Lung Cancer

Millions of people who struggle with cigarette addiction wonder how they became so dependent on smoking or why they ever started in the first place. The answer is not as simple as personal choice—it’s the result of a decades-long, highly calculated campaign by the tobacco industry to manipulate consumers into becoming lifelong smokers.

Tobacco companies were fully aware of the devastating health risks posed by nicotine and other harmful chemicals in cigarettes. Still, they deliberately used a range of creative marketing strategies to keep luring new customers while obfuscating the truth about the dangers of smoking. For those already addicted, it was too late.

An executive at tobacco Brown and Williamson, makers of such brands as Carlton, Lucky Strike, and Kool, said it best: “Nicotine is addictive. We are, then, in the business of selling nicotine, an addictive drug.” Even after the link between smoking and lung cancer was established, tobacco companies pushed ahead with their aggressive marketing campaigns.  According to an article published in The Tobacco Journal in 1955, “There is no obstacle to large-scale sales of tobacco products that cannot be surmounted by aggressive selling.”

Big Tobacco has poured millions of dollars into advertising and promotion—the five largest cigarette manufacturers spent $8.01 billion in 2022 alone—and in-depth psycho-social research studies to determine the best way to entice people to smoke. The Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising (SRITA) collection currently contains 62,553 tobacco advertisements.

And it worked. Here are just some of the claims made by Big Tobacco over the years that got people hooked:

“Smoking is Healthy!”

In the earliest days of tobacco advertising companies claimed outright that smoking had health benefits, even suggesting that it could help alleviate ailments such as “asthma, bronchitis, hay fever, influenza, and shortness of breath.” A 1931 Chesterfield ad went so far as to state that its cigarettes were “just as pure as the water you drink,” claiming scientific proof of their healthfulness.

As ridiculous as these early claims seem now, touting these supposed health benefits got people to try a product that many subsequently became addicted to.

As public awareness of smoking’s harm spread, tobacco companies began promoting products as “less harmful,” marketing cigarettes with low tar, low nicotine, and filters that supposedly reduced health risks. One of the most insidious tactics was medical endorsements with doctors depicted as enthusiastic smokers in ads, such as the famous “More Doctors Smoke Camels” campaign. This portrayal of medical professionals continued well into the 1990s, when white-coated models appeared in Kool cigarette ads, reinforcing the false narrative of smoking’s safety.

When the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report came out on the dangers of smoking, executives at Big Tobacco knew they had to fight back. Internal communications at the highest levels at Philip Morris International stated: “We must in the near future give smokers a psychological crutch and a self-rationale to continue smoking.”

“Smoking is Cool!”

Tobacco companies have long used their ads to make smoking seem like a symbol of coolness and rebellion, linking smoking to traits like independence, confidence, and freedom. Iconic campaigns featured rugged cowboys, adventurous explorers, or smooth, charismatic figures portraying smoking as part of a carefree, bold lifestyle.

Who can forget the Marlboro Man, named the top advertising icon of the century by Advertising Age in the 1990s, highlighting the character’s pivotal role in making smoking seem cool and desirable? Other brands promoted their products with mascots and cartoon characters like Joe Camel, an easygoing, “smooth character” who embodied a cool vibe that resonated with teens and young people.

Around the same time, tobacco companies introduced vibrant “positive lifestyle” images and imagery of smoking in high-status settings to make smoking seem not only cool but also socially acceptable and even part of a healthy lifestyle. This carefully crafted image played a major role in normalizing smoking and influencing generations to see it as an essential part of a “cool” identity.

“Smoking is Glamorous!”

Smoking has long been associated with glamour due to strategic endorsements by prominent movie and TV stars, athletes, and even politicians. Tobacco companies were great at leveraging the cross-promotional power of Hollywood, using its stars and classic films to elevate the image of smoking.

Movie icons like Audrey Hepburn’s Holly Golightly and Sean Connery’s James Bond were often depicted as effortlessly glamorous while smoking, their chic and sophisticated on-screen personas reinforcing the allure of cigarettes. Publicity images that included cigarette brands and ads featuring celebrity endorsements created an irresistible association between smoking and the glamorous lifestyles of the rich and famous. This carefully cultivated image made cigarettes seem key to achieving style and status.

“Smoking is Empowering!”

Some ads made smoking seem like a form of empowerment for women, tying it to ideas of independence, equality, and strength. Ads portrayed women who smoked as confident, bold, and unafraid to break away from traditional gender roles, showing them in powerful or glamorous roles—like successful professionals or daring adventurers. Big Tobacco positioned smoking as a way to express strength and sophistication, making it seem like lighting up was a way for women to claim their independence and embrace a changing world.

“Smoking is Tasty!”

Tobacco companies have long claimed that their cigarettes taste better than others, often touting their unique blends of tobacco, promising a smoother, richer taste or a “milder” smoke. Some even went so far as to claim their cigarettes were specially crafted to offer a cleaner, more refined flavor. These marketing tactics played on the idea that smoking was not just an addiction but an enjoyable, sensory experience.

Menthol cigarettes were positioned as a smoother, cooler alternative to regular cigarettes. The minty flavor makes the cigarettes “easier” to use, and because of this, the industry acknowledged them as great “starter products.” The sad truth is that menthol enhances nicotine’s addictiveness.

Menthol numbs the cough reflex, which allowed even people who were sensitive to regular cigarettes to take up smoking, another example of how Big Tobacco actively sought to “recruit” more smokers. Marketing of menthol cigarettes was heavily targeted towards African Americans since studies showed that 85% of these smokers preferred menthol cigarettes.

No, It’s Not Your Fault You’re Addicted

The long history of manipulation and deceit in tobacco advertising has left millions of people with lifelong nicotine addictions and, tragically, serious health conditions like lung cancer. Big Tobacco’s deliberate efforts to start and keep people smoking—including young people, teens, and even children—despite knowing the deadly consequences, has resulted in a public health crisis that continues to affect millions today.

Contact a Tobacco Litigation Lawyer Today

If you or a loved one has developed lung cancer as a result of a smoking addiction, you may be entitled to financial compensation. Read more about some of the most frequently asked questions about tobacco litigation in Massachusetts and whether it’s possible to get financial compensation for your lung cancer caused by smoking. If you’d like to know whether you might have a legitimate claim, reach out to our tobacco lawyers at Shepard O’Donnell for a free case evaluation. Please note that at this time, we are only taking cases in which the majority of the patient’s smoking history took place in Massachusetts.

Shepard O’Donnell does not own copyright in these images, and does not offer or license them for public or private use. As to copyright issues for tobacco advertisements, they have been reproduced with regularity in books, scholarly journals, popular magazines, and in numerous online venues for many years for purposes of comment, criticism, or parody, which may be considered transformative and thus considered fair use.

The tobacco industry has knowingly put millions of lives at risk for decades by continuing to actively market cigarettes and smoking, despite being aware of the harmful health effects of inhaling nicotine and other additives into the lungs.

The tobacco lawsuit team at Shepard O’Donnell helps clients with lung cancer due to smoking in Massachusetts obtain justice from tobacco companies for their injuries. We feel strongly about making tobacco companies pay for the grievous harm they have inflicted on individuals and families and are committed to holding them accountable for their actions. Read more about our landmark $43.1 million verdict. 

Below are some common questions we are asked about tobacco litigation.

Q: Can I Still File a Tobacco Lawsuit in Massachusetts?

A: Yes. 

As it becomes more difficult to file tobacco suits in other states, Massachusetts remains a viable place to bring your tobacco lawsuit. If you or your loved one developed lung cancer or died as a result of smoking in Massachusetts, you may be successful in suing the tobacco company that caused your injuries. Although these cases can be long and complicated, favorable verdicts do happen, even today. 

Q: I Live Outside of Massachusetts; Can I File a Tobacco Case?

A: Maybe.

As Massachusetts tobacco lawyers, Shepard O’Donnell is only accepting cases in which the majority of a victim’s smoking history took place in Massachusetts. If you live in another state but started smoking in Massachusetts and spent a significant amount of time here, please reach out to us for a free case evaluation to see if we can help. 

Q: Is This a Class Action?

A: No. 

The courts have made it more difficult in recent years to file class action suits against Big Tobacco because the class is so big, involving victims nationwide. As a result, tobacco lawsuits are filed on behalf of an individual and/or their family, and each is considered as a separate claim.

Q: Haven’t All Tobacco Cases Been Settled By Now?

A: No. 

Big Tobacco vigorously defends its own interests and does not typically settle lawsuits brought against it. With millions of victims still suffering and dying from lung cancer due to smoking, there are potentially many more suits to be filed. Although the Attorneys General from 52 states and territories signed the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement in 1998, that agreement does not mean that all cases are settled.

Q: My Loved One Died From Lung Cancer Due to Smoking; Can I File a Suit on His/Her Behalf?

A: Yes. 

Depending on the specific details of the claim, surviving family members may be able to file a lawsuit on behalf of their loved one. It’s best to contact experienced tobacco lawyers to discuss your case so they can advise you on the best course of action. Shepard O’Donnell offers free case evaluations for individuals and families who have been affected by lung cancer due to smoking in Massachusetts.

Q: Don’t Companies Have a Legitimate Defense Because of the Warnings on Packaging?

A: No.

The relatively strong warnings that we see on cigarette packaging today weren’t mandated by the government until 1998, but by then, millions were already addicted. Before that, warnings were vague and ineffectual: The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 required that the warning “Caution: Cigarette Smoking May Be Hazardous to Your Health” be placed in small print on one of the side panels of each cigarette package. This was not enough to deter people from smoking, or to adequately warn about the health risks known to the tobacco companies but hidden from the public.

Even with these warnings, tobacco companies continued their aggressive – and deceptive – marketing tactics, effectively contradicting their warnings. 

Q: Is it My Own Fault For Starting to Smoke in the First Place?

A: No.

Tobacco companies knew exactly what they were doing when they got millions of people hooked on nicotine. They intentionally marketed to young people and teens, using sexy and fun imagery to convey the idea that smoking was exciting and cool. Think of the Marlboro Man and the cartoon Joe Camel in cigarette ads, or even Sean Connery’s James Bond or Audrey Hepburn on the big screen, looking glamorous through clouds of smoke.

A much more insidious tactic involved handing out free sample packs of cigarettes to children as young as eight years old. Their plan—-a successful one as it turns out—-was to turn these children into addicts and lifelong tobacco consumers.

In a 1953 confidential report for Philip Morris, the researcher writes: “Studies of clinical data tend to confirm the relationship between heavy and prolonged tobacco smoking and incidence of lung cancer.” Did that stop companies from marketing to an impressionable audience? No.

Executives at Big Tobacco knew they had to keep smokers hooked and actively fought back against information that showed smoking was bad for your health. In 1964, after reading the Surgeon General’s Report on the dangers of smoking, internal communications at the highest levels at Philip Morris International revealed a chilling plan: “We must in the near future give smokers a psychological crutch and a self-rationale to continue smoking.” 

According to the industry watchdog, Expose Tobacco, the industry “ran deceptive campaigns, misled policymakers even when under oath, and paid for biased research to help create confusion. The longer the truth was withheld, the more people smoked, unaware of the damage it was causing to their bodies.”

Millions of people have fallen victim to the deceptive marketing practices of tobacco companies and have paid a deadly price.

Q: I Smoked Menthol Cigarettes, Is That Different?

A: No.

Menthol cigarettes were invented and designed by the tobacco industry because research showed they were easier to smoke. Menthol numbs the cough reflex, which allowed even people who were sensitive to regular cigarettes to take up smoking. This is yet another example of how Big Tobacco actively sought to “recruit” more smokers.

Marketing of menthol cigarettes was heavily targeted towards African American teenagers and children since studies showed that 85% of Black smokers preferred menthol cigarettes. According to a 2022 NPR report, “tobacco industries specifically found influencers in Black communities and gave them free samples, to build markets surreptitiously. The companies also sponsored events like the Kool Jazz Festival, that included an ad of Dizzy Gillespie next to a pack of Kools.”

Menthol enhances nicotine’s addictiveness and the flavor makes the cigarettes “easier” to use and because of this, they were acknowledged by the industry as great “starter products.” Menthol cigarettes weren’t banned in Massachusetts until 2020!

These are just a few of the questions that we are asked on a regular basis by victims of lung cancer due to smoking. Stay tuned for Part II of our blog, which will be released shortly. We will answer seven more commonly asked questions about suing tobacco companies for financial compensation.