Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A woman won a case where she sued America's second largest tobacco company after her husband died of cancer due to smoking....she was awarded 14 billion pounds in compensation....I mean surely us smokers are responsible for our health and not the tobacco giants? Or are they to blame? " people need to take responsibility for their own actions. Smoking is bad, so don't smoke. Eating sugar and crap food is bad so don't eat it. Stop blaming the companies no one is forcing people to smoke | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
A | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparently still smoking hours from death, he took smoking seriously! " And she was still awarded 14 billion quid | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A woman won a case where she sued America's second largest tobacco company after her husband died of cancer due to smoking....she was awarded 14 billion pounds in compensation....I mean surely us smokers are responsible for our health and not the tobacco giants? Or are they to blame? " Will mars be sued next for making someone fat?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A woman won a case where she sued America's second largest tobacco company after her husband died of cancer due to smoking....she was awarded 14 billion pounds in compensation....I mean surely us smokers are responsible for our health and not the tobacco giants? Or are they to blame? Will mars be sued next for making someone fat? "I bet it's already been tried | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A woman won a case where she sued America's second largest tobacco company after her husband died of cancer due to smoking....she was awarded 14 billion pounds in compensation....I mean surely us smokers are responsible for our health and not the tobacco giants? Or are they to blame? Will mars be sued next for making someone fat?
I bet it's already been tried "Its getting ridiculous the only people getting rich are the lawyers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think this case goes way back before the dangers of smoking were known and tobacco companies advertised aggressively. It was also proved that the Companies were putting other ingredients into their product which caused addiction, more so than the actual tobacco. It's taken this long to settle within the judiciary system. " he died in 96 aged 36 so he started smoking around 74 people where aware of the dangers then | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A woman won a case where she sued America's second largest tobacco company after her husband died of cancer due to smoking....she was awarded 14 billion pounds in compensation....I mean surely us smokers are responsible for our health and not the tobacco giants? Or are they to blame? Will mars be sued next for making someone fat?
I bet it's already been tried
Its getting ridiculous the only people getting rich are the lawyers."And the lady who won the 14bn. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"yes people do have individual responsibility but the same companies have been giving free cigarettes to kids in Africa and elsewhere for years as their markets in the 'developed world' have diminished.. hook em young.." do they give them out free in america? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"yes people do have individual responsibility but the same companies have been giving free cigarettes to kids in Africa and elsewhere for years as their markets in the 'developed world' have diminished.. hook em young.." I watched a documentary on this made with Duncan Bannantyne  the tobacco industry ought to be ashamed of the tricks they use to get youngsters hooked. Z | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"yes people do have individual responsibility but the same companies have been giving free cigarettes to kids in Africa and elsewhere for years as their markets in the 'developed world' have diminished.. hook em young..do they give them out free in america? " I don't believe so.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think this case goes way back before the dangers of smoking were known and tobacco companies advertised aggressively. It was also proved that the Companies were putting other ingredients into their product which caused addiction, more so than the actual tobacco. It's taken this long to settle within the judiciary system. he died in 96 aged 36 so he started smoking around 74 people where aware of the dangers then " not so much so in the 70's ~ the major health drive about smoking didn't come into play until early 90's. the jury had to be shown information about how smoking was seen at the time as quite a few of them wouldn't have known. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think this case goes way back before the dangers of smoking were known and tobacco companies advertised aggressively. It was also proved that the Companies were putting other ingredients into their product which caused addiction, more so than the actual tobacco. It's taken this long to settle within the judiciary system. he died in 96 aged 36 so he started smoking around 74 people where aware of the dangers then not so much so in the 70's ~ the major health drive about smoking didn't come into play until early 90's. the jury had to be shown information about how smoking was seen at the time as quite a few of them wouldn't have known." well I started smoking in 76 and the information was already out there | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"yes people do have individual responsibility but the same companies have been giving free cigarettes to kids in Africa and elsewhere for years as their markets in the 'developed world' have diminished.. hook em young..do they give them out free in america? I don't believe so.." They used to. It was part of their rations in the military. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"yes people do have individual responsibility but the same companies have been giving free cigarettes to kids in Africa and elsewhere for years as their markets in the 'developed world' have diminished.. hook em young..do they give them out free in america? I don't believe so.. They used to. It was part of their rations in the military. " Thats not far from the truth it was something they could choose to take or not and in some divisions they had a choice of chocolate or cigarettes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think this case goes way back before the dangers of smoking were known and tobacco companies advertised aggressively. It was also proved that the Companies were putting other ingredients into their product which caused addiction, more so than the actual tobacco. It's taken this long to settle within the judiciary system. he died in 96 aged 36 so he started smoking around 74 people where aware of the dangers then " I'm sorry but no. We weren't aware. Even in the late 90s smokers were still being given 'camel cash' or collecting 'marlboro miles' to redeem for branded merchandise from the tobacco companies and the companies were denying that smoking was addictive or harmful or that they were weighting the deck in their favor with additives. I started smoking in '92, and that was several years before the landmark case where tobacco execs lied to congress and the big judgement was made and they were fined billions. I'm still struggling to quit smoking. She started that case before the companies were found to have perjured themselves and deserves a good judgement. She will actually probably not receive a penny, though. That happens quite often, first the initial award is reduced and then the company gets fancy with their accounting and proves that they can't afford to pay. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think this case goes way back before the dangers of smoking were known and tobacco companies advertised aggressively. It was also proved that the Companies were putting other ingredients into their product which caused addiction, more so than the actual tobacco. It's taken this long to settle within the judiciary system. he died in 96 aged 36 so he started smoking around 74 people where aware of the dangers then I'm sorry but no. We weren't aware. Even in the late 90s smokers were still being given 'camel cash' or collecting 'marlboro miles' to redeem for branded merchandise from the tobacco companies and the companies were denying that smoking was addictive or harmful or that they were weighting the deck in their favor with additives. I started smoking in '92, and that was several years before the landmark case where tobacco execs lied to congress and the big judgement was made and they were fined billions. I'm still struggling to quit smoking. She started that case before the companies were found to have perjured themselves and deserves a good judgement. She will actually probably not receive a penny, though. That happens quite often, first the initial award is reduced and then the company gets fancy with their accounting and proves that they can't afford to pay. " well at least that's some positive news if she might not get a penny | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think this case goes way back before the dangers of smoking were known and tobacco companies advertised aggressively. It was also proved that the Companies were putting other ingredients into their product which caused addiction, more so than the actual tobacco. It's taken this long to settle within the judiciary system. he died in 96 aged 36 so he started smoking around 74 people where aware of the dangers then not so much so in the 70's ~ the major health drive about smoking didn't come into play until early 90's. the jury had to be shown information about how smoking was seen at the time as quite a few of them wouldn't have known.well I started smoking in 76 and the information was already out there " I started in '79 and definitely knew then. Although I thought I only have a couple so I won't get addicted. By 1983 I was on 40 a day. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think this case goes way back before the dangers of smoking were known and tobacco companies advertised aggressively. It was also proved that the Companies were putting other ingredients into their product which caused addiction, more so than the actual tobacco. It's taken this long to settle within the judiciary system. he died in 96 aged 36 so he started smoking around 74 people where aware of the dangers then not so much so in the 70's ~ the major health drive about smoking didn't come into play until early 90's. the jury had to be shown information about how smoking was seen at the time as quite a few of them wouldn't have known.well I started smoking in 76 and the information was already out there " Yes there was information but nowhere near on the same scale as it is now. smoking was everywhere from TV programmes to advertising, you could also smoke wherever & whenever you wanted too ~ different era. btw I think it's madness too but can see where a claim could possibly come from. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think this case goes way back before the dangers of smoking were known and tobacco companies advertised aggressively. It was also proved that the Companies were putting other ingredients into their product which caused addiction, more so than the actual tobacco. It's taken this long to settle within the judiciary system. he died in 96 aged 36 so he started smoking around 74 people where aware of the dangers then I'm sorry but no. We weren't aware. Even in the late 90s smokers were still being given 'camel cash' or collecting 'marlboro miles' to redeem for branded merchandise from the tobacco companies and the companies were denying that smoking was addictive or harmful or that they were weighting the deck in their favor with additives. I started smoking in '92, and that was several years before the landmark case where tobacco execs lied to congress and the big judgement was made and they were fined billions. I'm still struggling to quit smoking. She started that case before the companies were found to have perjured themselves and deserves a good judgement. She will actually probably not receive a penny, though. That happens quite often, first the initial award is reduced and then the company gets fancy with their accounting and proves that they can't afford to pay. " Certainly in the uk the cigarette packs started having health warnings on from 1971 so I really don't accept that people in the 90's didn't know about the dangers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think this case goes way back before the dangers of smoking were known and tobacco companies advertised aggressively. It was also proved that the Companies were putting other ingredients into their product which caused addiction, more so than the actual tobacco. It's taken this long to settle within the judiciary system. he died in 96 aged 36 so he started smoking around 74 people where aware of the dangers then I'm sorry but no. We weren't aware. Even in the late 90s smokers were still being given 'camel cash' or collecting 'marlboro miles' to redeem for branded merchandise from the tobacco companies and the companies were denying that smoking was addictive or harmful or that they were weighting the deck in their favor with additives. I started smoking in '92, and that was several years before the landmark case where tobacco execs lied to congress and the big judgement was made and they were fined billions. I'm still struggling to quit smoking. She started that case before the companies were found to have perjured themselves and deserves a good judgement. She will actually probably not receive a penny, though. That happens quite often, first the initial award is reduced and then the company gets fancy with their accounting and proves that they can't afford to pay. Certainly in the uk the cigarette packs started having health warnings on from 1971 so I really don't accept that people in the 90's didn't know about the dangers. " and 1966 in america so no bloody excuse | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think this case goes way back before the dangers of smoking were known and tobacco companies advertised aggressively. It was also proved that the Companies were putting other ingredients into their product which caused addiction, more so than the actual tobacco. It's taken this long to settle within the judiciary system. he died in 96 aged 36 so he started smoking around 74 people where aware of the dangers then I'm sorry but no. We weren't aware. Even in the late 90s smokers were still being given 'camel cash' or collecting 'marlboro miles' to redeem for branded merchandise from the tobacco companies and the companies were denying that smoking was addictive or harmful or that they were weighting the deck in their favor with additives. I started smoking in '92, and that was several years before the landmark case where tobacco execs lied to congress and the big judgement was made and they were fined billions. I'm still struggling to quit smoking. She started that case before the companies were found to have perjured themselves and deserves a good judgement. She will actually probably not receive a penny, though. That happens quite often, first the initial award is reduced and then the company gets fancy with their accounting and proves that they can't afford to pay. Certainly in the uk the cigarette packs started having health warnings on from 1971 so I really don't accept that people in the 90's didn't know about the dangers. " that maybe the case but what teenager takes any notice of what's on side of the packet, I know I didn't back then. i started smoking because I thought it was cool & wanted to be like everyone else. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think this case goes way back before the dangers of smoking were known and tobacco companies advertised aggressively. It was also proved that the Companies were putting other ingredients into their product which caused addiction, more so than the actual tobacco. It's taken this long to settle within the judiciary system. he died in 96 aged 36 so he started smoking around 74 people where aware of the dangers then I'm sorry but no. We weren't aware. Even in the late 90s smokers were still being given 'camel cash' or collecting 'marlboro miles' to redeem for branded merchandise from the tobacco companies and the companies were denying that smoking was addictive or harmful or that they were weighting the deck in their favor with additives. I started smoking in '92, and that was several years before the landmark case where tobacco execs lied to congress and the big judgement was made and they were fined billions. I'm still struggling to quit smoking. She started that case before the companies were found to have perjured themselves and deserves a good judgement. She will actually probably not receive a penny, though. That happens quite often, first the initial award is reduced and then the company gets fancy with their accounting and proves that they can't afford to pay. Certainly in the uk the cigarette packs started having health warnings on from 1971 so I really don't accept that people in the 90's didn't know about the dangers. that maybe the case but what teenager takes any notice of what's on side of the packet, I know I didn't back then. i started smoking because I thought it was cool & wanted to be like everyone else." so its someone else's fault they didn't read the warning. What if they walked straight passed a warning saying danger explosives. I really don't understand the its not my fault I will blame someone else culture | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think this case goes way back before the dangers of smoking were known and tobacco companies advertised aggressively. It was also proved that the Companies were putting other ingredients into their product which caused addiction, more so than the actual tobacco. It's taken this long to settle within the judiciary system. he died in 96 aged 36 so he started smoking around 74 people where aware of the dangers then I'm sorry but no. We weren't aware. Even in the late 90s smokers were still being given 'camel cash' or collecting 'marlboro miles' to redeem for branded merchandise from the tobacco companies and the companies were denying that smoking was addictive or harmful or that they were weighting the deck in their favor with additives. I started smoking in '92, and that was several years before the landmark case where tobacco execs lied to congress and the big judgement was made and they were fined billions. I'm still struggling to quit smoking. She started that case before the companies were found to have perjured themselves and deserves a good judgement. She will actually probably not receive a penny, though. That happens quite often, first the initial award is reduced and then the company gets fancy with their accounting and proves that they can't afford to pay. Certainly in the uk the cigarette packs started having health warnings on from 1971 so I really don't accept that people in the 90's didn't know about the dangers. that maybe the case but what teenager takes any notice of what's on side of the packet, I know I didn't back then. i started smoking because I thought it was cool & wanted to be like everyone else.so its someone else's fault they didn't read the warning. What if they walked straight passed a warning saying danger explosives. I really don't understand the its not my fault I will blame someone else culture " This woman will give you 14 billion good reasons to understand it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think this case goes way back before the dangers of smoking were known and tobacco companies advertised aggressively. It was also proved that the Companies were putting other ingredients into their product which caused addiction, more so than the actual tobacco. It's taken this long to settle within the judiciary system. he died in 96 aged 36 so he started smoking around 74 people where aware of the dangers then I'm sorry but no. We weren't aware. Even in the late 90s smokers were still being given 'camel cash' or collecting 'marlboro miles' to redeem for branded merchandise from the tobacco companies and the companies were denying that smoking was addictive or harmful or that they were weighting the deck in their favor with additives. I started smoking in '92, and that was several years before the landmark case where tobacco execs lied to congress and the big judgement was made and they were fined billions. I'm still struggling to quit smoking. She started that case before the companies were found to have perjured themselves and deserves a good judgement. She will actually probably not receive a penny, though. That happens quite often, first the initial award is reduced and then the company gets fancy with their accounting and proves that they can't afford to pay. Certainly in the uk the cigarette packs started having health warnings on from 1971 so I really don't accept that people in the 90's didn't know about the dangers. that maybe the case but what teenager takes any notice of what's on side of the packet, I know I didn't back then. i started smoking because I thought it was cool & wanted to be like everyone else.so its someone else's fault they didn't read the warning. What if they walked straight passed a warning saying danger explosives. I really don't understand the its not my fault I will blame someone else culture This woman will give you 14 billion good reasons to understand it. " I feel happier now know knowing she might not get anything | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think this case goes way back before the dangers of smoking were known and tobacco companies advertised aggressively. It was also proved that the Companies were putting other ingredients into their product which caused addiction, more so than the actual tobacco. It's taken this long to settle within the judiciary system. he died in 96 aged 36 so he started smoking around 74 people where aware of the dangers then I'm sorry but no. We weren't aware. Even in the late 90s smokers were still being given 'camel cash' or collecting 'marlboro miles' to redeem for branded merchandise from the tobacco companies and the companies were denying that smoking was addictive or harmful or that they were weighting the deck in their favor with additives. I started smoking in '92, and that was several years before the landmark case where tobacco execs lied to congress and the big judgement was made and they were fined billions. I'm still struggling to quit smoking. She started that case before the companies were found to have perjured themselves and deserves a good judgement. She will actually probably not receive a penny, though. That happens quite often, first the initial award is reduced and then the company gets fancy with their accounting and proves that they can't afford to pay. Certainly in the uk the cigarette packs started having health warnings on from 1971 so I really don't accept that people in the 90's didn't know about the dangers. that maybe the case but what teenager takes any notice of what's on side of the packet, I know I didn't back then. i started smoking because I thought it was cool & wanted to be like everyone else.so its someone else's fault they didn't read the warning. What if they walked straight passed a warning saying danger explosives. I really don't understand the its not my fault I will blame someone else culture " I don't think the whole blame culture is right either ~ far from it. What I am saying is I can see where a court case might arise from & it's not only the tobacco industry which is at fault here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think this case goes way back before the dangers of smoking were known and tobacco companies advertised aggressively. It was also proved that the Companies were putting other ingredients into their product which caused addiction, more so than the actual tobacco. It's taken this long to settle within the judiciary system. he died in 96 aged 36 so he started smoking around 74 people where aware of the dangers then I'm sorry but no. We weren't aware. Even in the late 90s smokers were still being given 'camel cash' or collecting 'marlboro miles' to redeem for branded merchandise from the tobacco companies and the companies were denying that smoking was addictive or harmful or that they were weighting the deck in their favor with additives. I started smoking in '92, and that was several years before the landmark case where tobacco execs lied to congress and the big judgement was made and they were fined billions. I'm still struggling to quit smoking. She started that case before the companies were found to have perjured themselves and deserves a good judgement. She will actually probably not receive a penny, though. That happens quite often, first the initial award is reduced and then the company gets fancy with their accounting and proves that they can't afford to pay. Certainly in the uk the cigarette packs started having health warnings on from 1971 so I really don't accept that people in the 90's didn't know about the dangers. and 1966 in america so no bloody excuse" Did you ever see the size of the surgeon generals warning on u.s. packs? It was tiny, and noone paid attention to it. Add to that that there were actually studies that contradicted the ones which linked tobacco to addiction and cancer. It wasn't until they were caught red handed subverting evidence linking smoking and cancer and papers were leaked showing that they deliberately addicted people and targeted young people that the change in facts started in the u.s. and that was late '90s. That's when the government sued the companies for the cost of treating smoking related illnesses. That's when people started giving up. Because that's when the actual facts started coming out. Some were lucky enough to quit quickly. Others like myself have struggled and quit several times over the years and started back again and still others have never been successful in quitting. That's the true nature of addiction, unfortunately. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think this case goes way back before the dangers of smoking were known and tobacco companies advertised aggressively. It was also proved that the Companies were putting other ingredients into their product which caused addiction, more so than the actual tobacco. It's taken this long to settle within the judiciary system. he died in 96 aged 36 so he started smoking around 74 people where aware of the dangers then I'm sorry but no. We weren't aware. Even in the late 90s smokers were still being given 'camel cash' or collecting 'marlboro miles' to redeem for branded merchandise from the tobacco companies and the companies were denying that smoking was addictive or harmful or that they were weighting the deck in their favor with additives. I started smoking in '92, and that was several years before the landmark case where tobacco execs lied to congress and the big judgement was made and they were fined billions. I'm still struggling to quit smoking. She started that case before the companies were found to have perjured themselves and deserves a good judgement. She will actually probably not receive a penny, though. That happens quite often, first the initial award is reduced and then the company gets fancy with their accounting and proves that they can't afford to pay. Certainly in the uk the cigarette packs started having health warnings on from 1971 so I really don't accept that people in the 90's didn't know about the dangers. and 1966 in america so no bloody excuse Did you ever see the size of the surgeon generals warning on u.s. packs? It was tiny, and noone paid attention to it. Add to that that there were actually studies that contradicted the ones which linked tobacco to addiction and cancer. It wasn't until they were caught red handed subverting evidence linking smoking and cancer and papers were leaked showing that they deliberately addicted people and targeted young people that the change in facts started in the u.s. and that was late '90s. That's when the government sued the companies for the cost of treating smoking related illnesses. That's when people started giving up. Because that's when the actual facts started coming out. Some were lucky enough to quit quickly. Others like myself have struggled and quit several times over the years and started back again and still others have never been successful in quitting. That's the true nature of addiction, unfortunately. " I've been a smoker for 37 years 40 a day. I just don't go round blaming other people | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think this case goes way back before the dangers of smoking were known and tobacco companies advertised aggressively. It was also proved that the Companies were putting other ingredients into their product which caused addiction, more so than the actual tobacco. It's taken this long to settle within the judiciary system. he died in 96 aged 36 so he started smoking around 74 people where aware of the dangers then I'm sorry but no. We weren't aware. Even in the late 90s smokers were still being given 'camel cash' or collecting 'marlboro miles' to redeem for branded merchandise from the tobacco companies and the companies were denying that smoking was addictive or harmful or that they were weighting the deck in their favor with additives. I started smoking in '92, and that was several years before the landmark case where tobacco execs lied to congress and the big judgement was made and they were fined billions. I'm still struggling to quit smoking. She started that case before the companies were found to have perjured themselves and deserves a good judgement. She will actually probably not receive a penny, though. That happens quite often, first the initial award is reduced and then the company gets fancy with their accounting and proves that they can't afford to pay. Certainly in the uk the cigarette packs started having health warnings on from 1971 so I really don't accept that people in the 90's didn't know about the dangers. and 1966 in america so no bloody excuse Did you ever see the size of the surgeon generals warning on u.s. packs? It was tiny, and noone paid attention to it. Add to that that there were actually studies that contradicted the ones which linked tobacco to addiction and cancer. It wasn't until they were caught red handed subverting evidence linking smoking and cancer and papers were leaked showing that they deliberately addicted people and targeted young people that the change in facts started in the u.s. and that was late '90s. That's when the government sued the companies for the cost of treating smoking related illnesses. That's when people started giving up. Because that's when the actual facts started coming out. Some were lucky enough to quit quickly. Others like myself have struggled and quit several times over the years and started back again and still others have never been successful in quitting. That's the true nature of addiction, unfortunately. I've been a smoker for 37 years 40 a day. I just don't go round blaming other people" And I'm just trying to explain to you why her case has merit, that's all. You have a few ideas about info in the u.s. at that time that aren't on par with what the reality was. You're entitled to your opinion. It just seems a shame to let an opinion be shaped by bad info, so i thought i'd speak up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think this case goes way back before the dangers of smoking were known and tobacco companies advertised aggressively. It was also proved that the Companies were putting other ingredients into their product which caused addiction, more so than the actual tobacco. It's taken this long to settle within the judiciary system. he died in 96 aged 36 so he started smoking around 74 people where aware of the dangers then I'm sorry but no. We weren't aware. Even in the late 90s smokers were still being given 'camel cash' or collecting 'marlboro miles' to redeem for branded merchandise from the tobacco companies and the companies were denying that smoking was addictive or harmful or that they were weighting the deck in their favor with additives. I started smoking in '92, and that was several years before the landmark case where tobacco execs lied to congress and the big judgement was made and they were fined billions. I'm still struggling to quit smoking. She started that case before the companies were found to have perjured themselves and deserves a good judgement. She will actually probably not receive a penny, though. That happens quite often, first the initial award is reduced and then the company gets fancy with their accounting and proves that they can't afford to pay. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think this case goes way back before the dangers of smoking were known and tobacco companies advertised aggressively. It was also proved that the Companies were putting other ingredients into their product which caused addiction, more so than the actual tobacco. It's taken this long to settle within the judiciary system. he died in 96 aged 36 so he started smoking around 74 people where aware of the dangers then I'm sorry but no. We weren't aware. Even in the late 90s smokers were still being given 'camel cash' or collecting 'marlboro miles' to redeem for branded merchandise from the tobacco companies and the companies were denying that smoking was addictive or harmful or that they were weighting the deck in their favor with additives. I started smoking in '92, and that was several years before the landmark case where tobacco execs lied to congress and the big judgement was made and they were fined billions. I'm still struggling to quit smoking. She started that case before the companies were found to have perjured themselves and deserves a good judgement. She will actually probably not receive a penny, though. That happens quite often, first the initial award is reduced and then the company gets fancy with their accounting and proves that they can't afford to pay. Certainly in the uk the cigarette packs started having health warnings on from 1971 so I really don't accept that people in the 90's didn't know about the dangers. and 1966 in america so no bloody excuse Did you ever see the size of the surgeon generals warning on u.s. packs? It was tiny, and noone paid attention to it. Add to that that there were actually studies that contradicted the ones which linked tobacco to addiction and cancer. It wasn't until they were caught red handed subverting evidence linking smoking and cancer and papers were leaked showing that they deliberately addicted people and targeted young people that the change in facts started in the u.s. and that was late '90s. That's when the government sued the companies for the cost of treating smoking related illnesses. That's when people started giving up. Because that's when the actual facts started coming out. Some were lucky enough to quit quickly. Others like myself have struggled and quit several times over the years and started back again and still others have never been successful in quitting. That's the true nature of addiction, unfortunately. " Same here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think this case goes way back before the dangers of smoking were known and tobacco companies advertised aggressively. It was also proved that the Companies were putting other ingredients into their product which caused addiction, more so than the actual tobacco. It's taken this long to settle within the judiciary system. he died in 96 aged 36 so he started smoking around 74 people where aware of the dangers then I'm sorry but no. We weren't aware. Even in the late 90s smokers were still being given 'camel cash' or collecting 'marlboro miles' to redeem for branded merchandise from the tobacco companies and the companies were denying that smoking was addictive or harmful or that they were weighting the deck in their favor with additives. I started smoking in '92, and that was several years before the landmark case where tobacco execs lied to congress and the big judgement was made and they were fined billions. I'm still struggling to quit smoking. She started that case before the companies were found to have perjured themselves and deserves a good judgement. She will actually probably not receive a penny, though. That happens quite often, first the initial award is reduced and then the company gets fancy with their accounting and proves that they can't afford to pay. Certainly in the uk the cigarette packs started having health warnings on from 1971 so I really don't accept that people in the 90's didn't know about the dangers. and 1966 in america so no bloody excuse Did you ever see the size of the surgeon generals warning on u.s. packs? It was tiny, and noone paid attention to it. Add to that that there were actually studies that contradicted the ones which linked tobacco to addiction and cancer. It wasn't until they were caught red handed subverting evidence linking smoking and cancer and papers were leaked showing that they deliberately addicted people and targeted young people that the change in facts started in the u.s. and that was late '90s. That's when the government sued the companies for the cost of treating smoking related illnesses. That's when people started giving up. Because that's when the actual facts started coming out. Some were lucky enough to quit quickly. Others like myself have struggled and quit several times over the years and started back again and still others have never been successful in quitting. That's the true nature of addiction, unfortunately. I've been a smoker for 37 years 40 a day. I just don't go round blaming other people And I'm just trying to explain to you why her case has merit, that's all. You have a few ideas about info in the u.s. at that time that aren't on par with what the reality was. You're entitled to your opinion. It just seems a shame to let an opinion be shaped by bad info, so i thought i'd speak up. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whether smoking is bad for you or not he choose to smoke. We all make choices everyday, I just can't get over the fact some are prepared to lay the blame at someone else's door than take responsibility for their own actions We all make bad decisions but we can't blame others " Normally, i agree. The was a laughable case in the 90s where someone sued mcdonalds because their hot coffee was so hot it burned their mouth. Granted the burns were pretty severe, but who doesn't know that hot coffee is hot? But in the case of this lady, i differ. Yes, the Hubby made a choice but with the conflicting evidence available plus the later found evidence that tobacco companies knew, lied, and acted to deliberately addict people i think that they should be held to account on this. If he'd started smoking after all that hullabaloo then I'd feel differently, but i think he died before all that info came out. Tobacco did bear responsibility in his case, and they've simply tied the widow in legal knots for nearly twenty years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe the amount will be reduced dramatically on appeal. " Thank god for that! I thought for a moment that the cigarette company had lost out! Phew! Just the woman who lost her husband, and the children who lost a father. You're all absolutely right, fuck 'em. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just a quick note to point out that a US billion is different to a UK billion." Yeah, the award wwas over 26 billion us dollars, which is just shy of 14 billion gbp | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just a quick note to point out that a US billion is different to a UK billion. Yeah, the award wwas over 26 billion us dollars, which is just shy of 14 billion gbp" bet she's gutted now | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe the amount will be reduced dramatically on appeal. Thank god for that! I thought for a moment that the cigarette company had lost out! Phew! Just the woman who lost her husband, and the children who lost a father. You're all absolutely right, fuck 'em." I think $16,000,000 was actual damages for the loss of her husband, but the additional were punitive damages. It is the punitive side which will probably be reduced. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
