[Reporter’s Notebook] Tobacco Lawsuit Heads to the Supreme Court of Korea

"Three substances in cigarettes can help you avoid cancer." "Cigarettes are harmless and unrelated to lung cancer." "Quit smoking and you may get depression; heavy smokers should keep smoking." "Nicotine-free cigarettes can help treat high blood pressure."
By today’s standards, these claims are hard to believe, but they were actual newspaper headlines from the 1960s and 1970s. They reveal how society at the time perceived the risks of smoking. Cigarettes were not seen as something to be strictly avoided, but rather as a hobby item that was acceptable as long as it was managed.
The warning labels on cigarette packs back then were also completely different from today. All they said was, "For your health, refrain from excessive smoking." Direct warnings about the risks of cancer, death, and addiction were introduced only in the 1990s. A system that clearly informed people of the causal link between smoking and disease, as we have now, simply did not exist at the time.
Against this backdrop, the courts have treated smoking as a matter of "individual choice." In a 53.3 billion won damages suit filed by the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) against tobacco companies, the courts of first and second instance ruled that smokers could recognize the harmfulness of cigarettes even when they first started smoking. NHIS lost the case, and 12 years after it was filed, the lawsuit has now reached the Supreme Court of Korea.
NHIS argued that treatment costs for serious illnesses such as lung and laryngeal cancer caused by smoking are straining the health insurance budget, and that those who created these costs should also bear responsibility. The question is whether it is reasonable to place all the social costs on individuals simply because smoking is considered a personal choice. More than 1.5 million people signed a petition supporting the lawsuit.
There appears to be a clear gap between the lower courts’ view and the reality of the time. Cigarettes also had the special status of being a major source of government tax revenue. It is hard to find warnings anywhere near today’s level in the media, in regulations, or in society at large. That is why there is ample room to question whether the decision to smoke truly belonged to individuals alone.
If the Supreme Court of Korea upholds NHIS’s defeat, the legal dispute will effectively come to an end. At the same time, it will likely become much harder to continue raising questions about how society in the 1960s and 1970s viewed cigarettes and how far we can hold that era accountable.
This tobacco lawsuit is more than a simple damages case. It is closer to a final question: will we regard smoking solely as an individual choice, or will we also examine the social environment that surrounded that choice? The Supreme Court’s decision could become a benchmark for how our society chooses to reckon with its past, reaching beyond the issue of cigarettes alone.
wonder@fnnews.com Reporter