Big Tobacco ordered to pay $23 billion to widow of smoker

[Kingmaker]

Or could it be that alcohol "only" causes 1/6 the number of deaths each year compared to tobacco products and thus isn't as big of a danger?

The extent to which people get worked up about drugs has very little to do with how many deaths they cause.

And again, so what? Tobacco companies and breweries are both knowingly selling toxic products that result in a huge number of deaths each year, which people willingly consume despite having no excuse for not being aware of the risks. What it so special about the idiots who smoke themselves to death instead of drinking (or eating or [insert self-destructive behavior here]) that makes the producers liable? Don't just repeat that cigarettes are really bad for you. I know that. I want to know why one highly toxic and addictive substance that people voluntarily consume is sufficiently special and different from another highly toxic and addictive substance that people voluntarily consume as to merit damages. What is the qualitative difference that makes them incomparable?

Even more confusing: nicotine addicts have a number of relatively harmless (and cheaper) alternatives to smoking should they wish to stop killing themselves.

In all honesty, there's nothing preventing a larger tobacco company from doing the same thing, but it would probably make more sense to go through that legal hassle if you're a small niche shop and not a major corporation.

In what world does it make more sense for Mom and Pop's boutique to pay a lawyer jump through a few legal hoops for a paltry profit than for a industry giant to do the same in order to rake in billions?

[Darth Tanner]

How many of their other divisions are "carried" by tobacco profit

Surely each division would have to account for itself independently, otherwise it would be abandoned/restructured/sold off. Food company A that has a biscuit division and a death stick division wouldn't accept the biscuits losing them £300 million just because the death stick division has profit of £600 million. Even if the parent companies are destroyed by these ludicrous law suits being carried off then they would simply lose their assets to new food companies in the bankruptcy sale.

All these law suits would achieve is destroying the old brands and replacing them with new ones not carrying the liability of selling cigarettes prior to the warning labels being attached. Alternatively America will have to import its cigarettes from countries that don't care what silly numbers American courts hand out to people.

close to half a million lives would be saved every year

Unless they keep smoking but buy product from different company... as mentioned death sticks are sufficiently addictive few are going to quit simply over bankruptcy proceedings of an American brand.

medical insurance premiums may go down since they will eventually no longer have to treat smoking-related diseases, and service levels in hospitals and ERs may increase since they will have fewer smoking-related patients to deal with

On the other hand people will live longer and incur more medical and pension costs from doing so. I have no idea what way it will balance out but even if smoking ceased to exist overnight magically your still going to have to treat all the existing damage done by smoking up to this point so any savings are going to be smeared over the next 60-70 years. The UK would also be screwed as perversely smokers pay a lot of taxes to prop up the NHS.

Cigarettes will not be illegal, they will just be unprofitable for large companies to sell due to the risk of lawsuits.

They will be unprofitable for the old companies that sold them when the warnings were not on the packet - those companies will be made bankrupt and the exact same cigarettes will be sold by new companies with different brand names and sufficient warnings to cover their asses... hell if they buy the brand names in the bankruptcy proceedings you might not even need to change brands.

[Borgholio]

What is the qualitative difference that makes them incomparable?

Nicotine is 3 times more addictive than alcohol and is comparable to cocaine and meth. So if you wish to disregard the number of deaths caused by it, then look at how toxic it is. Again, I agree that alcoholism is a bad thing but it's not as bad as nicotine...either in terms of how addictive it is or how many deaths result from it. 6 times as many deaths, 3 times as addictive, and 2.5 times more profit than alcohol. It's in a class all it's own with those numbers.

Even more confusing: nicotine addicts have a number of relatively harmless (and cheaper) alternatives to smoking should they wish to stop killing themselves.

Indeed but there must be some reason why people prefer to buy cigarettes instead of these alternatives. Perhaps the alternatives are not as inexpensive as you might think, or perhaps they don't provide the same kind of nicotine hit that full on smoking does (I hear that a lot in regards to the patch and the gum).

In what world does it make more sense for Mom and Pop's boutique to pay a lawyer jump through a few legal hoops for a paltry profit than for a industry giant to do the same in order to rake in billions?

In a world where a Mom and Pop running a niche store selling premium tobacco, pipes, etc... could easily get their few hundred regulars to sign legal release forms to buy the product, but where Big Tobacco would have to get literally tens of millions of legal release forms and make sure they are all fully updated and accurate. One single incorrect form can open up the company to a massive lawsuit. It's easier to deal with forms from a hundred regular customers than the millions who currently buy from the major producers. So I'd say given the scale of the issue, Big Tobacco has a disadvantage compared to the smaller local seller.

[Borgholio]

All these law suits would achieve is destroying the old brands and replacing them with new ones not carrying the liability of selling cigarettes prior to the warning labels being attached.

What would prevent people from suing these new companies? Remember that the current $23b verdict was despite having warning labels on the package. Now granted they probably didn't when the plaintiff's husband started smoking, but warning labels don't appear to be very effective even today so I don't see how even more warning labels will help.

Alternatively America will have to import its cigarettes from countries that don't care what silly numbers American courts hand out to people.

Indeed, but currently imported cigs are running over $20 per pack. I can't see too many people wanting to pay out for that.

[Darth Tanner]

What would prevent people from suing these new companies? Remember that the current $23b verdict was despite having warning labels on the package. Now granted they probably didn't when the plaintiff's husband started smoking, but warning labels don't appear to be very effective even today so I don't see how even more warning labels will help.

If applying warning labels to the product is insufficient warning of its health risks then American manufacturers are screwed unless they install some scheme where actual legal waivers are signed by lawyers for each customer to register prior to buying. If even that would work in America - it likely wouldn't fly in the UK/EU as you can't really sign away legal rights.

As a continuation of that every hot drink seller is screwed too as that warning label reading the contents are hot is null and void!

Indeed, but currently imported cigs are running over $20 per pack. I can't see too many people wanting to pay out for that.

Why are they so much more expense? Tariffs? If so then black market will become the norm.. and as the product is not illegal it will remain an open norm.

[Borgholio]

Why are they so much more expense? Tariffs?

Probably...either that or cost of shipment.

If so then black market will become the norm

Then it could be even higher than $20 per pack when all is said and done.

[bilateralrope]

What is the qualitative difference that makes them incomparable?

It is possible for someone to drink alcohol in public regularly and not harm anyone. Or even drink enough that they cause themselves health problems, but don't directly harm anyone else.

That is not possible with smoking. If someone smokes around other people, they will harm those people through second hand smoke.

That is the difference. It's not in the harm to the person drinking or smoking. It's in the harm they force upon other people.

[Batman]

Technically, it's possible to smoke in public and not harm anyone too. It's called 'being out in the open'.

That being said I don't disagree. Second-hand smoke is a much more immediate danger to others than alcohol is. You sitting next to me in a bar while I'm smoking-yeah, definite danger. You sitting next to me while I'm having a drink-not very likely to affect your liver much.

That being said, I DO to some extent understand the people asking 'why does alcohol get a freebie?' Out in the real world I'm german so my perspective may be not particularly relevant but I look at my smokes and there are bigass 'smoking hurts you and the people around you' and 'protect your children-don't let them breathe your smoke' labels on the package. A simple bottle of nose spray comes with a multipage foldout about possible side effects and how you should not use it in conjunction with medication A through Z or if you have medical condition A' to Z', leave alone medication that actually does have serious side effects. My beer bottle comes with...a list of ingredients, and I seriously doubt it's any different for the hard stuff.
Why should the makers of alcoholic beverages (provided they 'didn't' label their products as toxic and habit-forming) be exempt from legal repercussions?

[bilateralrope]

Technically, it's possible to smoke in public and not harm anyone too. It's called 'being out in the open'.

How far away from other people does the smoker need to be to avoid harming anyone else ?

Then there is the problem getting smokers to care about that distance, especially if it's raining. When a lot of them will chuck their cigarette butt into the road instead of using the ash tray built into the bus stops rubbish bin.

You sitting next to me while I'm having a drink-not very likely to affect your liver much.

Is there a limit where, if the drinker keeps below it, it doesn't even harm his liver ?

That being said, I DO to some extent understand the people asking 'why does alcohol get a freebie?'

Agreed. Alcohol does cause problems which need to be dealt with.

But alcohol doesn't get a freebie. Here in New Zealand there are age restrictions, a tax on it, laws about not selling to drunks. Sure, it's probably not consistent with other drugs, but it's not a free pass.

When it comes down to it, drinking responsibly is possible. The problem is the people who drink irresponsibly. So any response needs to take responsible drinkers into account.

But smoking responsibly doesn't look possible. Just the smokers and the people making profit.

A simple bottle of nose spray comes with a multipage foldout about possible side effects and how you should not use it in conjunction with medication A through Z or if you have medical condition A' to Z', leave alone medication that actually does have serious side effects. My beer bottle comes with...a list of ingredients, and I seriously doubt it's any different for the hard stuff.

I think there is an assumption that people know the effects of alcohol so there is no need to remind them. Given the right education, which is going to be part of any solution to irresponsible drinkers, that might even be true.

[Batman]

Technically, it's possible to smoke in public and not harm anyone too. It's called 'being out in the open'.

How far away from other people does the smoker need to be to avoid harming anyone else ?

I have no idea but I seriously doubt you walking past me in a park while I'm having a smoke is going to harm you much.

Then there is the problem getting smokers to care about that distance, especially if it's raining.

If you're all huddling under the nearest available cover, it's no longer out in the open. You're either in the great outdoors, you're among like-minded people who don't care, or you're not smoking.

hen a lot of them will chuck their cigarette butt into the road instead of using the ash tray built into the bus stops rubbish bin.

That a)annoys smokers as much as nonsmokers as it is littering plain and simple and b) doesn't have any effect on the dangers of second-hand smoke?

You sitting next to me while I'm having a drink-not very likely to affect your liver much.

Is there a limit where, if the drinker keeps below it, it doesn't even harm his liver ?

Almost inevitably? I thought we were talking about addiction-level alcohol consumption.

That being said, I DO to some extent understand the people asking 'why does alcohol get a freebie?'

Agreed. Alcohol does cause problems which need to be dealt with.
But alcohol doesn't get a freebie. Here in New Zealand there are age restrictions, a tax on it, laws about not selling to drunks. Sure, it's probably not consistent with other drugs, but it's not a free pass.
When it comes down to it, drinking responsibly is possible. The problem is the people who drink irresponsibly. So any response needs to take responsible drinkers into account.
But smoking responsibly doesn't look possible. Just the smokers and the people making profit.

So, it's not possible to only smoke in open spaces, never smoke around children, only smoke indoors after you've asked everbody's permission (and everybody involved was a legal adult)...
You could argue that if you're actually 'responsible', you're not touching an addictive substance to begin with, but the way I see it tobacco users can deal with it just as responsibly (or not) as alcohol drinkers.

A simple bottle of nose spray comes with a multipage foldout about possible side effects and how you should not use it in conjunction with medication A through Z or if you have medical condition A' to Z', leave alone medication that actually does have serious side effects. My beer bottle comes with...a list of ingredients, and I seriously doubt it's any different for the hard stuff.

I think there is an assumption that people know the effects of alcohol so there is no need to remind them. Given the right education, which is going to be part of any solution to irresponsible drinkers, that might even be true.

People have known that medicine has possible side effects and that nicotine can deteriorate your health for decades too. Cigarettes-big honking 'we are deadly' labels. Medicine-'possible side effect' lists that make Dune look like a short story. Alcohol? 'Um, there's hops and stuff'.

[bilateralrope]

If you're all huddling under the nearest available cover, it's no longer out in the open.

Lets take the location I usually see smokers. A bus stop while they are waiting for the bus. When it's raining, how many smokers can delay their next smoke long enough that they won't light up at the bus stop ?

That a)annoys smokers as much as nonsmokers as it is littering plain and simple and b) doesn't have any effect on the dangers of second-hand smoke?

It speaks a lot to how much the smokers I've seen don't care about anyone else. If they aren't willing to walk a few meters to drop their cigarette butt in an ashtray instead of chucking it on the road (or in one case I've seen, they were close enough that they could have just swung their arm over the ashtray, but they still threw it onto the road), I can't see them being willing to stand far enough away from anyone else while they are smoking.

Almost inevitably? I thought we were talking about addiction-level alcohol consumption.

We can't talk about restricting alcohol restrictions without considering the people who drink responsibly.

So, it's not possible to only smoke in open spaces, never smoke around children, only smoke indoors after you've asked everbody's permission (and everybody involved was a legal adult)...

It's possible, but I see an outright ban as far more likely.

People have known that medicine has possible side effects and that nicotine can deteriorate your health for decades too. Cigarettes-big honking 'we are deadly' labels. Medicine-'possible side effect' lists that make Dune look like a short story. Alcohol? 'Um, there's hops and stuff'.

Medicine labels are there to list the side effects of that specific medicine. Stuff you can't expect the average consumer to know due to the range of medicines that exist.
Nicotine labels are there to try and discourage smoking.
Alcohol is just one substance. So it might be feasible to educate everyone on its effects.

Still, I'll concede the point over labeling.

[Grumman]

As a continuation of that every hot drink seller is screwed too as that warning label reading the contents are hot is null and void!

If you're talking about the case I'm thinking of, the problem was not that the drink was hot, but that it was so hot that it was unfit for human consumption. There's a difference between what one would consider "a hot drink" and one that would cause third degree burns if you tried to drink it.

[Batman]

If you're all huddling under the nearest available cover, it's no longer out in the open.

Lets take the location I usually see smokers. A bus stop while they are waiting for the bus. When it's raining, how many smokers can delay their next smoke long enough that they won't light up at the bus stop ?

I said it's possible to responsibly (to the extent that's possible with a substance that poisons your body) smoke. I never claimed all that many smokers can be arsed to do that and I'll happily agree we have no right to enforce second-degree smoke on other people.

That a)annoys smokers as much as nonsmokers as it is littering plain and simple and b) doesn't have any effect on the dangers of second-hand smoke?

It speaks a lot to how much the smokers I've seen don't care about anyone else. If they aren't willing to walk a few meters to drop their cigarette butt in an ashtray instead of chucking it on the road (or in one case I've seen, they were close enough that they could have just swung their arm over the ashtray, but they still threw it onto the road), I can't see them being willing to stand far enough away from anyone else while they are smoking.

New Zealand better have an amazing ashtray density because over here, it's usually 'just stomp out the butt and drop it in the trash' vs 'walk several 100 metres or more to find a dedicated ashtray.' Cigarette butts don't figure into the heslth aspects of this.

Almost inevitably? I thought we were talking about addiction-level alcohol consumption.

We can't talk about restricting alcohol restrictions without considering the people who drink responsibly.

So why aren't you considering the people who smoke responsibly?

So, it's not possible to only smoke in open spaces, never smoke around children, only smoke indoors after you've asked everbody's permission (and everybody involved was a legal adult)...

It's possible, but I see an outright ban as far more likely.

And we all know how well that worked out the last time.

[Kingmaker]

Second-hand smoke is a much more immediate danger to others than alcohol is.

I'd dispute this. Second-hand smoke is absolutely bad for you and you shouldn't smoke around other people unless they're okay with it (and possibly not even then), but it is not an immediate danger. You're not going to keel over dead because you sat next to a smoker at the bar. A drunk driver or violent drunk is an immediate threat.

Nicotine is also in no danger of killing the user due to excessive short term consumption; alcohol is.

But alcohol doesn't get a freebie. Here in New Zealand there are age restrictions, a tax on it, laws about not selling to drunks. Sure, it's probably not consistent with other drugs, but it's not a free pass.

These are pretty ubiquitous and are frankly pretty mild. The most you're going to get as as a 'warning label' on an alcoholic beverage is generally going to be something like 'Please drink responsibly'.

It's possible, but I see an outright ban as far more likely.

Somewhere between a fifth and a third of the population smoke, depending on where you are, despite well-documented health effects and safer alternatives. Think about the likely impact of banning something like that.

[aieeegrunt]

What the hell do they put in cigarettes?

I smoke a pipe; unless it's rainy, windy or winter out and I never get this I AM GOING TO STAB A BABY IN THE FACE IF I DONT HAVE A BUTT thing cigarette smokers do if they have to forgo smoking for a day, or God Forbid the 4 or so months of Canadian Winter.

Plus pipe tobacco smells good and doesn't taste like a paper tube full of fibreglass

[Borgholio]

What the hell do they put in cigarettes?

I smoke a pipe; unless it's rainy, windy or winter out and I never get this I AM GOING TO STAB A BABY IN THE FACE IF I DONT HAVE A BUTT thing cigarette smokers do if they have to forgo smoking for a day, or God Forbid the 4 or so months of Canadian Winter.

Plus pipe tobacco smells good and doesn't taste like a paper tube full of fibreglass

Different quality tobacco. They like to breed a strain of tobacco that has higher nicotine content for use in the cigarettes...since unlike pipes or high quality cigars, the only purpose of a cigarette is a nicotine-delivery system.

[Elheru Aran]

And chemicals. Only a few brands of cigarettes actually sell pure 100% unaltered tobacco cigs. The rest have lovely stuff in them. Here's a decent list...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ad ... cigarettes

The brands with no additives include Winstons and American Spirit. Notably, they do tend to cost more than "normal" cigarettes.

[Borgholio]

Here's another take on the verdict:

http://news.msn.com/us/rj-reynolds-doll ... nd-experts

General idea is that the $23b verdict will be reduced to something around $150m, since there appears to be a 10:1 precedent in these kinds of cases when comparing punitive damages vs compensatory damages.

Still though, $150m for a single case is a pretty hefty sum, especially if multiplied by who knows how many more cases yet to come.

[phred]

I'd dispute this. Second-hand smoke is absolutely bad for you and you shouldn't smoke around other people unless they're okay with it (and possibly not even then), but it is not an immediate danger. You're not going to keel over dead because you sat next to a smoker at the bar. A drunk driver or violent drunk is an immediate threat.

Second-hand smoke still gives me headaches and raises my blood pressure if I have to breathe it for too long. Some guy getting fall-down drunk at a party doesn't hurt my liver at all

These are pretty ubiquitous and are frankly pretty mild. The most you're going to get as as a 'warning label' on an alcoholic beverage is generally going to be something like 'Please drink responsibly'.

Actually the warning label on American alcohol containers warns you not to drink when pregnant, not to drive or operate machinery after drinking, and may cause health problems. Written in the same blocky, unreadable font that they use for tobacco warnings.