Cecil's Cigarette Predictions Go Awry

[Skott]

I didn’t find the column online, but on pages 224-225 of my “The Straight Dope” book, there’s a question asked about whether a cancer victim can sue the tobacco companies. Cecil’s answer was basically that none of the lawsuits to that point in time had succeeded, because…

…[N]o one could could prove that the cigarette companies had genuinely acted with gross negligence and malicious intent. Nor was it easy to demonstrate that the victim’s decision to smoke was based solely on the information put forth in the manufacturer’s advertising and not on other factors…

(emphasis mine) Now this makes sense to me. Most people know that cigarettes are dangerous and addictive and thus they know that they are taking their lives into their own hands. Cecil goes on to make a prediction:

Ironically, the 1970 Public Health Smoking Act… has actually worked in favor of the manufacturers on this point. It now seems impossible to prove that the smoker - having been warned twice, in the ads and on the package - made his decision to smoke without being aware of the risks. The cigarette companies are covered…

I don’t know a lot about the lawsuit against the tobacco companies that happened a few years ago except that the government won. So what happened? Why did Cecil’s prediction fail?

(Not knowing much about what happened, my guess is that the government, faced with mounting health care bills that it attributed to smokers, decided to work around the “little” details Cecil mentioned that would be required to prove the case against the tobacco companies.)

[Irishman]

I imagine the first thing that went wrong was the very first statement: it became possible to prove the companies “had genuinely acted with gross negligence and malicious intent.” Proof that the manufacturers were artificially controlling nicotine levels in the cigarettes to maintain addictiveness was a big step. I think also the requirement of basing the decision to smoke solely on advertising is probably a bit strong.

[Nametag]

Y’remember that movie, *The Insider[/i? With Russell Crowe? That’s what happened, more or less. Documents became available that proved the tobacco companies knew that nicotine was addictive, and that they suppressed the data. That establishes the element of intent (actually, it’s more “reckless disregard for human life,” but…), and that’s what rakes in the punitive damages.

[SCSimmons]

And Cecil’s last comment continues to hold (and should continue to do so). The plaintiffs in the successful lawsuits all became addicted before the warnings became mandatory. It would be very difficult for someone who started smoking in, say, 1980, to claim that the death merchant, er, cigarrette manufacturer was misleading them about the danger of the habit. It’s right there on every package, after all.

[saoirse]

Also, the plaintiffs did not “win,” really. The lawsuit was settled, albeit in a way that was very pleasing to the state AGs and displeasing to the tobacco companies.