Verdicts like this reinforce my strong belief that America is incapable of operating as an intelligent society. The dedecant started smoking at age 15 and continued until he died at age 55. His wife whined that he smoked to “relieve stress”. Quite frankly, this guy didn’t have much in the way of responsibility so one would question where the stress came from. Did you know that over 50% of the population suffers from stress? They don’t smoke themselves to death. Did his wife sue while he was alive to get him help? No. She waits for him to die and now wants to pad her retirement nest with money from Phillip Morris. If these people were serious about concern for big tobacco not doing enough fine. Giving the surviors big money accomplished nothing. Litigation like this is a cancer in our society. Maybe class actions will bankrupt big companies and more jobs will be lost. How successful.
If you think that Wikipedia is the the fountain of true knowledge – then you are deluded my friend. Wiki is an open source web-based encyclopedia where you and I can edit and amend anything. Anything that is on wikipedia – read it and then go and check it out elsewhere to make sure that it’s correct.
Many people seem to be missing the point in relation to this litigation, the drug concerned and the major part that Phillip Morris played in it.
– Nicotine is a highly addictive drug, apparently more addictive than Class A drugs
– Government will not ban this drug due to the tax revenue received from it – although the cost to health-care in the western world outstrips any tax received
– The Tobacco companies knew that their product was highly addictive
– The Tobacco companies hid the fact that these seemingly harmless little white sticks could kill and could lead to cancer
– Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known cancer-causing (carcinogenic) compounds and 400 other toxins. These include nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide, as well as formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, and DDT – do they print that on the packets? This list was provided to congressional investigators in 1994 but for some reason this was never made public.
So when we’re busy complaining that this woman (or any person) has made a packet through litigation against the poor Tobacco companies – think to yourself:
– Does this company owe a duty of care to purchasers to let them know the concoction of chemicals they are putting in their body
– Did they knowingly hide the discoveries to enable them to make huge profits
– Did they willingly put the Smoking Kills sticker on their packaging (NO – Made to do it)
Phillip Morris, Imperial Tobacco etc etc – everyone of them should be made to pay for the harm and hurt they have caused worldwide to millions.
Don’t argue back – it’s their choice to smoke, it’s one of the most highly addictive drugs – and very difficult for everyone to come off of.
I’m not a lawyer, nor a fan of no-win no-fee cases. I just like to see justice prevail.
What is material is the utter stupidity of her husband in continuing to smoke in light of the long-known dangers. That idiocity far outweighs any “loss” for which she sought compensation. Sounds more like welfare.
How long have the warnings been printed on the cigarette packs? Why didn’t he heed those warnings? What else could Philip Morris do to warn him about the dangers of smoking? If he was so stressed,why didn’t he see a doctor for medication? Why not try yoga? Why not exercise to relieve stress? Who forced him to smoke anyway? Doesn’t this set a precedent?
I don’t understand the logic. Logic??!!
What’s logical about this whole case?
Has American gone mad??? Or are they just dumb…..
I smoked for 10 years, quit and then started again for 3 years then finally quit, can I sue if I get diagnosed with cancer that will kill me? I guess I’ll move to Florida and give it a try. I’ll just act “dumb” like the rest of the country….oh wait, his wife was a teacher, no less. What does this say now? Is this what she is teaching her students now? I feel bad for her, sure. She lost her husband, but nobody forced him to smoke. It’s the choice HE made.
We all have choices. It’s just that no one wants to take responsibility for their own mistakes anymore. Tsk….Tsk….Tsk…..
He started smoking 40 years ago. 1969. When did cigarette companies start putting warnings on the labels? So up until they did, they knowingly sold a poisonous, addictive product and they are not at all responsible?
I quit smoking nearly 1 year ago. I think i’m going to start up again, get sick, then sue the tobacco companies. What’s next? Is someone going to sue Obama for punative damages b/c they saw him smoking a ciggarette in some magazine?
Hey I know…how about we start handing out settlements to single mothers in urban areas that were too stupid to have protected sex and instead got pregnant and now puts a drain on the welfare system. Maybe they could sue Trojan condoms b/c they got pregnant while NOT using one of their products like they should have. Society and our “judicial system” just rewarded total and complete stupidity…again. I’m starting to think the dumber you are these days, the more likely you are to get a free handout.
Just another example of our country and its people not taking responsibility for their actions. Maybe the warning wasn’t on the cig packs in 1969, I don’t know (or care), but it did appear sometime after that and the guy could have or should have quit then. He rolled the dice and lost. But it was his choice; no one made him smoke.
Same for all these people with mortgages who cannot pay them or don’t want to pay them due to deflated house values. Again they rolled the dice on the real estate market staying strong, and it collapsed. Plus, how the heck can a person commit to paying a mortgage with $0 down and interest only for 5 years, and then be shocked at a payment increase once they have to start paying interest AND principal? Again they take no responsibility and now the Dems are wasting our tax money to try and help.
So if a pharmaceutical company manufactures a drug that, years later, we find to be harmful, that company is not at fault and therefore should not be sued?
Loved this quote: “We have paved the road for these other litigants to come in and seek their day in court as well. We’re happy to be able to do that for them.”
The road to hell will be paved with other litigants now. Hope those attorneys get run over on the road.
That is two different situations. Putting hot smoke and tar in your lungs is obviously bad for you; taking an FDA certified pill is presumably okay, except for the listed side affects.
I see your point, but a company that KNOWINGLY gets you addicted to a product that puts smoke & tar in your lungs is exempt from any responsibility? I could be wrong, but could I have heard that they at one point said there is no danger to smoking? That may be a stretch, but it sounds somewhat familiar.
Two words for you all….. TAX DOLLARS!!!! That’s what is really at work here people. Unlike the pharmaceuticals, which the FDA is supposed to regulate, this a know product, that causes health issues/damages, that the Federal Government won’t regulate because they get so much $$ from it. Yet, they allow the Federal Court systems to award damages t oschmucks that smoke, get sick and want money. FYI – I am a smoker and I take full responsibility for my life and my actions. Everytime I light up a smoke I know what it may be doing to me, yet I still make that CHOICE – yes CHOICE.
We need to take all the judges out into the streets and whip them. This is getting crazy out of hand.
Lawman, all the more reason to not smoke. People are responsible for their choices but when most people now days make the wrong choice they look for someone to blame. Should Mickey Mantle sue Jack Daniels for the cost of his new liver, or can his health insurer subrogate against the distillers of liquor? I just think it is wrong to award someone a large sum of money because of their poor choices.
Lawman: nice dissertation on the chemical compounds in cigarettes, but that level of detail isn’t needed to know there’s something wrong with taking a bunch of dried leaves, rolling them in paper, setting it on fire, then sucking the smoke into the organs you depend upon to breathe and live.
This moron smoked like a chimney since he was 15. There is no excuse to ignore warnings even an idiot can understand, and if you do, you get what comes with it. There are plenty of things that, WHEN ABUSED, will kill you. People have the personal responsibility to recognize that and TAKE ACTION. It’s a concept that has been eroding in America called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. It’s what differentiates (or should) humans from animals…….the ability to CONTROL OURSELVES.
Awarding millions to the surviors is a warped concept fabricated by plaintiff attorneys. All the plaintiffs and their money grubbing attorneys say “it’s not about the money”. That’s pure bull…..it’s ONLY about the money. Have any of these verdicts altered the manufacturing of cigarettes? No. Anyone who exhausts all avenues and help quitting and fails has a problem. All the warnings in the world aren’t going to solve that character flaw. We need to stop pretending that business needs to protect people from themselve.
It’s a legal product that has multiple warnings. There is no secret that sucking up smoke is bad for you. There is no secret that they are addictive. Why should these individuals be made rich due to their bad habits? To fill the pockets of the lawyers is why. If they are so bad (and they are) make them illegal. Won’t happen.
You know what would be cool now? Someone comes forward and sues the lady who got the award because the second hand smoke from her dead husband gave them cancer!
Lawman uses an interesting attack method that I refer to as the “shotgun” approach. That is, attack everything the person says, beginning with cited sources. Wikipedia is right in most cases, since if someone reads something incorrect there, they can fix it or complain about it. Yes, I know, the tobacco companies changed the dates, and everyone over 40 believes in the Easter Bunny. If you verify, as I did, checking into government and newspaper web sites, you will find that Wiki is conservative on its dates. The first smoking warning on packs actually appeared in 1965. It was tough to quit, but I did after several attempts. It is not all that hard to quit if you know how to do it, and I finally figured that out. Now when I smell them, I wonder how I could ever have smoked. Well, I know how I smoked. I did it because it was “cool” and all of my buddies did it along with nearly everyone else, or so it seemed.
The cigarette companies found out as did everyone else, smokers included, that smoking was bad for you. However, the cigarette companies have to pay for something we all knew. Perhaps they knew it before everyone else did it, but the settlement that they reached with all the states (it was in big billions of dollars) was to pay for that. The companies were supposed to be protected from litigation from anyone who smoked after that. The states were supposed to settle up with the smokers or the survivors. Actually, the money was used for everything but taking care of the smoking victims or helping them quit. They had quitting classed and leaflets but no patches, pills, or other medical assistance. You can look that up, too, and you can see that in laws passed by the various states rather than look on Wikipedia. You can look on Westlaw or Lexis, but Lawman will probably have something to say about those sources, too.
Cigarettes have lots of chemicals in them. Anything that burns releases bad things but people still burn their trash and other junk. Lets not forget the forest fires that could be mitigated if radicals did not insist that forests be left wild and unkempt. The air, water, and food that you eat contain carcinogenic chemicals but unless there is someone to sue it goes unreported. If we get rid of the population on the planet it will still be contaminated with arsenic, which occurs naturally, and although it is 100% natural and contains no preservatives, it still is not good for you.
Do the lawyers have a duty to tell their clients that they are going to make a ton of money on their case? Their profits per person far outweigh what the cigarette company made, and the lawyers know this from day one. The cigarette companies did not initially know that their product was problematic since smoking had been going on long before there were cigarette companies. They could no more quit manufacturing cigarettes when they found out that they were dangerous after 40 years than the alcohol companies could quit making booze. They were forced to put the warning label on a pack just as beer, wine, and liquor were forced to label those products. Alcohol causes birth defects, causes more teen deaths (from DWI) than any other cause, and kills from medical complications of the liver, etc. but it is still sold.
You did mention the government making a ton of tax money on each pack. I understand that cigarettes are between four and five dollars a pack, most of which is tax. Cigarettes cost more than two gallons of gasoline per pack. Alcohol and tobacco taxes are the sin taxes that people unwillingly pay and the government willingly collects. We tried prohibition and you can see how well that worked.
Now lets address the addictive characteristics of nicotine (which is always brought up in discussions of smoking). Well, “they” say it is as “addictive as cocain” (which is always cited), but I did not check on Wikipedia since Lawman would probably disparage the cite. Therefore, I will simply cite “they” and let the reader verify the truthfulness of the comparison. Using cocain as the primary standard for addictiveness, you would think that it would be outlawed and you would be correct. However, if you have enough money in your pocket you can go out tonight and get it. We can see how well outlawing a product works (see reference to prohibition above). However, there is no public company to sue, so we get hand wringing and excuses over the deaths from cocain and the murders due to the gangs that sell it.
Drugs of any type including alcohol, tobacco, abused ethical pharmaceuticals, and illegal drugs are indeed a choice and the choice is made by the user. The cigarette companies make a modest profit after they pay the states every year for their part of the “Tobacco Settlement”, the tax profit is made by the government, and the greatest profit per user is made by the lawyers.
It is difficult but not impossible to quit smoking. I know many people who have done it. If you continue to smoke, it is your choice and in many states you cannot smoke anywhere in public anymore. I am sympathetic to smokers, but there are many clues that smoking is bad for you. Very bad. Everyone quits smoking when they die, but you need to quit before you die. That is justice, real justice, because you get to live and enjoy the justice.
Congratulations on quitting smoking. You are proof that it can be done, and you admit it is quite difficult.
Also, Harcourt & Brace just called. They want to publish the novel you just posted here.
Sorry about the novel, I got carried away. Smoking lawsuit hotbutton. Isn’t there a lawyer who will sue someone for causing me the distress that made me write the novel? (Where’s my lighter?)
Isn’t there a saying “Judge not lest ye be judged”? To those of you who have never smoked, addicted to anything else? How about Alcohol, food, coffee, sodas. How hard would it be for you to quit? To those of you who cite family members and or friends that died from smoking, do you honestly think they wanted to pay anyone tens of thousands of dollars to die a slow agonizing death? I wish smoking was against the law and manufacturers driven out of business. Of coursethat is never going to happen. They are money makers, taxpayers and the drug companies are making a fortune selling products to stop smoking . Did you ever talk to someone with an addictive personality that smokes several packs a day? While stopping cold turkey, they vomit until there is nothing left to vomit. They have severe headaches. They shake and feel like they could jump out of their skin. They are so grumpy no one can stand to be around them including themselves. There is rehab for everything else, why not for smokers. It is like trying to kick a heroine addiction except a smoker can enter any supermarket, drug store, gas station, convenient store etc and there they are right in front of you. With all of the new laws banning smoking, smokers are now treated like less than human and or criminals. The more this is harped on the more a smoker wants to smoke. Perhaps we should all keep our opinions to ourselves because what we say is not going to cause a smoker to stop. Only they can do that. In the above case the woman went to court and the verdict was in her favor. Obviously someone agreed with her.
My father smoked 5 packs a day for 50 years. He died early with serious lung problems. I didn’t know that it was time to cash in on his death. He knew that smoking was hurting him and made a decision not to quit. I know this is true because he told me. I have a hard time believing that because someone chooses not to quit, that the family should be made instantly wealthy. If it’s not about the money, pay the judgments into anti smoking campaigns instead of private bank accounts.
Banning smoking in public places is not treating smokers like less than human. Smoking is banned because people who choose not to smoke do not want to inhale the second hand smoke from the smokers. You know why? Because they realize that smoking is bad for you.
Apologies that I hit a nerve with my Shotgun approach – I was trying to kill as many birds with one stone as I could.
In relation to Wikipedia – there are too many people who cite this as The Truth without knowing that it’s not all true – I agree that most of the information is nearly correct – however I did mention that you should check somewhere else after looking at Wikipedia.
I agree that the money should go to something like Anti Smoking campaigns rather than to greedy lawyers & family members trying to make a quick buck – but I think that Phillip Morris, Imperial Tobacco should pay for hiding their knowledge of the harm that smoking causes.
Well done on stopping smoking Bob – I only wish that everyone found it as easy as you. (I’m not trying to wind you up here – my Mum’s a compulsive smoker and is not able to give up even after diagnosis)
Did you know it is harder for women to stop smoking than men?
Nobody Important – I am really sorry about your father and I can tell you are angry over the situation he put himself in. I wish I could make you understand how very difficult it is to stop smoking. Most that do still want a cigarette many years later. That should tell you something about the addictive power of cigarettes.
I think the Tobacco Settlement with the states was where the tobacco companies paid for keeping it a secret. States get billions a year from the tobacco companies for that. The lawsuits make them pay again. If the Columbian drug lords begin supplying cigarettes, they will not be sued.
Lawman, sorry about your mom’s diagnosis. Tell her it is not easy but she can taper off over a period of time. A New York cab driver told me that he kept his pack in the trunk of his cab so he would not light up so easily. He smoked less and less over the weeks until he could quit totally. I dropped two cigarettes a day for a week, then the next week I smoked two less each day for that week. Some bad days I would cheat, but I would always go back to the schedule the next day. The first no smoke day was the worst (but tolerable), but it got better every day. I did cheat with one occasionally, but my pack was in my trunk because of what the cabbie told me. It worked. No pills, no patches, and no cold turkey (which sounds like it would be terrible and never work).
If we can make the tobacco companies pay for our stupidity, shouldn’t we be able to sue MacDonalds for our waistlines. Or do we have to sue the farmer who raised the beef? Is it any wonder that just about every country that revolted got rid of the lawyers first?
If the almighty government is so concerned about all of us why haven’t they made tobacco illegal? Do you think it has anything to do with the millions they collect in taxes?
Guess I need to start smoking so that I can get my “stimulus plan” going.
My kids need the money so off to the store to start!!!!! Thank you “trial lawyers” for the advice!
Verdicts like this reinforce my strong belief that America is incapable of operating as an intelligent society. The dedecant started smoking at age 15 and continued until he died at age 55. His wife whined that he smoked to “relieve stress”. Quite frankly, this guy didn’t have much in the way of responsibility so one would question where the stress came from. Did you know that over 50% of the population suffers from stress? They don’t smoke themselves to death. Did his wife sue while he was alive to get him help? No. She waits for him to die and now wants to pad her retirement nest with money from Phillip Morris. If these people were serious about concern for big tobacco not doing enough fine. Giving the surviors big money accomplished nothing. Litigation like this is a cancer in our society. Maybe class actions will bankrupt big companies and more jobs will be lost. How successful.
Are you for real?
If you think that Wikipedia is the the fountain of true knowledge – then you are deluded my friend. Wiki is an open source web-based encyclopedia where you and I can edit and amend anything. Anything that is on wikipedia – read it and then go and check it out elsewhere to make sure that it’s correct.
Many people seem to be missing the point in relation to this litigation, the drug concerned and the major part that Phillip Morris played in it.
– Nicotine is a highly addictive drug, apparently more addictive than Class A drugs
– Government will not ban this drug due to the tax revenue received from it – although the cost to health-care in the western world outstrips any tax received
– The Tobacco companies knew that their product was highly addictive
– The Tobacco companies hid the fact that these seemingly harmless little white sticks could kill and could lead to cancer
– Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known cancer-causing (carcinogenic) compounds and 400 other toxins. These include nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide, as well as formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, and DDT – do they print that on the packets? This list was provided to congressional investigators in 1994 but for some reason this was never made public.
So when we’re busy complaining that this woman (or any person) has made a packet through litigation against the poor Tobacco companies – think to yourself:
– Does this company owe a duty of care to purchasers to let them know the concoction of chemicals they are putting in their body
– Did they knowingly hide the discoveries to enable them to make huge profits
– Did they willingly put the Smoking Kills sticker on their packaging (NO – Made to do it)
Phillip Morris, Imperial Tobacco etc etc – everyone of them should be made to pay for the harm and hurt they have caused worldwide to millions.
Don’t argue back – it’s their choice to smoke, it’s one of the most highly addictive drugs – and very difficult for everyone to come off of.
I’m not a lawyer, nor a fan of no-win no-fee cases. I just like to see justice prevail.
The widow’s weight is immaterial.
What is material is the utter stupidity of her husband in continuing to smoke in light of the long-known dangers. That idiocity far outweighs any “loss” for which she sought compensation. Sounds more like welfare.
How long have the warnings been printed on the cigarette packs? Why didn’t he heed those warnings? What else could Philip Morris do to warn him about the dangers of smoking? If he was so stressed,why didn’t he see a doctor for medication? Why not try yoga? Why not exercise to relieve stress? Who forced him to smoke anyway? Doesn’t this set a precedent?
I don’t understand the logic. Logic??!!
What’s logical about this whole case?
Has American gone mad??? Or are they just dumb…..
I smoked for 10 years, quit and then started again for 3 years then finally quit, can I sue if I get diagnosed with cancer that will kill me? I guess I’ll move to Florida and give it a try. I’ll just act “dumb” like the rest of the country….oh wait, his wife was a teacher, no less. What does this say now? Is this what she is teaching her students now? I feel bad for her, sure. She lost her husband, but nobody forced him to smoke. It’s the choice HE made.
We all have choices. It’s just that no one wants to take responsibility for their own mistakes anymore. Tsk….Tsk….Tsk…..
He started smoking 40 years ago. 1969. When did cigarette companies start putting warnings on the labels? So up until they did, they knowingly sold a poisonous, addictive product and they are not at all responsible?
I quit smoking nearly 1 year ago. I think i’m going to start up again, get sick, then sue the tobacco companies. What’s next? Is someone going to sue Obama for punative damages b/c they saw him smoking a ciggarette in some magazine?
Hey I know…how about we start handing out settlements to single mothers in urban areas that were too stupid to have protected sex and instead got pregnant and now puts a drain on the welfare system. Maybe they could sue Trojan condoms b/c they got pregnant while NOT using one of their products like they should have. Society and our “judicial system” just rewarded total and complete stupidity…again. I’m starting to think the dumber you are these days, the more likely you are to get a free handout.
“smoked to relieve stress”…
The only “stress” you can relieve by smoking is the stress caused of nicotine withdrawal. Nicotine is a STIMULANT, therefore can not relieve stress!
No, they are not responsible. I’ll bet that he was coughing and hacking far before the written warnings. Didn’t that tell him something?
How stupid can a human being be?
Just another example of our country and its people not taking responsibility for their actions. Maybe the warning wasn’t on the cig packs in 1969, I don’t know (or care), but it did appear sometime after that and the guy could have or should have quit then. He rolled the dice and lost. But it was his choice; no one made him smoke.
Same for all these people with mortgages who cannot pay them or don’t want to pay them due to deflated house values. Again they rolled the dice on the real estate market staying strong, and it collapsed. Plus, how the heck can a person commit to paying a mortgage with $0 down and interest only for 5 years, and then be shocked at a payment increase once they have to start paying interest AND principal? Again they take no responsibility and now the Dems are wasting our tax money to try and help.
So if a pharmaceutical company manufactures a drug that, years later, we find to be harmful, that company is not at fault and therefore should not be sued?
Loved this quote: “We have paved the road for these other litigants to come in and seek their day in court as well. We’re happy to be able to do that for them.”
The road to hell will be paved with other litigants now. Hope those attorneys get run over on the road.
That is two different situations. Putting hot smoke and tar in your lungs is obviously bad for you; taking an FDA certified pill is presumably okay, except for the listed side affects.
I see your point, but a company that KNOWINGLY gets you addicted to a product that puts smoke & tar in your lungs is exempt from any responsibility? I could be wrong, but could I have heard that they at one point said there is no danger to smoking? That may be a stretch, but it sounds somewhat familiar.
Two words for you all….. TAX DOLLARS!!!! That’s what is really at work here people. Unlike the pharmaceuticals, which the FDA is supposed to regulate, this a know product, that causes health issues/damages, that the Federal Government won’t regulate because they get so much $$ from it. Yet, they allow the Federal Court systems to award damages t oschmucks that smoke, get sick and want money. FYI – I am a smoker and I take full responsibility for my life and my actions. Everytime I light up a smoke I know what it may be doing to me, yet I still make that CHOICE – yes CHOICE.
We need to take all the judges out into the streets and whip them. This is getting crazy out of hand.
FYI, from Wikapedia, here’s the history of warnings:
Caution: Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health (1966-1970)
Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined that Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health (1970-1985)
SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy. (1985-)
Lawman, all the more reason to not smoke. People are responsible for their choices but when most people now days make the wrong choice they look for someone to blame. Should Mickey Mantle sue Jack Daniels for the cost of his new liver, or can his health insurer subrogate against the distillers of liquor? I just think it is wrong to award someone a large sum of money because of their poor choices.
Lawman: nice dissertation on the chemical compounds in cigarettes, but that level of detail isn’t needed to know there’s something wrong with taking a bunch of dried leaves, rolling them in paper, setting it on fire, then sucking the smoke into the organs you depend upon to breathe and live.
This moron smoked like a chimney since he was 15. There is no excuse to ignore warnings even an idiot can understand, and if you do, you get what comes with it. There are plenty of things that, WHEN ABUSED, will kill you. People have the personal responsibility to recognize that and TAKE ACTION. It’s a concept that has been eroding in America called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. It’s what differentiates (or should) humans from animals…….the ability to CONTROL OURSELVES.
Awarding millions to the surviors is a warped concept fabricated by plaintiff attorneys. All the plaintiffs and their money grubbing attorneys say “it’s not about the money”. That’s pure bull…..it’s ONLY about the money. Have any of these verdicts altered the manufacturing of cigarettes? No. Anyone who exhausts all avenues and help quitting and fails has a problem. All the warnings in the world aren’t going to solve that character flaw. We need to stop pretending that business needs to protect people from themselve.
It’s a legal product that has multiple warnings. There is no secret that sucking up smoke is bad for you. There is no secret that they are addictive. Why should these individuals be made rich due to their bad habits? To fill the pockets of the lawyers is why. If they are so bad (and they are) make them illegal. Won’t happen.
You know what would be cool now? Someone comes forward and sues the lady who got the award because the second hand smoke from her dead husband gave them cancer!
There you go, excellent idea. She looks to have some pretty deep pockets now. Sue her.
That we NEVER hear about a lawsuit against a liquor manufacturer for being responsible if someone should drink themselves to death? And many do!
Lawman uses an interesting attack method that I refer to as the “shotgun” approach. That is, attack everything the person says, beginning with cited sources. Wikipedia is right in most cases, since if someone reads something incorrect there, they can fix it or complain about it. Yes, I know, the tobacco companies changed the dates, and everyone over 40 believes in the Easter Bunny. If you verify, as I did, checking into government and newspaper web sites, you will find that Wiki is conservative on its dates. The first smoking warning on packs actually appeared in 1965. It was tough to quit, but I did after several attempts. It is not all that hard to quit if you know how to do it, and I finally figured that out. Now when I smell them, I wonder how I could ever have smoked. Well, I know how I smoked. I did it because it was “cool” and all of my buddies did it along with nearly everyone else, or so it seemed.
The cigarette companies found out as did everyone else, smokers included, that smoking was bad for you. However, the cigarette companies have to pay for something we all knew. Perhaps they knew it before everyone else did it, but the settlement that they reached with all the states (it was in big billions of dollars) was to pay for that. The companies were supposed to be protected from litigation from anyone who smoked after that. The states were supposed to settle up with the smokers or the survivors. Actually, the money was used for everything but taking care of the smoking victims or helping them quit. They had quitting classed and leaflets but no patches, pills, or other medical assistance. You can look that up, too, and you can see that in laws passed by the various states rather than look on Wikipedia. You can look on Westlaw or Lexis, but Lawman will probably have something to say about those sources, too.
Cigarettes have lots of chemicals in them. Anything that burns releases bad things but people still burn their trash and other junk. Lets not forget the forest fires that could be mitigated if radicals did not insist that forests be left wild and unkempt. The air, water, and food that you eat contain carcinogenic chemicals but unless there is someone to sue it goes unreported. If we get rid of the population on the planet it will still be contaminated with arsenic, which occurs naturally, and although it is 100% natural and contains no preservatives, it still is not good for you.
Do the lawyers have a duty to tell their clients that they are going to make a ton of money on their case? Their profits per person far outweigh what the cigarette company made, and the lawyers know this from day one. The cigarette companies did not initially know that their product was problematic since smoking had been going on long before there were cigarette companies. They could no more quit manufacturing cigarettes when they found out that they were dangerous after 40 years than the alcohol companies could quit making booze. They were forced to put the warning label on a pack just as beer, wine, and liquor were forced to label those products. Alcohol causes birth defects, causes more teen deaths (from DWI) than any other cause, and kills from medical complications of the liver, etc. but it is still sold.
You did mention the government making a ton of tax money on each pack. I understand that cigarettes are between four and five dollars a pack, most of which is tax. Cigarettes cost more than two gallons of gasoline per pack. Alcohol and tobacco taxes are the sin taxes that people unwillingly pay and the government willingly collects. We tried prohibition and you can see how well that worked.
Now lets address the addictive characteristics of nicotine (which is always brought up in discussions of smoking). Well, “they” say it is as “addictive as cocain” (which is always cited), but I did not check on Wikipedia since Lawman would probably disparage the cite. Therefore, I will simply cite “they” and let the reader verify the truthfulness of the comparison. Using cocain as the primary standard for addictiveness, you would think that it would be outlawed and you would be correct. However, if you have enough money in your pocket you can go out tonight and get it. We can see how well outlawing a product works (see reference to prohibition above). However, there is no public company to sue, so we get hand wringing and excuses over the deaths from cocain and the murders due to the gangs that sell it.
Drugs of any type including alcohol, tobacco, abused ethical pharmaceuticals, and illegal drugs are indeed a choice and the choice is made by the user. The cigarette companies make a modest profit after they pay the states every year for their part of the “Tobacco Settlement”, the tax profit is made by the government, and the greatest profit per user is made by the lawyers.
It is difficult but not impossible to quit smoking. I know many people who have done it. If you continue to smoke, it is your choice and in many states you cannot smoke anywhere in public anymore. I am sympathetic to smokers, but there are many clues that smoking is bad for you. Very bad. Everyone quits smoking when they die, but you need to quit before you die. That is justice, real justice, because you get to live and enjoy the justice.
Congratulations on quitting smoking. You are proof that it can be done, and you admit it is quite difficult.
Also, Harcourt & Brace just called. They want to publish the novel you just posted here.
Sorry about the novel, I got carried away. Smoking lawsuit hotbutton. Isn’t there a lawyer who will sue someone for causing me the distress that made me write the novel? (Where’s my lighter?)
Isn’t there a saying “Judge not lest ye be judged”? To those of you who have never smoked, addicted to anything else? How about Alcohol, food, coffee, sodas. How hard would it be for you to quit? To those of you who cite family members and or friends that died from smoking, do you honestly think they wanted to pay anyone tens of thousands of dollars to die a slow agonizing death? I wish smoking was against the law and manufacturers driven out of business. Of coursethat is never going to happen. They are money makers, taxpayers and the drug companies are making a fortune selling products to stop smoking . Did you ever talk to someone with an addictive personality that smokes several packs a day? While stopping cold turkey, they vomit until there is nothing left to vomit. They have severe headaches. They shake and feel like they could jump out of their skin. They are so grumpy no one can stand to be around them including themselves. There is rehab for everything else, why not for smokers. It is like trying to kick a heroine addiction except a smoker can enter any supermarket, drug store, gas station, convenient store etc and there they are right in front of you. With all of the new laws banning smoking, smokers are now treated like less than human and or criminals. The more this is harped on the more a smoker wants to smoke. Perhaps we should all keep our opinions to ourselves because what we say is not going to cause a smoker to stop. Only they can do that. In the above case the woman went to court and the verdict was in her favor. Obviously someone agreed with her.
My father smoked 5 packs a day for 50 years. He died early with serious lung problems. I didn’t know that it was time to cash in on his death. He knew that smoking was hurting him and made a decision not to quit. I know this is true because he told me. I have a hard time believing that because someone chooses not to quit, that the family should be made instantly wealthy. If it’s not about the money, pay the judgments into anti smoking campaigns instead of private bank accounts.
Banning smoking in public places is not treating smokers like less than human. Smoking is banned because people who choose not to smoke do not want to inhale the second hand smoke from the smokers. You know why? Because they realize that smoking is bad for you.
Apologies that I hit a nerve with my Shotgun approach – I was trying to kill as many birds with one stone as I could.
In relation to Wikipedia – there are too many people who cite this as The Truth without knowing that it’s not all true – I agree that most of the information is nearly correct – however I did mention that you should check somewhere else after looking at Wikipedia.
I agree that the money should go to something like Anti Smoking campaigns rather than to greedy lawyers & family members trying to make a quick buck – but I think that Phillip Morris, Imperial Tobacco should pay for hiding their knowledge of the harm that smoking causes.
Well done on stopping smoking Bob – I only wish that everyone found it as easy as you. (I’m not trying to wind you up here – my Mum’s a compulsive smoker and is not able to give up even after diagnosis)
Did you know it is harder for women to stop smoking than men?
Nobody Important – I am really sorry about your father and I can tell you are angry over the situation he put himself in. I wish I could make you understand how very difficult it is to stop smoking. Most that do still want a cigarette many years later. That should tell you something about the addictive power of cigarettes.
I think the Tobacco Settlement with the states was where the tobacco companies paid for keeping it a secret. States get billions a year from the tobacco companies for that. The lawsuits make them pay again. If the Columbian drug lords begin supplying cigarettes, they will not be sued.
Lawman, sorry about your mom’s diagnosis. Tell her it is not easy but she can taper off over a period of time. A New York cab driver told me that he kept his pack in the trunk of his cab so he would not light up so easily. He smoked less and less over the weeks until he could quit totally. I dropped two cigarettes a day for a week, then the next week I smoked two less each day for that week. Some bad days I would cheat, but I would always go back to the schedule the next day. The first no smoke day was the worst (but tolerable), but it got better every day. I did cheat with one occasionally, but my pack was in my trunk because of what the cabbie told me. It worked. No pills, no patches, and no cold turkey (which sounds like it would be terrible and never work).
If we can make the tobacco companies pay for our stupidity, shouldn’t we be able to sue MacDonalds for our waistlines. Or do we have to sue the farmer who raised the beef? Is it any wonder that just about every country that revolted got rid of the lawyers first?
If the almighty government is so concerned about all of us why haven’t they made tobacco illegal? Do you think it has anything to do with the millions they collect in taxes?
Not to be paranoid, but some prominent politicians are wealthy due to the tobacco industry. Family wealth.
There have been class actions re Alcohol abuse – but everyone has failed to date.