[OT, but exciting] Phillip Morris told to pay $28 BILLION

[Elder-Basilisk]

This is where I come from. I don't smoke. I don't like smoking. But if we really want smoking to be illegal, we should outlaw it rather than taking the passive aggressive approach of "it's OK to sell cigarrettes but if you do, we'll subject you to constant and random lawsuits until someone finally wins one with some kind of powerball verdict that forces you out of business." This kind of lawyering undermines the the rule of law (and, as an effect of that, undermines the economy which depends upon the rule of law).

But as for what we really accomplish by this (and why this happens), the best thing to look at is the contingency percentage that the woman's lawyer gets. Probably something like 14 billion.

I mean, 64 billion would make this old lady easily one of the wealthiest people on the planet. Think what that money could actually do if it went to helping ALL people with lung cancer.

Plus, no matter how much money courts force Big Tobacco to pay, it's not like people are going to quit smoking. Should smoking be made illegal? Sometimes I just wonder, 'what is the end result we (as a society) are seeking here, anyway?'

 

[Dr. NRG]

[...I am against the ruling. Its crap and an insult to the average American. I mena how many people in this country really are dumb enough to think smoking is not addictive and can kill you?

[/B]

No, but there were 20 years ago, when tobacco exec's were telling us it was perfectly fine to smoke. Ten years ago, they swore tobacoo wasn't addictive in front of congress.

Let me draw an analogy. If someone were selling really impressive, shiny handguns at gradeschools, would we approve of a court ruling against them? I think so. When it comes to nicotine, all of us are gradeschoolers; our physical make-up is such that our judgment is impaired. Preying on this physical weakness, killing the customer in the process, is no more moral an act than selling handguns to children. The people doing it should be treated in exactly the same way.

The people that will presumably have to pay this money helped kill 450,000 Americans last year. ... and we're worried about whether we're being fair to them? What are we doing to folks who killed 5,000 Americans?

NRG

 

[Ashtal]

Re: The point

They don't care if they kill you. They don't care if they kill your family. They don't care if 10 billion cigarette butts choke the life out of every living thing in North America. What they DO care about, the ONLY thing they care about is money.

These people are amoral lying slimebags, and bankrupting them is the least that they deserve. Go citizens! Down with deadly lying corporations!

Ah, but shouldn't this same anger also be levied at the government that continues to allow the sale of tobacco to be legal, because the taxes made on tobacco are so sweet, they would never give it up, no matter how many died? (Which is our current standpoint ... governments have been aware of how the coporations lied and added addictive compounds to their wares for a while now, but are doing nothing substantial.)

This, for me, is the kicker. It's hypocritical. More and more cities and going 'smoke-free', at least up here in Canada, clamping down to ensure that all public areas are smoke free. We've even had lawsuits involving parents who smoke, and whether they were a danger to their kids. But the government won't ever dream of actually making the product illegal. To me, you can't have a legal product that is illegal to use everywhere. It's non-sensical.

I would love to see smoking stamped out. But with big corporations and our collective goverments earning an easy living off of it, it's not going to happen. We have to get people to stop smoking and drive them out of business by removing the market for the substance.

(Why any teenager starts smoking these days is beyond me. 1) It's expensive. 2) It's gross, and by extension, 3) it makes YOU gross ... your hair, your teeth, your smell. Yes, non-smokers can smell it on you. I can't think of anything less cool. Except for a cancerous lung.)

 

[King_Stannis]

more evidence of the "blame everyone but me" mentality. it's disgusting, quite frankly.

YEA! maybe this will encourage even more spineless weiners to sue! maybe we can totally bankrupt phillip morris! YEA! of course, there's that small part about putting thousands of people out of their jobs, too. but hey, who cares, right? the weak-willed namby pamby's must be catered to.

a pox on all of these sad-sacks that try to push blame on everyone but themselves for their vices. my old man quit smoking cold turkey after 30 years. my mom quit cold turkey as well. if you've got the will, you can do it.

as i recall, there's already a lawsuit by a fat guy who is suing the fast food industry for making their food so tempting and unhealthy. be prepared for a slew of suits against beer companies from groups of rummies and bums. after all, i'm sure alcohol ruined their lives the way cigarettes ruined these peoples' lives.

the people bringing these lawsuits need to be slapped. the lawyers that are encouraging them need far worse.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

So when do we start taking the government to court over this? The goverment made as much money if not more than the tobacco companies did with their products. Just look at how much of the cost of a pack of cigarettes is "sin" tax.

No, but there were 20 years ago, when tobacco exec's were telling us it was perfectly fine to smoke. Ten years ago, they swore tobacoo wasn't addictive in front of congress.

Let me draw an analogy. If someone were selling really impressive, shiny handguns at gradeschools, would we approve of a court ruling against them? I think so. When it comes to nicotine, all of us are gradeschoolers; our physical make-up is such that our judgment is impaired. Preying on this physical weakness, killing the customer in the process, is no more moral an act than selling handguns to children. The people doing it should be treated in exactly the same way.

The people that will presumably have to pay this money helped kill 450,000 Americans last year. ... and we're worried about whether we're being fair to them? What are we doing to folks who killed 5,000 Americans?

NRG

 

[Dr. NRG]

But if we really want smoking to be illegal, we should outlaw it...

But as for what we really accomplish by this (and why this happens), the best thing to look at is the contingency percentage that the woman's lawyer gets. Probably something like 14 billion.

Two points. First, we cannot outlaw smoking because the government is in hoc to their campaign contributors... notably big tobacco. As long as campaing finance remains as it is, tobacco will never ever be illegal.

Second, it's not where the money goes that's the point. It's where the money comes from. Presumably it comes out of the pockets of the group that's killing more Americans than any other, to whit, tobacco companies (see my previous post). I would soooo much rather that lawful neutral (mercenary) attorneys have the money than lawful evil tobacco executives...

NRG

 

[JacktheRabbit]

This I agree with 100%. No one in this country wants to ever take responsibility for their own actions these days. Everything is someone else's fault.

more evidence of the "blame everyone but me" mentality. it's disgusting, quite frankly.

 

[Ace]

Re: The point

The point here is not that some stupid chump made $28 billion, it's that a jury has finally recognized that only big numbers have any impact whatever on tobacco CEOs.

They don't care if they kill you. They don't care if they kill your family. They don't care if 10 billion cigarette butts choke the life out of every living thing in North America. What they DO care about, the ONLY thing they care about is money.

This means the only way to get their attention is to wind up and kick them right where it hurts... in the pocketbook.

These people are amoral lying slimebags, and bankrupting them is the least that they deserve. Go citizens! Down with deadly lying corporations!

I want to get in my 2$ worth before a wise mods kills this thread which is not only off topic but highly political. All well
Bad Me

The problem with fines like that is three fold

#1 They make no legal sense in terms of harm done and legal precedent

#2 They will be appealed until either Hell Freezes Over or the congress passes corporate protection legislation (very likely)

#3 Corporations can't be fined! I know thats counter intuitive but let me explain
All that happens is the fine is passed onto the consumers and most of the national big tobbaco companies have their hands all over the place.
While IIRC RJR sold off Nabisco, if they hadn't they would simply price jump Nilla Wafers or Cream of wheat (if thats a Nabisco Product) by ten cents or so.
ALso the way the food producers operate in cartels rather than having genuine price competion most (not all) related products will raise to meet prices rather than trying to maintain prices for bigger market share
Basically each healthy and good bowl of cereal just went up a penny to pay that stupid old womans lawyers.

Now if it was up to me I would

Require Tobbaco to be just well Tobbaco and not the awfull stuff that PM and RJR and others lowlifes put into it.
. All Tobbaco sold must be from non hybrid crops and 100% free of any additive except saltpeter (for combustion) and a handfull of approved flavors. IANAD but I suspect a lot of the cancer and addiction is not caused by Tobbaco per se but by the additives and nictoine enhancement done by Big Tobbaco companys.

 

[Zappo]

What a ridiculous sum of money to award to one person! If it were a class action suit, then perhaps.

I, too am an ex-smoker. (Started at 12. I was a bad girl.) Those warnings on the cigarette packs have been there since, hmm, the mid 1960s I think. And the dangers of tobacco haven't exactly been kept secret.

I just don't understand why so many people won't take responsibility for their own actions.

The way I always understood, those suits only worked for people who started smoking before the warnings. The theory being, tobacco companies knew about the danger and told nothing. Still, I think that

A) that kind of money is completely unreasonable for a single person, and if the aim was to hurt PM seriously, then why didn't they force PM to devolve 26 billions to cancer research and 2 billion to the woman? That would have been very useful to researchers, in addition of being an exemplary fine.

B) people who take up smoking after seeing the labels have the full responsability for what they've got into. I know that a man with cancer deserves respect and whatnot, but he did brought it on himself. And even for people who took up smoking before the labels don't deserve large sums of money, because they should have quit ASAP upon learning of the hazard. I know it's hard, but that's not a good reason to claim heaps of money when the real troubles arrive.

C) I and anyone else is free to smoke or drink alcohol or whatever, as long as responsability is taken. I don't want a nanny state slapping me for stuff that concerns me alone.

 

[Bryan Vining]

Disappointing

I am worried that the people of the US are so intent on punishing cigarette makers. There is no question, I think, that the cigarette makers have behaved in a reprehensible manner. Causing them to go bankrupt with massive lawsuits may indeed eliminate smoking.

However, this ignores the underlying reasons why people smoke, and it's not as simple as the feeling of smoking being enjoyable (although it is to a smoker, I can assure you). So long as we ignore the reason why people smoke in the first, getting rid of cigarettes will only prompt new and different addictions (ecstacy, anyone?). The true time for celebration will be when we have, as a society, come to terms with the dehumanizing behavior that we countenance and commit on a regular basis, which is the reason people smoke, whether they are aware of it or not.