Smoker's widow awarded millions

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Nonsense.

Nicotine is addictive but not to the point where personal responsibility is removed.

Nicotine is naturally occuring in tobacco leaves- its the plants natural pesticide.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Nicotine is naturally occuring in tobacco leaves- its the plants natural pesticide.

But the companies don't stop there.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

But the companies don't stop there.

Follow me here:
Cigarettes are addictive
Nicotine is addictive
Nicotine is in all cigarettes
People quit smoking with nicotine patches, gum, and lozenges
Therefore, nicotine is the addictive ingredient in cigarettes

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Follow me here:
Cigarettes are addictive
Nicotine is addictive
Nicotine is in all cigarettes
People quit smoking with nicotine patches, gum, and lozenges
Therefore, nicotine is the addictive ingredient in cigarettes

So?

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

So?

So therefore cigarettes are addictive without additives and Altria is not at fault

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

So therefore cigarettes are addictive without additives and this court ruling is wrong.

Eh...I already said the court ruling is wrong.

But go ahead and fight your battle.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Follow me here:
Cigarettes are addictive
Nicotine is addictive
Nicotine is in all cigarettes
People quit smoking with nicotine patches, gum, and lozenges
Therefore, nicotine is the addictive ingredient in cigarettes

Your logic is faulty. Nothing you have said in your first 4 lines (before your therefore) establishes as fact your conclusion. Yes, nicotine is addictive. Yes, nicotine is in all cigarettes. Those two true statements do not support your conclusion that "nicotine is the addictive ingredient in cigarettes." They would support the conclusion that "nicotine is an addictive ingredient in cigarettes," but they do not exclude the possibility of other addictive ingredients.

(And I might be disagreeing with KSig RC a little, although I could certainly stand to be corrected. My understanding of the current spate of litigation is that it focuses both on the tobacco companies' knowledge and alleged policy of concealment and misinformation and on the companies' alleged manufacture of products that were in fact more addictive due to additives. Like I say, though, I stand to be corrected.)

Originally Posted by DrPhil

If these companies are going to pay up, there needs to be a class action suit.

That's what it was in Florida (where this case came from) to begin with. But the appellate courts said the determinations had to be made on a case-by-case basis.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Your logic is faulty. Nothing you have said in your first 4 lines (before your therefore) establishes as fact your conclusion. Yes, nicotine is addictive. Yes, nicotine is in all cigarettes. Those two true statements do not support your conclusion that "nicotine is the addictive ingredient in cigarettes." They would support the conclusion that "nicotine is an addictive ingredient in cigarettes," but they do not exclude the possibility of other addictive ingredients.

Yikes. I just had a pre-law philosophy flashback. I need to calm my nerves.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

That's what it was in Florida (where this case came from) to begin with. But the appellate courts said the determinations had to be made on a case-by-case basis.

Thank you. I would like to know their criteria for determining company liability.

For instance, if one of the "victims" was a smoker, drinker, spousal abuser AND didn't wear a seat belt, that person may be dismissed as having low self-control and risk-seeking behavior such that tobacco was the least of his/her problems.

[texas*princess]

Wow this is pretty ridiculous.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by texas*princess

Wow this is pretty ridiculous.

In what way?