Supreme Court rules in favor of tobacco companies

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Supreme Court rules in favor of tobacco companies

Posted by DJ Shibby on Feb-20-2007 20:53:

Supreme Court rules in favor of tobacco companies

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/02/20/s...acco/index.html

Sigh.

I foresee NOTHING good coming from this supreme court. Ever.

Way to go Bush, you've ensured that your fucked up legacy will linger on for decades.

Posted by XaNaX on Feb-20-2007 21:12:

I'm torn on the issues surrounding tobacco settlements. Yes, its obvious that the tobacco companies knew that their product was addictive and harmful and would eventually kill those who consume it.

But by the same token even if you are a complete fucking dumbass and have been living under a rock the past 30-40 years you cannot say that you didn't know that those cigs you are smoking were going to kill you.

I guess because of this I prefer general settlement funds to help pay the medical bills of those who have tobacco related illness rather than some huge award to an individual person. To me giving someone millions that says 'I smoked them but didn't know they would be harmful' is just as insane as awarding someone millions because they spilled coffee on themselves claiming 'I didn't know it was going to be hot and burn me'.

Posted by Subey on Feb-20-2007 21:38:

quote:
Originally posted by XaNaX
But by the same token even if you are a complete fucking dumbass and have been living under a rock the past 30-40 years you cannot say that you didn't know that those cigs you are smoking were going to kill you.

Since most people start when they are in their teens, I'm pretty sure that the fact that they are "bad for you" has been the dominant feature of their appeal.

P.S. "Got a light" + Designated smoking area = greatest ice breaker of all time!

Posted by Fir3start3r on Feb-20-2007 21:44:

quote:
Originally posted by XaNaX
I'm torn on the issues surrounding tobacco settlements. Yes, its obvious that the tobacco companies knew that their product was addictive and harmful and would eventually kill those who consume it.

But by the same token even if you are a complete fucking dumbass and have been living under a rock the past 30-40 years you cannot say that you didn't know that those cigs you are smoking were going to kill you.

I guess because of this I prefer general settlement funds to help pay the medical bills of those who have tobacco related illness rather than some huge award to an individual person. To me giving someone millions that says 'I smoked them but didn't know they would be harmful' is just as insane as awarding someone millions because they spilled coffee on themselves claiming 'I didn't know it was going to be hot and burn me'.

+1!

Posted by Sunsnail on Feb-20-2007 22:36:

This is a step in the right direction. You wouldn't want to start suing car manufacturers because they emit health-damaging pollution.

Posted by NeoPhono on Feb-20-2007 23:02:

Gotta agree with what most of the people are saying. There is no excuse for not knowing the effects of smoking. Even if you started smoking long ago the risks of tobacco have been known long enough that if you quit as those risks came to light, you would be *relatively* healthy by now. The time for "gee, I didn't know that could happen" when it comes to the effects of smoking are over. If you smoke and get sick, you knew it could happen and made the choice to smoke anyway.

Personal accountability FTW.

Posted by MisterOpus1 on Feb-20-2007 23:12:

Some quick thoughts. From the CNN article:

quote:
In their ruling, the justices decided to follow recent precedent that punitive damages should, in most cases, match "actual" damages.

If they're following precedent, and if that precedent is pretty sound, I can't necessarily disagree here. But I haven't looked at the specifics.

quote:
Court records show Williams never believed claims that cigarettes were a health danger, until he contracted cancer. His widow, Mayola, testified Williams told her: "Those darn cigarette people finally did it. They were lying all the time."

A show of hands on how many folks here believe this?

No hands?

Mmkay, moving on...

I dunno. I think I also heard on NPR driving home that the SC also believed the jury was misled on how much they were awarding the plaintiff, or something along those lines. Overall, and without detailed examination, I'd say initially this seems to be a correct ruling.

Posted by Q5echo on Feb-21-2007 01:17:

Re: Supreme Court rules in favor of tobacco companies

quote:
Originally posted by DJ Shibby
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/02/20/s...acco/index.html

Sigh.

I foresee NOTHING good coming from this supreme court. Ever.

Way to go Bush, you've ensured that your fucked up legacy will linger on for decades.

easy on the Bush Derangement Syndrome, you're way off base.

Souter, Breyer and Kennedy sided with the defendant, and rightly so IMO.

100x compensatory damages based on other individuals pain and suffering? not gonna fly.

Posted by DJ Shibby on Feb-21-2007 05:07:

Re: Re: Supreme Court rules in favor of tobacco companies

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
easy on the Bush Derangement Syndrome, you're way off base.

Souter, Breyer and Kennedy sided with the defendant, and rightly so IMO.

100x compensatory damages based on other individuals pain and suffering? not gonna fly.

Bah.

I'm really bitter that I'm not getting any of this 80 million.