Who's responsible for tobacco-related deaths?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Azred: I have always held the belief that anyone who smokes does so by their own choice and should not be allowed to sue any tobacco manufacturer because the product increases the risk of disease. I used to smoke; no one forced me to do so. Yes, tobacco companies hid some facts of the true nature of thier research, but so have auto manufacturers yet I don't see any class-action suits trying to sue Ford for a billion dollars because some relatives died in an auto wreck. Didn't anyone tell them that driving is dangerous?

Wrong on the facts. When Ford made pintos with the defect that they would tend to blow up during rear-end collisions, there was a large class action. In fact, Ford memos and documents comparing the likely number of deaths to result from the event with the likely recoveries in tort actions (and determining not to do a recall) were put before the jury. It was one of the famous early auto class actions, and a famously large punitive damage award. So, though you claim you don't see Ford getting sued, it's just because you didn't look. [img]graemlins/noevil.gif[/img]

As for the theory, I think you're wrong there too. If a product has a danger, the manufacturer has a duty to correct the danger or warn consumers of the danger. We cannot claim someone "knew it was bad for them" if they didn't actually know it was bad for them. With cigarettes, this translates into know exactly *how* bad it was. And, the cigarette companies covered up this kind of information. Why should we not hold companies to at least the same standard when it comes to health (cigs, for instance) that we do when it comes to business (Enron/Arthur Anderson). Businesses lied about money and they no longer exist. They lie about health dangers, and we don't care? That's absurd.

[ 01-16-2004, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[dplax]

I would say that it is mostly the reponsability of the smoker and the environment he lives in, which are responsible. For example if most of his friends smoke he is more likely to try cigarettes and therefore become addicted.

[John D Harris]

From the moment we are conceived, we are condemed to die, each of us is responsible for our own actions.

[antryg]

Originally posted by John D Harris: From the moment we are conceived, we are condemed to die, each of us is responsible for our own actions.

There's just something about that statement while staring into the barrel of a gun.

I actually (surprise) agree with JD. Each and everyone of us is responsible for our own actions.
If you knew it was bad for you (anyone ever hear any claims that smoking was good for you?) and you did it anyway....it was your finger on the trigger....so to speak.

[Timber Loftis]

Well, there's a difference between you and John D., MagiK. His was a blanket statement, but yours was predicated upon KNOWING the thing is bad for you. I happen to agree, but the problem with improper product labelling is you are often denied knowledge. Because we live in a day where we have abject idiots running around who don't know very much, the labels on things have gotten dumber and dumberer to protect products companies from silly lawsuits.

Of course, labels have also been used to avoid liability in sleazy ways to. McDonalds responded to its coffee suit by putting "CAUTION - HOT" on its cup. Well, no shit it's hot, we all knew that. The law suit was SUPPOSED to teach them to not serve the stuff so friggin' hot. Instead, they just slapped a label on it and kept running business as normal.

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by MagiK: I actually (surprise) agree with JD. Each and everyone of us is responsible for our own actions. If you knew it was bad for you (anyone ever hear any claims that smoking was good for you?) and you did it anyway....it was your finger on the trigger....so to speak.

Tobacco companies did actually used to claim smoking was good for you - I have read that some doctors even used to recommend smoking! Of course that isn't an applicable excuse today

I have another friend who works in a shop where they sell cigarettes. She has one regular customer who insists that she isn't given a packet with the warning label "Smoking causes infertility" - I think this is a very interesting insight into her mentality - she KNOWS that smoking causes infertility because she's seen the warning and mentions it when purchasing, obviously she BELIEVES the warning because it upsets her to see it. Her solution? Don't look at it and that way it mightn't affect her

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by antryg: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: From the moment we are conceived, we are condemed to die, each of us is responsible for our own actions.

There's just something about that statement while staring into the barrel of a gun. [/QUOTE]One must take responsibility for putting themself in the position of staring down the barrel, and the one holding the gun must take responsibility for having the barrel in the position it can be stared down. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Well, there's a difference between you and John D., MagiK. His was a blanket statement, but yours was predicated upon KNOWING the thing is bad for you. I happen to agree, but the problem with improper product labelling is you are often denied knowledge. Because we live in a day where we have abject idiots running around who don't know very much, the labels on things have gotten dumber and dumberer to protect products companies from silly lawsuits. Of course, labels have also been used to avoid liability in sleazy ways to. McDonalds responded to its coffee suit by putting "CAUTION - HOT" on its cup. Well, no shit it's hot, we all knew that. The law suit was SUPPOSED to teach them to not serve the stuff so friggin' hot. Instead, they just slapped a label on it and kept running business as normal.

Mine wasn't a blanket statement, It was an absolute statement [img]smile.gif[/img]

Here's another one: You can deligate authority, but you can not deligate responsibility. [img]smile.gif[/img]

TL don't fall into the trap thinking I said, the Tabacco Companies aren't responsibile for their actions. Everybody is responsibile for their actions, remember the law of un-intended consequences is a respector of no one.

Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: I actually (surprise) agree with JD. Each and everyone of us is responsible for our own actions. If you knew it was bad for you (anyone ever hear any claims that smoking was good for you?) and you did it anyway....it was your finger on the trigger....so to speak.

Tobacco companies did actually used to claim smoking was good for you - I have read that some doctors even used to recommend smoking! Of course that isn't an applicable excuse today


Lol I was gonna ask how many decades ago that was [img]smile.gif[/img] hehe.
I also know that the Companies did knowingly hide reports of health risks, and for that they are guilty. But still, no one is twisting nayones arm to buy, or smoke the cigarettes.


I have another friend who works in a shop where they sell cigarettes. She has one regular customer who insists that she isn't given a packet with the warning label "Smoking causes infertility" - I think this is a very interesting insight into her mentality - she KNOWS that smoking causes infertility because she's seen the warning and mentions it when purchasing, obviously she BELIEVES the warning because it upsets her to see it. Her solution? Don't look at it and that way it mightn't affect her


Yep there are some .... strange people out there....one wonders why we don't make at least as much effort to improve the human genome as we do with our livestock.
[/QUOTE]