Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by edesignuk, Aug 25, 2009.
I actually side with Philip Morris here. I don't encourage the company's actions at all, but it's not as if smokers aren't warned of the risks.
wow, so i should start smoking, get lung cancer and sue when im 60 and make a small fortune
id love to have been in the jury for that one
I'm with Phillip Morris on this. Absolutely frivolous lawsuit.
Better yet, get one of your parents to start smoking so you can sue and live off the millions.
Christ these lawsuits are getting more bizarre by the day.
I wonder how many of them actually get paid out. And is it a lump sum?
"My mom willfully pushed poison into her body for 47 years and now she's day. It's your fault!"
Jeez, I'm a smoker (trying to quit, though) and at least I know that if it kills me, it's my damn fault.
I thought the point they had with these sorts of law suits was that back in the day people were actively encouraged to start smoking, health risks were kept quiet, and the tobacco companies made a fortune. By the time they let slip that smoking will do you serious damage it was too late for many people, they were addicted. It's these people who have a case against them, because they were essentially lied to.
$28B?!?! That's crazy, how can anyone think that that is an acceptable amount!?
Still $28M and then $13.8M is just as crazy.
Best start smoking eh...
That's different. They were mislead. Unless we have proof that this girl's mother was mislead in any way?
This is the context that needs to be remembered. Companies like Philip Morris actively lied and obsfucated the scientific evidence that smoking was killing people to protect their profits. They also fabricated "scientific" evidence to the contrary. This is a great site on tobacco control which also has many, many documents from the ugly past of these tobacco companies. And they're not much better these days. Profits first. People's lives second.
The number of these judgements is growing day by day. Hopefully they'll hit critical mass and we'll be purged of these companies for good.
Thats the way I read it too.
She started smoking in 1956 when what edesignuk described was going on.
You don't need proof, you only need to look at her age , when she died  and how long she'd been smoking [47 years] to see the how long ago it all started. Definitely in the days when the tobacco companies were being very naughty indeed.
Does anyone know what year the "truth" really came out? Meaning after that point you have no case against them, the risks were well publicised.
She's 64, so surely she was around at the time when smoking was "safe"...?
You're right, I didn't think about that. I'm so used to all these American lawsuits being complete bullcrap that I didn't notice a proper one.
One puff of a cigarette will tell you that it's no good for you whether you were growing up in 1952 or 1992.
If the government cares that much they will ban smoking, but they won't because lots of people like to do it and the government makes some money out of it.
As for putting them out of business, fine but you'll just get some other company take their place.
The tobacco companies do need to be punished for false advertising, but giving joe bloggs 200 million won't do no good, how about making them build a few hospitals instead?
Even less than 20 years ago, tobacco companies were arguing that cigarettes were causing only psychological addiction, not physiological. In that sense truth date is fairly recent. However, cancer risk was fairly obvious twenty years ago, possibly even earlier. There is also the light cigarette scam, which may push the truth date to even more recent times.
In any case, I was on the side of tobacco companies quite a bit, until I saw the magazine adds from the 50s or 60s that went with the taglines that said "Two out of three doctors smoke Camels". After that, I say "sue them all."
Well your children could make a small fortune, because you'd be dead..
Actors, dentists, doctors . . .
My dad is 62 and has smoked like a chimney since he was 13. He's said it was definitely encouraged back then, and not in a "cool kid" sort of way. He said he was told over and over that smoking was actually healthy for you.
He knows he will likely die due to lung disease, but he hasn't stopped or cut back because he is way beyond being addicted. He simply now smokes a cheaper brand than Marlboro.
Hmm. Maybe I should start lookin' for a lawyer, eh?
i'm glad this lawsuit is happening.
yes, people can try to quit smoking, but smoking was promoted as the 'cool' thing
Add in the fact that these tobacco companies tweak the nicotine and other related crap to make the cigarettes more addicting, it's deserved!
wowwwwwwwwww im a smoker and i would blame myself for dieing because of cigarettes... how about the millions of other families that were affected by cigarette related deaths?
yes this is a bit silly. but how can you feel sorry for a company whose product only benefits it's self. it does not help it's consumers it hurts and kills them. there is no safe way to use it.
1994 to 1996, I believe. Jeffrey Wigand went on 60 Minutes (or maybe 20/20?) in early 1996, at any rate.
Now, why didn't I start suing the tobacco companies when my mother died? I would have been happy with $2 million (after taxes and any court/lawyer fees of course).
Kids, what have we learned from this?
Smoking = $$$!
Next time someone on these boards asks how they can save for a new Mac, tell them to start smoking.