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!”
**
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.
**
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.
**
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?
**
Well, since nobody is born with a cigarette in their mouth, I would say that everyone smoked without being addicted.
**
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?
**
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.
**
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.
**
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.
**
Think I just commented on that above, thanks.
**
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.
**
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.
**
Why didn’t that person quit when it became clear that it was harmful?
**
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.
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?
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.
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.
“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.
No problem, but it leaves us having to agree to disagree, since there’s no place to take the argument from here.
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.
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.
Again, we just have to differ here.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
“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.
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.
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, I’ve already covered “beginning” to smoke versus “continuing” to smoke, so I won’t go over it again.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.”
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.
Plaintiff’s bar? Bite your tongue. I am a trial attorney working in tort defense.
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.
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.
