people v tobacco companies

i cant believe people are still trying to take legal action against tobacco companies when warnings have been on packets on cigarettes since 1965 are these people blind or just plain ignorant, what part of SMOKING CAUSES CANCER AND CAN LEAD TO AN EARLY DEATH do these people not understand. yes smoke if you want to smoke but you cant blame tobacco companies anymore when you fall ill as a result of smoking, that is just plain ignorant. EVERYONE knows the risks now....

I'm not exactly sure if this should be placed in the Medical section. Due to the fact that it has to do with the lawsuits and not the Health Hazard. Other than that the reason they take action is much of the obvious advertising. Tobacco companies market to People in their early teens. If they start now when they get older they'll buy more, which means the companies receive millions of dollars. Only parts of it have to do with health hazards. A lot of it is done by 'Truth' giving information other than the Surgeon General's warning.

Originally posted by AeroQuake
A lot of it is done by 'Truth' giving information other than the Surgeon General's warning.

That's funny because every time I see a "Truth" commercial I have an urge to light up a cigarette. Conspiracy? Could it be that "Truth" really is a form of advertising FOR the tobacco companies?

I've told this to fellow smokers and they feel the same way.

Yeah Carseller4...I USED to smoke and the "truth" commercials made me wanna light up too.

Conspiracy...I don't think so. But most smokers I know say the same about "truth" commercials....they bring up a craveing.

There was a case here in Glasgow where a woman took a tobacco caompany to court because her husband died of cancer adn when he started smoking there were no warnings about health damage. By the time there were he was addicted.

The case got thrown out mainly because the human body is subject to different forms of cancer danger and in this mans case smoking was only one of them. It is impossible for medical specialists from what source a person gets cancer from so thats why she lost.

Maybe if they can ever proove from which source a person gets cancer the story will change but until then a successful case will never happen.

Maybe if they can ever proove from which source a person gets cancer the story will change but until then a successful case will never happen.

It has been proven that smoking is the #1 cause of lung cancer (in America). The VAST MAJORITY of lung canceries are/were smokers.
That should say something.

another note:
People know the risk, they choose to spark up....don't blame it in on PM or Camel or whoever. If you wanna smoke...fine, if you don't then don't....just be ready to accept responsibility when/if you get cancer or something.

People need to learn to mind thier own business and quit whyning all the damn time. If there's a bar and people are smoking in it an you don't like smoke.....don't sue the bar or change laws, you don't have to go there.

[edit on 10/7/2005 by SportyMB]

heres a link to the court finding for the case. Its quite long but a good read.

www.scotcourts.gov.uk...

Originally posted by coffeeaddict
i cant believe people are still trying to take legal action against tobacco companies when warnings have been on packets on cigarettes since 1965 are these people blind or just plain ignorant, what part of SMOKING CAUSES CANCER AND CAN LEAD TO AN EARLY DEATH do these people not understand. yes smoke if you want to smoke but you cant blame tobacco companies anymore when you fall ill as a result of smoking, that is just plain ignorant. EVERYONE knows the risks now....

I agree everyone knows the risks. However in my experience I find that addiction will keep you smoking regardless.

I started smoking when I was 15 (odds are most of the smokers here started before the legal age too). It started with only a cigarette every other day or so. My best friend would give them to me. Then one day he had no cigarettes and was broke. That didn't bother me any but he suggested I buy a pack and he can have some of mine. I agreed and I was buying a pack a week until I was 16 and got my first job. Then It became a pack a day.
12 years later my first child was born so I decided that I must quit smoking. Due to my addiction I ended up smoking at work but not at home. I was ashamed to admit to my family I was still smoking so I kept it a secret. Every time I popped a smoke in my mouth I felt guilty. I kept trying to quit. I would go days even weeks with out smoking, but I would always start smoking again. That lasted for about three years until I changed jobs. At the new job there was no possible way for me to get away and smoke. So now because I couldn't smoke at work and at home I stopped smoking cigarettes. This did not stop me from smoking Cigars most weekends when I would enjoy a drink. I made excuses saying it is different but it is not. I tried to quit cigars too. Every time I'd smoke one I'd tell my self it was the last one. 2 years later here I am it's been a month since my last smoke. I hope I have the will to stop for good. I don't want my kids to grow up and lose me because of tobacco smoke.

People know the risks I don't know where you all live but here in Canada the warnings a very big. I believe they are required to take up half of the package size. Here are a few of the warnings.






Even looking at this every time I sparked up a cigarette did not help me to quit. Warnings deal with the rational mind. Chemical addiction is stronger than the rational mind. Ask a drug addict.

Who is to blame here? Me? I've been trying to quit smoking tobacco for more than 5 years now! Is it because I have a weak will? NO! It's because Smoking is addictive!

What about the non smokers? Should they blame smokers for giving them cancer or blame tobacco companies for addicting their customers?

Originally posted by Umbrax

What about the non smokers? Should they blame smokers for giving them cancer or blame tobacco companies for addicting their customers?

They should blame the smoker. Heres a bit from the findings of that case I was talking about earlier

In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer's negligence case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a consumer of the manufacturer's product is harmed by the product, but the consumer knew of the product's potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice


In any event, there is no basis upon which I could hold it established that, if ITL had not manufactured cigarettes at any material time, so that Mr McTear did not smoke their products and accordingly their products could not have made a material contribution to his contracting lung cancer, it would have made any difference. On the contrary, all the evidence is that Mr McTear would have started smoking when he did, and would have continued to smoke, for the same length of time and in the same quantities, as he in fact did. Fault causation would therefore not in any event be established.

i always look at it like this. If some drug came out (lets take the drug that caused thalidomide, for an example)...people took the drug and then the company discovered it was harmful....what do they do?
They ban it.

Why cant they do this with cigarettes?

Isnt it the same principle? I know there are many smokers (including myself) who wouldnt mind an outright ban, because then the temptation wouldnt be there.

You cant give money as an excuse, because...well...its just not an excuse.
If it is THAT harmful, then stop making it. Simple.

Maybe, just maybe, they dont stop making it, not because of money, but because if they stopped making cigarettes, and cancer was still prevalent.....the government wouldnt have anyone else to blame and would have to admit that alot of cancers are caused by all their experiments

Thats just humble opinion

I reckon it has to do with the fact that no government would dare try to ban smoking because they would lose their next election therefore jobs. There would be so much pressure against the idea of banning it and ultimately the government are there to represent their constituents and there arent enough people that are wanting smoking banned to make it acceptable.

Doesn't this fall under the old...

"If you choose to do something dangerous, and end up getting hurt - don't try and blame someone else for your own stupidity" kind of thing?

The only valid claimants would appear to be those who became addicted before the health warnings became so ubiquitous.

Alas, we live in such a litigious society that it's become not just "ok", but "expected" to sue a third party for something we've chosen to do ourselves. That is what needs to change. For the same reasons, we shouldn't be able to sue McDonald's because we've eaten breakfast, lunch and dinner there every day for 5 years and - gasp! - suddenly weigh in at 450 lbs, having developed heart trouble and diabetes too.

In my humble opinion

Geek - I'm intrigued now. Which government experiments have caused cancer? How did they manage to cause cancer in places where there is very little government influence (if any at all)?

Tinkleflower wrote:

Geek - I'm intrigued now. Which government experiments have caused cancer? How did they manage to cause cancer in places where there is very little government influence (if any at all)

it was just a general remark...me trying to work out why they just wont ban the damn things. I suppose the nuclear tests though would be a starter....and in america there were numerous spray testing thingies. Who knows what other governments do the same thing?

oh, and i also agree with your point about litigations. It is indeed, absurd to sue companies, simply because you refuse to accept responsibility for what you did.

I really want to stop smoking. And yes, it would be SO much easier if they just stopped making them. Guess that means i'm a wuss for wanting an easy way out huh?

Originally posted by AeroQuake
Tobacco companies market to People in their early teens. If they start now when they get older they'll buy more, which means the companies receive millions of dollars. Only parts of it have to do with health hazards. A lot of it is done by 'Truth' giving information other than the Surgeon General's warning.

Ding Ding Ding!

The marketing sleaze-balls make smoking appear appealing to youth by forms of advertising and actually hiring people to go to clubs and "look cool" smoking their cigarettes....

It's their tactics that must be stopped, and is legit to sue over....Not their product....Whoever wants to ruin their lives by smoking for their own personal choices can do so at their leisure....It's the people who get sucked into it by way of marketing campaigns that are suing these days - And rightfully so in my opinion....

It’s not the same as pitching a hot new sports car….Sure you can kill yourself in a car, but it’s not a scientifically proven fact that once you hit the accelerator, you may potentially be doomed…..

And then they have the nerve to offer help to people who are addicted to their products while they continue to sell them...

Well...I can see where you're coming from, EHR...but...

It's kind of been proven, over and over again, that if you hit the accelerator and keep going faster, and faster, you really are potentially risking your life. That's why there are literally thousands of dead "fast drivers".

I disagree that it's ok to sue the marketing groups - sure, if we were all sheep without minds of our own, that might indeed be a factor. But we're meant to be a (somewhat) smarter society, equipped with free will and the ability to educate ourselves and choose....if someone is perhaps blinded by marketing, and falls into (insert destructive behaviour pattern here), I'm not seeing how that's the fault of the marketing department.

That's simply not having the wherewithall to make the right choices.

It'd be the same as suing the candy manufacturers for using sex to sell a Twix...



[edit on 12-7-2005 by Tinkleflower]

There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer if a consumer of the manufacturer's product is harmed by the product, but the consumer knew of the product's potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice


[edit on 12-7-2005 by soapydodger]

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
It's kind of been proven, over and over again, that if you hit the accelerator and keep going faster, and faster, you really are potentially risking your life. That's why there are literally thousands of dead "fast drivers"

Well - Applying that analogy to smokers though is like saying - After smoking hundreds of cigarettes you should know it's time to quit......Of course, most know it's time to quite - They simply can't.....Now - I used to speed all the time when I was younger and got plenty of tickets, but I've learned my lesson and have since slowed down ....

I can agree with the sheeple factor.....There are a bunch of fools out there who do things without properly educating themselves first....But then you really have to look at the education system here in America - Or, around the globe for that matter - PM and crew don't simply sell in the states.....And they take advantage of that every chance they get by ignoring the laws and research we've developed here to continue to take advantage of other countries that have yet to make it a significant battle....

I mentioned these people who are hired to smoke in clubs as well.....They'll give out cigarettes to kids they know are underage - Underage kids, regardless of their intellect, are easily influenced......If a kid gets addicted to cigarettes of his first few drags - after he coughs his lungs out - again...trying to look cool, then who really shares the majority of the blame? The young kid or the pushers?

And once again, I'm brought back to my point about tobacco companies offering advice to users to quit using their product....Yet they continue to pour money into advertising it so they can get others to begin using it.....Naive idiots or not, there's a conflict of interest there that, in all respects, is not healthy....

Before the office I work for lost all their tobacco-grant money to help fund youth-driven organizations – now se aside by the State of Florida for other uses not related to anti-tobacco organizations, for which the money was intended – I attended quite a few conferences and heard many speeches from people renowned in the field of Big Tobacco…..So really, it’s just something I have a heart-felt connection to b/c I’ve seen the people suffering, I’ve seen the proof that the tobacco companies could give a damn….

I know some will disagree….But I feel like its one of those “If you had been there” type things….Not to say that those who disagree don’t have a connection to someone who suffers from addiction, it’s just a question of how often you’ve been around it and seen it suck the life from people…

Ever wonder where Truth gets it's funding from?

Truth gets its cash from the American Legacy Foundation, they are an independent, public health organization. The group came into existence as a result of the Master Settlement Agreement.

Basically, 46 states, the District of Columbia and 5 U.S. territories got together and sued the major tobacco companies to try to recover some of the billions of tax dollars spent caring for sick smokers. The tobacco companies settled out of court, signing an agreement to pay the states a certain amount of money, and the states then funded the American Legacy Foundation with a very small portion of that money.

Hmmm.....But just out of curiosity Umbrax, are you saying that's a bad thing? I'm sure you're not, but I was simply curious.....

I mean - They've put the money that millions of addicted smokers once used to buy their cigarettes to use for trying to provide a message of prevention to youth....