What artificially inserted chemicals in meat cause it to be addictive? What naturally occurring chemicals in meat cause it to be addictive? What evidence do you have to show that meat is addictive, other than the notion that some people enjoy the flavor of it?
Meat is dangerous? No it isn’t. It contains proteins and nutrients that the human body (omnivorous by nature) needs to survive. Vegetarians and vegans get by on a very specialized diet, but ultimately taking in the same vitamins/minerals that beef and poultry contain.
That’s hardly an argument against the meat industry. ANYTHING, if “overused”, can be dangerous. Water can kill you if you drink enough of it (gallons and gallons). Heck, too much oxygen can kill you.
Now, to address Prism’s post… (with as little name-calling as possible :D)
And other such statements…
Now, let me begin by heaving a big ol’ sigh.
::big ol’ sigh::
Prism, my post had nothing to do with establishing precedents, or the amount of award that’s being sought, or whether or not a jury should be trusted, or what-not. I said that your many, many examples, which seemed as an attempt to show that cigarettes aren’t as bad as some other products, weren’t very adequate in comparing cigarettes to other products. Any relation between cigarettes and the products you mentioned are vague, at best.
However, it’s obvious that you’re very passionate on this issue, and for that, I forgive you.
I have heard from many posters who don’t like the size of the jury award, your logic is flawed. The jury did not award a single plaintiff $145 billion, they awarded each of around 700,000 plaintiffs (or their surviving families) around $200,000 a piece in punitive damages. If you want to argue the size of the jury award then use the $200,000 figure NOT the $145 billion. Using the $145 billion figure and claiming that it’s excessive is ignoring simple math. For example, if I release a computer virus that causes exactly 700,000 companies world wide to transfer exactly $207,143 from their bank accounts into mine, then by your reasoning for a jury to award those 700,000 companies a total of $145 billion (=700,000 x 207,143) in damages would be excessive and set a bad precedent and make a bunch of lawyers rich and only a jury of morons would do this and the award should be thrown out by the judge and so on. Don’t you see how completely full of crap you are?
If tobacco companies are going to sell a product which injures all of its customers and kills 1/3 of them, then they are going to have to compensate all of their customers (living and dead). Furthermore, if there are millions of customers suffering many thousands of dollars in damages each then the award is going to be in the billions. If some other industry decides to injure millions of people by selling a product that HAS NO BENEFICIAL USES then they too should pay damages in the billions. That way if you cause billions in damages, you pay billions in damages. What part of this is unclear?
Some posters have accused other industries, like the meat industry, of killing people like the tobacco industry does and getting away with it. This is not true. Read the nutrition info on a package of processed meat. The manufacturer recommends a serving size and that serving size is always small enough to insure that you don’t get too much fat or cholesterol from one serving. That is, if you are getting fat from eating meat then you are eating too much meat, plain and simple. You need protein to survive, meat is a great source for protein, I fully recommend that you get your RDA of protein from eating meat. Their is no RDA for anything in tobacco. It is useless in small quantities and deadly in large quantities (given enough time).
As I’ve said in the pit, it doesn’t matter that the tobacco companies lied. Nobody really believed them. C’mon, put near everybody and his brother has publicly stated that smoking is harmful. There are warnings on the packs and on the ads for the packs. Reems of articles from the Surgeon General on down, Public Service Announcment’s ad naseum, dirty looks from the citizenry, and many a lecture from those who care about you.
After all that, if you keep smoking, it’s called ASSUMPTION OF RISK. They didn’t do it to you, you did it to yourself. All I want to see is someone take responsibility for their own actions. These people aren’t victims, they’re morons.
(and yes, I used to smoke. yes, it was hard to quit. but those who want to quit, do.)
If anyone thinks this wil bankrupt the entire tobacco industry they could not be more wrong. After all, it is still quite legal to smoke.
As long as there is a demand for the product there will be someone to sell it.
Personally I have no problem with making the tobacco comapanies pay for lying and such, but I have a very big problem with all the poor suffering smokers who are making a windfall from this. And don’t give me a sob story about how they will die of lung cancer, throat cancer, whatever. yes that is very sad. They made the decision and later when they could decide to quit, although it would take effort and work, they declined. Now they get $200,000 for their stupidity and lack of will power?
Cigarette comanies made profits not from murder, but from suicide.
Possibly, but the main theme was to indicate that other product makers out there are not all that interested in the average safety of the purchaser and that, historically, many have not been – including service oriented providers. Even today, though we have laws protecting us, manufacturers have been known to release flawed and potentially dangerous products because they did not want to loose money
(Someone some time back wrote about the 1986 Isuzu Pup, full sized version with the larger engine. It had two flaws. One was that if you put a cap on the back, it would suck exhaust into the cab – which was unairconditioned. The other, more serious one, was the defective firewall. In the trucks with standard clutch, the metal was nearly paper thin where the clutch cable went through. With use, the metal cracked and the clutch cable popped loose. If this happened at a crucial moment in traffic, an accident could happen because one could no longer shift.
Isuzu never made a recall.
American Isuzu dealers never mentioned the flaw nor called in buyers of the truck to get the flaw fixed, though they had a company manufactured repair plate to apply over the crack.)
The 1989 MAZADA pick up truck, short bed, standard shift, air conditioned, had a slight flaw that was never mentioned. It hopped. Hit the brakes in a hurry and the nose of the truck went down, front wheels dug in, back wheels would brake, then lift up and 'hop' slightly. The effect was lessened by loading the bed with cargo for added weight. This hop could actually move the truck forward anywhere from several inches to a foot.
These were just examples of flawed products or services which indicated that the tobacco companies are not alone in violating public safety. I agree that, to my current knowledge, none violated the safety as much as they have. (I have my doubts concerning the automobile because of the Corsair, which was released with the knowledge that it was dangerous and the advertisement campaign of the time had it plowing through swaps and deserts like a jeep, which it could not do. That car sparked Ralph Nader to write ‘Unsafe At Any Speed’ and start the consumer advocacy movement.)
Plus, I believe a small Suzuki ‘jeep’ or something which resembled a jeep, one of the first of the SUV’s, had the center of gravity so high that it toppled easily. Far too easily. They looked good, but after a few rolled, they did not sell all that well. They were actually only 2 wheel drive.
As to the amount of the award verses the amount of the claimants, it is still too high, but that is my opinion, and again I base it on the precedence it will set. Americans love to sue anyone and anything. Increase the potential for a huge reward and you increase the tendency of people to sue.
There have been, to my understanding, many ‘hot coffee’ suits since the Mac Donald’s incident. I know of none before it. (I could be wrong.) I don’t know of any which have been won by the plaintives - but the precedence was set by the first one.
Which, in my opinion, means that products and services we use could potentially face court battles because people sense huge money profits, which in turn will increase the cost of such things to us.
Example: Almost every year, in the North, some old person on a fixed income looses their power or heating oil because they cannot pay. They freeze to death. There are no laws guaranteeing you power or heating oil. The surviving family of said person could state that by stopping the power and/or heating oil of the person, the provider deliberately endangered their life under obviously hostile conditions. They did not check with the person later to determine if the cessation of their services endangered their life. Therefore, they are responsible for negligent homicide. (As the direct result of the actions of the provider, a human being died.)
How much is the life of a sweet and saintly old man or woman worth, who died, shivering, helpless, alone, in a dark or candle lit, cheap apartment, with cans of dog and cat food about that they had been eating because of their low income? The jury will award major bucks.
Then scores of others will file lawsuits against the power and/or oil company for anything even close to that original incident, smelling big bucks. (You cut the power off on my saintly father [actually a belligerent drunk] and he nearly froze to death. He took his food money to get it back on. You endangered his life! We want 10 million!)
Even if the claimants do not win, the cost of the suits will be high, which means everyone else using that power or heating oil service will get to pay the additional costs.
See what I mean?
It’s not the tobacco companies, nor the car dealers, nor the claimants, but the precedence which needs to be feared. This landmark lawsuit has the potential to hurt a whole lot more people than the smokers.
Gun owners - beware.
Drinkers - better stock up.
(Current precedent being set: A set of lawyers are attempting to get Gorillas sentient status, i.e., people rights, to prevent their being shot, killed and treated like animals. [Like that’s going to stop the poachers in Nirobi.])
When I was a young adult, there were no warnings labels on cig packs. But even at the time, it seemed quite likely to me that smoking was not a good idea. Peer pressure notwithstanding, I decided not to start. Since then, many of my friends who did have payed with their lives. I watched these people, many of whom I’d known for more than 40 years, lose painful battles with lung cancer, but I don’t know of any of them who blamed anyone but themselves.
Do we really have to be told everything now? Can we not take responsibility for our own actions, absent some outside authority to hold our hands and tell us what is and is not OK? Can we not think on our own, and see through deceptive advertising and misleading claims? Can we not recognize that some things are a bad idea, even if nobody told us so?
That’s not to say that tobacco companies are saints who never lied about their product. But their behavior does not abrogate personal responsibility.
A lot of retired people sit on these long trials. But you’re probably right, they are not “contributing to society”, maybe we should round them all up & put them to sleep. :rolleyes:
On my Grand Jury we had: an attorney (specialized in wills, semiretired), an eminent cardiologist(retired), a federal agent, a socialite, a woman with a rich husband (that spent most of her time voluntering on various boards & commitees), a retired parole agent, a retired VP, an investor(stocks), a schoolteacher, a realestate agent, and several retired engineers. Not a “non-contributor” or “dummy” in the lot.
And, tracer, before you insist that the jury was swayed by “sob stories”, I am sure you’ll have read the some 1200hrs of transcrips so you know what you’re talking about.
“But as a constitutional matter this is a terrible way to govern ourselves: to let 6 people decide how society should punish a company as distinguished to simply compensating plantiffs.”
That explains my OP better than I first wrote it. I don’t think 6 ordinary people should have the power to pass judgement on an award this extreme. All people have their own agendas. It’s hard not to be human. Maybe some guy on the jury hates smokers and smoking and just decided to take out in this trial.
And I agree with the above poster on the math. 700,000 people X $200,000. Where are all these people? Have they all signed up? What health problems do they have that they should deserve $200,000 for picking up a stupid habit on their own. Why should they get rewarded for smoking? How are they going to prove they’re smokers. If this award really comes through what’s to stop millions of other people from moving to FL and start smoking? Everyone I know would immediately move to FL and do exactly that.
Admit it. This is just a sleazy ploy thought up by ATTORNEYS so they can get rich. It has nothing to do with the poor saps.
This class action thing has been abused too much. It was meant to help regular citizens. Instead, it’s just a way for SLEAZY attorneys to get rich that’s all.
I am the first to admit that smokers who think they’re victims are idiots and deserve what they get. But cigarette companies lied about their product, which had a very likely possibility of significantly contributing to the deaths of a lot of people. Punishment is necessary.
Of course, I’m an ordinary person, at least with regards to this case. We’re all “ordinary people” with regards to this case. None of us on this thread are fully qualified to decide which punishment, or which facts, should be applied to this case.
In fact, there are only six people who ARE qualified. The jury who heard this case are NOT ordinary people. They’re jurors who (hopefully) have heard all the facts of the case, and this special knowledge makes them far more than “ordinary” (again, with regards to this case). If they say that tobacco companies must pay $146 billion, then I would trust their decision much more than I’d trust any Pulitzer-hopeful.
[partial hijack]
$146 billion… to be paid out over, what, twenty years? Thirty? That amount of money surely can’t be expected to be doled out all in one fell swoop. Anybody know? If it’s decided to all be paid up front, I would imagine that would be a little bit excessive… after all, no entity has that amount of liquid capital.
And as to that paper: 1.do you think the writer read the entire transcript, either? 2. how much money does the paper get from tobacco? 3.Headline: “Jury gives out fair & reasonable award”- does not sell papers, and you’ll never read it.
And again, if the Jury was flat out wrong, the Judge could have overturned it. If the Jury was overgenerous, the Appellate court will cut it down to a reasonable amount. Do you honestly think the tobacco co is writing the checks and Fedexing them as we speak? Hell, no, they are writing their Appeal of the verdict.
If you are ever falsely accused, you will be happy to see those 12 'stupid faces" in the Jury box.
"There have been, to my understanding, many ‘hot coffee’ suits since the Mac Donald’s incident. I know of none before it. (I could be wrong.) I don’t know of any which have been won by the plaintives - but the precedence was set by the first one. "
Actually, the award in the case that everyone remembers was that high JUST BECAUSE McDonalds HAD been sued many, many times before about their coffee being too hot. And as a corporate decision, they decided to settle the cases they got for damages only, rather than change their policy. IT was only after the award for punitive amounts came through that they made any attempt at a corporate change.
And, now, back to the cigarettes, assumption of risk by the smoker etc. etc. The evidence at the trial showed that the cigarette companies KNEW conclusively, far before any governmental warnings about health risks, that their product killed. Let’s talk about assumption of risk here - why should only the consumer assume any risk? the cig manufacturers produced a product that they KNEW for DECADES before the rest of us, killed. and they continued. and now, in a complete hypocrasy, their main defense is that people who smoke KNOW That it’s unhealthy. what utter gall. let’s review - they found out thier product killed many years ago. they lied and hid the evidence. when confronted with the evidence publically, they continued to lie. when ordered to put warning lables, they have bucked the regs, kicking and screaming. NOW, when it’s irrefutably true that their product kills, they claim they have no responsibility because “everyone knew it and assumed the risk”…
by the way, the punitive award amount came about because:
several years ago, the tobacco companies settled with the state’s attorney generals for a figure. that figure needed congressional approval, which they didn’t get. they then resettled for a figure somewhat smaller. The punitive damages awarded here is the exactly the amount of difference between these two figures, so they didn’t pull it out of the sky.
Just like the infamous “twinkie” defense, the McDonald’s Hot Coffee case is one in which people THINK they know the fats, but rarely do. The fact is that McDonald’s didn’t just sertve their coffee hot, but FREAKING hot (technical term). Too hot to even drink. In fact it was only really hot enough to do one thing, provide extensive and painful damage to the skin.
One issue that I haven’t seen anyone at all comment on is the extent to which the tobacco companies’ lying about the health risks of tobacco actually caused anyone to smoke. I am quite convinced that this was negligible. The health risks associated with tobacco have been well known, despite the tobacco companies’ denials. Who ever decided to smoke and ignore the widespread knowledge that it was unhealthy because “the tobacco companies say it’s not unhealthy”? I don’t believe that a significant number of people even knew that the tobacco companies said it was not proven to be unhealthy. (The tobacco companies maintained a “more research is needed” stance for many years, for legal reasons. They were under the delusion that this stance would help them avoid legal/regulatory hassles. They did not actively promote this view to the mases.) I would think this should make a big difference, legally. Maybe a tort lawyer will chime in with an opinion.
Also, someone suggested earlier that tobacco, unlike alcohol, has no health benefits. I believe it is helpful for Altzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. (Personally, I don’t think it would make a diffrence, in either case).
I deal with plaintiffs on a daily basis. In general, their basic philosophy is that everything is everyone else’s fault. We have had several Coffee burn cases. Sure, coffee is indeed hot. But every fool knows that you are not suppose to pour it on yourself.
There are two defense theories in the tobacco case that are relevant/ One is assumption of risk. I have read literature from teh 1920’s that discusses the health hazards of smoking. Everyone knew that it was dangerous whether or not the tobacco companies advertised it.
And the second is last clear chance. Even if someone started smoking and was dim enough to be unaware of the exposure, they had plenty of chances over the last 40 years to do something about it. If you know of a hazard, have the opportunity to avoid it and fail to do so, you have only yourself to blame.
I think that the trend to refusing to take responsibility for on’e s a actions is disgusting.
Uh, what’s the difference between hot, DAMED hot, FREAKING hot, and MOF FREAKING hot? Each will burn your thigh if you poured it on your lap. There’s been another case where a judge declined to force restaurants to label their coffees hot. He says that’s obvious, and I agree.
When you see steam coming out of coffee, you ASSUME it’s hot. It’s your STUPID fault if you pour it on your thigh.
You’re focusing on what’s wrong: EXTENSIVE and PAINFUL damage to the skin. Don’t forget she poured it on her genitals. But that’s not the issue, everyone got sidetracked by burned genitals. The real issue is that someone was not careful and poured something on her genitals and made money off it she shouldn’t have. I have no sympathy for her. I’ve poured hot coffee on myself a few times. Why shouldn’t I have got a million bucks for that?