• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Court tosses punitive damages against Big Tobacco

  • Thread starter Thread starter reaganburch
  • Start date Start date
R

reaganburch

I'm surprised that this hasn't been put on here yet, especially with the strong feelings on both sides of the smoking issue.

Me? I'm down with SCOTUS on this... You can't shoot yourself in the foot and complain about the hole and anybody who doesn't know that smoking is bad for you, well, you have other problems than just smoking...

How 'bout this, though. Scalia, Thomas & Ginsburg on the same side of the issue? Wow!!

What do you think, Aps?

Court tosses punitive damages against Big Tobacco - CNN.com
 
reaganburch said:
I'm surprised that this hasn't been put on here yet, especially with the strong feelings on both sides of the smoking issue.

Me? I'm down with SCOTUS on this... You can't shoot yourself in the foot and complain about the hole and anybody who doesn't know that smoking is bad for you, well, you have other problems than just smoking...

How 'bout this, though. Scalia, Thomas & Ginsburg on the same side of the issue? Wow!!

What do you think, Aps?

Court tosses punitive damages against Big Tobacco - CNN.com
Click to expand...

Mmm...I agree up to a certain point. Once the information that smoking was harmful was made public, than it is up to the individual to own up to their decision. However, all the people who were harmed by smoking before that information was made available...well...seems like they're entitled to damages. I have no idea when the research became available, so this all might be a moot point.
 
reaganburch said:
I'm surprised that this hasn't been put on here yet, especially with the strong feelings on both sides of the smoking issue.

Me? I'm down with SCOTUS on this... You can't shoot yourself in the foot and complain about the hole and anybody who doesn't know that smoking is bad for you, well, you have other problems than just smoking...

How 'bout this, though. Scalia, Thomas & Ginsburg on the same side of the issue? Wow!!

What do you think, Aps?

Court tosses punitive damages against Big Tobacco - CNN.com
Click to expand...

I was disappointed with the outcome, since we all know how I feel about tobacco companies. Anytime they get penalized, I love it. :3oops:

But, like you, I was stunned at who voted wtih whom. Breyer and Roberts? Scalia and Ginsburg? Whoa! I actually like outcomes like this because it is fascinating when the justices vote with members whom they normally don't vote with. I need to read through the opinion. I believe that the jury punished Philip Morris for more than just the plaintiff, which is wrong, but I am dying to read the dissent. So I'll let you know what I think once I read through the opinion.
 
aps said:
I was disappointed with the outcome, since we all know how I feel about tobacco companies. Anytime they get penalized, I love it. :3oops:

But, like you, I was stunned at who voted wtih whom. Breyer and Roberts? Scalia and Ginsburg? Whoa! I actually like outcomes like this because it is fascinating when the justices vote with members whom they normally don't vote with. I need to read through the opinion. I believe that the jury punished Philip Morris for more than just the plaintiff, which is wrong, but I am dying to read the dissent. So I'll let you know what I think once I read through the opinion.
Click to expand...

I'm certainly no huge fan of the tobacco companies, but I'm more of a personal responsibility type of guy. If you smoke and you know it's dangerous and causes cancer, then you get cancer, you shouldn't have any basis for a lawsuit... You did it to yourself... Again, if you shoot yourself in the foot, don't complain about the hole...

If you don't squash this now and get people to accept personal reponsibility, you'll get stupid people suing McDonald's for health problems or for spilling hot coffee on themselves... oh, wait...
 
reaganburch said:
I'm certainly no huge fan of the tobacco companies, but I'm more of a personal responsibility type of guy. If you smoke and you know it's dangerous and causes cancer, then you get cancer, you shouldn't have any basis for a lawsuit... You did it to yourself... Again, if you shoot yourself in the foot, don't complain about the hole...

If you don't squash this now and get people to accept personal reponsibility, you'll get stupid people suing McDonald's for health problems or for spilling hot coffee on themselves... oh, wait...
Click to expand...

Okay, to be fair on that case, the coffee was 200 degrees (that's almost boiling), which I think we can all agree is excessive. The woman had to get skin grafts from her back to replace the skin on her thighs because she was so badly burned. And she got 200K. I don't think that's all too unreasonable. Okay, back to smoking. :2wave:

What about people who were affected by cigarettes before the health risks were known. Do you think they're entitled to anything?
 
Kelzie said:
Okay, to be fair on that case, the coffee was 200 degrees (that's almost boiling), which I think we can all agree is excessive. The woman had to get skin grafts from her back to replace the skin on her thighs because she was so badly burned. And she got 200K. I don't think that's all too unreasonable. Okay, back to smoking. :2wave:

What about people who were affected by cigarettes before the health risks were known. Do you think they're entitled to anything?
Click to expand...

Very good question, Kelzie... How do you prove that their health problems were caused BEFORE they knew about cigarette risks? Why couldn't they just stop after they found out? People stop smoking everyday, so that shouldn't be a factor.

I mean, you asked a good question earlier, when did the health risks regarding cigarettes become public knowledge? I don't know the answer to that question...

I guess if they can prove that they got lung cancer or something like that before they found out(whenever that was) that cigarettes were bad for you and caused health issues... sure... but then, zero punitive damages...
 
reaganburch said:
Very good question, Kelzie... How do you prove that their health problems were caused BEFORE they knew about cigarette risks? Why couldn't they just stop after they found out? People stop smoking everyday, so that shouldn't be a factor.

I mean, you asked a good question earlier, when did the health risks regarding cigarettes become public knowledge? I don't know the answer to that question...

I guess if they can prove that they got lung cancer or something like that before they found out(whenever that was) that cigarettes were bad for you and caused health issues... sure... but then, zero punitive damages...
Click to expand...


Well...I'm not sure if you heard, but cigarettes are addictive. If a company puts out a product that is highly addictive and it later comes out that it is bad for you, I have no problem with people who became addicted before said information was released getting damages.
 
Kelzie said:
Well...I'm not sure if you heard, but cigarettes are addictive. If a company puts out a product that is highly addictive and it later comes out that it is bad for you, I have no problem with people who became addicted before said information was released getting damages.
Click to expand...

Yes, they might be addictive.. but still, people stop smoking everyday... you can't deny that... my father stopped smoking over 30 years ago... cold turkey... never picked up another cigarette again... other people do it, also.
 
I haven't read the opinion either, but from what I understand the ruling basically addressed these two lines from the posted article.

Article said:
In arguments before the justices in October, a lawyer for Philip Morris USA argued that juries can punish a tobacco company by awarding damages to a smoker's widow but not to other smokers.

Attorney Andrew Frey argued that the family of a longtime smoker deserved compensation based only on individual harm, not harm to the public at large.
Click to expand...

In other words, the plaintiff can get compensation for damages to the plaintiff specifically. The plaintiff can't be awarded punitive damages based on the negligence of the companies to others.
 
BWG said:
I haven't read the opinion either, but from what I understand the ruling basically addressed these two lines from the posted article.



In other words, the plaintiff can get compensation for damages to the plaintiff specifically. The plaintiff can't be awarded punitive damages based on the negligence of the companies to others.
Click to expand...

Muchas gracias, BWG...
 
reaganburch said:
Yes, they might be addictive.. but still, people stop smoking everyday... you can't deny that... my father stopped smoking over 30 years ago... cold turkey... never picked up another cigarette again... other people do it, also.
Click to expand...

That's true, but I see more justice being done by punishing a company that puts out an addictive substance that was later found out to be dangerous than blaming the people who became addicted.
 
I find that it is more dangerous to remove personal responsibility from the equation and try to blame things on mean ol' corporations. Now, I'm no fan of corporations and they can certainly engage in deceptive and unsavory practices which must be brought before the people. Anyone before the surgeon general warning may have a case (I wouldn't say 80 million dollars worth of a case, but they do have some legitimate concerns). Afterwards though, all bets are off. Nicotine is addictive, cigarettes are horrible for you; these things are now well known. If you choose to smoke, you choose to do so in spite of this information and thus you are fully responsible for the consequences. You can't force anyone to pay you for damages done to your own being, not the companies and not the tax payers. You should be free to do as you wish in the country so long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others in the process. But the consequences are also yours to reap. You can think of freedom as a length of rope. You can either make a tire swing, or hang yourself. Up to you.
 
Ikari said:
I find that it is more dangerous to remove personal responsibility from the equation and try to blame things on mean ol' corporations. Now, I'm no fan of corporations and they can certainly engage in deceptive and unsavory practices which must be brought before the people. Anyone before the surgeon general warning may have a case (I wouldn't say 80 million dollars worth of a case, but they do have some legitimate concerns). Afterwards though, all bets are off. Nicotine is addictive, cigarettes are horrible for you; these things are now well known. If you choose to smoke, you choose to do so in spite of this information and thus you are fully responsible for the consequences. You can't force anyone to pay you for damages done to your own being, not the companies and not the tax payers. You should be free to do as you wish in the country so long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others in the process. But the consequences are also yours to reap. You can think of freedom as a length of rope. You can either make a tire swing, or hang yourself. Up to you.
Click to expand...

Amen!!!!!:agree :bravo: :applaud
 
Ikari said:
I find that it is more dangerous to remove personal responsibility from the equation and try to blame things on mean ol' corporations. Now, I'm no fan of corporations and they can certainly engage in deceptive and unsavory practices which must be brought before the people. Anyone before the surgeon general warning may have a case (I wouldn't say 80 million dollars worth of a case, but they do have some legitimate concerns). Afterwards though, all bets are off. Nicotine is addictive, cigarettes are horrible for you; these things are now well known. If you choose to smoke, you choose to do so in spite of this information and thus you are fully responsible for the consequences. You can't force anyone to pay you for damages done to your own being, not the companies and not the tax payers. You should be free to do as you wish in the country so long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others in the process. But the consequences are also yours to reap. You can think of freedom as a length of rope. You can either make a tire swing, or hang yourself. Up to you.
Click to expand...

You make excellent points. I need to remember this when I am wanting tobacco companies to be penalized. It's really about the individual who CHOOSES to smoke. Frankly, I have no sympathy for what they go through as a result of something that they did of their own free will. Some would argue that addiction is something that cannot be controlled. I say--Bah humbug.
 
It's not lack of sympathy for those whom suffer, it's common courtesy. I'm not going to stop someone from self-destructive behavior if they are aware of the consequences and choose to engage in the action anyway. So long as they aren't infringing upon the rights of others in the process, I couldn't care less what they do. I will grant them that freedom, I will allow them to do as they see fit as a free person of this country. The individual does choose to smoke, and that choice is up to them. As I said, make a tire swing or hang yourself...it's entirely up to you.

As for addiction, it can be controlled if one chooses to control it. There are programs people can go to, medications they can take if they truly wish to stop. It is an addiction, so it is not easy. But what worthwhile thing in life is easy? So maybe you can't just stop smoking...that doesn't mean you are doomed to smoke for the rest of your life. There are means in which people can kick the habit, but the individual must choose this path. We are not as weak as some may make us out to be. We don't need the government to step in at every point to protect us from our own choices. This applies very well to the realm of smoking. The dangers are known and the information is out there...hell it's even on the pack of cigarettes you buy. There is no longer massive deception on the part of the company. Nicotine is horribly addictive, if you choose to smoke it will not be easy to stop. Smoking is very bad for you, it dramatically increases the probability of cancer and the longer you do it the higher that probability becomes. If you choose to smoke, it will be hard to stop. It will do damage to your body. These things are well known and documented. The government has done its job in this respect, it has given the correct information out to the people. Now it is up to the people to make up their own minds and choose their own paths. The government isn't here to prevent you from using your freedom to hang yourself. It can act to point out the dangers of hanging yourself....the choice is up to you.
 
Ikari said:
It's not lack of sympathy for those whom suffer, it's common courtesy. I'm not going to stop someone from self-destructive behavior if they are aware of the consequences and choose to engage in the action anyway. So long as they aren't infringing upon the rights of others in the process, I couldn't care less what they do. I will grant them that freedom, I will allow them to do as they see fit as a free person of this country. The individual does choose to smoke, and that choice is up to them. As I said, make a tire swing or hang yourself...it's entirely up to you.

As for addiction, it can be controlled if one chooses to control it. There are programs people can go to, medications they can take if they truly wish to stop. It is an addiction, so it is not easy. But what worthwhile thing in life is easy? So maybe you can't just stop smoking...that doesn't mean you are doomed to smoke for the rest of your life. There are means in which people can kick the habit, but the individual must choose this path. We are not as weak as some may make us out to be. We don't need the government to step in at every point to protect us from our own choices. This applies very well to the realm of smoking. The dangers are known and the information is out there...hell it's even on the pack of cigarettes you buy. There is no longer massive deception on the part of the company. Nicotine is horribly addictive, if you choose to smoke it will not be easy to stop. Smoking is very bad for you, it dramatically increases the probability of cancer and the longer you do it the higher that probability becomes. If you choose to smoke, it will be hard to stop. It will do damage to your body. These things are well known and documented. The government has done its job in this respect, it has given the correct information out to the people. Now it is up to the people to make up their own minds and choose their own paths. The government isn't here to prevent you from using your freedom to hang yourself. It can act to point out the dangers of hanging yourself....the choice is up to you.
Click to expand...


What about the people who became addicted before it was known that tobacco was harmful? Are they to suffer because the tobacco industry was unethical?
 
In my first post, did I not say that those whom started smoking before the surgeon general's warning have a case? I will state again, I don't think it's an 80 million dollars worth of a case, but there is a legitimate concern at that point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom