My $0.02 - there’s more going on in this case than a smoker being awarded $3 billion for predictably getting cancer. It may be as simple as Stoid thinks it is; I can’t quite put my finger on it, but this whole thing stinks of under-the-table dealings to me. Anyone else have a take on this?
Not at all. That was not my assertion. It’s not about whether the smoker deserves to receive the money, it’s about whether the tobacco companies deserve having to pay it. My answer, and the jury’s, was “yes”.
The rest of what I was saying was this:
Ask yourself:
1> Do I believe that people who deal drugs are bad?
2> Do I believe that people who deal drugs to children are bad?
3> Do I believe that people who encourage children to try drugs are bad?
4> Do I believe that children cannot be held responsible for drug use and some adult has dragged their innocent, un-controlled selves into this horrible behavior?
5> Do I believe that all such persons who have done these things deserve to suffer some kind of consequence for being so bad and doing such bad things?
If your answer to all these questions is “YES”, then, in order to be intellectually consistent, you must also feel the same way about tobacco companies as you do about drug dealers. Because they are, in their effect upon the world in general, identical. Except that tobacco companies are much worse. They are in the business of helping ot create many more addicts than any other drug, the supply many more addicts than any other drug, nicotine addicts are addicted longer, their addiction is more difficult (scientifically proven, folks) to break, and there is no question whatsoever that their drug is far and away killing MILLIONS more people than all other drugs combined, except for alcohol.
Of course, if you can say “Yes” to those five questions, and then somehow come up with some logical reason why it should not apply equally to tobacco companies, i would be sincerely fascinated to hear what that logic could possibly be.
Also, I never made any assertions about anything even slightly homophobic. I thought it was pretty obvious that I was merely equating a lack of compassion for suffering disease-ridden smokers because they created their disease by their behavior with a lack of compassion for disease ridden homosexuals (or IV drug users, if you will, or straights who don’t practice safe sex) because they created their disease by their behavior.
I don’t think any of the above should fail to receive our compassion and our sympathy, nor do I think any of the above “deserve” to suffer. What’s your position?
stoid
Who really hates it when people completely distort what she sez. Sheesh.
No…but I did quit smoking after more than 10 years of 2+ packs a day. Will I develop emphysema or lung cancer? Maybe. Do I expect you to feel sorry for me when I do? No.
I won’t say it’s different. In fact, I disagree with you…I think quitting smoking is no different from quitting a McDonalds habit. Addiction is in the mind. You can rail on all day about how cigarettes are physically addictive, but I don’t buy it.
Perhaps I’m a “unique” case where my decision to quit was all I needed. I have only my experience to judge by, and I had no problem. One day I smoked, the next I didn’t. But I really don’t think I’m any different from anyone else, and if I can do it, I imagine others can too.
**
Well…I guess that’s better than the alternative <–insert grin.
**
I have no problem with dealers of either merchandise. It is the users choice to use. Said user must acknowledge and accept the consequences of that use.
If this comes down to a “what about the children” issue, then it can be the parents who are responsible for hooking kids by not providing enough information, but more frequently is the kids hooking themselves. I started smoking (seriously) at age 14 because I wanted to. I continued until I was 26 because I wanted to. I stopped because I wanted to. Note the key phrase. Marketing didn’t make me want to smoke. I didn’t know Joe Camel or the Marlboro man. I made the decisions, one butt at a time.
Lung cancer is tragic. Do I have sympathy for this man’s wife, children, brothers, sisters who will grieve the loss of a loved one? Yes. He brought tragedy to a large number of people, and for them I can feel sorry for their sense of loss. But for his self-inflicted pain I feel not the slightest twinge of pity.
As for the other forms of death you mentioned regarding what people eat…people die. That’s not the issue (as I see it). When people start taking $3B from dairy farmers due to cheese-induced cancers (which they’ve been warned about these last 50-some years), I’ll say the same about them.
Well, Beelzebubba, I disagree with you on several points. But you exhibit intellectually honesty and consistency, and that is all I really ask. More power to you.
stoid
Hey! Leave me out of it! What the hell did I ever do to you?
Stoid wrote:
"1> Do I believe that people who deal drugs are bad?
2> Do I believe that people who deal drugs to children are bad?
3> Do I believe that people who encourage children to try drugs are bad?
4> Do I believe that children cannot be held responsible for drug use and some adult has dragged their innocent, un-controlled selves into this horrible behavior?
5> Do I believe that all such persons who have done these things deserve to suffer some kind of consequence for being so bad and doing such bad things? "
1> No, I don’t.
2> Yes, that’s something I’m against.
3> Exactly how is this different from 3?
4> Depends on the age of the child.
5> Yes, they should suffer for their crimes. This is the key point you seemed to have missed: this settlement is not punishing the tobacco company for this crime. It is punishing them for selling a legal product to a consenting adult. If you want to punish the tobacco companies for selling cigs to kids, punish them for selling cigs to kids. Don’t invent crimes after the fact.
Stoid
Somehow I missed the question:
No.
I don’t think that’s a good comparison…sex != smoking.
There is nothing natural about smoking, it’s not something we inherently want to do, we’re not instinctively drawn to it. Smoking is completely voluntary, completely unneccessary, and completely stupid.
No, I haven’t. And you know what? If I develop heart disease, I’m not going to sue McDonald’s for my own stupidity.
No, I’m haven’t. But I’m not going to sue the beef producers for my own stupidity.
I eat them with gusto. And I would not sue the dairy producers for my own weakness.
No, you aren’t. And I’m sure as hell not going to sue anyone because I was dumb enough to eat like a pig.
Nobody’s suggesting the guy deserves to die horribly. He does, however, deserve ridicule for blaming others for his own stupidity. And smoking is FUCKING STUPID. I feel sorry for his pain, but it’s his fault and he should be a man and accept that it’s his fault and nobody else’s.
You want to make it about legal vs. illegal. I’m talking pure morality. They are completely different things. I personally think all drugs should be legal,as well as a whole bunch of other stuff. That isnt’ the point I’m making, and I think you know it.
Unless of course, your only objection to giving drugs to kids is that drugs are illegal, which I certainly hope not.
Furthermore, some amazing percentage of smokers became smokers while they were underage. I don’t know exactly (does anyone?) but the stat is something like 80-90%, which I find more than believable. Of every smoker I’ve ever known, I’ve only personally known one that was older than 16 when they started, and most of them were12-14, as was our $3 Billion Dollar Man. The vast majority of people who smoke didn’t make that decision as an intelligent, aware adult. They made that decision as a stupid kid who believed they were immortal. Now the adult has to cope with the addicition.
Stoid
Oh please. Are you trying to make the argument that gay men cannot help themselves, they MUST have condomless sex?? Or straight men or women? And you don’t “buy” addiction, but anyone who makes a stupid sexual choice is off the hook because wanting to get your rocks off is natural?
You disappoint me after all.
stoid
By the way, what’s your stance on fat people? Do they get your sympathy for their situation, or not? And if not, why not? I can’t imagine anything more instinctive, compelling and natural than eating.
Stoid, you incredible twit, of course I’m arguing legal vs. illegal. It’s a fucking lawsuit! Morality has nothing to do with it. In this case, the tobacco company did nothing wrong. This guy is suing because he used a product that did exactly what it was advertised as doing: it killed him. Where exactly is the criminal behavior here? He had forty years of cigarette warnings, condescending lectures from Surgeon Generals, and syrupy PSAs on TV every thirty minutes. This guy is going to die because he was too fucking stupid to stop smoking thirty years sooner. If, as you suggest, this is a proper outcome because Big Tobacco has comitted other crimes not addressed in this lawsuit, then this is a worse miscarriage of justice than I thought. Because we are punishing a corporation without ever charging them with the crime we are punishing them for. I read this paper once that addressed this sort of thing. I think it was called The Constitution.
You say tobacco companies deserve to pay for addicting children. I agree with you, which frightens me to no end. If and when someone takes Big Tobacco to court for marketing to kids, I’ll be right there rooting for them to be gutted like pigs. But that has nothing to do with this case. And, on the merits of this case alone, the plaintiff doesn’t have a leg to stand on. (Or should that be, he doesn’t have a lung to breathe with?)
Miller:
You may not know this, so I’ll fill you in: it is my personal practice to ignore anyone who chooses to make pesonally rude remarks. I do not debate that way, and anyone who chooses to debate that way with me can debate the air.
So whatever you had to say after this, I dunno, I don’t care.
If you should care to continue a debate with me, great. If you want to call me names and be nasty to me, fine. Just don’t expect me to respond.
stoid
Stoid, if you’re going to use arguments as weak and illogical as these in the Pit you’ve got no right to complain when people call you names. Either stay out of the Pit, or stop whining.
I see. So when a company makes a product that their own research shows causes cancer its ok to supress that research? They understood the addictive nature and various dangers of their product back when obstetricians were telling mothers to smoke. This is ok with you?
I am a smoker myself and well aware of the risks. I wasn’t so well aware when I started but sufficiently so that I take responsibility for it myself but to suggest the tobacco companies are innocents is just stupid. They dug their own hole by lying to their customers.
Just saying that my arguments are weak and illogical doesn’t cut it. You have to show it. So far, I see name calling.
And if you think that name calling is the appropriate response to what you believe to be ill-conceived arguments, then perhaps you had best remain in the Pit at all times, eh? Or perhaps the sandbox would be a more appropriate venue?
See ya.
stoid
Time from expect no response, to response: 20 minutes.
This tactic is extremely common, transcends all intelligence levels, belief structures, codes of ethics, and has lately been causing me puzzlement. I’m beginning to think it’s a propensity hardwired right into the brain, like the ability for language. But language serves a survival purpose. Perhaps its something like an appendix.
I think if I ever go back to formal schooling, I’ll try to finagle a research grant on the subject.
As far as people dying from stupid mistakes and habits, to borrow and mash together two separate quotes from Unforgiven (I think, or one of the various others where Clint scowls, drawls, and kills people with less forceful scowls and drawls): “‘Deserve’ has got nothing to do with it. We all got it coming, kid.”
The tobacco industry is an easy target, the firearms industry slightly less so. In ten or less years, fully expect morally-punishing lawsuit verdicts against the meat industry–who after all have undeniably shitty business practices of their own.
But for what? Selling meat, an acknowledged healthful and common food item, when prepared properly and consumed moderately? Doesn’t exactly compare with the pure poison of tobacco, now does it? i think you are being alarmist. Or fatalistic. Or sumthin.
They were ill-considered, and really don’t present my views accurately. I rescind my earlier posts. This is what I should have said:
Stoid: Show some fucking back-bone, woman! Are your values really so flimsy that as soon as your fragile sensibilities are wounded you go running from the room with your hands over your ears? Stand up for what you beleive, or shut the fuck up. This sort of bullshit is doing everything you believe in a disservice, which particularly galls me because I happen to agree with you on a lot of things. You don’t like bad names? Stay in GD*. You don’t like being called a “twit?” How about being called a coward? Until you prove otherwise, I will construe a refusal to answer my arguments as an inability to do so.
*I apologize to everyone in GD for that
Fatalistic I will cheerfully admit to. Alarmist, get back to me in the ten years timeframe, and I’ll admit to that should it be necessary. I hope I have to, but class action suits (the most likely kind I’m predicting) are very lucrative business. Juries are certainly handing down incredible judgments (that later get negotiated down sharply) out of a desire to punish. I’m a lot more cynical about why the lawyers are doing it.
Well, I don’t dare claim the lawsuits won’t happen… I don’t think there’s anything left for people to sue over that hasn’t been tried. But I just don’t think they will win.
In the meanwhile, I shall continue to applaud when tobacco companies are punished, and feel sad when people who make self-destructive choices end up suffering for them.
stoid
And if anyone is wondering, I took my end of the conversation with Miller to e-mail.
stoid