posted on June 6, 2001 06:48:21 PM new
Unfortunately, he will probably die before the appeal process is complete. It will probably be deemed that the award was excessive, also. I don't hold much hope in these situations based on previous humongous awards and the road they travelled before being finalized and greatly reduced.
posted on June 6, 2001 07:00:42 PM new
Did he start smoking before the warnings?
Easy targets those tobacco companies.
Gosh, I have a weight problem - I'm suing Sarah Lee!
The tobacco companies are just the victims of this generation's witch hunt, and while I believe that Joe Camel was a stupid marketing tool, and that the tobacco companies should have initially had the b*lls to say, "Yeah it's addictive, live with it," tobacco isn't the worst thing in the world.
I smoke. When I die, it will probably be from a cigarette related cause. I quit for 7 years, and started smoking again when I was 40. Should I sue when I become ill?
posted on June 6, 2001 07:08:26 PM new
The tobacco companies are marketing poison to children. How would you feel if you saw a bag of rat poison with a picture of a cute bunny on the candy shelf of your supermarket? Would you consider the maker a "target?"
posted on June 6, 2001 07:11:47 PM new
I'm happy to see tobacco companies lose a $3 billion law suit, but there's no way this person deserves that money.
Yes, the cartoon character of Joe Camel was offensive - and it was right to make it illegal to market that way.
It's too easy to see the tobacco companies as an impersonal entity.
There are thousands of employees in the industry - from high paid CEO's to security guards, to the people working the tobacco fields. Not to mention all the subsidiaries of these companies.
It's an adult habit. Adults take responsibility for their actions.
You think making it impossible for them to operate in the US will accomplish anything? Not a chance. They'll move to where the labor is cheaper and they can't be hurt by lawsuits. The only ones hurt will be the workers who've had their 401k plans decimated and who are out of work.
posted on June 6, 2001 07:22:58 PM newWhen I die, it will probably be from a cigarette related cause.
...actually, the mortality stats indicate there's about a 67% chance that you will die of something completely unrelated to smoking. Which nobody would ever suspect from the general hysteria level on this subject.
-gaffan-
posted on June 6, 2001 07:25:44 PM new
Actually gaffan, I was hoping that at about age 82, I'd be shot by the jealous girlfriend of a very cute 28 yr old! (And I'd be post-coitally smoking when it happened!)
posted on June 6, 2001 07:29:48 PM new
All I can say is Seagrams better hope my liver never fails. I'll be easy to deal with. I doubt I'd want much over $500 million. Chicken feed.
BTW, how much is a lapfull of McDonald's coffee worth?
I have smoked most of my adult life and just quit 2 months ago when I had this heart attack. The doctor screwed up and ruined a perfectly good artery while doing a cardiac catherization.
Can I sue him? Sure. Will I win? Nope. Why not? Because even though we can prove negligence, we can't prove damages!
I'm sitting here with a bypass and 3 or 4 stents in a good artery that were not needed, but I can't win a case. And this bozo can sue for $3 billion! Why can't I sue the tobacco company? If it wasn't for them, I'd not have this heart disease.
Sadie - t's an adult habit. Adults take responsibility for their actions.
It's not an adult habit. Kids smoke as early as 8 years old. I know because I see them smoking. My son who is 19 told me when he was around 9 he tried mine when I wasn't home. Luckily he didn't like it. But he gets kids coming up to him outside convenience stores asking him to buy them cigarettes and beer! Little kids! He refuses, but get this, one kid offered him $5 to go in and buy him a pack of cigarettes. These kids hang around outside waiting for adults to come by.
They took off TV advertising, billboard advertising, etc. but it doesn't help. The warning? You know what? The addiction is much stronger than the warning. It's a drug and when the government starts realizing that, we'll be better off. Nicotine is very powerful and so are the other habit forming things they put in cigarettes. It's been proven that there is more nicotine in cigarettes today than 20 years ago. They just keep upping the ante, getting people more and more addicted and then wonder why they have these lawsuits.
I say go for it! If someone can win money from them, why not?
They'll cry about going out of business, but look at the small town farmers and grocers who were forced out of business by chain supermarkets.
posted on June 6, 2001 07:55:05 PM new
If a kid starts smoking, sue the tobacco company, the parents are blameless.
If a mugger shoots you, sue Colt, Barretta, or Smith and Wesson, the mugger doesn't have any money.
If you drink to excess sue Seagrams, Budwiser, a bartender might get violent if you sue him.
If you lose your life savings in a casino don't worry, you might get it back playing litigation lotto
If enough people disapprove of a vice and there is a big money company behind it and you can find a willing lawyer (turn over any rock) you to have a chance at winning big time with litigation lotto
posted on June 6, 2001 10:53:32 PM new
Why do adults seem to find it so hard to accept responsibility for their own actions?
How do you redistribute wealth like that in a supposed non-socialist society? Was that his future earnings - $3 Billion? Is that his doctor bills? Cost of his impending funeral? No, that was a blatant decision by the jury to redistribute wealth. They can't explain the price tag, other than to say they wanted to hurt the company. Why? Someone please explain to me how cigarette companies are marketing to children. Children don't have jobs to be able to afford cigarettes, and even if they wanted to buy with their allowance, they have to be 18. What am I missing? As parents, can't you smell tobacco on a child? And once they are old enough to have a job and make their own decisions, can't they read the warnings on the pack? And does anyone here know somebody young or old that doesn't know smoking is dangerous?
I don't.
How are tobacco companies marketing to kids? Kids don't have money, so why would you market a product to them that they can't afford to buy, and aren't old enough to buy? Does that make good financial sense? Sure, they target young adults so they can have life long customers, but aren't young adults old enough to read the warnings and make a conscious decision? Who are we to tell somebody that wants to smoke themselves that they can't? Do we need to protect everybody from themselves, because maybe they can't control themselves?
How can you even call yourself an adult if you can't accept responsibility for your own actions?
posted on June 6, 2001 11:48:33 PM new
McDonalds is marketing to kids - luring them in with grease-soaked, deep fried food that's bad for your heart and makes you fat -so if a kid gets fat can they sue McDonalds? Oh yeah, I just cut my finger on a knife today while I was slicing up an onion - HEY, I THINK I'LL SUE THE KNIFE COMPANY And the announcer on T.V. told me, "DON'T TOUCH THAT DIAL" - so I didn't, and I missed my doctor's appointment and wasn't able to get my blood pressure medicine ....... yep, better sue the network for that one jeeeesh! Ya know, when I go through a drive-thru and see that little sign on the window CAUTION - COFFEE IS VERY HOT (or something along that order) I just wanna throw up. Hey, maybe I could sue 'em if their sign made me throw up
posted on June 7, 2001 12:31:42 AM new
Well, about adults taking responsibility for their actions.
Smoking is both habit-forming and dangerous to your health. The tobacco companies knew this long ago, yet they publicly denied it.
'Ya get it? They lied when they knew they had a dangerous product. That's what the fuss is all about.
Think about it. What if it was, say, a defective Firestone tire? What if Firestone knew their tires would blow out at 65 mph, and yet they lied about it? Would you tell Firestone customers "hey, act like an adult and take responsibilty?" Boy, you guys are way off the mark.
JamesO, yes that's an awful lot of money. But if it saves even one life, who can put a price on it? Besides, the money is coming out of Phillip Morris pocket, not Christian Children's Fund, 'know what I mean?
posted on June 7, 2001 01:12:01 AM newWhat if it was, say, a defective Firestone tire? What if Firestone knew their tires would blow out at 65 mph, and yet they lied about it?
What if Firestone put "These tires may be hazardous to your health at 65 mph" on their tires for over 30 years. Would you consider the consumer had some degree of accountablity after 30 years of what would be common knowledge to most?
posted on June 7, 2001 02:27:34 AM new
Well, the warning is "may be hazardous to your health." Cigarette companies were required to do that, they didn't volunteer. We know that "may be" is inaccurate. What's more, cigarettes are extremely addictive. Go back and read the article linked above. The plaintiff kicked heroin and alcohol, but was unable to kick tobacco.
Since the plaintiff begain smoking in the late 1950's, it's also a question of what the tobacco company knew and when it knew it. We may not know the exact answer to that, but it seems incontrovertable that a cover-up did exist.
The bulk of the award was punitive damages. That should tell you something. Phillip Morris needs to get OUT of the cigarette business. In my opinion, the cigarette companies are guilty of murder. My Dad is a smoker and now has emphysema. His sister died of emphysema a couple of years ago. I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but I doubt you'd have such a chipper attitude if you found yourself in that predicament. Then you'd probably wish someone had taken your smokes away a lot sooner. Considering the fact that a million people will drop dead next year from smoking, that's probably not a bad idea.
The award was large, but I'm not going to lose any sleep worrying about poor Mr. Phillip Morris. Somehow I doubt he'll be eating baloney sandwiches for lunch tomorrow like somebody I know. The judgement sends a message. Cigarettes are addictive and poison. If you don't see them as a dangerous drug, you need to re-examine the issue. "Litigation lotto" is a bunch of bull.
Would you consider the consumer had some degree of accountablity...?
Oh, I don't know. He's got inoperable lung cancer. How much more accountable do you want?
posted on June 7, 2001 02:56:14 AM new
"It's too easy to see the tobacco companies as an impersonal entity. "
Boy do I agree! -- And reach the opposite conclusion.
Here our buddy Timmy blows up 168 people in a patriotic fervor and everyone is agreed he is a villain and we are goingto kill him.
The tobacco company executives have sent millions to an early grave and lied and concealed the fact they were poisoning all these people for years.
If we were even a little consistant irrate mobs would have long ago dragged these pushers from their fancy homes and strung them up from the first lamp post.
posted on June 7, 2001 05:26:50 AM new
But the thing is the tobacco companies have already been spanked. Basically the feds have taken the position that the tobacco companies may sell their product, but their advertising and promoting options have diminished considerably. They also have to fund educational programs encouraging people to not use their product - this is Amerika???
IMHO here's what went wrong. The old farts who invariably run big corps thought the old "lie 'til they believe it" thing was going to work. They knew it was addictive in the 60's and should have just said so.
Also, all the work they do for illiteracy, flood victims, domestic abuse shelters, funding of minority groups, etc. went unknown until recently. And now it's too late because people think they're only promoting that stuff because of the current witch hunt. But they've been doing that stuff for years. Phillip Morris probably has one of the highest dollar corporate giving programs in the country.
As to kids smoking at eight, well, I'm sorry, but people who can't control their eight year olds shouldn't have had them. I realize the situation is different with teens.
Everyone should be accountable, both the people who've chosen to smoke since the warnings appeared and the tobacco companies. And they have been. The courts took care of that. This award is a knee jerk reaction in a state where anti-smoking nazis have been wielding their clubs for decades.
This was, after all, a California jury. Anyone for a glass of OJ?
posted on June 7, 2001 05:54:26 AM new
I went to breakfast yesterday at a little coney island across from the High School.
The only two sitting in the smoking section were a pair that looked about 14 but one of them had to be 16 because they pulled up in a car and parked. Sitting by me were a couple Sheriff's Deputies. The kids both sat there smoking and do you think antbody cared or asked the cops to check their ID because they were under age to have tobacco products?
There is social acceptance of smoking - and as long as that is true there will be no headway in curbing it no matter what laws they make.
posted on June 7, 2001 06:26:13 AM new
Now really, do you think that even back in the 50's if they had put warnings on the packs of cigs that people would have not smoked? My dad has passed on, but he was an asbestos worker plus smoked 3 packs of filterless Camels a day and still didn't die of lung cancer. (Although I'm sure his lungs had to have been black). I just can't imagine that a person would have bought a pack, read the warning and say "Oh no, these cause cancer.....I'd better not buy them".
posted on June 7, 2001 06:45:02 AM new
What then is the solution? Making cigarettes illegal? It didn't work w/alcohol, and it's not working with drugs.
Actually, though I disparage them, the non-smoking hasslers are doing it best. When I quit for seven years it was because I had to turn down too many social functions because I smoked. (Fortunately, the whole country isn't pc, and I'm quite comfortable as a smoker now.)
Education and peer pressure will probably work the best. Government intervention is usually ineffective and blows with fashion.
posted on June 7, 2001 10:35:38 AM new
I think the answer is to make cigarettes much more expensive. With the money, make things like the Patch and other quit smoking programs free. I thought I heard the wrong amount when I heard 3 billion. That seems excessive.
posted on June 7, 2001 10:43:30 AM new
Actually, we are all going to have to pay Phillip Morris' 3 Billion dollar bill.
They also own Kraft Foods and Miller Brewing.
I can see that familiar blue box of mac n cheese going for upwards of $10 in the near future. (Remember when it was .39 a box? It has already gone up from the previous awards.) The competitors will of course, raise their prices to match. Bulls Eye BBQ sauce, Tombstone Pizza, Mayonase and Miracle whip, Shake N Bake, Breakstone's, Jell-o, Stove Top, Louis Rich, Oscar Meyer... just a partial list of Kraft foods products.
Beer prices will be jumping up too, then wine and liquor will soon follow suit.
Hey all you non smokers out there applauding this ridiculous award... take a quick peek at your pantry, because we will all end up paying for this!
As far as adults taking responsibility, I am 40, born in 1960. Cig companies didn't "admit" that smoking was bad for you until... was it the late 90's? By that time I had been smoking for at least 30 years, yet I grew up knowing smoking was bad for me. Both my parents smoked, heck, everyone did back then. I learned my behavior from them. Do I blame the cig companies that I have this annoying cough? Do I blame my dad who died of a heart attack when I was 10?
NOPE!
I smoke because that's the way I was brought up. I knew it was bad. I knew it was wrong. The cig companies hadn't even dreamed up Joe Camel when I started at the tender age of 10. They weren't marketing to kids back then, yet all of us kids smoked.
It is absolutely assinine that a person can do something that he knows is bad for him and yet take none of the blame for his own actions. America's highly litigious society allows for any idiot to completely screw up and still manage to profit from someone (anyone! ) else, for their own mistake!!!!
Speed kills. I think the next time I get a ticket I will sue GM for making the gas pedal go all the way to the floor. Don't they know that is dangerous??????
mtnmomma, I am truly glad that you are feeling better. From your own post,
Kids smoke as early as 8 years old. I know because I see them smoking. My son who is 19 told me when he was around 9 he tried mine when I wasn't home.
Is it the cigarette company's fault that YOU had cigs in YOUR house, and YOU smoked in front of YOUR children?
What do kids want to do most of all? BE A GROWN UP LIKE MOM AND DAD. I got news for ya folks, and if you ex smokers will remember back for a moment.. why did we all start smoking? Cigarette ads, or because it was an accepted form of behaviour that almost everyone did?
Sadie, You GO girl! If ever I do manage to quit this annoying, disgusting and filthy habit, you will still be welcome to light up in my home! (Just don't ash the carpet... just had it cleaned.... )
posted on June 7, 2001 10:54:33 AM newgravid whether those kids were 14 or 16, I'd bet they were fully aware of how addictive and dangerous cigarettes were before they started smoking. What do you think?
posted on June 7, 2001 11:21:54 AM newWhat then is the solution? Making cigarettes illegal? It didn't work w/alcohol, and it's not working with drugs.
Actually today they could make cigarettes illegal. They probably could make alcohol illegal and have much better success that they did during the prohibition.
My work was related to the trans Alaskan Pipeline, that meant I fell under DOT regulations. My name was in a computer, and when my name randomly came up I was required to show up to the medical office and be treated like a criminal. I had two choices, pee in a bottle and prove my innocence or be terminated losing a high paying job. The government could simply arrange the enforcement by the employers, it has a huge impact on drug use. I didn't worry about the cops kicking down the door if I was at a party where marijuana was being used, I was worried that it could cost me my job.
I have little doubt that the alcohol industry faces the same scenarios that the tobacco industry is facing at some point in the future. The public can simply impose huge fines under the guise of lawsuits awarding 'damages.'
posted on June 7, 2001 01:16:51 PM new
Yes in an abstract way those kids probably know that there is risk involved in cigerettes. They also understand that auto accidents happen and yet we see that the first couple years a person drives the rate at which accidents happen culls an unconsciencable number of them out who can not use this abstract knowlege to practical use to constrain their behavior.
I will say something unpopular - the public
is not good at risk assesment. It is never taught in public school and a lot of it is not intuative. Saying everyone is free to do as they please and take whatever risks they wish without teaching them what statistics mean and how to figure odds is too expensive a blanket freedom for society to bear.
As an example that is why the state of Michigan has reduced the hours and circumstances a new driver can operate a car.
Because too many deaths and the huge expense
involved in car crashes cried out for a
program to ease the new user into getting some experience before letting them drive at night and with other teenagers in the car -
conditions that distracted them from a complex task they were still struggling to do well without distraction.
If people are too stupid to see that burning a toxic weed and sucking the smoke down might prove harmful there will come a point at which the cost to society is too great to allow them to continue to lure new users to do that.
If aerosol manufacturers were advertising their products to the public to "huff" for the high we would not be saying it
is the publics personal freedom to use the products that way because they do get pleasure from it and the risk is their choice to make.
The difference is cars and huffing kill you or put you in the hospital immediatly. People can see the cause and effect relationship.
Smoking takes so long to harm you - and the effect is not uniform - that there is no indignation. Nobody starts smoking and a month later is laying in the hospital on life support. So there is no anger. Why are better educated people less likely to smoke? For the same reason they are the ones who buy stocks and are aware they will have to retire some day and plan for it. These are the same people who don't play the LOTTO because they know they have more chance of being hit by lightning than winning.
There are a LOT of stupid people out there and even more who were never well educated.
What reason does a public school system have for giving consumers the tools to evaluate risk and benefit? Next thing you know they will be refusing to buy things that don't make sense and there goes the economy. They may start realizing that the funny numbers put out by the government don't mean anything. That road is way too dangerous to start down..
My Mom smoked. She died in pain from the cancer all spread through her and was virtually unrecognizable at the end. A bald shrunken caricature of who she had been. She tried many times to quit and was very addicted. If I could put a hangman's rope around the neck of the people who lived off her blood money paid pack by pack I would stand them on a melting block of ice so they had time to know the rope was getting tighter little by little as they hung. That's how much I hate them.
No one who smokes is welcome in my house.
Someone who sells tobacco is a drug dealer.
The law can say it is fine but that does not mean it is moral. There are all sorts of things you can do and be within the law but
a skunk is a skunk and just because it is legal to be one does not mean you are welcome at my tea party.
posted on June 7, 2001 01:31:37 PM new
Gravid, you make some excellent points. That said, I don't understand why there aren't a rash of law suits against alcohol distillers and distributors. Drinking can be addictive, it can kill, it has been linked to some cancers, and it destroys the liver. It's only supposed to be consumed by adults, yet I see advertisements all the time for "lemonade" wine coolers and other flavored alcoholic drinks that are clearly marketed to minors.
Not all drinkers drive drunk or become alcoholics, just as not all smokers come down with smoking related illnesses or "harm" their family members with so-called "second hand smoke". It's ridiculous to blame "someone else" for your own choices with regard to using a legally marketed substance, especially one that has WARNING! written all over it. DUH!
The other option is to go ahead and make cigarettes illegal. But then they ought to make booze illegal too. Oh wait, that's been tried before.
posted on June 7, 2001 02:25:42 PM new
Agreed - If everyone were rational a lot of things would be different. Alcohal is like automobiles. A big chunk of the population can use it and not harm others. A fairly large number can even not harm themselves.
Those that do harm themselves it is still not percieved as a public cost - or one people are willing to bear to retain their own freedoms.
When the last big war - WWII ended everyone in industry was predicting that after the industrial capacity was freed up airplanes would be as common as cars and we would have subdivisions built around a runway and everyone would be free to travel all over and fly home and fold their wings up and park in their garage.It would have been a huge boost to the economy. What happened? The public is not bright enough to pass a pilots test. Sure the few who are really motivated will go through the instruction and learn. However if it was as hard to get a drivers license as a pilot's liceanse our streets would be a lot less crowded - the cars would be a lot more expensive (and fewer models etc) and the boost to the economy cars provide would be missed very much. We would have a very different culture. Would the public have accepted a hard to get driver's license? We will never know because it did not happen that way. The states did not require licenses until there were already a large number of people driving and then they had to pretty much license whoever was already driving.
One time in traffic court in the 1960's I saw a old fellow in his 70's come before the judge who had a speeding ticket for about 5 miles over, but he was also cited for no license. How come you don't have one the judge asked? He said he had been driving for years before anyone ever thought of the need for one in Ohio and didn't see any damn need for one when he already knew how and had never had any trouble. You mean this is the first time in 60 some years you have had a ticket the judge asked? Yes Sir he said and I did not have any accident or hurt anyone for this ticket. So I don't see how I am any threat to the public with a record like that.
The judge agreed and dropped charges if the guy would agree to go get a license. Old boy knew a sweet deal when he heard it and agreed.
Edited to note - I am just as glad that civil aviation was held back for awhile. At least we don't have every damn fool that gets boozed up crashing through our roofs with a load of aviation gas. It IS a lot harder to think in three dimensions than two.
When we get computer systems that can fly maybe the idea will take off again.
[ edited by gravid on Jun 7, 2001 02:38 PM ]
