companies seriously be responsible if people make the choice to ingore the warnings and light up?
2007-12-04 04:25:39 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
NO! The warnings are there, if you are too dumb to not read them-too bad. IF you are too dumb to comprehend--too bad. I am an ex-smoker. I knew all the dangers. I chose to smoke anyway. Sueing a cig company is ridiculous. Just like sueing McDonalds because you are fat, or Jack Daniels because you are an alcoholic. People are way too sue happy. The person is responsible. Warnings are there. We are taught that smoking can kill is our whole lives.
2007-12-04 04:30:54 · answer #1 · answered by pupgirl 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They are a manufacturer of a product.
Advertising their product in truth should not result in any kind of legal actions against them. Especially when it's the consumers choice to light up. The dangers are advertised on the cartons, indivual packs, tv commercials, and in school. Some are educated in a more tragic way. A family member who has suffered the effects of smoking.
Different scenerio:
An automobile maker who advertises their vehicles can be sued because Joe Schmoe got ran over by their brand car? I think not!
2007-12-04 04:33:40 · answer #2 · answered by Grape Stomper 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends. Where were you, that you became ill from this toxin? Could you have done anything to not contract the illness? These are the kinds of questions you have to ask and answer. In the end, these questions will both make and break any case. If you could have avoided it and were aware of the consequences, then you are liable for recklessly endangering your own life. However, in this, the 21st century, with printed warnings from the previous 30 years, how could you not know? All advertisements for tobacco products were required to carry the warning. The product carries the warning. Heck! C E Coop even showed up on PSA spots to warn us, bothon TV and Radio... Unawareness is a weak arguement.
2016-05-28 03:46:58 · answer #3 · answered by kaitlyn 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
RJ Reynolds agreed not to use cartoon images to sell its product toward children. The ad of which you speak was an 8 page spread that seemed geared to younger people. (i.e. minors). It was also in Rolling Stone, which has a large number of young readers. The tobacco industry were warned, and the 'Camel' choose to ignore them.
2007-12-04 04:34:22 · answer #4 · answered by Songbyrd JPA ✡ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Uh haven't they already been sued and paid out billions in settlements?
Advertising per se is not illegal. Especially for a product that is legal. At best there is/was a civil case. Now, cigarette advertising is heavily regulated, and if you think there are violations, there are riches awaiting you. You will probably need a better legal theory though, as any old cases have probably already been settled and any future health cases may be indemnified against in the earlier settlements.
2007-12-04 04:32:41 · answer #5 · answered by Barry C 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it is absolutely ridiculous to think that a smoker is ignorant the the fact that cigarette cause cancer in this day in age.
There has to be some accountability. The cigarette makers manufacture a product that is known to be hazardous. They advertise that they are both hazardous and addictive. If a person still chooses to smoke it is their own stupidity.
2007-12-04 04:46:53 · answer #6 · answered by smedrik 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
I have seriously thought of seeking an attorney to 'sue' the Coke industry because I can't stop drinking their Diet Coke since my doctor says it is most likely the reason for all my stomach problems and when I try to quit, I feel like I'm going to have a nervous break down. I know they are adding something to the Coke!
2007-12-04 04:36:04 · answer #7 · answered by Sandie B 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No they should not and any court with a modicum of sense would throw out such a suit. Smokers are perfectly well aware of the risks and if they choose to run those risks it is entirely their own responsibility. This "compensation culture" - i.e. always someone else's fault is an american idiocy which is sadly encroaching beyond US borders. Advertising is largely neutral in its effects.
2007-12-04 04:33:02 · answer #8 · answered by galyamike 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO companies should not be sued if I made a choice and knew what the outcome could be. Should a person be able sue Trojan because they had a condom and did not use it and caught something. No it was a choice made
2007-12-04 04:33:06 · answer #9 · answered by Bishop Rashad 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I totally disagree with the lawsuits/settlements and other things associated negatively with tobacco companies.
No one forces people to light up, use drugs, use alcohol. I drink beer because I like it. I tried pot to try it (it kicked my butt 20 years ago and I've not tried it since). I used to smoke because I enjoyed it. Nothing quite like a smoke after a good meal, with that first cup of coffee, after sex. Non smokers just cannot relate to the association/habit.
Thankfully, I quit smoking 12 years ago but I don't go out of my way to belittle those that do still smoke. Sadly, I went up a pants size but I feel better. How did I quit? I got tired of having to go out and buy them.
'nuff said
Phurface
2007-12-04 04:32:52 · answer #10 · answered by Phurface 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋