Early in my legal career, there was excitement when the Florida Legislature changed the law slightly, and the result was the potential for cigarette companies to be successfully sued. The legislation was not the end by any means; there have since followed a whole raft of lawsuits. Some say there have been thousands; others say that it is many more.
I remember many conversations about the litigation. The plaintiffs, thereafter, in the 1990s, often alleged that they did not know of the dangers of smoking. Had they known, they posited, they would never have taken up such a dangerous distraction, habit, or addiction. Or, at least, they would have striven harder to quit. If only someone had told them.
There was much discussion among lawyers about the federally-mandated warning on cigarettes that was established in 1966 (for those struggling with math, that was 28 years before the start of Florida lawsuits following the 1994 statutory enabling change.
Certainly, some folks may have started smoking before 1966, but even so, there had been a great deal of time in which to quit. As certainly, the initial warning was somewhat milktoast: ""CAUTION: Cigarette Smoking May Be Hazardous to Your Health." It was later enhanced with the requirements of graphics, but not
until 2009.
Was there bad action by "big tobacco?" I doubt there is anyone who would argue that there was not any. It is generally accepted that the cigarette companies hid internal research data about dangers and diseases.
There is little doubt that nicotine addiction was manipulated, children were targeted, misdirected research was allegedly bought and paid for, and the whole "low-tar" campaign could be a lesson all its own. There is some seeming consensus that various companies acted inappropriately from time to time. Google "Gladys Kessler Philip Morris RJ Reynolds, corrective statements."
I personally harbored some skepticism about the "I didn't know" arguments in the 1990s as I watched Florida tobacco litigation expand and accelerate. How was it possible for smokers to not know of the dangers? I got the warnings as a youth, echoed by every adult smoker I knew (many), repeated later in high school, they were printed on the packages, and also on stickers on the vending machines where many bought cigarettes (machines did not discriminate on age).
Nonetheless, I had some serious discussions in the 1990s about starting a cigarette company. We were going to call our product "Death" and the proposed logo prominently featured a skull and crossbones. We planned to eschew the federally mandated:
"Caution: Cigarette smoking may be hazardous to your health."
We planned, instead, to have a warning on one side panel that said simply:
"Strictly a novelty, do not open, consume, or light under any circumstance."
On the other side panel, we planned a more stern and direct warning:
"These cigarettes will undoubtedly destroy your mouth, esophagus, lungs and will kill you. Do not smoke."
Our critics said we would not sell any. But we had a feeling that those who wanted to smoke would light up no matter what the package said. We also suspected that the "real" tough person crowd would smoke them simply because they were "Death." The "manly" man in that era was associated with one particular brand; some even quibbled over which package of that brand was the most manly.
Imagine an ad that opens with a group shooting pool and sipping suds. A buff gentleman unrolls his sleeve (yes, this was a real thing, people kept cigarette boxes in
their shirt sleeve) to reveal a pack of "Death," which he gallantly offers a vivacious young lady who intones, "Death for us all!" and the commercial fades to black with the skull and crossbones logo and our "these will kill you" warning. The voiceover is "some fear death, others flee it, but some even smoke it!"
Unfortunately or not, we got distracted by some other opportunities and never got "Death" launched. Any time I would lament the foregone opportunity, I was readily assured that "Death" would never have succeeded. Too much was known about the dangers. Smoking was "over." I rarely met anyone who thought such a venture could succeed.
The premises-banning began in the 1990s, also. The
Centers for Disease Control credit California with leading the way. There were prohibitions on smoking in various venues like bars, restaurants, and more. I will never forget the incredulous look I got from a California restaurant hostess when I asked for a "non-smoking" section in the 1990s.
Time reported that trend continued through the beginning of the 21st century.
That followed the ban on domestic airline flights that started in 1988 and which soon cascaded into a near-universal ban on aircraft. Some foreign-flagged carriers continued through the 1990s with "smoking sections." I once flew on one where the smoking section was the seats on one side of the aisle, and the non-smoking were inches away on the other side.
George Carlin questioned in that era
“Isn’t making a smoking section in a restaurant like making a peeing section in a swimming pool?”
Crass, but memorable. By the second decade of the 21st century, those indoor smoking bans had spread to
even the area around entrances to certain buildings.
It has now been 60 years since the mandatory warning became the norm.
Gallup reports that smoking is at an "80-year low," but 11% of American adults smoke. The
Census Bureau says there are 258.3 million American adults, so that is 28 million customers still in the market for "Death." Some contend that the biggest winner is, in fact, the taxman. Some argue that government
makes more from each sale than the producer does.
That is intriguing. It is more intriguing that smoking is more prevalent in Europe ("Roughly 1 in 4 Europeans smoke compared to about 1 in 7 Americans"). And you can buy from machines there without identification, though there are warning stickers. This is despite
a Harvard analysis that the cost and taxation in Europe are more pervasive, as are smoking regulations.
By this point, the reader probably has questions. Primarily, likely, what does this have to do with anything? Fair criticism. Well, the New York Post recently reported that cigarettes are cool again!
There were trays of them, "at the Vanity Fair Oscar's Party." And, as important, a random cool woman recently appeared on the cover of that magazine puffing away. There are, again, cameos in films and television. The paper concludes, "Smoking is well and truly back," despite those pesky government warnings.
Those who enjoy some nicotine include some otherwise health-conscious folks. They are nonetheless interested in "an occasional indulgence." Cigarettes are said to be "a great way to network" and a "good way to meet people." They are a "rejection of wellness culture."
Reason argued in 2026 that the American indoor smoking bans are too restrictive, arguing for the inconsistency that Japan has adopted. In their flexibility, one might see freedom of choice or chaos. The answer in Japan to whether smoking is acceptable is likely always "it depends." Whether right or wrong, the point is that advocates are seeking to re-establish smoking in public places.
I said it in the 90s, and sadly, I was right. People will smoke regardless of the science, the warnings, and the dangers. There is a draw, social and societal, and all the cool kids seem to be doing it. Some of the cool kids are advocating for its return to acceptance or at least some nightclub deregulation. It is possible that some of them are even being paid for their advocacy or public use.
I am not a fan. Nonetheless, how someone chooses to use the life they have been given is for them to decide. Nonetheless, I don't buy the "
second-hand smoke can't hurt you" routine. I prefer that you keep your death to yourself. But it is also somewhat up to me to be willing to avoid the spaces in which people do smoke or vape.
In the coming years, will those who have used these products in the 21st century be compensated for their conditions or diseases? Will there come a point where the world is comfortable concluding that everyone who consumed these products knew and accepted the risks? Despite all that is now known, will young people keep adopting this habit?
