In the summer of 2006 it was stated by a Federal Judge that Tobacco Manufactures where involved in racketeering; quoting that the tobacco industry had been involved in a plot lasting 10's of years to attempt to cover up the dangers of tobacco use from their user base.
Following this the tobacco manufactures where forced to place adverts in the national press uncovering the negative health effects of smoking tobacco.
The judge went on to state that the tobacco manufacturers had been involved in this cover up plot since 1953 when an assemblage of tobacco manufacturers met in New York at the Plaza Hotel and put together a details relationship to fend of public concerns of the health risks connected to smoking tobacco.
The Judge also said that in conflict to the suggestions made in 1964 by the USA Surgeon General linking Lung cancer to smoking, the tobacco industry still continued to refute the severe risks of smoking their product.
In spite of the tobacco industry's claim that they did not want to target young people it was also discovered that in fact they marketed tobacco products to underage consumers.
The industry was also guilty of tracking the habits of young people together with their likes and dislikes thus ensuring that any advertising carried out by the tobacco industry was noticed by young people.
In 1999 The Clinton administration accused the tobacco manufacturers of racketeering as some elaborate plot to dupe the general population of the dangerous effects of smoking and to cover up the knowledge they had which suggestedto the contrary.
Under the ruling, the tobacco manufacturers were ordered to cease using several product descriptions as light, low tar, reduced tar, mild, ultra light or natural or any other summaries that might be perceived as if cigarettes may pose a reduced health hazard or an attempt to lower the dangers of smoking their product.
Quite a few ant smoking campaigns considered the ruling to be a success but many of them talked about the amount of time it took before the government reacted to the use of tobacco and also the period of time the case lasted for.
Some onlookers believed that the courts actions where not severe enough in regard to the tobacco companies.
The campaigners were generally happy with the court's finding of liability on the part of the tobacco manufacturers, but they were disappointed that the court didn't put through all of the remedies that the government were looking for.
Despite this the anti tobacco campaigners hoped that the proposals the court imposed would have a positive effect on the American public's health.
A large number of people felt that the court case was a hollow victory, but nevertheless some benefit still came about in highlighting the health risks associated with smoking, which the tobacco companies were unable to refute.