Support NeoGAF

[mre]

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.

This (as well as the totality of the tobacco litigation from the 1990's) is complex with a lot of moving parts, including the concealment of important health risks by the tobacco companies, the use of marketing targeting kids who are too young to fully comprehend the risks on the packaging, and the fact that tobacco companies conducted market research and determined that the "it's hazardous to your health" warnings actually appealed to the youth market's feelings of immortality and could actually be a benefit to the company. Seriously read this memorandum and see if it doesn't make your blood boil: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ict68d00/pdf

So let's put aside those issues and focus on the effectiveness of the warning that was actually provided. During the first decade or so when this guy smoked, the warning on the package was:

WARNING: THE SURGEON GENERAL HAS DETERMINED THAT CIGARETTE SMOKING IS DANGEROUS TO YOUR HEALTH

It was only after he was well and addicted that they changed the warning to include:

Smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, and emphysema.

You think that a warning that smoking is dangerous or hazardous is one that is sufficient? You would be a drug company's wet dream of a juror. Look at it this way. Let's say you develop some sort of new strain of foot fungus. Nothing that will seriously affect your health, but it is itchy. Current treatments are ineffective for this strain.

Two companies enter the market with treatments for this foot fungus strain. The Company A's treatment, Wunderdrug, is touted as having a 99.9% efficacy. Wunderdrug has the warning "Wunderdrug is dangerous to your health." Company B's treatment, Adequatedrug, has an efficacy of 82%, and also carries the warning, "Adequatedrug is dangerous to your health."

Which drug are you going to use? If you don't say Wunderdrug, you're a liar. Now, imagine that the FDA has cracked down on Company A and Company B and caused them to revise their warnings to more accurately advise of the risks associated with their drugs.

Wunderdrug now comes with a warning that states:

WARNING. Wunderdrug carries a risk of testicular cancer. In studies with rats, Wunderdrug has been associated with an increased risk of testicular cancer. Rats exposed to Wunderdrug were 2.5% more likely to develop testicular cancer than rats not exposed to Wunderdrug.

Adequatedrug's revised warning, now reads:

WARNING: Adequate drug has been shown to cause dizziness, vomiting, nausea, and diarrhea. If you experience any of these symptoms, please discontinue use and contact your doctor immediately.

Which treatment are you now more likely to consider? Adequatedrug's 82% efficacy doesn't seem so bad in light of the fact that Wunderdrug carries a known risk of testicular cancer.

Now, I realize that smoking is not the same as medication. But the principle behind warning of the risks is exactly the same. You have to let the individual fully know the risks of a product before you can argue that they assumed those risks. The cigarette company can argue that even if they had fully warned of the risks of their product, a thirteen year old would not have understood those risks, or would not have cared that the product might cause cancer. That could be a fair argument, but this argument is one that I cannot see them WANTING to make, because then you get into the whole "marketing geared towards youth" issue that juries love to hate.

 

[Piccoro]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_death

We can prevent death by motor vehicle collisions? How can we prevent it? By never circulating inside a vehicle all our lives?

 

[KingGondo]

mre: doing the Lord's work.

Wading into a thread full of ignorance and preconceived notions and laying things out. Keep it up bro.

We can prevent death by motor vehicle collisions? How can we prevent it? By never circulating inside a vehicle all our lives?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

Seatbelts, airbags, anti-collision technology, speed limits, drunk driving laws, maintaining roads and bridges, etc.

 

[mre]

mre: doing the Lord's work.

Wading into a thread full of ignorance and preconceived notions and laying things out. Keep it up bro.

I do what I can. I just do what I can.

 

[MMaRsu]

What? How can you even sue cigarette manufacturers for health hazards? Everybody knows that it's bad for you.

 

[daycru]

I look at cigarettes like Scientology. If you got into it before the truth came out, I feel very bad for you. I am glad this woman will receive a large pay out. But not a lot of sympathy for anyone starting now.

 

[Baconsaurus Rex]

We can prevent death by motor vehicle collisions? How can we prevent it? By never circulating inside a vehicle all our lives?

Just don't cause any accidents. Can't be that hard.

 

[Mailbox]

Just don't cause any accidents. Can't be that hard.

A good deal of driving related accidents are caused by neglect and people doing things they aren't supposed to while driving, as such, they are preventable (though unlikely to be prevented). Obviously some aren't.

 

[GeordieMark]

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.

First off, alcohol does affect more than just those drinking it. Think drink drivers, drunk and disorderly behaviour, drink fuelled violence.

Second, I hope you aren't suggesting that smoking weed is completely harmless? Smoking anything isn't good for you. I'm no doctor, but I have smoked plenty of weed and I know it certainly didn't make my lungs feel better.

Of course, cigarettes are bad and unpleasant things, but there is no need to make stuff up to support that view, when there is plenty of genuine evidence

 

[BeatResetsTheWorld]

You know what addiction is?

Something that causes illiteracy and the inability to understand warnings?

 

[Ithil]

 

[mre]

What? How can you even sue cigarette manufacturers for health hazards? Everybody knows that it's bad for you.

We're talking about someone who began smoking as a kid in the mid 1970's before the complete health risks were known. Back when the tobacco companies were drafting memos including language like this:

A final psychological factor which also did not fall readily into Table I involves smoking-health attitudes. The smoking-health controversy does not appear important to the group [mre note: the group = "youth smokers"] because, psychologically, at eighteen, one is immortal. Further, if the desire to be daring is the motivation to start smoking, the alleged risk of smoking may actually make smoking attractive. Finally, if the "older" establishment is preaching against smoking, the anti-establishment sentiment discussed above would cause the young to want to be defiant and smoke. Thus, a new brand aimed at the young group should not in any way be promote as a "health" brand, and perhaps should carry some implied risk. In this sense the warning label on the package may be a plus.

Implied risks; not explicit risks.

 

[Feel the Swift]

Good. All tobacco companies need to be destroyed.

Nope. Keep my flavored tobacco around for hookah.

 

[Tinfoilhatsron]

Meh, nevermind, not worth getting into it.

Yup. But, if you have arguements, put them out.
Edit: Note to self: Stop pressing post early