E-Mail: Password: SIGN UP for free Forgot my password Hello Visitor! You aren't a registered user here. Won't you consider registering with our site? You can unlock more features of the site, leave comments and even elect to receive our "Weekly Shoveling" - a summary of all the coolest stories added each week! It's totally free and takes a few seconds. We don't give out your e-mail or personal information to anybody! Try it! Main Home Page BSAlert Radio! Info/FAQ Links Feedback Fallacy List Bookmark BSAlert FreeThought Wiki BSA on Twitter Articles Submit Article (Login required) Latest Articles BSA Exclusives Article Summary Articles by Main Topic Most Popular Latest Comments Active Articles Features Fairness Doctrine Great Recession Crypto-currency Visit the BSA: Bumper Sticker Store   T-Shirts & More Web bsalert.com   Utilities Have a GREAT day!

The Smooth, Satisfying Flavor of Cigarette Industry Appeals Posted by ueberbill (10469 views) [E-Mail link] The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit blocked a ruling by a federal judge which found that cigarette companies had been violating racketeering laws and misleading the public for decades about the health risks associated with smoking. The ruling would've forced cigarette companies to stop marketing "light," "low tar," "ultralight," and "mild" cigarettes. In addition, tobacco companies would have had to issue "corrective statements" on their web sites and in newspapers about the adverse affects cigarettes have on health. The block allows advertising and sales of the misleading cigarettes to continue until the cigarette industry's appeals can be reviewed. So smoke 'em if you got 'em, folks--if the original ruling holds up, those light cigarettes of yours won't be healthier any more. Studies have shown that the aforementioned cigarettes are not any better for you due to the way smokers smoke them (intravenously). The cigarette companies have stated that the original ruling by Judge Gladys Kessler would result in millions in losses and a loss of customers (other than the ones that, you know, DIE). No date has been set for the D.C. Court to hear arguments and it could be over a year before an opinion either way is issued. Details   1 Article displayed.

Pursuant to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC § 230), BSAlert is a user-contributed editorial web site and does not endorse any specific content, but merely acts as a "sounding board" for the online community. Any and all quoted material is referenced pursuant to "Fair Use" (17 U.S.C. § 107). Like any information resource, use your own judgement and seek out the facts and research and make informed choices.