Philip Morris told to pay 8 mln in smoker's death

American said:

Warnings on packs of cigarettes have been there since the 60's. What should they have done, put skull and crossbones on each pack? :lol:

Click to expand...

There was no full disclosure of the research until the late 70's. I have no desire to get into one of your famous pissing matches over this so put some citations and research up or don't bother.

jallman said:

Whether you think so or not is irrelevant. The facts state otherwise.

Click to expand...

Nothing in that URL says that lung cancer is caused by one cig. In fact, all it says it that smoking one cig will temporarily raise your blood pressure. (Duh?)

No but there is an obligation on the part of a product manufacturer to disclose dangers and side effects of a product. The tobacco company did not do that 30 years ago. Liability for an entire generation of uninformed smokers is on them.

Click to expand...

I disagree since no one made anyone smoke or continue smoking.

danarhea said:

That's because Philip Morris tied the guy down, put a gun to his head, and made him smoke 3 packs a day for 30 years....

Wait, no they didn't. Is it just me, or does anybody else see a problem with this verdict? I mean, come on, dammit. The guy had a choice, and made that choice. He shouldn't have gotten a dime.

Article is here.

Click to expand...

This is disgusting. Maybe the dumb **** shouldn't have smoked. Right here I almost started to do a sue McDonald's or Hustler magazine joke, but that ****s played. Glad I stopped myself.

rivrrat said:

Nothing in that URL says that lung cancer is caused by one cig. In fact, all it says it that smoking one cig will temporarily raise your blood pressure. (Duh?)


I disagree since no one made anyone smoke or continue smoking.

Click to expand...

You understand nothing of disclosure obligations when an ingested product is put on the market. That much is obvious.

jallman said:

You understand nothing of disclosure obligations when an ingested product is put on the market. That much is obvious.

Click to expand...

What part of "I disagree" do you not understand? Does "I disagree" say anything about disclosure obligations specifically? Or does it perhaps say that one DISAGREES with them?

And even if, IF, he started smoking before labels were put on cigs, he STILL continued to smoke LONG after the health effects were common knowledge and he was advised with each purchase of the ill effects of smoking.

I have no sympathy. And neither should the tobacco company and most certainly not our courts.

rivrrat said:

What part of "I disagree" do you not understand? Does "I disagree" say anything about disclosure obligations specifically? Or does it perhaps say that one DISAGREES with them?

And even if, IF, he started smoking before labels were put on cigs, he STILL continued to smoke LONG after the health effects were common knowledge and he was advised with each purchase of the ill effects of smoking.

I have no sympathy. And neither should the tobacco company and most certainly not our courts.

Click to expand...

Well they do. And I do, too. Obviously, 12 other people did, too.

And I am far from some anti-smoking nazi.

jallman said:

No, HE bought a product that the tobacco companies hid the effects of. Addiction is not something you just toss out like a plastic fork.

Now that we know the effects of tobacco and it's addictive qualities, I would have no sympathy for anyone who starts smoking. However, that isn't the case for an entire generation that were duped.

Click to expand...

:applaud

Thank you.

I started smoking when I was very young....nine years old (1973). I just rode my bike down to the WigWam plaza/Eagle Lodge and bought smokes out of the machine.

No biggie at the time. I was cool.
Hot ****--know it all--when you're nine.

Addiction is horrible and I'm with Jallman all the way on this one. The knowledge that adults have now...not to mention stupid nine year olds is much different. The world is different place and the knowledge base is much larger. The laws are stricter. The dangers are posted everywhere, including the classrooms.

It wasn't always that way.

:smoking:

missypea said:

:applaud

Thank you.

I started smoking when I was very young....nine years old (1973). I just rode my bike down to the WigWam plaza/Eagle Lodge and bought smokes out of the machine.

No biggie at the time. I was cool.
Hot ****--know it all--when you're nine.

Addiction is horrible and I'm with Jallman all the way on this one. The knowledge that adults have now...not to mention stupid nine year olds is much different. The world is different place and the knowledge base is much larger. The laws are stricter. The dangers are posted everywhere, including the classrooms.

It wasn't always that way.

:smoking:

Click to expand...

I didn't even think about the fact that kids used to be able to buy cigs with no problem. In fact, the marketing to kids, specifically, is deplorable in hindsight. Joe Camel, candy cigarettes...it's just...no, I think the tobacco companies should be paying out the ass for what they did then. As I said, no sympathy for someone who starts smoking now or even started 15 years ago.

Being that we grew up on a tobacco farm, I imagine my dad is rolling in his grave hearing me say this, though.

Interesting enough responses in this thread that makes me want to comment on something:

One side calls the other "Libs" in disdain. The other side yells back Conservative as if it is a dirty word. But, in this thread, in which I have taken a Conservative position, I have a Conservative (Jallman) who has an honest disagreement with me, along with a Liberal (aps) who agrees with me.

Not everything is cut and dried where everyone can be placed into a cubbyhole that describes them. In fact, most people, whether they call themselves Liberals or Conservatives, do have an opposite opinion or two, supporting positions of the other side of the aisle on some issues.

Just might be something for a few people in this forum to think about before demonizing someone as a Lib or a Con, as if those are supposed to be dirty words.

jallman said:

Well they do. And I do, too. Obviously, 12 other people did, too.

And I am far from some anti-smoking nazi.

Click to expand...

And I think the 12 other people are idiots. As are any people who allow fools to win stupid lawsuits like this one. Or even the lifejacket one I mentioned. The fact that 12 people agreed with the stupidity doesn't make it any less stupid. It also doesn't make it any less of a dangerous precedent to have in our court system.

As someone with an addiction who DID just "toss it away like a plastic fork", I have no sympathy for someone who continues smoking when they know the risks. I support their choice in DOING it, but I do NOT support them blaming someone else for the negative outcome. The only thing that stopped that man from smoking was HIMSELF. And his wife should not get payment for HIS stupid decisions to continue to ingest a substance that he knew was going to kill him.

The U.S. is quite a deregulated society right now, and corporations have a free hand. If the courts cannot keep checks and balances between rampant corporatism and marketing, then no one will be able to. Even though I don't always agree with U.S. 's lawsuit culture, I do believe, within the context of its society only, that it has a useful place.

Also, when it comes to addiction, I see no problem with suing a drug maker. Tobacco is a drug, and the people who smoke it don't often have control, especially longterm smokers. I am not trying to mitigate a person's freedom to choose, but Phillip Morris deals in an addictive drug and makes huge profits off it. I am of the view that more people should be suing them, not less.

If heroin addicts could sue their supplier for ruining their lives, they'd do it too, but heroin is illegal. So, tobacco is fair game. Frankly, so is alcohol... but I believe it to be a lesser evil in this case.

Yes the big problem is how addictive ciggarett, that it can be extremly hard or even impossible to quit. I don't know how is it in USA but in Sweden almost no body start smoking then their are 18 or older. That the people that getting addicted maybe for life is people under the age limit. Ecpecially if you talking about 14 year old children it can be easily to see that they have a hard time to realize the full conseqvuence of starting smoking. So I think more could be done to stop children from starting smoking. That would also in the long run take away the profit from the tobacco companies becomes their profiting on children getting addicted.

Jeebus. Just make the damn things illegal if they're so freaking dangerous and addictive.

8 million dollars, because someone couldn't find the willpower to stop smoking. Unreal.

I'm an ex smoker, btw. I started smoking at 15, not really fully aware of the danger I was exposing my health to. When I did become aware of how damaging cigarettes were, I didn't stop. I tried to cut back quite a bit and was even successful at that for a while, but I didn't stop. I stopped smoking cold turkey when I got pregnant, though. Never touched another cig again. It can be done with enough willpower and the right incentive.

Orius said:

The U.S. is quite a deregulated society right now, and corporations have a free hand. If the courts cannot keep checks and balances between rampant corporatism and marketing, then no one will be able to. Even though I don't always agree with U.S. 's lawsuit culture, I do believe, within the context of its society only, that it has a useful place.

Also, when it comes to addiction, I see no problem with suing a drug maker. Tobacco is a drug, and the people who smoke it don't often have control, especially longterm smokers. I am not trying to mitigate a person's freedom to choose, but Phillip Morris deals in an addictive drug and makes huge profits off it. I am of the view that more people should be suing them, not less.

If heroin addicts could sue their supplier for ruining their lives, they'd do it too, but heroin is illegal. So, tobacco is fair game. Frankly, so is alcohol... but I believe it to be a lesser evil in this case.

Click to expand...

How in the WORLD is it ever the suppliers fault for the way the buyer uses an item? Is it the gun manufacturer's fault if someone buys a gun and kills someone? Is it Little Debbie's fault if someone eats themselves into obesity with their lunchcakes? Is it Doritoes' fault if someone's cholesterol is too high? How about the pharmaceutical companies' fault for selling addictive drugs? Oh, what about coffee manufacturers? They sell an addictive drug that most of the fricken country is addicted to. Is it THEIR fault that people continue to drink more and more coffee and raise their blood pressure and cause damage to their hearts?

**** no it's not. It's NOT the supplier's fault for what the buyer chooses to do with what they buy. Not ever. And in no way should we have this extremely dangerous precedent in our court system. It's a travesty of "justice" and is only going to set the stage for more of them. More idiots who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions. More pathetic fools who think that something is always someone elses fault and someone else should pay for their own stupidity.

I cannot BELIEVE that people actually support that ****.

I sure hope drinking tons of coffee does something bad. I really could use a lawsuit against Starbucks.

Ikari said:

I sure hope drinking tons of coffee does something bad. I really could use a lawsuit against Starbucks.

Click to expand...

Satrbucks should be sued for just making up stupid words. I want A FRCKEN LARGE COFFEE!!!

winston53660 said:

Satrbucks should be sued for just making up stupid words. I want A FRCKEN LARGE COFFEE!!!

Click to expand...

If you say "large", they understand what you mean you know.

rivrrat said:

How in the WORLD is it ever the suppliers fault for the way the buyer uses an item?

Click to expand...

Well what the hell else do you expect to be done with a cigarette except smoke the goddamned thing?

jallman said:

There was no full disclosure of the research until the late 70's. I have no desire to get into one of your famous pissing matches over this so put some citations and research up or don't bother.

Click to expand...

J, no one forced you to respond to my post. What difference would reseach have, consumers only look at the label. They don't sit around in their living rooms reading research papers. Come on!

rivrrat said:

How in the WORLD is it ever the suppliers fault for the way the buyer uses an item? Is it the gun manufacturer's fault if someone buys a gun and kills someone? Is it Little Debbie's fault if someone eats themselves into obesity with their lunchcakes? Is it Doritoes' fault if someone's cholesterol is too high? How about the pharmaceutical companies' fault for selling addictive drugs? Oh, what about coffee manufacturers? They sell an addictive drug that most of the fricken country is addicted to. Is it THEIR fault that people continue to drink more and more coffee and raise their blood pressure and cause damage to their hearts?

**** no it's not. It's NOT the supplier's fault for what the buyer chooses to do with what they buy. Not ever. And in no way should we have this extremely dangerous precedent in our court system. It's a travesty of "justice" and is only going to set the stage for more of them. More idiots who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions. More pathetic fools who think that something is always someone elses fault and someone else should pay for their own stupidity.

I cannot BELIEVE that people actually support that ****.

Click to expand...

When a company is peddling an addictive and harmful substance, then yes it is partially their fault. If tobacco weren't addictive, then I would agree with you.

jallman said:

Well what the hell else do you expect to be done with a cigarette except smoke the goddamned thing?

Click to expand...

I don't know about that. Bill Clinton was pretty creative with cigars. :mrgreen:

Orius said:

When a company is peddling an addictive and harmful substance, then yes it is partially their fault. If tobacco weren't addictive, then I would agree with you.

Click to expand...

You mean like alcohol, caffeine, prescription drugs, chocolate, fast food, fatty junk food, so on and so forth?

How is it their fault if someone hurts themselves with their product?

jallman said:

Okay...I hate stupid lawsuits but I can see this on one condition: the premise of the suit was that the man began smoking BEFORE the tobacco companies released information (which they would have had to withhold knowing the dangers) on how deadly their product is.

That's the only way I can see this being legitimate.

Click to expand...

I thought all this was taken care of during the Clinton years. The states got a wad from the companies and then proceeded to blow it.
From smoke to blow.

Tobacco Settlement Frequently Asked Questions
Frequently Asked Questions about the Tobacco Settlement
Assembly on Federal Issues Health Committee
March 1999

Click to expand...

More breaking news. A number of lawsuits have now been filed by various people:

1) In Detroit, a man has filed a lawsuit against Jack Daniels, alleging that drinking a fifth of it before he went on the road resulted in DWI charges being filed against him.

2) In Jackson, Mississippi, an overweight woman has sued the Imperial Sugar Company over the sugar she continually ate, that made her fat.

3) In New York, a man has sued his bank, claiming that having a bank account there led to criminal charges against him when he wrote a thousand dollars worth of hot checks.

4) In Honolulu, a man is suing the company that made his surfboard, that he had an accident with because he did not know how to surf.

5) In Omaha, a man is suing the company that produces eggs for the state of Nebraska, because he ate 50 of them in an egg eating contest and got sick.

6) In Traverse City, Michigan, a man is suing the maker of his snowmobile, because he drove it out onto lake Michigan and fell through the ice.

7) In Minneapolis, Larry Craig is suing the bathroom stall he got arrested in. Says Craig "If there were no bathroom stall there, I would not have gotten into the mess I got into".

8) In Los Angeles, a man has sued the city for allowing itself to be built over an earthquake zone, after he was injured in an earthquake.

9) In Houston, a man who was both stoned and drunk accidentally spilled gasoline on himself at a Chevron station, while attempting to fill up his car. He then tried to light a cigarette. He is suing Chevron for refining oil, and also suing Marlboro for making cigarettes.

10) In Washington, the members of both the House and Senate are suing their constituents for voting dumb asses into office.

Top 10 bonus) DanaRhea is suing every person in the world. Why? Because, after reading the link in the OP, he knows he can. :mrgreen:

Number 10 is definitely going to win that case. Bastards!