RJ Reynolds ordered to pay Robinson $25 billion

[Radman]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule

Excellent question. And how about the shootings, wife beatings, children mistreated, incarceration costs, and vehicle accidents that is caused by this stuff?

Are you talking about alcohol or pot??

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl

...Cold way to look at it maybe, but there is a dollar value on human life...

While I think this ruling is absurd, my opinion is not swayed by the amount of dollars. The reason I think the ruling is absurd is because it absolves the person from personal responsibility and sends a message to the masses that self-destructive behavior can be financially beneficial for you or your family. As far as assigning a dollar amount on human life, I totally disagree. Anyone that values human life would not even attempt to give it an actual monetary value. How would you value your own life? Would you agree to get yourself killed right now for a certain amount of money without knowing how you would die (quick and painless vs slow and painful)? If you wouldn't, then how can you value someone else's life? And if you would, then you don't value your own life and hence life in general. There is no "cold" way looking at it. You either value life a precious and priceless or not, there is no in between.

 

[niero]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule

Originally Posted By: niero

Originally Posted By: MolaKule

Originally Posted By: tstep

Change RJ for McDonalds, Burger King, Kraft Foods, etc Change cigarette for transfat Change RJ for Monsanto Change cigarette for chemical of choice sprayed on crops we eat

Please study some chemistry before making uneducated statements. Could you clarify what you mean? I'm not following. Do you mean, cigarettes are more, or less, harmful than trans fats, chemicals by Monsanto, etc.? How does a knowledge of chemistry inform your opinion of the lawsuit?

How about we use the scientific method to falsify or verify claims instead of emotions: http://chemistry-sets-review.toptenreviews.com/chemistry-sets-teaching-the-scientific-method.html Since you assume that you know what my response will be, I will assume you are simply repeating some anti-chemical dribble from a pamphlet doled out by a campus environmentalist group. No one is questioning the effects of smoking. What is in question is 1) why is there no personal responsibility considerations involved in these lawsuits (whether it be smoking or obesity), 2) what is it with the meaglawsuits and ridiculous court reawrds, 3) genetics never seem to be a part of the courts decisions. Here is a little research project for you. Determine why bedbug (Cimex lectularius) population and infestation is on the rise and how it relates to a chemical banned in 1972.

I wasn't assuming what your answer would be. I was asking about chemistry because I didn't follow how it related to the lawsuit. It wasn't a sarcastic remark. If you're referring to my earlier post about why it's not a bad thing that companies are taken to task for dumping poisons into the food chain, that isn't anti-chemical drivel from environmental groups. There are a lot of chemicals used in many areas that are known to be quite harmful. Those previous comments don't equate to: "Just because something is a chemical doesn't mean it's bad, and just because it's "natural" doesn't mean it's good or unharmful."

 

[niero]

Originally Posted By: tstep

.... I abhor many disgusting business practices that are allowed to flourish unfettered under the watchful eye of this country's many regulatory agencies nor will I condone unrestrained personal actions or choice as the responsibility of others when the outcome heads south then reward such actions.

+5

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: Radman

Originally Posted By: MolaKule

Excellent question. And how about the shootings, wife beatings, children mistreated, incarceration costs, and vehicle accidents that is caused by this stuff?

Are you talking about alcohol or pot??

Both. I think Colorado is going to have both increased health and law enforcement costs that will outweigh the income from taxes. I also think that legislators are more interested in the taxes from the pot and aloohol sales and special favors from their associated lobbyists, than in the health and safety of those whom they are supposed to represent.

 

[Smoky14]

FYI after the first tobacco settlement ALL the tobacco companies now own most of the food companies. The price of campbells soup tripled in price in a one year period along with Kraft etc. We pay for these large settlements and keep wondering why the price at the grocery store keep climbing. My wife was in the tobacco business and we watched how it all transpired and our stock kept climbing and people outside the industry thought it was all great and the lawyers took home the BIG money. The little guy always pays. Smoky

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule

Originally Posted By: Radman

Originally Posted By: MolaKule

Excellent question. And how about the shootings, wife beatings, children mistreated, incarceration costs, and vehicle accidents that is caused by this stuff?

Are you talking about alcohol or pot??

Both. I think Colorado is going to have increased health and law enforcement costs that will outweigh the income from taxes.

The increase in E.R. visits do to marijuana has already started. http://www.cpr.org/news/story/denver-emergency-room-doctor-seeing-more-patients-marijuana-edibles http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/ma...ts-in-colorado/ http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/01/us/aft...-high.html?_r=0 The law enforcement concerns. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nati...b51c_story.html

 

[surfstar]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule

Originally Posted By: Radman

Originally Posted By: MolaKule

Excellent question. And how about the shootings, wife beatings, children mistreated, incarceration costs, and vehicle accidents that is caused by this stuff?

Are you talking about alcohol or pot??

Both. I think Colorado is going to have both increased health and law enforcement costs that will outweigh the income from taxes. I also think that legislators are more interested in the taxes from the pot and aloohol sales and special favors from their associated lobbyists, than in the health and safety of those whom they are supposed to represent.

Is that why tobacco and alcohol are still legal? Those are much worse for your health than weed. No one has ever died from a THC overdose. FWIW, I thought "shootings, wife beatings, children mistreated" was more applicable to religions than drugs.

 

[dave1251]

Tetrahydrocannabinol(THC) is toxic. Are you aware of this. This is the chemical defense of cannabis to prevent it from being consumed by herbivores. There is a increased risk of heart attack with prolonged THC exposure. Side effects observed in double blind clinic studies observed include nausea, increased weakness, behavioral or mood changes, suicidal ideation, hallucinations, dizziness, and vasovagal symptoms, fatigue, and feelings of intoxication. Then you factor in some of the same risk of smoking marijuana and smoking tobacco in regards to your lungs. The difference is I do not know of very many people have the tolerance, time, and money to smoke 20 joints a day unlike cigarettes.

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl

...Cold way to look at it maybe, but there is a dollar value on human life...

While I think this ruling is absurd, my opinion is not swayed by the amount of dollars. The reason I think the ruling is absurd is because it absolves the person from personal responsibility and sends a message to the masses that self-destructive behavior can be financially beneficial for you or your family. As far as assigning a dollar amount on human life, I totally disagree. Anyone that values human life would not even attempt to give it an actual monetary value. How would you value your own life? Would you agree to get yourself killed right now for a certain amount of money without knowing how you would die (quick and painless vs slow and painful)? If you wouldn't, then how can you value someone else's life? And if you would, then you don't value your own life and hence life in general. There is no "cold" way looking at it. You either value life a precious and priceless or not, there is no in between.

I understand the priceless viewpoint, and yes, in a sense, life is priceless...except for the fact that in the legal system, dollar values have been assigned to human life for a long time now. That has set the precedent of human life having a dollar value, and IMO, $25B is too much for just about anyone. If life is going to be truly priceless, you can't give it a dollar value in cases like this. Instead you would have to charge people with murder, manslaughter, etc. and actually incarcerate someone.

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule

Originally Posted By: Radman

Originally Posted By: MolaKule

Excellent question. And how about the shootings, wife beatings, children mistreated, incarceration costs, and vehicle accidents that is caused by this stuff?

Are you talking about alcohol or pot??

Both. I think Colorado is going to have both increased health and law enforcement costs that will outweigh the income from taxes. I also think that legislators are more interested in the taxes from the pot and aloohol sales and special favors from their associated lobbyists, than in the health and safety of those whom they are supposed to represent.

The majority of users will be people who were already smoking pot before it was legalized/decriminalized...so if anything, health costs should be about the same, fewer people will get shuffled through the court system, etc. As far as violence, pot has NOTHING, and I mean absolutely NOTHING on alcohol. Alcohol is exponentially more dangerous when it comes to violence. Of course there will be the idiots who want to try pot because "OMG #legalpot," then go to the ER because they think their brain is falling out, then feel fine two hours later. In my experience, people who can't handle pot should not be consuming anything that could be remotely intoxicating, including alcohol and probably tobacco. But yes, it is all about the taxes, not about anyone's well being. Taxation issues are a part of why it has been illegal for the last 80+ years in most places, and now that there's no getting around the fact that people will produce and consume it regardless, the gov't wants their cut.

 

[LazyPrizm]

Originally Posted By: dave1251

Tetrahydrocannabinol(THC) is toxic. Are you aware of this.

Literally everything is toxic. Are you aware of this? Even water has an LD50. The dose makes the poison! I'm not aware of anyone succumbing to THC poisoning. I'll add that from the article linked, there were two "directly caused by marijuana" deaths in Colorado since 1/2014: One man who was also doing pills shot his wife, and a kid who ate brownies while partying jumped/fell off a balcony. How many similar incidents happened in the last 6 months with drunks? Yes, the above is no reason to not be aware of the risks of ANY recreational substance. But there's certainly precedent for more harmful ones being legal and plentifully available.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: LazyPrizm

Originally Posted By: dave1251

Tetrahydrocannabinol(THC) is toxic. Are you aware of this.

Literally everything is toxic. Are you aware of this? Even water has an LD50. The dose makes the poison! I'm not aware of anyone succumbing to THC poisoning.

It is believed mother-of-three suffered a heart attack triggered by the drug Usually, deaths associated with drug are a result of mixing it with alcohol http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-joint-bed.html "High levels of intoxication may include a decrease in motor coordination, muscle strength, and hand steadiness. Other signs include walking as if drunk and slurred speech." http://www.ncpoisoncenter.org/body.cfm?id=141 The truth is because no extensive studies have been conducted so the entire extent of harm caused by marijuana is far from known. I recall the natural mineral asbestos was touted as being a miracle and was assumed near harmless. It took decades for people to realize the serious dangers of asbestos exposure. Much like cigarets.

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: dave1251

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-joint-bed.html

Daily Mail is a tabloid. Not a legitimate news source. Hence the sensationalistic capitilization of "DIE." That woman did not die from smoking half a joint before going to bed. I am sorry, no way, no how. Not happening. Also, the first death from pot in Britain happened in 2014? That right there tells you it wasn't the pot. This would have been happening decades ago if it was the pot. I don't think health effects of asbestos were studied until long after it had been in widespread use almost everywhere. The gov't has a stranglehold on legitimate studies of pot, but it has been studied more than probably any other currently illegal substance. I have never seen a legitimate study that has shown that THC in consumable quantities can be overdosed on. Does it have negative effects? Sure. Can you kill yourself by smoking joints like you can by turning up a bottle of liquor? No freaking way. At one point in my life, years ago, I would smoke up to five blunts a day. A blunt is a pot cigar. Was it way overboard and damaging to my health? Sure. Was I at risk of overdosing? Nope. Do I regret it? Not nearly as much as my tobacco and alcohol use.

 

[LazyPrizm]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl

At one point in my life, years ago, I would smoke up to five blunts a day.

Good lord, Cheech! Were you doing them euro-style w/ tobacco mixed in? 1/3 of one and I'd be good for an afternoon...

 

[dave1251]

My personal favorite argument from pot smokers is a joint is safer than a cigarette. http://adai.uw.edu/marijuana/factsheets/respiratoryeffects.htm "A 2011 systematic review of the research concluded that long-term marijuana smoking is associated with an increased risk of some respiratory problems, including an increase in cough, sputum production, airway inflammation, and wheeze – similar to that of tobacco smoking." "Marijuana smoke contains about 50% more benzopyrene and nearly 75% more benzanthracene, both known carcinogens, than a comparable quantity of unfiltered tobacco smoke" "Researchers report that marijuana smoke contains significantly higher levels of several toxic compounds -- including ammonia and hydrogen cyanide -- than tobacco smoke and may therefore pose similar health risks. The scientists found that ammonia levels were 20 times higher in the marijuana smoke than in the tobacco smoke, while hydrogen cyanide, nitric oxide and certain aromatic amines occurred at levels 3-5 times higher in the marijuana smoke." "Marijuana smoke caused significantly more damage to cells and DNA than tobacco smoke, the researchers note. However, tobacco smoke caused chromosome damage while marijuana did not."

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl

That woman did not die from smoking half a joint before going to bed. I am sorry, no way, no how. Not happening.

This means you are the resident medical doctor on BITOG and you have conducted a separate autopsy? How did you make this determination?

 

[rjundi]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ

Welcome to the nanny state where everything is honky dory until something is not. Then it's someone else’s fault and they have to be sued followed by "the government ought to do something about it".

The Tobacco companies knew early on of side effects/addictiveness hide it for profit and sales. We all pay yes you too in tax or health costs for care of folks who long ago got addicted but still hang on. The reality of smoking and information seems to have swayed the majority of folks to not do it.

 

[javacontour]

I think the guy who died here was in his 30's, if this is the story I'm thinking of. Anyone alive now, who is still smoking really has no excuse for not knowing it's bad for you.

Originally Posted By: niero

Originally Posted By: Miller88

That's insane. Doesn't it tell you on the package that it is going to cause cancer? Shouldn't that be enough for those who choose to give themself cancer?

I'm guessing this may refer to decades ago when the deceased started smoking. There was no labeling, or one could argue, very inadequate labeling, that indicated just how deadly smoking was. That's my take on it, anyway.

 

[javacontour]

Originally Posted By: NPR

The verdict, issued by a jury in Pensacola, Fla., on Friday stems from a suit brought by Cynthia Robinson, whose husband, Michael Johnson Sr., died of lung cancer in 1996 at age 36. Johnson started smoking when he was 13.

He died in 1996, so he was born around 1960, started smoking around 1973. Where were his parents? This wasn't the fault of RJ Reynolds, it's him and his parents. Good grief!

Originally Posted By: javacontour

I think the guy who died here was in his 30's, if this is the story I'm thinking of. Anyone alive now, who is still smoking really has no excuse for not knowing it's bad for you.

Originally Posted By: niero

Originally Posted By: Miller88

That's insane. Doesn't it tell you on the package that it is going to cause cancer? Shouldn't that be enough for those who choose to give themself cancer?

I'm guessing this may refer to decades ago when the deceased started smoking. There was no labeling, or one could argue, very inadequate labeling, that indicated just how deadly smoking was. That's my take on it, anyway.

 

[strat81]

Originally Posted By: MrQuackers

May as well be a Kajillion Bajillion. The court is out of order.

Indeed. http://www.lung.org/lung-disease/lung-cancer/resources/facts-figures/lung-cancer-fact-sheet.html American Lung Association estimates there will be 160,000 deaths in the US from lung cancer. Let's assume cigarettes are the primary factor in 10% of those deaths, or 16,000. Multiple that by the $25 billion (with a "B") and we get $400 trillion. And that's only the deaths for one year. The company in question, RJR, is over 100 years old and is the second largest tobacco company in the world. You would run out of zeroes if you were to make RJR liable for every death it is allegedly responsible for. I'd love to continue the conversation, but I have to meet with my attorneys regarding some lawsuits. I'm going to sue Campbell's Soup for my high blood pressure I'm going to sue Coca-Cola for my diabetes I'm going to sue Diageo for my cirrhosis I'm going to sue McDonald's for my heart disease (and skin burns) It's not my fault! None of it. Nobody ever told me that consumption of their products could be bad for me. Not the media, not my family, not my doctor... no one.