Man awarded 3 BILLION in smoking case

[Andy Ceponis]

Now this is just ridiculous. I hope he never sees a penny.
I mean if the company truly misled him into thinking smoking wasnt bad for him then yeah sure he should get a settlement. But 3 billion is laughable. He will probably never see a penny when PM appeals.
Some things are just common sense. I mean how could you not know that smoking is not bad for you? I was smoking at 14 and i never heard about smoking being bad for you but i figured it out all bymyself when i couldnt run to my car without getting out of breath. People need to use their heads more.

[Rahul Rathore]

3 BILLLLLLLL ...
Its unfair because we the non-smokers cannot make such a claim. Its a plain denial of equal opportunity.
Speaking more seriously - I am really delighted. Not by the fact that the smoker got the money. But by the fact that the smoking industry will now go up in a smoke. The evil enterprise will rightly die a horrible death, unmourned. Maybe the money awarded should go to the Government health care rather than the individual. But the bottom-line is that the evil industry must be made to pay. It stands on no better footing than the drug-trade. Even addictive drugs may sometimes have medicinal uses (pain-killing etc.). But Tobbaco is an unmitigated evil.
This is a welcome instance of judicial law-making. Where the legislature fails to curb the evil, the courts step in.

[Junilu Lacar]

Originally posted by Rahul Rathore:
> But by the fact that the smoking industry will now
> go up in a smoke.
Don't hold your breath; smoking will not die any time soon.
It never fails to amaze me how many otherwise intelligent people indulge in this nasty habit. There are just too many people who cannot or will not muster up the little bit of willpower to stop smoking. Besides, with the way things are going with the lawsuits, some may think it's a good investment for their retirement (just hope they don't die of cancer before then).
And then again, there will always be young people who want to be "cool".

[Shama Khan]

Well,this settlement just hits the smoking industry below the belt but they recover easily. We all know about that.
About the intelligent people smoking. Since I am originally from an Eastern culture, I've always balked at women smoking. I find it most improper and unlady like. But thinking like that made me feel a bit prudish.
So just this morning after seeing a pregnant woman smoking, I realized that I see women as nurturers, as mothers and it bothers me that a nurturing figure would try to harm herself in such manners and in turn may not be there for her kids someday.
So I've changed my mind about not liking women who smoke to not liking women with kids who smoke. And don't feel so prudish about it anymore.

[Rahul Rathore]

Past experience may render us skeptical, but believe me the tide is turning. Maybe I was hasty in announcing the death of the smoke dons. Nevertheless this judgement is a significant nail in their coffin.
Assuming that it survives appeal, what this judgement does is to set a powerful precedent. It opens the floodgates of litigation, which hopefully should drown the industry. As I see it, this litigation should raise the industry's costs to prohibitive levels and extinguish all its profits. If one man can suck 3 bill from this industry, imagine what thousands/millions of claimants can do ! And I see no evil in this litigation. It is the use of a legitmate legal forum to strike at the root of evil.
Reluctance to condemn an outright evil for fear of appearing pompous or prudish is ridiculous. On similar lines we would hesitate to condemn slavery or genocide. Tabbaco is an evil, maybe less glaring in degree, but an evil nonetheless. Not only does it kill the smoker, but also the other people in its vicinity - all this to fatten the purses of the smoke industry. It is not an issue like polygamy where one might possibly hold different views.
That is not to say that the smoke industry can ever be wiped out. Even drug-trade continues. And so does murder, rape ... That we can't extinguish an evil is no reason to avoid penalizing it.

[Andy Ceponis]

Dont you think your being just a bit harsh Rahul? From reading your posts one would htink that big tobacco is killing everyone's first born's. Its a choice people make, and if they make the choice to smoke then they have to live with their decision.
Alcohol isnt any better for you. If you drink for a good part of your life your will also suffer potentially fatal complications. But i dont see people suing alcohol companies.

[Rahul Rathore]

Harsh on whom? The smoke industry does not need my kid-glove treatment. Nor am I going to scar its feeble psyche by being ungentle. The smoke industry is a rhino-skinned cash-machine.
I think the argument about smoking being a "personal choice" and people having to live with that choice is entirely misplaced here. If that is so, then why don't we also legally permit LSD, Heroin etc ? After all those are also choices which we should be able to make. Yet we draw a line on the "personal choice" - for the sheer survival of the society.
The "personal choice" argument also falls apart for 2 other reasons: 1. Often those who succumb to the evil are underage minds targeted and manipulated by the smoking industry 2. Those who suffer include innocent people in the vicinity - the child in the womb, the family, or roommates - and smoking was NOT THEIR choice.
No I don't consider alcohol in the same class. There is evidence to show that, in moderate quantities, alcohol is in fact a health benefit. Moderate drinkers have been found to be healthier than abstainers. And I think alcohol is also a healthy cooking medium. Alcohol has many medicinal uses. In excess alcohol is bad, but so is fat, protien or iron. It is precisely for this reason that people don't sue their alcohol companies.
Even assuming arguendo that alcohol is an evil, the fact that you don't see people suing alcohol companies, is of no consequence. Tolerating evil is no virtue. One evil should not sustain merely because another evil survives.
I conclude with the fond hope that the litigation will bleed the smoke industry to an early death.


[This message has been edited by Rahul Rathore (edited June 07, 2001).]

[Matthew Phillips]

Originally posted by Rahul Rathore:
Harsh on whom? The smoke industry does not need my kid-glove treatment. Nor am I going to scar its feeble psyche by being ungentle. The smoke industry is a rhino-skinned cash-machine.
I think the argument about smoking being a "personal choice" and people having to live with that choice is entirely misplaced here. If that is so, then why don't we also legally permit LSD, Heroin etc ? After all those are also choices which we should be able to make. Yet we draw a line on the "personal choice" - for the sheer survival of the society.
The "personal choice" argument also falls apart for 2 other reasons: 1. Often those who succumb to the evil are underage minds targeted and manipulated by the smoking industry 2. Those who suffer include innocent people in the vicinity - the child in the womb, the family, or roommates - and smoking was NOT THEIR choice.
No I don't consider alcohol in the same class. There is evidence to show that, in moderate quantities, alcohol is in fact a health benefit. Moderate drinkers have been found to be healthier than abstainers. And I think alcohol is also a healthy cooking medium. Alcohol has many medicinal uses. In excess alcohol is bad, but so is fat, protien or iron. It is precisely for this reason that people don't sue their alcohol companies.
Even assuming arguendo that alcohol is an evil, the fact that you don't see people suing alcohol companies, is of no consequence. Tolerating evil is no virtue. One evil should not sustain merely because another evil survives.
I conclude with the fond hope that the litigation will bleed the smoke industry to an early death.

[This message has been edited by Rahul Rathore (edited June 07, 2001).]

The tobacco company didn't put a gun to anyone's head and force cigarrette smoke into their lungs. The first few lawsuits for false advertising were justified, but this is ridiculous. All people should have a choice of what they want to do with their bodies(in my opinion that includes LSD, cocaine, etc), but they have the resposibility to suffer the consequences for their actions.
Matthew Phillips

[Ling Wu]

Originally posted by Matthew Phillips:

All people should have a choice of what they want to do with their bodies(in my opinion that includes LSD, cocaine, etc), but they have the resposibility to suffer the consequences for their actions.

Well said. When you tell them that smoking is bad for them and for those near them, they accuse you of encroaching on their freedom of choice. But when something bad happens to them as a result of their free choices, they try their darnest to blame it on someone or something else, and even try to profit from it (like going to court and winning millions). It has been public knowledge for eons that smoking is positively bad for our health. Being misinformed by the tobacco industry? Kids, mayby. But adults? Sorry, don't buy it and have no sympathy for leeches like that.

[This message has been edited by Ling Wu (edited June 08, 2001).]

[Rahul Rathore]

Originally posted by Ling Wu:
Sorry, don't buy it and have no sympathy for leeches like that.

Let us assume that leeches can cure cancer (just an assumption arguendo ). Now if you had cancer, would you hesitate in using the leeches to remove your cancer ? Or would you grudge the leeches the blood they suck and condemn them ? I personally would be delighted that the cancer goes. Let the leeches get fat - who cares !
I was looking at the larger picture. As I see it this kind of litigation directly attacks a social cancer. Billions/Trillions of dollar and manpower and resources go into organized industrial activity, the sole purpose of which is to reap profit, by destroying the health of the people. Not only people who smoke but the innocent too.
Maybe X who gets 3 Bill doesn't deserve any sympathy. I don't offer him any. But then I also don't condemn him. What he does is NOT evil ! Ugly maybe (leeches sucking ) but NOT evil. He does not take a gun and loot the 3 bill. He goes to a legal forum and proves his case through evidence. On the other hand, the result of his action (immediate/mediate) is the destruction of an evil enterprise. And that is what delights me.

[Matthew Phillips]

Originally posted by Rahul Rathore:
On the other hand, the result of his action (immediate/mediate) is the destruction of an evil enterprise. And that is what delights me.

Why is the smoking industry so evil? They see a demand for an item and profit by supplying that demand. That is the way a free market society works. Smoking does not infringe on another person's rights to life, liberty, or property. As a former smoker, I personally find the habit disgusting and don't know what ever possessed me to do something as stupid as starting smoking in the first place. It was my decision though, as it was my decision to stop. The judge that awarded this judgement needs to be impeached because he has absolutely no understanding of the U.S. Contitution.
Matthew Phillips

[Rahul Rathore]

Originally posted by Matthew Phillips
Why is the smoking industry so evil? They see a demand for an item and profit by supplying that demand. That is the way a free market society works. Smoking does not infringe on another person's rights to life, liberty, or property. ... The judge that awarded this judgement needs to be impeached because he has absolutely no understanding of the U.S. Contitution.

That is my perception. I respect yours but disagree with it.
So, with respect, my opinion is that the free-market philosphy cannot be stretched too far. There may be demand for slaves, or for child prostitutes, or for narcotics or ... . My humble perception is that satisfying such demands constitutes an "evil". Mere existence of a demand cannot be the justification of any enterprise. A free-market philosphy in a moral vacuum is dangerous to say the least.
And yes I do believe that smoking infringes others fundamental right to life . It may be the right of the child in the womb of a mother, who smokes herself, or inhales it from the smoker-father. Or the right of the person forced to smoke passively, being in vicinity of the smoker. Such person may the smoker's spouse/kids, or his roommate, or his co-passenger in a car, or his collegue at the work-place or ... Note that these people had no "choice", and never made any "demand".
Incidentally, following the US example, the Courts in India expanded the meaning of the right to life. "Life" is not to be construed merely as "animal existence". It is much more. It envisages the right to a life of human dignity, which would include the right to enjoy good health. As far as smoking is concerned, I would say that it violates even the minimum protection of "animal existence", because smoking kills - the smoker and the innocents.
Also children below the age of descretion are an easy target - the free-choice principle is not appropriate here.
Even if we ignore the rights of the non-smokers, I would say that the smokers themselves deserve more sympathy/help, than the smoking industry. If somebody is trying to commit suicide, don't we make vigorous efforts to talk him out of it ? Why don't we simply sit quite and let suicidal person suffer the consequences of his action ? Or should we rather sympathise with the profiteer gleefully providing him the instruments of suicide ? Those who succumb to the habit are weak, but those who prey on that weakness are the devils.
No I don't agree that the judge did anything against the Constitution. If anybody ought to be impeached or outvoted it is the legislators who have failed to pass laws curbing this evil industry.
Matthew, there is a danger here that both of us will endlessly keep repeating ourselves, generating more heat than light. So unless you raise some new thought-provoking point I will respect your right to have the last word.
I have been impressed by the brilliant arguments of Thomas Paul, Jason Menard, Andrew Shafer, Simon Bernard, Jim, Angela and many others. I was hoping that the JRanch heavy-weights would pitch in with their views and insights. I would be glad to be enlightened and know that I am wrong.
I admit that all my arguments are based on the assumption that smoking maims and kills. If that assumption is wrong then most of my arguments stand negated.


[This message has been edited by Rahul Rathore (edited June 09, 2001).]

[James Lechte]

Who was the dunce who thought of 3 billion dollars? what about a measily 500 million?
When he goes to the Gentleman's Club for lunch next week the rest of the room will turn and whisper 'that's the royal wanker!'
----------------------------------------------------------------
The tobacco company didn't put a gun to anyone's head and force cigarrette smoke into their lungs. The first few lawsuits for false advertising were justified, but this is ridiculous. All people should have a choice of what they want to do with their bodies(in my opinion that includes LSD, cocaine, etc), but they have the resposibility to suffer the consequences for their actions.
Matthew Phillips
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew,
i agree with the point you are making, that essentially we are in control of our own bodies. However this is a simple paradigm to assume. when a 14yr old boy or girl who is living on the street for example - and offered by a friend something which they see as a possible maturing habit(which the companies have pushed for years) they may succumb. This is but one example of how someone with a lesser concern for their body may subscribe to smoking.
Smoking has ruined many, many lives. In my country it has been the biggest killer of people for the last 15 years. I only hope that with continued persistance of laws surrounding smoking we will see an end to the heavily dreary industry.
If it takes 3 billion then bring it on!!!
Cheers James

[Matthew Phillips]

My opinion is that society in the United States has lost focus. I agree that no one should be forced into slavery or prostitution. If someone chooses to work for free or prostitute themselves out, then that is a different matter entirely.
Smoking kills, I don't deny that. When children start smoking, it is truly tragic (I was an adult when I started). That is why I agree with laws stating that children are not allowed to buy cigarettes.
A government has certain responsibilites to the governed. It has a responsibility to protect the governed from those who would forcibly deprive a person of life, liberty, or property. It is not the responsibility of government to protect a person from themselves or from a person who would openly supply the means that the person would use to give up life, liberty, or property.
I understand that children may not be able to decide what is harmful to life, liberty, or property. Children have parents to make those decisions for them. It is the responsibility of the parent to protect a child from harming itself.
There was a time when the business practices of the tobacco industry were wrong. They promoted that cigarettes weren't harmful. They were punished in a class action lawsuit by people mislead by the advertising. If the judgement in that case had been set so high that it put the tobacco companies out of business, I would not have complained. Other companies will spring up to fill the hole left and perhaps they will not have the terrible business practices. In this case, a person made a decision to smoke. He made that decision of his own free will. The tobacco companies, not infringing on anyone else's rights, supplied him with the product he demanded. If his smoking harmed anyone else, that is his fault for smoking around them (I'm still not a big believer in the second hand smoke theory), not the tobacco companies. Even if you assume that the tobacco companies are at fault, it should be those damaged getting the award, not the smoker. The judge in the case decided to punish a corporation for a decision reached by an individual. It is simply one more example of a governemt so drunk with power that it believes it can decide what's best for you.
Matthew Phillips
P.S. If this, or any other of my posts has offended anyone, it was not the intention. I am merely stating my beliefs on this subject and certainly believe that others have the same right to differing beliefs.

[Rahul Rathore]

Matthew
Both of us have expressed and repeated our positions. We agree to disagree.
But before leaving off I was just curious to know your position on the narcotics trade.
It appears that you support a free narcotics industry (LSD, Heroin etc.) running as legitmately and openly as the smoking industry. Is that correct? Do you support the free, legal, and open production, marketing and advertising of LSD, heroin etc.? Does that also mean that you are against all the anti-drug laws, and condemn the huge US operations against narcotics and drug-trade?
If my aforesaid impression is wrong, and actually you don't support a narcotics industry then I am curious to know why. Why do you consider the narcotics industry a big no-no, whereas the smoking industry was just fine? Also how does that view fit with your principles of free-market, free-choice, personal responsibility and govt-non-interference?

[Matthew Phillips]

Originally posted by Rahul Rathore:
Matthew
Both of us have expressed and repeated our positions. We agree to disagree.
But before leaving off I was just curious to know your position on the [b]narcotics trade.
It appears that you support a free narcotics industry (LSD, Heroin etc.) running as legitmately and openly as the smoking industry. Is that correct? Do you support the free, legal, and open production, marketing and advertising of LSD, heroin etc.? Does that also mean that you are against all the anti-drug laws, and condemn the huge US operations against narcotics and drug-trade?
If my aforesaid impression is wrong, and actually you don't support a narcotics industry then I am curious to know why. Why do you consider the narcotics industry a big no-no, whereas the smoking industry was just fine? Also how does that view fit with your principles of free-market, free-choice, personal responsibility and govt-non-interference?[/B]

The reason I gave further reply, was that I received the impression, from your post, that you weren't sure of the reasons for my position. Now on to my opinions of the drug trade.

I am firmly against the drug war. Not only because I believe in a free market, but because stopping the drug war will save lives. As a legitimate business the government can enforce truth in advertising. If someone wants to buy LSD, they will not have to worry about poisons such as Strychnine. Violence on the street will decrease since legitimate businesses do not generally kill there competition. There will still be strong incentive to stay off drugs, because employers will still do drug testing, perhaps it will even increase the number of companies doing so.
Matthew Phillips

[Andy Ceponis]

I have done more than my fair share of experimenting with new experiences. There is a very good reson there are drug laws and they are enforced. The drugs that are illegal are like that for a reason. I dont know of anyone that can take drugs like extasy, lsd, cocaine, etc.... and still be able to do normal things like drive and not become a potential harm to others. Now i know alcohol can be considered in the same boat, but thats a whole different topic. But to say that drugs should be legal and people can choose to take them or not is just a cover. Id love for people to show me how someone who is rollin or trippin on acid can still do normal things without being a harm to themselves or others.
Its not that i am against drugs themselves, but making them legal will only put even more innocent people at risk.

[Rahul Rathore]

Andy
If I am understanding you right, you are DO NOT support a free, open and legal narcotics industry running just as the smoking industry. Am I right ? So you do consider the drug-industry as evil. Am I correct ?
But how does that fit in with your arguments about free-choice and personal-responsibility. Or do you do draw a line here limiting the free-choice and personal-responsibility theory.
As regards people harming themselves, this is covered by your argument of free-choice and personal responsibility. It's the choice of the people to take it, and if they do, then they must suffer the consequences. As you say re the smokers, the junkies must suffer - but NOT the corporates producing the evil stuff, in the glorious free-market. Of course the corporates own "personal responsibility" is only to make money, consequences be damned !!
As regards danger to others:
Firstly you did admit that the arguments re drugs would apply even against alcohol.
Secondly I personally know some successful outwardly-normal people taking drugs regularly for years (though they regret the habit like the smokers).
Thirdly my knowledge is that people "rolling on acid" never harm others - usually they are too immobilized to do anything, while under influence.
Fourthly is there any evidence that if X takes LSD/Heroin, Y in the vicinity will also passively take it ?
So there is nothing fundamentally different about drugs which merits their special treatment. I think that no-smoke is a corollary of no-drugs.
I do clarify one thing here. If you ask me to compare drugs with smoking, I will admit that, probably speaking, drugs are relatively/comparitively, more evil in degree. i.e. I admit some difference of "degree", but NOT of "kind". And I will perfectly understand and respect your view, if you say that you draw the line at drugs. However my personal opinion is that smoking is evil enough to be clubbed with drugs, and must be attacked with the same vigor.


[This message has been edited by Rahul Rathore (edited June 10, 2001).]

[Rahul Rathore]

Originally posted by Matthew Phillips:
I am firmly against the drug war. Not only because I believe in a free market, but because stopping the drug war will save lives. As a legitimate business the government can enforce truth in advertising. If someone wants to buy LSD, they will not have to worry about poisons such as Strychnine. Violence on the street will decrease since legitimate businesses do not generally kill there competition. There will still be strong incentive to stay off drugs, because employers will still do drug testing, perhaps it will even increase the number of companies doing so.
Matthew Phillips[/B]

(I apologise in advance, if the contents appear offensive. I am merely trying to generate an "extreme case" for the sake of argument)
Matthew - that is a radical position !
Let us take some hypothetical scenario - Take some drug - say suicidex. Let us assume that it causes instant death (or something horrendous). In Matthew's drug-friendly regime, I decide that this drug is the route to my zillions $$$. There are millions of mentally-ill suckers out there who would play my game. So I advertise it widely, in every media, as a "cool" drug, the surest way to solve all life's problems. I package it in bright-red attractive packages - of course with the required statutory warning - "This drug will cause death". The drug is a great hit (particularly among street-kids, adoloscents, mentally-ill). Soon many competitors are born - leading to a flourishing zillion dollar industry. Soon we want to "create" more demand - so we see more brilliant, manipulative advertising. It is a resounding success !
Within a short time there is found to be an alarming increase in the rate of suicides using suicidex. A large percentage of youth are killing themselves off ! I, of course, am living a dream, riding on the success of suicidex. I live in a large palatial house, with a few of my private boeings parked on my private airport, a private army and so on.
There is a murmur of protest against this industry. But my initial apprehension vanishes. I am pleasantly surprised to find support in unexpected quarters. Many strong and self-respecting people condemn this unfair persecution of my industry. As they say (bless them !) that those namby-pambies who chose to take the drug, must suffer the consequences of their free-choice ! All this whining against my industry is condemned. The ideals of personal responsibility and free-market are exhorted. The Govt. it told to keep out.
I thank GOD. Definitely GOD is a free-marketeer.


[This message has been edited by Rahul Rathore (edited June 10, 2001).]

[Matthew Phillips]

The basis for my beliefs is simply this: who owns your life, liberty, or property. If you believe, as I do, that you own your life, liberty, or property then the law should allow you to do what you wish with your life, liberty, or property but also protect the life, liberty, or property of others from you. It is your responsibility to protect yourself.
That said, I will comment on "suicidex". All the pretty packaging does not change the instant death factor. If it is marketed as anything other than instant death, then the business has infringed upon another person's right to life. That is wrong and I should be punished for it. If it is marketed as "you want to die, here's your ticket" then I don't have a problem with that. You may see that as radical, but I see it as a common sense extension that I own my life, liberty, or property. The government does not.
Matthew Philllips

[Rahul Rathore]

Matthew, it was great, discussing with you. See ya

[Matthew Phillips]

Originally posted by Rahul Rathore:
Matthew, it was great, discussing with you. See ya

It was nice hearing your opinions as well.
Matthew Phillips

[Anonymous]

I think that smokers are on there on if they choose to smoke than that's there stupid, nasty choose. I feel that he should'nt get a single dime. That smoker should of read inbetween the lines.(the SMALL print)!!!
holla at a non-smoker when you see all of them walkin by!!(THANKS)

[Don Kiddick]

Originally posted by Rahul Rathore:

Let us take some hypothetical scenario - Take some drug - say suicidex. Let us assume that it causes instant death (or something horrendous).

suicedex exists it's called bleach, weedkiller, paracetamol etc... You can buy plenty of things that can kill you already (although of course they're not advertised as such.). Advertising them as such (in UK anyway) would be illegal as commiting suicide is illegal.

There are millions of mentally-ill suckers out there who would play my game. So I advertise it widely, in every media, as a "cool" drug, the surest way to solve all life's problems. I package it in bright-red attractive packages - of course with the required statutory warning - "This drug will cause death". The drug is a great hit (particularly among street-kids, adoloscents, mentally-ill).

This would never happen, no-none would buy it !
I with Matthew on this one, people will always take drugs wether legal or not. I don't think it's ethical or posible for the government to impose restrictions on what I can inbibe if I'm not hurting someone else. It's in our nature to take drugs like it is in many other creature nature (e.g. cats & catnip, koalas & Euclyptus, Elephants & fermented fruit).
Question is do you want production controlled by underground gangs and all the problems that brings (violence, poisening etc) or do you want it controlled by the government where production can be regulated and taxed !
Would legalisation cause consumption to go up or down ? A difficult one... I think it would be probably go down, like weed consumption among the Dutch since legalisation.
My 2p, feel free to disagree
T.
[ February 27, 2003: Message edited by: Don Kiddick ]

[Paul Stevens]

commiting suicide is illegal

Bag him and book him Dano.

Just found the wording funny. If you attempt suicide, it isn't legel? But succeed it isn't?

[Don Kiddick]

LOL!
Bad wording on my part. In the UK it is legal to commit suicide but it is illegal to aid and abet suicide.
T.

[SJ Adnams]

http://www.ethicsforschools.org/suicide/
it was illegal until 1961

[Randall Twede]

its not fair to the rest of us smokers. sure the tobacco companies should pay, but not to one person. they should be forced to give all current smokers a lifetime suppy of free cigarettes. now that would be fair

[Michael Ernest]

I think whether you like to smoke or not, are informed of the health hazards or not, we should all be able to agree that awarding US$3,000,000,000 to one person because they were "duped" into cutting their own life short raises the political arguments to an absurd volume.
I'm no fan of smoking myself, and I find a lot of smoker habits irritating, like sucking down on those things just outside the door of a restaurant. Like moving 20 feet away and the day will be lost. But a $3 billion dollar award? This simply tells you that sentiment against the cigarette industry is out of control; there's no question in my mind the award will be cut a few orders of magnitude, if not thrown out on its ear.
But times have changed. Used to be in the neighborhoods I grew up you couldn't avoid a cigarette billboard or Marlboro or Salem or Kool stickers plastered all over the corner store counters. Candy was probably more expensive at the time.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
Candy was probably more expensive at the time.

Speaking of... Do they make candy cigarrettes anymore?

[Joel McNary]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Speaking of... Do they make candy cigarrettes anymore?

Yes, they're still out there...and just as bizarre-tasting as ever. It takes a little bit of searching to find them, though.

[Thomas Paul]

The case was two years ago. I wonder what happened with it.

[Randall Twede]

seriously though, anyone who claims they didnt know smoking is harmful are liars. i started smoking in the late 60's when i was 16 and i knew. that is why parents forbid it, schools forbid it, and the law forbids it. plain common sense says it is harmful.

[Michael Ernest]

I haven't bothered to follow case studies recently, but no one has really won a sizable award by claiming ignorance. What some have been able to do is prove these companies hid or destroyed information demonstrating their products were far more hazardous than anyone thought. Properly presented, that claim negates the assertion that smokers have always known the risks.