Mean old RJ Reynolds making that man smoke.

http://news.yahoo.com/fla-jury-slams-rj-...02821.html

No one made him smoke of course, but who decided to purposely make cigarettes extremely addictive, despite internally recognizing the physical dangers of that decision?

I would recommend "Cigarette Century" by Allan Brandt for a look into the cigarette industry and efforts at litigation towards it. It's much more complicated than making someone smoke

The Surgeon General warnings have been printed on the packs since the 1960s.

Again, not that simple. There have been cases where internal documents found in discovery showed that tobacco companies were actively demanding for MORE addictive ingredients, regardless of health consequences, not to mention efforts at downplaying the publicization of problems about cigarettes. It's been shown to be relatively easy to prove liability on the part of the companies because of their actions.

Not to mention studies showing that the labels don't have a discernible effect on reducing smoking.

Forget the whole responsibility issue, every one of the jurors who came up with a $23 billion damage award should be sterilized. We don't need mental degenerates procreating.

$23.6 billion worth to one guy?

Who has started smoking in the last 50 years who didn't know it was addictive and bad for you?

(07-19-2014 08:48 PM)Smaug Wrote:  $23.6 billion worth to one guy?

Who has started smoking in the last 50 years who didn't know it was addictive and bad for you?

Not in my opinion, but that was the jury's decision. To them, the award was justified and might have had something to do with the 25 billion dollar acquisition the company had just made. I would wager that the award will be shaved down quite a bit in post-trial motions and such.

Again, its not a matter of whether or not someone chose to smoke the product. In my view, its one of the stupidest decisions that someone can make, I'm not trying to eschew personal responsibility here. But is it within one's personal responsibility to make product decisions based on SECRET internal moves and decisions to make a product explicity more dangerous? Thats the threshold we are talking about, no one should be held to that standard. The punitive damages are aimed at the actions of the company, not at the well-known dangerousness of the product.

Where is the personal responsibility of the smoker in this???
He chose to smoke. He knew the negatives. They are written on the pack.
No one put the cancer sticks in his mouth. He chose to do it of his own free will.

So if you choose to drink, become an alcoholic and develop Cirrhosis, why can't you sue Seagrams for millions and win?

If you choose to drink coffee and become addicted to caffeine, can you sue Folger's?

What ever happened to personal responsibility for your actions?

I guess we should be able to sue and win against drug dealers too.

(07-19-2014 08:56 PM)TPBlaze84 Wrote:  

(07-19-2014 08:48 PM)Smaug Wrote:  $23.6 billion worth to one guy?

Who has started smoking in the last 50 years who didn't know it was addictive and bad for you?

Not in my opinion, but that was the jury's decision. To them, the award was justified and might have had something to do with the 25 billion dollar acquisition the company had just made. I would wager that the award will be shaved down quite a bit in post-trial motions and such.

Again, its not a matter of whether or not someone chose to smoke the product. In my view, its one of the stupidest decisions that someone can make, I'm not trying to eschew personal responsibility here. But is it within one's personal responsibility to make product decisions based on SECRET internal moves and decisions to make a product explicity more dangerous? Thats the threshold we are talking about, no one should be held to that standard. The punitive damages are aimed at the actions of the company, not at the well-known dangerousness of the product.

I could see fining the company a lot of money based on them trying to make it as addictive as possible, and whatever other secret actions they've done, maybe. But none of the money, or very little of it, from the fine should go to the smoker, except to pay off legal fees.