• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

I think there is legitimacy to a lawsuit for someone who had already developed a smoking addiction during the period of cover-up by the tobacco industry. Not only does that show negligence by the tobacco company, but it is also intent to do knowingly do harm to the person and to society with their cover-up.

If any other industry knowingly sold arsenic laced food products for a generation, would we permit that to go unanswered with a simple "derrr, well they didn't have to eat that particular brand of food"?

You know, jallman, you have made me see this issue differently. I thought this lawsuit was bogus. Your discussions, however, has changed my mind about this type of case (a case where the person became addicted at a time when cigarette companies were promoting cigarettes as being healthy).
 
You know, jallman, you have made me see this issue differently. I thought this lawsuit was bogus. Your discussions, however, has changed my mind about this type of case (a case where the person became addicted at a time when cigarette companies were promoting cigarettes as being healthy).

He had plenty of time to quit smoking. I quit smoking smoking over three years ago.Millions of other people quit smoking. Some people go cold turkey, use nicotine patches,nicotine gum,use nicotine lozenges or while going cold turkey they trick their mind into thinking their body wants something different like a piece of mint candy.
 
He had plenty of time to quit smoking. I quit smoking smoking over three years ago.Millions of other people quit smoking. Some people go cold turkey, use nicotine patches,nicotine gum,use nicotine lozenges or while going cold turkey they trick their mind into thinking their body wants something different like a piece of mint candy.

james, my friend, you are talking to someone who has NO tolerance for smokers. I agree with everything you stated above. I think the amount of money this woman got is insane, and I hope it gets reduced. Nevertheless, I like seeing the cigarette companies get penalized for knowingly lying to its customers. Shame on them. Frankly, I would be embarrassed to be a part of a company that preys on people's weakness.
 
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?

I don't agree that tobacco is equivalent to all the things you mentioned.

If prescription drugs, alcohol, and caffeine are habit forming to the point that people are getting addicted, and there is no benefit to their intake other than preventing withdrawl or undesireable symptoms, then those distributors are liable to be sued as well.

Fast foot, fatty junk food, and chocolate, while good, are not addictive. You won't get ill from not having them because your body doesn't get hooked.

Tobacco companies are responsible for peddling toxic, addictive substances that many of their customers have an incredibly difficult time quitting. It's not just in their imaginations. Addiction is real, and these companies are making billions off it. I say sue away.
 
Ethereal said:
Some diseases are transmitted via airborne pathogens, so breathing air can make you sick.

And also pollution. If it were possible to prove that the cancer a person has can be traced back to pollutants released by a specific company, then there would be even more lawsuits. But since that isn't possible, air pollution continues.

I'm frankly surprised that huge polluters in America are not already being sued by environmental groups and common people. But as far as your argument goes, it does not stand up to scrutiny. You don't buy air, and there is no distributor of air. We all share it, and are collectively responsible for it. Also, the chemicals in it are not addictive and make you search them out to get your fix, only to get cancer later.

If companies were bottling air that contained addictive carcinogens for you to breathe, then they should be sued. As it stands, you can't prove which pollutant from which company is harming you, so they get off scott free... unless of course the government comes down on them, which, IMO, they should.
 
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.

I knew smoking was harmful in 1958 when I was 10 years old. I don't need a weatherman to tell me it's raining. You put something in your mouth, you light it on fire, then you suck smoke out of it and in to your lungs. You repeat this process over and over each day for weeks, months, years until you find your self gagging and choking every morning, noon and night. Then you sue someone else!!!!!!! (I shouda went to law school.)
 
james, my friend, you are talking to someone who has NO tolerance for smokers. I agree with everything you stated above. I think the amount of money this woman got is insane, and I hope it gets reduced. Nevertheless, I like seeing the cigarette companies get penalized for knowingly lying to its customers. Shame on them. Frankly, I would be embarrassed to be a part of a company that preys on people's weakness.

The jury rejected Elian Hess' demand for 130 million dollars compensation, arguing that her husband Stuart Hess was partly responsible for his death since he smoked three packs a day of Benson & Hedges before he died at age 55 in 1997.
Apparently it already got reduced. Nevertheless, I don't think cigarettes were being marketed as healthy around 1967. That may have been true 20 years earlier.
 
james, my friend, you are talking to someone who has NO tolerance for smokers. I agree with everything you stated above. I think the amount of money this woman got is insane, and I hope it gets reduced. Nevertheless, I like seeing the cigarette companies get penalized for knowingly lying to its customers. Shame on them. Frankly, I would be embarrassed to be a part of a company that preys on people's weakness.

Do you think high taxes and fines on the companies will hurt the companies or will they just like any other company on earth pass those cost to the consumers? Alot of their customer are addicts so a lot of them are not going to quit over night because of price increases, some of their costumers do not even know they are customers because some of these companies have products other than tobacco.
 
I knew smoking was harmful in 1958 when I was 10 years old. I don't need a weatherman to tell me it's raining. You put something in your mouth, you light it on fire, then you suck smoke out of it and in to your lungs. You repeat this process over and over each day for weeks, months, years until you find your self gagging and choking every morning, noon and night. Then you sue someone else!!!!!!! (I shouda went to law school.)

Common sense eludes a lot of people, especially most liberals.
 
Do you think high taxes and fines on the companies will hurt the companies or will they just like any other company on earth pass those cost to the consumers? Alot of their customer are addicts so a lot of them are not going to quit over night because of price increases, some of their costumers do not even know they are customers because some of these companies have products other than tobacco.

Good point, but I do believe that higher prices do cause some to quit. Special Report: Higher Cigarette Taxes: Reduce Smoking, Save Lives, Save Money

But to be honest with you, I don't care about the customers and if they are forced to pay a higher price due to the company's passing on their fines to them. It's the price they have to pay for their disgusting habit.
 
But to be honest with you, I don't care about the customers and if they are forced to pay a higher price due to the company's passing on their fines to them. It's the price they have to pay for their disgusting habit.

Did you buy anything with the Kraft, Nabisco, or General Mills name on it before march of 2008?
 
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.

Yay, let's put the tobacco industry out of business in this country as we have so many others! More unemployment; but not to worry, Obama will find them a "green" job working for the Government.

:cool:
 
Why?......

If you did then you were one of big tobacco's customers. If you remember one of the threads you did, I had a big list of products of phillip morris aka Altria group.
 
Last edited:
Breathing those pathogens makes you sick. Not breathing air.

Let's not be silly.

And also pollution. If it were possible to prove that the cancer a person has can be traced back to pollutants released by a specific company, then there would be even more lawsuits. But since that isn't possible, air pollution continues.

I'm frankly surprised that huge polluters in America are not already being sued by environmental groups and common people. But as far as your argument goes, it does not stand up to scrutiny. You don't buy air, and there is no distributor of air. We all share it, and are collectively responsible for it. Also, the chemicals in it are not addictive and make you search them out to get your fix, only to get cancer later.

If companies were bottling air that contained addictive carcinogens for you to breathe, then they should be sued. As it stands, you can't prove which pollutant from which company is harming you, so they get off scott free... unless of course the government comes down on them, which, IMO, they should.

I'm not sure how you were able to extrapolate an argument from a statement of fact.
 
This is asinine on so many levels. That's coming from a smoker, to boot. I know what I am getting myself into and I sure as hell will not blame anyone else for problems I bring on myself.
What if tomorrow you find out that the microwave you use causes cancer and that the manufacturer knew about it but told you how wonderful and safe it was. Would you hold them responsible for your cancer?
 
What if tomorrow you find out that the microwave you use causes cancer and that the manufacturer knew about it but told you how wonderful and safe it was. Would you hold them responsible for your cancer?





One does not defeat the saftey and suck in radiowaves. FAIL
 
What if tomorrow you find out that the microwave you use causes cancer and that the manufacturer knew about it but told you how wonderful and safe it was. Would you hold them responsible for your cancer?

Did this happen to this guy? I can agree if it was known by the companies that smoking was dangerous but the info was withheld from the customers but I'm pretty sure this guy took it up long after it was known what it could do or at least the vast majority of his smoking years were after it was well known what the dangers are.
 
Last edited:
Sure he could. But damage is done from one cigarette. Also, the tobacco company caused his addiction so there is punative damage there.


Let's see - how many times have you heard the term - he/she drank themselves to death. I have NEVER heard of a company that dispenses liquor being sued because the person drank for years and dies of liver disease.

Now why is that? Because evidently cigarette smoking offends more people in this country than drunks driving around and wiping out whole families and killing themselves in "alcohol-related" accidents. How pathetic is that?:screwy
 
I don't agree that tobacco is equivalent to all the things you mentioned.

If prescription drugs, alcohol, and caffeine are habit forming to the point that people are getting addicted, and there is no benefit to their intake other than preventing withdrawl or undesireable symptoms, then those distributors are liable to be sued as well.
And it should be thrown out if it is well known what it can do to you.
 
If you did then you were one of big tobacco's customers. If you remember one of the threads you did, I had a big list of products of phillip morris aka Altria group.

Okay. Is this supposed to upset me?
 
Did you know that PM is run by a black woman?
 
And it should be thrown out if it is well known what it can do to you.

Addiction.

Say it with me now.

A-D-D-I-C-T-I-O-N.

Phillip Morris and other tobacco companies have refined their products to be as addictive as possible, to keep their drooling customers coming back.

If people could quit in a day, I would say that the lawsuits have no bearing. The addiction factor, however, gives them justification.
 
Addiction.

Say it with me now.

A-D-D-I-C-T-I-O-N.

Phillip Morris and other tobacco companies have refined their products to be as addictive as possible, to keep their drooling customers coming back.

If people could quit in a day, I would say that the lawsuits have no bearing. The addiction factor, however, gives them justification.
So? Addiction does not mean you cannot quit, many do quit smoking and also these people knew both the dangers and the risk of addiction.

Personal responsbility.

Say it with me now.

P E R S O N A L R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y.
 
Back
Top Bottom