When Dumb met Dumber

[M_Six]

A lawyer for an idiot convinces twelve other idiots that the first idiot isn't responsible for his idiocy. The result?
http://cnnfn.cnn.com/2001/06/06/news/philip_morris/


I am speechless.

[HomeYield]

Warnings may not have been there when he first started but it was his choice to smoke. If the tobacco company had made him do it then I could see the compensation but if it is his choice then it shouldn't happen. If someone deliberately pours McDonald's hot coffee in there lap can they sue for damage since McDonald's had nothing to do with it? The coffee is hot and can cause damage just as cigarettes have nicotine that can cause damage but if it is a deliberate act of idiocy I don't see how that works. My $.02.

[Richard_Cranium72]

You forget, or haven't heard that the Tobacco companies mislead the public(read lied to)

The EXTRA Nicotine added secretly to all cigs was one of the factors that led public disapproval of the Tobacco Companies actions.

Litigation occurs when two parties disagree, beit 212F Coffee served, or secret ingredients added to consumer products to enhance addiction.

Take for example Coca-Cola, what was the secret ingredient at the turn of the century added to enhance addiction ?

Quite the same case today, contemptable behaviour leads to litigous situations and eventually monetary compensations.

DrVette

[muno]

I would've buyed cocacoca anyday at the beginning of the last century =)
-M

[club_med]

Although I don't smoke, and, although I hate being forced to become a passive smoker from time to time, I find this completely pathetic !.

Can't some people use commone sense, can't some people use their brains for God's sake !?.

Your inhaling smoke into your langs man, what do you expect?..best of health ??.

confused,
cm.

[Undeadlord]

Club Med said it right ... Does anyone in the entire WORLD think that inhaling huge amounts of smoke directly into your lungs for 40 plus years is not harmful??? God people make me sick. I am not a smoker, but I respect everyones right to smoke if they want to. 3 billion dollars what a joke.


Undeadlord

[Kuasimodem]

I am a smoker, and I know the hazzards, I still choose to smoke.


My thoughts on this case?

What do you call 5000 trial lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

A good start!

Curt

[jad1097]

Take for example Coca-Cola, what was the secret ingredient at the turn of the century added to enhance addiction ?


Cocaine!

[surrealchereal]

Lawyers for Boeken, a securities and oil broker, claimed at the trial that he began smoking Marlboro cigarettes at age 13 and did not become aware of the health warnings until the mid-1990s.
What's wrong with this picture?
OK, the guy starts smoking in 1959, the warnings come out when? From memory I'd say about '65 maybe a year sooner, but that's close. Now this aint no blue collar auto worker that might even be illiterate and unable to afford a television and spends all his extra time working in the fields. Bet this guy is college educated. If not I guarantee by the mid 70's or early 80's a securities and oil broker is circling with people that know the facts. No one mentioned this to him? He never heard a rumor or saw the headlines in the Wall Street Journal? If he is really claiming he never heard of the health warnings until the mid-1990s, the man is a liar.

[dafremen]

There is no doubt in my mind that this guy was just a pawn used by this particular lawyer. He obviously knew that smoking was bad for him and kept smoking, but it was the LAWYER who convinced him that having the entire country think you're a moron is worth it if the prize is $3 Billion. Can't say I disagree there.

However, I would like folx to think back if you will and realize that it wasn't just the little warnings that an "informed" smoker had to consider. There was the media blitz that made smoking look normal and socially acceptable, even desirable. Remember there were TWO sides shooting out information(well one was shooting out misinformation), the government/watchdog groups, and the tobacco industry. Any drug addict if given the choice between believing that their addiction is bad for them or believing that there is no harm in their addiction will choose to believe the latter. Why? Simple drug addicts want their drugs. Plain and simple. As an ex-smoker (one year now) I don't find it hard to understand how addiction can lead people to believe and DO some pretty stupid things.

Then again, that's really no big revelation...is it?

[blind to truth]

well what the hell did he think was going to come out of the other end of that ciggerate? candy? He deserves nothing.

[Richard_Cranium72]

When the evil Dr. ItchyBod Cranium Ph.D gets off the bottom of the ocean, I'm gonna sue all of you for blatant plageurism, and defamation of my esteemed character http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[sburns]

You have to look at it as you would any other product. Think about if someone marketed some food product and put harmful addicitive additives in it. It would be pulled from the market immediately. Even if people were aware of the ingredients. The tobacco companies have recieved different treatment for years because of a huge lobbying effort. We jail drug dealers even though the users know the harmful effects of the drug. How is this any different? Tobacco is a drug and the companies that market it should be held just as accountable as any other drug marketer wheter legal or not.

[Kuasimodem]

The real reason tobacco products have not been outlawed is...

TAXES!!!

The state and federal governments don't want to go without all those tax revenues that they collect on tobacco products each year, which adds up to billions of dollars each and every year that they keep tobacco legal.

As an example, the state of Wisconsin is now contemplating adding another 25 cents a pack to the tax. Oh well, it's just a quick hop across the Mighty Miss to the land of lower taxes, Minnesota...

[JacobM5727]

this case was just like the dumb girl that spilled coffe on herself and sued like mcdonalds or whoever... just because there isnt a warning, it doesnt change the fact that you already know what it is..

guy-
"your honor, i really thought the headaches i got early on were encouring me to keep smoking for like 40 years"

judge- "oh you poor thing, heres 10 billion dollars, enjoy it in your last week of life"

[prttybean]

What??? Another $.25 per pack?? I live in the middle of the state. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/frown.gif So, no border hops for me.

[BBA]

That guy was a cocaine heroine addict who couldn't quit smoking?

I think I'm gonna get some lawyers for some of my drug addicted friends from my home town. I'm sure they need a manager for all teh law suits, lol http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[surrealchereal]

There is no doubt in my mind that this guy was just a pawn used by this particular lawyeruh right that's how he missed the fact they were bad till the mid 90's
Pawn my ***** (hey we're talking tobacco dollars here http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif) This guy was a Brooker in business not an illiterate farmer with no TV or newspapers.
I would like folx to think back if you will and realize that it wasn't just the little warnings that an "informed" smoker had to consider. There was the media blitz that made smoking look normal and socially acceptable, even desirable
Sorry Daf, I was there, in the early 70's so engrossed in Timothy Leary, but that's another post. My point is, that if I knew what was going on, it was impossible for this guy to have not known.

But you bring up a good point with your comments, obviously the guy is not a man, but a Lemming in men's clothing. Sorry ignoring something you don't like the sound of, is not an excuse It's that attitude that has allowed spousal and child abuse to flourish.


[This message has been edited by surrealchereal (edited 06-07-2001).]

[alondra]

taxes do you think the state, or "meathead" with his $.50 a pack, wants his un audited tax to be cut down. his group gets millions and accounts for none of it.
finaly got to where the patch cost less than a pack of cigs, $4.50 now. at a pack a day comes to over $130.00 month.

[kenyg]

The reason the tobacco companies continue to get slapped with huge settlements is simple - All of their CEO's stood up in front of the US Senate - and said under oath - that Nicotine was not addictive.

That testomony then became a legal record. Now that papers are coming out - proving that the tobacco industry was aware of the addictive properties and health problems as far back as the late 50's.

So they're caught in a big fat lie - and any compentant lawyer will be able to get something out of that.

[surrealchereal]

kenyg, very good point.

[krusty the klown]

...and KNOWING that nicotine was addictive, they decided to put chemicals into the tobacco that increased the absorbance of nicotine, so you't get a higher dose in your bloodstream. They did this at the same time as knowing that tar in tobacco was carcinogenic.

[thekingofpain]

This sets a great precident, I wonder if my nephew can sue Burger King when he contracts heart disease from eating 430,000 Whoppers???

[MrBaseball]

I agree with you M_six... calling them idiots seems a little easy on them though.

[CMonster]

Smoking can't possibly be addictive, I know I did it for for 15 years -and I knew it was bad for my health the day I started. Now I haven't smoked for 3 years, 8 months, 2 weeks, 3 days, 4 hours, and 17 minutes....

I wonder how much someone could be awarded for smoking just a single pack?

[socalgal]

Doc, wouldn't that be Dr. ItchyBod Cranium Ph.D., J.D., Esq.?

We'll send a dredging team right away. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif

[M_Six]

I have no pity for the tobacco companies. Cigarettes were a primary factor in a failed marriage for me. I hate cigarettes passionately.

That said, I still think it's ridiculous to award that much money to someone who had to know the dangers. The guy is lying through his teeth. That money should go toward a good cause, not to pay this bozo for his stupidity and absolutely not to pay the lawyer 1/3. That lawyer couldn't possible have done one billion dollars worth of work. The court system should not be a lottery.

[Banti]

Dr. Vette and Jad

Not to come to Coke's defense, but it was called a brain tonic back in the day. This was back when Frued was singing cocaine's praises as a brain stimulator (of course it is, but burnout sucks). Shortly after,(or possibly before) the evils were discovered the cocaine was omitted from the secret formula.

On another note, if you want to be upset about them adding something to increase sales through addiction... think caffiene.

Banti

[sburns]

Everyone wants to blame the poor guy for smoking even with the warnings. I was a smoker for 28 years and quit. It was the hardest thing I ever did. These companies marketed this **** to me when I was a teen and got me addicted so that they could profit at my expense. Yeah, I knew it was bad. But I was addicted. And they were responsible for making me addicted. Let's not blame the victims, but the drug dealer tobacco companies. I think they should have to pay to provide people with stop smoking aids and further research into finding ways to end this addiction. A little jail time for the CEOs would be in order just as it would be for a member of the Columbian drug cartel.

[dafremen]

My point surreal was that IF this guy had told the lawyer that he didn't want to sue because he KNEW that smoking was bad for him, then the lawyer would have just kept looking until he FOUND a smoker with cancer who WOULD say exactly what he wanted him to say. I believe the LAWYER probably shopped around for a "victim" to defend because the tobacco company is an easy, lucrative target these days. Especially for a lawyer, and here's the real kicker: The lawyer will live long enough to ENJOY his money.

As for the media blitz. Yes I grew up in the 70's and 80's too. There were TWO camps: The tobacco industry and the rest of the world. At the time, the tobacco company was still playing the "There is no scientific evidence that smoking causes cancer" game. An addicted smoker had TWO different points of view to choose from just like when you vote for a politician. Well if you SMOKE, who do you think you're addicted **** is going to WANT to believe? Of COURSE you're going to hold out hope that the cigarette companies are right. Yes you KNOW that they're bad for you, but given even a slight excuse to keep smoking, most will take it. Addicts play all kinds of mind games on themselves to justify their continued addiction.


[This message has been edited by dafremen (edited 06-08-2001).]

[surrealchereal]

a "victim" to defend because the tobacco company is an easy, lucrative target these days. Especially for a lawyer, and here's the real kicker: The lawyer will live long enough to ENJOY his money.
Wow, that's a bizarre one, but I can see it now, and what's scarier believe it!

The mysterious man, dressed in a dark non descript suit casually strolled down the corridor of The Blessed Virgin Hospital's eighth floor. This is the floor where they all come if they are going to die a slow death. This is the floor for the patients with respiratory disease. Most of them are here because of smoking, and that's also the reason we see the man in the dark suit. You see he's the new breed. The new breed of ambulance chaser that is, chasing down those waiting for death, looking for one in that precarious position of waiting for death yet maybe having the strength to survive most of a court battle.