Overdue Class Action law Suit

[Satan]

For ages now, the fast food industry has advertised that their products were safe. They showed people happily chowing away on fat-laden burgers and lard-soaked fries. In fact, they STILL do this!

They even market their product to KIDS! Can you believe that? I mean, we all can see that Ronald McDonald is a ploy designed to get kids hooked on unhealthy food for the rest of their lives!

Then, they go and put "nutritional information" on their products to make it look like the death they are pandering is actually good for you, skewing the perception of the public is usually this simple.

All of this while deaths related to heart disease are higher than ever, the population is more out of shape than ever, and people are dying because of this.

We need to get a class action law suit against the fast food industry. They are selling death, and they have not come clean about how many people are dying from their products. They must be held accountable for this deception on a public we must protect from suuch insidious and unrevealing advertisement tactics.

What do you think we could get... Maybe 145 billion?
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Three months, one week, four days, 6 hours, 40 minutes and 50 seconds.
4091 cigarettes not smoked, saving $511.39.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 4 hours, 55 minutes.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

har.

[PRISM02]

NO!
You have to remember that the precedence has been set!!

290 billion ought to do it, .... for a start.

[UncleBeer]

Dog bites. Thousands of people, many of them innocent children, suffer from painful and debilitating dog bites every year. The amount of work lost anually must total several thousand hours. Additionally, think of the cost to the gov't (Hah, that's my money, not the gov't's) incurred by public health care. It's gotta be several million bucks. I think the gov't has a legitimate case to sue God for his obviously poorly designed and dangerous creation.

[Avumede]

I don't think anyone things McDonalds is good for you - but that doesn't matter, they eat it because they think it's convinient and tastes good, and they've been force-fed advertising.

I would love it if someone sued... peddlings to American's worst traits (love of overly fatty, quick food) for profit is definately scummy.

Another example is anti-bacterial soap. Experts say it doesn't make much of a difference, and it actually helps bacteria more than it hurts them. But commercials and others peddle to people's fear of dirt, so people just gobble it up. People are stupid, what can I say...

I'm not law expert, though, but it seems you really couldn't win a suits like these. After all, McDonalds does actually feed you, and anti-bacterial soap does actually clean you. Unlike cigarettes, they have a useful function.

But I'd still like to see something bad happen to those who exploit people... I liked the idea someone had on this message board before, of a "fat tax" (on food, not people). Fat shouldn't be illegal, but it should be gently discouraged...

[Maeglin]

I'm with UncleBeer on this one. Just because it hurts you is no reason to sue. Cigarettes are created to cause addiction, and tobacco companies manufacture scientific tests to deny the obvious.

Fast food is affordable and reliable nourishment. Well, maybe it's not all that nourishing, but the industry hardly denies that. But it's not addictive. Anyone who is concerned about fast food for health reasons can just stop eating it. If people want to poison themselves with inactivity and horrendous food, then who am I to argue?

The problem that needs to be addressed is poverty and overwork. If parents have neither the time nor the money to prepare proper meals for their families, then fast food becomes a viable option. Get rid of the problem, and the fast food issue will take care of itself.

MR

[PRISM02]

Coke next!!

That insidious cola company has been deceiving the American and international public for decades, hiding behind the innocent look of it's dewy, moisture drenched, cold bottle and pandering to children of all ages.

It needs to be sued for 300 billion! Anyone ever remember that famous junior high school science experiment? The one where the teacher takes a blob of chewed bubble gum - that indigestible, indestructible material of youthful joy - pops it into a test tube and pours in some pure coke syrup -- the type mixed with soda water to make Coca Cola -- and over the period of a few minutes it dissolves the gum!!

Think about that! What has this insidious material done to the stomachs and general health of millions?

To court, I say, to court! They'll give us billions!!

[Satan]

Originally posted by Avumede

Unlike cigarettes, they have a useful function.

Cecil did a column on this, and many smokers will talk of usefullness that comes from tobacco. Now, that isn't to say that the negatives are not vastly outnumbering the positives, nor that there aren't other ways to get the positives which do not involve tobacco, but the same argument could be made of fast food too, you know.

[/quote]

Originally posted by Maeglin

Cigarettes are created to cause addiction, and tobacco companies manufacture scientific tests to deny the obvious.

To answer your first point, tobacco has been used way before there was even a word for addiction.

To your second point, even Cecil himself talked of the dubious nature of testing when it comes to second hand smoke research. We don't complain that McDonalds isn't giving us proper research on heart disease and the effects of high cholesterol on people, do we?

Fast food is affordable and reliable nourishment. Well, maybe it's not all that nourishing, but the industry hardly denies that.

Bullshit. I mentioned in the OP about how they thought adding ingredient labels to their products gave it the appearance of being good for you. The fast food industry tries to trot out things like the McLean to placate increasing pressure from consumer groups and dieticians who know the real facts behind what they serve up.

Those who complain "the tobacco companies did not talk about the dangers of their product" - a product with warnings right on every pack (I don't see warning labels on Whoppers, do you?) should also complain that the fast food industry has not talked about the dangers of it's products.

That's because it's patently absurd to expect them to do this. Hmm...

But it's not addictive.

Wanna back that assertion up with some facts? Many people have food addictions, and I'll bet anything that the amount of people in this country who smoek are far outnumbered by the number of people who are overweight and have diets which are a probable cause of this condition.

Anyone who is concerned about fast food for health reasons can just stop eating it. If people want to poison themselves with inactivity and horrendous food, then who am I to argue?

That's nice. So you're against the tobacco class action suit I assume, since you can change the above to that product. Right?
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, one week, four days, 14 hours, 25 minutes and 3 seconds.
4104 cigarettes not smoked, saving $513.00.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 6 hours, 0 minutes.

[Shaky Jake]

Satan -
Although I suspect your OP is somewhat facetious, you touch on a subject I have long thought would be the Next Big Crusade - a Crusade Against Fat: fat foods, fat people. While those who are overweight will rightly claim that they have long suffered from disparagement and discrimination, it has to a certain degree been a guerilla war, not open warfare. The anti-smoking campaign moved from "smoking is bad for you" to "smokers are disgusting" a few years back. It was no longer the product or the habit that was vilified, but those engaged in it. Smokers became social pariahs. It was no longer impolite to openly criticize a smoker - not just if one objected to someone smoking in their presence, but to comment armed solely with the knowledge that a person smokes.
I foresee much the same campaign with obesity. It will change from comments behind a person's back or comments in favor of a more healthful lifestyle to the same sort of open season/fair game that is directed at smokers. In stead of an impolite "you should lose weight", it will be acceptable to engage in openly rude, hostile comments like "you're disgusting" or "how can you just stuff your face like that, don't you know how bad that is for you". Those engaged in the Crusade will fight from the same morally-superior bastion from which they fought the Smoking Crusade. Like the Smoking Crusade, it will be a moral judgement dressed as a public health issue. With health care costs for obesity running around $240 billion, the Crusaders will use the same "why should my money go to pay for your illness because you (insert crusade topic)" tactic as the spearhead of their campaign.
Once the realization dawns that there's money in them thar hills, as there was in tobacco litigation, yup...

Oh, and I quit smoking last week, and I am hoping that the odd chance comes along to comment to a Fundie or two that "Satan inspired me to do it" ;)

Shaky Jake

[Mr.Zambezi]

tobacco v. fatty food

Both contribute to about 700,000 deaths a year.
Both are unnesecary to survival
both are enjoyable
both have been known to be harmful if used as intended since the 60's
producers of both failed to warn of their dangers for a long time

It is impossible to have a coherent philosophy in which it is OK to sue cigarette manufacturers and [b]not[/] the producers of fatty foods (among others). I would love to see someone create such a philosophy.

[oldscratch]

Originally posted by Mr.Zambezi
tobacco v. fatty food

Both contribute to about 700,000 deaths a year.
Both are unnesecary to survival
both are enjoyable
both have been known to be harmful if used as intended since the 60's
producers of both failed to warn of their dangers for a long time

It is impossible to have a coherent philosophy in which it is OK to sue cigarette manufacturers and [b]not[/] the producers of fatty foods (among others). I would love to see someone create such a philosophy.

Don't forget, both market to children. 80% of fast food eaters started when they were children. Coincidence?

[Sweet_Lotus]

Food has a necessity that tobacco does not. People die without food. People can live long, healthy lives without tobacco.

[Manda JO]

Avumede said:

Fat shouldn't be illegal, but it should be gently discouraged...

Why!?. Why is it the government's job to "gently discourage" me from eating myself to death? There are studies coming out that suggest that a well-balenced, near-stavation diet (<1200 calories a day for women, <1500 calories a day for men) prolonges life by 20-40%. Most people don't think thatit is wirth it. Should the government "genetly discourage" me from eating more than 1200 calories a day? There is no reason for the government to take the position that an extended life is inherently more valuble than a pleasant life. Next you'll be suggesting we put up a "web-surfing tax", to "gently discourage" people from wasting thier lives on the internet when they could be better spent joining the peace corp or doing other sactioning life-enriching activities.

[Satan]

Sweet_Lotus:

People don't NEED FAST FOOD, which is what I believe the discussion is here.
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, one week, four days, 16 hours, 6 minutes and 29 seconds.
4106 cigarettes not smoked, saving $513.35.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 6 hours, 10 minutes.

[tracer]

I wish you were just kidding, Satan.

But apparently, both the Journal of the American Medical Association and the American Obesity Association are taking your advice seriously:
http://www.guestchoice.com/0419_war_on_fat.html

[Maeglin]

oldscratch

To answer your first point, tobacco has been used way before there was even a word for addiction. To your second point, even Cecil himself talked of the dubious nature of testing when it comes to second hand smoke research. We don't complain that McDonalds isn't giving us proper research on heart disease and the effects of high cholesterol on people, do we?]/quote]

But people weren't suing tobacco companies before smoking was linked to addiction, were they?

Cecil's column was about the carcinogenic effects of secondhand smoke and had nothing to do with the point I was making. The evidence for firsthand smoke is far less questionable. If you want evidence I could point you to any number of recent studies. Naturally, all of them are disputed by the industry.

[quote]Bullshit. I mentioned in the OP about how they thought adding ingredient labels to their products gave it the appearance of being good for you. The fast food industry tries to trot out things like the McLean to placate increasing pressure from consumer groups and dieticians who know the real facts behind what they serve up.

Anyone who has either looked behind the register at a fast foot establishment or even tasted a Whopper probably has at least a modicum of an idea of the nature of the product. If fast food companies think they can hoodwink people into believing that product labels mean that their food is healthy, then perhaps they deserve whatever fortunes they extract from customers everywhere.

Those who complain "the tobacco companies did not talk about the dangers of their product" - a product with warnings right on every pack (I don't
see warning labels on Whoppers, do you?) should also complain that the fast food industry has not talked about the dangers of it's products.

That's not what I am complaining about, either. The last time I bought a cutlery set, it didn't even cross my mind that there should be a warning label. My car didn't have a warning label. But if I don't want either anymore, I can toss them out. And same with fast food.

Wanna back that assertion up with some facts? Many people have food addictions, and I'll bet anything that the amount of people in this country who smoek are far outnumbered by the number of people who are overweight and have diets which are a probable cause of this condition.

Now you have it ass-backwards. If you want me to believe that fast food producers are consciously inserting chemical agents into their food which increase addictiveness and lack of such chemicals in the bodies of addicts results in withdrawal, then perhaps you had better provide the facts. I will not argue with you that many, many people have issues with food. Is this the problem of food providers? I don't think so. If fast food didn't exist, then perhaps certain people would abuse other types of food. You ought to prove that there is something inherently addictive about fast food that distinguishes it from all other foods.

That's nice. So you're against the tobacco class action suit I assume, since you can change the above to that product. Right?

You really don't have to patronize me. If tobacco were a product that people routinely abused, then I would be against the suit. I don't believe in suing alcohol companies for liver damage. But concealing the fact that cigarette companies were consciously making cigarettes more addictive crosses the line. I don't find this inconsistent at all.

MR

[Maeglin]

Er, that is a reply to Satan. I wonder what they put in my cigs today...

MR

[Altair_8800]

<extreme sarcasm>

Yeah, while you're at it, go ahead and sue Panasonic, Phillips, Sony, and anyone else who makes televisions and other such devices that keep people from going outdoors and exercising.

[QuickSilver]

I would not worry about this comming to pass very soon. In order to institutionalize this kind of legislation, would it not have to go through some gov't body like congress or something? Have you noticed the size of the bodies of the people in congress? I'd love to see some of those fat bastards put something like this through with a straight face.

[Satan]

Originally posted by Maeglin

But people weren't suing tobacco companies before smoking was linked to addiction, were they?

And by this same logic, everything I said about the fast food industry should lead to a similar suit. It's very recently that we have seen the effects of years of fast food abuse, and only now that heart disease and obesity are such problems are we getting the studies in.

If you want evidence I could point you to any number of recent studies. Naturally, all of them are disputed by the industry.

And the fine folks at McWendy King don't exactly talk about hardened arteries in their reports now do they?

Again, if we wish to be consistant about this...

Anyone who has either looked behind the register at a fast foot establishment or even tasted a Whopper probably has at least a modicum of an idea of the nature of the product.

You wanna trade that exact quote above with smokes and mention that THERE IS A FRIGGING WARNING RIGHT ON THE PACKAGE that says it is dangerous?

If someone who started smoking since... oh, the early '60s is when the research started to come out and the public started to be informed of the risks and dangers, didn't know exactly what they were getting into, I submit they were living in a cave.

That's not what I am complaining about, either. The last time I bought a cutlery set, it didn't even cross my mind that there should be a warning label. My car didn't have a warning label. But if I don't want either anymore, I can toss them out. And same with fast food.

Um... This has to do with anything... How? If you're saying that you can't ever quit smoking, please read my sig file, thanks. Is it hard? Yep. But I would find it easier to quit tobacco than I would fast food. And I'll bet I am not alone with that, and I'll bet there are a ton of people being told by doctors to pay attention to their diet who simply cannot do this.

Now you have it ass-backwards. If you want me to believe that fast food producers are consciously inserting chemical agents into their food which increase addictiveness and lack of such chemicals in the bodies of addicts results in withdrawal, then perhaps you had better provide the facts.

The food companies want to make their products tasty and desirable. There are tons of additives in them to make sure you keep coming back.

I will not argue with you that many, many people have issues with food. Is this the problem of food providers?

They are exactly as responsible as the tobacco companies are. More so, in fact - Nobody has complained or restricted how Ronald McDonald could be advertised to you. Cigarettes (and alcohol for that matter) have been restricted.

You ought to prove that there is something inherently addictive about fast food that distinguishes it from all other foods.

You seem hung up on the fact tht fast food is not addictive. Why is this so important a difference? Both products will kill you if not used within severe moderation. Both products are marketed by people who don't tell you all of the facts because that doesn't exactly make good ad copy.

Guns are not "addictive," but gun manufactuers are being sued (and losing) for a product they make because people deem them responsible. Not because of addiction, but simply because of the way their product is used and the ramifications of such.
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, one week, four days, 17 hours, 37 minutes and 54 seconds.
4109 cigarettes not smoked, saving $513.67.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 6 hours, 25 minutes.

[Edward The Head]

What about the Coke and stuff that they advertise to minors? hell I've seen people give coke to BABIES! you don't need coke to live, but it sure is aditctive isn't it? how come no one says anything about Coke then? too much caffine is bad for you, makes it hard to sleep, the low ph is bad for the stomach. hell if we're gonna sue the tobaco companies we might as well sue 'em all!

[pepperlandgirl]

I believe fast food IS addictive. I'm sorry, but Carl's Jr. Criss Cut fries are very addictive, and so are the big Superstars. *drools*. And I never would have eaten there if it wasn't for the disgusting commercials with the big fat guys dripping food all over themselves.
And Coke! Don't even get me started on Coke! I should sue the company for about 10 Million just to get my money back, cuz that's about how much I have spent on it in my life. And my teeth are rotting out of my head cuz of it. I can't stop, because it's addicting!
Those companies have taken advantage of me, of all of us, and we should stand for it anymore!

[Satan]

Two things:

First of all, Drain Bead came up with class action suits against breat implants, and I don't thyink they are addictive either.

Secondly, the coke analogies by a couple of Dopers above also fits into the analogy I have proposed quite well, and DOES add the addictive qualities of the product that Maeglin seems to think is the difference between junk food and tobacco.
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, one week, four days, 18 hours, 34 minutes and 40 seconds.
4110 cigarettes not smoked, saving $513.87.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 6 hours, 30 minutes.

[Mr.Zambezi]

Can fast food providers forsee that some people will eat too much fat and be injured? of course they can. Could they easily put less fat in their food? Of course they could. Could they foresee that someone could eat while driving thus causing them to get is a wreck? abso-diddley-doodley.

the argument made in the tobacco and gun cases are similar in that they pound on these two questions. And it works. In the McD's coffee thread, I was in the minority thinking that these questions alone are not enough to prove liability. My guess is that a case agains all makers of fattty foods would succeed if for no other reason because they have a lot of money.

[pldennison]

The food companies want to make their products tasty and desirable. There are tons of additives in them to make sure you keep coming back.

Not that I'm necessarily disputing you, but can you perhaps name one or two of these additives that behave in a chemically similar manner to nicotine or the other addictive alkaloids, and show that they have been deliberately manipulated by fast food restaurants? ("Pickles" and "mayonnaise" are not acceptable answers.)

FTR: As much of an anti-smoker as I am, I do not approve of the tobacco lawsuit, for several reasons which are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

[QuickSilver]

Satan wrote:

If someone who started smoking since... oh, the early '60s is when the research started to come out and the public started to be informed of the risks and dangers, didn't know exactly what they were getting into, I submit they were living in a cave.


I think the detriments of a high fat diet have been well established for quite a long time. The biggest source of fats has also been known for at least as long. The ill effect of fats on the heart has been understood for equally as long.

Fast food, though a more recent phenomenon has always been known to be high in fat. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that foods deep fried in fat are going to be.... well, fool of fat.

The caloric contents of an average fast food burger has been published in various health food mags and gov't nutrition reports for over 20 years. I think the fast food joints themselves began publishing the caloric content of their food in the mid 80's.

No-one, except those same cave dwelling individuals, can claim any kind of ignorance about the lack of nutritional balance in fast food meals.

Do we really need to put a Surgeon General's warning on every fast food item to get people to understand what they are consuming is not nutritionaly sound and possibly dangerous to their health?

Do we really need an umpteen billion dollar lawsuit to get that point accross? Or is all this simply an attempt to force Ronald and the gang to improve the nutritional content of the food they sell? Lawsuits agains big tobacco have not made the product less dangerous, have they?

More than likely, this will only serve to shame some people into practicing better eating habits (which is a net good to them) by similarly applied public pressure as in the case of smoking in recent years.

[pldennison]

Oh, also FTR, I also think that McDonald's in particular, followed closely by BK, concentrate far too much of their marketing on children (animation tie-ins, cartoony advertising, etc.). They don't much care if they have you as a customer, but if they can get your kids, they've got you by default.

[tracer]

QuickSilver wrote:

I would not worry about this comming to pass very soon. In order to institutionalize this kind of legislation, would it not have to go through some gov't body like congress or something? Have you noticed the size of the bodies of the people in congress? I'd love to see some of those fat bastards put something like this through with a straight face.

The whole point with the 142-billion-dollar tobacco lawsuit is that we don't have to wait for Congress or the State Legislature to outlaw something. We can sue any unpopular industry into bankruptcy right now, using the courts to completely bypass any need for legislation.

[pepperlandgirl]

Do we really need an umpteen billion dollar lawsuit to get that point accross? Or is all this simply
an attempt to force Ronald and the gang to improve the nutritional content of the food they sell?
Lawsuits agains big tobacco have not made the product less dangerous, have they?

Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but I just need the money. If Ronald and Carl and the King are forced to improve the nutritional content of the food as a result, that's even better!

[QuickSilver]

The whole point with the 142-billion-dollar tobacco lawsuit is that we don't have to wait for Congress or the State Legislature to outlaw something. We can sue any unpopular industry into bankruptcy right now, using the courts to completely bypass any need for legislation.

See, that's where my Canadian slip is showing. I didn't know that. America truely is the land of opportunity... :)

So what's everyone waiting for? I say sue that clown bastard and his ilk until they bleed! ;)

[Satan]

pldennison: To be honest, I am unaware if or what the food companies might put in their food would be deemed "adictive," but that was not my claim anyway, and even if they do not, I already pointed out elsewhere that I do not believe that is the crux of the matter.

Also, let me state for the record that I find the tobacco suit to be ridiculous as well. I would also find my proposed junk food suit (and the also-mentioned soft drink suit as well) to be equally silly.

I mainly wanted to show how si;lly the tobacco law suit was.

Now, most everyone got it, but I wasn't sure about a few people above which is why I am saying this.

Ultimately, to me there is no difference between what Coke, McDonalds or Phillip Morris are doing to us and how. We're just treating them differently.
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, one week, four days, 19 hours, 43 minutes and 34 seconds.
4112 cigarettes not smoked, saving $514.11.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 6 hours, 40 minutes.

[Arnold Winkelried]

As other posters have said, I think the main difference is that there is some nutritive value in fast food (i.e. the components of fast food are things that are needed in a balanced diet) whereas smoking is a drug where almost everyone recognizes that the health risks outweigh the benefits.

Some numbers:
My "information please" almanac (1998) says that the maximum total fat intake should be:
for a 1,600 calories level, 53 total fat grams
for a 2,200 calories level, 73 total fat grams
for a 2,800 calories level, 93 total fat grams

and according to the same almanac, the American Heart Association recommends not more than:
300 milligrams of cholesterol
2,400 milligrams of sodium

The McDonald's nutrition information (http://www.mcdonalds.com/countries/usa/food/nutrition_facts/sandfries/index.html) web page says that a Big Mac has
32 total fat grams
10 saturated fat grams
85 milligrams of cholesterol
1100 milligrams of cholesterol

A single Big Mac seems to fit within the US RDA or American Heart Association guidelines.

Therefore, as we can see, the issue is more complicated when it comes to fast food. A single cigarette has none (or minimal: see below) health benefits, whereas a Big Mac could be considered part of a healthy diet if everything else you ate was extremely low in (or missing) fat. But in the future, I would think it is very possible that USA government warnings may appear in fast food restaurants if the current obesity "problem" still is perceived to be as severe as current reports portray it.

Re: the Straight Dope column on health benefits from smoking:

Does smoking have any health benefits? (03-Feb-1995) (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_096.html)

Cecil Adams says in his column that "it prevents or at least slows the onset of Alzheimer's disease." and a reader mentions that one form of inflammatory bowel disease seems to be prevented by smoking, however another form of inflammatory bowel disease occurs mainly amongst smokers, so the second benefit may be a draw.

Needless to say that Cecil Adams does NOT say that the advantages of smoking outweigh the health risks.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally posted by Satan
Ultimately, to me there is no difference between what Coke, McDonalds or Phillip Morris are doing to us and how. We're just treating them differently.

As I noted in my post above, the reason the two industries are being differently may partly be because the health risks of fast food are not as clear-cut as the health risks of tobacco. I feel the comparison is lacking in accuracy.

[Jodi]

Oh, what the heck, I'll wade in.

The differences between the effects of tobacco and fat in the diet are ones of degree. Are both deleterious? Heck, yes. But one is almost guaranteed to kill or injure you eventually; the other is not. One generally renders you more seriously ill, and much more quickly, than the other. One is dangerous only if you over-indulge greatly and repeatedly; the other is never safe at any level. One arguably has some benefit -- fat is necessary to human diet, just not in the quantities we Americans choose to consume, while one has no benefit whatsoever -- nicotine has no beneficial effect on the human body.

The difference between the tobacco suits and ones for fast-food is the question of proof. It would be very difficult for the average person with heart disease to prove that he or she developed it because of daily trips to McDonald's, as opposed to daily consumption of Ring-Dings or Haagen-Daz, or hereditary factors. The diseases people develop from smoking can generally be directly corrolated to smoking and to no other causes. In other words, if you want to sue Wendy's for developing arteriosclerosis from consuming too many square, allegedly-meat patties, it would be very difficult to prove cause and effect. It's much easier to prove that, if you have emphysema and you've smoked all your life, you probably got emphysema from smoking. Even the tobacco companies do not seriously dispute the causation part of negligent claims against them anymore; rather, they focus (more sensibly, it seems to me) on the free-will argument, inveighing against governmental parternalism.

Which is why addiction is absolutely relevant. If you choose, of your own free will, to use a product that you know or should know is dangerous to your health, then you do so at your own risk. But when addiction is mixed in, the analysis becomes much more difficult, because you arguably are no longer acting with a perfectly "free will." Ask any smoker how much they intellectually dislike the habit and the expense, and how much they'd like to quit; they continue to smoke not because they want to, but because they biologically almost have to. McDonald's food is not the same; if they charged $7.00 for one of their crappy little burgers, would people still buy them? I seriously doubt it. But you could probably charge ten dollars a pack for cigarettes and people would still buy them -- they'd bitch about it, but they'd buy.

That said, I think the most recent tobacco verdict is ridiculous and almost certain to be overturned on appeal because the damages can't be sustained. Would I shed a tear if the tobacco companies were forced into bankruptcy? No. Do I think this latest verdict against them is justice in action? No. I think it's a jury that wants to punish them and does not understand or care about the real value of the dollars it awarded.

[tracer]

Arnold Winkelried wrote:

The McDonald's nutrition information (http://www.mcdonalds.com/countries/usa/food/nutrition_facts/sandfries/index.html) web page says that a Big Mac has
32 total fat grams
10 saturated fat grams
85 milligrams of cholesterol
1100 milligrams of cholesterol

I think you mean "1100 milligrams of sodium," not 1100 milligrams of cholesterol.

If a single Big Mac had 1100 mg of cholesterol, we'd all be dead from congestive heart failure by age 25.

[aha]

Ok, ok say we sue the fast food industry and shut the bastards down...then what the hell am I going to do for lunch tomorrow? huh?

[Mr.Zambezi]

As other posters have said, I think the main difference is that there is some nutritive value in fast food (i.e. the components of fast food are things that are needed in a balanced diet) whereas smoking is a drug where almost everyone recognizes that the health risks outweigh the benefits. No one "needs" to eat fatty foods.

If we are making the analogy with cigarettes, a burger is a delivery system for fat and sodium, which can be harmfull just as cigarettes are a delivery system for tar.

Some parts of a cigarette are benign and some are harmful.

But none of that matters from a liability standpoint. A product does not have to have an essential usefullness to be defective and harmful.

To be consistent, you need to hate tobacco companies AND fatty food makers.

[Jodi]

MR. ZAMBEZI says:

No one "needs" to eat fatty foods.

Actually, we all need to eat some fat; we just don't need to eat so much fat. Nobody needs any nicotine. The difference is a product of limited usefulness as opposed to one of no usefulness whatsoever.

If we are making the analogy with cigarettes, a burger is a delivery system for fat and sodium, which can be harmfull just as cigarettes are a delivery system for tar.

Can be, but not necessarily is. Again, we need some fat and some sodium; we don't need any tar.

But none of that matters from a liability standpoint. A product does not have to have an essential usefullness to be defective and harmful.

Yes, but a product that has no usefulness and is harmful is very difficult to defend. I can defend a product that is harmful but societally useful on the grounds of its usefulness; I can defend a product that is not useful but is harmless on the grounds that it doesn't harm anyone. It's hard to defend a product that actually damages people and is of no measurable good to anyone.

To be consistent, you need to hate tobacco companies AND fatty food makers.

No, you don't, because one is product is much more dangerous than the other; one arguably has some utility while the other has none; and one is clinically proven to be addictive while the other is not seriously argued to be.

[Arnold Winkelried]

tracer: my bad, I was re-typing instead of C&P. Of course, it was 1100 mg of sodium. :o

Mr. Zambezi says "If we are making the analogy with cigarettes, a burger is a delivery system for fat and sodium, which can be harmfull just as cigarettes are a delivery system for tar."

The difference is that cholesterol when eaten in the RDA amounts is used by our metabolism. And sodium is often referred to as "an essential element of the diet" (for humans) and is used to help regulate the body's fluid balance. The cholesterol and sodium are harmful in excess, but not in the quantities present in a Big Mac eaten occasionally.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Sorry, I hit "submit reply" too early. I was going to add more information but Jodi has actually made the points I was going to make much better than I would have.

[FreakFreely]

It's a moot point. The people who sued for 145 billion probably aren't going to see any of that money. Florida has a law against any reward that will bankrupt a company. A deal will be made. And the lawyers are going to prolong it as much as possible with appeal after appeal after appeal.

[tracer]

Jodi wrote:

Actually, we all need to eat some fat; we just don't need to eat so much fat.

I believe, however, that you don't need to eat any saturated fat; i.e., that you'll be perfectly healthy if all the fat you ever eat is mono-unsaturated or poly-unsaturated.

Nor do any of your unsaturated fats need to contain trans-fatty acids, which are nutritionally equivalent to the saturated fatty acids in saturated fats.

[Maeglin]

Looks like I missed mose of the action. For the record, Satan, I do think that the tobacco lawsuit is absurd. The only ones who will benefit will be the lawyers and the media. Not to say that the lawyers will benefit unfairly...

Nevertheless the comparison between fast food and cigarettes is terribly simplistic. But I don't think I need to repeat the reasons.

MR

[Joe_Cool]

The sad thing is that, as somebody pointed out earlier, some people really are getting ready to sue fast food companies. Because Ronald McDonald ties you down and crams Big Macs down your throat, doesn't allow you to exercise, and personally MADE you fat. right? um, no. Regardless of what some may claim, everybody is responsible for what they put into or do with their bodies, whether smoke, grease, drugs, what have you. I chose to eat a whopper today. But I also choose to run & lift weights so it doesn't hurt me. My girlfriend chose to smoke 1/2 a pack of cigarettes today. But she chose not to smoke the other half, and chose to run and stay in shape. Those bastards at Columbine H.S. chose to go in and shoot everybody. The guns didn't magically leap into their hands, take over their minds, and kill everybody for them. (aside: making guns illegal wouldn't have stopped those killings. Explosives have been illegal for YEARS. did it stop them from planting bombs throughout the school? negative. you can't stop sombody bent on causing destruction. they will find a way)

This (suing people who make things that are legal, but "we" don't like them) is a bad, bad, bad, dangerous, evil trend. Politicians have learned that they cannot outlaw [fat in food|cigarettes|guns|whatever] because of those annoying "rights" thingies, so they came up with a clever but WRONG way to subvert and circumvent proper legal procedure. "If we can't make it illegal, we'll just tax and litigate until it's too expensive to make it!"

It's a really clever way to look like you're doing something good, pretend you're defending people from the evils of the world, etc. But in reality they are making new "laws" without having to answer to anybody. Don't like guns? Well, we can't make them illegal because of the bill of rights, so we'll just tax them to death, and sue manufacturers so they can't afford to stay in business. Don't like cigarettes? Same thing. Freedom of speech? huh. Probably next on the list.

People in this country are so desperate for convenience that they will gladly give away their rights and their liberty for more of it. And the ruling parties are all too glad to take that liberty in trade for further control over our lives.

I don't smoke. I don't like smoking. I think it's gross and unpleasant. But damn it, there's no reason it should be illegal and these farcical trials with obscene awards make me F-ING SICK!!!!! If you want to smoke I may choose to step away from you while you do it, I may bug you about how it's bad for you and you should probably stop. But if you're an adult, it's none of my business or anybody else's business to stop you from doing it.

The really scary thing is that this strategy will work on anything that the government doesn't like. Cigarettes are only the first step on this journey of a thousand miles. And it worries me.

[Mr.Zambezi]

Yes, but a product that has no usefulness and is harmful is very difficult to defend. I can defend a product that is harmful but societally useful on the grounds of its usefulness; I can defend a product that is not useful but is harmless on the grounds that it doesn't harm anyone. It's hard to defend a product that actually damages people and is of no measurable good to anyone

YOu are missing my point. From a liability standpoint, the usefullness does not matter. we have many things in our life that are not at all usefull other than to give us pleasure. If those items cause injury, their overall necesity to supporting the huiman organism is not going to come into play.

teh question will be, was it used as intended, did it cause injury, could it have been forseen and avoided.

Now, you may feel that this is an important difference, and jurors may feel the same as you do. but legally, the utility is not really important. If it were, it would be a great defense for food borne illness claims, faulty atuomobiles and defective building design. "sure our product keilled the plaintiff, but we are not at fault because he needed a house. Too bad it was full of radon and asbestos."

[Jodi]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, but a product that has no usefulness and is harmful is very difficult to defend. I can defend a product that is harmful but societally useful on the grounds of its usefulness; I can defend a product that is not useful but is harmless on the grounds that it doesn't harm anyone. It's hard to defend a product that actually damages people and is of no measurable good to anyone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MR. Z, forgive me if I get a little tart, but it bugs me when people put forward as asolute truths things that are, quite simply, incorrect. You say:

From a liability standpoint, the usefullness does not matter.

It absolutely does. To me, this is so obvious as to be self-evident. If a product has a utility and is being put the the use for which it is designed, the inherent dangers of using the product with be considered acceptable, to a certain point, as part of a trade-off for the utility provided. In other words, TNT is defensible because it has a particular use to which it can be put for the good of those seeking to employ it. Remove the utility and you have an indefensible product -- TNT that people just play with, for example.

we have many things in our life that are not at all usefull other than to give us pleasure. If those items cause injury, their overall necesity to supporting the huiman organism is not going to come into play.

Well, obviously. If they are "not at all useful other than to give us pleasure," then "their overall necessity" will not "come into play" -- because, by definition, they don't have any. And such products -- like cigarettes are infinitely more difficult to defend than products that do have utility -- that's my point.

The question will be, was it used as intended, did it cause injury, could it have been forseen and avoided.

That is not the extent of the question; the question also encompasses whether there is any reason for the existence and marketing of the inherently dangerous product in the first place. If there isn't, then the product is very difficult to defend, for reasons I would have thought were obvious.

Now, you may feel that this is an important difference, and jurors may feel the same as you do. but legally, the utility is not really important.

Yes, it is. Jurors, by the way, are instructed as to the law they are to apply to the facts before them. Hopefully, they are more fully aware of that law than you appear to be.

If it were, it would be a great defense for food borne illness claims, faulty atuomobiles and defective building design. "sure our product keilled the plaintiff, but we are not at fault because he needed a house. Too bad it was full of radon and asbestos."

First, you are mixing apples and oranges. A "food-borne illness claim" is not a claim regarding a defective product; it is a simple negligence claim. Second, I never said that utility was an absolute defense; only that it was a factor, the absence of which makes it much more difficult to defend the product in question. Third, we are not talking about products that are defective, which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Big Macs, cigarettes, and race cars all function exactly as designed and as intended; they are not defective. The question is whether the utility of the product, put to its intended purpose, outweighs the inherent danger of using the product. With Big Macs and race cars (and houses, though not those defectively constructed), you could argue that the utility outweighs the danger. (Now, we might disagree on whether the argument would be successful, but it could be made.) You can't make that argument regarding cigarettes, because they have no utility at all.

JOE COOL, again, the difference is that cigarettes are addictive and Big Macs are not. So you may be consuming that Big Mac 100% of your own free will, but your girlfriend is probably engaging in an activity she'd probably rather not do if she was acting entirely out of her own free will. But she smokes anyway, because her free will is, to some extend, overridden by her addiction. Moreover, the flipside of an argument that we all have the right to do what we want is that we don't have that right if we unnecessarily or excessively infringe on the rights of others. There is an argument to be made that smoking does that, directly through the effects of second-hand smoke and indirectly through the costs to the taxpayers of having to pay for the treatment of thousands of smokers who are now getting sick and dying but who can't pay their own way as they do so. I'm not defending the latest tobacco suit verdicts, just pointing out -- again -- that there is a legally colorable argument where cigarettes are concerned, and there probably is not where Big Macs are concerned.

[Mr.Zambezi]

Jodi, I was reading through your post, jaw agape, wondering what you are thinking. For example that the utility of the product is, as a matter of law, a factor in a third party tort action. I swas thinking about television, radios, make-up, jewelry...all things that are without much inherent benefit and none of which is necessary.

then I hit this: First, you are mixing apples and oranges. A "food-borne illness claim" is not a claim regarding a defective product; it is a simple negligence claim as the insurnce manager for 3 pie plants and two restaurant chains, I can tell you that you are wrong about this. What kind of claim is it if our product (food) is inherently defective? Premesis liability? Advertising injury?

Now I see why to are making this argument about utility. Liability does not hinge on the value of the product in supporting human life. If a game boy ruins your eyesight, the case is the same as if your CRT ruis your eyesight.

But I can see that I will have a difficult, if not impossible time convincing you of this.

[Jodi]

Mr. Z says:

Jodi, I was reading through your post, jaw agape, wondering what you are thinking.

Which amuses me because what I'm thinking is pretty obvious from anyone reading my posts.

For example that the utility of the product is, as a matter of law, a factor in a third party tort action. I swas thinking about television, radios, make-up, jewelry...all things that are without much inherent benefit and none of which is necessary.

None of which are inherently dangerous, either. This is the problem; you keep mixing up products that are not in the same class -- ie, products that are defective and products that are not; products that have utility and products that do not -- and applying the same analysis to them. But that's not how it works. A stick of TNT, a radio, and a hamburger are not analyzed the same way for purposes of determining liability.

as the insurnce manager for 3 pie plants and two restaurant chains, I can tell you that you are wrong about this. What kind of claim is it if our product (food) is inherently defective? Premesis liability? Advertising injury?

As I said, negligence. Did you read my post? Did I say anything about premises liability or advertising? This is from Black's Law Dictionary:

The term "products liability" normally contemplates injury or damage caused by a defective product, and if loss occurs as the result of a condition on the premises, or as a resutl of service, as distinguished from loss occasioned by a defectio product, a products liability claim does not ordinarily arise, even though the product may be involved.

My emphasis. In other words, if your pie plants are packaging and exporting pies carrying e coli, that's arguably products liability. If, however, your cafeteria is serving contaminated food because the employees don't wash their hands, that's negligence -- not products liability. Now, in your case, products liability may be the more appropriate way to raise the allegations in the complaint, but that doesn't make it so for every person who contracts hepatitis from a fast-food joint. Don't assume that your experience with the law dictates how it will proceed in situations that are not analogous. In any event, you you are again assuming a defective product. A Big Mac, cooked properly and served properly, is not a defective product, and that's what the OP was talking about.

Now I see why to are making this argument about utility. Liability does not hinge on the value of the product in supporting human life. If a game boy ruins your eyesight, the case is the same as if your CRT ruis your eyesight.

I never said it "hinged" on it, and I never said "supporting human life." Yes, a game boy and a CRT are arguably the same. But we are not talking about game boys and CRTs; we are talking about cigarettes and Big Macs. Do you seriously argue that the liability analysis for the former is the same as the liability analysis for the latter, and that the utility of the product will not be considered? Because, if you do, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. In any event, I refuse to allow you to extropolate wildly from what I did say to try to pigeonhole me for something I did not say.

But I can see that I will have a difficult, if not impossible time convincing you of this.

Yes, you will. Because you are incorrect.

If we're going to continue the discussion, I would suggest you try to limit yourself to examples of products that are not defective and still give rise to suits. Except for guns and cigarettes, there are precious few of them. But I will no longer attempt to draw the distinction between the law regarding defective products (of which you apparently know something), and the law regarding products that are not defective but yet are unsafe (of which you apprently do not). You either see the difference or you don't, but I can't explain it any clearer than I already have.

[Mr.Zambezi]

Well, first of all, most food borne illness claims do result from the prodoct being made in a way other than it was designed. A burger certainly is not designed to have e-coli. An undercooked chicken sandwich was not "manufactured" properly. If someone slips on a Rueben that fell on the floor, then yes, the injury is not really arising out of the product. But if our products coverage covers it, teh complaint pleads it as a product liability claim, and the allegations are that teh product is defective, I think it is a product claim.

But I will no longer attempt to draw the distinction between the law regarding defective products (of which you apparently know something), and the law regarding products that are not defective but yet are unsafe (of which you apprently do not). You either see the difference or you don't, but I can't explain it any clearer than I already have. no, I do understand the difference. If a big mac has glass in in, or is prepared in a way that it injures the consumer, that is a defective product that is unsafe. Cigarettes are a product that is unsafe when made the way it was designed and used as was intended. I understand the case against Big Tobacco, but I strongly disagree with it.

My point is that Big Macs (or one of our super high fat pies) will cause injury if made as designed and used as intended.

I just do not think that you can absolve (or diminish if you prefer) a manufacturer of liability because their product has utility. If the product kills, what matters the value of the product? I can see where this could come up in a debate over whether to make illegal a product; I can't see how it matter in a liability suit.

Of course, I strongly disagree that any lawsuit for either should be brought. I can't believe the tobacco suit outcome. I find it hard to believe that cigarettes and booze will not be driven from production soon.

[Mr.Zambezi]

One last though: can't deriving pleasure from something give it utility? Or are movies on the same ground as cigarettes?

[Jodi]

MR. Z. says:

I just do not think that you can absolve (or diminish if you prefer) a manufacturer of liability because their product has utility. If the product kills, what matters the value of the product? I can see where this could come up in a debate over whether to make illegal a product; I can't see how it matter in a liability suit.

And, see, this is so self-evident to me. The question of whether the manufacture of an inherently dangerous product should be allowed or even tolerated obviously turns on whether the product has utility and, even if so, whether the utility is such that the danger associated with the product should be tolerated.

Lets say I genetically engineer an organism or bacterium that kills the AIDS virus. The problem is, in a certain percentage of cases, the organism or bacterium also kills the individual who is innoculated with it. Will the manufacture and distribution of the innoculation be tolerated? Depends -- what are the chances it will kill you? 2%? 10%? 50%? 75%? Obviously, as the mortality rate goes up, the utility of the product goes down. The liability for the manufacterer for distributing the product will therefore take into account whether the result obtained by its use outweighs the danger inherent in its use -- in other words, the product's utility.

We, as a society, allow TNT and guns because they are products having a utility that outweighs, in the minds of most, the dangers associated with their use. If that utility was reduced or removed, the product would be indefensible. It's that simple. Moreover, I don't think you really disagree with this yourself. A gun is obviously a product that kills; do you argue that the "value of the product" for hunting and self-defense should not mitigate liability, just because the product is one that can kill?

[Jodi]

And as to entertainment as utility, I think, yes, there is a utility argument to be made there. However, the question is one of degree. A product that keeps people alive (like insulin) is obviously way more useful than one that keeps people entertained (like television). Moreover, more people are willing to risk their lives to be kept alive than to be entertained.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally posted by Jodi
JOE COOL, again, the difference is that cigarettes are addictive and Big Macs are not. So you may be consuming that Big Mac 100% of your own free will, but your girlfriend is probably engaging in an activity she'd probably rather not do if she was acting entirely out of her own free will. But she smokes anyway, because her free will is, to some extend, overridden by her addiction.

First off, let me identify myself as a reformed rabid anti-smoker. While smoke bothers me, I can choose to leave or not to associate with people who do it, if it bothers me that much. My gf doesn't quit because she doesn't want to. She enjoys smoking and has no desire to quit. I'm sure if she did, she would.

I am firmly of the opinion that the vast majority of research on both sides of the tobacco argument is biased and chock full of propaganda and agenda. I agree that it's harmful, but probably not much more so than inhaling ANY foregn substance into your lungs on a regular basis. I suspect that if you made a habit of inhaling wood smoke, plastic smoke, silicon smoke, ANY kind of smoke, you would find a similar rate of emphysema, cancer, what-have-you as with tobacco.

I agree that it is addictive, but (as somebody who has never been a smoker, I admit that my opinion lacks punch...any smokers able to back me up?) I believe that the psychological aspect of the addiction is far greater than the physical. Food addicts are not addicted to cheeseburgers, as such, but I suspect to the habit of getting a cheeseburger at lunch every day, or eating to cure boredom. It's more adherance to a routine than it is a physical addiction. I know many people who have quit smoking cold. Just one day decided that was the last cigarette they would have. Because they wanted to quit. I also know many people who have tried and failed, because they were not ready. They quit for reasons other than "I really don't like doing this and I want to quit", and so doomed their efforts to fail.

Moreover, the flipside of an argument that we all have the right to do what we want is that we don't have that right if we unnecessarily or excessively infringe on the rights of others. There is an argument to be made that smoking does that, directly through the effects of second-hand smoke and indirectly through the costs to the taxpayers of having to pay for the treatment of thousands of smokers who are now getting sick and dying but who can't pay their own way as they do so.

There is also an argument to be made that second hand smoke is not nearly as bad for you as people say (Cecil himself tackled it here (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000602.html)). I grew up in a smoking household (my father smoked heavily for the first 17 years of my life) and have never had any respiratory problems, and I'm certain I've never had cancer. I recently moved to Newark, New Jersey, and I think the standard air here is by far the worse of the two. In fact, I think a little 2nd hand smoke would do me some good, by displacing some of the crap in the air around me.

I'm not defending the latest tobacco suit verdicts, just pointing out -- again -- that there is a legally colorable argument where cigarettes are concerned, and there probably is not where Big Macs are concerned.

I'm certain there are people who will disagree with you vehemently here. You've heard that tobacco addiction is harder to kick than heroin? That's only because tobacco is (was, until recently...) socially acceptable and readily available. It's easier to drop an addiction you have to go far out of your way to keep up than when you can indulge your habit at any corner store. And Big Macs are just as available as even cigarettes, not to mention more acceptable socially. Oh, one other thing. As has been said already, Nobody under 40 can use the excuse "I didn't know it was bad!" It's been known plenty long enough that smoking is unhealthy. And nobody starts because "Big Tobacco" (another label that has no real meaning other than to elicit an emotional reaction, similar to "religious right", "liberal" and "gun nut") made them do it. Since high school I have had a strange habit of asking smokers I know why they started. With only a few exceptions, they have all said "because X did and I wanted to [fit in/look cool]" or something to that effect. The vast minority said something like "because I heard you get a rush from it", which is a small argument in favor of the addictive-additive camp. But even so, it's not the manufacturer's faults.

Satan said:

Now you have it ass-backwards. If you want me to believe that fast food producers are consciously inserting chemical agents into their food which increase addictiveness and lack of such chemicals in the bodies of addicts results in withdrawal, then perhaps you had better provide the facts.
The food companies want to make their products tasty and desirable. There are tons of additives in them to make sure you keep coming back
and:
Secondly, the coke analogies by a couple of Dopers above also fits into the analogy I have proposed quite well, and DOES add the addictive qualities of the product that Maeglin seems to think is the difference between junk food and tobacco.

And I agree on both points. This suit is stupid, and another indication of our victim mentality. Sorry you smoked and F-ed yourself up. It's a shame, but stuff happens. But nobody made you do it. A friend of mine used to work for the forest service in NM, and witnessed a lawsuit where a man sued the US forest service, claiming they were negligent when he walked off a cliff in the mountains. His argument? They should have put fences and signs at every cliff telling him not to walk past the edge. This is the same thing. People trying to lay blame where there is none, because they don't want to take responsibility for their actions, and don't want to acknowledge the fact that your actions have consequences.

[Joe_Cool]

wow. that came out way longer than I meant it to.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally posted by Jodi
We, as a society, allow TNT and guns because they are products having a utility that outweighs, in the minds of most, the dangers associated with their use. If that utility was reduced or removed, the product would be indefensible. It's that simple. Moreover, I don't think you really disagree with this yourself. A gun is obviously a product that kills; do you argue that the "value of the product" for hunting and self-defense should not mitigate liability, just because the product is one that can kill?

Bravo. very good point. For the record, I don't think utility has anything to do with this issue though. Tobacco has utility, as much as chewing gum or fast food does. Entertainment, enjoyment, convenience, whatever. One other comment though: Just as with dynamite or a gun, personal responsibility is required with tobacco. If you smoke/chew/dip, it's your ass (figuratively). All the tobacco companies do is put out a product for which there is a huge demand. They don't make you use it. Do they artificially try to increase demand for their product? Hell yes. But then, can you show me a company that doesn't do the same? My own employer (a large computer retailer) centers its entire business model on talking people into buying crap they don't want or need. Our sales staff have mounds of literature and hours of pitches to convince you that you need something you don't want or need--solely to increase revenue. Maybe we should sue [company name deleted. :)] too!

[Mr.Zambezi]

OK, Jodi, I think I have figured out why we differ on this (the reward for not just flaming each other.) Lets say I genetically engineer an organism or bacterium that kills the AIDS virus. The problem is, in a certain percentage of cases, the organism or bacterium also kills the individual who is innoculated with it. Will the manufacture and distribution of the innoculation be tolerated? Depends -- what are the chances it will kill you? 2%? 10%? 50%? 75%? Obviously, as the mortality rate goes up, the utility of the product goes down. The liability for the manufacterer for distributing the product will therefore take into account whether the result obtained by its use outweighs the danger inherent in its use -- in other words, the product's utility. You see this as a utility issue. I see it as an assumption of risk issue.

An individual who takes the vaccine, knowing the possible outcomes, weigh the risk and the reward. If for the individual, the reward is high enough, he will take the risk.

Where we differ is that I think that once the individual assumes that risk, he waives the right to file suit (philosophically,of course. You can file suit for anything.) So I see it not as a matter of law to be heard at trial in the form of utility argument. Rather, it is a matter of the individual taking on risk.

The difference to me is that if we are weighing utility in the manner you seem to suggest, then the duty of the individual to act reasonabley is changed with his desire for the product and it's use to him. So a smoker who knows full well that he has a 50% chance of getting some horrible disease, has almost no duty to act reasonably because the product has little utiltiy (other than making one feel good) whereas the person who uses an equally dangerous product with more utility has a much higher duty.

All things being equal, individuals in both cases should be held to the same starndard, as should the manufacturers. THe difference should be how dangerous the product was and if this were known.

[Jodi]

JOE COOL says:

I am firmly of the opinion that the vast majority of research on both sides of the tobacco argument is biased and chock full of propaganda and agenda.

Based on what? The tobacco companies have a vested interest in misrepresenting the danger of their product and in making it seem cooler/less harmful/better for you than it is. That they will stoop to tactics including lying (even before Congress), intimidation, misdirection, and general duplicity has been well established, and their motive is obvious -- money, and lots of it. I see no such "agenda" on the part of the people who have conducted the zillions of studies showing that tobacco is (a) very bad for you and (b) addictive. Are some of the anti-smoking zealots just as rabid as the smoking zealots? Sure. But they lack the obvious nefarious agenda the tobacco companies possess.

I agree that it's harmful, but probably not much more so than inhaling ANY foregn substance into your lungs on a regular basis. I suspect that if you made a habit of inhaling wood smoke, plastic smoke, silicon smoke, ANY kind of smoke, you would find a similar rate of emphysema, cancer, what-have-you as with tobacco.

Sure, but nobody purposely inhales those things into their lungs on a regular basis. Why? Because they are not addictive. Do you think smokers would smoke if they weren't addicted? I think the vast majority would not. It's a habit with few redeeming qualities -- it makes you smell bad, taste bad, it robs you of breath, and sticks you out in the cold outside your office building, shivering as you attempt to light a smoke. Sure, some people might try smoking (especially young people) for the "cool" factor, but I doubt they'd stick with it. They stick with it because it is addictive.

I believe that the psychological aspect of the addiction is far greater than the physical.

I don't believe this is correct; to the contrary, I believe it has been conclusively proven to be incorrect. Nicotine is physically addictive, and it seems obvious to me that a physical addiction will outweigh a psychological addition -- the former being something your body is convinced it needs, the latter being something your mind is convinced it wants.

I know many people who have quit smoking cold. Just one day decided that was the last cigarette they would have. Because they wanted to quit. I also know many people who have tried and failed, because they were not ready. They quit for reasons other than "I really don't like doing this and I want to quit", and so doomed their efforts to fail.

I do not smoke, so I will leave it to a smoker to tell you how difficult it is to quit, and how it is so much more than a matter of willpower and being "ready." I know it is possible to overcome an addiction to nicotine -- people do it every day, including people on this Board who have taken that difficult and admirable step. But I doubt the would tell you that merely not wanting to do it anymore would normally be enough to overcome the addiction.

You've heard that tobacco addiction is harder to kick than heroin? That's only because tobacco is (was, until recently...) socially acceptable and readily available.

I never said that nicotine was the most addictive substance on earth; whether it is or not, I don't know. I said it was addictive, which it is, and therefore difficult to do with out for those who are addicted, which it is. Your argument seems to be that smoking should be tolerated because anyone who wants to can give it up at any time. I think the premise is faulty and I also think the argument is misplaced, since I have never said that smoking should be banned.

And Big Macs are just as available as even cigarettes, not to mention more acceptable socially. Oh, one other thing. As has been said already, Nobody under 40 can use the excuse "I didn't know it was bad!" It's been known plenty long enough that smoking is unhealthy. And nobody starts because "Big Tobacco" (another label that has no real meaning other than to elicit an emotional reaction, similar to "religious right", "liberal" and "gun nut") made them do it. Since high school I have had a strange habit of asking smokers I know why they started. With only a few exceptions, they have all said "because X did and I wanted to [fit in/look cool]" or something to that effect. The vast minority said something like "because I heard you get a rush from it", which is a small argument in favor of the addictive-additive camp. But even so, it's not the manufacturer's faults.

So you totally absolve the tobacco companies for making a product that addicts people and eventually kills them? I do not. I recognize that it is difficult to win a lawsuit if you started smoking after the labels were put on cigarettes and the dangers of smoking were widely known, and I think that's as it should be. It's called "assumption of risk" and such plaintiffs probably are (and, IMO, should be) SOL. That is not inconsistent with recognizing that tobacco is a product with no redeeeming characteristics whatsoever, that addicts its consumers and places a measurable economic burden on society at large -- and, as has been proven, that it is an industry run by liars and opportunists. Having found the market in the United States so heavily regulated, they have turned their marketing efforts to third-world nations, where they sell unfiltered cigarettes, made with specially-bred, high-nicotine (and therefore highly addictive) tobacco, and without warning labels. I have zero respect for them, and my general approval of a free-market economy does not prevent me from saying that I would not care in the least if the entire tobacco industry sank into the sea.

MR. ZAMBEZI says:

OK, Jodi, I think I have figured out why we differ on this (the reward for not just flaming each other.)

Yay us. :)

You see this as a utility issue. I see it as an assumption of risk issue.

But those are not the same. "Assumption of risk" is the undertaking of a particular risk by an informed individual. In these days of labels and studies and the general knowledge that smoking is very, very bad, one of the strongest legal arguments the tobacco companies can make is that new consumers assume the risks inherent in smoking. (The legal irony, of course, is that they tried for so long to keep those dangers a secret; now the fact that the dangers are widely known is one of their best defenses.)

This is different than an analysis of "utility," which deals with the usefulness of the product and not the knowledge of the consumer. Whether the consumer is knowledgeable of the product or not, its utility (or lack thereof) remains the same.

Where we differ is that I think that once the individual assumes that risk, he waives the right to file suit (philosophically,of course. You can file suit for anything.) So I see it not as a matter of law to be heard at trial in the form of utility argument. Rather, it is a matter of the individual taking on risk.

Actually, we don't differ on this at all; I completely agree with it, provided you are dealing with a fully informed consumer. And this, I think, is why a lawsuit for a dying plaintiff who started smoking in the '30s when the ads proclaimed "Doctors Say Camels Will Cure That Cough!" is, and should be, more successful than a lawsuit for a dying plaintiff who read the warning label on his Camels everytime he opened a fresh pack.

The difference to me is that if we are weighing utility in the manner you seem to suggest, then the duty of the individual to act reasonabley is changed with his desire for the product and it's use to him.

It is if we are talking about an addictive product, because then we are no longer talking about smoking as a "voluntary" action. An addicted person "acts reasonably" when he feeds his addiction, whatever it might be. The utility aspect of it only weighs in to the extent you can say "this is a product that does Very Bad Things to its users AND it has no redeeming qualities whatsoever."

So a smoker who knows full well that he has a 50% chance of getting some horrible disease, has almost no duty to act reasonably because the product has little utiltiy (other than making one feel good) whereas the person who uses an equally dangerous product with more utility has a much higher duty.

Wrong. In fact, almost completely backwards. A person who undertakes to use a product with little or no utility cannot claim that utility as an excuse for his behavior. Compare: "Why did you start smoking?" "Because I thought it looked cool." with "Why were you using that chainsaw?" "Because I had to cut that tree down." Just as lack of utility tells against the manufacturer -- you chose to create and market a product of no earthly use to anyone and that is also extremely harmful (unlike, say, chewing gum) -- it also tells against the consumer -- you chose to use a product you knew or should have known was harmful, and that you had no real reason to have to use. At this point, the argument devolves back to addiction ("I used it and continued to use it even though I knew it was dangerous because I couldn't help myself, because I was physically addicted to it"). That, in turn, devolves back into assumption of risk ("But you knew before your started smoking that smoking was dangerous and that there was a high likelihood you could become addicted, didn't you?") This is where the argument becomes difficult for the plaintiff to make, and rightly so. Anyway, assumption of risk and utility are not the same, but you are correct in saying that assuption of risk is by far the more important of the two.

All things being equal, individuals in both cases should be held to the same starndard, as should the manufacturers. THe difference should be how dangerous the product was and if this were known.

[Joe_Cool]

You make some strong points. I don't completely disagree with you, but I also won't take up your side.

Originally posted by Jodi
Based on what? The tobacco companies have a vested interest in misrepresenting the danger of their product and in making it seem cooler/less harmful/better for you than it is ... I see no such "agenda" on the part of the people who have conducted the zillions of studies showing that tobacco is (a) very bad for you and (b) addictive. Are some of the anti-smoking zealots just as rabid as the smoking zealots? Sure. But they lack the obvious nefarious agenda the tobacco companies possess.

I don't have any actual data in front of me, so I'm not really equipped to argue this point now. But I have yet to read a report from either side that sounds like it made an attempt to be truly objective. Studies tend to be written by people who either want to promote tobacco as safe, or who are rabid anti-smokers and want to cause the whole industry to "drop off into the sea". At least in my admittedly limited experience.

Sure, but nobody purposely inhales those things into their lungs on a regular basis. Why? Because they are not addictive. Do you think smokers would smoke if they weren't addicted? ... Sure, some people might try smoking (especially young people) for the "cool" factor, but I doubt they'd stick with it. They stick with it because it is addictive.

Yes, they do. All smokers smokes when they're not addicted. This is called "when they start smoking". Nobody is addicted after one cigarette, or even one pack. How do I know? When I was young I tried to start smoking because I thought it was cool, because my dad did it. I got caught trying to sneak them and got caught. I received the standard treatment ("you sit there until you've smoked the rest of that pack ... Still want to learn to smoke?" "<cough> <hack> NO!!") Am I addicted? Nope. Was I ever? Nope. People purposely force themselves to continue smoking for whatever reason they started in the first place. Addiction doesn't kick in until later on.

I believe it has been conclusively proven to be incorrect. Nicotine is physically addictive, and it seems obvious to me that a physical addiction will outweigh a psychological addition -- the former being something your body is convinced it needs, the latter being something your mind is convinced it wants.

Again, no hard data. My apologies. But the results of my informal survey of smokers whom I know personally say that the need to be doing something with your hands, the need to continue a habit of doing something, the need to get up and take a 5 minute smoke break every hour of the day, is by far the hardest part of kicking it.

Satan? Other Teeming Ex-smokers? What's your take on this? It's a little difficult having this debate between two nonsmokers. :)

I do not smoke, so I will leave it to a smoker to tell you how difficult it is to quit, and how it is so much more than a matter of willpower and being "ready." I know it is possible to overcome an addiction to nicotine -- people do it every day, including people on this Board who have taken that difficult and admirable step. But I doubt the would tell you that merely not wanting to do it anymore would normally be enough to overcome the addiction.

This I'll buy. Desire alone isn't enough. But desire to stop coupled with a decision and determination to stop will overcome addiction. How do I know? I see it on a regular basis. On the other hand, lack of true desire to quit almost always leads to failed attempts to quit. You can't do it if you don't really want to.

...Your argument seems to be that smoking should be tolerated because anyone who wants to can give it up at any time. I think the premise is faulty and I also think the argument is misplaced, since I have never said that smoking should be banned.

Slight correction. I think it should be tolerated because it's done by consenting adults (I agree kids should be disallowed by the law but most importantly, by their parents) who know what they're doing, and it's a victimless action. Your smoke may bother my eyes, but I really don't believe that it is harming me or anybody else. Maybe I'd feel differently if I had asthma, but asthmatics and people with hay fever can't sue "BIG POLLEN"...or can they? Hey, wait a minute, there's an idea--we could all make a fortune!!! Cut down all trees, burn all grass and flowers, because who the F are they to be putting out those particles that can KILL?

So you totally absolve the tobacco companies for making a product that addicts people and eventually kills them? I do not. I recognize that it is difficult to win a lawsuit if you started smoking after the labels were put on cigarettes and the dangers of smoking were widely known, and I think that's as it should be. It's called "assumption of risk" and such plaintiffs probably are (and, IMO, should be) SOL. That is not inconsistent with recognizing that tobacco is a product with no redeeeming characteristics whatsoever, that addicts its consumers and places a measurable economic burden on society at large -- and, as has been proven, that it is an industry run by liars and opportunists. Having found the market in the United States so heavily regulated, they have turned their marketing efforts to third-world nations, where they sell unfiltered cigarettes, made with specially-bred, high-nicotine (and therefore highly addictive) tobacco, and without warning labels. I have zero respect for them, and my general approval of a free-market economy does not prevent me from saying that I would not care in the least if the entire tobacco industry sank into the sea.


I do absolve tobacco companies of responsibility. There is no excuse for starting to smoke. You cannot claim victim status when everybody knows what they're getting into. THERE IS A WARNING LABEL ON EVERY PACK!!! And that measurable burden on our economy is very comfortably offset by the tax on each pack sold. Here in New Jersey, it's 80 cents each! Not counting federal tax. One other major (in my eyes) point: This IS a free market economy. There is a major demand for tobacco products. The so-called "war on drugs" (pronounced derisively and contemptuously) should have taught us all that as long as there is a demand, there will always, ALWAYS be a supply. If people want something and are willing to pay to get it, somebody will always find a way to deliver it to them.

That they will stoop to tactics including lying (even before Congress), intimidation, misdirection, and general duplicity has been well established, and their motive is obvious -- money, and lots of it.

You just described every corporation in the US. But in several other threads, you have people violently defending Micro$oft's (just a prime example) similar actions, which include blatant lying before congress (although I don't understand why lying to a bunch of liars should be considered such a heinous crime).

[Joe_Cool]

Yes, they do. All smokers smokes when they're not addicted.

This was not my attempt at bettering race relations through the use of Ebonics. This was a typo.

ugh. Note to self:
Re-type the line, don't just edit it. and PROOFREAD!!!

[vanilla]

Honestly, I do think that soda pop is truly addictive.
Why, I dont know, but it is.
I can't imagine pizza or potato chips without it!
I tried gatorade, but it doesn't quite cut it, flavorwise.

As far as fast food, I did used to wonder if they put something in it.
But I think that they just spend billions on advertising, build them on every corner, then tell the kids to go there.
When moms and dads are tired, I can see them saying, Okay lets stop here for food.
I used to do that myself; however, I find its easier and healthier to feed them before you go out and take along some water or gatorade for thirst.
Just my two cents.

[Satan]

Originally posted by Jodi

The tobacco companies have a vested interest in misrepresenting the danger of their product and in making it seem cooler/less harmful/better for you than it is.

This would be true of any product, I believe. Unless we're gonna finally get that Volvo ad campaign saying, "Sure, it's boxy, but it's reliable!"

That they will stoop to tactics including lying (even before Congress), intimidation, misdirection, and general duplicity has been well established, and their motive is obvious -- money, and lots of it.

Gee, a company that likes to make money. What a shocker there...

I stand by my statements: Regardless of how much misinformation and Joe Camel's the tobacco industry "got away with" to this point, the information that the product is dangerous has been out there for just as long.

And the tobacco companies have paid billions already for whatever misinformation that may have put out there, and this suit is not going to help anyone. All its going to do is bankrupt a perfectly legal business because people don't take responsibility for their actions. Period.

I see no such "agenda" on the part of the people who have conducted the zillions of studies showing that tobacco is (a) very bad for you and (b) addictive.

Oh, come on. Are you going ton tell me that those "Truth" advertisements on TV's are 100% accurate and not biased at all?

There are very few smokers who are naive enough to think that tobacco is perfectly harmless (though some do maintain the risks are exaggerated, a claim which SOME studies do back up to a degree), so please don't be naive enough to think that the other side - you know, that side powerful enough to turn tobacco from something acceptable in polite society to the pariah that it is now in a couple of decades? - doesn't have an agenda of its own.

Sure, but nobody purposely inhales those things into their lungs on a regular basis. Why? Because they are not addictive.

No, then inhale those things into their lungs in order to LIVE. I believe the poster was talking bout common pollutants in the air of any decent sized city. Think we should get some class-action law suits against the factories who helped cause this?

Do you think smokers would smoke if they weren't addicted? I think the vast majority would not.

Well, since nobody is born with a cigarette in their mouth, I would say that everyone smoked without being addicted.

It's a habit with few redeeming qualities...

Gee, glad you're not on the jury, what with being all impartial about the product in question.

My father was flunking out of school. He started smoking. He quickly became an honors student. This claim is not alone - Many people say it helps them concentrate and subsequently do better with mental tasks.

Now, does that make it a swell product? No. But it does give it a redeeming quality or two which is perectly legal, already stigmatized to death, already regulated and taxed up the ass, and dare I say yet again that we all know the risks here?

I believe that the psychological aspect of the addiction is far greater than the physical.

I don't believe this is correct; to the contrary, I believe it has been conclusively proven to be incorrect.

Well, as smoker who is quitting, allow me to ay that it is both.

Read the literature from Zyban, the drug I took to help quit. They suggest right on the information that you get with the pills that you will want to chew gum or some other activity for the psychological addiction.

The gum folks all tout how you doing something helps. I've heard of people stuffing cotton into straws to approximate the size and "drag" you get from a cigarette.

So, regardless of how addictive nicotine is by itself, the oral fixation and the habit a smoker has contribute mightily to the addiction.

In fact, studies showed that women were MORE addicted to the psychological aspects of cigarettes, and as such it was HARDER for them to quit, which says a lot, I think.

I doubt [quitting smokers] would tell you that merely not wanting to do it anymore would normally be enough to overcome the addiction.

No, but if you don't have that, all the drugs, gums, patches and electro-shock treatment ain't gonna get you to quit, which is what I believe hat posters point was.

So you totally absolve the tobacco companies for making a product that addicts people and eventually kills them? I do not.

Then just make it illegal (prohibition, anyone?), because I feel that the restrictions already in place on this industry and the costs it has already paid is plenty. They have already paid for their sins, anyone who smokes now knows the risks, the government is making billions on the taxes it levies against the product. It's time to stop the bullshit and realize that people have to take responsibility for their own actions. I did - quit.

That is not inconsistent with recognizing that tobacco is a product with no redeeeming characteristics whatsoever...

Think I just commented on that above, thanks.

Having found the market in the United States so heavily regulated, they have turned their marketing efforts to third-world nations, where they sell unfiltered cigarettes, made with specially-bred, high-nicotine (and therefore highly addictive) tobacco, and without warning labels.

Sounds like you might want to start a thread about hy other countries are not doing something about this/ I don't see how relevant this is to this discussion.

I have zero respect for them, and my general approval of a free-market economy does not prevent me from saying that I would not care in the least if the entire tobacco industry sank into the sea.

You know, there are quite a few business I do not respect. I simply do not give them my business. I guess you think anyone of anything you personally don't like should fall into the sea. I'm a bit more open to the ideas that people have CHOICES to choose things that I may not peronally. I'm nutty that way.

And this, I think, is why a lawsuit for a dying plaintiff who started smoking in the '30s when the ads proclaimed "Doctors Say Camels Will Cure That Cough!" is, and should be, more successful than a lawsuit for a dying plaintiff who read the warning label on his Camels everytime he opened a fresh pack.

Why didn't that person quit when it became clear that it was harmful?

Compare: "Why did you start smoking?" "Because I thought it looked cool." with "Why were you using that chainsaw?" "Because I had to cut that tree down."

As I mentioned earlier, there are many reasons to start smoking which have nothing to do with "looking cool." My dad was and still is for that matter quite unconcerned with such things. Also, I would submit that smoking looks anything but "cool" these days.

Oh, and do me a favor? I cut out and did not respond to sevral accusations that said things like "this product has no earthy good qualities," and I suggest you do the same.

As said before, the positives do not outweigh the negatives for most people (myself included), but to continuously repeat words to the effect that you have is disingenuous and misleading.

[Satan]

Originally posted by vanilla

[B]Honestly, I do think that soda pop is truly addictive.
Why, I dont know, but it is./B]

I believe it's called caffeine...

[vanilla]

Youre right, Satan.
But I would still want to drink caffeine free pop, simply for the taste.
Of course, sugar is addictive too, which is why most children want candy.
Myself, I've found if I have some fruit, which ahs natural sugar in it, I can get over my craving for that.
However, I DO crave chocolate sometimes. Does that have caffien?

[Jodi]

JOE COOL says:

You make some strong points. I don't completely disagree with you, but I also won't take up your side.

Thanks. And I don't really expect you to. :)

I don't have any actual data in front of me, so I'm not really equipped to argue this point now. . . .

So we'll leave it alone. I don't really expect you to race out and round up studies, but it doesn't appear the argument can really go anywhere from here.

Yes, they do. All smokers smokes when they're not addicted. This is called "when they start smoking". Nobody is addicted after one cigarette, or even one pack.

I'm sure you can differentiate between starting to smoke and continuing to smoke. People start to smoke because it looks cool, or their friends do it, or it pisses of their parents, or whatever. They continue to smoke, for years and years, because nicotine is addictive.

People purposely force themselves to continue smoking for whatever reason they started in the first place. Addiction doesn't kick in until later on.

"Later on" when? After one pack? One month? One year? The fact is that most people continue to smoke because they are addicted. Are you arguing that most people who smoke are not addicted to nicotine? Because, again, I don't think any of the data on the subject bears that out. I never said people do not have free will in choosing to start smoking; I know no one is putting a gun to anyone's head. But they continue to smoke with a compromised "free will," because of addiction. Can some people eventually quit? Sure. But it's very, very difficult to do. Meanwhile, the tobacco companies profit from those who can't.

Again, no hard data. My apologies.

No problem, but it leaves us having to agree to disagree, since there's no place to take the argument from here.

This I'll buy. Desire alone isn't enough. But desire to stop coupled with a decision and determination to stop will overcome addiction.

The fact is that a physical addiction can undermine someone's ability to make an informed "decision" and find the "determination" to see it through. Can it be done? Sure. I never said it was impossible; I just said it was really hard. It seems to me to be self-evident that "you can't do it if you don't really want to." But I also think, for many, it's very difficult to do it even when they really want to, because they are physically addicted.

Slight correction. I think it should be tolerated because it's done by consenting adults (I agree kids should be disallowed by the law but most importantly, by their parents) who know what they're doing, and it's a victimless action.

Only if you think that the cost to society in paying your hospital bills as you suffer and die from emphysema, and those of your kids who developed respiratory problems from your smoking, means there are no "victims." And we're not talking about a crime in any event.

Your smoke may bother my eyes, but I really don't believe that it is harming me or anybody else.

Again, we just have to differ here.

Maybe I'd feel differently if I had asthma, but asthmatics and people with hay fever can't sue "BIG POLLEN"...or can they? Hey, wait a minute, there's an idea--we could all make a fortune!!! Cut down all trees, burn all grass and flowers, because who the F are they to be putting out those particles that can KILL?

This is such an obvious red herring as to hardly merit response. Pollen is not a "product," manufactured and sold by people for consumption by other people. The framework of the law is obviously created by people and applies only to people. That's why you can't sue the bear that knawed your leg off.

I do absolve tobacco companies of responsibility. There is no excuse for starting to smoke.

Again, we'll just have to differ here. A company that purposely manufactures a product that is of zero use and highly harmful, and then markets the product to make it as attractive as possible to potential consumers, is not, in my mind, without culpability when people do the exact thing it has spent billions encouraging them to do -- i.e., start to smoke.

One other major (in my eyes) point: This IS a free market economy. There is a major demand for tobacco products. The so-called "war on drugs" (pronounced derisively and contemptuously) should have taught us all that as long as there is a demand, there will always, ALWAYS be a supply. If people want something and are willing to pay to get it, somebody will always find a way to deliver it to them.

So what? What does this have to do with the question of whether tobacco companies are either morally or legally (or both) responsible for the damage their products cause?

You just described every corporation in the US. But in several other threads, you have people violently defending Micro$oft's (just a prime example) similar actions, which include blatant lying before congress (although I don't understand why lying to a bunch of liars should be considered such a heinous crime).

First, I have obviously not described "every corporation in the U.S." As a person who is personally sensitive to indefensible over-generalizations regarding my own profession ("every lawyer is a liar"), I have little time for gross over-generalizations in other categories, either. Second, Mircosoft -- whom I do not defend -- does not market a useless product that kills its users. Third, I do not believe that anyone else's bad actions (i.e., Congress lying) in anyway justifies my bad action (lying to Congress). Lying doesn't become more acceptable by virtue of being wide-spread.

SATAN -- First of all, I could hardly get through your post for all the snide "thanks" and "gees" and "do me a favor"s. I have no axe to grind with you, and if you want to discuss this subject, fine. But, for reasons I won't go into as they are not relevant, today I am neither prepared to put up with a lot of petulant bullshit nor to engage in a flame war. So if I catch another whiff of you promoting some personal problem you have with me at the expense of your ability to be civil, we're done.

This would be true of any product, I believe. Unless we're gonna finally get that Volvo ad campaign saying, "Sure, it's boxy, but it's reliable!"

Did I say it wasn't true for any other product? You can't just attack my counter-point without taking into account the original point -- which, in this case, was the "agendas" of the sides of this conflict to promote their position. Is making money an agenda shared by every manufacturer-for-money? Sure. But just as it is not limited to tobacco companies, neither does it exclude tobacco companies -- nor did I say that it did.

Gee, a company that likes to make money. What a shocker there...

Did I say it was a shocker? I said they were a bunch of liars that promote making money over everything else -- and I mean everything else.

Regardless of how much misinformation and Joe Camel's the tobacco industry "got away with" to this point, the information that the product is dangerous has been out there for just as long.

Actually, I think it demonstrably has not. As late as the 1950s, tobacco was being promoted and marketed as not just not bad for you, but as actively good for you.

And the tobacco companies have paid billions already for whatever misinformation that may have put out there, and this suit is not going to help anyone.

Oh, I don't know. But then, I never argued that the suit would help anyone. What I argued -- and all I argued -- is that the comparision between cigarettes and hamburgers is not a good one, for reasons I've already set forth.

All its going to do is bankrupt a perfectly legal business because people don't take responsibility for their actions. Period.

The fact that a business is "perfectly legal" does not, in my mind, make it morally justifiable, so I am "perfectly" within my rights to throw a party if and when the last tobacco company goes bankrupt. (Which, actually, I probably wouldn't bother to do, since this isn't in reality a subject I care all that much about. But neither would I be weeping into my hankie.)

Oh, come on. Are you going ton tell me that those "Truth" advertisements on TV's are 100% accurate and not biased at all?

"Accurate" and "not biased" are not the same. They are obviously biased. I think they are also accurate. And they're obnoxious, but that's not really relevant.

There are very few smokers who are naive enough to think that tobacco is perfectly harmless (though some do maintain the risks are exaggerated, a claim which SOME studies do back up to a degree), so please don't be naive enough to think that the other side - you know, that side powerful enough to turn tobacco from something acceptable in polite society to the pariah that it is now in a couple of decades? - doesn't have an agenda of its own.

First, I never said that any smoker believed smoking was "perfectly harmless". Second, I never said the anti-smoking junta did not have an agenda. They obviously do. But their agenda is based on wanting to improve the public health, not on wanting to preserve their ability to make bushels of money.

No, then inhale those things into their lungs in order to LIVE. I believe the poster was talking bout common pollutants in the air of any decent sized city. Think we should get some class-action law suits against the factories who helped cause this?

You may "believe" that was what he was talking about, but I do not, and he did not correct my interpretation of his post. But, since you asked, if, hypothetically, a factory intentionally and without justification (i.e., no utility) poisoned the air of a town nearby, I think I nice little class-action suit might well be in order.

Well, since nobody is born with a cigarette in their mouth, I would say that everyone smoked without being addicted.

Well, I've already covered "beginning" to smoke versus "continuing" to smoke, so I won't go over it again.

Gee, glad you're not on the jury, what with being all impartial about the product in question.

What are you talking about? Since when am I required to be "impartial" in a Great Debate? The very idea of a "debate" is choosing a side and defending it, which pretty much closes out impartiality right there.

My father was flunking out of school. He started smoking. He quickly became an honors student. This claim is not alone - Many people say it helps them concentrate and subsequently do better with mental tasks.

I have not seen a single study indicating that smoking improves concentration. If you can furnish one, I will retract my comment that smoking is without redeeming societal quality. I'm confident, however, that if this could be proven it would be touted by the tobacco companies are another reason to smoke.

Read the literature from Zyban, the drug I took to help quit. They suggest right on the information that you get with the pills that you will want to chew gum or some other activity for the psychological addiction.

Again, I never said the addiction was only physical. You have to read both the point and the counter-point. Joe said the addiction was more psychological than physical. I continue to doubt that. I also find it ironic that you would wade in on how smoking is simply a matter of "free will" when you yourself were unable to quit without chemical assistance.

No, but if you don't have that, all the drugs, gums, patches and electro-shock treatment ain't gonna get you to quit, which is what I believe hat posters point was.

I didn't disagree with this; I don't disagree with this. What Joe has said is that determination alone should be enough for people to quit. For most people, I don't think it is. It wasn't for you.

Then just make it illegal (prohibition, anyone?), because I feel that the restrictions already in place on this industry and the costs it has already paid is plenty.

Actually, it wouldn't break my heart if cigarettes were illegal. I mean, I wouldn't lobby for it -- it's not an issue I feel that strongly about -- but I certainly wouldn't mind.

They have already paid for their sins, anyone who smokes now knows the risks, the government is making billions on the taxes it levies against the product. It's time to stop the bullshit and realize that people have to take responsibility for their own actions. I did - quit.

The difference, of course, is that I don't think the idea of personal responsibility (which I'm all in favor of) is the same as absolving the tobacco companies of their share of responsibility. There's blame enough to go around, but only one side can credit its continued bad action to physical addiction.

You know, there are quite a few business I do not respect. I simply do not give them my business. I guess you think anyone of anything you personally don't like should fall into the sea.

Did I say that? It's difficult enough to respond to counter-points to points I actually made; I'm done attempting to respond to, let alone defend, arguments I never made in the first place.

Why didn't that person quit when it became clear that it was harmful?

Because he was addicted. Why didn't you quit the minute you first new it was harmful. Be honest: was it the on-going glamour of smoking, the stench and expense? Or was it that you physically craved cigarettes for the way they made you feel?

Oh, and do me a favor? I cut out and did not respond to sevral accusations that said things like "this product has no earthy good qualities," and I suggest you do the same.

Well, I'm afraid that without more of reason than that you object to it, that's a favor I'm not prepared to grant. If you truly wish to defend the myriad good qualities of smoking, list them out and we'll get started.

As said before, the positives do not outweigh the negatives for most people (myself included), but to continuously repeat words to the effect that you have is disingenuous and misleading.

Here I have no idea what you're talking about. If it relates back to the myriad good qualities of smoking, I reiterate that there are none. Since that is my firmly-held opinion, stating it (and restating it) is neither disingenuous or misleading.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally posted by vanilla
However, I DO crave chocolate sometimes. Does that have caffiene?

yes it does. Large amounts, if I remember correctly.

[tracer]

Joe_Cool wrote:

Originally posted by vanilla
However, I DO crave chocolate sometimes. Does that have caffiene?

yes it does. Large amounts, if I remember correctly.

It also contains a compound called phenylethylamine, which is thought to be associated with the feeling of being "in love."

This one sex-change hermaphrodite I knew once said chocolate made her feel like she was drunk. She said it did not have this effect on her before she started taking female hormones (which she did in preparation for her sex-change).

[Mr.Zambezi]

Jodi, regarding you comments that greed was a strong motivation for tobacco companies to lie, Why the unilateral blame? Are not the plaintiff's in these suite equally prone to greed and tainting the truth?

you said:It is if we are talking about an addictive product, because then we are no longer talking about smoking as a "voluntary" action. An addicted person "acts reasonably" when he feeds his addiction, whatever it might be. The utility aspect of it only weighs in to the extent you can say "this is a product that does Very Bad Things to its users AND it has no redeeming qualities whatsoever."As an ex smoker of 12 years, I can say that you are being naive on teh utility issue. It is very pleasurable to soak in the nicotine. I had my first cigarette in 3 years last night and it was WONDERFUL. Saying cigarette have no redeeming qualities is like saying Sex isn't worth doing. Pleasure is a utility. If it ewre not, no one would drink, do drugs or smoke. People do it because they get something out of it.

I have never heard the utility argument made at trial nor in any of the thousands of product claims I have handled. I can not possibly see how this would play into a trial except as a way to pull on jurors emotional strings.

Def: did you know that this product could hurt you
pltf: yes
def: why did you do it?
pltf: because it made me feel good. It made me happy and relaxed.
def: but you knew you could get a bad disease?
pltf: yes

Defense verdict if the product was very useful? Plaintiff verdict if it wasn't? Sorry Jodi, I think you are way off on this. I will poll some defense counsel on Monday.

BTW, you wouldn't happen to be of the plaintiff bar, would you? I ask becuase plaintiff atty's generally believe in things like 3rd party bad faith and non-exclusive remedy of work comp. If so, I know to drop the whole issue with you.

[oldscratch]

Interesting story I jsut read. Did anyone else see this? Seems to be related to the overall debate, if not explicitly having a fast food angle.

THREE OF the world's largest corporations were accused last week of deliberately introducing lead into petrol in the 1920s knowing it would poison millions of people. The three were also accused of suppressing scientific evidence of the harmful effects of the lead additive in order to protect their profits. The claims comes in an investigation by Car magazine into the conduct of General Motors, DuPont and Standard Oil (now renamed Exxon Mobil).
It compares the behaviour of the three to that of the tobacco companies in covering up evidence on the effects of nicotine and cigarettes. Lead has been phased out of petrol in the US and Europe but is still being used across much of the world. In Mexico City four million cars pump 32 tonnes of lead into the atmosphere each day.
Lead poisoning leads to blindness, brain damage, kidney disease, cancer and death. Its effects on the mental development of children are severe. Research 75 years ago showed the dangers of leaded petrol, and the warnings were known to executives of the three companies. But they were making billions from selling the lead additive formula they had patented worldwide, and so denied and suppressed the research.
Documents unearthed by the Car magazine show that the three colluded with the US government to avoid health fears killing off their lead additive product. Safe alternatives were known. Alcohol, for example, has the same effect in reducing "knocking" in engines. But alcohol cannot be patented, unlike the lead formula additive.

[activgurl]

Another 2-cents worth. Something I've not noticed in this listing is the overweight people who are on "disability" Yes, cigarettes aren't necessary, and they give you health problems. What about the simple fact that folks sit & stuff their faces until they weigh 400 pounds or more? Arguably, some of these may have metabolism problems, but I'm betting that most of them didn't incur problems until they were well overweight. Now, the fast food industry is creating all of these "disabled" people; people who can't work, can't move under their own power, and are getting supplemental checks because of this "disability". My aunt just took a medical retirement because she's "disabled". She's 400 pounds, yes, and she gets tired easily, and her back hurts. BUT! When do we take responsibility for ourselves, and when do we blame the products that we consume?

[Jodi]

MR. Z says:

Jodi, regarding you comments that greed was a strong motivation for tobacco companies to lie, Why the unilateral blame? Are not the plaintiff's in these suite equally prone to greed and tainting the truth?

I never said that only the tobacco companies lie, though I do not generally make the assumption that an injured plaintiff is a liar looking to capitalize on his or her misfortune. But we are not talking about lying in the context of a lawsuit, anyway; we are talking about lying to the governmennt (Congress and the FDA, among others); the media; and the American people through the government and the media. Moreover, we are not talking about hypothetically lying; we are talking about on-the-record, supported-by-interoffice-memoranda, perjuring-yourself lying.


As an ex smoker of 12 years, I can say that you are being naive on teh utility issue. It is very pleasurable to soak in the nicotine. I had my first cigarette in 3 years last night and it was WONDERFUL. Saying cigarette have no redeeming qualities is like saying Sex isn't worth doing. Pleasure is a utility. If it ewre not, no one would drink, do drugs or smoke. People do it because they get something out of it.

Yes, smoking is pleasurable. But that's it. As far as rating its utility is concerned, it's extremely low -- about on par, I would say, with watching mindless television. (And this is leaving aside the question of offsetting utility with danger for an overall evaluation of "worth;" it's far more dangerous to smoke than to watch TV.) It seems to me at this point you are saying that smoking has some miniscule utility and taking issue with me saying it has none. That's not a point it seems to me to be worth arguing about. If you want to consider pleasure a utility, fine; the overall utility of the product remains very, very low.

I have never heard the utility argument made at trial nor in any of the thousands of product claims I have handled. I can not possibly see how this would play into a trial except as a way to pull on jurors emotional strings.

Well, I don't know what to tell you. If a plaintiff can prove that a manufacturer made a product that was dangerous when used exactly as intended, the plaintiff may also foreclose any affirmative defense regarding usefulness of the product by showing that it has none. The issue doesn't come up much in trial because very few products have little or no utility. It also may be alluded to in arguments without being set forth as I have set it out. It certainly is not a stand-alone argument; rather, it is the corrollary to the product' danger: "This product is very dangerous and it serves no good purpose at all."

Defense verdict if the product was very useful? Plaintiff verdict if it wasn't? Sorry Jodi, I think you are way off on this. I will poll some defense counsel on Monday.

You have totally misunderstood the argument, and I don't know how to explain it any better than I already have. I have never said that the question of utility is the only question raised at trial, much less said that it was the dispositive question at trial. It is merely a factor to take into consideration when determining whether the product's production as is (that is, as a product that is dangerous even when used exactly as designed) may be justified. Feel free to ask defense counsel, or better yet, send them this discussion. With all respect, I'm not sure you would explain the point very well paraphrasing it, because I think you might be missing it yourself.

BTW, you wouldn't happen to be of the plaintiff bar, would you? I ask becuase plaintiff atty's generally believe in things like 3rd party bad faith and non-exclusive remedy of work comp. If so, I know to drop the whole issue with you.

Plaintiff's bar? Bite your tongue. :) I am a trial attorney working in tort defense.

[Mr.Zambezi]

With all respect, I'm not sure you would explain the point very well paraphrasing it, because I think you might be missing it yourself

no, I understand what you are saying. That it is an issue but not THE issue. I simply disagree that as a legal principal, it is valid.

But I am not so naive as to believe that it would not matter to a jury if spun correctly by crafty plaintiff counselors. Nor do I believe that it would be impossible for the same counsel to sway a jury to punish those who put other injurious elements into their products.

If you recall, my point was that fat, sodium and cholesterol in fast food make that product unsafe. If utility is a small element of liability, then it will be equally insignificant in forthcoming suits against the food industry.

it is funny that those things with the least utility -- drugs, movies, booze, cigarettes-- are the ones that people spend the most on. Personally, I would protest more over teh removal of these things than the disappearance of fatty food.

[tracer]

oldscratch wrote that an article said:

Safe alternatives [to leaded gasoline] were known. Alcohol, for example, has the same effect in reducing "knocking" in engines. But alcohol cannot be patented, unlike the lead formula additive.

<nitpick>

Alcohol also has the disadvantage of rotting fuel-line joints that were not built to have alcohol running through them. In the old days before catalytic converters, gasoline with tetraethyl lead added to it could run in just about every existing gasoline engine without harming it.

</nitpick>