science of smoking's relation to cancer.<ref name="Siddhartha.-2010" /><ref name="Brandt-2012" /> TIRC's first director was Clarence Cook Little, whose background in genetic science gave TIRC the appearance of scientific credibility.<ref name="Siddhartha.-2010" /><ref name="Brandt-2012" /> Other scientists who were skeptical of the causal link between smoking and cancer also joined the Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) of TIRC, although many amongst these scientists expressed concern over TIRC's strong denial of the link between the two.<ref name="Brandt-2012" />

In 1964, the Surgeon General released a report confirming the causal link between smoking and cancer.<ref name="M.-2007" /><ref name="Siddhartha.-2010" /> Tobacco industries formed the Tobacco Institute, a trade association that acted as a lobby for tobacco industries in Congress.<ref name="Brandt-2012" /> This lobbying was generally successful, as the tobacco industry was well-funded and Southern states relied on tobacco revenues.<ref name="Siddhartha.-2010" /><ref name="Brandt-2012" /> For example, after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) mandated health warning labels on cigarette packaging, tobacco companies successfully requested Congressional regulation in place of FTC regulation.<ref name="Siddhartha.-2010" /> The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA) of 1965 originally required cigarette warning labels to include a warning of cancer, but this was removed from the final bill.<ref name="M.-2007" /><ref name="Siddhartha.-2010" />

Although tobacco companies had considerable influence throughout the twentieth century, anti-tobacco advocates also had some success. In 1967, anti-tobacco advocates successfully argued that the fairness doctrine of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mandated time for anti-smoking advertisements equal to time allotted for smoking advertisements.<ref name="Siddhartha.-2010" /> In 1998, amidst growing evidence against tobacco companies, especially after the release of several industry documents, and growing public attitudes against smoking, states and tobacco companies entered a Master Settlement Agreement.<ref name="Siddhartha.-2010" /> This settlement included payments to states, restrictions on advertisements, and free access to internal industry research, although some have criticized the settlement for shielding the industry from future lawsuits, granting a monopoly to the largest tobacco companies, creating "client states" dependent on settlement payments, and shifting the cost of cigarettes to individual smokers rather than companies.<ref name="Siddhartha.-2010" /> In addition, tobacco companies have expanded their operations abroad, arguably undermining the impact of the settlement.<ref name="Siddhartha.-2010" />

=== 21st century === Tobacco companies continue to have a large role in politics, albeit not as extensively as during the twentieth century.<ref name="OpenSecrets" /> In 1990, the contributions of tobacco lobbies totaled over $70 million.<ref name="OpenSecrets" /> In 2017, tobacco lobbies paid $21.8 million.<ref name="OpenSecrets" /> Tobacco companies tend to donate more to Republican candidates, contributing over $50 million since 1990 to Republicans, including former Vice President Mike Pence.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/13/tobacco-industry-trump-administration-ties|title=Tobacco companies tighten hold on Washington under Trump|last=Glenza|first=Jessica|date=2017-07-13|website=The Guardian |access-date=2018-04-11}}</ref> Although multiple proposals for relaxed electronic cigarette regulation, such as the Cole-Bishop Amendment in the 2017 omnibus bill and FDA Deeming Authority Clarification Act of 2017, have emerged, none have passed yet.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/big-tobacco-in-2017-full-steam-ahead_us_590a3e36e4b05279d4edc24b |title=Big Tobacco in 2017: Full Steam Ahead |date=2017-05-03 |website=HuffPost |access-date=2018-04-11 }}</ref> In 2006, courts ordered tobacco companies to run anti-smoking advertisements, but tobacco companies delayed this order through multiple appeals until 2017.<ref name="Hellmann-2017">{{Cite news |url=https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/361379-big-tobacco-to-air-prime-time-ads-warning-that-smoking-kills-following/|title=Big Tobacco to air anti-smoking ads after decadelong fight |last=Hellmann |first=Jessie |date=2017-11-21 |work=The Hill |access-date=2018-04-18 }}</ref> {{As of|2017|post=,}} tobacco companies must now run advertisements detailing the negative health impacts of smoking for a year.<ref name="Hellmann-2017" /> In a measure to curb the use of E-cigarettes among youth, the U.S. FDA banned the promotion and sale of flavored vaping products in January 2020.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Siegel |first1=Michael |last2=Katchmar |first2=Amanda |date=2022-12-01 |title=Effect of flavored E-cigarette bans in the United States: What does the evidence show? |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743522001116 |journal=Preventive Medicine |series=Behavior Change, Health, and Health Disparities 2022: Innovations in Tobacco Control and Regulatory Science to Decrease Cigarette Smoking |volume=165 |article-number=107063 |doi=10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107063 |pmid=35452711 |issn=0091-7435|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

In 2017, Philip Morris International established the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World and fully funds it (to the tune of $80 million per year over twelve years) to endorse new tobacco industry products.<ref>{{Cite web |title=WHO Statement on Philip Morris funded Foundation for a Smoke-Free World |url=https://www.who.int/news/item/28-09-2017-who-statement-on-philip-morris-funded-foundation-for-a-smoke-free-world |website=WHO.int |publisher=World Health Organization |access-date=2024-10-08 }}</ref>

==Litigation== Lawsuits have been filed against varying tobacco manufacturers, attempting to hold them to account for wrongful death, injury, or medical expenses related to cigarette smoking and other tobacco use. Cases have been brought both by individual plaintiffs and by government officials, including the U.S. States Attorney General. Punitive damages for the plaintiff have often been awarded as a result of a successful litigation. However, the vast majority of court decisions have been in favour of the defendant tobacco companies.<ref>{{cite journal |first1=Stephen E. |last1=Smith |title='Counterblastes' to Tobacco: Five Decades of North American Tobacco Litigation |journal=Windsor Review of Legal and Social Issues |volume=14 |date=November 2002 |pages=1–32 }}</ref>

===History=== The history of tobacco litigation in the United States can be divided into three waves: (1) from 1954 to 1973, (2) from 1983 to 1992, and (3) from 1994 until today.<ref name="Douglas-2006">{{cite journal |last1=Douglas |first1=C.E. |last2=Davis |first2=R.M. |last3=Beasley |first3=J.K. |title=Epidemiology of the third wave of tobacco litigation in the United States, 1994-2005 |journal=Tobacco Control |date=1 December 2006 |volume=15 |issue=suppl_4 |pages=iv9–iv16 |doi=10.1136/tc.2006.016725 |pmid=17130629 |pmc=2563581 }}</ref> During the first two waves, tobacco companies had enormous success, winning all but one of their cases, with the only case they lost, ''Cipollone v. Liggett'', being reversed.<ref name="Douglas-2006" /><ref name="Public Health Law Center">{{Cite web |url=http://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/tobacco-control/tobacco-control-litigation |title=Tobacco Control Litigation |website=Public Health Law Center |access-date=2018-03-10}}</ref>

During the first wave, a growing abundance of evidence linked tobacco to death and disease.<ref name="Douglas-2006" /> Individual smokers filed lawsuits against the tobacco industry, claiming negligence in manufacturing and advertising, breach of warranty, and product liability.<ref name="Public Health Law Center"/> However, the tobacco industry responded by challenging the science of smoking causing disease and claiming that smokers assumed any risks.<ref name="Public Health Law Center" />

During the second wave, plaintiffs charged tobacco companies with failure to warn about the addiction and disease risk of cigarettes and strict liability.<ref name="Public Health Law Center" /> The tobacco companies argued that people assumed the risks of smoking and that federal laws preempted state laws, in which the lawsuits were filed.<ref name="Public Health Law Center" /> In addition, the tobacco industry poured a massive amount of money into these cases, trying to overwhelm plaintiffs with legal costs.<ref name="Douglas-2006" /> An internal memorandum by an attorney for the RJ Reynolds tobacco company described their strategy as, "To paraphrase General Patton, the way we won these cases was not by spending all of our money, but by making that other son of a bitch spend all [of] his."<ref name="Douglas-2006" />

The third wave of tobacco litigation was much more successful for plaintiffs, with plaintiffs winning 41% of cases between 1995 and 2005.<ref name="Douglas-2006" /> It also saw a greater number and variety of lawsuits overall.<ref name="Douglas-2006" /> State attorneys general charged the tobacco industry with using misleading marketing, targeting children, and concealing the health effects of smoking.<ref name="Public Health Law Center" /> These cases resulted in settlements across all fifty states in the United States.<ref name="Public Health Law Center" />

Recently, there has been mixed success for plaintiffs in tobacco litigation. In Florida, a large class action lawsuit was rejected because the court argued that each case must be proven.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civil/us-supreme-court-sides-against-big-tobacco-in-florida-litigation/2183646/ |title=U.S. Supreme Court sides against Big Tobacco in Florida litigation |last=Nohlgren |first=Stephen |date=2014-06-09 |access-date=2018-03-10 }}</ref> As a result, thousands of individual lawsuits were filed against tobacco companies, but many of these verdicts are now on appeal.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/in-the-u-s-one-state-is-ground-zero-for-tobacco-suits/ |title=In the U.S., one state is ground zero for tobacco suits |last=Berr |first=Jonathan |date=2015-09-21 |work=CBS News |access-date=2018-03-10 }}</ref> Smokers have also challenged light cigarettes, alleging that tobacco companies falsely advertise light cigarettes as healthier. Tobacco companies argue that 'light' refers to the taste, not the filters, and also used preemption arguments.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sweda |first1=Edward |last2=Gottlieb |first2=Mark |last3=Banthin |first3=Christopher N. |date=2007-11-01 |title=Light Cigarette Lawsuits in the United States: 2007 |journal=William Mitchell College of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series |volume=88 |doi=10.2139/ssrn.1082919 |ssrn=1082919 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Although the Supreme Court ruled in ''Altria Group, Inc. v. Good'' (2008) that federal law does not preempt certain state consumer protection laws, no courts have ruled on these laws being violated.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/07-562 |title=Altria Group, Inc. v. Good |website=Oyez |access-date=2018-03-10 }}</ref>

===Significant cases=== * 1992: In Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. the US Supreme Court held that the Surgeon General's warning did not preclude suit by smokers against tobacco companies on several claims, and that the federal laws on tobacco regulation aren't worded to override state laws. * 1995: The Supreme Court of Canada in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) upheld the constitutionality of the federal ''Tobacco Products Control Act'', but struck out the provisions which prevented tobacco advertising and unattributed health warnings. * March 2001: The US Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court's ruling that the Food and Drug Administration could not classify tobacco as a pharmaceutical, so it could not control its production through the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. (''FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.'') * June 2002: A District Court in Kansas awarded $15 million in punitive damages against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco after calling the company's conduct "highly blameworthy and deserving of significant punishment." (''David Burton vs. R.J. Reynold's Tobacco'') * June 2002: A Miami jury held three cigarette companies liable for $37.5 million in a lawsuit involving an ex–smoker who lost his tongue to tobacco–related oral cancer. (''Lukacs vs. Philip Morris'')<ref>{{Cite web |last=Parker |first=Charlotte |title=Dying smoker awarded $37.5 million |url=https://oralcancernews.org/wp/dying-smoker-awarded-375-million/ |access-date=2024-10-08 |website=Oral Cancer News |date=12 June 2002 }}</ref> * October 2002: A Los Angeles jury issued $28 billion in punitive damages against Philip Morris. This was later reduced to $28 million. (''Betty Bullock vs. Philip Morris'')<ref>{{Cite web |title=Bullock v. Philip Morris, 138 Cal.App.4th 1029 {{!}} Casetext Search + Citator |url=https://casetext.com/case/bullock-v-philip-morris-1 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220609151926/https://casetext.com/case/bullock-v-philip-morris-1 |url-status=dead |archive-date=June 9, 2022 |access-date=2024-10-08 |website=casetext.com}}</ref> * 2003: A Madison County, Illinois jury awarded $10.1 billion against the tobacco company Philips Morris for deceptive cigarette advertising in a class action led by attorney Stephen Tillery (Price v. Philip Morris).<ref>[http://www.marketwatch.com/story/korein-tillery-will-retry-light-cigarettes-case-against-philip-morris-after-st-louis-jury-falls-1-vote-short-of-plaintiffs-verdict-2011-10-25 Korein Tillery will retry light cigarettes case against Philip Morris], Market Watch, October 25, 2011</ref> * 2004: A New York jury issued $20 million to the wife of a long-term smoker who died of lung cancer at the age of 57. This was the first time that a New York court had held a tobacco company liable for an individual smoker's death. (''Gladys Frankson vs. Brown and Williams Tobacco Corp'')<ref>{{Cite web |title=Frankson v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2004/2004-50605.html |access-date=2024-10-08 |website=Justia Law }}</ref> * 2005: In Imperial Tobacco v. British Columbia, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the provincial Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, which allowed the government to sue tobacco companies, was constitutionally valid. * 2007: Philip Morris USA v. Williams led the US Supreme Court to tell the Oregon Court of Appeals to reconsider its earlier judgment and lower the case's punitive damages amount in light of State Farm v. Campbell. The appeals court ultimately upheld their original damages. * 2008: The Altria Group v. Good US Supreme Court case said that state law is not preempted by a federal law regarding cigarette advertisement regulations.

===Grounds of claims=== {{Expand section|date=December 2008}}

; Civil Rights: Tobacco companies have marketed menthol cigarettes specific to African Americans; groups have pursued civil rights remedies in court.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Jain |first1=S. S. L. |title='Come Up to the Kool Taste': African American Upward Mobility and the Semiotics of Smoking Menthols |journal=Public Culture |date=1 April 2003 |volume=15 |issue=2 |pages= 295–322 |id={{Project MUSE|42968}} |doi=10.1215/08992363-15-2-295 |s2cid=143833038 }}</ref> ; Design defects: Claims of design defects allege that tobacco companies designed tobacco products with additional adverse health risks. Examples of design defects include cigarettes that increase addiction risks and deliberately choosing not to develop less harmful cigarettes.<ref name="Cummings-2006">{{cite journal |last1=Cummings |first1=K M. |last2=Brown |first2=A. |last3=Douglas |first3=C. E |title=Consumer acceptable risk: how cigarette companies have responded to accusations that their products are defective |journal=Tobacco Control |date=1 December 2006 |volume=15 |issue=suppl_4 |pages=iv84–iv89 |doi=10.1136/tc.2004.009837 |pmid=17130628 |pmc=2563578 }}</ref> : In response, tobacco companies have argued that they have not intentionally made cigarettes more dangerous, but instead carefully and thoughtfully design the least hazardous tobacco product for smokers.<ref name="Cummings-2006"/> ; Strict liability: Under a theory of strict liability, a tobacco company is responsible for any damages or injuries resulting from the use of cigarettes, even if there is no showing of negligence.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Louis |first1=David |title=Strict Liability Upon Gunowners (SLUG): A Proposed Balanced Approach |journal=St. Mary's Law Journal |date=1 April 2020 |volume=51 |issue=2 |pages=479–516 |url=https://commons.stmarytx.edu/thestmaryslawjournal/vol51/iss2/6/ }}</ref> ; Product liability: The liability of any or all parties along the chain of manufacture, distribution, and sale of any product for damage or injury caused by that product.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/products_liability|title=Products liability|author=LII Staff|date=2007-08-06|website=LII / Legal Information Institute |access-date=2018-04-21}}</ref> ; Depriving of health hazards information: Lawsuits against tobacco companies have asserted that tobacco companies mislead the public on the risks of smoking, environmental smoke, and nicotine addiction.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/tobacco-control/tobacco-control-litigation/united-states-v-philip-morris-doj-lawsuit|title=United States v. Philip Morris (D.O.J. Lawsuit) |website=Public Health Law Center |access-date=2018-03-01}}</ref>

===Defenses=== {{Expand section|date=December 2008}}

; ''Volenti non fit injuria'': ''Volenti non fit injuria'', or "to a willing person, no injury is done", is a common law doctrine which states, when applied to these cases, that there is no damage to someone who willingly places themselves in a position where they are negatively affected by tobacco consumption. ; Contributory negligence: Contributory negligence is a common law defense to a claim based on negligence, where, before the cases, the adverse effects were unknown. This has been one of the commonly used defences. Most of them will assert that it was the plaintiff himself who has contributed to his own injury as he had prior knowledge of the harm associated with tobacco smoking.

'''Tobacco advertising fails to influence non-smokers'''

: In 2006, tobacco companies argued that tobacco advertisements were intended for smokers choosing between brands of tobacco products.<ref name="Goldberg-2006">{{cite journal |last1=Goldberg |first1=M. E |last2=Davis |first2=R. M |last3=O'Keefe |first3=A. M. |title=The role of tobacco advertising and promotion: themes employed in litigation by tobacco industry witnesses |journal=Tobacco Control |date=1 December 2006 |volume=15 |issue=suppl_4 |pages=iv54–iv67 |doi=10.1136/tc.2006.017947 |pmid=17130625 |pmc=2563582 }}</ref> Moreover, advertising has a limited effect on influencing smoking behavior.<ref name="Goldberg-2006" /> Therefore, tobacco advertisements do not play a role in driving non-smokers to smoke.<ref name="Goldberg-2006" />

'''Epidemiology cannot show causation'''

:Tobacco companies have claimed that epidemiological evidence cannot show direct causation in individuals.<ref name="Friedman-2007">{{cite journal |last1=Friedman |first1=L |last2=Daynard |first2=R |title=Scottish court dismisses a historic smoker's suit |journal=Tobacco Control |date=1 October 2007 |volume=16 |issue=5 |pages=e4 |doi=10.1136/tc.2007.020768 |pmid=17897973 |pmc=2598549 }}</ref> This reasoning was used in the 2005 ''McTear v. Imperial Tobacco Limited'' case in Scotland, arguing that the plaintiffs could not reasonably prove that the plaintiffs’ smoking caused lung cancer.<ref name="Friedman-2007" /> In addition, tobacco companies challenge the way epidemiological evidence is collected.<ref name="Friedman-2007" />

== Litigation outside of the United States ==

=== Introduction === {{As of|2000|post=,}} litigation also continued in several countries outside the United States. Citing third-party reimbursement, several countries, such as Bolivia, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, have filed lawsuits both in the United States and in their own courts against tobacco industries.<ref name="Daynard-2000">{{cite journal |last1=Daynard |first1=R.A. |last2=Bates |first2=C. |last3=Francey |first3=N. |title=Tobacco Litigation Worldwide |journal=BMJ |date=8 January 2000 |volume=320 |issue=7227 |pages=111–113 |doi=10.1136/bmj.320.7227.111 |pmid=10625272 |pmc=1117367 }}</ref> {{As of|2000|post=,}} individual suits have also been filed in a multitude of countries, including Argentina, Finland, France, Japan, Ireland, Israel, Norway, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey.<ref name="Daynard-2000" />

The US signed the FCTC on May 10, 2004, albeit never ratified the treaty.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Legislation by Country/Jurisdiction |url=https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/legislation/united-states/summary |website=TobaccoControlLaws.org |access-date=2024-08-27 }}</ref>

=== WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control === The World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), adopted in 2003, represents an important landmark in international tobacco control governance. It was formalized on February 27, 2005,<ref name="Roemer-2005" /> and {{as of|2009|lc=y|post=,}} 169 states have signed the treaty.<ref name="World Health Organization" /> The United States is one of seven countries that have signed but not ratified the FCTC.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.fctc.org/about-fca/tobacco-control-treaty/latest-ratifications/parties-ratifications-accessions |title=Parties (ratifications & accessions) |last=Tune |first=Trina |website=www.fctc.org |access-date=2018-04-06 }}</ref> The FCTC encourages states to reduce tobacco production and use through measures like cigarette taxes, restrictions on advertising, clean air controls, plain packaging and tobacco smuggling legislation.<ref name="Roemer-2005" />

Before 1998, the concept of an international tobacco control treaty received little enthusiasm.<ref name="Roemer-2005" /> However, in 1998, Gro Harlem Brundtland became director general of the WHO, creating momentum for the FCTC.<ref name="Roemer-2005" /><ref name="Fidler" /> Organizations and events within the United States also played a key role in the creation and adoption of the FCTC globally. The American Public Health Association helped support the development of the FCTC, while the wave of successful tobacco litigation helped generate interest in tobacco control.<ref name="Roemer-2005" /><ref name="Fidler" /> However, the FCTC lacks mandates on transboundary tobacco issues.<ref name="Fidler" /> As a result, implementation of the treaty fell short, despite widespread ratification.<ref name="Fidler" /> In response, organizations such as Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation increased their philanthropic contributions to the WHO, creating MPOWER tobacco control, which focuses on implementation of FCTC.<ref name="Fidler" />

=== Australia === In Australia, tobacco companies have faced several lawsuits, although not to the scale of litigation in the United States.<ref name="Daynard-2000" /><ref name="www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au">{{Cite web |url=http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-16-litigation/16-1-personal-injury-claims-against-the-tobacco-in |title=Personal injury claims against the tobacco industry - Tobacco In Australia |website=www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au |access-date=2018-03-01 }}</ref> In 1991, the Federal Court found advertisements denying environmental smoke to be misleading.<ref name="Daynard-2000" /> In the 1999 case ''Nixon v. Philip Morris (Australia) Ltd'', plaintiffs claimed tobacco companies misled them on the risks of smoking, although the Courts ruled the case could not continue as representative proceedings (similar to class action lawsuits in the United States).<ref name="Daynard-2000" /><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/litigation/decisions/au-20000313-philip-morris-australia-ltd--o |title=Philip Morris (Australia) Ltd & Ors v. Nixon & Ors - Tobacco Control Laws |website=TobaccoControlLaws.org |access-date=2018-03-01 }}</ref> Personal injury cases are less common in Australia, as unsuccessful plaintiffs must pay the legal fees of the defendant, less profit incentives exist for Australian lawyers, and momentum from successful tobacco litigation has not been generated.<ref name="www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au" />

''McCabe v British American Tobacco'' (2002) was the first personal injury case outside the United States to win a verdict against a tobacco company.<ref name="www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au-2">{{Cite web |url=http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-16-litigation/attachment-16-1-mccabe |title=McCabe v British American Tobacco and its aftermath |website=www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au |access-date=2018-03-01 }}</ref> The plaintiff, Rolah McCabe, who was diagnosed with lung cancer, claimed British American Tobacco Australia misled her in estimating the risk for smoking cigarettes.<ref name="www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au-2" /> The verdict was later overturned, although McCabe died before the court proceedings finished.<ref name="www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au-2" /> This case has been influential in litigation and legislation concerning document destruction, as British American Tobacco destroyed several documents in this case.<ref name="www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au-2" />

In 2005, a court-enforceable settlement between the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and Philip Morris (Australia) Limited, British American Tobacco Limited, and Imperial Tobacco Australia Limited, was reached.<ref name="www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au-3">{{Cite web |url=http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-16-litigation/16-2-other-litigation-involving-the-tobacco-indust |title=Other litigation involving the tobacco industry - Tobacco In Australia |website=www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au |access-date=2018-03-01}}</ref> The companies agreed to stop describing cigarettes as ''light'' and ''mild'' and provide $9 million for corrective advertising, in exchange for the ACCC to no longer pursue certain legal action against the companies.<ref name="www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au-3" /> Afterwards, the companies started to describe cigarettes with terms such as ''rich'', ''classic'', ''smooth'', ''fine'', ''ultimate'', ''refined'', and ''chilled''.<ref name="www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au-3" />

Tobacco companies have not been the only defendants in tobacco litigation. In cases regarding environmental smoke, the defendants are often the owners or managers of locations where environmental smoke occurs.<ref name="www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au-4">{{Cite web|url=http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-16-litigation/16-3-litigation-relating-to-injury-from-exposure-t|title=Litigation relating to injury from exposure to second-hand smoke - Tobacco In Australia|website=www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au |access-date=2018-03-01}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-16-litigation/attachment-16-2-australian-cases|title=Australian cases on exposure to secondhand smoke in which compensation has been paid, 1986 to 2006|website=www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au |access-date=2018-03-01}}</ref> In ''Meeuwissen v Hilton Hotels of Australia Pty Ltd'' (1997), the plaintiff argued environmental smoke in a nightclub constituted unlawful discrimination based on disability, and was awarded $AU2000 in compensation.<ref name="Daynard-2000" /> Aside from disability discrimination, environmental smoke lawsuits have also cited common law negligence, occupational health and safety law, and occupiers’ law.<ref name="www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au-4" /> The result of such litigation has been increased bans on smoking in the workplace and certain public places.<ref name="www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au-4" />

Tobacco companies have also initiated litigation domestically and internationally, claiming government measures against tobacco have infringed on their commercial rights.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-16-litigation/16-4-legal-cases-initiated-by-tobacco-industry|title=Legal cases initiated by tobacco industry|website=www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au |access-date=2018-03-01}}</ref> In 2011, the Australian government introduced plain packaging legislation.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/06/australia-plain-packaging-cigarettes|title=Australia plans plain packaging for cigarettes|agency=Associated Press|date=2011-07-06|website=The Guardian |access-date=2018-03-01}}</ref> Philip Morris Asia Limited challenged this directive under a bilateral trade agreement with Hong Kong, but did not succeed.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/18/australia-wins-international-legal-battle-with-philip-morris-over-plain-packaging|title=Australia wins international legal battle with Philip Morris over plain packaging|last=Hurst|first=Daniel|date=2015-12-18|website=The Guardian |access-date=2018-03-01}}</ref> Cuba, Honduras, the Dominican Republic and Indonesia also filed a World Trade Organization complaint, but the WTO upheld the plain packaging law in 2017.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wto-tobacco-australia/australia-wins-landmark-wto-tobacco-packaging-case-bloomberg-idUSKBN1801S9|title=Australia wins landmark WTO tobacco packaging case - Bloomberg|date=2017-05-05|work=Reuters|access-date=2018-03-01}}</ref>

Some magazines have not yet ended tobacco advertising within their issues, largely because it remains unprohibited on a legal basis, likewise with promotions as well as free public distribution, mounting concern amongst organisations as a result.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Jurisdictions |url=https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/legislation/compare-countries?policy=advertising-promotion-sponsorship&countries=australia |website=TobaccoControlLaws.org |access-date=2024-08-23 }}</ref>

===Austria=== Austria subscribed to the WHO anti-tobacco convention on December 14, 2005.

===Bhutan=== The Tobacco Control Act of Bhutan 2010 prohibits the cultivation, manufacture, sale, and distribution of tobacco products within Bhutan<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/legislation/country/bhutan/summary |title=Tobacco Control Laws Bhutan |website=TobaccoControlLaws.org |access-date= }}</ref>

===Brazil=== In Brazil, tobacco litigation focuses on three main areas: compensation claims brought by the State, industry challenges to ANVISA regulations, and lawsuits for damages filed by consumers and the Public Prosecutor's Office.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Lazzarini |first1=Andrea |url=https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/inca/acoes_indenizatorias_contra_industria_tabaco.pdf |title=Ações Indenizatórias Contra a Indústria do Tabaco: Estudo de Casos e Jurisprudência |last2=Grou |first2=Karina Bozola |date=June 2011 |publisher=ACT Promoção da Saúde |language=pt }}</ref>

On May 21, 2019, the Attorney General of the Union filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court of Rio Grande do Sul requesting that manufacturers reimburse the SUS (Brazilian Public Health System) for expenses related to illnesses attributable to smoking.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2019-05-21 |title=AGU cobra de indústrias de cigarro ressarcimento de gasto com fumantes |url=https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/justica/noticia/2019-05/agu-cobra-de-industrias-de-cigarro-ressarcimento-de-gasto-com-fumantes |access-date=2026-04-06 |website=Agência Brasil |language=pt-br }}</ref> The industry also filed several lawsuits challenging ANVISA's regulatory acts, notably ''RDC No. 14/2012'', which restricted additives and established technical parameters for tobacco derivatives. A direct action of unconstitutionality (ADI 4874) prompted a preliminary injunction granted by minister Rosa Weber in 2013 and was the subject of a judgment in the Supreme Federal Court, which ruled the action inadmissible.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Liminar suspende artigos de resolução da Anvisa que proíbem aditivos em cigarros |url=https://noticias.stf.jus.br/postsnoticias/liminar-suspende-artigos-de-resolucao-da-anvisa-que-proibem-aditivos-em-cigarros/ |access-date=2026-04-06 |website=Noticias.Stf.Jus.br |language=pt }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=February 1, 2018 |title=STF conclui julgamento de ação contra norma da Anvisa que proíbe cigarros com aroma e sabor |url=https://portal.stf.jus.br/noticias/verNoticiaDetalhe.asp?idConteudo=368410 |work=Portal.Stf.Jus.br |language=pt }}</ref>

Retail sale of e-cigarettes and e-cigarette refills is prohibited. Tobacco products are not prohibited.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Brazil Legal Summary |url=https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/legislation/brazil/summary |website=TobaccoControlLaws.org |access-date=2026-04-06 }}</ref>

=== Canada === Canada proposed a plan for their three biggest tobacco companies to pay out $32.5 billion to Canadian provinces, territories, and smokers. {{As of|2024|10|post=,}} this plan has not been approved yet. If approved, the deal would see the three firms — Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., JTI-Macdonald Corp. and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges — pay: $24.7 billion to the provinces and territories; $6.6 billion to individuals who experienced defined smoking-related diseases or their survivors; and $1 billion to a new national foundation for research into cancer and other smoking-related diseases.<ref name="Canada's Influence on Tobacco Politics">{{cite web |last=Crawley |first=Mike |title=How the proposed deal between provinces, smokers and tobacco companies would work |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/tobacco-compensation-payment-canada-provinces-smokers-1.7356282 |website=CBC News |publisher=CBC Radio-Canada |access-date=27 October 2024 |ref=78}}</ref>

=== China === Although China faces many tobacco-related health problems, with over 1.2 million tobacco-related deaths per year, the government has had a limited response.<ref name="Li-2012">{{Cite news|url=https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-political-mapping-of-chinas-tobacco-industry-and-anti-smoking-campaign/|title=The Political Mapping of China's Tobacco Industry and Anti-Smoking Campaign|last=Li|first=Cheng|date=2012-10-25|work=Brookings|access-date=2018-03-10 }}</ref> The tobacco industry provides 7 to 10 percent of tax revenue for the government, while also providing many jobs in agriculture, sales, and other businesses.<ref name="Li-2012" /> In addition, the government considers anti-smoking measures as potentially destabilizing, given the resentment and unrest it could cause.<ref name="Li-2012" />

The tobacco industry and some bureaucratic institutions oppose anti-smoking measures. In China, the tobacco industry is heavily monopolized.<ref name="Li-2012" /> The largest firm is China National Tobacco Corporation (CNTC), which is also the world's largest tobacco firm and makes up about 32 percent of the global market.<ref name="Li-2012" /> The CNTC is described as a “de facto industrial and business agency” as it is also run by the national regulatory agency, the State Tobacco Monopoly Administration (STMA).<ref name="Li-2012" /> Some have criticized the STMA/CNTC for the overlap between government and business (''zhengqi bu fen'').<ref name="Li-2012" />

Some regional governments also oppose tobacco control policies. For example, in Yunnan Province, tobacco is the largest industry, with tobacco taxes supplying one half of its local government revenue.<ref name="Li-2012" /> Other provinces like Guizhou, Henan, and Sichuan, also rely heavily on revenue from tobacco production.<ref name="Li-2012" />

The Chinese government has implemented some tobacco control measures. Through the 1980s and 1990s, the national government and local governments implemented various bans on smoking in public places.<ref name="Li-2012" /> In 2005, the PRC ratified the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).<ref name="Li-2012" /> In 2009, the government raised the tobacco consumption tax, although this did not reduce smoking, as the government required wholesale and retail prices to remain the same.<ref name="Li-2012" /> In 2011, the National People's Congress (NPC) passed the 12th Five-Year Plan, which included a call to completely ban smoking in public places.<ref name="Li-2012" /> However, many of these laws have been weakly enforced.<ref name="Li-2012" />

===India=== Regular cigarettes and other tobacco products are not prohibited. E-cigarettes are prohibited.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/legislation/country/india/summary |title=Tobacco Control Laws: India |website=TobaccoControlLaws.org |access-date= }}</ref> However, smoking is completely banned in many public places and workplaces such as healthcare, educational, and government facilities, and on public transport. <ref>{{Cite web |title=India |url=https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/legislation/india |website=TobaccoControlLaws.org |access-date=2024-10-03 }}</ref> However, public health advocates have been pushing for stricter regulations to curb tobacco use, citing the economic burden of tobacco-related diseases on the healthcare system. India is a signatory to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), which mandates strong anti-tobacco measures, including bans on advertising, higher taxes, and warning labels.

=== Japan === After the Meiji Restoration in the nineteenth century, Japan began taxing tobacco.<ref name="MacKenzie-2017">{{cite journal |last1=MacKenzie |first1=Ross |last2=Eckhardt |first2=Jappe |last3=Widyati Prastyani |first3=Ade |title=Japan Tobacco International: To 'be the most successful and respected tobacco company in the world' |journal=Global Public Health |date=4 March 2017 |volume=12 |issue=3 |pages=281–299 |doi=10.1080/17441692.2016.1273368 |pmid=28139966 |pmc=5553429 }}</ref><ref name="The Japan Times-2017">{{cite news |title=The poverty of politics and tobacco policy |url=https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/04/23/commentary/japan-commentary/poverty-politics-tobacco-policy/ |work=The Japan Times |date=23 April 2017 }}</ref> Historically, tobacco revenue has been used to fund military endeavors.<ref name="MacKenzie-2017" /><ref name="The Japan Times-2017" /> In the late nineteenth century, following the deficits from the Sino-Japanese War and in preparation for the Russo-Japanese War, the government imposed a monopoly over tobacco production.<ref name="MacKenzie-2017" /><ref name="The Japan Times-2017" /> In 1985, this monopoly was privatized into what is now Japan Tobacco (JT), although the government still exhibits great influence over and benefits from tobacco tax revenue.<ref name="MacKenzie-2017" /><ref name="The Japan Times-2017" /> In 1999, Japan Tobacco created its international branch, Japan Tobacco International (JTI).<ref name="MacKenzie-2017" /> JTI is now the world's third largest transnational tobacco corporation (TTC).<ref name="MacKenzie-2017" />

In 2014, the Tokyo High Court ruled that there was no definitive scientific evidence that passive smoking causes cancer, although the evidence they were presented was discredited outside of Japan.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Iida |first1=Kaori |last2=Proctor |first2=Robert N |title='The industry must be inconspicuous': Japan Tobacco's corruption of science and health policy via the Smoking Research Foundation |journal=Tobacco Control |date=July 2018 |volume=27 |issue=e1 |pages=e3–e11 |doi=10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-053971 |pmid=29437992 |pmc=6073917 }}</ref>

In 2017, in preparation for the 2020 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games hosted in Tokyo, the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry called to ban smoking in public facilities.<ref name="The Japan Times-2017" /> Japan has some of the least stringent tobacco control measures in the world.<ref>{{cite news |title=Japan to restrict heated tobacco use but give up on indoor smoking ban ahead of 2020 Tokyo Olympics |url=https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/01/30/national/science-health/japan-restrict-heated-tobacco-use-give-indoor-smoking-ban-ahead-2020-tokyo-olympics/ |work=The Japan Times |date=30 January 2018 }}</ref> The food service industry, which includes public premises like restaurants and bars, strongly opposed this measure.<ref name="The Japan Times-2017" /> In 2018, the plan for a total smoking ban was revised to include certain exceptions, such as separate rooms for smokers in restaurants, in exempting "small-scale" establishments.<ref>{{cite news |title=Smoking ban plan diluted again |url=https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2018/02/10/editorials/smoking-ban-plan-diluted/ |work=The Japan Times |date=10 February 2018 }}</ref>

Nicotine-containing e-cigarettes are only permitted as medicinal products, and no e-cigarettes have been approved. Regular cigarettes and other tobacco products are not prohibited.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/legislation/country/japan/summary |title=Tobacco Control Laws: Japan |website=TobaccoControlLaws.org |access-date= }}</ref>

===Netherlands=== The Lidl supermarket chain in the Netherlands stopped selling cigarettes in 2021.<ref>{{cite news |last= |first= |date=2018-05-31 |url=https://nltimes.nl/2018/05/31/lidl-nederland-first-supermarket-stop-selling-cigarettes |title=Lidl Nederland stops selling cigarettes |work=NlTimes.nl }}</ref>

=== Portugal === Law No. 37/2007 established the legal basis for advertising bans, labeling rules, and measures to protect against exposure to smoke.<ref>{{Cite web |date=August 14, 2007 |title=Lei n.º 37/2007, de 14 de agosto |url=https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/lei/37-2007-636938 |website=DiariodarePublica.pt |language=pt }}</ref> The Directorate-General of Health coordinates the ''National Program for the Prevention and Control of Tobacco Use'' and publishes technical guidelines that support regulatory actions and cessation policies.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://dspace.uevora.pt/rdpc/bitstream/10174/9623/1/PNPCT_2012_2016.pdf |title=Programa Nacional para a Prevenção e Controlo do Tabagismo |publisher=Directorate-General of Health |year=2012 |language=pt }}</ref>

In 2017, the Supreme Court of Justice ruled that the Competition Authority should launch an investigation to look into allegations of abuse of dominant position by Tabaqueira, raised by wholesalers.<ref>{{Cite web |last= |first= |date=2017-03-07 |title=Supremo condena AdC a instaurar inquérito contra Tabaqueira por abuso de posição dominante |url=https://www.rtp.pt/noticias/economia/supremo-condena-adc-a-instaurar-inquerito-contra-tabaqueira-por-abuso-de-posicao-dominante_n987230 |trans-title= |access-date=2026-04-06 |website=RTP |language=pt }}</ref> Wholesalers (represented by industry associations) challenged decisions by the Competition Authority that authorized concentration operations in the tobacco market — the administrative court annulled at least one of these authorizations, forcing the repetition of acts or allowing the parties to seek judicial redress.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Alves |first=Maria Teixeira |date=2025-02-17 |title=Tribunal da Concorrência anula decisão da AdC sobre mercado de tabacos |url=https://jornaleconomico.sapo.pt/noticias/tribunal-da-concorrencia-anula-decisao-da-adc-sobre-mercado-de-tabacos/ |access-date=2026-04-06 |website=Jornal Económico |language=pt }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |url=https://www.concorrencia.pt/sites/default/files/processos/ccent/AdC-CCENT_2017_26_Decisao_VNC-final-net_2023.pdf |title=DECISÃO DE NÃO OPOSIÇÃO DA AUTORIDADE DA CONCORRÊNCIA: Processo Ccent. 26/2017 – Midsid / Ativos 3D |date=September 6, 2023 |publisher=Autoridade da Concorrência |language=pt }}</ref>

News reports from 2025 indicate that Tabaqueira may be ordered to pay millions of euros to shopkeepers, following the recognition, in higher court rulings, of practices that may constitute abuse of dominant position; this legal process includes requests for the standardization of jurisprudence and potential lawsuits for damages.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Tabaqueira arrisca pagar milhões em indemnizações a grossistas |url=https://www.jornaldenegocios.pt/empresas/comercio/detalhe/tabaqueira-arrisca-pagar-milhoes-em-indemnizacoes-a-grossistas |access-date=2026-04-06 |website=www.jornaldenegocios.pt |language=pt }}</ref>

===Russia=== In Russia, smoking is very prevalent, with tobacco industries wielding great influence in Russian politics.<ref name="Lunze-2013">{{cite journal |last1=Lunze |first1=Karsten |last2=Migliorini |first2=Luigi |title=Tobacco control in the Russian Federation- a policy analysis |journal=BMC Public Health |date=December 2013 |volume=13 |issue=1 |pages=64 |doi=10.1186/1471-2458-13-64 |pmid=23339756 |pmc=3732080 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Several Russian Duma members have also worked within the tobacco industry.<ref name="Lunze-2013" /> After a protest caused by cigarette shortages in 1990, transnational tobacco companies began to invest in the Russian tobacco market, particularly in production.<ref name="Lunze-2013" /> This growth in industry has been accompanied by an increase in smoking, and Russia has the highest rates of smoking in Europe.<ref name="Lunze-2013" />

Although the Russian government has attempted to implement tobacco prevention and control programs, most of these have had limited success. In the mid-1990s, the Federal Ministry of Health recommended several tobacco control measures, but failed to provide funding for their enactment.<ref name="Lunze-2013" /> In 1999, the Duma introduced national tobacco control legislation.<ref name="Lunze-2013" /> However, this legislation was substantially watered down after measures like limitations on advertisement were removed.<ref name="Lunze-2013" /> In 2006, the Duma passed limited tobacco advertising regulations, which still allowed for small warnings on cigarette packs without graphics.<ref name="Lunze-2013" /> In 2010, Prime Minister Putin approved the "Concept of the Government Policy on Combating Tobacco Use for 2010–2015".<ref name="Lunze-2013" /> Although the concept set forth several goals and concrete policy suggestions, such as complete bans on all tobacco advertising, it was not legally binding.<ref name="Lunze-2013" /> When the Ministry of Health and Social Development (MoHSD) proposed tobacco legislation based on the concept, the bill was suspended within two days.<ref name="Lunze-2013" /> Although many Russian representatives helped develop the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), Russia was one of the last countries to sign the FCTC.<ref name="Lunze-2013" />

In 2017, the Ministry of Health proposed a cigarette ban that would apply to all born after 2014, although some have expressed concern that a ban would result in a cigarette black market.<ref>{{Cite magazine|url=https://time.com/4631213/russia-ban-cigarettes-born-2014/|title=Russia Might Ban Cigarettes for Everyone Born After 2014|last=Close|first=Kerry|date=2017-01-11|magazine=Time |access-date=2018-03-10}}</ref>

===Seychelles=== While tobacco products are not prohibited, there are some restrictions that exist on the manufacture, importation, and sale of tobacco products, including packaging and labeling requirements. The use of e-cigarettes has also been legal since 2019.<ref>[https://medium.com/@josephmagero/e-cigarette-ban-lifted-in-seychelles-b2a5fd87e69b E-cigarette ban lifted in Seychelles]</ref> <ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/legislation/country/seychelles/summary |title=Tobacco Control Laws: Seychelles |website=TobaccoControlLaws.org |access-date= }}</ref>

===Singapore=== While tobacco products are not prohibited, some restrictions exist on the sale of tobacco products, and E-cigarettes are prohibited. <ref name="tobaccocontrollaws.com singapore">{{cite web |url=https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/legislation/country/singapore/summary |title=Tobacco Control Laws: Singapore |website=TobaccoControlLaws.org |access-date= }}</ref>

===Slovenia=== The ranking of Slovenia in the Tobacco Control Scale moved from the 28th position in 2016 to the 8th in 2019. It is one of the 13 EU member states that in 2012 approved a smoking ban in private cars in the presence of minors. The remaining countries are: Ireland, UK, France, Finland, Italy, Malta, Cyprus, Lithuania, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Austria, Greece and Belgium.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.tobaccocontrolscale.org/TCS2019.pdf |title=The 2019 Tobacco Control Scale in Europe |pages=12, 17 |access-date=March 29, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200228144536/https://www.tobaccocontrolscale.org/TCS2019.pdf |website=Tobacco Control Scale |archive-date=February 28, 2020}}</ref> In 2020, Slovenia launched a program with the purpose to become a tobacco-free society by 2040, as the last useful date.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lovse |first1=Miha |title=The successful path of Slovenia to a smoke-free society (2040) with support from NGOs |journal=Tobacco Prevention & Cessation |date=22 October 2020 |volume=6 |issue=Supplement |doi=10.18332/tpc/128280 |s2cid=226351143 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

===South Africa=== Smoking in public is banned. This includes pubs, bars, walkways, and parking spaces, and smoking on public transport and domestic flights. The use of tobacco is also banned in any car carrying a person under the age of 12.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/legislation |title=Legislation |website=TobaccoControlLaws.org |access-date= }}</ref>

===Switzerland=== {{Main|Tobacco legislation in Switzerland}}

In 2018, following an appeal by an association of vapers, the Federal Administrative Court authorised the sale of nicotine-containing electronic cigarettes.<ref name="RMS">{{Cite journal |author1=Luc Lebon |author2=Pascal Diethelm |author3=Jérémy Cros |author4=Karin Zürcher |date=2025-07-02 |title=Prévention du tabagisme en Suisse: 60 ans de progrès graduels (1964–2024) |trans-title=Tobacco control in Switzerland: 60 years of gradual progress (1964-2024) |url=https://www.revmed.ch/revue-medicale-suisse/2025/revue-medicale-suisse-925/prevention-du-tabagisme-en-suisse-60-ans-de-progres-graduels-1964-2024 |journal=Revue médicale suisse|volume=21 |issue=925 |pages=1368–1373 |pmid=40605481 |doi=10.53738/REVMED.2025.21.925.47397 |doi-access=free |access-date=2025-11-16|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

In 2019, following an appeal by a company importing snus, the Federal Supreme Court authorised its sale, due to a lack of sufficient legal basis for a ban.<ref name="RMS" />

===UK=== Cigarette television advertisements were banned in 1965.

{{As of|2012|post=,}} in England, cigarette and tobacco displays in supermarkets were banned. As such, though sales in supermarkets are not yet entirely banned, they must at least stay hidden in closed cupboards, out of sight.<ref>{{cite web |title=Cigarette and tobacco displays banned in supermarkets |date=2012-04-05 |website=The Guardian |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221011102158/https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/apr/05/cigarette-tobacco-displays-banned-supermarkets |archive-date=2022-10-11 |url-status=live |url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/apr/05/cigarette-tobacco-displays-banned-supermarkets}}</ref>

England met its target to reduce its adult smoking prevalence to 21% or lower by 2010.<ref>HM Government [http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/@ps/documents/digitalasset/dh_111789.pdf "A Smokefree Future"], 2010. Accessed 2011-10-04.</ref>

The majority of tobacco advertisements were outlawed under British jurisdiction after the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 was implemented.

===Ukraine=== While tobacco products remain legal in Ukraine, recent legislative reforms introduced additional licensing and compliance requirements for farmers cultivating tobacco (as outlined in Law of Ukraine No. 481/95-VR<ref>{{Cite web |title=FAOLEX |url=https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC030879/ |website=FAO.org |access-date=2025-03-04 }}</ref>). These measures aim to maintain quality standards and reduce illicit trade, reflecting the government’s broader strategy to address the health impacts of tobacco consumption.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Cheplyk |first=Roman |date=May 11, 2025 |title=Tobacco Growing in Ukraine: Prospects, Challenges, and Legal Requirements for Farmers |url=https://good-time-invest.com/blog/tobacco-growing-in-ukraine-prospects-challenges-and-legal-requirements-for-farmers/ |website=GT Invest Ukraine}}</ref>

===Uruguay=== The law prohibits the sale of tobacco products via vending machines, the internet, educational facilities and various other places. E-cigarettes are also prohibited.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/legislation/country/uruguay/summary |title=Tobacco Control Laws: Uruguay |website=TobaccoControlLaws.org |access-date= }}</ref>

==References== {{Reflist}}

==Further reading== * {{cite book |date=2006 |last1=Fritschler |first1=A. Lee |last2=Rudder |first2=Catherine E. |title=Smoking and Politics |edition=6th |publisher=Pearson |isbn=978-0131791046 }} * ''Suing the Tobacco and Lead Pigment Industries: Government Litigation as Public Health Prescription'' by Donald G. Gifford. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 2010. {{ISBN|978-0-472-11714-7}} * ''Ashes to Ashes: America's Hundred-Year Cigarette War, the Public Health, and the Unabashed Triumph of Philip Morris'' by Richard Kluger (Vintage; 1st Vintage Books ed edition (July 29, 1997)) {{ISBN|978-0375700361}} * {{cite book |date=2021 |last=Milov |first=Sarah |title=The Cigarette: A Political History |publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=978-0674260313 }} * ''Assuming the Risk: The Mavericks, the Lawyers, and the Whistle-Blowers Who Beat Big Tobacco'' by Michael Orey (Little, Brown and Company; 1 edition (September 7, 1999)) {{ISBN|978-0316664899}}

==External links== * [http://www.no-smoking.org No-Smoking.org] * [http://www.smokinglobby.com/ Smoking Lobby Group] * [http://www.tobaccoinstitute.com/ Tobacco Institute Documents-Part of Master Settlement Agreement] * [https://archive.org/details/tobaccoarchives UCSF Tobacco Industry Videos Collection] * [https://archive.org/details/tobaccoarchives_audio UCSF Tobacco Industry Audio Recordings Collection] * [http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=403 State and Local Tax Revenue, Selected Years 1977–2006]

Category:Tobacco