News flash!

[Riker36]

Originally Posted by seannx

You are a very fortunate person. I was a teenager from 1963-1969, and peer pressure to smoke was a huge factor. Thankfully smoking hurt my lungs, and when I tried to start, I threw up. Not so for my three sisters, who struggled for years to quit. Although my dad died of lung cancer, one of my sisters still smokes. IMO, the personal choice and responsibility position (i.e. it's their own fault for smoking), breaks down when you consider the deceitful, greedy, and unethical practices of the cigarette companies.

Nicotine is a highly addictive drug. Putting a health warning label on the package, no matter how graphic, doesn't make nicotine any less effective.

That all may be true. But the point regarding the topic about the lawsuit is this: everyone knows smoking can kill. You know the risks. People knew the risks back in the mid '60s. So that puts the responsibility on YOU the smoker. Of course it's addicting. They want it to be. They WANT people to buy their products. But it's still up to YOU to decide it's killing you. Not them.

[Wengr]

Before you know it, people will be suing McDonalds because the coffee is hot.

[mc1]

Originally Posted by Riker36

That all may be true. But the point regarding the topic about the lawsuit is this: everyone knows smoking can kill. You know the risks. People knew the risks back in the mid '60s. So that puts the responsibility on YOU the smoker. Of course it's addicting. They want it to be. They WANT people to buy their products. But it's still up to YOU to decide it's killing you. Not them.

it's almost like the tobacco companies are doing the consumer a favour. i mean, after all, leaving them addicted to a product that everybody knows is unhealthy, has no positive benefits, and can kill you, without a supply would be cruel. and the millions spent on misleading and influential research and marketing is simpy to help those addicted to do a better job rationalizing their faults. big tobacco is the good guy here, no question.

Originally Posted by Wengr

Before you know it, people will be suing McDonalds because the coffee is hot.

expert marketers to kids. i'm not lovin' it.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Riker36

That all may be true. But the point regarding the topic about the lawsuit is this: everyone knows smoking can kill. You know the risks. People knew the risks back in the mid '60s. So that puts the responsibility on YOU the smoker. Of course it's addicting. They want it to be. They WANT people to buy their products. But it's still up to YOU to decide it's killing you. Not them.

Lets get some objectivity into the discussion and not let ambiguity of words confuse the discussion.
Yes no question that today and arguably for the last 20 years everyone in the 1st world should know "that smoking can kill you" . And while the statement "People knew the risks back in the mid 60s" , serves the purpose of your argument, it is to ambiguous , It would far less ambiguous to say " people were being made aware of the possibility of some kind of risk" And the second statement still ignores the fact that at that time the even though the industry was well aware of the risks and even though they started complying with label regulations, they publicly proffered that there were no real health risks that the science was faulty. And they falsely proffered that filtration would mitigate any (suspected but unproven) risks. And finally that the industry knew that it did not matter what the public was being made aware of .They understood and prayed upon the the fact that what mattered was what people and especially addicts wanted to believe

Also as someone pointed out your position seems conflicted, to hold that individuals should be held responsible and accountable for there choices and actions but corporations should not.

But the truth is none of us were sitting in the court hearing the evidence. And that we are merely speculating as to what went on and the reasoning.
But it appears to be more complex than just people "should" be responsible for their own actions, because if that were indeed "the point about the topic of the lawsuit" then most likely we would not be seeing kind of findings and judgements we are in the current crop of law suits.

[Wengr]

It states in the article that the person in question "smoked up until the day he died".
Sounds like a very concerned, health conscious individual.

[Riker36]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Lets get some objectivity into the discussion and not let ambiguity of words confuse the discussion.
Yes no question that today and arguably for the last 20 years everyone in the 1st world should know "that smoking can kill you" . And while the statement "People knew the risks back in the mid 60s" , serves the purpose of your argument, it is to ambiguous , It would far less ambiguous to say " people were being made aware of the possibility of some kind of risk" And the second statement still ignores the fact that at that time the even though the industry was well aware of the risks and even though they started complying with label regulations, they publicly proffered that there were no real health risks that the science was faulty. And they falsely proffered that filtration would mitigate any (suspected but unproven) risks. And finally that the industry knew that it did not matter what the public was being made aware of .They understood and prayed upon the the fact that what mattered was what people and especially addicts wanted to believe

Also as someone pointed out your position seems conflicted, to hold that individuals should be held responsible and accountable for there choices and actions but corporations should not.

But the truth is none of us were sitting in the court hearing the evidence. And that we are merely speculating as to what went on and the reasoning.
But it appears to be more complex than just people "should" be responsible for their own actions, because if that were indeed "the point about the topic of the lawsuit" then most likely we would not be seeing kind of findings and judgements we are in the current crop of law suits.

Well, we'll never agree on this one I see.

I just have one question though: if this family was awarded 26 BILLION due to something he chose to do himself, just how much will the family of the guy who got killed by a chokehold from a NYC cop going to get?!? Certainly his death was NOT his own doing, so I suppose he should get double the 26 billion.

[mjz]

Originally Posted by Wengr

It states in the article that the person in question "smoked up until the day he died".
Sounds like a very concerned, health conscious individual.

Sounds like a very addicted individual to me.
max

[Riker36]

Originally Posted by mjz

Sounds like a very addicted individual to me.
max

And that's the fault of RJ Reynolds? Enough of their fault that they owe his widow 26 billion dollars? C'mon.

[buddyhu]

Originally Posted by Riker36

And that's the fault of RJ Reynolds? Enough of their fault that they owe his widow 26 billion dollars? C'mon.

I haven't read anyone saying that 26 billion is an appropriate award. I do read posts that say that the situation in the 60's was ambiguous in regards to EXACTLY what the health consequences were, and how risky smoking was.

The tobacco companies stepped into the mixed picture and actively disputed the tobacco-cancer link, even though they knew that such a link existed, and probably had some indications of its strengths. And they actively lobbied to water down the warnings the surgeon general wanted to post on the packs of cigarettes and other tobacco products. By doing so, they made billions of dollars more than they would have if they had simply remained silent as the government funded research and reported their findings and recommended action. They didn't even need to disclose what they knew.

In light of this, many feel that the tobacco companies should be held financially accountable in some way.

And the high punitive damages are, in part, because the legal system has said that smoker lawsuits cannot be lumped into a class action...so it is difficult to assess what level of punitive damages are appropriate, and how they should be disbursed across all who have been affected by the deceptive practices of the tobacco companies.

[mc1]

Originally Posted by Riker36

And that's the fault of RJ Reynolds? Enough of their fault that they owe his widow 26 billion dollars? C'mon.

$23.6 billion were punitive damages, and have more to do with r.j. reynold's behaviour than the plaintiff's.

[Riker36]

Originally Posted by mc1

$23.6 billion were punitive damages, and have more to do with r.j. reynold's behaviour than the plaintiff's.

Whatever they were ordered to pay the widow, it was too much. Even if it was $1. Sorry.

[mjz]

Originally Posted by Riker36

And that's the fault of RJ Reynolds? Enough of their fault that they owe his widow 26 billion dollars? C'mon.

While I think 26 billion is pretty off the hook -- yes, I think companies that produce highly addictive products that they know from their own testing are very dangerous and then market said product to youth to hook them when they are apt to make poor decisions are liable. I'm blown away you do not.

RJR should be held to no differnt standard than the individual. They should be accountable for their decisions just as the individual should. The individual paid with their life. They paid the ultimate consequence of their decision to smoke for the first time. When they were 13.

I find placing so much emphasis on personal responsibility without holding the manufacturer to the same standard to be quite hypocritical.

max

[Wengr]

Q: Why do they not sue the resellers who illegally sold cigarettes to a minor countless times?
A: Because it's about money, and not about responsibility.
You sue where the money is.

[robj144]

Originally Posted by mjz

While I think 26 billion is pretty off the hook -- yes, I think companies that produce highly addictive products that they know from their own testing are very dangerous and then market said product to youth to hook them when they are apt to make poor decisions are liable. I'm blown away you do not.

RJR should be held to no differnt standard than the individual. They should be accountable for their decisions just as the individual should. The individual paid with their life. They paid the ultimate consequence of their decision to smoke for the first time. When they were 13.

I find placing so much emphasis on personal responsibility without holding the manufacturer to the same standard to be quite hypocritical.

max

Exactly correct. Not only that, the tobacco companies raised the nicotine level to make it more addictive when they knew it was lethal to increase the bottom line. That is highly unethical and should be punished.

[robj144]

Originally Posted by Wengr

Q: Why do they not sue the resellers who illegally sold cigarettes to a minor countless times?
A: Because it's about money, and not about responsibility.
You sue where the money is.

And the money is there because they made the product more addictive. It's not about who's selling the product.