Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

$28 BILLION to former smoker?!?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MK219
    replied
    Beer brings us great commericals. Why sue and lose the "twins" or "the Swedish Bikini Team".

    Leave a comment:


  • Underdog
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill R:
    "What are the redeeming effects of alcohol, caffeine or sugar?"

    Caffeine is, in moderation, a relatively non-toxic stimulant. It helps to keep people alert when they are at work, driving, working the graveyard shift, etc. A lack of alertness at such times can be dangerous to your health or financial well being.

    Alcohol, again in moderation, seems to have over all health benefits. It cleans the liver and kidneys and may reduce the risk of heart attacks. It has a long standing tradition of use in many religious ceremonies. It helps to promote relaxation and social interaction. In some places and times, it was actually more healthful to drink alcohol than water as the water was dangerously contaminated. Besides, I think that alcohol has been part of our history for so long that it really is a special case. After thousands of years of documented use, there truly can be very few people who are not aware of the risks.

    Sugar is an actual food stuff. When used in moderation, it can provide some of the carbohydrates that our bodies need. It also helps make healthy but otherwise distasteful foods palatable.

    Fast food is, of course, food. Due to our fast paced society, there are often times when people are forced to eat quickly, in their cars, on the run, etc. While too much fast food is definately bad for you, it is certainly better than starvation. This is, unfortunately, something with which most law enforcement officers have far too much experience.

    Having said all of the above, I wouldn't disagree with what most of you are saying if the tobaco industry had just been honest and forthcoming when they became aware of the risk. After all, I am a libertarian. I believe in allowing people to make their own decisions (and assume responsibility for those decisions) as long as they are not deliberately mislead as to the risks involved. Legally, assumption of the risk and contributory negligence (comparative negligence in some states) would act to eliminate or reduce judgements had the defendant promptly admitted that smoking is deadly as soon as they became aware of this fact.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pigskin
    replied
    This is another example of society's "don't blame me" attitude. Some more examples of blaming others for their own stupidity. Putting hot coffee on the dash & then sueing McDonald's for not telling them it was hot. Putting a loaded gun in a drawer where a child can find it & then sueing the gun manufacturer for not telling them that it was dangerous. Crossing a school roof at night trying to break into the building & falling through a sky light, then sueing the school district for not having warning signs on the roof. Juries & courts need to start making the individual accountable for their own mistakes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill R
    replied
    There are no known redeeming effects of tobaco.

    What are the redeeming effects of alcohol, caffeine or sugar? There are already suits against fast food outfits for not warning that their products will make you fat. Where would this line of reasoning end? It reminds me of the movie "Demolition Man".

    Leave a comment:


  • RachelR
    replied
    Sure the tobacco misled people initially in the 50's and 60's. However, starting in the 70's reports started coming out with the dangers of smoking on your health. If this woman had stopped smoking in the 70's or 80's or heck, even the 90's, she might not have lung cancer today. So, it is her fault after all that she has this disease.

    I feel for her and her family but my dad has been smoking for over 30 years. It was HIS choice to put a cigarette in his mouth and HIS choice to continue to do so even though he KNOWS it affects his health negatively. When or if he develops lung cancer, emphysema or some other smoking related disease, I sure as hell won't be holding the tobacco companies responsible for something HE did.

    Leave a comment:


  • shooter1201
    replied
    Is it any wonder Sir Walter Raliegh was given a death sentence by the Crown?

    Leave a comment:


  • ateamer
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • OfcMikey
    replied
    Ahhhh, no, ridicilous. [Eek!]

    Leave a comment:


  • jellybean40
    replied
    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 ]

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • BrickCop
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • kateykakes
    replied
    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 ]

    Leave a comment:


  • MK219
    replied
    64 years of smoking. One pack a day. That breaks down to her getting about $1,198.63 a pack [Eek!] 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Underdog
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • shooter1201
    replied
    That's $28 Billion....with a B.

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 3580 users online. 153 members and 3427 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X