It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tobacco company Philip Morris ordered to pay millions to widow of lung cancer victim

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Tobacco company Philip Morris ordered to pay millions to widow of lung cancer victim


www.news.com.au

A FLORIDA court has ordered US tobacco giant Philip Morris to pay $US8 million ($12.52 million) to the widow of a lung cancer victim, in a case that could set a precedent for 8000 similar trials in the southern state.

The jury rejected Elian Hess's demand for $US130 million compensation, arguing that her husband Stuart Hess was partly responsible for his death since he smoked three packs a day of Benson & Hedges before he died at age 55 in 1997.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 03:39 AM
link   
This is the type of BS that shows how friggin stupid people on this planet are. WHO FORCED HIM TO SMOKE???

Smoking is legal, so why should she be allowed to sue??? The longer I think about this crap, the angrier I get. Logic flies out the window in every possible way!!!

At least the tobacco industry isn't putting up its hand for a government bailout - yet.

www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 04:07 AM
link   
No one forced him to start, by putting a gun to his head.
That is true.
But the advertising when he was 18, was everywhere.
On every wall, magazine, tv ads, you name it.
That coupled with the more addictive substances they put in cigarettes, using chemicals to make there version of nicotine get into the physical tissue of the brain to make it more addictive and harder to stop.
Makes them criminal murderers.
If they just grew some tobacco, rolled it up, and sold it, then sure its up to you if you buy it.
But they purposely made it extremely addictive and advertised it to the max.
Partly responsible would be the government, who didn't warn people back then of the dangers they new about.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   
For the older generation there is some element of culpability upon the tobacco industry because of false advertising.

Remember this:



For the younger generation, there is no blame but themselves. If someone chooses to smoke in this day and age, its their fault if they get lung cancer.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by BorgHoffen
 


What...you mean like putting coc aine in the original Coca-Cola, or selling opium and heroin as legitimate cure all medicines? Back in the day, yea, we didn't know that there was bad crap in cigarettes, but we knew enough not to sit down wind of a fire! Two and two means DON'T INHALE SMOKE!! By the 80's/90's the word had gotten around enough that smoking had all kinds of bad stuff for ya.

He was exposed to the adds, but he was also exposed to the repercussions as well.

He made a choice to smoke, plain and simple. I'm sorry he's dead because of his choice, but that's the fact of it.

I smoke. I know it's bad for me. I make the choice to gamble with my health. If I roll craps, sucks to be me. It's not the companies fault for selling me a product I want.


edit to add: How is it that I can misspell the proper use of "ads" but nail repercussions dead on? Too tired for this crap


[edit on 19-2-2009 by midnightbrigade]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw


This is the type of BS that shows how friggin stupid people on this planet are. WHO FORCED HIM TO SMOKE???

Smoking is legal, so why should she be allowed to sue??? The longer I think about this crap, the angrier I get. Logic flies out the window in every possible way!!!

At least the tobacco industry isn't putting up its hand for a government bailout - yet.

www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)


they target kids.. us when we're young.. back when this guy would have started in his teens.. his body and mind still hadn't fully developed..
back then the advertisements were EVERYWHERE...tv..billboards..radio..

and nicotine is harder to go without than heroin..

i understand you're surpised at the amount the widow got.. and sure theres room for tons of discussion on that...

but smokers have it bad man.. it's a horrible love-hate relationship.

-



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Well I'm sure the lawyers have made a fortune from the case, but who knows what they have left the widow.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 04:49 AM
link   
See, it pays to smoke



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by prevenge
[
and nicotine is harder to go without than heroin..

-


good joke

The tobacco companies should pay for all the harm thy did out of simple greed! Disgusting to see "liberté toujours" and all the other lies. Who can blame 13 year olds that fall for the lies.

The companies put so much effort in these ads to maximize the impact. They work with smart psychology, they manipulate the unconsciousness and use every dirty trick there is to make people suffer - out of simple greed


Sure noone forces anyone to smoke, but neither does anyone protect kids (!) against the propaganda of the greedy and mighty.

When you speak for the the companies, you enforce the brainwashing.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   
Currently the United States consumes 451 billion cigarettes each year. One in 3 men smoke (35%) and roughly 1 in 5 women (22%). So much for health education.

Movies dating back to the early 1950s clearly depict actors joking about how smoking is bad for you when someone lights up a cigarette.

To continue to pay the families of these people millions of dollars, claiming that the truth about smoking dangers was hidden from them, even when their dearly beloved hacked up half a lung every morning trying to clear the post-3 pack phlegm from his clogged lungs is just another symptom of our "no personal responsibility" culture.

This guy died in 1997, but I wonder exactly when he smoked his last cigarette (hint - try 1997).



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


First off I'm a smoker, secondly I'm close to this persons age that died.

Yes I hear it bad for my health so please don't try to reform me..fact is I enjoy smoking. A hard concept for non smokers to wrap their minds around.

Since I'm close to this mans age that died I would think that he just like me knew smoking was bad for my health even way back then. Yes I started smoking in high school.

I do have to wonder where the man found time to smoke 3 packs a day. I've got a long way to go before I reach that point.

There is no way in hell I believe money should of been awarded in this case. It's his choice to smoke and smoke way in excess. In my opinion they won this battle because cigarettes are the targeted bad boys of the moment.

Alcohol kills people medically. It distroys family's yet you don't see the court cases like these against makers of alcohol. But then we have lots of politicians that have money in alcohol companies.

At what point does the insanity stop with not taking personal responsibility for your actions. By the stimulas packages and bail outs we've seen this year I think we're moving farther way from taking responsibility for our own actions and our own lives.

If I die because of smoking do I think the tobacco companies owe my family anything? Heck no its my choice to smoke. It always has been it always will be. No one forces me to light up that cigarette.




top topics



 
1

log in

join