Light smokers sue Tobacco industry

WASHINGTON - The latest battle in the tobacco wars is over claims that cigarette companies have used words such as ``light&#39;&#39; and ``low tar&#39;&#39; to deceive smokers into believing they are safer than regular brands. <br> <br> Lawyers have filed class-action lawsuits against the nation&#39;s three largest tobacco companies - Philip Morris Cos. Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., and Brown & Williamson Corp. - on behalf of smokers in 11 states. They are seeking billions of dollars in damages for alleged violations of consumer protection laws. <br> <br> ``It&#39;s a scam, because they get people to believe that they reduce health risks when that is a false statement,&#39;&#39; said Stephen Sheller, a Philadelphia attorney who began preparing the cases four years ago. <br> <br> Sheller says he is encouraged that an Oregon jury ruled Friday that Philip Morris must pay $150 million to survivors of a woman who died of lung cancer. The jury said the company falsely represented low-tar cigarettes as healthier. <br> <br> Tobacco companies say the lawsuits have no merit. R.J. Reynolds spokesman Seth Moskowitz said cigarette manufacturers use terms like ``full-flavor,&#39;&#39; ``lights&#39;&#39; and ``ultra lights&#39;&#39; to differentiate strength of taste and amount of tar and nicotine. <br> <br> The tobacco industry generally uses the term ``light&#39;&#39; to describe cigarettes with less than 15 milligrams of tar, a carcinogen produced when tobacco is burned. Tar helps deliver nicotine to smokers. <br> <br> The effort to market low-tar cigarettes gained momentum in the 1960s, after some health advocates said they could reduce health risks. <br> <br> Former U.S. Surgeon General Julius Richmond recommended in 1981 that smokers switch to lights if they couldn&#39;t quit. That position has been dropped, but sales of light cigarettes have boomed. They now account for the majority of the U.S. cigarette market. <br> <br> While more people were turning to light cigarettes, the American Cancer Society was conducting studies - the first in the 1960s and the second in the 1980s - that found lung cancer death rates among smokers rose even though tar levels had dropped. <br> <br> A National Cancer Institute study last fall stated that cigarettes that yielded low tar and nicotine when tested on government-approved machines gave off higher levels when smoked by people. That&#39;s because people who smoke lights tend to inhale more deeply and take more puffs to get the nicotine they need. <br> <br> The study, cited as evidence in the class-action lawsuits, said manufacturers designed cigarettes to register low tar readings in machine tests. One way: ventilation holes in the filter. The holes lower tar levels in machine tests but offer little benefit to real smokers, whose fingers and lips often cover them. <br> <br> States where cases have been filed are California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and West Virginia. <br> <br> Attorney Van Bunch, who filed a class-action suit in Tennessee, said tobacco companies should include labels telling smokers ``you have to use the cigarette in an unusual way to get the benefits of lights.&#39;&#39; <br> <br> The cancer institute study found people who smoke lights typically believe they are reducing their health risk. <br> <br> Sheller points to a 1999 Brown & Williamson ad for Carlton cigarettes that read, ``Isn&#39;t it time you started thinking about number one?&#39;&#39; A 1974 R.J. Reynolds ad carried the headline ``To smoke or not to smoke&#39;&#39; and suggested if smokers did not want to quit, they should try Vantage. <br> <br> John Hines, a plaintiff in the class-action suit filed against Philip Morris in Florida, switched to lights in the 1980s. <br> <br> ``The word light itself meant to me that it would probably be better for you,&#39;&#39; said Hines, 48, of Palm City, Fla. ``Why should a company make a profit on something they lied to the people about?&#39;&#39; <br> <br> William Ohlemeyer, Philip Morris&#39; vice president and associate general counsel, said the company never attempted to deceive anyone. <br> <br> ``There is a warning on these cigarettes that is identical to every pack of cigarettes sold in this country,&#39;&#39; Ohlemeyer said. ``There is no such thing as a safe cigarette. No one has ever advertised these cigarettes as being safe.&#39;&#39; <br> <br> Dr. David Burns, who helped write the cancer institute study and the earlier surgeon general&#39;s report, said government officials ``didn&#39;t understand how carefully the cigarettes were designed&#39;&#39; to perform differently on machines. <br> <br> Ohlemeyer said the industry expressed concerns about the government&#39;s testing methods long ago. In documents filed in the Illinois class-action case, Philip Morris quoted a 1967 press release from the now-defunct Tobacco Institute saying the testing method ``will result in figures that will be misleading and deceptive to the public.&#39;&#39;