Tobacco Company ordered to pay Cynthia Robinson $25 billion in damages after husband

[bit_pattern]

Completely excessive. I agree you can't put a price on someone's life but come on...25 billion??

The ruling isn't putting a price on a life - well, it is but that price is $17 million. The $25 billion is punitive.

 

[drug_mentor]

Yes but the courts ruled against the original class action that would have achieved exactly that, so it was left to individual plaintiffs to carry on with individual civil suits.

I'll say it again - this ruling wasn't made to compensate the death of an individual. It was a punitive ruling for the years of lies and deception. And it will likely get overturned by a higher court, the jury decided on the figure, not the court.

It is all well and good to argue that 25 billion dollars is punitive and not compensation, but if that is the case it makes no sense to award this woman the 25 billion dollars and not a smaller percentage of the 25 billion dollar sum and use the rest to help undo the harms caused by smoking or compensate other victims of smoking. If she gets all the money then it IS compensation, whether you want to argue otherwise or not. When someone else breaks the law and is fined as a punitive ruling, the court does not then select a member of the public to receive that sum of money.

The ruling might likely get overturned but at this point that is speculation, I have not made any attempt to comment on the likelihood of this decision being overturned, I have made comments on the wisdom of this particular decision, that is all.

Spacejunk I am aware that big tobacco engaged in lies and deception for a long time, and that is the reason that I have said that I believe some compensation is due. The fact of the matter is the public has been aware for decades about the negative health impacts of smoking and at some point people have to accept they made an ongoing decision to smoke with the facts in front of them. I too have watched family members die of smoking related cancer, and while it is a very sad and painful thing, one could not argue the smoker does not bear a large portion of the responsibility for their negative health outcome.

 

[spacejunk]

Anything less would be laughed at by an industry of that size.

Regardless, I wish the tobacco industry great suffering and misfortune, as they have deliberately inflicted so much suffering upon mankind.i suppose that's what "knowing the value of money" is - whatever that is supposed to mean anyway.


Edit - Contemplating changing my name to "Cultural Marxist Vegetarian" by deed poll.

 

[bit_pattern]

When someone else breaks the law and is fined as a punitive ruling, the court does not then select a member of the public to receive that sum of money.

It does in civil cases - which was the only option the plaintiffs were left with after the class action failed. The jury decided that the company needed to be punished commensurate to the scale of deception they engaged in, the only option in a civil case is to award the damages to the plaintiff. Otherwise, the company walks free from responsibility for the misbehaviour they engaged in. The company deserves to cough up a multi-billion dollar payment - and, yes, it is unfortunate that it goes to an individual but 'dem be the vagaries of the legal system - and the jury decided that in all good conscience they couldn't let a crime of that magnitude go unpunished. And good on them for that. I'd do exactly the same if I was put in that position.

It would be GREAT if there was a mechanism that the company could be punished with the proceeds going towards the greater good - but that couldn't happen and the company couldn't be left unpunished.

 

[drug_mentor]

^ Perhaps that is the case, I admit I don't know much about Civil Law in general, particularly not in the US.

I have to say though, that is pretty fucking retarded. It is almost like they are turning court into a lottery ticket, you can win unjustified billions just for entering. Think of all the good that could be done with that money but instead they appoint it to one person, seems to me it isn't just the criminal courts in the US that are ass backwards...

 

[bit_pattern]

^ Perhaps that is the case, I admit I don't know much about Civil Law in general, particularly not in the US.

I have to say though, that is pretty fucking retarded. It is almost like they are turning court into a lottery ticket, you can win unjustified billions just for entering. Think of all the good that could be done with that money but instead they appoint it to one person, seems to me it isn't just the criminal courts in the US that are ass backwards...

Sure but, you know, an evil corporation has been punished for a monumental crime - better than the only other alternative.

/shrugs

 

[SB1981]

Holy fuckin' shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Billion????

 

[spacejunk]

Think of the $trillions the US spends on their military every year...
I dunno, I like a win for the little guy.
Especially the little guy's widow.
We live in a very unjust world, but I appreciate the little guys winning the lottery every now and then.

an evil corporation has been punished for a monumental crime - better than the only other alternative.

That's it, exactly.

 

[drug_mentor]

Sure but, you know, an evil corporation has been punished for a monumental crime - better than the only other alternative.

/shrugs

I don't disagree with this at all, I just feel it could of been handled a lot better. Thanks to your posts I have a slightly better understanding of the US Civil Law Court, and it does seem like this was the best outcome that could be achieved in the legal framework they were operating in.

 

[_DankOpiAmp_]

The whole thing would not seem so demented if the government was not so hell bent on milking every last tax dollar out of the addicted populace. They know smoking is bad, they could ban people born after a certain age from smoking. This would prevent many from starting, eventually leading to a dramatic drop in smokers over time. Instead they do this public moralist posturing as if they actually care about people's lives. Tobacco addicts pay the taxes while the tobacco companies are forced to pay these settlements after people have been killed/injured when it is too late.

 

[bit_pattern]

^ Perhaps that is the case, I admit I don't know much about Civil Law in general, particularly not in the US.

I have to say though, that is pretty fucking retarded. It is almost like they are turning court into a lottery ticket, you can win unjustified billions just for entering. Think of all the good that could be done with that money but instead they appoint it to one person, seems to me it isn't just the criminal courts in the US that are ass backwards...

And a few more rulings like this and the company will be completely sunk - not a great outcome for the majority of victims and definitely not great outcome for the company. BUT! The company chose to fight the class action to the death, they gambled and won, but iff they'd chosen to settle they could have started some kind of compensation trust like what happened with asbestos companies, pay up a lump sum to be managed to pay out victims in a fair manner. that would have been great. But it is the COMPANY that chose to deny all culpability and now they could conceivably be taken to the fucking cleaners. they rolled the dice on a winner takes all game, you can hardly cry foul when a winner DOES come and take all.

 

[bit_pattern]

The whole thing would not seem so demented if the government was not so hell bent on milking every last tax dollar out of the addicted populace. They know smoking is bad, they could ban people born after a certain age from smoking. This would prevent many from starting, eventually leading to a dramatic drop in smokers over time. Instead they do this public moralist posturing as if they actually care about people's lives. Tobacco addicts pay the taxes while the tobacco companies are forced to pay these settlements after people have been killed/injured when it is too late.

That might make sense if the victim in this case had been alive when governments started taking larger tax revenue cuts to compensate for the increased costs to society being caused by tobacco - but considering he died in like the early 90s then it is hardly relevant. Pretty sure the tax revenue from tobacco was negligible in those days (or at least it was here in Australia, i don't have the data to back up my point but I'm pretty confident it's correct).

And, at any rate, across the world the single most successful tobacco control measure has been the gradual increase in tobacco taxes - as cigarettes get more expensive rates of smoking have declined dramatically. As any good Bl'er knows, prohibition is a very ineffective measure for reducing drug use. Taxation, it seems, is a very effective.

 

[spacejunk]

Taxation?
Exactly, that's why I never buy through a middleman.


Except that delicious vegetarian Marxist food I eat.
Mmmm mmm

 

[drug_mentor]

Bit_pattern, I have to say I do find the suggestion from DankOpiAmp that Governments could have banned tobacco pretty laughable, both due to his publicly stated views on drug prohibition and just how demonstrably ineffective drug prohibition has been, generally speaking.

Still, I do feel like there is a slight contradiction in your argument, because on one hand you argue that increasing the cost of tobacco is an effective measure for reducing its use, but drug prohibition has inflated the price of black market drugs, so it follows if tobacco were outlawed that it would likely become even more expensive and just as effective as a deterrent to smoking as increasing taxes on cigarettes. Obviously one major distinction between the two scenario's is in the first one the Government collects more money to offset the costs of smoking related illness, where the latter just fattens the pockets of criminals, but I do feel it is pretty hard to divorce the banning of substances with a price hike in those substances, so it seems hard to argue increasing costs with taxes would be super effective but increasing costs through prohibition would be completely ineffective.

 

[_DankOpiAmp_]

I said banning them for people born after a certain year, like was suggested in that British county. All current long-term smokers would still get their fix. The point would be to discourage people from starting. People would still buy them from their elders at a mark-up (they would tax=discourage use as well). People may still use other drugs as much as they want but the majority of drugs the drugs consumed in terms of cost and volume are the legal ones......

Revenue is not the primary motivator for the taxes you are naive. If the increased tax revenue gained from smokers was not greater than the revenue lost from people quitting they would not do it. They don't have your best interests at heart. It is merely a way to take advantage of those who are more severely addicted.

 

[bit_pattern]

^^ For the record, I agree. I think that would be a great measure. I just don't think the whole "evil government attacking poor tobacco companies" is particularly valid.

Drug Mentor - excellent points, I have little doubt my argument is contradictory - I just post this shit on the fly as it comes to mind. But the only point I would make is that it is not necessarily logical that tobacco would become more expensive under prohibition. Governments do take a pretty hefty chunk - like hundreds of percent - of the retail price of tobacco. So I think prices would be cheaper on the black market. This is just a thought but... most drugs people use because they are inherently pleasurable when you first take them. Now, in my experience, smoking was far from pleasurable to begin with. It take a certain dedication to adhere to the societal norms that made smoking "cool" or whatever before the body adjusts to the nicotine and rewires its reward centres. So in this way I think tobacco is different to most illicit drugs. If you could eradicate tobacco use to the point that potential new addicts are not being pressured by societal norms to be dedicated enough to smoking that they actually become addicts that very few potential addicts would seek it out in the way they would heroin or cocaine - both of which are actually fun and enjoyable the first time you take them. So by denormalising the behaviour and making it too damned expensive for new users to really bother with, it would begin that process of eradicating use in broader society.Once those measures are in place then, sure, the banning of tobacco sales to people born on (x) year and above could be very effective. We're realistically very close to that point I think so I don't think it is a bad idea - but at the same time I'm very supportive of artifically forcing up prices because it has proven very effective in preventing potential new addicts taking up the behaviours.

I've smashed a few beers over the course of this discussion - not sure if that really answers the point you were making but that is generally my philosophy on the issue.

 

[_DankOpiAmp_]

In Canada, "native" cigarettes are ten cents while a normal cigarette with taxes cost 45 cents. They beauty in the method I described is from the fact that, in places that do not already have an enormous black market for tobacco because of taxes, buying them from people who are still allowed to smoke them will indeed be more expensive. The black market cigarettes also have a wierd taste to them so I do not believe people would actually start smoking with black market smokes.

 

[ro4eva]

In Canada, "native" cigarettes are ten cents while a normal cigarette with taxes cost 45 cents. They beauty in the method I described is from the fact that, in places that do not already have an enormous black market for tobacco because of taxes, buying them from people who are still allowed to smoke them will indeed be more expensive. The black market cigarettes also have a wierd taste to them so I do not believe people would actually start smoking with black market smokes.

Haha, I remember going to the nearest reservation to buy "cartons" of cigarettes.

The tobacco would fall out a lot, and you're right, the taste is different. However, for the price, it was so worth it when I needed my nicotine fix and didn't want to spend up to $10 a pack (they were as low as $2 for a premium pack when I started). Edit - I actually used to use their cigarettes as joints. As I said, the tobacco would fall out easily, so I would then fill up the paper with weed instead, and then top it off with tobacco. Worked out very well - filter and all. Ah, good old days.

Some of my smoking buddies absolutely hated them, but it meant more for me

My favorite though were Middle-Eastern Camels (so good), American Marlboro Reds (again, so good), and European Kent (provided I was willing to pay to import them from Europe). As far as Canadian brands go, I enjoyed du Maurier, but couldn't stand Players (hated the smell of the tobacco above all).

Sometimes I really miss my smoking days. I know that might sound incredibly stupid, but, I would be lying if I said I no longer have cravings.

Furthermore, I miss the natives as well. Partied with them on a few occasions and we had some fantastic times together, particularly when we went camping.

 

[_DankOpiAmp_]

When I was feeling cheap I would go with accord or viceroy. DuMaurier were good but pricier. Lame how all the imports were insanely priced. When I was feeling indulgent I would go for Peter Jackson Menthols. It is funny how Canada has its own random brands.

I always wondered though, is the tobacco in natives actually grown in that border reserve area? One of my criminology professors speculated that because they do not have all the additives they may actually be healthier.

 

[ro4eva]

When I was feeling cheap I would go with accord or viceroy. DuMaurier were good but pricier. Lame how all the imports were insanely priced. When I was feeling indulgent I would go for Peter Jackson Menthols. It is funny how Canada has its own random brands.

It is funny indeed.

I also found it amusing that - in an attempt to sell what are supposedly American Marlboro Reds - due to the fact that the name is officially trademarked with the TM & Patent Office, in Canada they have for sale what looks like a pack of Marlboro Red, except that it doesn't have the word "Marlboro" printed on it - only the Red logo (which is obviously pretty easy to notice). And the same goes for the Marlboro Lights.

I have smoked them countless times however, and to me they don't taste at all like the American brand - which really sucked. They actually taste more like the du Maurier brand. Then again, I don't live far from the border, so I would usually drive to the closest Duty Free shop to pick up my "Buy American" nicotine fix. In this case, American kicks ass IMO.

My theory, that part of the reason why you can't find many of the popular foreign brands over here, is because the tobacco giants running the market have purposely trademarked those names.

It's kind of sad I suppose, but part of the reason why I miss living in North Carolina is because of the tobacco up here. That and the winter.

I tried planting one the most hardy types of palm trees in my backyard a few years after moving up here. Big mistake.

I always wondered though, is the tobacco in natives actually grown in that border reserve area? One of my criminology professors speculated that because they do not have all the additives they may actually be healthier.

That's a very good question, and I've always wondered that too.

I actually recall asking a native that question one day when buying some native smokes, and his answer was that their tobacco is "100% organic."

However, that left me wondering whether tobacco is consumed at all by insects and/or herbivores. Isn't the nicotine a poison to either? Is spraying even required? Do the tobacco giants up here spray their plants because of smokers trying to save money by breaking the law (stealing plants)? And I have no idea to be honest.