Punative Tobacco Lawsuits

Post anything that doesn't belong in any other forum, including gaming and topics unrelated to motorsport. Site specific discussions should go in the site feedback forum.

Post Tue Jul 22, 2014 5:50 pm

The widow who won a $23.6 billion lawsuit against R.J. Reynolds talks to TIME about the suit and what she hopes the victory will accomplish
http://time.com/3016961/23-6-billion-lawsuit-winner-to-big-tobacco-are-you-awake-now/




Is it $23 billion or million?
WilliamsF1
 
Joined: 6 Jan 2010

Post Tue Jul 22, 2014 5:55 pm

Is it $23 billion or million?


You read it correctly, Billion, with a B. RJR is appealing for obvious reasons.
Carbon
 
Joined: 19 Jan 2004
Location: Vancouver, BC

Post Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:17 pm

Carbon wrote:
Is it $23 billion or million?


You read it correctly, Billion, with a B. RJR is appealing for obvious reasons.



On what basis were damages awarded?
WilliamsF1
 
Joined: 6 Jan 2010

Post Tue Jul 22, 2014 8:11 pm

That's patently ridiculous. Bloody absurd actually.

I shmoke, and my better half does not. So when I'm 6ft under in 30/35 years (stats) does this mean she would be entitled to this?
Of course she would require commensurate compensation just for putting up with my sexy self....but 23 billion.

She can buy morroco with that!

Oh the irony of a morrocan GP.
What's the matter, you dissentious rogues, that, rubbing the poor itch of your opinion, make yourselves scabs? -WS
FoxHound
 
Joined: 23 Aug 2012

Post Tue Jul 22, 2014 8:52 pm

WilliamsF1 wrote:
Carbon wrote:
Is it $23 billion or million?


You read it correctly, Billion, with a B. RJR is appealing for obvious reasons.



On what basis were damages awarded?

16 billion in medical costs, loss of a loved one, etc. The rest as punitive damages.

As far as I'm concerned, it seems fair. If you do business selling something you know will kill people, and advertising that they should do something that will kill them with it, then... you should be liable when those people die.

Note, the case was won explicitly because the company did not advertise any of the risks, and in fact advertised it as a good and healthy thing to do.
beelsebob
 
Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Location: Cupertino, California

Post Tue Jul 22, 2014 9:14 pm

beelsebob wrote:16 billion in medical costs, loss of a loved one, etc. The rest as punitive damages.

As far as I'm concerned, it seems fair. If you do business selling something you know will kill people, and advertising that they should do something that will kill them with it, then... you should be liable when those people die.

Note, the case was won explicitly because the company did not advertise any of the risks, and in fact advertised it as a good and healthy thing to do.



By that argument everyone who smoked a cigarette should be entitled to $23 billion compensation.

What made this one special?
WilliamsF1
 
Joined: 6 Jan 2010

Post Tue Jul 22, 2014 9:23 pm

From the time the guy started smoking the packs of cigarettes had a warning label on them....
"The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me."
flynfrog
 
Joined: 23 Mar 2006

Post Tue Jul 22, 2014 9:51 pm

beelsebob wrote:16 billion in medical costs, loss of a loved one, etc. The rest as punitive damages.

As far as I'm concerned, it seems fair. If you do business selling something you know will kill people, and advertising that they should do something that will kill them with it, then... you should be liable when those people die.

Note, the case was won explicitly because the company did not advertise any of the risks, and in fact advertised it as a good and healthy thing to do.


It's called personal responsibility Bob.

The dangers of smoking were made clear when the surgeon general issued his report in the 1960s about it. The deceased started smoking in the early 1970s, so he would have been well aware of the dangers even at 13.

Rationally speaking though, considering humans and animals have a flight response to smoke and fire because it's inherently understood to be dangerous, why anyone would think that inhaling smoke would be without danger is beyond me. I speak as an ex-smoker who occasionally lights up a cigarette from time-to-time. I knew it was bad when I started, and I blame no one but myself as I made a conscious decision to partake in such a thing.

Demonizing the tobacco companies nowadays is a typical tactic by liberals to try and excuse people from personal responsibility. You make your choices at the end of the day, and in this day and age, that type of a jury award is pathetic.

Interestingly though I hear little said about the role and responsibility of the alcohol manufacturers for what they do.
"I don't want to make friends with anybody. I don't give a sh*t for fame. I just want to win." -Nelson Piquet
GitanesBlondes
 
Joined: 30 Jul 2013

Post Tue Jul 22, 2014 10:24 pm

Seems like smoking 60 a day was never gonna kill you back in the 80s, which even back then had vast information regards the health implications of smoking.
This here, is being held up against the tobacco industry because "profit came before it's duty to the public".

Well if that's the case.... I'm opening a case against Ikea, that sold me a bed with dangerous screws my nephew could've swallowed. There was no warning label either, so I must be right.

Absolute bullshit.

I smoke. I respect those that don't. I even respect their wish that I go outside to light up. I wouldn't want to feel the guilt of someone's else's health on my conscience.
But I ain't kidding myself that this was ever going to ever do anything other than physical damage.
How stupid do you have to be. And how stupid is the system for allowing such a vast sum of cash?

McDonald's must quaking in their boots I tell you.
What's the matter, you dissentious rogues, that, rubbing the poor itch of your opinion, make yourselves scabs? -WS
FoxHound
 
Joined: 23 Aug 2012

Post Tue Jul 22, 2014 10:29 pm

FoxHound wrote:Seems like smoking 60 a day was never gonna kill you back in the 80s, which had even back then had vast information regards the health implications of smoking.

This here is being held up against the tobacco industry because "profit came before it's duty to the public".

Well if that's the case.... I'm opening a case against ikea, that sold me a bed with dangerous screws my nephew could've swallowed. There was no warning label either, so I must be right.

Absolute bullshit.

I smoke. I respect those that don't. I even respect their wish that I go outside to light up.
But I ain't kidding myself that this was ever going to ever do anything but physical damage.

McDonald's must quaking in their boots I tell you.


I have no problem with verdicts for those who died long before there was any information about the dangers of tobacco use, but once it became well-known what the ramifications of it were, that becomes the responsibility of the users.

It's goes into a dangerous territory where people can have an opt out for their own stupidity. Eat too much Burger King? "It's their fault for making the food look so good in commercials."

Unreal.
"I don't want to make friends with anybody. I don't give a sh*t for fame. I just want to win." -Nelson Piquet
GitanesBlondes
 
Joined: 30 Jul 2013

Post Tue Jul 22, 2014 10:41 pm

GitanesBlondes wrote:Unreal.


Makes you wonder what qualifies as human intellect these days.

This is rewarding stupidity and ignorance, and it happens every day here in the UK.
Idiocracy....
What's the matter, you dissentious rogues, that, rubbing the poor itch of your opinion, make yourselves scabs? -WS
FoxHound
 
Joined: 23 Aug 2012

Post Wed Jul 23, 2014 4:54 am

Wonder how much Michelle Obama can claim

Image
WilliamsF1
 
Joined: 6 Jan 2010

Post Wed Jul 23, 2014 5:10 am

flynfrog wrote:From the time the guy started smoking the packs of cigarettes had a warning label on them....

Actually - that was exactly the finding of the court - these specific packs didn't have a warning, and that's why she won.
beelsebob
 
Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Location: Cupertino, California

Post Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:00 am

beelsebob wrote:
flynfrog wrote:From the time the guy started smoking the packs of cigarettes had a warning label on them....

Actually - that was exactly the finding of the court - these specific packs didn't have a warning, and that's why she won.

I haven't read the briefing the the Surgeon General required all packs of cigarettes to carry warning labels starting in 65. It had been well published for a decade that cigarettes are bad for you. So where was this guy getting smokes from?



The 1964 report on smoking and health had an impact on public attitudes and policy. A Gallup Survey conducted in 1958 found that only 44 percent of Americans believed smoking caused cancer, while 78 percent believed so by 1968. In the course of a decade, it had become common knowledge that smoking damaged health, and mounting evidence of health risks gave Terry's 1964 report public resonance. Yet, while the report proclaimed that "cigarette smoking is a health hazard of sufficient importance in the United States to warrant appropriate remedial action," it remained silent on concrete remedies. That challenge fell to politicians. In 1965, Congress required all cigarette packages distributed in the United States to carry a health warning, and since 1970 this warning is made in the name of the Surgeon General. In 1969, cigarette advertising on television and radio was banned, effective September 1970.
"The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me."
flynfrog
 
Joined: 23 Mar 2006

Post Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:15 am

Bah, If you haven't learned by now that tobacco, alcohol, fat, sugar, salt, and mustard is bad for you, then you can have it.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
xpensive
 
Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Location: Somewhere in Scandinavia

Next

Return to Off topic chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot] and 2 guests