FREE TAPATALK APP

Oliver · 14th August 2009, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Husband of 2-pack-a-day smoker gets $1.9M

A Florida jury awarded a 92-year-old man $1.9 million in compensatory damages for the death of his wife, a former two-pack-a-day Marlboro smoker who started when she was 16 and died in her 70s, attorneys said Thursday. The jurors put the total award at $5.3 million but found that Philip Morris USA was only 36.5 percent responsible for the lung cancer that plaintiffs said killed Leon Barbanell's wife. full story

Why didn't he get the 1.9 quattuordecillion he surely deserved for his wife lack of responsibility, causing her death pretty much by herself?

Also, what's up with the claim that "Philip Morris USA was only 36.5 percent responsible for the lung cancer"? How in the world did they make up that number?

And for the record: I'm smoking a cigarette right now, a Marlboro, to be specific. [Just in case I get some ~~financial~~ health-related problems Marlboro is responsible for to 30-something percent anyway]

DC · 14th August 2009, 01:51 AM

crazy

Aepervius · 14th August 2009, 02:26 AM

I am not sure for the rest of the world, but as far as I remember correctly (which is not a given) but in the US the tobacco company were hit hard with lawsuit, because for dozen of years they pretended smoking was harmless, while fully knowing it was not. Due to this , they were liable.

I can only assume in the case above somebody did some calculation on the time between when the woman starting smoking, when it was known / the lawsuit against tobacco company was, then assign 50% responsibility to her 50% to the company before the process, and 100% responsibility after the process and when it was written everywhere "tobacco will KILL you give you lung cancer". That seems to come roughly correct in the numbers ranges to come up with a 36.5%, could also be they pulled the number out of thin air.

Puppycow · 14th August 2009, 02:33 AM

Individuals cannot be held responsible and accountable for their choices. Only teh eevil companies can.

She died in her 70's? That's about par for the course anyway.

But just in case: I also started smoking at 16 too. (Quit 3 years ago.

) But if I die of lung cancer anyway I want a couple million to go to my heirs too.

MikeSun5 · 14th August 2009, 02:40 AM

That is pretty effed up. What's that old man going to do with all that loot?

Originally Posted by Aepervius

I am not sure for the rest of the world, but as far as I remember correctly (which is not a given) but in the US the tobacco company were hit hard with lawsuit, because for dozen of years they pretended smoking was harmless, while fully knowing it was not. Due to this , they were liable.

I wonder if that's where the prosecutors were going... I mean the couple was really old. Maybe that's the reason for the 36.5%. Maybe Philip Morris was lying to her about cigs being harmless for only 36.5% of her smoking life.

If that's the case, I gotta call my mom and dad. They both smoke. Maybe they can get paid for being lied to for like 15% of their life.

a_unique_person · 14th August 2009, 02:56 AM

I think it's good. Not because the husband deserves the money, but because the cigarrette companies did specifically target children and non smokers. They need to be made accountable for the widespread damage they have done. This is only the start.

DC · 14th August 2009, 03:10 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

I think it's good. Not because the husband deserves the money, but because the cigarrette companies did specifically target children and non smokers. They need to be made accountable for the widespread damage they have done. This is only the start.

but meanwhile the tabaco industrie admits its bad for your health.
so every smoker, including me, knows he is stupid.

Pardalis · 14th August 2009, 04:38 AM

Originally Posted by DC

but meanwhile the tabaco industrie admits its bad for your health.
so every smoker, including me, knows he is stupid.

But wouldn't that make you stupid too?

DC · 14th August 2009, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

But wouldn't that make you stupid too?

including me = moi inclusive = mich eingeschlossen = also me.

yes thats what i said. and you bolded it

ETA: autocritique isnt unknown to me.

Pardalis · 14th August 2009, 04:51 AM

Glad we agree on something.

DC · 14th August 2009, 04:58 AM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Glad we agree on something.

i dont think so, i ment it in regard to smoking. you propably agree on me beeing stupid in general

but thats ok, it was what i expected.

a_unique_person · 14th August 2009, 06:34 AM

Originally Posted by DC

but meanwhile the tabaco industrie admits its bad for your health.
so every smoker, including me, knows he is stupid.

I'm talking about targetting minors, which has something the tobacco industry has actively done. Cigarettes are highly addictive, and if you get them when they are young, by the time they are adults, it's already too late.

DC · 14th August 2009, 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

I'm talking about targetting minors, which has something the tobacco industry has actively done. Cigarettes are highly addictive, and if you get them when they are young, by the time they are adults, it's already too late.

ah okey, good point.

i regret that i found it cool when i was a teenager, it made me start, just to be as cool as the big guys.

Monketey Ghost · 14th August 2009, 06:40 AM

Non smoker here. I hate tobacco. I hate the way it smells. I hate people who smoke in restaurants, in bus shelters, wherever they damned well please. I hate them smoking on the sidewalks now that they've been kicked out of the buildings, I hate having to hold my breath for fifty feet as I walk past a long row of pathetic tobacco addicts.

That said, this award is ridiculous and people should suffer for the negative results of their own choices which they made countless times.

DC · 14th August 2009, 06:42 AM

i feel hated

but can fully understand you.
i take away your right to breath smokeless air.

Monketey Ghost · 14th August 2009, 06:46 AM

No... I have to be honest in my hypocrisy: if everyone were smoking the rolled up plant parts that I approve, it'd be fine with me.

Some people like cucumbers better pickled.

a_unique_person · 14th August 2009, 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by Magnifico2.0

Non smoker here. I hate tobacco. I hate the way it smells. I hate people who smoke in restaurants, in bus shelters, wherever they damned well please. I hate them smoking on the sidewalks now that they've been kicked out of the buildings, I hate having to hold my breath for fifty feet as I walk past a long row of pathetic tobacco addicts.

That said, this award is ridiculous and people should suffer for the negative results of their own choices which they made countless times.

They were addicted, and they often started when they were minors.

DC · 14th August 2009, 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

They were addicted, and they often started when they were minors.

excuses

drkitten · 14th August 2009, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by DC

excuses

Not really. By definition, minors are not responsible for their own choices. Also by more or less by definition, the victims of a fraud or of misleading advertisement are not responsible for their own choices.

If the tobacco companies deliberately targeted minors (as they did) and deliberately presented cigarettes as safe while knowing that was a lie (as they also did), then they, not the victims, are responsible for the victims' injuries.

Ian Osborne · 14th August 2009, 07:40 AM

Fair or not, it's great to see the tobacco industry getting its butt kicked!

DC · 14th August 2009, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Not really. By definition, minors are not responsible for their own choices. Also by more or less by definition, the victims of a fraud or of misleading advertisement are not responsible for their own choices.

If the tobacco companies deliberately targeted minors (as they did) and deliberately presented cigarettes as safe while knowing that was a lie (as they also did), then they, not the victims, are responsible for the victims' injuries.

No chance you dont know its deathly in Switzerland.

Kestrel · 14th August 2009, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

They were addicted, and they often started when they were minors.

And years later as adults, with the full knowledge of the hazards of smoking, they kept on smoking.

Tumbleweed · 14th August 2009, 08:03 AM

Odd, usually the causation has to be 50% or more. But the other foot has yet to drop. Judges ubiquitously lower damages. Why they even bother to ask the jury for a monetary amount is beyond me. Take Exxon Valdez for example----

Tumbleweed · 14th August 2009, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

And years later as adults, with the full knowledge of the hazards of smoking, they kept on smoking.

And here I thought that was what addiction was all about: you go on doing things that are bad for you. My mistake!

Tumbleweed · 14th August 2009, 08:08 AM

So can adult child who has health problems sue his chain smoking parents for his exposure to second hand smoke? Both in the home and in the womb?

Information Analyst · 14th August 2009, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by Magnifico2.0

Non smoker here. I hate tobacco. I hate the way it smells. I hate people who smoke in restaurants, in bus shelters, wherever they damned well please. I hate them smoking on the sidewalks now that they've been kicked out of the buildings, I hate having to hold my breath for fifty feet as I walk past a long row of pathetic tobacco addicts.

The ban on smoking in most enclosed public spaces in the UK has been good in some ways, but in many respects has just displaced smokers to the open air. Restaurants, pubs and bars are infinitely nicer places to be in, but the absence of the haze of tobacco smoke in some nightclubs (at least, the ones I frequent!) do make you realise how much it was masking. Most have had to contrive semi-external smoking areas of varying effectiveness, where I occasionally join my smoking friends. Luckily, I never learnt how to inhale, but do enjoy the occasional cigar in those circumstances.

JihadJane · 14th August 2009, 08:18 AM

Very good. Let's screw all the rest of the corporate, death-dealing criminals for all they're worth.

Kestrel · 14th August 2009, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by Tumbleweed

And here I thought that was what addiction was all about: you go on doing things that are bad for you. My mistake!

Smokers are addicted to nicotine, not to smoking. They can satisfy this addiction in other ways, such as chewing nicotine gum, that don't have the horrible health consequences of smoking cigarettes.

drkitten · 14th August 2009, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

And years later as adults, with the full knowledge of the hazards of smoking, they kept on smoking.

Because they were addicted and therefore not capable of stopping. And, of course, the cigarette companies knew the product they were peddling was highly addictive and didn't bother to mention THAT either or provide any mitigation, which makes them responsible for the addiction.

drkitten · 14th August 2009, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by DC

No chance you dont know its deathly in Switzerland.

No chance you don't know it is deadly now. How long have those labels been there? (In the USA, only since 1965, which means people in 1964 didn't necessarily know.)

Ernie M · 14th August 2009, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

That is pretty effed up. What's that old man going to do with all that loot?

He could buy cleaning supplies to remove the tar and nicotine from the walls and ceiling of where they lived. Maybe buy some paint, or hire some painters to freshen up the place.

He could buy the book, Ashes to Ashes: America's Hundred-Year Cigarette War, the Public Health, and the Unabashed Triumph of Philip Morris. Then he can read about the health hazards and so many other issues- he should have been aware of long ago.

DC · 14th August 2009, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

No chance you don't know it is deadly now. How long have those labels been there? (In the USA, only since 1965, which means people in 1964 didn't necessarily know.)

only since 1965?
we only have em a couple of years. mmhh

slingblade · 14th August 2009, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

Smokers are addicted to nicotine, not to smoking.

I don't find that to be my case.

Scootch · 14th August 2009, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

Smokers are addicted to nicotine, not to smoking. They can satisfy this addiction in other ways, such as chewing nicotine gum, that don't have the horrible health consequences of smoking cigarettes.

It was that kind of logic that got me to quit smoking. I had reasoned that I would quit smoking but not give up nicotine. I used the patch and after 4 weeks I was able to quit the patch.
So if you want to quit smoking, just get your nitotine another way (and dont put a time frame on it, just continue to take it until you can no longer feel any benefit from it and then quit that). Also carry a cigarette with you as something to hold or put in your mouth, that also helps with the cravings.

This worked for me and I was a two pack a day smoker for 15 years.

Oliver · 14th August 2009, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by DC

only since 1965?
we only have em a couple of years. mmhh

Excellent, I'm going to call my lawyer right now.

Sir Robin Goodfellow · 14th August 2009, 11:37 AM

I feel kind of bad for folks who started smoking back when the tobacco companies covered up damaging information, but in this day and age, what fool can claim they had no awareness of the negative effects of smoking? Why would you ever start that crap? I don't care if you're thirteen, I knew better than to start when I was a child. It has got to be the stupidest habit I can imagine- paying for the privilege of ruining your health. It's a farce.

Pardalis · 14th August 2009, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Very good. Let's screw all the rest of the corporate, death-dealing criminals for all they're worth.

Your comments always come through like if someone had farted in an assembly. You can slightly hear it, it's kind of annoying, but otherwise the discussion continues as if nothing happened.

LostAngeles · 14th August 2009, 02:46 PM

Odds are, lung disease from smoking will be what claims my mother. I refuse to support her habit. I will not find her lighter or her cigarettes for her, I will not let her smoke in my house, and unlike my sister, I will not bring her home cartons of cigarettes.

She's quit quitting and has opted to accept her impending lung disease from this.

I wouldn't sue over it. She was 8 when the labels went on. She was capable of quitting while carrying me. She's fully responsible for this and knows it.

a_unique_person · 14th August 2009, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

And years later as adults, with the full knowledge of the hazards of smoking, they kept on smoking.

I just said they were addicted. The word addicted has a meaning.

skeptical · 14th August 2009, 05:03 PM

A couple of points. First, I realize this may sound like a ridiculous verdict at first blush, but one has to keep in mind that this woman started smoking when she was 16. It says she died "in her 70's", but doesn't specify what year she died. Assuming she died a few years ago, let's say in 2005 and she died when she was exactly 70 years old, that means she started smoking in 2005 - 54 = 1951.

Now, warning labels did not start appearing on cigarettes in the US until 1966, between 1996-1970 the warning simply said "cigarettes may be hazardous to your health", that's about as lame a warning as you can get. Even from 1970 to 1985 the label simply said "the surgeon general has determined that cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health", which is better but still very unspecific. The phrase "dangerous to your health" does not give any indication of the scope of the danger. Not until 1985 were there specific warnings as the exact nature of the danger.

In addition to this, for decades prior to the warnings, tobacco companies knew their products were dangerous, knew they were addictive and continuously covered it up. They even portrayed smoking as part of a healthy lifestyle.

So, even assuming the warnings beginning in 1966 were effective, that would mean she smoked for 15 years under a false impression of the safety of cigarettes FOSTERED by the manufacturer who knew they were dangerous. If you take the POV that the 1966-1970 warnings were not effective (and I don't think they were), then for at least 20 years she smoked without adequate warning. You could go further and argue that not until 1985 did the warnings truly become effective, which would make the total time 35 years.

My guess is that the jury decided that the warnings beginning in 1970 were effective, so she smoked for 54 years total, out of which 20 the tobacco companies were responsible, so that gives 54/20 = 37% (their actual figure was 36.5, so maybe I'm a little off on the year she died)

The weird thing is that the article says the $1.9M was _compensatory_ damages, which seems really high. Normally when you see an award this high a lot of it is punitive damages because that is based entirely on the profits the company made during their wrongful actions and not actual damages inflicted. Of course, the article might be wrong on that count.

In any case, I think you can argue that the award is too high strictly for compensatory damages, but I don't see how it can be argued that from at least 1951 to 1966 the tobacco company is liable for promoting a product as safe all the while knowing it was not. The same rules apply to any company, If a car company sold a car for 15 years and promoted it as safe all the while knowing it was severely defective, I think any reasonable person would conclude that someone damaged in that car should be compensated.

14th August 2009, 01:26 AM	#1
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,370	Husband of 2-pack-a-day smoker gets $1.9M Quote: Husband of 2-pack-a-day smoker gets $1.9M A Florida jury awarded a 92-year-old man $1.9 million in compensatory damages for the death of his wife, a former two-pack-a-day Marlboro smoker who started when she was 16 and died in her 70s, attorneys said Thursday. The jurors put the total award at $5.3 million but found that Philip Morris USA was only 36.5 percent responsible for the lung cancer that plaintiffs said killed Leon Barbanell's wife. full story Why didn't he get the 1.9 quattuordecillion he surely deserved for his wife lack of responsibility, causing her death pretty much by herself? Also, what's up with the claim that "Philip Morris USA was only 36.5 percent responsible for the lung cancer"? How in the world did they make up that number? And for the record: I'm smoking a cigarette right now, a Marlboro, to be specific. [Just in case I get some ~~financial~~ health-related problems Marlboro is responsible for to 30-something percent anyway]
	__________________

14th August 2009, 01:51 AM	#2
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	crazy
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

14th August 2009, 02:26 AM	#3
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,891	I am not sure for the rest of the world, but as far as I remember correctly (which is not a given) but in the US the tobacco company were hit hard with lawsuit, because for dozen of years they pretended smoking was harmless, while fully knowing it was not. Due to this , they were liable. I can only assume in the case above somebody did some calculation on the time between when the woman starting smoking, when it was known / the lawsuit against tobacco company was, then assign 50% responsibility to her 50% to the company before the process, and 100% responsibility after the process and when it was written everywhere "tobacco will KILL you give you lung cancer". That seems to come roughly correct in the numbers ranges to come up with a 36.5%, could also be they pulled the number out of thin air.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

14th August 2009, 02:33 AM	#4
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 16,025	Individuals cannot be held responsible and accountable for their choices. Only teh eevil companies can. She died in her 70's? That's about par for the course anyway. But just in case: I also started smoking at 16 too. (Quit 3 years ago. ) But if I die of lung cancer anyway I want a couple million to go to my heirs too.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

14th August 2009, 02:40 AM	#5
MikeSun5 Trigger Happy Pacifist, Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Florida, USA Posts: 1,877	That is pretty effed up. What's that old man going to do with all that loot? Originally Posted by Aepervius I am not sure for the rest of the world, but as far as I remember correctly (which is not a given) but in the US the tobacco company were hit hard with lawsuit, because for dozen of years they pretended smoking was harmless, while fully knowing it was not. Due to this , they were liable. I wonder if that's where the prosecutors were going... I mean the couple was really old. Maybe that's the reason for the 36.5%. Maybe Philip Morris was lying to her about cigs being harmless for only 36.5% of her smoking life. If that's the case, I gotta call my mom and dad. They both smoke. Maybe they can get paid for being lied to for like 15% of their life.
	__________________ I always wondered if those WWJD bracelets worked, so I bought one. Well later, I was on a plane and this little kid was kicking my seat repeatedly, while his sister sang along with her walkman and their mother just sat there. I almost turned around and went off, and then I caught sight of my bracelet. What would Jesus do? So I lit them on fire and sent them all to Hell. --Daniel Tosh

14th August 2009, 02:56 AM	#6
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,466	I think it's good. Not because the husband deserves the money, but because the cigarrette companies did specifically target children and non smokers. They need to be made accountable for the widespread damage they have done. This is only the start.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

14th August 2009, 03:10 AM	#7
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	Originally Posted by a_unique_person I think it's good. Not because the husband deserves the money, but because the cigarrette companies did specifically target children and non smokers. They need to be made accountable for the widespread damage they have done. This is only the start. but meanwhile the tabaco industrie admits its bad for your health. so every smoker, including me, knows he is stupid.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

14th August 2009, 04:38 AM	#8
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by DC but meanwhile the tabaco industrie admits its bad for your health. so every smoker, including me, knows he is stupid. But wouldn't that make you stupid too?

14th August 2009, 04:42 AM	#9
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	Originally Posted by Pardalis But wouldn't that make you stupid too? including me = moi inclusive = mich eingeschlossen = also me. yes thats what i said. and you bolded it ETA: autocritique isnt unknown to me.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it Last edited by DC; 14th August 2009 at 04:48 AM.

14th August 2009, 04:51 AM	#10
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Glad we agree on something.

14th August 2009, 04:58 AM	#11
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	Originally Posted by Pardalis Glad we agree on something. i dont think so, i ment it in regard to smoking. you propably agree on me beeing stupid in general but thats ok, it was what i expected.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

14th August 2009, 06:34 AM	#12
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,466	Originally Posted by DC but meanwhile the tabaco industrie admits its bad for your health. so every smoker, including me, knows he is stupid. I'm talking about targetting minors, which has something the tobacco industry has actively done. Cigarettes are highly addictive, and if you get them when they are young, by the time they are adults, it's already too late.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

14th August 2009, 06:37 AM	#13
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	Originally Posted by a_unique_person I'm talking about targetting minors, which has something the tobacco industry has actively done. Cigarettes are highly addictive, and if you get them when they are young, by the time they are adults, it's already too late. ah okey, good point. i regret that i found it cool when i was a teenager, it made me start, just to be as cool as the big guys.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

14th August 2009, 06:40 AM	#14
Monketey Ghost Body of Work Join Date: May 2003 Location: I'm on your screen! Posts: 14,814	Non smoker here. I hate tobacco. I hate the way it smells. I hate people who smoke in restaurants, in bus shelters, wherever they damned well please. I hate them smoking on the sidewalks now that they've been kicked out of the buildings, I hate having to hold my breath for fifty feet as I walk past a long row of pathetic tobacco addicts. That said, this award is ridiculous and people should suffer for the negative results of their own choices which they made countless times.
	__________________ _{The membership of this forum is henceforth to refer to me as potato-headed Bobby} _{SSKCAS, member in long standing}

14th August 2009, 06:42 AM	#15
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	i feel hated but can fully understand you. i take away your right to breath smokeless air.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

14th August 2009, 06:46 AM	#16
Monketey Ghost Body of Work Join Date: May 2003 Location: I'm on your screen! Posts: 14,814	No... I have to be honest in my hypocrisy: if everyone were smoking the rolled up plant parts that I approve, it'd be fine with me. Some people like cucumbers better pickled.
	__________________ _{The membership of this forum is henceforth to refer to me as potato-headed Bobby} _{SSKCAS, member in long standing}

14th August 2009, 06:48 AM	#17
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,466	Originally Posted by Magnifico2.0 Non smoker here. I hate tobacco. I hate the way it smells. I hate people who smoke in restaurants, in bus shelters, wherever they damned well please. I hate them smoking on the sidewalks now that they've been kicked out of the buildings, I hate having to hold my breath for fifty feet as I walk past a long row of pathetic tobacco addicts. That said, this award is ridiculous and people should suffer for the negative results of their own choices which they made countless times. They were addicted, and they often started when they were minors.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

14th August 2009, 06:49 AM	#18
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	Originally Posted by a_unique_person They were addicted, and they often started when they were minors. excuses
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

14th August 2009, 07:32 AM	#19
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by DC excuses Not really. By definition, minors are not responsible for their own choices. Also by more or less by definition, the victims of a fraud or of misleading advertisement are not responsible for their own choices. If the tobacco companies deliberately targeted minors (as they did) and deliberately presented cigarettes as safe while knowing that was a lie (as they also did), then they, not the victims, are responsible for the victims' injuries.

14th August 2009, 07:40 AM	#20
Ian Osborne JREF Kid Tagger Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Wiltshire Posts: 6,404	Fair or not, it's great to see the tobacco industry getting its butt kicked!
	__________________ "Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

14th August 2009, 07:48 AM	#21
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	Originally Posted by drkitten Not really. By definition, minors are not responsible for their own choices. Also by more or less by definition, the victims of a fraud or of misleading advertisement are not responsible for their own choices. If the tobacco companies deliberately targeted minors (as they did) and deliberately presented cigarettes as safe while knowing that was a lie (as they also did), then they, not the victims, are responsible for the victims' injuries. No chance you dont know its deathly in Switzerland.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

14th August 2009, 07:59 AM	#22
Kestrel Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: DM79 Posts: 4,221	Originally Posted by a_unique_person They were addicted, and they often started when they were minors. And years later as adults, with the full knowledge of the hazards of smoking, they kept on smoking.

14th August 2009, 08:03 AM	#23
Tumbleweed Muse Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Port Orchard, WA Posts: 555	Odd, usually the causation has to be 50% or more. But the other foot has yet to drop. Judges ubiquitously lower damages. Why they even bother to ask the jury for a monetary amount is beyond me. Take Exxon Valdez for example----
	__________________ Relativity and astrophysics - child's play compared to remodeling

14th August 2009, 08:05 AM	#24
Tumbleweed Muse Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Port Orchard, WA Posts: 555	Originally Posted by Kestrel And years later as adults, with the full knowledge of the hazards of smoking, they kept on smoking. And here I thought that was what addiction was all about: you go on doing things that are bad for you. My mistake!
	__________________ Relativity and astrophysics - child's play compared to remodeling

14th August 2009, 08:08 AM	#25
Tumbleweed Muse Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Port Orchard, WA Posts: 555	So can adult child who has health problems sue his chain smoking parents for his exposure to second hand smoke? Both in the home and in the womb?
	__________________ Relativity and astrophysics - child's play compared to remodeling

14th August 2009, 08:10 AM	#26
Information Analyst Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,141	Originally Posted by Magnifico2.0 Non smoker here. I hate tobacco. I hate the way it smells. I hate people who smoke in restaurants, in bus shelters, wherever they damned well please. I hate them smoking on the sidewalks now that they've been kicked out of the buildings, I hate having to hold my breath for fifty feet as I walk past a long row of pathetic tobacco addicts. The ban on smoking in most enclosed public spaces in the UK has been good in some ways, but in many respects has just displaced smokers to the open air. Restaurants, pubs and bars are infinitely nicer places to be in, but the absence of the haze of tobacco smoke in some nightclubs (at least, the ones I frequent!) do make you realise how much it was masking. Most have had to contrive semi-external smoking areas of varying effectiveness, where I occasionally join my smoking friends. Luckily, I never learnt how to inhale, but do enjoy the occasional cigar in those circumstances.
	Last edited by Information Analyst; 14th August 2009 at 08:11 AM.

14th August 2009, 08:18 AM	#27
JihadJane Penultimate Satisfaction Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 43,031	Very good. Let's screw all the rest of the corporate, death-dealing criminals for all they're worth.
	__________________ THE END of the recession IS NIGH

14th August 2009, 08:24 AM	#28
Kestrel Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: DM79 Posts: 4,221	Originally Posted by Tumbleweed And here I thought that was what addiction was all about: you go on doing things that are bad for you. My mistake! Smokers are addicted to nicotine, not to smoking. They can satisfy this addiction in other ways, such as chewing nicotine gum, that don't have the horrible health consequences of smoking cigarettes.

14th August 2009, 08:40 AM	#29
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by Kestrel And years later as adults, with the full knowledge of the hazards of smoking, they kept on smoking. Because they were addicted and therefore not capable of stopping. And, of course, the cigarette companies knew the product they were peddling was highly addictive and didn't bother to mention THAT either or provide any mitigation, which makes them responsible for the addiction.

14th August 2009, 08:42 AM	#30
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by DC No chance you dont know its deathly in Switzerland. No chance you don't know it is deadly now. How long have those labels been there? (In the USA, only since 1965, which means people in 1964 didn't necessarily know.)

14th August 2009, 08:54 AM	#31
Ernie M Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 444	Originally Posted by MikeSun5 That is pretty effed up. What's that old man going to do with all that loot? He could buy cleaning supplies to remove the tar and nicotine from the walls and ceiling of where they lived. Maybe buy some paint, or hire some painters to freshen up the place. He could buy the book, Ashes to Ashes: America's Hundred-Year Cigarette War, the Public Health, and the Unabashed Triumph of Philip Morris. Then he can read about the health hazards and so many other issues- he should have been aware of long ago.
Ernie M Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 444	__________________ paranormalstateillustrated.com Taking a close look at what you see and hear on a "Real Life. Drama." TV series.

14th August 2009, 08:59 AM	#32
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	Originally Posted by drkitten No chance you don't know it is deadly now. How long have those labels been there? (In the USA, only since 1965, which means people in 1964 didn't necessarily know.) only since 1965? we only have em a couple of years. mmhh
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

14th August 2009, 10:06 AM	#33
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by Kestrel Smokers are addicted to nicotine, not to smoking. I don't find that to be my case.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

14th August 2009, 10:48 AM	#34
Scootch Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 269	Originally Posted by Kestrel Smokers are addicted to nicotine, not to smoking. They can satisfy this addiction in other ways, such as chewing nicotine gum, that don't have the horrible health consequences of smoking cigarettes. It was that kind of logic that got me to quit smoking. I had reasoned that I would quit smoking but not give up nicotine. I used the patch and after 4 weeks I was able to quit the patch. So if you want to quit smoking, just get your nitotine another way (and dont put a time frame on it, just continue to take it until you can no longer feel any benefit from it and then quit that). Also carry a cigarette with you as something to hold or put in your mouth, that also helps with the cravings. This worked for me and I was a two pack a day smoker for 15 years.
Scootch Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 269

14th August 2009, 10:55 AM	#35
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,370	Originally Posted by DC only since 1965? we only have em a couple of years. mmhh Excellent, I'm going to call my lawyer right now.
	__________________