Considering that the research didn't convincingly establish the connection between cigarette smoking and health problems until around about the time the guy started smoking and since the vast majority of the cigarettes this man ever purchased contained the warning label advising him of the dangers of smoking, I would say that the award of $3 billion is way out of line in this case. This man chose to accept the risk for 35 of the 43 years he smoked. If he could prove that the damage caused by smoking took place in those first eight years of smoking, perhaps the damage award should be that big. ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com
I don't think it's worth $3 billion either, but to say the tobacco companies aren't liable for deceiving the public is just wrong. ------------------ www.swirve.com "Pre-born, you're fine, pre-school, you're f*****."-George Carlin
A-Train, Since you're getting married, maybe you should come up with a plan on how not to go broke rather than how to get rich. ------------------ "Now it is more clear that it doesn't make sense." -- HeyPeeism at its convoluted best.
Personally, I don't think anyone who took up smoking after 1966 deserves any kind of award. It said right on the package that smoking could be dangerous to your health. If you choose to ignore that warning, it becomes your own fault, in my opinion. The question is harder for people who began smoking prior to that, though. Can we blame cigarette manufacturers for selling a product in which there were questions about the health effects. The convincing evidence didn't come until the early '50s that smoking caused these problems. Are cigarette companies liable for continuing to sell cigarettes without warning people that there could be adverse health effects when said adverse health effects hadn't been proven? In the end, it turned out those fears abotu cigarettes being unhealthy were justified, but we've seen plenty of incidences where products were thought to be unsafe only to later find out that the products were, in fact, effectively safe. Taking this to another product: Should cell phone manufacturers be required to put warning labels on their telephones? There is some fear that cell phones can cause brain tumors. There is no good science to support the link at this point, though. Are cell phone manufacturers engaged in a cover-up or hiding something right now because they don't openly acknowledge that cell phones are dangerous (even though an actual causal link cannot be established by science thus far)? By that same token, if it is someday proven that cell phones do cause tumors, should the cell phone industry be required to pay damages to people who used these phones in the 1980s and 1990s - the time before the link between the health hazards and the phones had not been established convincingly? So, it's a tough question to answer in regards to how much liability should the cigarette manufacturers have in these cases. I guess it just makes me glad I've not been called to sit on a jury that was deciding such a case. ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com
Personally, I don't think anyone who took up smoking after 1966 deserves any kind of award. It said right on the package that smoking could be dangerous to your health. If you choose to ignore that warning, it becomes your own fault, in my opinion. But those warnings didn't tell us they were addictive, did they? (I don't smoke so I don't really know) This is the issue I have. From what I understand, manufacturers had scientific evidence that they were addictive, but purposely denied it. People may have known they were dangerous over time, but companies purposely lied and told them there was no real reason to think they were addictive. Someone might have gotten addicted while intending to only smoke occasionally. Those people were deceived and hurt through fraud on the part of the cigarette companies. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
Addiction, to me, though is a murky area. I keep hearing about how hard it is to quit cigarettes, yet everyone I know personally who has smoked quit cold-turkey. On the other hand, I would maintain that it is possible to get addicted to anything. There is a mental element of addiction beyond the physical element. Once you take up something, it's not at all unlikely that you'll become addicted to it, either physically or mentally or both. It's hard for me to be sympathetic to the addiction angle. Also, I don't know how when something says "This could be dangerous to your health" (there was no mention of a time element in the warnings on the packs themselves) that their intention to choose to do something dangerous some of the time makes the cigarette companies any more liable for these people's behavior. The warning was right there. This is dangerous. Doing something you've been told is dangerous with the intention of stopping later doesn't mean that you didn't make the choice to do something that you knew was dangerous. Also, I don't personally ever remember seeing an advertisement or other promotion from a cigarette company that said cigarettes weren't addictive. Other than seeing the heads of the companies say that on TV at the Congressional Hearings, I've never seen that claim made. Was that a common claim made by cigarette companies after 1966? By the same token, if I don't personally tell you something is addictive, have I lied about it? Does the answer to that question change when the information regarding addiction is widely available elsewhere? ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com [This message has been edited by mrpaige (edited June 14, 2001).]
Also, I don't personally ever remember seeing an advertisement or other promotion from a cigarette company that said cigarettes weren't addictive. Other than seeing the heads of the companies say that on TV at the Congressional Hearings, I've never seen that claim made. Was that a common claim made by cigarette companies after 1966? I have no idea -- I was under the impression cigarette companies have consistently denied knowing about its addictiveness even when they knew otherwise. Isn't that what The Insider was about? Ignoring the individual-side of the lawsuits, do you think the cigarette companies should be liable in any way for deceiving the public/government? ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
And don't forget Addiction and dependency are two different things. It gets very confusing. ------------------ humble, but hungry.
The fact that companies wouldn't admit that the cigarettes were addictive doesn't mean that they sold people on the idea that they weren't. To say that people could ignore the warnings because they were wanting to just smoke a little while still saying the cigarette companies are liable would mean, to me, that the cigarette companies would have had to advertise their product as non-addictive. I don't recall that ever being the case. Just because they never said it was addictive is not the same thing to me. As for whether cigarette companies should be liable: I don't think they should be. People took the risk and ignored the warnings. It sucks that we, as a nation, have to use our tax dollars to pay for these health effects at times, but that's just the way the ball bounces. To me, it's just avoiding personal responsibility to blame cigarette companies for a choice that these smokers willfully made. Perhaps I would give the benefit of the doubt to people who started smoking in between the time that the causal link between smoking and health problems has been convincingly established and the appearance of the warning label. Once that warning label was there, though, it's your choice not the cigarette companies. And prior to the link being established convincingly, I don't know how we hold a company responsible for something that may or may not have been true at the time. Can we really hold a company to a higher standard than was possible at the time. They didn't necessarily even know they were selling a harmful product. It's easy to sit here now with 50 years of studies and say that they should've known, but what was it like back then? And like in my example, are cell phone makers being irresponsible now by not warning people of the health dangers of cell phone use even though those dangers have not actually been established yet? ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com
As for whether cigarette companies should be liable: I don't think they should be. People took the risk and ignored the warnings. It sucks that we, as a nation, have to use our tax dollars to pay for these health effects at times, but that's just the way the ball bounces. To me, it's just avoiding personal responsibility to blame cigarette companies for a choice that these smokers willfully made. OK, so you don't think individuals should get compensation -- I'd agree with that. However, what about state lawsuits against cigarette companies? That issue has nothing to do with personal responsibility anymore. This is really where I was focusing on the tobacco companies deceiving Congress and the public when in fact they did know about the dangers. And prior to the link being established convincingly, I don't know how we hold a company responsible for something that may or may not have been true at the time. I agree up until the point that they knew about it. Asbestos issues were really before my time, but weren't they held liable retroactively to some extent? (I'm not advocating this, just curious) ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
There are just so many things that cause health problems, do we really want to go after every company that provides a product that ends up costing the state money? Just think of all the people who are harmed by automobiles every year and the costs to the state that cars cause. Should we sue GM for that? I don't think so. As for asbestos, I do believe courts have held companies liable for injury caused by asbestos before the companies knew it was dangerous. That doesn't make it right, though. As a matter of fact, there is one company that never produced asbestos that is being sued because they owned a company that had once produced asbestos for less than a month (they bought the company years after the company stopped making asbestos and only bought it in order to get an unrelated part of the company. They immediately sold the rest of the company to someone else). So we're to the point now where we're allowing people attempt to collect from companies that never even produced the dangerous substance. ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com
Just think of all the people who are harmed by automobiles every year and the costs to the state that cars cause. Should we sue GM for that? Depends -- did GM know and hide the fact that their product was dangerous in some way? There are just so many things that cause health problems, do we really want to go after every company that provides a product that ends up costing the state money? In my opinion, if they know and lie about it, yes we do! As for asbestos, I do believe courts have held companies liable for injury caused by asbestos before the companies knew it was dangerous. That's what I thought -- and I do think this is stupid and going way too far. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
Depends. Did the cigarette companies actually hide anything about their products being dangerous. You'd think that label on every pack would've clued people in that the product might be dangerous. If that's hiding, the cigarette companies were horrible at it (granted, they were required by law to put the warning labels on, but passing a law requiring it didn't make the labels invisible). Also, I notice that no car manufacturer talks about how dangerous their cars are. I've yet to see an ad where any car company discloses the dangers that their car has. Are they lying about the safety of their vehicles by not disclosing the information that cars can be dangerous? Should they be held liable for car crashes because they've hidden the dangers from the public by not promoting their cars as being deadly? Did they lie about it, though? (And did they know before the rest of the world knew?) Other than in the Congressional hearings, did the companies market their product by saying "This is not dangerous. This is not addictive." I don't recall a single ad (at least since the time that the health link was established convincingly) that said anything near that. Other than putting a disclaimer in every ad that noted the product was dangerous, I don't recall any health claims (or claims about cigarettes not being addictive) made at all in the advertisements. From your post, I guess that anyone who started smoking before the early '50s should just be SOL as far as collecting damages (can't hold a company responsible for its product being dangerous before it was established that the product was dangerous), and the warning labels from 1966 on shouldn't negate any responsibility of the companies that made the product? So, the second that a company knows its products are dangerous, they should take them off the market lest they be hit with billions and billions of dollars worth of fines and lawsuit settlements. No warning label is enough. (Of course, in this country, your product doesn't even have to actually make someone sick in order for them to sue you and win. Take a look at Silicone. The evidence is spotty at best that silicone breast implants cause the problems they are reported to have caused, but Dow Corning and Dow Chemical have been raked over the coals in court, paying out claims based on dubious scientific claims. There's even a company that's attempting to bring the silicone breast implant back to market. Recent studies have shown no link between these health problems and the implants. The new company is sponsoring a new study to make sure. In the end, it may well end up that silicone doesn't have any adverse health effects. But try telling that to Dow Corning). ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com
Besides the fact of the billion dollar payments, tobacco companies have been forced to advertise against themselves. That is just silly that a company selling a legal product is foced by the government to advertise against its own product. Memo to those suing the companies: Too Bad. You made a mistake, deal with it. You didn't have to smoke all those cigarettes. ------------------ The next time I have meat and mashed potatoes, I think I'll put a very large blob of potatoes on my plate with just a little piece of meat. And if someone asks me why i didn't get more meat, ill just say, "Oh, you mean this?" and pull out a big piece of meat from inside the blob of potatoes, where ive hidden it. Good magic trick, huh?
Depends. Did the cigarette companies actually hide anything about their products being dangerous. I don't remember the details, but what was the movie Insider about? What was the information they were hiding in there? Are they lying about the safety of their vehicles by not disclosing the information that cars can be dangerous? Depends. If they are concealing it, then yes they are. That's what Firestone did, I believe. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
If they perjured themselves, hold them accountable. But please don't hold them accountable for the informed choice made by those who smoke. People have known smoking is addictive, with or without scientific evidence, for years. There have been chain smokers for a long time now...clearly it had addictive effects. We all know that...they all knew that. To willingly an knowingly start smoking and then suffer ill effects only to turn around and blame it on the company who manufactured the cigarette is absurd. That's what this lawsuit was about, as best I understood it. And the plaintiff won. Congratulations, America...you've created a generation of losers who can't control themselves and then want to blame it all on someone else. ------------------
I'm always happy to see people win big cases against tobacco companies simply because it hurts the companies themselves. Who cares if they deserve it? As long as Big Tobacco suffers, it's all A-OK with me. ------------------ All hail Fadeaway's Cyberfish -- your 2000-2001 BobFinn* Fantasy Basketball League Champions!
