# Overdue Class Action law Suit **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 20, 2000, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overdue-class-action-law-suit/26221 "2000-07-20T08:44:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Satan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Satan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satan)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2000, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overdue-class-action-law-suit/26221/61 "2000-07-22T18:17:15Z")
> [@](#): > > _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. ---
**Author:** ![Satan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Satan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satan)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2000, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overdue-class-action-law-suit/26221/62 "2000-07-22T18:20:57Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by vanilla_ > > \*\*Honestly, I do think that soda pop is truly addictive. > Why, I dont know, but it is./B] I believe it’s called caffeine… ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2000, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overdue-class-action-law-suit/26221/63 "2000-07-22T18:31:36Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2000, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overdue-class-action-law-suit/26221/64 "2000-07-22T19:14:43Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Cool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@Joe\_Cool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Cool)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2000, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overdue-class-action-law-suit/26221/65 "2000-07-22T19:19:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by vanilla \* > \*\*However, I DO crave chocolate sometimes. Does that have caffiene? \*\* yes it does. Large amounts, if I remember correctly. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2000, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overdue-class-action-law-suit/26221/66 "2000-07-23T00:32:51Z")
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). ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Zambezi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7cd45c/32.png) [@Mr.Zambezi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Zambezi)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2000, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overdue-class-action-law-suit/26221/67 "2000-07-23T19:04:43Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2000, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overdue-class-action-law-suit/26221/68 "2000-07-23T21:48:45Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![activgurl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7cd45c/32.png) [@activgurl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/activgurl)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2000, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overdue-class-action-law-suit/26221/69 "2000-07-24T02:48:13Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2000, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overdue-class-action-law-suit/26221/70 "2000-07-24T15:52:38Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Zambezi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7cd45c/32.png) [@Mr.Zambezi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Zambezi)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2000, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overdue-class-action-law-suit/26221/71 "2000-07-24T17:08:55Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2000, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overdue-class-action-law-suit/26221/72 "2000-07-24T17:13:57Z")
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. \ 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. \ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/overdue-class-action-law-suit/26221.md?page=3)