Man Smokes, Dies Of Cancer, Wife Sues Tobacco Company, Gets Rich

[Marianne]

$25 BILLION she won, because the tobacco company are somehow responsible for her idiot husband smoking himself to death. Apparently, the company didn't tell smokers that smoking can kill you.

And now the floodgates have opened, people...

A CIGARETTE giant in the US has vowed to fight a jury verdict ordering the company to pay $25.5 billion in punitive damages to Cynthia Robinson, the widow of a longtime smoker who died of lung cancer.

Yesterday, a Florida jury ordered tobacco company RJ Reynolds to pay the sum, in addition to more than $17 million in compensation to the estate of Michael Johnson Sr, after 15 hours of deliberations. It’s the largest verdict for a plaintiff in state history and sends a strong message to Big Tobacco that could open the floodgates for further claims.

During the four-week trial lawyers for Cynthia Robinson argued RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company was negligent in informing consumers of the dangers of consuming tobacco and thus led to her late husband Johnson contracting lung cancer from smoking cigarettes. They said Johnson had become “addicted” to cigarettes and failed multiple attempts to quit smoking.

RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company ordered to pay Cynthia Robinson $25 billion in damages after husband dies of lung cancer | News.com.au

How about some personal responsibility, folks? Its been known for years that smoking is dangerous, yet people continue to do it!

This is asinine. I can say that the warnings were on the cigarette box since the 70's so unless you've been living under a rock, a smoker had to know that smoking causes cancer. Geez my stepmother died from smoking and it never once occurred to us to sue the tobacco companies and she started smoking before the warnings came out. At some point the responsibility falls on the person. If you're stupid enough to keep smoking then expect to die of lung cancer. End of story.

 

[Noomi]

^exactly.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Yes, it does; that's why I pointed out the word "and". "And" is not "or". "And" means ALL are included.

And no, the interruptions of habits of sex, gambling or cannabis -- none of those interruptions produce biological effects. That's why they're not addictions.

If you're going to stretch the word addiction to describe anything done regularly, then you strip the word of its entire meaning.

You are wrong again. There are sex addictions, and gambling addiction ( it is not just something "done regularly", come on Pogo, you are a pretty smart guy and I know you know that) and they certainly does present biological effects. In fact both are mentioned in when defining the word addiction. Why do you keep accusing me of stretching the word, when the definition comes directly from psychologists? Here it is again:

Addiction is a condition that results when a person ingests a substance (e.g., alcohol, cocaine, nicotine) or engages in an activity (e.g., gambling, sex, shopping) that can be pleasurable but the continued use/act of which becomes compulsive and interferes with ordinary life responsibilities, such as work, relationships, or health. Users may not be aware that their behavior is out of control and causing problems for themselves and others.

Addiction | Psychology Today


You can read about the biological effects of gambling addiction here and the physiological effects of withdraw from gambling addition:

The Biopsychosocial Consequences of Pathological Gambling

Pathological Gambling: Biological and Clinical Considerations

Obviously this is about semantics. You like to play loosely with terms and I believe in definitions that don't just get up and wander around. That's why you're a liberal and I'm an archconservative.

Linguistically speaking of course...

LOL you know your own link says the same as mine. You just too stubborn to admit it.

 

[CaféAuLait]

$25 BILLION she won, because the tobacco company are somehow responsible for her idiot husband smoking himself to death. Apparently, the company didn't tell smokers that smoking can kill you.

And now the floodgates have opened, people...

A CIGARETTE giant in the US has vowed to fight a jury verdict ordering the company to pay $25.5 billion in punitive damages to Cynthia Robinson, the widow of a longtime smoker who died of lung cancer.

Yesterday, a Florida jury ordered tobacco company RJ Reynolds to pay the sum, in addition to more than $17 million in compensation to the estate of Michael Johnson Sr, after 15 hours of deliberations. It’s the largest verdict for a plaintiff in state history and sends a strong message to Big Tobacco that could open the floodgates for further claims.

During the four-week trial lawyers for Cynthia Robinson argued RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company was negligent in informing consumers of the dangers of consuming tobacco and thus led to her late husband Johnson contracting lung cancer from smoking cigarettes. They said Johnson had become “addicted” to cigarettes and failed multiple attempts to quit smoking.

RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company ordered to pay Cynthia Robinson $25 billion in damages after husband dies of lung cancer | News.com.au

How about some personal responsibility, folks? Its been known for years that smoking is dangerous, yet people continue to do it!

This is asinine. I can say that the warnings were on the cigarette box since the 70's so unless you've been living under a rock, a smoker had to know that smoking causes cancer. Geez my stepmother died from smoking and it never once occurred to us to sue the tobacco companies and she started smoking before the warnings came out. At some point the responsibility falls on the person. If you're stupid enough to keep smoking then expect to die of lung cancer. End of story.

I agree to an extent. The issue lies in the fact the tobacco companies keep pushing and pushing cigarettes onto people -past when the first warning came out, heck they still do but I believe there is more research available these days and better access to information about smoking-internet media, etc.

I might give leeway to those who started smoking in the 70's and maybe early eighties, it was something learned from parents who did not know better either as well back then.

There is no excuse for anyone to start in the last few decades IMO.

 

[Old Rocks]

$25 BILLION she won, because the tobacco company are somehow responsible for her idiot husband smoking himself to death. Apparently, the company didn't tell smokers that smoking can kill you.

And now the floodgates have opened, people...

A CIGARETTE giant in the US has vowed to fight a jury verdict ordering the company to pay $25.5 billion in punitive damages to Cynthia Robinson, the widow of a longtime smoker who died of lung cancer.

Yesterday, a Florida jury ordered tobacco company RJ Reynolds to pay the sum, in addition to more than $17 million in compensation to the estate of Michael Johnson Sr, after 15 hours of deliberations. It’s the largest verdict for a plaintiff in state history and sends a strong message to Big Tobacco that could open the floodgates for further claims.

During the four-week trial lawyers for Cynthia Robinson argued RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company was negligent in informing consumers of the dangers of consuming tobacco and thus led to her late husband Johnson contracting lung cancer from smoking cigarettes. They said Johnson had become “addicted” to cigarettes and failed multiple attempts to quit smoking.

RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company ordered to pay Cynthia Robinson $25 billion in damages after husband dies of lung cancer | News.com.au

How about some personal responsibility, folks? Its been known for years that smoking is dangerous, yet people continue to do it!

For many years the tobacco companies employed 'experts' like Singer and Lindzen to lie before Congress that tobacco was harmless. These companies even added nicotine to the tobacco to make them more addictive. The tobacco companies were and are drug peddlers, and deserve to be treated as such.

 

[FireFly]

Cigarette smoking Brazilian man may be world's oldest person at 126 years old - The Washington Post

The old man's age can't be verified, but I'll bet he looks that old after smoking.

 

[FireFly]

It's awesome how cigarette companies got cancer causing chemicals put into all furniture, carpets, bedding, clothes, etc. Thanks for higher medical cost for everyone.

 

[rightwinger]

That reward is ridiculous, but the tobacco should be sued. I have a friend with COPD from second hand smoke. He should sue the smokers & tobacco companies. The smokers that caused his illness are all dead now, but their estates should pay, along with the tobacco companies & Congress members who protected them. Just imagine how much this is costing us through our healthcare system.

Aww come on now...The COPD person had every opportunity to avoid things they deemed hazardous.
Plus, your friend has a very steep climb to the level of "burden of proof"..

No, he didn't have opportunities to avoid second hand smoke or flame retardants. When he was under a year old the court mandated he live in a house full of smokers. Then the only available jobs were full of smokers. Then his wife got addicted to smoking.

Cigarette companies made their products addictive.

Cigarette companies got laws passed mandating cancer causing flame retardants in furniture, carpet & clothes. Cigarette companies are a top health hazard to nonsmokers & smokers alike.

Rodney Dangerfield: I don't know about my wife........Last night I fell asleep with a cigarette in my mouth......She LIT it

 

[Lovebears65]

That reward is ridiculous, but the tobacco should be sued. I have a friend with COPD from second hand smoke. He should sue the smokers & tobacco companies. The smokers that caused his illness are all dead now, but their estates should pay, along with the tobacco companies & Congress members who protected them. Just imagine how much this is costing us through our healthcare system.

Second hand smoke is different then someone picking up a pack of cigarettes and smoke them every day. I have beginning stages because of COPD. I never smoked a cigarette in my life but grew up in a house where my parents both smoked..Guess I should sue and get rich too

 

[Skull Pilot]

$25 BILLION she won, because the tobacco company are somehow responsible for her idiot husband smoking himself to death. Apparently, the company didn't tell smokers that smoking can kill you.

And now the floodgates have opened, people...

A CIGARETTE giant in the US has vowed to fight a jury verdict ordering the company to pay $25.5 billion in punitive damages to Cynthia Robinson, the widow of a longtime smoker who died of lung cancer.

Yesterday, a Florida jury ordered tobacco company RJ Reynolds to pay the sum, in addition to more than $17 million in compensation to the estate of Michael Johnson Sr, after 15 hours of deliberations. It’s the largest verdict for a plaintiff in state history and sends a strong message to Big Tobacco that could open the floodgates for further claims.

During the four-week trial lawyers for Cynthia Robinson argued RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company was negligent in informing consumers of the dangers of consuming tobacco and thus led to her late husband Johnson contracting lung cancer from smoking cigarettes. They said Johnson had become “addicted” to cigarettes and failed multiple attempts to quit smoking.

RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company ordered to pay Cynthia Robinson $25 billion in damages after husband dies of lung cancer | News.com.au

How about some personal responsibility, folks? Its been known for years that smoking is dangerous, yet people continue to do it!

Disagree.

There's also the principle of corporate responsibility, where businesses that knowingly sell unsafe goods and services can be held accountable for their wanton disregard for public safety.

Then sue the government for allowing tobacco to be legal.

And what about alcohol? More people abuse alcohol than cigarettes. Why not sue every alcohol producer as well?

Sooner or later everything boils down to choice. No one forces people to smoke, or drink, or eat too much or do drugs. People do these things because they want to do them.

 

[Skull Pilot]

$25 BILLION she won, because the tobacco company are somehow responsible for her idiot husband smoking himself to death. Apparently, the company didn't tell smokers that smoking can kill you.

And now the floodgates have opened, people...



RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company ordered to pay Cynthia Robinson $25 billion in damages after husband dies of lung cancer | News.com.au

How about some personal responsibility, folks? Its been known for years that smoking is dangerous, yet people continue to do it!

Disagree.

There's also the principle of corporate responsibility, where businesses that knowingly sell unsafe goods and services can be held accountable for their wanton disregard for public safety.

The NRA are not held responsible every time there is a mass shooting. People need to be responsible. You know that smoking kills, so if you choose to smoke, you accept the possible consequences.

The NRA does not manufacture weapons so why should it be held responsible for anything?

 

[Pogo]

You are wrong again. There are sex addictions, and gambling addiction ( it is not just something "done regularly", come on Pogo, you are a pretty smart guy and I know you know that) and they certainly does present biological effects. In fact both are mentioned in when defining the word addiction. Why do you keep accusing me of stretching the word, when the definition comes directly from psychologists? Here it is again:




Addiction | Psychology Today


You can read about the biological effects of gambling addiction here and the physiological effects of withdraw from gambling addition:

The Biopsychosocial Consequences of Pathological Gambling

Pathological Gambling: Biological and Clinical Considerations

Obviously this is about semantics. You like to play loosely with terms and I believe in definitions that don't just get up and wander around. That's why you're a liberal and I'm an archconservative.

Linguistically speaking of course...

LOL you know your own link says the same as mine. You just too stubborn to admit it.

I highlighted the pertinent parts of the definitions from both my links and your own. You choose to gloss over those qualifications as inconvenient; I don't.

Basically you're trying to use the word in a colloquial sense (e.g. someone who is "addicted" to chocolate or "addicted" to a TV show) whereas I'm insisting on the clinical (someone who is "addicted" to heroin). If you're declaring that a substance is "addictive", you need to use the latter. Because the colloquial is a personal choice, not a clinical "addiction".