Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

Oh, yeah, there's definitely room for debate there about where responsibility lies. The warnings and such are definitely a good step, though, because it's kind of unreasonable to expect every customer to research in detail every product they buy. Yeah, there's weirdness like needing to put a peanut warning on a bag of peanuts - I get that it's silly, but it's better than not having the warning on products where it isn't obvious, and I prefer laws to be simpler where possible (so while you could probably write in exceptions for a list of products where it's self-evident, that would really be an unnecessary complication). If nothing else, consider it reassurance that the product contains actual peanuts.

You do need to draw the line somewhere, since you obviously can't put every warning imaginable on a package, but covering common allergies seems like a reasonable choice. Keep in mind, too, that some of these are deliberate marketing decisions on a manufacturer's part (I could be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure you don't actually have to label your food as gluten-free, but tons of manufacturers do because marketing gimmick).

When it comes to cigarette warnings, I do think we're in a fairly decent place here with packaging rules. You got an addictive, poisonous product? Okay, but you're going to have to make damn sure your customers know that. I mean, c'mon, it's not like the manufacturers give a shit about "anything you actually want to know about a product". They're just going to fill the space with endorsements, illustrations, and lies, like every industry.

I don't know whether this particular case is reasonable, though - it basically comes down to whether or not the company was living up to their obligation to make that information clear in their advertisements and packaging. If they weren't, the punishment isn't because they pulled off some dastardly deception on somebody who couldn't possibly have known the truth (because yeah "Cigarettes are bad for your health" is common knowledge these days), it's because they were failing to live up to a legal obligation to avoid taking advantage of psychology to induce people to give in to dangerous temptations in spite of their knowledge of the potential consequences. I don't know anything about their actual advertising practices, though, so I can't say shit.

One way or the other, though, if you believe punitive damages are warranted at all, then I think it's safe to say that they should be so large the company objects.

[EnigmaticHat]

The Tobacco Industry was discovered to be dangerous (and punished for the same) decades ago.  It was a different political climate than it is now.

[alway]

"These days."

This is a court case about someone who died in 1996. Someone who thus likely started smoking during the whole time period of "we know this will kill people, but let's just hire some marketers, make them wear lab coats, and have them tell people it's perfectly safe."

And here's the thing. These are companies which annually cost the US alone nearly $300 billion in medical and productivity costs. And because of whom, over 5 million people die each year; making them literally worse than Hitler. So yeah, I don't really have much sympathy for them.

[scrdest]

"These days."

This is a court case about someone who died in 1996. Someone who thus likely started smoking during the whole time period of "we know this will kill people, but let's just hire some marketers, make them wear lab coats, and have them tell people it's perfectly safe."

And here's the thing. These are companies which annually cost the US alone nearly $300 billion in medical and productivity costs. And because of whom, over 5 million people die each year; making them literally worse than Hitler. So yeah, I don't really have much sympathy for them.

Tobacco Gestapo, going around the streets and making people smoke must be an American thing, I've never seen this happening here, the only smokers I've seen smoked voluntarily.

[Dutchling]

Most smokers I know are addicted.

[scrdest]

Most smokers I know are addicted.

Which, again, they got into by choosing to smoke in the first place.

[Dutchling]

Most smokers I know are addicted.

Which, again, they got into by choosing to smoke in the first place.

I am not disputing that.

[Alev]

"These days."

This is a court case about someone who died in 1996. Someone who thus likely started smoking during the whole time period of "we know this will kill people, but let's just hire some marketers, make them wear lab coats, and have them tell people it's perfectly safe."

And here's the thing. These are companies which annually cost the US alone nearly $300 billion in medical and productivity costs. And because of whom, over 5 million people die each year; making them literally worse than Hitler. So yeah, I don't really have much sympathy for them.

Tobacco Gestapo, going around the streets and making people smoke must be an American thing, I've never seen this happening here, the only smokers I've seen smoked voluntarily.

I live in the US, and have never seen anyone like this, making people smoke.

[Descan]

Most smokers I know are addicted.

Which, again, they got into by choosing to smoke in the first place.

Because people are 100% always rational, always 100% informed, and are never influenced by peer pressure or advertising/cultural motifs.

[EnigmaticHat]

Smoking companies' attempts to get people addicted have never been exactly honest.  I'm a little behind on what they do today but I know in the past they've hired scientists to dispute claims that smoking is harmful and they do stuff like pay a lot of money to have sexy Hollywood actor's smoke in big budget movies.

Also if we keep going this is going to descend into a philosophical debate about free will, because that's what you guys are actually arguing.  To what extent is a person responsible for their own actions and all that.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

"These days."

This is a court case about someone who died in 1996. Someone who thus likely started smoking during the whole time period of "we know this will kill people, but let's just hire some marketers, make them wear lab coats, and have them tell people it's perfectly safe."

And here's the thing. These are companies which annually cost the US alone nearly $300 billion in medical and productivity costs. And because of whom, over 5 million people die each year; making them literally worse than Hitler. So yeah, I don't really have much sympathy for them.

Tobacco Gestapo, going around the streets and making people smoke must be an American thing, I've never seen this happening here, the only smokers I've seen smoked voluntarily.

I live in the US, and have never seen anyone like this, making people smoke.

That's because he made up the smoking gestapo to make a point, it was a rhetorical device or whatever you want to call it.  We all know they don't exist :/  Well except LWs.  Yeah, you would have jumped on that one LW.

[palsch]

Philip Morris USA v. Williams.

Mayola Williams, the widow of Jesse D. Williams, who died of smoking-related lung cancer in 1997, sued Philip Morris USA, a cigarette manufacturer,[1] for fraud based on Philip Morris advertisements and sponsored studies that made cigarettes seem less dangerous than they actually were. At trial in 1999, the jury found for Williams and awarded her $821,485.50 in compensatory damages and $79.5 million in punitive damages.

The Supreme Court originally overruled the punitive damages because the trial court had considered that the misinformation campaign had reached (and so harmed) many people beyond the person suing. But the exact same damages were reinstated based on the individual evidence and the Supreme Court upheld it.

Philip Morris then argued that the share of punitive damages due to the state couldn't be paid under the terms of the Tobacco master settlement, but that was overturned and they had to pay the balance with interest.

[Orange Wizard]

And this is why you can't sue in New Zealand. Because it leads to nonsense like that.

Seriously? Eighty million dollars? Because her husband died? I should get myself a husband one of these days.

[Dutchling]

Hell, there's plenty of loved ones whose lives I'd sell for 8 million dollars.

[Furtuka]

• Babies don't start strapped with a knife

What's the story behind this? O_o

[Bauglir]

And this is why you can't sue in New Zealand. Because it leads to nonsense like that.

Seriously? Eighty million dollars? Because her husband died? I should get myself a husband one of these days.

So the thing about punitive damages is, a major corporation will look at $821485.50 and say, "Eh, whatever, we'll budget for it - it's cheaper to pay out for the lawsuit than it is to do things properly."

I agree it probably shouldn't get paid to her, but that's really only half the story. Evidently, sometimes only a portion of the damages go to the plaintiff, but it sounds like in this case they all did. So, yeah, I dunno, those probably ought to be stored in some fund that helps pay for other fallout from related problems, like legal costs for other plaintiffs or medical care for victims or whatever.