Cigarette lawsuits are unlike asbestos lawsuits in that those who got sick from the latter did not inhale asbestos voluntarily. The same is true of product-defect lawsuits. Nobody buys a car knowing that it might cause an accident on its own. Had I been on this jury, I’m pretty sure I would not have gone along on this award:
I never heard of a lush suing a distillery. I always assumed repealing Prohibition —— making booze legal again —— also repealed lawsuits. So I cannot agree with a tobacco company being punished for an individual’s behavior. Actually, drunks hurt family and friends in addition to drunk drivers killing and maiming strangers, while smokers only hurt themselves.
I think it is all about nailing large corporations. Now that Mary Jane is respectable a grasshopper will find it harder to find a lawyer than it is for lawyers to find deep pockets; at least until marijuana companies are as large and as wealthy as tobacco companies. That could take a century or more.
Without getting into the argument about proving that smoking is the root cause of some types of cancer, how does anybody know that a smoker did not smoke marijuana as well as smoke brand name cigarettes? It seems to me that juries take the word of plaintiffs and/or their witnesses. The possibility of puffers doing both is only going to grow as legal pot spreads nationwide. Question: How do you decide liability in those cases?
Then there is the question of advertising. How come firms that produce the commercials, and the ads, that sell harmful products are never held accountable? Tobacco company executives are crucified for lying. Advertising company executives should suffer the same fate.
Finally, until cigarettes are declared illegal:
I never heard of a lush suing a distillery. I always assumed repealing Prohibition —— making booze legal again —— also repealed lawsuits. So I cannot agree with a tobacco company being punished for an individual’s behavior. Actually, drunks hurt family and friends in addition to drunk drivers killing and maiming strangers, while smokers only hurt themselves.
I think it is all about nailing large corporations. Now that Mary Jane is respectable a grasshopper will find it harder to find a lawyer than it is for lawyers to find deep pockets; at least until marijuana companies are as large and as wealthy as tobacco companies. That could take a century or more.
Without getting into the argument about proving that smoking is the root cause of some types of cancer, how does anybody know that a smoker did not smoke marijuana as well as smoke brand name cigarettes? It seems to me that juries take the word of plaintiffs and/or their witnesses. The possibility of puffers doing both is only going to grow as legal pot spreads nationwide. Question: How do you decide liability in those cases?
Then there is the question of advertising. How come firms that produce the commercials, and the ads, that sell harmful products are never held accountable? Tobacco company executives are crucified for lying. Advertising company executives should suffer the same fate.
Finally, until cigarettes are declared illegal:
Last edited by a moderator:
