spooje: I think we’ve reached a stalemate on smoking responsibility. I think the tobacco companies bear a little responsibility for the harm their product causes, you think they bear none. Nothing either of us says will change the other’s mind, so I for one, am just going to let my case for some responsibility stand.
Drunk drivers, though. If you want to continue seething about these odius vermin, I’ll be glad to join.
Sorry, unless inducing children to inflict irreversible damage on their bodies in order to make $$$ amounts to something ambiguous, this is not a stalemate. I realize this thread seems to be running out of gas, but I can’t resist. Unless someone from the “the tobacco companies cannot be blamed” camp would like to produce a credible counter argument, I will assume that the “tobacco companies are bastards” contigent carries the day, and we can end on this note.
Thank you and good night! 
Bob, I agree with you completely. I think our side has presented the more convincing argument. I was just acknowledging that neither side was going convince the other.
I never said that tobacco companies weren’t a bunch of evil bastards. I said that everyone knows that they are evil bastards, and that knowledge should preclude anyone from collecting a jury award.
For some reason I can’t resist beating this dead horse. spooje, that knowledge is relevant only for those who began to smoke as adults (statistically a minority), a point I’ve made repeatedly (again on 7/17, with a link provided regarding the damage this produces). If you have a counter argument, I’d be glad to hear it.
Are you suggesting that teenagers should be held to the same standard as adults, that they ought to know better and they’re fair game to target as a consumer of a fatally dangerous product? Or do you agree that children deserve special protection, and that a company is culpable when it deliberately targets kids with the intention of inducing them to inflict damage on their bodies? If you disagree, please explain why. If you agree, how can you make a flat statment that tobacco companies ought to be exempt from paying jury awards?
Hey!!!
[Mrs. Lovejoy]
Won’t somebody please think of the children???
{/Mrs. Lovejoy]
So I guess if you start smoking as a teen, your life is pretty much over, due to the DNA damage. Here that Dopers? If you smoked as a teen, you’ve been crippled! You should sue! You can never live a full and productive life, even if you quit. So I guess quitting is pointless, then…
I’m not buying it. I smoked as a teen and my lungs are great. I suspect that many people on the board smoked in their teen years and managed to live healthy lives afterward.
Teens start smoking to try and look cool and tough. There are laws against selling smokes to those under 18. I’m all for the enforcement of them. Teens that smoke must go to lengths to get around these laws, sometimes very creative lengths. These kids can read the warnings on the packs. These kids know that it is illegal for them to purchase cigs, that their parents do not want them to smoke, that they will face consequences if caught smoking…the kids made a choice. Not a smart choice, but a choice nonetheless.
Look, you wanna have the tobacco exec’s arrested for perjury for lying to Congress, I won’t stand in your way. I think it would be better if they just came out and said “Look, these things may well kill you in the end”, just lay their cards on the table, everything above board. But some moron who thought he was indestructable would still try to sue. And given the state of our justice system, he will probably win. And I would again argue that this moron brought it on hisself. Dammit!
It would be a better country if stupid hurt.
**
Yeah, right, that’s exactly what I said. No straw man here.:rolleyes: The Simpsons reference was funny though.
**
You’re not buying what? The scientific research that shows that having smoked regularly, your chances of getting cancer diminish once you quit, but don’t return to the level of someone who never smoked? Besides the fact that this circumstance violates your sacred belief that tobacco companies ought not to be sued, why don’t you buy this? Do you feel the science is flawed? Believe me, I’m no scientist, it just seems as if these facts are generally not in dispute (except by tobacco company executives under oath).
You know your “lungs are great,” how? Exactly what does this mean? No one is questioning that it’s better/healthier to quit. The point is that it is always better never to have started smoking. You don’t revert to ground zero by virtue of having quit. And, therefore, it takes an evil son of a bitch to actually take advantage of children’s immaturity exactly because adults are fully aware of how dangerous a product tobacco is–that’s why people who start to smoke as adults are so statistically small as a percentage off all smokers.
If you disagree with any of the statements of fact concerning the health consequences of having smoked (as opposed to the “evil son of a bitch” comments), perhaps there are legitimate arguments to be made that I’m not aware of. “Hey, spooje feels great! How can there be a problem once you quit?” and “Thanks, but I’d prefer not to believe that,” ain’t among them, however.
**
We’re getting close to a direct answer to the question posed here–perhaps one is actually implied. Since neither of us questions that teenagers often make crappy decisions, I only need to confirm that you also mean that the poor choice made by these children is one they ought to be held solely accountable for, same as if an adult made the decision. And that tobacco companies having deliberately targeted them as consumers has no bearing on the situation. If so, I understand the basis of your position, and I no longer need you to clarify it. I completely disagree with it, but I understand it. And I continue to be amused by the enthusiasm you display in excusing tobacco company executives in the name of “personal responsibility”–i.e., your inability to see that there’s anything ironic about this, given the vile behavior on their part that even you concede.
By the way, the “creative lengths” I went to as a kid in buying smokes was to walk into any store and ask for a pack of Marlboros. I’m sure, though, that the tobacco companies were completely unaware of the ease of purchase for teenagers, and their advertising campaigns targeting this group were just in anticipation of the kids reaching 21 before they made their first purchases–priming the pump, so to speak. It’s all just a big misunderstanding.
Bob, how is this
In any way applicable in the cases of the people who sued the companies. Since it’s obvious that the tobacco companies are lousy human beings, let’s limit our discussion to those specific guys who sued them.
Ok, I’ll concede that, due to their initial lack of knowledge when they started smoking they sustained some lung damage. However the fact that they were alive 30 years later to sue proves conclusively that that damage alone was not fatal. I conclude that the fact that they were able to survive for another 30 years in spite of this initial damage whilst at the same time incurring more of it through excessive smoking once they knew of the dangers strongly indicates that this initial damage wasn’t all that serious at all. I also think that there is a very strong possibility that they would have lived out to a ripe old age if they had quit smoking once they knew it was dangerous. I think this because the average of lung cancer sufferers is 60. This site backs me up on that. If the damage sustained during teenage years was in any way significant you would expect to see a much lower average age of lung cancer patient. But you don’t
So in short what we have is big companies being sued by people who may have obtained lung damage during their teenage years. We can prove conclusively that this damage (the only damage that the cigarette companies may have been in any way responsible for) did not kill these plaintiffs and that there is a very strong probability that what actually did it was 30 years of puffing away regardless of all the warnings they received. For this, the companies are not responsible. Had these people quit when they had the dangers made known to them they would not be battling a terminal illness. The damage they incurred as teenagers is irrelevant because there was nothing stopping them from quitting and reducing the risk in the last three decades. As we know, this ‘teenage damage’ is not fatal and will only lead to lung cancer if you continue to smoke. These people did, after they were told how dangerous it was. For the damage incurred from this point on they and only they are responsible. Since it was during this time that their lungs were damaged the most they should not expect the companies to pay for it.
**
You may limit your discussion to whatever you like. I was responding to a number of unequivocal statements that there is simply no supportable rationale for holding the tobacco companies accountable in any way, to any extent, for anyone’s lung cancer. I believe I have shown that that is simply not the case.
Please note that I have continuously stated that the tobacco companies must assume at least some responsibility. Someone who started smoking when he was 15 and smoked for the next 20 years, until he developed lung cancer, may have diminished the overall responsibility that the tobacco company holds. But some accountability must remain with the tobacco companies if even quitting does not completely eliminate any damage. And it doesn’t.
I am certainly not an expert on the cases in question, but I would hold that if the plaintiffs were hooked as teenagers, they too have a valid case for holding the tobacco companies at least partially culpable, for all the reasons noted. Again, I do NOT know all the specifics of the cases.
**
McMurphy, do you understand that this concession effectively brings you in agreement with my point?
No, it doesn’t. Why would you conclude that? What sort of evidence supports this? You have no way of knowing whether or not the damage sustained when they were teenagers was sufficient by itself to later cause the cancer. You have no way of knowing how long this condition could have remained “dormant” for a given individual.
Why is this conclusive? Because 30 years is really long? We do know (see my previous cite) that even former smokers who began as teenagers have permanent damage. Permanent. That is indeed conclusive, unless you are disputing the scientific evidence to support this.
**
Most smokers began smoking as teenagers. As noted here, “More than 90% of all individuals who ever smoked and 70% of all regular smokers initiated smoking before 18 years of age.” The fact that the average age of someone with lung cancer is 60 is not inconsistent with this.
Are you are aware of some evidence that suggests that cancer cannot be removed from its cause by a period of decades? On the contrary, there is evidence that former smokers experience higher rates of cancer at every age after quitting than those who never smoked.
From the previous link (my italics):
**
Yes, they reduce their chance of getting cancer if they quit. But the chance is still higher than for someone who never smoked.
Sorry, but repeating something over and over again will not suddenly make it true.
If I may comment on the original post …
This may sound horrible, but at least for once it was the drunk who got hurt in the crash (assuming there were no other serious injuries). Usually it’s someone else, someone’s family, someone’s two-year-old, someone’s grandmother, etc etc etc. A guy I know recently lost his uncle and aunt because they were in a car rear-ended by a drunk and were burned alive in the back seat.
This is why I will never, ever drive drunk – it’s not just my life I’m risking, and I have no right to put a stranger’s life in danger just because I’m too proud to get a freaking ride.
Sorry, had to unload that – go right on back to arguing over Big Tobacco’s liability!
Hey! How dare you ruin a perfectly good hijacking!
It doesn’t count as a hijack if the thread would have otherwise run out of gas 6 days ago except for the current discussion (Bob Cos’s Law).
Old Road Runner joke. Coyote falls off a cliff while the RR stays suspended in midair. Coyote holds up a sign saying he doesn’t like it that RR can defy the law of gravity. RR holds up a sign saying, “I never studied law.”
Point taken.
I agree wholeheartedly.
You can still have great health, but I’ll conceed your point.
That is exactly what I mean. Hey, if they can be tried for a capital offense, they can be held accountable for their decision to smoke.Disregarding the possible consequences of an action is immature, but still a choice.
If they have broken a law, hell, string 'em up. Seriously, prosecute them vigorously. I mean jail time! (Is there a crime here?)But right now, we’re not talking about kids, we’re talking about knuckleheads who have smoked for 20+ years, who want to cry ‘victim’. The rallying cry being “How could you have let me do this to myself?” They had plenty of time to quit before they got cancer. It’s my postition that they really didn’t want to, and that they foolishly thought(or deluded themselves into thinking) that they would get lucky and escape the consequences.
**
[/QUOTE]
OK, now I understand. Again, I don’t agree, but I understand. I’d ask the legal experts on the board to chime in as to whether or not deliberately marketing a product to teenagers when it’s illegal to sell the product to them is itself a crime. I don’t know. I’m not sure why a negative response would preclude civil action, however.
Well, them lying to congress is an issue. One that they should be taken to task for. Perhaps sued by the Feds, I don’t know. I wouldn’t have a problem with that.
I am a smoker.
Cigarette prices have almost doubled in the past couple of years.
Where’s my fucking money?