Tobacco company sued

[ZZoMBiE13]

You know, I smoked for 25 years. And no one forced the damn things in my hands. I made the choice to pick up the habit, I let myself get addicted to a harmful substance, and I dealt with any and all consequences.

I'm sorry for the person who died, but no one smokes by accident. I really don't see how this happens in this day and age. Cigarettes have been labeled as harmful since I started in the 80s. There's no mystery as to whether it's harmful to the users of the products.

If smoking had killed me and my family did something like that, I'd roll over in my grave

 

[The White Hunter]

Okay no here's the thing: It's common knowledge that smoking is pretty damn likely to kill you. This shit wouldn't fly in Europe, it wouldn't pass the "reasonable man" defence.

Say what you want about the tobacco industry being evil but this kind of stuff is just ridiculous.

 

[shootthebandit]

People really need to stop bringing up the McDonalds coffee case when it comes to frivolous lawsuits. McDonald's was clearly in the wrong, the plaintiff had real, unexpected, unreasonable damages (3rd degree burns), and the decision in her favor was reasonable, and not excessive.

As for the tobacco case... I mean, come on. The dangers of smoking have been known for decades, and wile cigerettes are extremely addictive, their not addictive to the point of being impossible to quit.

This is just silly.

I dont really know about the mcdonalds incident but I agree. This is a frivolous case. The dangers of smoking have been highlighted since at least the 1930s (I know this because Hitler was very anti-smoking and he highlighted the dangers of smoking[footnote]

Spoiler: german anti-smoking poster

[/footnote]) so there isnt really an excuse even for the older generations.

Im a smoker and I understand the risks (its written on the packet) so you know what you are letting yourself in for. To award someone 26bn is absurd when their are thousands of people in the same situation every year which is why I hope this money (if the woman has any sense) goes to anti-smoking and lung cancer charities worldwide. 26bn is a large enough sum to help the lifes of many. Yes she could buy a yacht or her own plane (she could have her own airline or 2) but if she has an ounce of respect for her late husband she will donate the money to help those in his situation...and also have a lambourghini

 

[WindKnight]

Soooo it seems someone died from smoking and his wife whom he left behind thought it to be wise to sue RJ Reynolds. Normal train of thought is along the lines of 'smoking is bad....you can/will die from it eventually (in most cases)'
Well, its something everyone who smokes (myself included)has to take into consideration and understand the consequences that are included. This lady still thought itd work and by god it did.

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/19/rj-reynolds-lawsuit_n_5602427.html

I must say...Im surprised it worked. Yes there are some lawsuits on the states side that are..ridiculous (sticking the cat into the microwave to dry it..no comment..) but nevertheless, this one seriously shocked me that it actually worked. Im still brooding about what I can do to win that much next time I visit my family haha.

Don't cigarette pakages have big warnings on them that say smoking them will harm you and those around you, or the more poignant Smoking Kills?

Spoiler: Like so

With messages like those, its pretty hard to make a case when its clear you know what can possibly happen to you.

You are aware that for several decades the tobacco companies went out of their way to suppress any and all evidence of the damage cigarettes could do to your health, and in some cases actively promoted cigarettes as good for your health? They even had Fred Flintstone in adverts for them.

This case is specifically about long term smokers, people who we're actively lied to (for up to decades) about how harmful smoke was.

 

[shootthebandit]

This case is specifically about long term smokers, people who we're actively lied to (for up to decades) about how harmful smoke was.

See my post above. The dangers of smoking have been highlighted in nazi germany. Hitler knew that smoking led to lung cancer way back then and he had a lot of anti-smoking propaganda. Thats the mid 30's - 40's any longtime smoker still alive today is unlikely to be born before then or at least not be exposed to media highlighting the risk from then on

 

[Muspelheim]

I don't particularly care for the tobacco companies. They do produce a product I want, but there is an unhealthy amount of sleaze in there. But honestly, it's self inflicted damage, the possible future treatment of which is added to the cost by the tobacco taxation. I can understand her reasoning, but I can't for the life of me see how this could fly. It can't just be pocket change, even for a large, influential tobacco company.

Unrelated: the cigarettes Fred Flintstone tried to sell tastes like Brontosaurus droppings.

$26 billion?

Wow. I need to start convincing someone in my family to start chain smoking, stat!

My dad smokes occasionally. I'll start with him. Maybe buy a few packets and just kinda leave 'em around his house.

We could marry, and I could increase the daily dosage, powerlevel the cysts. File that under plan B.

 

[Saltyk]

Yeah, this is kinda bull shit. We've known about the effects of cigarettes for a long time.

Beyond that, smoking was her husband's choice. Yes, smoking is addictive, but he choose to start and there are plenty of options to help you quit. No one forced him to smoke. No one can be blamed but himself.

Full Disclosure: I don't smoke, but my dad does. I personally find smoking unattractive and the smell is unpleasant. I also urge people not to smoke (and wish my dad would quit), but it is still their choice. If people have the right to drink alcohol, if you support legalizing marijuana (I do) or other drugs, then people have the right to smoke cigarettes. After all, people have the right to put whatever the want in their bodies. Even if it is stupid.

Suing the company over providing something that people want is utter garbage.

Anyway, guess, I'll get ready to sue Jack Daniels. Maybe I'll get even more money! Maybe I'll sue Nintendo or Sega after that...

 

[WindKnight]

This case is specifically about long term smokers, people who we're actively lied to (for up to decades) about how harmful smoke was.

See my post above. The dangers of smoking have been highlighted in nazi germany. Hitler knew that smoking led to lung cancer way back then and he had a lot of anti-smoking propaganda. Thats the mid 30's - 40's any longtime smoker still alive today is unlikely to be born before then or at least not be exposed to media highlighting the risk from then on

Those people known for World War 2, Concentration camps, the final solution and human experimentation, vs those friendly all-american capitalist companies who do all those sweet adverts, and make those lovely products? Gee, I wonder who's 'evidence' is going to get the warmest reception.

Yes, the dangers were 'known' a long time ago, to those with the knowledge and interest, but the tobacco companies did their damndest to keep it from being known or understood by the general population. They lied, they suppressed, and they sold their deadly product with a smile and advertisements telling everybody how awesome it was.

Long term means decades. Long terms means smokers who started in to 50's, 60's, and 70's when the general populace had no knowledge of the dangers of cigarettes, and the tobacco we're more than happy to keep it that way.

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

26 BILLION!?!?! I'm surprised the American tobacco industry is still standing! good thing they still have the Philippines.

 

[L. Declis]

Can't believe it worked, people have known smoking is bad for your health for decades. I hope this gets appealed and the case thrown out otherwise I'd support fat people suing fast food places for billions or beer companies for wrecked livers.

But there are cases for them. *puts on legal hat*

People have known smoking is bad for decades, yes. However, many people started smoking before this was publicly available, and the tobacco companies had suppressed the information for many years before then.

Not only that, but there is significant advertisement being placed by these companies to target new smokers; the children. There is a very insidious plot by the tobacco companies to ignore advertisement laws and advertise to young children to trick them into smoking.

You can say that "the effects of smoking are well known", but advertisements are an extremely strong and the average person sees 2,000-3,000 per day. If you parents told you 5 times per day not to listen to adverts, they're still losing by as much as 400 to 1 messages.

Not only that, but smoking companies sponsor schools, they ensure that sweet shops are stocked with little candy cigarettes, they are bringing out brands like "Camel Crush" which are aimed for the younger demographic, they price their items in convenience stores cheaply to aim for the teenager with pocket money, who will visit on average at least once per week.

They are releasing a simply toxic product, which harms people in the near vicinity and actively targeting young people before they can develop their full cognitive abilities. A man who targets children is called a predator, and his behaviour isn't entirely different than these companies.

The cost of advertisement for tobacco companies is $10.5 billion, which is two thirds of the amount for subsidized health care they could be supporting (cost for Obamacare is $16.5 billion).

Between the fast food and tobacco companies, both of whom have insidious practises towards their own nation and it's health, as well as being the two leading causes of death in America, they should be doing a lot more to subsidise the health costs, or perhaps reduce the impact they are causing on this country.

These cases should come up a lot more, because corporate America has always been dodging responsibility while wanting to reap the rewards (human rights, bailouts by the public, lifting of limitations, protection as a citizen). At some point, corporate responsibility has to come in, and when your industries are the active causes of death in America, you have to answer some time.

 

[DefunctTheory]

The cost of advertisement for tobacco companies is $10.5 billion, which is two thirds of the amount for subsidized health care they could be supporting (cost for Obamacare is $16.5 billion).

I just want to point out that between 80-90% of the advertising your talking about is essentially rebates/discounts to cigarette sellers to reduce the cost to consumers (Basically, trying to eat some of the taxes associated with tobacco).

It's kind of misleading to say 10 billion is spent on advertising.

 

[Worgen]

Not to sound overly cynical but... is this really surprising after the whole McDonald's coffee thing? People sue big corporations for stupid reasons all the time. I don't feel sympathy because big corporations have a nasty habit of screwing everyone else over, but it doesn't make this feel any less mundane to me.

Actually the mcdonalds thing was pretty justified. She ended up with third degree burns over a good portion of her body and really she was just suing for medical bills, the jury are the ones who awarded her millions, which got appealed down a whole lot. They were serving coffee at like 180 degrees, shes not the first one that got burned by it but shes the first one who got paid.

 

[Roggen Bread]

Ridiculousness and 'muricaness aside, I can't help but appreciate that a tobacco company got hit where it hurts the most: their wallet.

While I do completely agree with you, I really do have a hard time getting over this one.

But oh well, it is the land of infinite stupidity, isnt it?
'murica.

 

[Xan Krieger]

Can't believe it worked, people have known smoking is bad for your health for decades. I hope this gets appealed and the case thrown out otherwise I'd support fat people suing fast food places for billions or beer companies for wrecked livers.

But there are cases for them. *puts on legal hat*

People have known smoking is bad for decades, yes. However, many people started smoking before this was publicly available, and the tobacco companies had suppressed the information for many years before then.

Not only that, but there is significant advertisement being placed by these companies to target new smokers; the children. There is a very insidious plot by the tobacco companies to ignore advertisement laws and advertise to young children to trick them into smoking.

You can say that "the effects of smoking are well known", but advertisements are an extremely strong and the average person sees 2,000-3,000 per day. If you parents told you 5 times per day not to listen to adverts, they're still losing by as much as 400 to 1 messages.

Not only that, but smoking companies sponsor schools, they ensure that sweet shops are stocked with little candy cigarettes, they are bringing out brands like "Camel Crush" which are aimed for the younger demographic, they price their items in convenience stores cheaply to aim for the teenager with pocket money, who will visit on average at least once per week.

They are releasing a simply toxic product, which harms people in the near vicinity and actively targeting young people before they can develop their full cognitive abilities. A man who targets children is called a predator, and his behaviour isn't entirely different than these companies.

The cost of advertisement for tobacco companies is $10.5 billion, which is two thirds of the amount for subsidized health care they could be supporting (cost for Obamacare is $16.5 billion).

Between the fast food and tobacco companies, both of whom have insidious practises towards their own nation and it's health, as well as being the two leading causes of death in America, they should be doing a lot more to subsidise the health costs, or perhaps reduce the impact they are causing on this country.

These cases should come up a lot more, because corporate America has always been dodging responsibility while wanting to reap the rewards (human rights, bailouts by the public, lifting of limitations, protection as a citizen). At some point, corporate responsibility has to come in, and when your industries are the active causes of death in America, you have to answer some time.

I would propose this, if they agree to not market to children then they should be allowed to have commercials on TV. There's plenty of anti-smoking commercials, some of them are quite disturbing so allowing pro-smoking commercials would help make it fair and balanced. Also yes the negative effects are well known, between those anti-smoking commercials, the warnings on the pack, the warnings in magazine ads, and all the advocacy groups against smoking it's almost impossible to not know the risks. If I remember right the guy who died started smoking after the warnings went out about how bad smoking is so the odds are he knew the risk and thus the plaintiff in the case had no grounds for the lawsuit. It's her former husband's responsibility, not the tobacco industry's.

 

[agent9]

it's his own damn fault, and while I don't smoke she doesn't deserve a penny. that's like suing mc donalds because it made you fat. FFS it's greasy fast food of course it will. same shit here.

 

[Gennadios]

A Florida man's life was worth 23.6 Billion? Holy shit, the guy must have been in the process of turning HIV into a renewable power source or something. Shame on the tobacco industry for taking him from us!

 

[Ratty]

Not to sound overly cynical but... is this really surprising after the whole McDonald's coffee thing? People sue big corporations for stupid reasons all the time. I don't feel sympathy because big corporations have a nasty habit of screwing everyone else over, but it doesn't make this feel any less mundane to me.

I see the McDonalds coffee case brought up all the time and people don't seem to understand. There's a difference between the hotness you have in normal coffee and how hot McDonald's was keeping their coffee in order for it to last longer/not go stale. Hot enough that iirc the woman got second or third degree burns on her lap when it was spilled. This was dangerously negligent on the part of McDonalds, all so they'd save a few pennies on not having to make more fresh coffee.

 

[laggyteabag]

Smoking, the thing that has been proven to be the cause for countless diseases, illnesses and deaths, yet someone dies from smoking, and a woman sues the company? I wouldn't think that it would even hold up in court, let alone grant the woman $26bil

 

[gigastar]

About the only thing i dont understand about this is why anyone thought it was a good idea to award 24bn in damages to begin with.

 

[Something Amyss]

Don't cigarette pakages have big warnings on them that say smoking them will harm you and those around you, or the more poignant Smoking Kills?

Our labels are a lot smaller than that, last I knew.

Also, keep in mind that while nowadays we have anti-smoking ads and bigger warnings, this guy died in the freaking 90s. And he didn't just pick them up then. He had been smoking multiple packs a day for "decades" when he died.

People have known smoking is bad for decades, yes. However, many people started smoking before this was publicly available, and the tobacco companies had suppressed the information for many years before then.

And this was very relevant here.

It's also worth noting that one of the criteria here was specifically addiction. Cigarettes have been increasingly engineered to be more addictive over time, making it easier to get hooked and harder to quit.

While people should know better, tobacco companies should be knocked down for this horse crap.

Actually the mcdonalds thing was pretty justified. She ended up with third degree burns over a good portion of her body and really she was just suing for medical bills, the jury are the ones who awarded her millions, which got appealed down a whole lot. They were serving coffee at like 180 degrees, shes not the first one that got burned by it but shes the first one who got paid.

This is the internet, where facts come to die. Hell, the first page is full of people who seem to think this is a modern issue, though the lawsuit itself is 20 years in the making. Just the lawsuit. Not the conditions that led to it.