Reuters. I wonder if the award will stand. If it stands, what kind of precedent does this set?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I don't think it will stand, but I am partial to the idea that the reason we haven't seen billion dollar judgements is because nobody has been willing to grant one. I don't think there's any debate that deception on the part of tobacco companies has preserved billions of dollars in profits they wouldn't otherwise have.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
While I don't think the ruling will stand, I think it was an utter ridiculous ruling to begin with.
Nobody made her husband chain smoke. He chose to. There are numerous ways to stop, including a ton of free cessation programs.
If someone wants to smoke, they should be responsible for the consequences.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I'm skeptical that anyone was fooled by cigarette companies' deceptiveness regarding the health effects of their products after the government started publicizing the problem heavily in the 60s and 70s.
HOWEVER, there is no question that the cigarette companies DID try to conceal or minimize the harms.
I think the cigarette companies deserve to pay penalties. I am not sure that any given victim deserves a large monetary award.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I'm not familiar with this case at all but I did read the article:
What made this particular plaintiff stand out from the millions killed by tobacco use and lung cancer (aside from dying at 36, which is really young, though he smoked for 23 years)?
Also, what particular negligence was there? I got the impression he started smoking after the point at which everyone knew it was bad. For example, in the McDonald's hot coffee case, the company had received many many reports of burns from customers before the lawsuit, and had been serving the coffee hotter than food service regulations recommended.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I'm skeptical that anyone was fooled by cigarette companies' deceptiveness regarding the health effects of their products after the government started publicizing the problem heavily in the 60s and 70s.
Rest assured: people were fooled.
Lots of people.
People are, as a general rule, easily fooled.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Especially if they're being told something they want to believe.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I've never known a smoker who claimed it wasn't bad for them, but on reflection I'm going to have to admit it seems likely that people were fooled - after all, I know some people who think essential oils mostly obviate modern medicine, and there's the whole vaccines thing, etc.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Today's a bit of a different story (though you'll still find plenty of people who say it "doesn't hurt me" or that the "weight loss benefits" outweigh the harm to your lungs, healthwise) — to an age before Jeffrey Wigand, before the Waxman Hearings. The lies were endemic and well-paid for.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's not merely a question of being fooled, either. It's also a question of being fooled when still a child, and then wham you've got a nice nicotine addiction. I hear tell those are pretty damn rough.
As for the settlement, I admit it does sound absurd. On the other hand, big tobacco sits on a foundation built on lies that killed millions directly for profit, and you know what? Not only is it still an enormous business, but every effort to wring a healthy or even a less dishonest and toxic business practice out of them has had to be done kicking and screaming.
Since we're apparently unwilling as a nation to break 'em for this legacy-a foundation of deliberate lies, more deaths than the Holocaust and perhaps Stalin put together over the years-these companies still get to be big bucks and still get to be powerbrokers politically, you know what, I'm not sure some damages running wild is more absurd than that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, it's like .. when the mcdonalds coffee burn lady got her settlement, everyone talked about how absurd the settlement cost was. But it was purposefully set at literally McDonald's profit for all of one day for their coffee sales alone.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, that coffee story is an anecdote that is often used with so little connection to the actual events of that case.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
moreover, when a company can become so large that it can only worry about absolutely trivial maximal payouts for their own negligence and decry that .2% of a day's worth of profits as 'unreasonable' then WELP
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
23 billion is a bit more than .2% of a days profit.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
23 billion is not going to stand, of course, because it violates even the loosest guidelines for punitive damages. It'll probably eventually come in 2-3 orders of magnitude lower.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Agreed but it sounded like some posters felt 23 billion was small potatoes to a company as big as RJR. In actual fact, that's about 20 YEARS worth of profits. I'm sure that wasn't their intent and I'm just reading things into it but I wanted to point that out.
Gives a true meaning to the phrase "I'll sue and own this company."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
you could do worse than to sue RJR out of existence.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I would shed few tears if someone who started smoking while they were a child and later died of lung cancer, f their family owned the company.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
All this talk of RJR and the recent passing of James Garner reminds me of the movie Barbarians at the Gate. I'm going to have to find a stream and watch it. It's been years but I remember liking it.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
This is stupid. There are risks associated with everything. Should we sue auto manufacturers for accidents? Should we sue McDonalds for obesity? Should we sue Cabellas for accidental deaths due to guns?
Whether they knew smoking had risks or not, it's the smoker's fault. Even if the smoker worked for RJR, got free cigarettes, got PAID to smoke them. The company should still not be liable.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Bullshit.
For DECADES RJR sold a product they KNEW was killing people, and they deliberately hid results that proved that. They actively suppressed research that proved it was a huge risk, funded studied they KNEW were false to confuse the issue, and deliberately increased or added substances they KNEW were both addictive and deadly.
I don't think that the amount will stand, but it isn't stupid. They aren't being sued for selling tobacco. They are on trial for lying, illegally hiding facts, lying to the public and the courts repeatedly over the course of DECADES, and selling a product they knew was unsafe without warning their consumers.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
No. They are being assigned punitive damages due to a single case.
If the feds want to bring a case against big tobacco, they should do it. But they shouldn't continually dance around the issue every few years, tacking punitive damages onto cases where litigious fools get rich and benefit. There are thousands of other victims that get nothing. Why should a handful of sue-happy people get rewarded for relative's bad decisions?
I'm all for making a case against big tobacco. Roll out the evidence and put it through trial. Then put it behind us. The excuse that people didn't know smoking could be unhealthy is a weak one -- and we can't lean against it forever. Unless I can blame all of my problems on the fact that I'm native American, and white people treated my ancestors poorly.
Stupid.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Do you have a problem with punitive damages in general, then?
quote:I'm all for making a case against big tobacco. Roll out the evidence and put it through trial. Then put it behind us.
Are you saying that we should only pursue criminal charges, if any can be brought? And that civil liability is itself a stupid way to remedy the damage they did? I'm just not sure how you envision this should work.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Why should a handful of sue-happy people get rewarded for relative's bad decisions?
Because with punitive damages that reward is incidental. The point is to punish the offender and it's just by convention that the damages go to the plaintiff in most cases.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
If we feel that RJR did something wrong, then yes, a criminal action is the right way to go.
If we can't pursue criminal charges, why should there be civil liability? It only served to allow judges to make a statement. From an economics perspective, they're making our market much more inefficient.
And from the perspective of the victims, it would be much better if everyone was given a cut. Why should this idiot get rewarded?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
So in your view we should do away with tort law entirely. That is a refreshingly bold proposal.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: If we feel that RJR did something wrong, then yes, a criminal action is the right way to go.
If we can't pursue criminal charges, why should there be civil liability? It only served to allow judges to make a statement. From an economics perspective, they're making our market much more inefficient.
And from the perspective of the victims, it would be much better if everyone was given a cut. Why should this idiot get rewarded?
Oh but Herblay, we can't rely on free market principles. We NEED the government to tell us what is healthy and what isn't, and we need judges to make political statements from the bench. I mean, there have been warning labels on packages of cigarettes since the U.S. Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act passed in 1965 but hey, it's still the tobacco company's fault!
We obviously also need to blame the public education system and it's general lack of funding, because maybe those people couldn't READ the warnings due to subpar education in the inner city neighborhoods they were living in. It must be lack of money.
And parents can't be expected to teach their children the dangers of smoking, because they are too busy working out of the home for greedy old white men that want to pay them subpar wages to make huge profits.
My solution? Nationalized Marijuana Dispensaries. You want congress to get along? Have everyone light up before entering the chambers each morning. Trust me.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Just when I thought the thread couldn't make any less sense....
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Herblay: Punitive damages are supposed to punish a company in a meaningful way that it will deter that sort of behavior in the future. Is it where the funds go that bother you or the fact punitive damages happen at all?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: If we feel that RJR did something wrong, then yes, a criminal action is the right way to go.
If we can't pursue criminal charges, why should there be civil liability? It only served to allow judges to make a statement. From an economics perspective, they're making our market much more inefficient.
And from the perspective of the victims, it would be much better if everyone was given a cut. Why should this idiot get rewarded?
I'm wondering if such an abrasive, insulting style is simply because you're angry or it's just a rhetorical tactic.
You and Geraine, in your defense of big crappy businesses because people are stupid, seem to have skipped over the childhood addiction angle. And then there's the problem that apparently strict personal responsibility is the lot of 'idiots' who die of lung cancer. Breaking a company that sells poison for profit that kills people and is built on lies? Whoa, whoa, legs not get carried away! What about personal responsibility? They should keep their money.
Another problem, especially for you, Herblay:every argument except the one about more people not being compensated would apply with just as much potency against major class action lawsuits or widespread governmental punishment. So I can't help but be a little skeptical at the idea you would support such a thing, especially since the broader set of victims would also all be idiots too, right?
Though i notice on reread, you only said you wouldn't mind seeing a broader case brought, and left off the part About what verdict you would prefer.
The more I examine it, the uglier it gets actually. Punitive damages shouldn't exist for tobacco cases, because the victims are idiots. But if they're actually idiots, how ethical is it to sell them highly addictive drugs that also poison and kill them?
Seems like the nugget of your rhetoric is simply 'let those idiots die, and if they are survived by family that complains, sneer at them for being idiots.'
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Just when I thought the thread couldn't make any less sense....
Let's be honest, the thread didn't make any sense to begin with
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Wait, I know this one. That's the Loch Ness Monster defense!
Edit: er, um, the Chewbacca defense.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, that stupid 13 year old getting hooked on a drug as addictive as heroin. What a fool! Every knew and accepted in 1973, and it was clearly stated on every pack, that smoking will absolutely, certainly kill you and by the way the only reason you want to smoke this is because you're addicted, now go ahead and make your informed choice and disregard all the advertising we still do for children in 1973.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Just a fun fact: it was six years after this particular death that tobacco companies agreed that maybe it was bad to advertise magazines with a passing targeting towards adolescents such as Sports Illustrated.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
My argument is not "let the idiots die". - If RJR did something wrong, try them for it. - If there are damages, distribute them as best as you can. - Once a verdict is reached, no further punitive damages should be enacted.
As the system stands, we have a company who is making a product. A product that people want. Every few years, some litigious yahoo sues because they want money for themselves. A judge that wants to make a political statement skims the company's profits to benefit THAT ONE litigious schmuck.
IF there are victims, they should all share the damages.
IF RJR did something wrong (sixty years ago?), they should only be tried once.
As for anyone born in the last fifty years or so, they knew the harm. You're blaming a company that made a known harmful product. You're giving one greedy person a bunch of money to make a political statement. I don't care if it's the system we have; it's wrong. Screw tort law.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Another fun fact: more people die of alcohol than tobacco.
Just because smoking has become unpopular, why do we have any right to villainize smokers and tobacco companies?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Alright, by this point it's clear you don't know and aren't interested knowing the history of tobacco advertising in this country, and what was required to be told about tobacco use, when.
As for demonizing smokers, I refer you to your own use of words such as fool, schmuck, and I think idiot but would have to check.
As for what your plan is, as I have already said, you clearly don't think companies such as RJR have actually done anything wrong, so this is all something of a fig leaf on your part-everyone one for fifty years knew precisely how dangerous smoking is, you've referred to those who did from lung cancer as idiots...connect the dots.
Just for the record though, this particular man who died started smoking nearly 30 years before it became illegal to market tobacco to children specifically, comprehensively. As a result of this addiction he picked up, he was dead 23 years after that...which was incidentally right around the time we finally stopped targeted advertising.
Maybe his wife isn't just a greedy schmuck who wants money. Maybe she's also angry about the whole addicted to a lethal drug in childhood which killed him thing too. Eh, she's probably just a schmuck, though. Tort law is bad because...ummm, market efficiency or something. Also because it gives money to greedy idiots, and that just makes Herblay *so mad*!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Another fun fact: more people die of alcohol than tobacco.
Just because smoking has become unpopular, why do we have any right to villainize smokers and tobacco companies?
A fact that is even more fun: facts can be pretty stupid and unhelpful when they are stripped of context. Which in this case would be: how many people smoke, and how many people drink, and to what extent. Of course more people did from alcohol versus smoking. More people die from smoking that crystal meth, so it's more dangerous, right?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Also, alcohol has been demonized and regulated for a LOT longer than tobacco. The marketing strategies have been very different as well.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Maybe his wife isn't just a greedy schmuck who wants money. Maybe she's also angry about the whole addicted to a lethal drug in childhood which killed him thing too. Eh, she's probably just a schmuck, though. Tort law is bad because...ummm, market efficiency or something. Also because it gives money to greedy idiots, and that just makes Herblay *so mad*!
I love when people twist my words because they think they have something intelligent to say.
So, you think this lady is more deserving than all of the other people who've lost loved ones to tobacco? Why is that? Because she can afford a good lawyer?
[ July 24, 2014, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: Herblay ]
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Also, alcohol has been demonized and regulated for a LOT longer than tobacco. The marketing strategies have been very different as well.
I lost my entire family to a drunk driver. Where's my billion dollars?
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
And everyone in my family has diabetes. Can I blame McDonald's for causing it? Or can I blame them for their advertising?
I think a lot of people would be open to reasonable reforms, such as:
1) Statutory caps on punitive damages. 2) Punitive damages do not go to the plaintiff, but into [some kind of general fund]. 3) Limits on attorney's fees. 4) Herblay gets to file an opinion on each case.
But scrapping the whole system is just saying "oh well...it's okay if people harm each other in ways that we can't redress with the criminal justice system. Sure, we COULD continue to hold people financially accountable for the ways in which they deliberately or negligently cause harm to other people, but it makes me mad when people, who don't deserve things in my opinion, are awarded damages, so SCRAP IT!"
Incidentally, Herblay, I don't think you can realize the first two thirds of your vision here without something resembling tort law:
quote:- If RJR did something wrong, try them for it. - If there are damages, distribute them as best as you can. - Once a verdict is reached, no further punitive damages should be enacted.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay:
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Also, alcohol has been demonized and regulated for a LOT longer than tobacco. The marketing strategies have been very different as well.
I lost my entire family to a drunk driver. Where's my billion dollars?
No manufacturer has ever (at least in my lifetime) tried to tell its customers that driving while drinking was a safe and cool activity. Nearly every product ever made could kill somebody somehow. The difference is that big tobacco knowingly lied about the risks for years.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Yeah, it's like .. when the mcdonalds coffee burn lady got her settlement, everyone talked about how absurd the settlement cost was. But it was purposefully set at literally McDonald's profit for all of one day for their coffee sales alone.
This sounds very urban-legend-y to me, and I don't recall seeing it in the (generally favorable) analyses of that particular court award that I've read. Are you sure about that?
Edit: OK, I found on Wikipedia where it says the lawyer suggested a couple days worth of coffee revenues which is a different number than profit.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
The label "Big Tobacco" sure makes it easy to villainize, doesn't it?
So ... a handful of executives in a handful of companies ... in the sixties (was it?) ... had some information that a product that they marketed and sold might have health risk. And they didn't tell anybody. Now, sixty years later, we're still routinely stealing their profits to teach them a lesson?
What's the lesson? That these dead executives should've been more forthcoming with private data? That if society decides to villainize something, we can just steal money every few years and give it to a random "victim" while thousands of victims go without?
The problem with tort law is that the LEGAL SYSTEM has no accountability. We can just throw another suit at a company, every year or two, and eat all of their profits. Will it affect behavior? No. What will RJR do differently? Nothing.
Sure, we can show our disapproval by fining them out of business. American workers, right? Selling a legal product? To a willing consumer? Yeah, that sounds fair.
God. If we want to penalize them, drive up the taxes. Use them for education. But the cost will be passed on to the lower class consumers of tobacco. I'll stick with the belief that a free market is more efficient.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I didn't twist your words, Herblay. You directly labeled her a greedy schmuck and a fool more than once.
Hey, if it's ok while you sing your arias to the market and poor victimized tobacco companies, could you continue to ignore the part where this particular dead person was hooked at 13? And continue to sidestep questions about the ethics of your 'they're idiots' argument is when we're talking about the marketing of lethal drugs to kids?
Thanks!
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
I knew dozens of kids hooked at thirteen. I was hooked at thirteen. I'm sure this lady is so much better than all their families, so much more worthy of $23 B.
Yes, she wants money. Yes, she's pounding down the gates to get it. Yes, it's stupid. You still haven't answered my only question: why does she deserve it?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Another fun fact: more people die of alcohol than tobacco.
quote:Cigarette smoking causes about one of every five deaths in the United States each year.1,6 Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following:1
•More than 480,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke) •278,544 deaths annually among men (including deaths from secondhand smoke) •201,773 deaths annually among women (including deaths from secondhand smoke)
quote:Exposure to secondhand smoke causes nearly 42,000 deaths each year among adults in the United States:1
•Secondhand smoke causes 7,333 annual deaths from lung cancer.1 •Secondhand smoke causes 33,951 annual deaths from heart disease.1
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Huh. My memory of those numbers was inverted. I wonder if I was remembering alcohol-contributing deaths or some such, or just got the numbers flipped? Egg on my face, in any event. I apologize for that, Herblay.
As for the rest, a few things. As for your 'why do they deserve it more', I note again that your arguments apply just as much to all of those other people too, so I'm still not sure what you mean by this pretense of outrage on their behalf. But to answer your question, though you've shown little inclination to do the same, the only thing is that they filed and won a lawsuit. Which isn't much, though it is something.
So now, *about* those other people. In the hypothetical massive government inquiry and assessment against big tobacco, what is your counter argument when those opposing it say 'those idiots knew better'-you know, like you've said here?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Eh? Herbley was the one who made the false claim. (his "fun fact" which was not actually factual)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
This is what I get for posting on an hour and a half of sleep, I suppose. I literally looked back over my post and couobt remember clearly writing all of it, heh.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: This is stupid. There are risks associated with everything. Should we sue auto manufacturers for accidents? Should we sue McDonalds for obesity? Should we sue Cabellas for accidental deaths due to guns?
We do, in fact, sue auto manufacturers for accidents when they do things like intentionally conceal manufacturing defects that can cause fatal crashes in order to protect their bottom line.
And since RJR and co were part of a decades long literal conspiracy to attempt to conceal what they had plainly discovered for themselves (that cigarettes are astoundingly harmful to human health and are a ridiculously addictive drug) they're certainly in the category of this oh so hated Tort.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Oh but Herblay, we can't rely on free market principles.
Cool! You said something true by accident. Every modernized nation on earth has one of those new-fangled health standards boards of some sort or another to this exact effect, and such regulation over business has proven its value a hundred score times over.
I guess it would be super awesome to go back to an era before Upton Sinclair when the free market was supposed to determine the quality of your foodstuffs for you and a few cases of fatal botulism here and there every week from meat cans with rusted nails and mouse turds in it was simply the invisible hand at work.
Related to the RJR thing and Upton Sinclair, as well, a Sinclair quote!
'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'
quote:MR. WYDEN. Let me begin my questioning on whether or not nicotine is addictive. Let me ask you first, and I'd like to just go down the row, whether each of you believes that nicotine is not addictive. I heard virtually all of you touch on it. Yes or no, do you believe nicotine is not addictive?
MR. CAMPBELL (President of Philip Morris U.S.A.). I believe nicotine is not addictive, yes.
MR. WYDEN. Mr Johnston?
MR. JAMES JOHNSTON (Chairman and CEO of RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company). Mr. Congressman, cigarettes and nicotine clearly do not meet the classic definition of addiction. There is no intoxication.
MR. WYDEN. We´ll take that as a "no." Again, time is short. I think that each of you believe that nicotine is not addictive. We would just like to have this for the record.
MR. TADDEO (President of U.S. Tobacco). I don´t believe that nicotine or our products are addictive.
MR. TISCH (Chairman and CEO of Lorillard Tobacco Company). I believe that nicotine is not addictive.
MR. HORRIGAN (Chairman and CEO of Liggett Group). I believe that nicotine is not addictive.
MR. SANDEFUR (Chairman and CEO of Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company). I believe that nicotine is not addictive.
MR. DONALD JOHNSTON (President and CEO of American Tobacco Company). And I, too, believe that nicotine is not addictive.
1994.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Gets tricky to nail them in the sort of hearing Herblay (claims) to want when they can just flat out lie and insist on being believed.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: And everyone in my family has diabetes. Can I blame McDonald's for causing it? Or can I blame them for their advertising?
depends....did they add addictive substances to it for decades, knowing they were addictive and harmful, then lie about it and deliberately obscure the truth even to Congress?
Is what they sell harmful/deadly even in small quantities?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Also, did McDonalds conduct research that showed that their food caused diabetes and then intentionally falsify the conclusions or destroy it knowing it was in their consumers' interest to know?
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Another fun fact: more people die of alcohol than tobacco.
Herblay, this contradicts what I was taught. What's your source?
*interested
--- Edited to add: Read further, and whoops! Dogbreath is already there. Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Every day, almost 30 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver.
quote:In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.
They're blaming cases of SIDS on tobacco? It's a risk factor, but so is being male. Or being Eskimo. We don't know what causes SIDS.
And more than 30 k heart disease deaths from secondhand smoke?
Doctor: What's the cause of death? Nurse: Heart disease. How should we write it up, Doc? Doctor: Did they live with a smoker? Nurse: I can't see how that's relevant. Let me check. Yes. They did. Doctor: Tobacco caused this death, Nurse. It was tobacco.
The data is culled in a manner that is being used to villainize tobacco. It is all of the deaths that could POSSIBLY be attributed to tobacco. And since lots of people use tobacco, it's easy to lay the blame there.
They claim that the tobacco deaths are from cancer and heart disease. Looking at both number sets together, they are stating that half of all heart disease and cancer deaths are from tobacco.
I'm probably guilty of shooting from the hip because it's my personal belief that alcohol is more harmful to society, from domestic violence to vast array of other social problems. But I think that others are guilty of attributing tobacco to deaths where it isn't the direct cause. It may be a factor, but we have no idea how often it IS the cause of death (except lung cancer and emphysema cases).
The modern view is that obesity is a bigger health risk than tobacco. From that perspective, McDonalds is easily just as guilty as RJR, whether you want to talk about targeted advertising or denial of health risk.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I would be thrilled if you were to, say, lecture someone such as CT, or just the CDC, that best of vipers, on the dishonest or negligent use of medical statistics in pursuit of an agenda.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Everybody is pursuing an agenda, Rakeesh. It's just that some are fortunate enough to be on the receiving end of $23 B.
It sucks what happened to her. It sucks what's happened to a lot of smokers and the families of smokers. And if people get layed off because a judge wanted to make a political statement, well that sucks too.
<shrug>
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The point of Rakeesh's post is that you have plainly demonstrated a negligent understanding and representation of facts and statistics about the harm of tobacco use. Not everyone's pursuit of an agenda is equal in terms of how much pre-existing bias causes someone to be totally, completely, flat wrong about statistics, as you were.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
I stated that alcohol caused more deaths. I was wrong. I iterated that the statistics about tobacco related deaths were biased, which they are.
So?
They're both harmful. But what pertinence does this have on the topic?
I'll restate my points, which I've never deviated from: - Tobacco is harmful, but we've known that for years. - It's a natural product. RJR is merely a manufacturer of a plant product. - If they did something wrong, they should be tried once and have damages distributed to people hurt by it. - If they didn't do something wrong, I think that civil / tort law unfairly punishes the company, again and again, by judges who want to make political statements. - I also think that we're doing this to discourage tobacco use. I don't think it works. And I think suits like this damage the economy (my economic comments). They raise prices on smokers, most of whom are poor. From an economic perspective, the ramifications of this are huge. - I was wrong about tobacco versus alcohol statistics. I have nothing more to say on the matter, other than that I believe the statistics are biased and that I believe alcohol causes more harm to society for multiple reasons (domestic violence, jobs, accidents, health).
<shrug> I'm done digging into the weeds, so to speak. People just want to pick at my zits rather than have a decent conversation about it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Do you smoke, Herblay? Stop, if so.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Herblay,
quote:I stated that alcohol caused more deaths. I was wrong. I iterated that the statistics about tobacco related deaths were biased, which they are.
That's not actually what you did. They might very well be, in fact, but you didn't even make a simple statement-you used a straw man to do it.
quote:They're both harmful. But what pertinence does this have on the topic?
The topic being, partially, tobacco is unfairly villainized, see deaths due to alcohol? You brought it up.
quote:Tobacco is harmful, but we've known that for years.
How much we've known this, when, and to what extent there was a conspiracy and a coverup by tobacco companies to conceal this is actually the subject that's well understood and has been referenced here more than once. By the reasoning you're using, were McDonald's to suddenly start using 15% more salt and then never tell anyone, it would be trivial, because everyone knew Big Macs were bad. In the case of tobacco of course, it's significantly worse than that.
quote:It's a natural product. RJR is merely a manufacturer of a plant product.
This is utterly irrelevant. As in, completely irrelevant to whether RJR ought to be deemed praiseworthy or villainous.
quote:If they did something wrong, they should be tried once and have damages distributed to people hurt by it.
They did a lot more than just one thing wrong, and they did it across millions of people and decades of time and dozens of states and millions of lives. It's not the same thing as a murder trial.
quote:If they didn't do something wrong, I think that civil / tort law unfairly punishes the company, again and again, by judges who want to make political statements.
You may very well be right that the only reason such a judgment was made was to make a political statement. Again, you haven't advanced an argument at all, but you may be right. However, punitive damages are not mere political statements. But you've ignored efforts in this thread to discuss that directly as well.
quote:I also think that we're doing this to discourage tobacco use. I don't think it works. And I think suits like this damage the economy (my economic comments). They raise prices on smokers, most of whom are poor. From an economic perspective, the ramifications of this are huge.
Doing this raises the price of cigarettes. In your praises for market efficiency, this discourages tobacco use, by some amount. End of story. You can't on the one hand talk about economic perspectives and then on the other dismiss the idea that a higher price doesn't impact demand.
quote:I'm done digging into the weeds, so to speak. People just want to pick at my zits rather than have a decent conversation about it.
In fact, your very first statement was to claim that even if a smoker didn't and couldn't have known the risks, it would still be their fault. Which I'm actually a little embarrassed I didn't pay more attention to, because wow.
quote:Whether they knew smoking had risks or not, it's the smoker's fault. Even if the smoker worked for RJR, got free cigarettes, got PAID to smoke them. The company should still not be liable.
quote:Why should this idiot get rewarded?
Why should a handful of sue-happy people get rewarded for relative's bad decisions?
Every few years, some litigious yahoo sues because they want money for themselves.
...THAT ONE litigious schmuck.
You're giving one greedy person a bunch of money...
Anyway, the point is, climb down off your cross there buddy. These aren't just zits being focused on. They are actually core elements of statements you've made, expressed in an inflammatory way.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Herblay? If your chief concern is that someone just got made a billionaire unjustly, relax. That's not happening. The amount of the judgment won't stand.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: They're both harmful. But what pertinence does this have on the topic?
Um, plenty, actually. If a major alcohol company was found to be engaging in the same degree of ultimate conspiracy to a) market to children, and b) conceal the harm and addictiveness of their product, additionally, ...
Cigarettes are massively more harmful than alcohol, one, and tobacco companies did seldom comparable terrible things related to that fact. So, the comparison to alcohol was off to begin with, and stuff.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:1) Statutory caps on punitive damages.
There's some indication that setting a statutory cap creates an anchor toward which all judgements well tend to be drawn. A great deal for the huge companies that hurt a lot of people (since it caps their potential losses) and really bad for smaller businesses that will now pay significantly more than they would without the anchor price.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
As far as alcohol goes, another thing to take into consideration is those deaths are a result of excessive consumption. Moderate alcohol consumption is actually good for you, and is linked with better cardiovascular health, fewer strokes, lower chances of dementia, better prostate health, lower chances of developing diabetes, lower chances of cancer, and longevity and health in general.(in comparison to abstinence) The same can't be said for tobacco - it's not like smoking half a pack a day is healthy and good for you and 2 packs is bad. Any amount is bad.
Also, we live in a country that regulates the consumption and sale of alcohol far more than that of tobacco. The adverse effects of drunkeness (*excessive* use, mind you) have been widely known since the bronze age, the adverse effects of cigarettes have only recently been discovered,.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: - It's a natural product. RJR is merely a manufacturer of a plant product.
quote:[qb]- If they did something wrong, they should be tried once and have damages distributed to people hurt by it./QB]
They were. The $145 billion verdict was overturned on the grounds that it shouldn't have been a class action, thus opening the door for this very suit.
quote:A Florida appeals court threw out a landmark $145 billion punitive damage award against the nation's cigarette makers yesterday, saying the case should never have gone forward as a class-action lawsuit but rather as separate claims brought by individual smokers against the tobacco industry.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:1) Statutory caps on punitive damages.
There's some indication that setting a statutory cap creates an anchor toward which all judgements well tend to be drawn. A great deal for the huge companies that hurt a lot of people (since it caps their potential losses) and really bad for smaller businesses that will now pay significantly more than they would without the anchor price.
I think I might vote for a maximum multiplier of actual damages, but not for a dollar amount cap.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:1) Statutory caps on punitive damages.
There's some indication that setting a statutory cap creates an anchor toward which all judgements well tend to be drawn. A great deal for the huge companies that hurt a lot of people (since it caps their potential losses) and really bad for smaller businesses that will now pay significantly more than they would without the anchor price.
I think I might vote for a maximum multiplier of actual damages, but not for a dollar amount cap.
I could buy into that maybe.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
What are "punitive damages"? What are they for?
They are a mechanism so that the cost of doing wrong far out weighs the cost of doing right.
If I make a Widget, and I have two choices on how to make this widget, one that costs $100 and one that costs $10, I am likely to choose the $10 widget making process. I sell Ten Million widgets a year, saving $100 Million a year by using the cheaper process. However, the cheaply made widget breaks easier, and in 1 out of 100,000 cases that breaking widget causes the death of a user. They sue and I pay expenses for those that die. It costs me $20 Million a year to cover those expenses. Hey, I'm up $80 Million. Sucks to be the dead 1000 people and their families, but that's not important to the market. What can the market do to convince me to spend the extra money? A law suit where I am punished for my disregard for human life.
So the tobacco companies lied, cheated, and did there best to make money on a product that kills. People sue and may make big money from the punitive damages. You can look at it as rewarding people who were dumb enough to be fooled by an industries lies. Or you can look at it as punishment to an industry for the lies it told and the deaths it caused.
Most people who sue and demand punitive damages are not in it for the money. They are in it for justice, to stop the companies involved from dismissing the pain and suffering of those wronged with a Return On Investment calculation.
You are complaining that individual greed is being rewarded with billions of dollars. Apparently that is wrong. You are also defending corporate greed, which made billions of dollars a year for decades, as some how being above reproach.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Do you smoke, Herblay? Stop, if so.
One interesting comment in that flurry.
I appreciate the concern, Tom. But riddle me this. Would you say the same thing to someone obese? Because the health risk for obesity is higher than for smoking. And it's probably just as hard to "stop" eating unhealthy.
Further, any reasonable person would know that smoking is harmful ... do you: - Think I hadn't considered that before? - Hold you in such esteem that it might make me rethink my evil ways?
No offense intended, I just thought that the comment was interesting. And I did quit seven years ago. But I do, honestly, appreciate the concern.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Interesting comparison between alcohol and tobacco, that.
So, obesity is a similar risk to tobacco. And the argument some is making is that tobacco is a greater risk.
I would refute that alcohol is certainly more dangerous in two situations: - Short-term chronic abuse - Danger (physical and psychological) to other people in the form of abuse (verbal / physical) and vehicular
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: You are complaining that individual greed is being rewarded with billions of dollars. Apparently that is wrong. You are also defending corporate greed, which made billions of dollars a year for decades, as some how being above reproach.
Not exactly: - Individual Greed: I like the idea of limits. There are a lot of ways to look at this. - Corporate Greed: A corporation in a competitive industry makes small profit. They mainly exist as a cash supply for shareholders and to pay workers. If we take money from corporations based on something done 50 years ago, do you advocate punishing the workers or the shareholders? (Note: that's a rhetorical question.)
If tobacco is just a big greedy institution, perhaps more people should buy tobacco stocks? Why has nobody figured it out before -- they must be making TONS OF MONEY?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: ... - If they didn't do something wrong, I think that civil / tort law unfairly punishes the company, again and again, by judges who want to make political statements.
Eh? I don't know what's going on with this strange anti-judge sentiment going around the states, but the punitive damages in this case were determined by jury
From the OP
quote:After a four-week trial and 11 hours of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict granting compensatory damages of $7.3 million to the widow and the couple's child, as well as $9.6 million to Johnson's son from a previous relationship.
The same jury deliberated for another seven hours before awarding Robinson the additional sum of $23.6 billion in punitive damages, according to the verdict forms.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: If tobacco is just a big greedy institution, perhaps more people should buy tobacco stocks? Why has nobody figured it out before -- they must be making TONS OF MONEY?
uh this is pretty much precisely why tobacco stocks have been a pretty good staple for a good long time. RJR and co did indeed make TONS OF MONEY and then try to preserve their TONS OF MONEY to the greatest extent that they could by lying about and attempting to conceal the truth of both their product's harm and its addictiveness
this argument could be tossed round and round over and over a billion times by you, and it will still settle firmly adhered to that point, frankly
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: RJR and co did indeed make TONS OF MONEY and then try to preserve their TONS OF MONEY to the greatest extent that they could by lying about and attempting to conceal the truth of both their product's harm and its addictiveness
This happened in 1953. 61 years ago.
At what point do you stop being surprised that tobacco is bad? 50 years? 100 years? I'll bet that people in the 50s could tell you that heavy smokers coughed and died a miserable death.
Maybe we need a fresh lawsuit against Congress for annexing land from the Native Americans? At some point it needs to stop being affrontation against a handful of bad people and needs to turn into a historical footnote.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
again:
quote:MR. WYDEN. Let me begin my questioning on whether or not nicotine is addictive. Let me ask you first, and I'd like to just go down the row, whether each of you believes that nicotine is not addictive. I heard virtually all of you touch on it. Yes or no, do you believe nicotine is not addictive?
MR. CAMPBELL (President of Philip Morris U.S.A.). I believe nicotine is not addictive, yes.
MR. WYDEN. Mr Johnston?
MR. JAMES JOHNSTON (Chairman and CEO of RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company). Mr. Congressman, cigarettes and nicotine clearly do not meet the classic definition of addiction. There is no intoxication.
MR. WYDEN. We´ll take that as a "no." Again, time is short. I think that each of you believe that nicotine is not addictive. We would just like to have this for the record.
MR. TADDEO (President of U.S. Tobacco). I don´t believe that nicotine or our products are addictive.
MR. TISCH (Chairman and CEO of Lorillard Tobacco Company). I believe that nicotine is not addictive.
MR. HORRIGAN (Chairman and CEO of Liggett Group). I believe that nicotine is not addictive.
MR. SANDEFUR (Chairman and CEO of Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company). I believe that nicotine is not addictive.
MR. DONALD JOHNSTON (President and CEO of American Tobacco Company). And I, too, believe that nicotine is not addictive.
Hint: this conversation did not occur 61 years ago
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Why does this matter? It's not like they're waging a huge campaign of disinformation. Even if they did, they were asking for a personal opinion.
I'm sure the CEO of McDonalds would say the same thing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's not like they're waging a huge campaign of disinformation.
*blink* That's exactly what it's like.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I just googled the date of that hearing. Totally did not expect XXXX XXXXXXX to be president at the time (no spoilers). Or for me to be alive by a rather large margin.
[ July 29, 2014, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: theamazeeaz ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Why does this matter? It's not like they're waging a huge campaign of disinformation.
this post right here is amazing. You have amazed me.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
It's that post that convinces me that Herblay is pulling the forum's collective leg.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Eeeh, there's just too many people arguing with me. I'm mixing them all up. Again, here's my points:
1. Smoking's bad. 2. Smoking's not good, it's bad. 3. Smokers are all poor, and taxing them to subsidize your liposuction is bad. 4. Smoking's not the only thing that's bad. So is sex, hang-gliding, bungie-jumping, and McDonalds. In a perfect world, we'd tax them all. Since we can't, let's just tax the smokers. 5. Just because someone's a little bad, doesn't mean they're a lot bad. But they're still bad.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)