morning to sue Jim Beam? Or some one who took Viagra to sue because in the heat of the moment they impregnated their patner? Do you think we should prohibit such suits? If so how?
2007-01-04 02:18:18 · 22 answers · asked by paulisfree2004 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
We should not allow lawsuits on products we CHOOSE to ingest/use. We have taken PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY totally out of the equation.
Now, if we use something that we did not know is harmful(because we were not informed) that is different.
We DO prohibit frivolous law suits to some extent now but we should raise the penalties on them if a lawsuit is deemed frivolous by the courts.
2007-01-04 02:24:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
EXCELLENT question!
Tobacco is in a special category because it is said to be the only product which, when used as intended, causes death.
The theory of liability is that tobacco companies knew it was addictive and harmful and lied about it.
Under that scenario, though, I can't see how anyone who started smoking after the Surgeon General's warning in 1964 could sue. Then again, didn't several tobacco executives testify - under oath - before Congress a few years ago that nicotine was not addicting? Perjury time!
I'm not 100% sure about the theory of liability there, but yes I'm concerned about the spillover effect. McDonald's has been sued for making people fat! So yes, at some point people have to take personal responsibility.
PS I prefer Jack Daniel's. And probably it was the woman I woke up with who would sue, not me! :)
2007-01-04 03:03:01 · answer #2 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I have worked with folks with all kinds of smoking related diseases: lung and bladder cancers, emphysema, mouth and throat cancers, chronic bronchitis, sinusitis, ulcers. Cigarettes kill.
But your point is well taken - this is a choice people have made. Smoke or not. True, the tobacco companies have made this terribly addictive drug attractive and may have boosted nicotine levels to hook folks more easily but it is still a choice.
I hate to see the government prohibiting free access to the court system, however. Give the government that kind of power and soon lots of valid cases will be banned. Your doctor screws up out of ignorance and you can't sue him for malpractice. (Although there are too many malpractice suits now.)
It's up to folks in juries to stop awarding these ridiculous amounts of money to plaintiffs. Perhaps limiting damages would be better than limited access.
2007-01-04 02:40:32 · answer #3 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
An excellent question.
Since Tobacco is a slow poison, smokers are committing suicide. Tobacco companies are committing the crime of assisted suicide by selling poison to people to kill themselves.
Hmm, if they lie about it and say tobacco is safe, or conceal the fact that smoking is deadly, is that a form of murder?
I say, prosecute the tobacco companies, farmers, distributors, processors, and managers of stores that sell tobacco should be charged with assisted suicide, or first degree murder for lying about the toxicity of tobacco products, and thus causing the premature deaths of millions of Americans.
2007-01-04 04:54:55 · answer #4 · answered by Feeling Mutual 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you are a little confused. More people have gotten pregnant by the help of Jim Beam rather than Viagra. LOL!!
2007-01-04 02:30:41 · answer #5 · answered by honey 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I think your point is valid. If you smoke, you live with the consequences. I am glad to see we have something to agree on. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
The problem in this country is most do not want to take the consequences of their behavior. The worst part of allowing these lawsuits is we all pay for it. It costs companies a lot of money to defend these suits.
2007-01-04 02:22:20 · answer #6 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Smokers who are suing tobacco companies is a totally different situation than someone waking up next to an ugly partner or getting someone pregnant. The cigarette companies lied to the public for years, putting drugs and things into their cigarettees to make sure those who smoked them became addicted and craved more and more. Also not admitting to the effects of the smoking on their bodies. If later you find out the viagra did something you didn't know about, and it wasn't released although the company who manufactured it knew, then you can talk about a lawsuit.
2007-01-04 02:22:22 · answer #7 · answered by Fruit Cake Lady 5 · 3⤊ 5⤋
Yes we should prohibit them. People in this country are too sue happy. I mean its gotten completely out of hand. Any person knows that smoking a cigarette is going to give you cancer so if you get cancer its your own fault. Personal responbility comes into play in all this. I dont buy this addicting BS either, I think that is just a crutch weak people use to excuse their filthy habits.
2007-01-04 02:20:39 · answer #8 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
This is an awful analogy. The tobacco industry should be held accountable for placing toxins in their product which propelled the death of many individuals. It is only through such lawsuits that you actually know that cigarettes are harmful. Tobacco became drug dealers, and worse they did not let their buyers know the side effects. Targeting five year old children in advertisements for a drug is WRONG... and yes they should be held accountable.
2007-01-04 02:24:11 · answer #9 · answered by Mizhani 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Do people know how addicting smoking is? I smoked for 10 years, quit for two, then smoked 1 cigarette and had cravings for a month, they marketed cigarettes to children (w/ Marlborough man, Joe camel, camel cash, M-- miles,etc.) who are not legally qualified to make important life decisions, and once they were addicted, one could argue they had little choice
2007-01-04 02:37:01 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋