Good the tobacco companies won the law suit?

Question

Good that the tobacco companies won? If not, then please explain your answer as I do not understand how someone can voluntarily smoke their whole lives and then try and sue these companies for millions. Don't try and tell me they could not figure out on their own that inhaling large volumes of smoke would not be good for you.

Answer 1

Good, people need to take responsibility for their actions and choices. They should not be able to sue a company just because they offer a product that some people want. I also know that most, if not all, schools teach children that smoking is a harmful and addictive activity. I myself have seen movies about smoking that makes my skin crawl. I can understand why people who started smoking in the 20s-50s eras would want to sue tobacco companies, because back then it was considered cool and there wasn't any tests done to see if it caused cancers. But today there is too much information out for people to say that they were misinformed. I mean there is even a warning on the box. So really those people have no excuse and, again, need to take responsibility for their actions.

Answer 2

Great anti-smoker elitist attitudes here, but I'd have to disagree. Though it has been known since the 50's, 60's that the effects of smoking can be harmful to ones health, the seriousness of the issue was never realized until later years. By then, millions had already been hooked, and it wasn't only until recent times smoking has finally been accepted as a dangerous product, following removal of their ads and marketing campaigns as well as non-smoking advocacy groups rising to spread public awareness. Many people by then were already victim to years of addiction to smoking and most have trouble trying to get off of it.

Take this into account for those who are involved with drinking alcohol and say one they, it's revealed that it truly leads to liver disease and brain damage or tumors. After the mass marketing campaigns and the wide availability and acceptance of the drug, along with assurance from the companies that the product was safe, would it still be wrong to be able to sue a company that has lied about a product they knew was indeed harmful? The same can be applied to any product a company releases to the public and offers an assurance of safety with it. However, my answer doesn't apply to those who decide to smoke during these times and are knowledgeable (or should be) of the consequences of their actions.

Answer 3

You are completely correct about the need for people to take personal responsibility for their life decisions. I am a passionate non- smoker, but even I think that the companies are being treated punitively. There has been evidence of the tobacco companies lying and minimizing the negative effects of tobacco, but I've known all my life that smoking is bad for you. The biggest problem is the conflicting messages that the public receives- On one hand we are educated to know that smoking is bad for you, but then we are barraged by the images of the rich and famous puffing away in the movies and on the stages. However, they are making a personal decision and accepting the responsiblity; the rest of us need to do the same.

Answer 4

When a company sets out to make something more additive so they can hook and keep people coming back they are to blame and should pay for what they did. Had they been a food company they would had fines lodged against them. Tobacco as it as been altered by tobacco companies is 10 times more additives than heroin. Customers became hooked without being told that it could happen. For this reason they should have been made to pay for the harm they did

Answer 5

Yeah. I think it is sort of hypocritical but at the same time some people although they know all along it's bad for them to smoke don't really have it register until they have an oxygen tank tied to them 24/7 THEN it hits and they probably do get really angry at the tobacco companies

Answer 6

It differs from state to state. In my state (Oregon), that's meant to pass to scientific care and smoking cessation courses. that's nonetheless no longer adequate to cover the quite expenses of smoking. i think of that human beings who smoke might desire to pay approximately three times as much as they do now for tobacco taxes and pay for his or her very own scientific expenses of their unfavourable alternatives. The taxes can choose for the expenses of 2d hand smoke that they inflict on others.