75 million is ridiculous, I don't care what is said or who's fault it was. No one deserves 75 million dollars because someone killed their relative. If that were realistic, ... well, I wouldn't live in the same country as any of my relatives because someone would sure as hell kill me for 75 million dollars.

i feel for smokers that want to quit but can't...

but yeah, quit. quit being such a wuss and just quit already. just stop. stop smoking, stop standing around your friends while THEY smoke, etc. I've known numerous smokers that have quit and quite a few that can't. It's willpower...overcoming the urge and habit.

/yeah yeah...the cigarette companies advertised they were great. blah blah
//the guy on the corner selling crack says it's great too, but you're smart enough to know better, right?

He's dead ... get over it.

JPSimonetti: 75 million is ridiculous, I don't care what is said or who's fault it was. No one deserves 75 million dollars because someone killed their relative. If that were realistic, ... well, I wouldn't live in the same country as any of my relatives because someone would sure as hell kill me for 75 million dollars.

I agree 100%. I also know that NO ONE in the US was ignorant to the ill effects of smoking between 1969 and 1992. I only say 1969 because that is when I started smoking at 12 years old and even I knew at the time. I stopped smoking after 22 years (21 years ago) because I started to feel some of the effects of smoking. Anyone dying from the ill effects of smoking in the late 20th century made their own choice and deserve nothing, most especially the surviving families deserve nothing. If anyone owes them it is the dead smoker for all the problems he caused to both himself and to his family.

Satanic_Hamster: I've very anti-smoking but frankly these lawsuits are bullshiat.

On the one hand, yea I agree. A person chooses his or her actions most of the time and some of them, like getting hooked on an addicting substance that drastically increases the likelihood of illness or death, have really bad consequences. You make the choice, you accept the consequences.On the other hand, cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco, and so on are poisons with no redeeming qualities (note: I did not say nicotine doesn't have redeeming qualities, just cigarettes, cigars, etc.) and we have very successful companies that basically only advertise and sell them around the world. Why do we allow that to continue to happen? Why don't we put some financial burden onto these companies for selling poison to people, even if those people really want them? We lock up people who traffic heroin. Why the double standard, in spite of the fact that smoked tobacco products account for far more deaths per year than heroin?

Glad I chew, jokes gonna be on me when my jaw falls off though but I will figure that out later. Hoping my family does not go after anyone though for my stupidity.

I am trying to figure out how 75 million was considered a "reasonable" number besides the fact the "evil industry" could afford it.

Kome: On the other hand, cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco, and so on are poisons with no redeeming qualities

This is what the courts should do in all these cases ... give the family $500,000 or something (even that is pushing it, in my opinion), then divide up the rest among cancer research establishments. It's fine if you want to punish tobacco companies and I realize that relatively small fines don't make the point, but don't give it to the damn family who will blow it all on stupid shiat and not do a single thing to prevent someone else's death from the same thing or whatnot. Give it to some folks that are trying to fix the situation and better humanity.

Trance750: Good, I'm fine with this. The tobacco industry are accessories to murder and should be taxed or sued out of existance.

Your statement is made from pure anger and has no intellectual merit. Calm down man, stress kills too.

JPSimonetti: Kome: On the other hand, cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco, and so on are poisons with no redeeming qualities

This is what the courts should do in all these cases ... give the family $500,000 or something (even that is pushing it, in my opinion), then divide up the rest among cancer research establishments. It's fine if you want to punish tobacco companies and I realize that relatively small fines don't make the point, but don't give it to the damn family who will blow it all on stupid shiat and not do a single thing to prevent someone else's death from the same thing or whatnot. Give it to some folks that are trying to fix the situation and better humanity.

While I would love that - more medical research to find ways to counter the physiological addictive consequences and cures for the various diseases that ingesting tobacco causes would always be appreciated - it isn't cancer research establishments that are the ones suing and these families aren't suing RJ. Reynolds, et al., on behalf of the cancer research establishments. So... it is what it is. I would be somewhat annoyed if the court awarded $75 million in damages but then gave over 99% of that to people or organizations that didn't take part in the trial, even if I do think it would be more beneficial in the long run to a larger amount of people. That would be overstepping one's legal authority a wee bit much.

Yeah, personal responsibily is all fine and good. So, if not held accountable in a court of law, should billionaire tobacco companies have no culpability whatsoever for decades of false advertising and research coverups? Sheesh, people, blame the victims much?

He says as he inhales the cool domestic and turkish blend of a Camel. Camel: CHOICE QUALITY.

FTFA: "...the state Supreme Court ... said smokers and their families need only prove addiction to cigarettes and that smoking caused their illnesses or deaths."

Mickey Dees and Taco Hell last seen backing quietly over the Georgia state line.

JPSimonetti: Kome: On the other hand, cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco, and so on are poisons with no redeeming qualities

This is what the courts should do in all these cases ... give the family $500,000 or something (even that is pushing it, in my opinion), then divide up the rest among cancer research establishments. It's fine if you want to punish tobacco companies and I realize that relatively small fines don't make the point, but don't give it to the damn family who will blow it all on stupid shiat and not do a single thing to prevent someone else's death from the same thing or whatnot. Give it to some folks that are trying to fix the situation and better humanity.

Standard military life insurance pays out $400k now (used to be $250 when I joined though). It shouldn't be more than that, at the very most, considering the person got dead by burning money instead of doing something useful (and yes I'm unfortunately aware of how many military people smoke, that's not the point).

There should have been a k on that second number, need more coffee.

This is why you should encourage your loved ones to smoke.

Satanic_Hamster: I've very anti-smoking but frankly these lawsuits are bullshiat.

Well yeah but these started around the same time memos came out about pitting additives in them to keep people smoking and how they knew they were addictive but supressed the information.

i have no problem with this
as i'm not a major tobacco company

puffs a KOOL

When does personal responsibility kick in? The warning labels have been on packs since 1964, when C Everertt Koop was the Surgeons General of the United States. Everyone knows that smoking isn't good for you, quitting can be a biatch, but it can be done.

There are many many things out there on the market that can kill you. Maybe your surviving spouse can sue for:
A) they didn't have to build a car that can exceed the speed limit
B) alcohol caused liver cirrhosis, and it was available without a warning label
C) there wasn't a warning about my child playing with the chainsaw
D) I didn't know breathing barbecue smoke was dangerous to my health
The list could go on forever.

Come on people, grow a set of balls and own up to your faults.

Satanic_Hamster: I've very anti-smoking but frankly these lawsuits are bullshiat.

Exactly. If cases like this are legitimate then where are all the cases against McDonald's and friends for causing heart attack, diabetes, etc.

vodka: Satanic_Hamster: I've very anti-smoking but frankly these lawsuits are bullshiat.

Exactly. If cases like this are legitimate then where are all the cases against McDonald's and friends for causing heart attack, diabetes, etc.

mcdonalds causes heart attacks
but NOT PF changs cause there's not enough Changs

Trance750: Good, I'm fine with this. The tobacco industry are accessories to murder and should be taxed or sued out of existance.

Cigarettes have been called coffin nails since at least the '30s, anybody who was stupid enough to have started smoking since then has only themself to blame.

vodka: Satanic_Hamster: I've very anti-smoking but frankly these lawsuits are bullshiat.

Exactly. If cases like this are legitimate then where are all the cases against McDonald's and friends for causing heart attack, diabetes, etc.

Exactly, and obesity and hot coffee, etc.

Trance750: Good, I'm fine with this. The tobacco industry are accessories to murder and should be taxed or sued out of existance.

Why do you hate the children who depend on that tax money?

E-cigs are the way to go. Especially the flavored ones. Cheaper, no smoke smell all over your shiat, tastes better, more convenient, less than 10,000 chemicals, smokeless, odorless ... I wonder how long until they start dropping taxes on them as if they were tobacco products. I know they're trying. Failed in Hawaii.

C Everrett Koop was Surgeon General from 1982-1989


When does personal responsibility kick in? The warning labels have been on packs since 1964, when C Everertt Koop was the Surgeons General of the United States. Everyone knows that smoking isn't good for you, quitting can be a biatch, but it can be done.

There are many many things out there on the market that can kill you. Maybe your surviving spouse can sue for:
A) they didn't have to build a car that can exceed the speed limit
B) alcohol caused liver cirrhosis, and it was available without a warning label
C) there wasn't a warning about my child playing with the chainsaw
D) I didn't know breathing barbecue smoke was dangerous to my health
The list could go on forever.

Come on people, grow a set of balls and own up to your faults.

Come on people, grow a set of balls and own up to your faults.

By "people" you mean corporations, right?

Kome: Why don't we put some financial burden onto these companies for selling poison to people, even if those people really want them? We lock up people who traffic heroin. Why the double standard, in spite of the fact that smoked tobacco products account for far more deaths per year than heroin?

You're right. I don't think heroin should be illegal and I don't think you should be able to sue if you choose to use it.

Trance750: Good, I'm fine with this. The tobacco industry are accessories to murder and should be taxed or sued out of existance.

So how about just banning the sale of tobacco ?

In the meantime, tobacco is legal and these lawsuits are bogus. Every single smoker is fully aware of the risks they are taking in consuming the product. Every single smoker willingly chooses to continue consuming it.

/Yeah, quitting is hard. Been there. Done it.

Suing tobacco companies because some fool dies of lung cancer is like suing Richard Simmons because your son turns out being gay.

There are many many things out there on the market that can kill you. Maybe your surviving spouse can sue for:
A) they didn't have to build a car that can exceed the speed limit
B) alcohol caused liver cirrhosis, and it was available without a warning label
C) there wasn't a warning about my child playing with the chainsaw
D) I didn't know breathing barbecue smoke was dangerous to my health
The list could go on forever.

Come on people, grow a set of balls and own up to your faults..

A) Yes, they did. Speed limits change from district to district and from time to time.
B) I don't recall any alcohol manufacturer or distributer proclaiming the health benefits of its use or targeting the very young. - Least not in the last 120 years.
C) Yes, there was.
D) Again, what maker of charcoal briquettes launched a multibillion dollar campaign about how healthy breathing in bbq smoke is? Your analogy is ridiculous.
5) They targeted kids. Watch Superman II sometime and take a drink every time you see Malboro crop up.
#) So, gotcha - responsibility for the consumer, none for the profiteers. Great public policy there...

Trance750: Pot has no added chemicals and is a natural herb

Tobacco doesn't have added chemicals and is a natural herb too. Cigarettes and stuff have all those chemicals added to them because they were added in the process of making them. While I agree that cannabis should be legalized, I'm not under the impression that if it was it would remain completely untouched by companies that would want to make and distribute it.

Also, I'm pretty sure some current illegal distributors of cannabis do lace their product with harsher chemicals.

LegoLewdite.....

B) I don't recall any alcohol manufacturer or distributer proclaiming the health benefits of its use or targeting the very young. - Least not in the last 120 years.

I cant't recall anything 120 years old either, but I can google...

/btw, the word is distributOr. No "e".

The verdict Thursday came in the case of Johnnie Calloway, a smoker who died in 1992. His widow and daughter sued the four companies cashed in on his death, becoming rich by doing nothing, blaming his death on an unbreakable cigarette habit.



/FTFT

Barely injurious jury award against multi-billion dollar corporation to family of man who watched their loved one die a slow, painful death, tort reformers:

ZOMG!!! CAP JURY AWARDS. HOW IS A MULTIBILLION DOLLAR MEGACORPORATION THAT PARTICIPATED IN AN INDUSTRY-WIDE CONSPIRACY TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE OF ITS PRODUCT'S LETHAL EFFECTS SUPPOSED TO PROTECT ITSELF FROM RUNAWAY JURIES!!! ZOMG!!!! OH NOES!!!

Financially ruinous statutory award to man accused of downloading a few songs off the internet, tort reformers:

(Crickets)