Big Tobacco takes big hit

[Moogle0119]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/25/tobacco.class.ap/index.html

Short Summary: Philip Morris is being sued for $200 billion for giving the false impression to smokers that the "light" brand of cigarettes are not as deadly, quote, "[...]even though their own internal documents showed they knew the risks were about the same."

Discuss.

[TheSpacePope]

Everyone knows that ciggarettes are bad for you. If there is nothing else you could do save accept personal responsibility for the dangers that you have wrought for yourself then I guess a frivolous lawsuit is the answer.

It's like suing Mc Donalds for making you fat.

Stupid.

[Moogle0119]

Not that I'm trying to defend people that smoke (I am a non-smoker and live in a house where the rest of the family smokes so I have frequent health and asthma problems), but this is dating back to the 1970's. Now I'm sure back then they knew it was hazardous to your health, but they probably believed it when cigarette companies spoon-fed them lies about their safer "light" brand. Hell, they didn't even have the knowledge about second hand smoke that we do now (which was only recently ACTUALLY proven with studies but widely accepted for over a decade).

I feel bad for the people that may have picked up the habit back then and didn't know any better, but yeah in today's society if you just recently started and thought that the "light" brands were better then you're only kidding yourself really. I'm glad people are taking big action against Philip Morris for lying to the general public as well as their own consumers because honestly, would you buy a car from a dealership after you found out they had been lying to the public about the safety of their cars for around 40 years?

[Azisien]

There is a very important difference between the McDonalds fat analogy and smoking. Moogle lives in it. A non-smoker doesn't get a CHOICE if they're surrounded by smoke, whereas they COULD just say no to eating at McDonalds. It's the reason I smile every time the priviledges of smoking are inhibited in my city, and it's the reason I do so when I read the thread. Though, 200 billion or not, even if they lost (and I'm not so sure they would), smoking won't just "go away."

[Fifthfiend]

Everyone knows that ciggarettes are bad for you. If there is nothing else you could do save accept personal responsibility for the dangers that you have wrought for yourself then I guess a frivolous lawsuit is the answer.

If everyone knows how bad cigarettes are for you, then why did cigarette companies put so much effort into supressing evidence that cigarettes are bad for you? Cigarette companies worked for decades to mislead people into believing that smoking was at worst a more or less benign habit, and even where the dangers of smoking became known, proffered things like light cigarettes to convince people that okay you can smoke these cigarettes and they won't be all that bad for you.

[TheSpacePope]

I guess you could say that, however, the hacking that a smoker does in the morning, (and I am one I know about it) was a huge clue to me that they were bad. I guess I am speaking of the more modern times, where lawsuits already brought against big tobacco have been won based on the grounds that they were unhealthy. Also the litany of anti-smoking ads and campaigns are also a big part of how I feel. I am addicted to smoking, does this entitle me to any of these monies gained by these lawsuits? Where does this money go? Can I begin to sue Alcohol companies because it does not say on the package or the bottle anywhere that their product causes sirrosis of the liver?
Also, Good point on second hand smoke. I personally don't like to smoke around people that don't as a common courtesy, but sometimes I still feel personally villified as to the choice that I make for my own body.
I just don't understand why this is breaking now. As a smoker, I'd be hard pressed to find another smoker that is dumb enough to believe that light ciggarettes aren't going to kill you as fast as regular ones. I really do think that smoking is a matter of personal choice, and you have to know the dangers as soon as your throat feels raw from smoking a pack of ciggarettes.
And as a matter of fact Light cigs have more chemicals in them to make them "lighter" and quite a lot of smokers know that.
If you want to see for yourself how bad cigs are, buy one, and put it under a blacklight. You can litterally see the chemicals in them.
But to the point, who is with me for suing Anhiesuer Bush?

[Raerlynn]

Bad comparison.

A.) Their product only causes this liver damage in the case of excess use.
B.) Alcohol companies have never outright denied/lied alcohol abuse is bad.

I think "hey cool". Yet another lawsuit. Karma sucks, huh?

PS: Reason this is breaking now: Lawsuits are drying up, so people are looking for different ways to sue tobacco companies that haven't already gone under. Its quite a testament to the money these companies have when you consider the number of lawsuits and the costs of each of the lawsuits, and the companies are still going.

[Fifthfiend]

Another thing here which is pretty important, is cigarettes are and do remain physically addictive. So like, you can be a smoker, and know exactly how awful cigarettes are for you, and how much you shouldn't do it, and still keep doing it, because you're addicted.

I mean I've actually managed to quit 'em for like, nine months now? But hell, I still get nicotine fits every once in a while.

[Moogle0119]

And unfortunately fifthfiend is absolutely right about the cigarettes being more addictive than most other "bad habits" due to the nicotine. The cigarette companies were actually pretty smart (if not under-handed and devious at the same time) in getting people hooked on their product by hiding their own studies and denying the harmful effects and addictiveness from early on. They've earned so much money over the decades through this process that they can afford to take these sort of lawsuits decades later which is ridiculous.

I think the most likely outcome of it all is that Philip Morris will be convincing enough to settle out of court for an undisclosed amount of money so they don't have to accept responsibility for their actions. However, even if Philip Morris loses in court, I don't think it will make a difference as Azisien said since they will still continue to produce their products and so will their competitors. People will still be addicted to their product and new people will continue to get hooked everyday out of curiosity or peer pressure. Let me ask a question on a some-what related note; have the tobacco companies started printing on each box of cigarettes the dangers of second hand smoke to others? I know they have plenty of warnings for actual smokers but I'm not sure if they've added to that important factoid yet.

[Demetrius]

I feel bad for the people that may have picked up the habit back then and didn't know any better

Yeah back in the 70's when they had asbestos filters... I mean c'mon from the late 60's on anti tobacco lobbies have been a major thing on the political scene. Its people who make stupid decisions and are looking to someone else to pay for it.

[ArlanKels]

Not to detract from the overall point of this discussion, but the Mcdonalds comparison is probably one of the worst ones to ever use given that numerous individuals have chosen to eat only McDonalds and have lost weight, rather than gained it.

In fact, careful planning and exercise can make you thinner no matter which fast food place you go to...except if one exists which is like...The Lard King or some such.
:|

Yeah...

As for this thing, I actually have to side with the Tobacco Company in that they shouldn't be sueable due to this issue. You can quit smoking, as I know numerous people who have, thus you can not say that the addicting quality is forcing you to do it. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and threatening to pull the trigger. You are CHOOSING to inject poison into your system time after time after time.

If we can not take responsibility for our own actions then what is to stop someone from suing a company for making them watch television and cost them so much on their electricity bill? For making a person run a stop sign because a music song told them to?

Responsibility is everything. Integrity must exist. Yet it sadly doesn't anymore.

[Elif Tymes]

I would partly agree with you. Nicotine is addictive. Saying that someone who is addicted to Nicotine, who was told that the Cigarettes he was smoking were "not as poisonous" should have every right to sue the pants off of the company.

That company was lying. It has to be responsible to represent it's product accurately.

[ArlanKels]

Ah, but what is not addictive? Everything that produces pleasure can produce addiction. Video Games that stimulate pleasure cause us to want to play them again and again, resulting in a psychological addiction.

Addiction, whether chemical or psychological, can always be beaten. Therefore why is it the fault of the company who supplied the addicting item rather than the addictor for choosing to continue to abuse the substance?

[Gorefiend]

Actually, psychological addiction can be beaten relatively easily, but physical addiction is more like physical dependence. The substance becomes necessary for the body to function, and there are actual physical consequences to not taking it. Heck, people can die of withdrawl symptoms, and it is not unheard of for people to need microdoses of certain drugs because of how much they abused it in the past.

That said, another thing worthy of note is that nicotine is more addicting than heroin. That's something, eh?

On the subject at hand... I'd say the lying about cigarettes being unhealthy is something they could be culpable for, but lying about cigarettes being unhealthy is, at least today, like lying about the sky being blue.

[ArlanKels]

Oh yeah? Well...


Yeah....I got nothing. Not too knowledged about anything relating to tobacco since I avidly avoided smoking through my whole life thus far(And alcohol. Viva la addiction virgin).

How do they test the addictive capability? As in, Nicotine vs heroin.

[Azisien]

Physical addictive capability is probably tested on the relative dependency it creates in the brain due to what hormones it mimicks, or what reward pathway it stimulates since those vary. Nicotine acts as an agonist for all nicotinic receptors, of which a large majority of the synapses in the human body use. That's probably one of the big reasons why nicotine is incredibly addictive. Your body will require it, since it screwed with the sometimes delicate balance of your negative feedback loops.

Heroin is an agonist for...dopamine I believe? And dopamine is made in pretty constant amounts, so throwing out those feedback loops can change them permanently.

But then, I don't know any specific details, just patching a description together from animal physiology knowledge. :P