[mtdjed]

Recent Florida Jury punitive damages award for $23B against RJ Reynolds .

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts:
No smoker in this day can say that he did not know the risks. The USG has broadcast the dangers and even made the manufacturers put warnings on packaging and ads.

I believe that claims against manufacturers should be deemed frivolous and dismissed. I know there might be some rare situations, but to even have a trial and the expense of a trial is ridiculous and simply a tool to make money for the legal profession.

Just trying to provoke a non political discussion.

[Indydealmaker]

Originally Posted by mtdjed

Recent Florida Jury punitive damages award for $23B against RJ Reynolds .

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts:
No smoker in this day can say that he did not know the risks. The USG has broadcast the dangers and even made the manufacturers put warnings on packaging and ads.

I believe that claims against manufacturers should be deemed frivolous and dismissed. I know there might be some rare situations, but to even have a trial and the expense of a trial is ridiculous and simply a tool to make money for the legal profession.

Just trying to provoke a non political discussion.

This is the result of mass brain washing. If the media spews the government line over and over long enough, the 40% of Americans that are functionally illiterate nod their heads in agreement. Few think for themselves in this day and age and even fewer are willing to accept responsibility for their own actions.

[redwitch]

The problem is we smokers know the dangers but many of us are unable to quit regardless of methods tried. Nicotine is more addictive than heroin and hits the brain faster than crack cocaine. Cigarette companies did and do target teens and there are few teens with a lot of common sense when it comes to trying something new -- especially if an idol does it.

As always, the tobacco company will appeal this verdict and, more than likely, win. Yes, it makes millions for attorneys but, sooner or later, a verdict will be upheld and then maybe, just maybe, the tobacco industry will be put on notice that past and present practices are not acceptable. (Think asbestos companies that knew the dangers of asbestos in the 20s and did nothing to protect those who worked with it. Tobacco companies knew the dangers of cigarettes for just as long and have done nothing to protect the consumer and did not warn consumers for decades.)

[Bonanza]

Yes, R. J. Reynolds will appeal and I'm sure this will carry on for years.

The attorneys who take these cases should be disbarred!
Outrageous, but the almighty buck plays into this, doesn't it?

Did you know that 99% of attorneys give the rest a bad name???

[John_W]

Lawyer Peter Angelos has made over $500 million in attorney fees representing asbestos claimants over 20 years. When his money started rolling in, he purchased the Baltimore Orioles in 1993 for $173 million, which he still owns and are now worth $618 million.

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by redwitch

The problem is we smokers know the dangers but many of us are unable to quit regardless of methods tried. Nicotine is more addictive than heroin and hits the brain faster than crack cocaine. Cigarette companies did and do target teens and there are few teens with a lot of common sense when it comes to trying something new -- especially if an idol does it.

As always, the tobacco company will appeal this verdict and, more than likely, win. Yes, it makes millions for attorneys but, sooner or later, a verdict will be upheld and then maybe, just maybe, the tobacco industry will be put on notice that past and present practices are not acceptable. (Think asbestos companies that knew the dangers of asbestos in the 20s and did nothing to protect those who worked with it. Tobacco companies knew the dangers of cigarettes for just as long and have done nothing to protect the consumer and did not warn consumers for decades.)

Well said. The kid was 13 years old when he started smoking, and we all know cigarettes were heavily marketed to teens as being cool, sexy, and in earlier years as even offering health benefits! A thirteen year old isn't going to be able to sit and juggle the conflicting messages he is receiving about cigarettes and make an informed decision. And of course he quickly became hooked, i.e. addicted, which was the crux of the lawsuit. He died at age 36. How do you look at one's life and put a monetary amount on its worth, had he not smoked and lived another 50 years? The settlement was obviously designed to make a statement to the tobacco companies, and will certainly be appealed, but I hope the family still ends up with a good settlement.

[tedquick]

I quit drinking, smoking and gambling, so I have little sympathy for those who look outside of themselves for blame. And while I have many friends who are attorneys, there are those who indeed take full advantage of the law. When I was going to college I wrote a paper titled "Law is not Justice". In my paper I discussed the "necessarily" part of it. There will always be those who take advantage of the law, irrespective of its ethics or morality. Having said that, I believe the majority of people are honest and indeed a bonus and are assets to and for all of us, just as most of those who write herein are positive and upbeat. Life is life and life is good. We just need to smile at the things that aren't perfect and thank God for the things that are. I can hardly wait to get moved into our TV house this coming October. My wife and I will be frogs.

[Steve & Deanna]

That lawsuit sounds similar to the lady that spilled hot coffee on herself after leaving McDonald's (years ago). Another frivolous lawsuit but some just need to man-up, or woman-up, as it may be, and throw the cigarettes away. Here is the choice, do you want to live longer or would you prefer to die earlier? Glad I manned-up over 25 years ago or I wouldn't be here. Best of luck to those who are trying to quit. Think positively and give up as often as it takes. You'll thank yourself when you do. It's a huge accomplishment.

[DougB]

Originally Posted by mickey100

Well said. The kid was 13 years old when he started smoking, and we all know cigarettes were heavily marketed to teens as being cool, sexy, and in earlier years as even offering health benefits! A thirteen year old isn't going to be able to sit and juggle the conflicting messages he is receiving about cigarettes and make an informed decision. And of course he quickly became hooked, i.e. addicted, which was the crux of the lawsuit. He died at age 36. How do you look at one's life and put a monetary amount on its worth, had he not smoked and lived another 50 years? The settlement was obviously designed to make a statement to the tobacco companies, and will certainly be appealed, but I hope the family still ends up with a good settlement.

I don't know the facts, but if he started smoking at 13, maybe he should be suing his parents.

[mtdjed]

Originally Posted by DougB

I don't know the facts, but if he started smoking at 13, maybe he should be suing his parents.

Well supposedly he is dead and won't be suing anyone but his family is. But if he died in 1996 at 36 and started to smoke at 13 , then he started in 1973 well after warnings were on the product. Since the USG allowed that this dangerous product could still be sold as long as warnings were on the label, doesn't that sound like they were placing the responsibility on the individual ?

So if I smoke now, and next year find that I have a problem caused by smoking, should I or my successors be granted a jury award to penalize a company selling a government approved product with warnings that it could cause my problem?

[redwitch]

If you started smoking now and were 13, yup, someone should be held responsible -- the tobacco companies who make smoking look attractive even while warning of the hazards of smoking and whoever supplied you the cigarettes since you could not legally smoke.

I started smoking as a teenager because I was angry. My mother had become ill and I had to go to New Jersey to stay with family friends in the middle of the school year. At that time, cigarettes in packs of 4 were given out with dinners on all flights (regardless of the age of the person -- they came with all meals). So, got my four ciggies, smoked 'em up, bought a pack at SFO and got off the plane smoking. Mom's friends thought I was allowed to smoke and kept me supplied the whole time I was there. By the time I got home, I was completely hooked.

Since then, I've tried cold turkey, hypnosis, acupuncture, the patch and gum. Nothing has worked to date. I doubt anyone smokes today because they want to -- you're treated as a second-class citizen too often. For those who succeeded in quitting, good for you. For those in my shoes, my sympathies.

If you start smoking now and you're an adult, the onus should be on you. If you started smoking when the facts were kept hidden (but very well known to tobacco companies) and have tried to quit repeatedly, who should bear the responsibility? And do remember that while there are warnings on cigarettes, tobacco companies still do everything possible to hook the next generation up to and including paying stars, singers, athletes to smoke; having billboards near schools; paying to show smoking in movies; etc.

Sorry, no sympathy for the tobacco company here. They deserve to pay and pay big.

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by redwitch

If you started smoking now and were 13, yup, someone should be held responsible -- the tobacco companies who make smoking look attractive even while warning of the hazards of smoking and whoever supplied you the cigarettes since you could not legally smoke.

I started smoking as a teenager because I was angry. My mother had become ill and I had to go to New Jersey to stay with family friends in the middle of the school year. At that time, cigarettes in packs of 4 were given out with dinners on all flights (regardless of the age of the person -- they came with all meals). So, got my four ciggies, smoked 'em up, bought a pack at SFO and got off the plane smoking. Mom's friends thought I was allowed to smoke and kept me supplied the whole time I was there. By the time I got home, I was completely hooked.

Since then, I've tried cold turkey, hypnosis, acupuncture, the patch and gum. Nothing has worked to date. I doubt anyone smokes today because they want to -- you're treated as a second-class citizen too often. For those who succeeded in quitting, good for you. For those in my shoes, my sympathies.

If you start smoking now and you're an adult, the onus should be on you. If you started smoking when the facts were kept hidden (but very well known to tobacco companies) and have tried to quit repeatedly, who should bear the responsibility? And do remember that while there are warnings on cigarettes, tobacco companies still do everything possible to hook the next generation up to and including paying stars, singers, athletes to smoke; having billboards near schools; paying to show smoking in movies; etc.

Sorry, no sympathy for the tobacco company here. They deserve to pay and pay big.

I agree. Never under-estimate the power of advertising. In the mid 50's and 60's, smoking was often associated with romance, relaxation, and adventure; movie stars oozed glamour on screen while smoking, and movie tough guys were never more masculine than when lighting up. We were bombarded with ads in magazines, billboards, and on television. Smoking became a rite of passage for many young people thanks to a concerted effort by the tobacco companies to target young people as potential smokers and cigarette buyers.

Researchers have also discovered that some cigarettes have a "kick," in that they contain thirty-five times more freebase nicotine than other cigarettes. Researchers sometimes refer to this raw form of nicotine as "crack nicotine," because it potentially has the same addictive quality as crack cocaine. A former researcher for Phillip Morris testified that the company knew nicotine was addictive, and actually manipulated the levels of nicotine in the cigarettes to maintain the drug's impact, something they lied about for many years.

The company knew nicotine was addictive, hid it from the public for many years, and that came into play in this lawsuit. As far as addiction, and how people react, studies have shown there are genetic factors involved in both nicotine and alcohol addictions. That would explain why with different genetics, some people find it easier to quit than others. And if you're one of the poor unfortunates that got hooked on the type of cigarettes that had the "crack nicotine" described above, it would be even more difficult to quit.

And let's not forget we're talking about a 13 year old that got hooked. Again, a kid that age is not mature enough to make good choices. My mother started smoking when she was about 15, and died of emphysema. If you want to see someone die a painful death, watch someone with really bad emphysema. Every breath they take is like breathing thru a half closed straw - one gasp after another. I have zero sympathy for these tobacco companies. They knew what they were doing: they had a product they knew was addicting and caused serious health problems, and hid it from the public for years. They developed and heavily marketed extensive advertising campaigns aimed at adults then moved on to target young teenagers in order to develop a market for their deadly products. And they still continue the same tactics today, taking their advertisement campaigns overseas going after a new generation of potential smokers over there.

[Bay Kid]

Originally Posted by Bonanza

Yes, R. J. Reynolds will appeal and I'm sure this will carry on for years.

The attorneys who take these cases should be disbarred!
Outrageous, but the almighty buck plays into this, doesn't it?

Did you know that 99% of attorneys give the rest a bad name???

Totally agree.

[Taltarzac725]

Escambia Co. jury hits RJ Reynolds with $23B verdict

I would like to see more of the evidence in this case before commenting about it.

I probably met 1400 law students while at the University of MN Law School, BYU Law School, and while a Graduate Student in Librarianship and Information Management at the University of Denver. And probably talked to a half dozen judges wandering around after they took classes at the National Judicial College on the University of Nevada, Reno Campus. http://www.judges.org/

I cut the lawn of a well known Reno, Nevada lawyer who later became a Pentagon Air Force General and my parents played bridged with Mills Lane, a Washoe County Prosecutor and sometime boxing referee (my ear, my ear Tyson-Holyfield). I lived across the street in Reno, Nevada from a long time Jury Foreman of the Washoe County Grand Jury. He was not a lawyer though.

I have never considered myself a lawyer but a law librarian but most of the law students I met seemed like ethical would be professionals playing the legal game. The game does need to be changed a bit and there are the occasional cheaters, bullies, sociopaths, psychopaths, etc. but they represent a small minority. It is a big problem though when one of these sociopaths gets a lot of power and will play every dirty trick in the book to keep it. These give lawyers and law librarians a very bad name.

Mills Lane helped me quite bit with strategy and the like when I was starting out my 224 613 victim/survivor of crime access to practical information project. This was back around 1996 and prior to that. He had been one of the prosecutors of the woman Cathy Woods who confessed falsely it turned out to the murder of Michelle Mitchell on 2- 24- 1976. http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines...248935251.html

[Vic&Judy]

Originally Posted by mtdjed

Recent Florida Jury punitive damages award for $23B against RJ Reynolds .

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts:
No smoker in this day can say that he did not know the risks. The USG has broadcast the dangers and even made the manufacturers put warnings on packaging and ads.

I believe that claims against manufacturers should be deemed frivolous and dismissed. I know there might be some rare situations, but to even have a trial and the expense of a trial is ridiculous and simply a tool to make money for the legal profession.

Just trying to provoke a non political discussion.

$23 Billion

Wow.

If lawyers have their way, soon we'll be talking about real money!!!!!!