And unconstitutional, with that being the primary reason why she won't receive 23.6 billion in damages.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Widow wins $23.6 Billion in a Cigarette Lawsuit
- Thread starter Smellycat
- Start date
- Status
What's the point in tobacco companies being able to keep money they made off of lying and concealing health risks that they knew about?
Delicious Waffles
Member
Not that guy. That's why she'll be a billionaire.
Also:
Yeah, my husband is dead but I'M GETTIN' A BOATLOAD OF MONEY! YAY!
Ol No Bones
Banned
I don't smoke never have. My mom suffers greatly from her smoking addiction and my step dads death was in part due to his smoking and drinking. I still find these lawsuits just stupid. People in 1976 knew the risk. People knew far before the official warnings that these things caused illness. People do things that have fatal consequences daily. People are responsible for their addictions. Sorry about her husband but It was the choices he made.
SpoonyBard
Banned
She should get her share, but most of the money should go to fund cancer research etc.
MariosGirlfriend33
Banned
No. Meaning he started in 1976 and the first label had already been on the package for 6 years. No excuse.
Ive seen everything under the sun have a defense force on here, whether its genuine or just people playing devils advocate but its not all that surprising with a community of this size. Topic on hand, fully support anything that will further damage tobacco companies.
I'm pretty much a Marxist, but I'm in full agreement.
I enjoy a some or two when I'm at the bar, and have never bought a pack or felt like I just had to have a cigarette. You can smoke in moderation, but some people just have addictive personalities in their core.
astroturfing
Member
im pretty sure Coca-Colas CEO would admit that too much sugar is bad for your health.
tobacco companies purposefully hid the truth for a loooong time and literally let people die while making gigantic profits. they are some of the biggest and vilest crooks in world history. their operations should have been shut down decades ago.
the amount of fires careless tobacco users cause is enough for me to ban the whole product. not to mention how many people slack off at work when they need a 10min cigarette break every goddamn hour.. etc etc. it's just all so outrageously stupid.
i have nothing against individual smokers though, my dad has smoked for 40-50 years or so, so it doesn't bother me at all in normal day-to-day life. it's the larger societal impact that infuriates me..
PHOENIXZERO
Member
Then they'd just have someone born before 2000 buy them and/or open the door for the black market. Only way to end smoking is for people to choose to not smoke. Last I checked the number of cigarette smokers is declining.
Ridiculous.
you cant be that daft? Tobacco companies used their power long ago to hid information regarding the dangers of tobacco before they were forced to display information.
Wow. Green eye monster got you man.
demosthenes
Member
That is so stupid I can't even wrap my head around it.
The husband has been dead for 18 years, so yeah its pretty understandable to be excited about getting a large amount of money
You suck at math.
MariosGirlfriend33
Banned
And for those who started smoking AFTER the warning was put on the package don't have any excuse. Those who were ALREADY smoking and addicted do have a valid reason to sue.
TheContact
Member
Ugh this is disgusting. Reminds me of this girl I used to work with. She was in a car accident with her friend and the friend died. Like a week later she comes Into work all happy and excited that she was getting $$ out of it
I guess the difference would be that this woman's husband died nearly 20 years ago.
Her husband died in 1996 man.
From Jan. 1, 1966, through Oct. 31, 1970, the warning on cigarette packages read: "CAUTION: CIGARETTE SMOKING MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH."
From Nov. 1, 1970, through Oct. 11, 1985, the amended warning read: "WARNING: THE SURGEON GENERAL HAS DETERMINED THAT CIGARETTE SMOKING IS DANGEROUS TO YOUR HEALTH."
Finally, in October 1985, the cigarette companies were required to explicitly state that smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, and emphysema.
Do you see the difference between the pre-Oct. 12,1985 warnings and this later one? Evidence which came out at trial showed that the cigarette companies knew that smoking caused lung cancer, heart disease, and emphysema prior to October 12, 1985, yet did their damnedest to suppress that information.
There is a huge, huge difference in an individual's ability to knowingly assume the risk of a using a product when they are told that it is "dangerous to your health" rather than it "CAUSES CANCER." What does "dangerous to your health" even mean? I know what "causes cancer" means. That's concrete language. "Dangerous to your health" is so abstract as to be a meaningless warning. I mean, fuck: https://www.google.com/search?q=dan...5.3299j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8
Even a little bit of stray secondhand smoke gets me feeling pretty miserable so whatever it takes. Don't really have that problem with alcohol. There are also at least some objective benefits to wine, can't really say the same about cigs.
NullPointer
Member
I have zero sympathy for companies that bald-faced lied in the face of public regarding health issues.
Big Tobacco deserves even more legendary smackdowns, but I'd rather see more of the decision makers take a personal fall than for the companies to face purely monetary damages.
Big Tobacco deserves even more legendary smackdowns, but I'd rather see more of the decision makers take a personal fall than for the companies to face purely monetary damages.
JJDinomite
Banned
She's not getting 26 billion dollars...
Scar Mortico
Banned
That would be great. The sooner tobacco/cigarettes get banned the better.
Chairmanchuck
Member
Im not american, but isnt it (and hasnt it always been) common knowledge that smoking is bad for your health and can lead to lung cancer etc.?
"Bad for your health"? Yes. Causes cancer, no. And the cigarette companies fought to prevent that warning as well.
Because that's worked so well for every other banned substance.
Scar Mortico
Banned
Because second hand smoke can also kill people.
It's also freaking annoying when I go to a place where all you breath and see is cigarette smoke (which smells disgusting btw). I practically have to cover my mouth and nose just to get by most of the time. All because I could die with those annoying pricks smoking in my general direction. While alcohol only affects the person drinking it.
I've had way too many family members that have died from lung cancer smoking those death sticks. The fact that Weed is illegal (slowly becoming legal state by state though thank goodness) which not only doesn't kill you but can help several people, while tobacco does the exact opposite.
Scar Mortico
Banned
I'm listening if you can name me examples besides the one obvious one (alcohol).
She's going to get nothing. This is about eliminating cigarette companies. Corporate song and dance.
Yes.
neurosisxeno
Member
So this guy spent years smoking cigarettes that said right on the box they are hazardous to your health, and another 11 years smoking them after they updated it to say flat out that they caused cancer and other respiratory problems, and somehow that's the tobacco companies fault?
As I recall, tobacco companies have already paid out billions over the years for misrepresenting information, it's 2014 not 1966., and this guy started smoking years after it was revealed cigarette smoke is dangerous to your health, and continued for over a decade after it was destablished it increased your risk of cancer substantially.
He started smoking when he was 13 and smoking is a fucking addiction.
So yes. Very yes. Do you not eat fried food because it's "dangerous to your health"? And that shit isn't even an addiction.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
If we weren't discussing chemical addiction I might agree with you. Free will becomes tricky when drug dependencies get involved.
AlphaSnake
...and that, kids, was the first time I sucked a dick for crack
No one has calmed down the defense force here? No one understands how a trial process works and what a judgement means? Do you guys know what an appeals process is and how appellate courts work?
These kinds of trials always go into an appellate state. This type of jury is called a runaway jury, a jury that just wants to vote against the bad guy without any care, so they can get the fuck out of their duties. The trial then goes into the appellate process where usually the entire jury is reversed or a settlement of cash + fees is rewarded.
At most, she'll get a few million. 1-2 million, maybe a little more. But that's about it.
These kinds of trials always go into an appellate state. This type of jury is called a runaway jury, a jury that just wants to vote against the bad guy without any care, so they can get the fuck out of their duties. The trial then goes into the appellate process where usually the entire jury is reversed or a settlement of cash + fees is rewarded.
At most, she'll get a few million. 1-2 million, maybe a little more. But that's about it.
neurosisxeno
Member
Drugs? All of them. Anytime a substance is banned it makes any problems it presented about a million times worse.
You misunderstand second hand smoke. Breathing in second hand smoke ocassionally has almost no adverse health effects, you're sensationalizing the issue. Prolonged second hand smoke on the other hand can have adverse health effects, but it requires daily exposure for several years That means people who have parents that smoke a pack a day inside their house are probably at risk, but those who walk by someone with a lit cigarette every so often have nothing to worry about.
Scar Mortico
Banned
All of them? Can you give me an example how? Because it sounds like your suggesting that we should just legalize all drugs lol.
At bold, winner winner chicken dinner.
Also this:
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/resources/data/cigarette-smoking-in-united-states.html
I don't think I'm sensationalizing anything. XD
neurosisxeno
Member
Why not? In Portugal they decriminalized all drugs and started treating drug abuse as a health problem and not a criminal offense. Guess the result. Drug abuse fell substantially as did outlying effects such as disease transmission. The idea that prohibition works hasn't been valid for about 100 years.
I doubt those statistics. But I'll humor you. Non-smokers getting heart disease from second hand smoke? How do they verify that as the cause? If someone is severely overweight but has a spouse that smokes how do they know which one caused their condition? I would say poor diet and a lack of physical actitivity are a lot more threatening to American's, which is something that also disproportionately affects lower income people.
As for cancer deaths, approximately 153,000 people are expected to die from Lung Cancer in 2014 (down from 2007 figures I should add), 7,300 is within the standard deviation. I also would love to know how they determined 7,300 of the cases were specifically from second hand smoke. It once again sounds like a bit of a leap to explain lung cancer in a non-smoker--which does happen.
- Status