Quote:
Originally Posted by DaemonSeid
I have to side with PhiGam on this...
What did Phillip Morris do wrong?
That's like saying that it's wrong making alcoholic products and people die because someone uses their products.
Moreso with smoking, they tell you upfront on the product that it's bad for you.
|
Not quite, I don't think. First, they only put on the product that it's bad for you because they are required by law to do so.
Second, if the evidence here shows what I assume it did (I can only assume without reading the whole record), PM did more than make a tobacco product -- they added addictive chemicals to their cigarettes while denying that they were doing so. They set out to make their product more addictive than it already was, and they did so knowing the health implications of making cigarettes more addictive than they already are. And if the evidence here was similar to what I've seen in some other cases, they added the addictive chemicals while marketing their cigerattes as healthier or less addictive than other cigarettes.
I'm all for people taking personal responsibility for their actions. In my book, that applies to smokers and to cigarette companies alike.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PM_Mama00
Yes it's hard to quit once you get addicted, but like DS said, are people gona start suing alcohol companies because their relative/friend died of alcohol poisoning or alcoholism contributed to their death?
|
Nobody can sue unless they have standing to do so -- that's almost always just going to be a spouse, parent or child of the deceased.
And no, I don't think you'll see similar suits against alcohol companies unless someone comes up with evidence that the alcohol companies have taken positive action to make their products more addictive. Even then, any successful lawsuit would, I think, have to be limited to an outcome that was a reasonably foreseable consequence of the company's actions.
Threaded Mode
