Here’s where it’s at Stoid. It’s about taking responsibility for ones own actions. This guy smoked cig’s. He did so by his own choice. No one made him. No one snuck nicotine into his food. He wanted to smoke.
He knew the dangers. He accepted the risk. No we ask that he accept the responsibility. But he wants someone else to take the rap for what he did to himself.
I smoked for a lot of years. I smoked 3 packs a day. I’m responsible for that, no one made me do it. I quit. If I encounter health problems down the line, they will be of my own doing!
I am a recovering addict. I used dope for a lot of years. I stole a lot and paid drug dealers for the dope. I am responsible for that. Not the drug dealers.
Here it is again, in bold letters. This guy injured himself!!!
With freedom comes responsibility. We want to be free to do what we want to do. We have to be willing to accept the consequences.
Having received a windfall of $3bn, does anyone know how this places him in the world’s richlist? I seem to recall that even Bill Gate’s personal fortune in “only” in the tens or twenties of billions.
It’s an incredible thought: from know-nothing bozo to one of the world’s richest people in one fell swoop. Cool.
Before I get into it, one little tidbit of self-defense – I was headed for bed and didn’t take the time to answer in-depth. I apologize
I beg your pardon? Do condoms provide 100% protection from HIV? Do people make isolated mistakes? Can HIV be transmitted during one drunken act of indiscretion? Last I checked, your chances of developing lung cancer from smoking one butt were pretty slim.
I have yet to hear some one make the excuse that they knew they were having unprotected sex with an infected partner, but just couldn’t stop themselves. Or perhaps you’re referring to a group of people who insist on having unprotected sex with anonymous partners. I don’t automatically think of that group when the term “gay men” is mentioned. Are these the people to whom you refer?
If I may quote myself:
Even I find it difficult to condemn some one for solitary acts of indescretion such as described above. However, anyone who knowingly engages in chronic self-destructive behavior are not worthy of sympathy when the consequences come home to roost.
I can not catagorically state that HIV patients are all gay men having condomless monkey-sex with whatever they can find, which is what you seem to want. Do you wish to make the case that an 18-year-old girl who contracts HIV due to a lying cheating boyfriend is the same as some one who has been smoking for 40 years? Perhaps it makes me intellectually dishonest, but I don’t see the comparison.
Every person who smokes is engaging in stupid behavior and can not reasonably state they were not aware of the risks, especially by the time you reach the state of the gentleman in the OP. I can’t say the same of every HIV patient.
**
Well, I’m sorry. I don’t find contradiction in my position. If you still do, please point it out.
**
All fat people are overeaters? Gluttons sitting at home stuffing their faces with pork rinds and bon-bons? How fat is fat?
Do you really want to explore every nuance of my sympathy, looking for the slightest reason to call me a hypocrite?
Let’s see:
I don’t touch fast food, unless you count 6" inch turkey subs (no cheese) at Subway Red meat? Maybe once a month Cheese and butter? I don’t even keep them in the house.
**5-7 servings of fruits or vegetables a day?**Absolutely Jogging and lifting weights? I lift 3-4 times a week, and I run in the mornings 6 days a week.
Living healthily won’t keep me from getting heart disease or cancer necessarily, but it does reduce the risk. Nobody, not even the greedy schmoe in the OP, deserves cancer. Environmental toxins and genetic predisposition will ensure that doctors will be treating cancer for the conceivable future.
However, it does seem ridiculous for someone to inhale tobacco smoke for decades voluntarily, then sue the tobacco companies. The man knew his behavcior dramatically increased his chances of contracting lung cancer, and he took no responsibility for his own actions. That’s reprehensible.
Well like this smoker, I think the tobacco companies also should take some responsibility. For decades these companies have been hiding behind technicalities and supressing evidence so they can say “there is no proof that smoking causes lung cancer”. All the surgeon generals and health professionals in the world can give all the warnings they want but if the tobacco companies refuse to admit the dangers then they are probably legally on the hook and are ripe for some clever lawyer to stick it to them.
The smoker may have been stupid, but so have the tobacco companies if they did not forsee this happening one day. Live by the technicality, die by the technicality.
I hope the judgement stays at 3Bn, but I would rather the money go to charity. Imagine how much good that could do!
I know it and if you carefully re-read my post (below), you’ll see that I was going to make rude remarks, but realized the error of my ways.
My point? Well, I’d like to point out a few flaws in some of your other arguments, and I’d like it if you would stick around. So, w/o further ado…
Lung cancer is an almost assured outcome of long-term smoking. This has been known for years. There are, to date, no known, essentially assured and predictable consequences of unprotected sex, homosexual or otherwise. The fact that AIDS may be transmitted from one partner to the other through unprotected sex, and may be protected against by the use of a condom or abstinence, has nothing to do with long-term practice of sex. It is not a virtually assured outcome of the practice. Cancer and smoking, though, are.** Beelzebubba** does a good job, IMO, later on shooting more holes in your comment.
Hey, that’s great if you think that, really. I’d fully support you and anyone that wants to make selling cigarettes illegal. For now, they are not. The problem with trying to take a drug dealer to court for selling drugs is, well, that you have to admit to doing something illegal in the first place. That usually doesn’t garner too much support for your case.
I’m shocked and outraged by this verdict and yet I think drug dealers should be arrested and sent to jail for, get this, illegally selling (illegal) drugs. See how that works?
Ah, but, you see, this is a, get this, case of legal matters.
There are such things as “eating disorders,” “glandular problems” and “slow metabolisms.” Though these terms are overused by persons trying to explain away sloth, lethargy or laziness, they are actually and scientifically measurable problems that can cause people to become fat, so YES, some fat people get my sympathy.
Asbestos. Found to cause cancer and lawsuits erupted. Solution? No more asbestos because it is illegal to use. Cigarettes have been known to cause cancer for years (although the suppression of research is reprehensible, it is not the issue today nor for the last many 10’s of years), but no one seems to have wanted their production stopped or for them to be made illegal. I’ll wager that even following this verdict, the production and sale of cigarettes will remain a legal enterprise.
Again, I’m not getting you. You are saddened that someone who freely chooses to do something is suffering because of there choice?** spooje** does a good job of going through this, too.
My feeling on this is as follows:
If someone is going to successfully sue someone or some company for selling a product that they (the claimant) say injures them, then the product must be shown to be harmful.
Said product, having been shown to be harmful, should then be removed from circulation and sale. If it is not, but instead warnings and disclaimers are placed on every single package for sale, then those choosing to use said product/service, have no recourse for future damage incurred by its use.
I ask again, if I get cirrhosis of the liver from drinking, would you be 100% behind me if I chose to sue a number of alcohol producing companies?
Beelzebubba, I have created a GD thread to discuss these topics, rather than hijack this one.
As for this thread, I think we are at cross purposes here.
I don’t think I’ve ever even * implied * that the man who brought the suit was without responsibility, or that the $3 billion was deserved. I believe that my point was the same as the jury’s: the tobacco companies have done business with reckless disregard for the truth, and with deliberate intent to get people addicted. They should suffer the consequences of THEIR actions.
Frankly, I find it really strange that anyone could get so upset about it, unless you’re envious. Which it kinda sounds like some people around here are. I say let the guy have the $3 billion…from what I read, he won’t be around long enough to enjoy it.
Stoid
So what ** is ** the source of outrage, really? Do you believe that it is a gross injustice for the tobacco companies to have to pay that kind of money? Or are you offended that someone who acts in a self-destructive manner is being thusly “rewarded” - (Again,who cares about $3 billion when your lungs are rotting out? I sure as hell don’t. Kinda reminds me of the woman who won the biggest Vegas jackpot ever, around 28 million dollars…which she’ll need, since 6 weeks after she won it, she was hit by a drunk driver and is now a paraplegic. Oh, and her sister was killed in the same accident. I feel the same way about both situations. Money ceases to be all that impressive when you aren’t healthy enough to enjoy it.) My ultimate point being that some of you are making it sound like this guy “scored” for being self-destructive. He didn’t. I’ll be stunned if he lives to see a nickle, since not only is he ill, but the award will be fought as long as there is fighting to be done. So it’s really a symbolic win, I believe. And as THAT, what’s to be outraged by?
While I agree that any person would have known for at least the last 30 years smoking is harmful, I am wondering if the tobacco companies are still legally liable. As far as I know, all the warnings placed were not by the tobacco industry but various health agencies and I bet there is some deal so that the industry does not have to endorse those warnings. Since it’s the tobacco industry selling the product, if they are not giving the warnings, then they are liable (especially since they witheld information).
Hopefully somebody with keener legal mind than me can give us an answer better than my ham-fisted one.
I agree with Stoid, they’ve been taking advantage of the legal system for so long, it’s about time it bit them in the ass.
It doesn’t matter whether the victory was symbolic, iconic, or represented through liturgical dance, the court should not have decided in favor of the plaintiff. Even though I loathe tobacco companies intensely, in this case the plaintiff could not fairly blame the tobacco companies for selling a legal product that he knew could give him cancer.
The Surgeon General’s report on the tobacco-cancer link has been out for 37 years, so the plaintiff couldn’t say he didn’t know smoking could kill him. Unless the president of RJR came by the guy’s house and crammed cigarettes down his throat, I don’t see how the plaintiff has anyone to blame but himself.
If it wasn’t deserved he shouldn’t get it then right?
Fine. Have the gov’ment file a lawsuit against big tobacco for acting irresponsibly and we’ll see what happens, but while fining big tobacco MAY be an appropriate punishment giving it to some schmuck who doesn’t DESERVE it isn’t.
I get upset when people get things they do not deserve. It’s not a matter of envy. It’s a matter of what’s right and just.
This is your argument? Let him have his money cuz he won’t be around long enough to enjoy it? Does it occur to you that this money doesn’t just evaporate once he dies? Spouse and family presumably will inherit whatever he doesn’t manage to spend while alive. Oh and we all know that they deserve it right? :rolleyes:
Presumably if there were 10 cases nearly identical to this one you’d be in favor of all 10 plaintiffs receiving 3 billion correct? After, the principle is the same. We need to punish big tobacco through whatever means are available! Wait! Why stop at 3 billion? Why don’t we just award this guy the tobacco companies net profit! That’ll send a message!
I am angered, disheartened and disgusted by the jury in this case as well as with the people who support their decision.
Stoid,
I think that’s the problem though, and why I need to disagree with your point. The jury, and you by implication, seem to be saying “These tobacco companies are bad. They sell tobacco to kids, and knowingly sell a product that causes lung cancer, and they do all sorts of bad things when it comes to marketing. Therefore, while this guy’s case is sort of silly, let’s give him 3 billion dollars, because that’ll show them.” A jury that does that is acting as a judge of morality and not of law…they’re making sure the bad are punished and the good rewarded. While I, and most people here, support the bad being punished and the good being rewarded, that wasn’t what this trial was about. Actions like this are the same actions that motivate lynch mobs. It’s vigilante justice…saying “We don’t need the law, we’re going to do what’s right.”, and it’s unfair.
This award was made to “punish the tobacco companies?” Hah! That’s rich. Do you think they need to be punished further? Do you not remember the very recent and very large settlement of the lawsuit the states brought against them? Three billion isn’t shit. The settlement with the states is is expected to cost the tobacco companies $239.5 billion thru 2025.
Putting that aside though, there’s no way in fucking hell an individual deserves an award of this magnitude for the results of his own stupidity. By the way, is this the same asshole who was able to kick his heroin and booze habit, just not the smokey treats? I remember hearing something about a huge settlement recently that went to a guy who was able to quit all his vices except the smoking. If so, and he’s claiming he couldn’t quit smoking, well, that’s bullshit, too.