Smoker's widow awarded millions

[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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

that people want and create a lot of jobs.

This isn't a defense to tortuous conduct.

[KSig RC]

Everyone in this thread is missing the boat, actually - the 'real' issue at play from the tobacco manufacturer is that there is a strong paper trail suggesting that the tobacco companies a.) knew about the harmful effects of their products as early as the 1940s and b.) systematically sought to hide this information from the American public, through misdirection, sponsoring illegitimate research, and flat-out lying (including to Congress).

This is really the source of their liability - not additives or anything, at least in this round of litigation.

For reasons both obvious and not, it's probably best to do your own research on the legitimacy of these claims - but there is a ton of evidence out there.

[preciousjeni]

There have been campaigns since the late 1800s to stop the sale of tobacco. Lung diseased was known to be caused by smoking as early as the 1920s. Anti-smoking campaigns didn't become remarkably successful until the 1980s when there were finally decades of scientific research to back up the claims and sufficient funding to make a splash.

But, claims that people didn't know smoking was harmful early in the 20th century are completely unfounded. It just depended on which sources people listened to...the advertising of tobacco companies or the warnings for the medical community.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Everyone in this thread is missing the boat, actually - the 'real' issue at play from the tobacco manufacturer is that there is a strong paper trail suggesting that the tobacco companies a.) knew about the harmful effects of their products as early as the 1940s and b.) systematically sought to hide this information from the American public, through misdirection, sponsoring illegitimate research, and flat-out lying (including to Congress).

I don't think we missed this.

The point that some of us are making is that personal responsibility is not removed from the equation since substance use and abuse do not always warrant a lawsuit. Moreover, if we are going to make the tobacco companies take half of the blame, the government should be stepping in and/or there should be multiple victims named in these lawsuits. That would really drive the message home.

[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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by PM_Mama00

Back in the day they didn't warn you. EVERYONE used to smoke back then.

And, as a smoker who has recently lost an uncle to lung cancer, I think this lawsuit is stupid. 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?

yeah...next I want to see warning labels on guns.

[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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

For reasons both obvious and not, it's probably best to do your own research on the legitimacy of these claims - but there is a ton of evidence out there.

And that ton of evidence, I think, tends to play on both sides of the fence.

Question: Do you think that there is a personal bias there as to which side people tend to take to this issue?

You more or less can see what side I am on, and sadly, if my parents die from smoking (thankfully they have cut back) you won't see me rushing forward to sue because they did something that caused them to die prematurely.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Question: Do you think that there is a personal bias there as to which side people tend to take to this issue?

What factors are you thinking may impact the bias?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

What factors are you thinking may impact the bias?

Smokers vs non smokers.


People who somehow have had family members affected by their smoking habit.

May even want to throw former smokers into that also.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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



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.

For cases that go to jury trial, I could see where those other issues would come up in the jury discussions, especially if you're in an area where juries are reluctant to give high awards. I don't think, as a legal matter, that the risk-seeking behavior should be relevant in a liability determination, only on a damages issue (kind of similar to how risk factors are litigated in workers comp claims).

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Question: Do you think that there is a personal bias there as to which side people tend to take to this issue?

You more or less can see what side I am on, and sadly, if my parents die from smoking (thankfully they have cut back) you won't see me rushing forward to sue because they did something that caused them to die prematurely.

I'm not sure that it does, although, not having seen any studies on it, I can only speak from my personal experience. I'm the only person in my immediate family (not counting my wife) who never smoked, and both of my parents have been smokers for over 40 years. I've also lost loved ones due to lung-related ailments (lung cancer, emphysema, etc.).

There's a part of me that has issues with a lot of what was done by the tobacco companies, in terms of the issues KSigRC discussed (illegitimate research, falsifying testimony, things of that nature). At the same time, I'm not sure how I feel on the damages issue, and how it should play out in large damage awards. Honestly, even with my family history, I don't feel any sort of emotional attachment to the issue either way.

[Munchkin03]

I wonder if children and spouses of smokers will come forward attributing their illnesses to secondhand smoke.

After all, in the case of children of smokers, they were/are helpless to make any major changes, especially if the parents smoke in the house or family car.