Tobacco Litigation

My Thoughts
Verdict Analysis
Washington Post: Tobacco News
Tobacco Lobbying Power
Misanthropic B***** Views (New)

[see new closing remarks]

A multibillion (yes billion) damage judgement was handed out to a major cigarette company last week because of various misdeeds, basically relating to not telling or confusing the public about the health risks of smoking. There is also some evidence that they blatantly lied about certain things, but given the quality of their lawyers, it is probably more accurate to say they seriously clouded the truth and stretched it to the limit, when necessary. Furthermore, they have for years had success dragging out litigation, but it is to be noted that they also had repeated success when cases finally went to the jury.

Why? Well, it seems to me the reason why is that the juries knew that, bad guys or not, the tobacco companies had a point: people voluntarily choose to smoke, even though they knew it was potentially a lethal hazard to their health (a fact only made more clear year after year since warnings on cigarette packs first came into place in the 1960s). The juries knew that the cigarette companies repeated attempts to downplay the risks of smoking eventually became increasingly cynical, but those who sell things that are bad for us (but still legal) rarely admit that the things are bad. They might have a moral right to do so to some point, but if the public wants bad things (as we always do, especially teenagers, who know cigarettes and other illegal drugs are bad for them in various ways, but use them anyhow), there is no legal obligation to tell us that we should not practice them. Furthermore, if we are going to change the way they do business in a revolutionary way, the way to go is by legislation (or a public health campaign and private pressure, which is working pretty well), not the courts or by suddenly deciding the executive branch (via the FDA or some other body) has the power to do it. Or so it seems to me.

These lawsuits get me so annoyed because the basic premises are either wrong or badly conceived. My primary issue is that people have a right to make mistakes and have the responsibility to accept the risks they take. Tobacco has been around since this country started, as were reports that it was a nasty, dangerous, and addictive habit. It seems self-evident that putting smoke in one's lungs is bad for you (as it soon became clear working in coal mines and chimneys on a daily basis was as well, hundreds of years ago), and over time heavy smokers clearly saw it was dangerous to their health. Yes, smoking is addictive, but so are many other things that are bad for us, and we do them anyway. Sure, until fairly recently, people died of other things (given shorter life spans and so on) before dying of cigarettes, but enough people saw they were dangerous. Proof cigarettes were uniquely lethal in many ways slowly became evident in the early part of this century, though total confirmation only became secure around the 1950s. Nonetheless, cigarettes were obviously dangerous to some degree to most people even then and clearly addictive. Humphrey Bogart died of lung cancer in the 1950s — the connection to putting unfiltered smoke in one's lungs seems rather plain. Therefore, how can people blame the cigarette companies for health problems, especially after warnings came out in the 1960s? Just how dumb and irresponsible can we allow people to be? People who by the way are supposed to have some degree of responsibility, if they want to enjoy the freedoms that free choice in a dangerous world brings.

We live in a society that is unhealthy in many ways, which maybe unfortunate, but surely it is a price of freedom. After lung cancer, the next preventable disease in our society is heart disease, but how much are we penalizing companies that encourage unhealthy diets? We even pass laws protecting the rights of fat people, while not allowing private restaurants (property) to allow people to smoke (some people like to smoke and free to be with or associate with people who do), like going out to eat free of smoke is some fundamental right akin to free speech or the right to vote. Oh, wait a sec. There is one area where the government does protect tobacco, though it shows just how cynical the whole system really is (along with taxes on cigarettes with the assumption that smoking has its benefits): namely, subsidies to tobacco farmers. This is a neat deal: protest the dangers of smoking, while helping the poor family farms that grow the stuff. This same argument can be used by the way to coca farmers in Colombia, who lose a nice living when their right to grow is taken away. Agriculture and industry pollute the environment much more than cigarettes do, and the bad health those activities (often ignored or belittled by government and private industry) do not involve the consent of the user (second hand smoke, a problem open to debate, effects those who know and consent to be with the smokers the most, including those in industries such as bars that deal with them on an everyday basis).

We need not limit ourselves to smoking and unhealthy eating to look for ways we do things that are bad for us. There is also drinking: people become alcoholics, drink and drive, drink and get into fights or involve themselves in domestic violence, and so on, but we do not malign alcohol in any way comparable to smoking. Sports are rather dangerous, especially those like boxing, but we allow them without lawsuits that grow out of the fact promoters ignore or belittle the risks involved. Gambling is another ‘vice' that causes problems akin to smoking; there are moves to limit it, but nothing like the war on consensual smoking. It is one thing to say something is bad, or even say you should not do it, it is quite another thing to saying that providing legal bad things should open you up to multibillion dollar lawsuits. Lawsuits by the way that mainly benefit lawyers and the government,* who remember keep smoking legal, and subsidize tobacco farmers. Nice little cash cow there, cynical, but being cynical is as human as taking risks. Also, all these class action lawsuits ignore individual cases of harm in many cases, thus people who clearly took risk are combined with ones who started before all the risks were as clear.

But, some might say, the tobacco companies have involved themselves in various practices that are crooked and malicious. First of all, some of the claims made against tobacco companies (I know, we must not feel guilty for evil slime, except due process and fairness applies to all in this country, even government supported tobacco companies) are exaggerated. For instance, there was a big commotion that they regulated nicotine levels, which does not seem that much a big deal when people buy various strengths of alcohol to get different types of effects. Their practices might encourage children to smoke, but no less than society itself, just as movie stars (up to today in various cases) did in the past. They also blocked the making of a safer cigarette, which is bad, but they have no legal responsibility to do so — will making cigarettes a tad bit more safe really make anti-smoking individuals happy? Advertising* a legal product is also seen as bad, especially if children might pass by them, but we will have to limits lots of speech if we want a child safe free zone. Finally, their lack of honesty and forthrightness on the harm of cigarettes grew unbelievable over time, but do people who smoke rely just or even mostly on what they say when they decide to smoke? I think not. By the time the evidence clearly was not on their side, the public knew that smoking was dangerous, as did the government. If the government did not stop the cigarette companies, why should current public opinion suddenly make them legally liable? It was like when the Supreme Court recently held that the FDA without congressional support (i.e. passing of laws) suddenly cannot decide it has the power to regulate tobacco.

People choose to smoke, always did, even though they knew to some degree that it was unhealthy. The unhealthy nature of the product became clearer as time went on, but people still smoked. People realized the chances they took, so when they went on juries, they did not hold for litigants who sued the tobacco companies. Tobacco companies did not cause people to get lung cancer and other horrible diseases, the people themselves that smoke did. Tobacco companies over time got a tad too full of themselves and cynical*** with all their success, and some of their business practices probably are worthy of regulation and sanction. Nonetheless, the ultimate issue comes down to the fact that people knew smoking was dangerous, even if tobacco companies tried to tell them differently. Smoking provides some pleasure (to name but one, my mom tells me she used it as a diet aid, that is, before she was pregnant and stopped), and people might like to blind themselves of its risks, but they have no legal right to be so blinded — ignorance might be bliss, but it is not to be rewarded, or at least it should not be. The public health effort against smoking has been mostly beneficial and sound, these lawsuits been. Next up, people don't kill people, legally obtained guns kill people, so let's sue the gun companies for legally protecting our constitutionally protected rights to own guns. And so it goes.