$23.6bn payout
Discussion
Woman awarded $23.6bn payout by a US court over the death of her husband from smoking related cancer.
Putting aside the why's and wherefores of the whole case, and assuming the tobacco company in question lose their appeal, just how is one 'given' $23bn?
Lorry loads of cash, trust funds, cigarettes to the value of... etc?
Interested to know.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28389273
Putting aside the why's and wherefores of the whole case, and assuming the tobacco company in question lose their appeal, just how is one 'given' $23bn?
Lorry loads of cash, trust funds, cigarettes to the value of... etc?
Interested to know.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28389273
I was unsure where I stand on this one.
On the one hand, I utterly hate nanny state interference, excessive health and safety, and compensation culture, and I'm a firm believer in people doing whatever they enjoy in life, even if it injures of kills them. Plus, everyone knows cigarettes are bad for you when they buy them.
However, tobacco companies have spent decades trying to make their deadly product as horrifically addictive as possible, whilst ensuring it was always seen as cool, trendy, sexy, and generally desirable, which when you think about it, is utterly outrageous. The surgeon generals famous 'smoking kills you' came out in 1964, and yet the tobacco companies went into overdrive trying to get as many people hooked on their products as possible.
My final verdict: f
k 'em. I hope the fine sticks and the rest of them get hit with similar mind boggling lawsuits and go bankrupt.
I hate smoking, but I hate tobacco companies more.
On the one hand, I utterly hate nanny state interference, excessive health and safety, and compensation culture, and I'm a firm believer in people doing whatever they enjoy in life, even if it injures of kills them. Plus, everyone knows cigarettes are bad for you when they buy them.
However, tobacco companies have spent decades trying to make their deadly product as horrifically addictive as possible, whilst ensuring it was always seen as cool, trendy, sexy, and generally desirable, which when you think about it, is utterly outrageous. The surgeon generals famous 'smoking kills you' came out in 1964, and yet the tobacco companies went into overdrive trying to get as many people hooked on their products as possible.
My final verdict: f
k 'em. I hope the fine sticks and the rest of them get hit with similar mind boggling lawsuits and go bankrupt.I hate smoking, but I hate tobacco companies more.
NinjaPower said:
I was unsure where I stand on this one.
On the one hand, I utterly hate nanny state interference, excessive health and safety, and compensation culture, and I'm a firm believer in people doing whatever they enjoy in life, even if it injures of kills them. Plus, everyone knows cigarettes are bad for you when they buy them.
However, tobacco companies have spent decades trying to make their deadly product as horrifically addictive as possible, whilst ensuring it was always seen as cool, trendy, sexy, and generally desirable, which when you think about it, is utterly outrageous. The surgeon generals famous 'smoking kills you' came out in 1964, and yet the tobacco companies went into overdrive trying to get as many people hooked on their products as possible.
My final verdict: fk 'em. I hope the fine sticks and the rest of them get hit with similar mind boggling lawsuits and go bankrupt.
I hate smoking, but I hate tobacco companies more.
Tobacco companies aren't forcing people to smoke.. On the one hand, I utterly hate nanny state interference, excessive health and safety, and compensation culture, and I'm a firm believer in people doing whatever they enjoy in life, even if it injures of kills them. Plus, everyone knows cigarettes are bad for you when they buy them.
However, tobacco companies have spent decades trying to make their deadly product as horrifically addictive as possible, whilst ensuring it was always seen as cool, trendy, sexy, and generally desirable, which when you think about it, is utterly outrageous. The surgeon generals famous 'smoking kills you' came out in 1964, and yet the tobacco companies went into overdrive trying to get as many people hooked on their products as possible.
My final verdict: f
k 'em. I hope the fine sticks and the rest of them get hit with similar mind boggling lawsuits and go bankrupt.I hate smoking, but I hate tobacco companies more.
It's punitive damages, scaled to reflect the size of the organisation involved. I'm sure I've read this John Grisham book before.
Google might want to rethink their driverless car technology for the same reason. The first time one of their vehicles squishes some jay walking retard, the lawyers will start the mother of all feeding frenzies.
Google might want to rethink their driverless car technology for the same reason. The first time one of their vehicles squishes some jay walking retard, the lawyers will start the mother of all feeding frenzies.
Tonsko said:
No, but by presenting it as cool etc. it generates peer pressure, which more often than not, will help you start smoking. Same with any product, but as it happens it contains a chemical that makes you want to continue after the advertising effect has worn off.
Then you should give up smoking, it's what I did and if, years down the line, I end up with a smoking-related health problem the only person I'll blame is myself for starting smoking in the first place.The court, no doubt, took into account the actions of the tobacco companies in denying the evidence that smoking was harmful and doing nothing about it.
There were lots and lots of 'research' produced to suggest that it wasn't harmful, all of which have been proved to have been fabricated or misinterpreted.
The tobacco companies knew that what it was selling was deadly and took no steps to reduce the danger.
The companies were aware that cigarettes were addictive so took steps to increase addictiveness.
When you factor in how many deaths were are a result of cigarettes and that those flogging them knew full well the likelihood of their actions, then £26bn becomes more sensible.
My understanding is that this was a class action.
There were lots and lots of 'research' produced to suggest that it wasn't harmful, all of which have been proved to have been fabricated or misinterpreted.
The tobacco companies knew that what it was selling was deadly and took no steps to reduce the danger.
The companies were aware that cigarettes were addictive so took steps to increase addictiveness.
When you factor in how many deaths were are a result of cigarettes and that those flogging them knew full well the likelihood of their actions, then £26bn becomes more sensible.
My understanding is that this was a class action.
Amirhussain said:
NinjaPower said:
I was unsure where I stand on this one.
On the one hand, I utterly hate nanny state interference, excessive health and safety, and compensation culture, and I'm a firm believer in people doing whatever they enjoy in life, even if it injures of kills them. Plus, everyone knows cigarettes are bad for you when they buy them.
However, tobacco companies have spent decades trying to make their deadly product as horrifically addictive as possible, whilst ensuring it was always seen as cool, trendy, sexy, and generally desirable, which when you think about it, is utterly outrageous. The surgeon generals famous 'smoking kills you' came out in 1964, and yet the tobacco companies went into overdrive trying to get as many people hooked on their products as possible.
My final verdict: fk 'em. I hope the fine sticks and the rest of them get hit with similar mind boggling lawsuits and go bankrupt.
I hate smoking, but I hate tobacco companies more.
Tobacco companies aren't forcing people to smoke.. On the one hand, I utterly hate nanny state interference, excessive health and safety, and compensation culture, and I'm a firm believer in people doing whatever they enjoy in life, even if it injures of kills them. Plus, everyone knows cigarettes are bad for you when they buy them.
However, tobacco companies have spent decades trying to make their deadly product as horrifically addictive as possible, whilst ensuring it was always seen as cool, trendy, sexy, and generally desirable, which when you think about it, is utterly outrageous. The surgeon generals famous 'smoking kills you' came out in 1964, and yet the tobacco companies went into overdrive trying to get as many people hooked on their products as possible.
My final verdict: f
k 'em. I hope the fine sticks and the rest of them get hit with similar mind boggling lawsuits and go bankrupt.I hate smoking, but I hate tobacco companies more.
Amirhussain said:
Tobacco companies aren't forcing people to smoke..
They did however produce a product that they cleverly engineered to be increasingly addictive, failed to disclose health implications of using their products (in part or full), sought to withhold their own research and continue to profit by retailing the product. As for the amount… the Oxford English dictionary definition is “Punitive: Inflicting or intended as punishment.” The company has declare revenue at just over $8bn.I can’t imagine many global fast food enterprises will be far way from receiving the same legal treatment.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff