Lying Golddiggers, et al v. Big Tobacco: Part II

The BBQ Pit
1

A U.S. judge gave class-action status on Monday to a lawsuit filed by “light” cigarette smokers who accuse tobacco companies of defrauding smokers into thinking “light” cigarettes were safer than regular smokes, reaping as much as $200 billion (105 billion pounds) in extra sales.

It has long been my contention that the original lawsuits regarding smoking were bullshit because anybody with one working eye, reasonable literacy, and half a brain would have seen the warnings on the packs that have been there since 1964, the banning of smoking-related ads on TV and radio since 1971, and would have realized that coughing is never a healthy thing, therefore they were responsible for their own actions. In response I have been shouted down by others who state that Big Tobacco was deceptive and deserved a beatdown. I will forever disagree with that.

This time it is coming to pass, just as I claimed it did the first time. On NPR this afternoon they had story on this in which a Philip Morris spokesperson quite reasonably stated that Marlboro Lights did not even come onto the market until 1972 and every single pack ever manufactured for sale in the US had the warning label on it. Therefore, it is quite impossible to claim that you had no idea that they could be harmful to your health, because it has always stated that is was quite clearly on the box. This, of course, is totally antithetical to the idea that cigarette companies were trying to get over on the poor, dumb, naive smokers.

But hey, this gives me a great idea! I’m going to sue every single light beer manufacturer in the country, because as “light” beer how was I supposed to know that it would make me fat? Further, since alcohol is reduced, how was I supposed to know that I would get a DUI after drinking 30 of them in an evening?

Of course, my (hypothetical, I hasten to add) example deserves a rolleyes. But then again, so does this smoking lawsuit. Just like the first one did. I suppose it would be asking too much, but can’t people take some personal responsibility for their decisions every once in a while instead of filing an obviously bullshit fucking lawsuit? Just once I’d like to see the judicial system do the right thing when one of these lawsuits are filed and tell the golddiggers to go to hell.

2

It’s a good rant. But if it’s in people’s own self interest, just see how long it takes them to claim that they’re complete fucking morons incapable of reaging the surgeon general’s warning.

3

I feel your pain. There is another famous case where anyone disagreeing with the verdict is automatically wrong, and I’m that person. Like you, I feel I can articulate my reason for disagreement, and I don’t think people listen.

I seem to recall that one of the hallmarks of the case against BT was that BT manipulated the addictive qualities of cigarettes to make them even more physically addictive. I could be wrong, and if I am, let me know and I’ll reconsider. Given that BT knew the danger of their product (and even though the product was and still is legal) I think that one presumed fact (raising addictive factor) is grounds for the case against tobacco to stand.

That said, I agree that this is nothing more than a another legal hold-up of the tobacco industry, running an end-around by the Legislature. If cigarettes are as dangerous as these lawsuits complain, rather than extorting money from BT (or at least in addition), get tobacco outlawed. Class is the same as marijuana. Or hold the legislatures just as responsible as BT for placing tax revenue and politics ahead of lives.

4

I never learned how to reag!

5

This won’t hurt the tobacco companies anyway; they’ll just collude to increase prices to pay for the inevitable settlement. The last time they paid big, their stock went up.

The purpose of these suits is to raise money for rich people, mostly lawyers, at the expense of the middle class and the poor.

6

If somebody puts up a Cyanide Kool Aid stand in the neighborhood, I don’t care how many signs they put up, or how big they are, saying “Don’t Consume Our Product, It’ll Fucking Kill You!” I will run them off with a shotgun and burn that sucker down!

No one has a right to make money by causing harm to his fellow citizens. They knew what they were doing, and they did it anyway, it is capitalist cynicism at its most blatant. People like that make me wish, however fleetingly, that I believed in Hell. To see them being mauled by a ravenous pack of greedly lawyers renews my faith in the exquisite justice of karma.

7

“So, whaddaya got?”
“Got a first rate Turkish sensemilla, $100 bucks an ounce, $35 a quarter…”
“Seen any Virginian Gold?”
“Nah, not in months. Know a guy has an unopened carton of Marlboro, give ya for about $800…”
“Regular Marlboros?”
“Nah, Marlboro Ultra Lights. Expecting a shipment of Horse Shit Cigarettes from Tijuana next week…”

8

Why are you stopping at cigarettes, which are legal, BTW. Folks engage in all sorts fo self-destructive bahviour…alcohol…fast food…stressful jobs…putting ketchup on their hot dogs…being a Bears fan, which ones should we outlaw?

9

Who needs illegal? What’s wrong with withering scorn and derision? Howzabout if saying “I work for P. Lorrilard” got you the same reaction as saying “I sell crack over at the high school”?

10

Scorn and derision are excellent weapons to use. But surely it is clear to you that the weapons being used in the instance cited by the OP are not scron and derision, but tort law. The question is not whether tobacco manufacturers deserve scorn and derision; I’ll not argue that case with you today. But they do not deserve the legal system being used against them in this unjustified manner.

11

Injustice is a misfortune that befalls the poor and powerless with inevitable regularity. Perhaps if I were a more principled person, at least in the abstract, I might be moved to give a rat’s when it befalls the wealthy and powerful. Perhaps I should shed a tear to see fat corporados set upon and rended by legal velociraptors, but frankly, I haven’t laughed so hard since they shot Ol’ Yeller.

12

What is your preferred outcome then? A total ban on tobacco would be the only reasonable response to your ideas.

13

I’m with you on this. I used to have fun arguments with a friend in high school, and I remember quoting him from Sinclair Lewis’ Babbitt, which I was reading for English class at the time, a passage that talked about how Babbitt smoked like a chimney even though he knew it was bad for him. This book was published in 1922.

The idea that people didn’t know smoking was bad for their health is preposterous. Of course, there is the question of how bad did they think it was.

And, how bad could it be, really? People love to be in denial about things they love. This is their own faults.

However, there is a part of me that really hates false and deceptive advertising of all stripes, and gets some joy at seeing advertisers have to pay for those practices.

14

*You shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: you shall not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor. *

But what did those idiot nomadic Jews know?

15

It’s obvious what your issue is: light beer is supposed to make you fat. Beer (liquid bread) is and always has been a nourishment with intoxicating properties as a side effect. By contrast, cigarettes weren’t invented to kill the consumer. They were developed as a convenient way to keep the supersaturated overcaffeinated working man working through the drudgery of his life.

Light cigs, on the other hand were invented to make smoking palatible to idiots like me who had to meet 10 deadlines in 24 hours.

Virgin Lungs: Try a Marlboro Red or a Camel Filter. When you’re done being unconscious and/or coughing up a lung cookie, try a light.

This case is totally justified. Watch for me on CSPAN: I’ll be trading my shoebox of Camel Cash for big burlap sacks with $ signs on them.

16

Bupkiss!

17

Are you kidding me? There is not a business on the planet that does not do harm to you in some way, either via pollution, direct poisoning through dumping or emitting toxins, or simply diverting scarce resources from where you think they are most needed into making tchotchkes for the tourists out in East Jabib. The question is not whether they do harm, it’s whether people derive some sort of benefit from the product. People clearly derive pleasure from smoking, and that outweighs the health risks in their minds.

That is, until they get sick and see the dollar bill signs flashing before their eyes, which requires only that they blame someone else for the problems that are of their own making.

18

I, too, have a hard time understanding how people can think that cigarettes aren’t dangerous. My second-grade teacher lectured us on the subject, and this was back in 1982-3. My dad was still a smoker at the time. I can remember holding my breath whenever he lit up a cigarette so the second-hand smoke wouldn’t destroy my lungs (Dad ended up quitting within a year).

Yes, I think it’s despicable that the tobacco companies market an addictive product that ultimately kills people. At the same time, I wonder how so many people can claim they were oblivous to the danger.

Incidentally, these suits aren’t limited to tort claims. Some plaintiff classes have filed civil RICO suits against the tobacco companies. I suspect this is becoming more common because prevailing plaintiffs in RICO actions can recover three times their actual damages. IIRC, the smokers are suing to recover the money they spent on tobacco products (civil RICO plaintiffs can’t recover for personal injuries).

19

You’re Pitting the fact that a case has been granted class action status, rather than having to go forward as a whole bunch of individual lawsuits??

Whatever.

It should have occurred to you decades ago that many of the early suits against Big Tobacco might have been filed by people who got addicted before the warnings appeared on the cigarette packs. (In 1966, btw, and until 1970 they read “Caution: Cigarette Smoking May Be Hazardous to Your Health.” Note the use of the conditional.) Don’t you think the tobacco companies should take personal responsibility for getting people hooked on an addictive drug, one that slowly kills you, without warning them? (Any of those warnings mention addictiveness? Apparently not. Then I don’t know what the legal standards are, but to this layman, they were insufficient, and the tobacco companies should take responsibility for their telling the American people that their product, though harmful, was not addictive.

You are old enough to remember this day in 1994 when the Big Tobacco execs all got up in front of a House committee, raised their right hands and swore to tell the truth, and they all told the committee that as far as they knew, their product wasn’t addictive. Think they should take personal responsibility for that? Because apparently their companies had known otherwise for eons, and went out of their way to hide that fact.

It’s really pretty simple, isn’t it? You make a product, claim for years that it’s actually healthy, then OK, there’s a warning on the pack that if you keep on smoking, bad shit could happen, but no reason to think that a few cigs will hurt you; you can always stop. Oh, but we forgot to tell you, it’s addictive. It’s not exactly gonna be easy for you to quit.

And, in addition, we know that the tobacco companies (remember Joe Camel?) weren’t exactly shy about marketing to minors. The whole point of legal minority is that, at that point in your life, you’re less than fully responsible for your own decisions. That’s why if you’re a minor, and adults have sex with you, or get you to drink alcohol, their asses could wind up in jail. I don’t know about the legalities, but if you’re an adult individual and you get a minor hooked on drugs, you’re morally responsible. I’d say the same is true of a big-ass company which is making billions of dollars that way.

So just because someone’s filed a lawsuit that will probably go nowhere, and it’s been recognized as a class action which will probably go nowhere, I’m not gonna get worked up. The system allows people to file much more frivolous suits than this one.

And in general, I’m tired of the ridiculous notion that “personal responsibility” is something that applies to ordinary human beings, but not to multibillion-dollar corporations that make money and pay dividends as a result of their evasion of responsibility.

20

That’s actually a good point.

That actually is not a good point. Personal responsibilty means you take responsibilty for the actions you control, one of which is whether or not you smoke. Cigarettes are legal and no one forces you to use them.