If you were the jury whose side would you take? The smokers OR the tobacco companies?

Question

Also, are you a Smoker or NonSmoker?

A judge ruled yesterday that a jury should decide whether tobacco companies must pay tens of millions of smokers up to $200 billion for allegedly duping them into buying light cigarettes over the past 3 decades.

Also, is there a 3rd scenario that you would like to see take place?

Details here: http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/25/tobacco.class.ap/index.html

I especially liked your idea regarding the cancer foundation. They could use the money to find more cures for cancer. They could also use part of it to try to find some new type of treatment that would permanently turn smokers against cigarettes. I had a family member that smoked for 15 years. Suddenly one day that person picked up a cigarette and it made them so sick they could never smoke again after that one incident. They even TRIED to smoke again and couldn’t stand to do it and were cured. I’ve never know that to happen to anyone else that way. It would be great if the treatment I was referring to could be like that for cigarette smokers. I thank you and everyone here for giving opinions. My personal opinion is that “both” the tobacco companies and the smokers should be taking responsibility for themselves and are “both” at fault.

I was originally going to say the tobacco companies should be paying all the NONsmokers the money since they have had to INVOLUNTARILY put up with all the 2nd hand smoke and potential health hazards all these years. However, I like your idea of giving it to the cancer foundation more.

Answer 1

I am a smoker since I was in grade school. I'm now in my 50's. I think that the tobacco co. should have to pay money to the cancer foundation. As smokers, we know the risk we are taking. We are addicts. It is hard. I'm concerned about society, not a few smokers getting rich. The cancer society can use all the help it can get. The cigarette company's should not get off scott free. Put the money where it will do the most good for the most people. And make the tobacco co. stop making the cigarettes stronger. With all the global warming, we aren't the only danger. Big corporations get away with anything.

Answer 2

The abuse of tobacco companies has gone far enough. People do what they feel like and then try and blame someone for their bad choices. Having been a smoker for more than 30 years and then quitting cold turkey I have no sympathy for those that continue to smoke after knowing the damage it causes. All the junk about being unable to control the urge without help is only proof of how weak many people are. Most of those who can't stop smoking are also the ones that can't find good jobs or take care of their families. Let the tobacco companies go with what has already been done to them.

Answer 3

I would side with the smokers, only if they began smoking before 20yrs. ago. We had the facts about the harmful health issues from cigarettes back then. Any one trying to use the tobacco companies as an exuse is someone wishing to blame others for their poor decision to start. Anyone who started smoking 20 yr. before didn't have the facts,because the tobacco co.'s hid them from everyone to gain profits.

Answer 4

non-smoker and I would take the tobacco companies side. Nobody is that stupid that they don't know that it is harmful to there body. They have a warning on the box. If I was the tobacco industry I would say we are not going to sale cigarettes in the usa in 6 months. The smokers would go crazy and start rioting to overturn the government. Just my opinion......

Answer 5

Well If I were a jury I couldn't take a side, I would be sworn to impartiality and objectivity. I would have to analyze all elements involved. Did those companies put sufficient warning legends in their products? And are those companies really responsible for people smoking and buying cigarrettes? (Like McDonalds, is it really responsible for people's eating habits?) Just as with McDonalds, the smokers had alternatives.., and one of them was not smoking in the first place

Answer 6

I am a non smoker.
But the claim is that " mild " " light " ciggarettes falseley advertised that they were somewhat safer for them to smoke, Which is not the case.

If people honestly believe smoking lighter cigarettes was better for them because they were not told otherwise by the complany then i will take the smokers side.

Answer 7

If Big Tobacco had just 10 years to reduce the levels of nicotine in their products to zero, then addiction to nicotine would be taken out of the equation as to whether or not people choose to smoke cigarettes. I would love to see that happen.

Answer 8

I was a heavy smoker for years and quit 8 yrs. ago,but I'd have to side with the jury. Nobody MADE me smoke..not even 1..and my Dad died of emphysema. I think common sense rules here,or should.

Answer 9

could vehicle manufacturers be in charge for drivers' wellness? the respond is the two particular and no, the two to an quantity, of direction. the vehicle producer could be held answerable for a defective vehicle yet no longer for the undeniable fact which you chosen topersistent recklessly. The tobacco agencies could be held answerable for a deceptive, intentionally risky product yet no longer for the undeniable fact which you chosen to partake. all human beings is conscious the possibility of tobacco use, purely decide for to no longer partake.

Answer 10

Cigarettes killed my Dad, it was his own fault I don't deserve to gain from his weakness