$28 BILLION to former smoker?!?

[shooter1201]

WTF is wrong with that idiotic jury?! Doesn't the smoker share as much....if not more....blame that Phillip Morris? Who held a gun to her head and MADE her smoke to start with? This is insane.......

[Mike Tx]

Shooter, I have to agree. The only thing I can think of is that the "evidence" made the jury think that the smoker had been mislead somehow.

[shorty]

I wonder how much of that she is going to share with all the people she contaminated over the years in resturants, public areas, etc.

[KCadet]

quote:

---

Originally posted by shorty:
I wonder how much of that she is going to share with all the people she contaminated over the years in resturants, public areas, etc.

---

LOL! Crazy ain't it? One has to wonder....But then one gets a headache and stops wondering....

[SpecOpsWarrior]

*cough wheeze cough*

I'm gettin a lawyer!

[ 10-06-2002, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: SpecOpsWarrior ]

[MK219]

$28 million! Now how much is that a pack?

[shooter1201]

That's $28 Billion....with a B.

[Underdog]

I have mixed feelings on this. In fact, I'm a libertarian so I tend to think that all drugs, including tobaco, should be legal. Nonethelee, I think that there are some issues that haven't been considered here.

The plaintiff in this case started smoking when she was 17. She smoked for years and developed cancer. She is now 64.

From previously discovered information, it seems apparent that the tobaco industry was well aware of the dangers of smoking 47 years ago but deliberately decided to conceal this information from both the government and consumers. In effect, this was a cold blooded calculation that it was okay to kill some people in order to make a profit. If we were to start chekcing local state laws on this issue, I think that most of us would find some degree of murder statute that covers this type of cold blooded calculation.

There are no known redeeming effects of tobaco. This is not like guns where there is a legitimate self deffense use, or power machinery that is essential to a productive society, or any other number of dangerous products that have socially redeeming uses.

I have never smoked so I have no direct knowledge of how hard it is to quit. However, both of my parents smoked for many years and, despite repeated attempts, were unable to quit until they faced life threatening conditions which finally forced them to do so. In the plaintif's case, she started smoking at a young age when there were no warnings, smoked for a long time, and unfortunately developed an addiction. The agument that she could have quit at any time is overly simplistic.

Finally, I ask how each of you would place a value on the life of a loved family member. In the case of my family, I don't think that there is enough money to compensate for the loss.

Given all of that, I strongly suspect that this award will be sharply reduced on appeal.

[MK219]

64 years of smoking. One pack a day. That breaks down to her getting about $1,198.63 a pack I quit smoking about a month and a half ago . Yes, it was hard. It was literally like losing your best friend. I was going crazy. But, I did it by my own free will. I decided to quit, not because of commercials,(truth) or what the government tells me that are in the cigs. I quit becasue I hate smeeling like Sh!^, I hate having black stuff coming up when I cough, the stuffy nose every morning, and the pains in my chest and back. It does not take a rocket sceintist to fiqure out on your own that they are bad news. I smoked for 15 years. Where's my $6,400,684.20?
Is there any lawyers here who want to take my case? 10% is in it for you.

[kateykakes]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mortal Knight:
10% is in it for you.

---

MK,

Sorry to break this to you, but the going rate for the attorney will probably be 30%. He/she would be making a pretty penny out of the deal. Even at 10%, the lawyer would really have nothing to complain about.

I'm glad you quit. Congrats. Nice to hear another who gave up the nasty habit.

I also used to smoke, but I quit for health reasons. I have asthma, so smoking with that was stupid on my part. But I have to say, I hated the way my clothes smelled, I hated it in my hair, staining my teeth and fingernails...I never really got any enjoyment out of smoking at all. I never liked it from the get go, and despite knowing it was bad for me, I did it anyway.

It's been quite a few years since I took my last puff and I'd never start up again - not even for $28 billion.

[ 10-06-2002, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: kateykakes ]

[BrickCop]

People like her have a self inflicted disease. What the Tobacco companies knew 47 years ago or not is a moot point to me. I mean who would actually think that smoking was NOT bad for you? Everyone knows firefighters put on masks to protect against smoke inhalation, that should be a bleepin' clue that inhaled smoke is harmful.

BTW, what's the redeemable thing about beer? People drink it to get buzzed [or to hook up with someone they would not sober ]; many of those people develop fatty livers and beer bellys. How come Budweiser is not being sued for billions?

[CinaC]

^ Good idea, I'm swinging by the lawyer's office tomorrow.

[jellybean40]

i havent seen the story, is there a link posted here?

in some of the cases, they're not always saying that the people didnt know it was bad. alot of the time they're saying the people didnt know how addicting it was. i know when i started at 16 i probably knew it was bad for me, but i didnt know how bad i would start craving the cigs!

oh and BTW, i dont agree with the award.

[ 10-06-2002, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: jellybean40 ]

[OfcMikey]

Ahhhh, no, ridicilous.

[ateamer]

So what if the tobacco companies misled everyone and pumped the nicotine content? Anyone with any common sense knows that lighting something on fire, sticking it in your face and sucking in the smoke has to be bad for you. It is in our nature to know that. She doesn't deserve a single cent. If millions of other people quit smoking, why didn't she? What happened 47 years ago is irrelevant.

I also heard that she was pushed to smoke by advertisers. What, did I miss those ads where someone actually stepped out of the magazine and held a gun to her head and made her smoke? Can't anyone think for themselves?

By the way, I am a rabid anti-smoker; cigarette smoke makes me sick to my stomach and I do everything I can to avoid it. But this court case is a sham - everyone involved except the defense should be hanging their heads in shame.