Logically defending Big Tobacco!

Great Debates
41

Hmm, so alcohol and gun manufacturers are de facto liable? How about very fast cars that advertise them being driven at excessive speed. Mountain bike ads that show people using them in ways that could cause injury? Extreme sports events? Kayaks manufacturers? Makers of rock climbing gear?

Please, tell me, how is one liable merely because one creates a product that might cause one damage if used properly?
Let me ask this: do you engage in any activities that could likely cause your demise, ill health or injury? If so, do they all have warning labels? if not, are tehy all liable?

“you makes your choices, you accepts the results” – Me

42

Well, let’s see:
Gun manufacturers support teaching people how to safely handle a gun, so that they don’t blow their own heads off by mistake. They take a pro-active stance to dealing with the fact that they are selling a dangerous product. However, treated carefully, the gun is not a danger to the consumer (I in no way support the gun lobbey, but I do know that they want you to treat their product with the respect it deserves).

Alcohol manufacturers have large-scale anti-drunk-driving campaigns. They have worked to reduce the danger of their products.

SUVs come with a warning on every sunvisor that the thing is liable to roll if you corner too fast. Besides, the product has a healthy, non-dangerous, normal usage. People who deviate from this usage usually aren’t in a position to sue.
Anthracite: I agree with you completely that some of the suits you posted are ridiculous and should be thrown out. That’s because people clearly deviated from the safe, normal use of these products.

So what about the safe, normal use of cigarettes? Well, there is none. All the aforementioned products have normal, safe uses, advocated by the company. Name one for a cigarette. One?

43

A little observation here.

Remember Love Canal? Thousands of people poisoned? Hundreds died of diseases related to industrial pollution? The company involved knew about the pollution and dumping of it’s waste plus about the effects on people through inquiries over time. The town was closed, the people moved, the company sued, the government got stuck trying to clean up the waste?

The company wound up, after lawsuits, paying less than 4 million in damages and costs. While the Love Canal problem was covered by the news, there was no ‘out for blood’ attitude of the media, no mass campaign to convince people stop using their products and no lengthy deliberations about their various sins and business practices.

However, Big Tobacco was smeared in all forms of media with the zeal that Hitler’s propagandists had in persecuting the Jews. It became politically correct to smear not only Big Tobacco but users of their products in commercials, movies, cartoons and on radio.

The Love Canal group got off almost scot free. They never admitted to doing wrong. Big Tobacco admitted to doing wrong and almost got eviscerated.

By the way, the tax on tobacco products, designed to go into paying for any problems arising from smokers using the stuff is usually gobbled up by the States and used for things like putting in parks for the rich, restoring ‘ancient but historic’ shacks, and important things like that.

Never, ever give a State control over easy money - like gas, booze and smoking taxes – or lottery income for that matter. (Consider the Florida situation. Billions in lottery income designated for schools, but it has one of the worst school systems in the nation. However, it has a growing luxury industry and tax incentives for entertainment based businesses.)

Big Tobacco, in my opinion, was made a scapegoat for some reason, then fell under PC when the news media jumped aboard, and a victim of their own devious business practices. Plus, they became a ‘cause celeb’ by groups who have not had a real cause to protest since the 60s.

44

An interesting phenomenon amongst the people that I personally know who are very much in favor of “making big tobacco pay”:

I know 7 people personally who have been outspoken in person and/or in print about “big tobacco must pay”.

  • 5 of these 7 people are marijuana users.
  • 4 of these 7 people were original '60’s protesters, who marched in the streets because “The Man” was going to outlaw their access to pot, LSD, et al.

Of course, I don’t mean to use this to by any means typify people who are in favor of frivilous tobacco liability suits. But it is interesting the causes that some people adopt.

Said one of these people, with a straight face: “Man, pot, LSD, and coke’s never been proven to kill anybody.” Touche, I, uh, guess.

45

So just because the Love Canal people got off the hook means others should too? Incidentally, Love Canal has been re-opened and people are actually moving in…

I hate stupid cause celebres taken up by the media as much as the next guy, which is why I’d like to see these cases settled quickly and in a good manner. Basically, I think there should be some sort of compensation–particularly for older smokers where the issue is less muddled. And the state/HMOs/whoever should get some money to recoup the costs involved in treating the problems. Then the companies should be forced to work to make their product safer–the same way any other industry is. Once that’s done with, let them sell their product without hiding it’s effects or manipulating its addictiveness, etc.

What exactly is wrong with this? They are being held to the same legal standard as every other industry. Once they’ve paid for breaking the law, they should be free to go on their merry way the same as the rest–and only brought back if they do it again.

I realize that there’s some confusion about this, because states are suing seperately, and individuals too. Which is why it needs to be taken care of on a federal level–so that the companies aren’t being sued by various hodge-podge groups. But then it’ll be done. Over with. Settled in accordance with the law.

46

I am going to bring up a point that sounds like a cop-out at first. I contend that there is no such thing as a “safe” product - only products with different levels of risk. No car, gun, lawnmower, or beanie baby is 100% safe. They can always be misused, and even in the course of normal, as-directed use there is a risk involved. Some products, of course, are obviously and blatantly riskier than others.

I contend that tobacco falls into the category of a “more” or even, I will concede, “high-risk” category. Normal directed use of tobacco is NOT guarnateed to kill you, or even make you ill. It DOES carry a significant RISK of doing so.

So you could argue realtive risk, and contend that the relative risk is much too great to allow the use of tobacco. You could also apply this rule to other things with high relative risks, such as downhill skiing, “extreme” mountain-biking, rock climbing, caving, and thus outlaw these activities as well. Or, allow a person who rides their mountain bike into a tree to sue the manufacturer - and win big - since it was a risky product.

Here is my point, in a few bullet items:

  • only a complete idiot or insane person could not realize at some time in the last 40 years that tobacco carries a significant risk of health problems.

  • these smokers are surrounded by enablers, people who support, encourage, and even purchase the tobacco for the ‘victims’. I was enraged about a suit brought by the husband of a deceased smoker, who admitted that for more than 25 years HE had been the one to buy the cigarettes for his wife, which he did so every week at the corner store. This man was the SUPPLIER to his wife’s deadly habit, and he has the audacity to sue the manufacturer? It’s nothing more than a sickening grab for the cash.

  • this is a product which is legal in all 50 states, and as far as I know every nation on Earth (unlike alcohol). Far less deadly products have been outlawed by the government (lawn darts, anyone?), both in terms of relative risk and numbers allegedly “killed” by the product.

  • tobacco is NOT “10 times more addictive than crack cocaine” (quoting the TV, not anyone here), and people can quit when they truly choose to. And there are many avenues, support groups, and products to assist in this.

  • tobacco has been carrying significant warning labels**** on its packaging and in advertisements, since my earliest recollection, that it is harmful. People who sue testify that they read these labels, but somehow didn’t understand them (?), as in the case of the Florida award.
    ****Of course, as we all know, warning labels on any product mean almost nothing to todays sick society w.r.t. jury awards. I wonder why companies even bother, since you can make a guy read and sign a 50-page contract before buying a lawnmower saying that he understands its safe use, and he can still sue and win if any injury occurs while using it. Is the term I’m thinking of “strict liability in tort”? (I’m not a lawyer, I really want to know). Isn’t that the term that means you don’t have to prove the product was defective, poorly designed, or anything like that - all you have to prove is an injury occured, and it was due to the product?

  • the whole tobacco as a health issue has been drowned out by the Democrats and other liberal groups (American Bar Association) using it as a ‘cause celebre’ of the 1990’s, as they have been salivating over the prospect of hundreds of billions of dollars in jury awards, legal fees, and new taxes to spend.

Those are just some of my issues with this whole phenomenon. And to be frank - I don’t smoke, never have, never will. I think it’s horribly risky and silly to do so. My mother is a pack-a-day smoker, and has been for more than 30 years. I DO worry about her health. But if she dies from cancer, I will not sue. She knows the risks, she reads the labels, she told me never to smoke because it was ‘too dangerous’, and she says she could quit whenever she wanted to, but simply does not want to. Period.

That doesn’t mean I don’t fear for her. But she’s made an informed decision, and I respect that.

47

The OP is correct and presented in a logical and coherent fashion. OTOH, according to the ‘logic’ of some you others, maybe it’s time to go after “Big Cheese”. Kraft, for example, has for some years been producing this toxic substance with full knowledge of its potentially lethal effects. To make matters worse, a possible ‘conspiracy to distribute’ cheese may exist among Kraft, McDonald’s and Pizza Hut.

I certainly hope Janet Reno will soon be appointing Joel Klein to investigate and prosecute this matter in the interest of public safety.

48

Well, since that was such a long post, I’ll assume you were writing it, didn’t see my last one and weren’t simply ignoring it. I don’t want tobacco to be outlawed. I don’t know many people who do. I don’t think there are all that many people who do. I want the companies to pay their dues–you pretty much can’t deny that they’ve done something which makes them liable at the least–and then operate their business in the best way possible, given the inherent danger of the product they sell.

As mentioned, many other industries sell products that are dangerous (although very few as dangerous as tobacco, if used properly), but most–if not all–of them have worked to minimize the danger while maintaining their sales. Should they deviate from this (sell Pintos that go up in flames), they certainly should pay. Once they’ve paid, they damn well better start operating within the law, or you drag them in again. But if they don’t deviate again, well, all the better for them.

49

I still haven’t seen anybody explain how tobacco companies could somehow NOT be liable, in every sense of the word, for selling a product that they knew to be both physically addictive and lethal, yet claiming that it was harmless, non-addictive, or even good for you. The people who begin smoking now, in a time when even the tobacco companies have admitted to some malfeasance, have no claim, legal or otherwise, to have been cheated. The people who are dying of lung cancer now, however, are the people who smoked a product whose producers, even if no one else, claimed to be safe.

How could tobacco companies not be liable to them? Would someone please try to answer that.

50

Is it not possible to develope lung cancer without smoking?

::looking at my pack of Marlboro Lights::

**

My paternal grandfather has lung cancer. Funny how he’s never smoked a day in his life. I had an uncle who died about 5 years ago due to heart disease. Again, never smoked. I can’t say anything about emphysema because I don’t know anyone who has it but I can bet that someone somewhere has it who’s never smoked. Both of my parents are totally healthy (as far as cigarette related illnesses go) and they’ve smoked as long as I’ve known them. That’s just a random thought that I figured I might add.

Also in the above warning, it states that smoking may complicate pregnancy. There are other such warnings that can be found on cigarettes like, may cause low birth, fetal injury, so on and so forth. Now my question is, if I were to get pregnant and smoke a pack and a half a day through the entire gestation period, and my baby came a month premature, weighed 4 pounds, and came out coughing, would it be my fault, or that of Phillip Morris? (For distributing the Marlboro Lights I so happily smoke, knowing full well that it could kill me and my make believe baby.)

51

No dear, I don’t ignore posts from intelligent, rational posters like yourself. My post was long to try and clarify somewhat where I was coming from.

That having been said, I know you didn’t say you wanted tobacco to be outlawed. But there are other ways to effectively “outlaw” a product. One way consists of frequent, repeated civil suits brought by government agencies against private corporaions and/or individuals. This is the exact same evil tactic pursued by the Clinton administration and it’s backers w.r.t. the firearms industry. Since they are unable to pass the REAL agenda of Clinton (a complete and total disarming of America) they instead will do it by these, IMO, frivilous civil suits, with the full support of the legal lobby (which stand to make billions in legal fees as a result regardless of who wins in the end).

Let’s address two points you are making. First, you assert that big tobacco could work to minimize the danger involved. Earlier, I asked for a reference for your quote that Canadian/European tobacco would “kill(s) you much less quickly”. Do you in fact have some proof, or at least evidence, that in fact these countries have a tobacco that is inherrently safer? Can tobacco actually be made safer, except by the obvious way of reducing consumption?

Even if tobacco can be made “safer”, tobacco abolishionists can always claim of course that it is not safe enough. Who sets the standard for safety? How many deaths/year? I hear people on the TV (which never lies) say that the life of one child is worth “a trillion dollars”. With that sort of mentality, one can always find someone to say that there will never be a safe use of tobacco, and thus by definition there can never be a safe cigarette.

Second, you mention here that these companies “damn well better start operating within the law”. In what way has big tobacco been operating outside of the law? Have there been criminal cases prosecuted against them? Even in the case of the Pinto you referenced I do not believe Ford was ever brought to trial on any criminal charges, and given the inflammatory (no pun intended) nature of these events in the Media I’m quite certain if there were any criminal laws broken then both Ford and the big tobacco companies would have been charged in multiple jurisdictions over their respective issues.

This having been said, I would like to explore what would be some alternatives to the massive civil suits that are sure to accumulate very quickly over the next few years. You know what I almost wish happens? Let me throw out two things that don’t connect directly to our current discussion.

I wonder what would happen if:

  1. The Government of Gore manages next year to pass a complete criminalization of tobacco, in the same way as pot. I wonder how full our prisons would be then. OR,

  2. All the tobacco companies decide overnight to stop tobacco production. I wonder what all those millions (40-50 million is the figure I believe) would do at the polls next election?

It would be interesting to see, yes?

52

Well, I meant operating outside the law in terms of civil law, not criminal law. Since they’ve been sucessfully sued, as have other companies who act similarly, that’s pretty much been established.

I will look for a good reference on the additives issue–though I may have to spend a few days in the library, given the fact that just about everything I’m likely to find on the web will blatantly have some sort of agenda or another. But I’ll make an effort (I can head over to the science library pretending to do something related to chem). I was speaking from the point of view of the son of somebody very familiar with the manufacture and use of tobacco, having worked in the industry. And while I realize that this is not “proof” and not to believe whatever my parents say, he is very knowlegable on the subject and has no agenda here (he would still be smoking if it didn’t interfere with being athletic). But as I said, I’ll find a reference.

And yes, your scenarios are interesting…would be a heck of a ride, anyway.

FTR, I am also for the legalization of marajuana in particular, and some other drugs as well. I don’t use them, personally. I would hope that should that come to pass (not likely), the companies that spring up around these act responsibly.

So there’s my $.02, apple, and fruit bat.

BTW: sure you didn’t mean it about the Pinto and “incendiary”…Yeah right :smiley:

53

you are walking through the supermarket. there is a broken bottle of olive oil on the floor and you can see the oil spilled. You decide that you are going to go ahead and walk through it because you don’t want to walk all the way around it.

the second step in, you slip and fall, and break your fool neck.

Was there a dangerous situation? yes
did you know about it? yes
did you avoid it? no

is the supermarket liable? only if you have the right jury.
should they be liable? no.

The tobacco suit should only have prevailed for those who smoked prior to 1960.

54

The tobacco suit should apply to anybody who smoked up until the time the companies admitted their product was inherently dangerous.

You example is flawed–if they lied and said “sure, go on through here. There’s no proof that olive oil is slippery. See? We funded 12 studies, and none of them found it to be slippery”.
So you walk on through, fall, and hurt yourself.
Were you stupid? Yes.
Are they liable? Yes.
Should they be liable? Yes.
Should they be sued five more times if they stop? No. Should they be sued if they pull that trick again? Yes.

55

not if it is common knowlege that it is slippery. Would you stand there looking at the oil and say "gosh, if you say that it isn’t slippery, I will rely on your promise?

Hell, no. YOu would say"I don’t believe you!"

As I said before, it was commonly known back in the 20’s that smoking was bad for you. Sure, they didn’t really have a good grip on the cancer connection, but they knew it was harmful to one’s health. Shit, anyone who smokes a pack of cigarettes knows that they are bad for you.

But I get what you are saying about being barred from suit after they started putting the warning on the packs. I just don’t think that these things require a warning.

56

Well Mr. Z in this day and age, we can throw out common sense. Why would anybody need it when they have huge corporations telling them what to do, think, and say?

57

To make a real life point about Mr.Zambezi’s point above, if there is a spill in a restaurant and you put out a sign which states “Wet Floors,” this will protect the restaurant from a law suit if someone were to fall.

Kinda analogous to the warning label on tobacco, you think?

Yer pal,
Satan

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, two weeks, one day, 20 hours, 0 minutes and 53 seconds.
4273 cigarettes not smoked, saving $534.17.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 20 hours, 5 minutes.

Visit The Fabulous Forums of Fathom

58

Satan, I have had claims where people sued us after they tripped over the “Wet Floor” sign.

59

Well, I went to the library and looked on scifinder quickly (I was supposed to be looking up oxidation of bromine with silver, but hey). Anyway, I found a whole bunch of referrences to half my point, and one to the other half.
Unfortunately, the one reference I found in that time to the differences between tobaccos was MIA–maybe checked out. However, I do have a bunch that clearly show that tobacco could be made safer, and these are a tiny fraction of what was there on a quick search.

**Patent for Nicotine-free tobacco. Zuya Chen. Faming Zhuanli Shenging Gonkai Shuomingshu (1998). (Even if I could post a link, it’s not in English–but the program has a translation).

I know, no one wants nicotine-free tobacco, but just to point out it’s there, and could be used.

**“Study on a new-additive for the low toxicity cigarette” by Xuewen Chi. It “reduces free-radicals in tar and in gas phase, and other harmful substances”.

I happen to know a bit on this subject: a lot of cancer-causing agents are oxidizers. Many of said oxidizers are free-radicals. Many of the vitamins they tell you might prevent cancer are anti-oxidants. Specifically, most of them are compounds that soak up free-radicals, preventing them from starting a chain-reaction with stuff in your body (like your DNA). Cut down on free radicals=less cancer. And you don’t even have to cut back on yummy yummy tar!

**“Additive-free cigarette paper w/ low side-smoke”. Akinari Hanada for the Japan Tobacco Inc.

Hmm, cigarette paper that isn’t laden with all sorts of fun chemicals. Sounds good to me.

I have a few more, and can get many more, if you want them.

I think these make the point, however, that there is certainly the capability to make the product much safer than it is today, without sacrificing the whole business. As to your other points, I will get to them, but I need to eat dinner first, or I’ll just start growling (from the stomache, of course).

BTW, I had a good laugh imagining hundreds of thousands of people world-wide falling in the supermarket.

60

You mean all the times I dragged the “Wet Floor” sign out, it was a pointless excersice? Gee, I feel so tarnished now…

Yer pal,
Satan

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, two weeks, one day, 20 hours, 42 minutes and 14 seconds.
4274 cigarettes not smoked, saving $534.31.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 20 hours, 10 minutes.

Visit The Fabulous Forums of Fathom