Should smokers that became addicted when Tobacco Co's said smoking was safe be able to seek damages?

Posted by: Kreakin

If Vick's inhalers turned out to kill millions wouldn't we sue?

  • Yes. They were lied to.

  • No. (Please give a reason in comments).

50% 5 votes
50% 5 votes
  • I am an ex-smoker but I believe in personal responsibility. While I would love it if nobody smoked I am not in favor of it being made illegal. For some who don't have much hope that next cigarette is one of the few things they have to look forward to. I used to be one of those people. Now I have Jesus to look forward to. : )

  • no because everyone knows that smoking is bad for you. even i know it has niccotine in it and that is addictive. before you make a decision about anything you should look up/know about it. i mean come on, its something thats gonna harm your liver and body. So clearly if its that important it wouldnt kill you to take a minute and see side affects or results of smoking. Dont trust people by word of mouth. Especially if they are a company and you dont know much about their product.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Seido says2014-06-24T11:22:09.6737643-05:00
Uh... I'm not too familiar with the history of smoking, so I might be totally wrong here, but I'd say it depends. My understanding of this topic is that for a large part of the 20th century, everyone thought that smoking was safe. Scientists thought it was safe, people thought it was safe, and companies thought that it was safe. If this was the case, I don't really think that the companies could be blamed for saying that it was safe, as it was the scientists who had originally deemed smoking as safe. This would mean, at most, the scientists could be sued for damages. If I am wrong though, and companies had continued to say that it was safe after scientists deemed smoking unhealthy, then they most likely could be sued for fraud and damages. A lawsuit of that sort would likely hinge upon what the scientific community thought of smoking at the time of the companies' claims.
Kreakin says2014-06-24T11:58:31.6499440-05:00
I think for around a decade they said it was not addictive and played down the harm in the face of the scientific community.
Kreakin says2014-06-25T16:24:41.6209523-05:00
PlumberGirl123 - All through the eighties tobacco companys insisted nicotine wasn't addictive. When I was at school the local shop sold single cigarettes for the kids. I met a tobacco rep when I was 12 and he gave my friend and I a 20 pack of John Players each. We could smoke on the bus and in the cinemas, no one worried about it.
PlumberGirl123 says2014-06-25T18:29:36.9547801-05:00
Hmm...Ok :) that sucks, i guess you could seek damages, but anything that someone puts in their mouth, the should be careful about it. I know in the 80's it was a lot different now. But if people are trying to sure a tabacco company now, they shouldnt. So i understand what your saying
Kreakin says2014-06-27T15:45:13.6618503-05:00
1971 CEO of PM Marlboro ad 1993 was cool no? This was on TV with the Dukes of Hazard when I was a kid.
PlumberGirl123 says2014-06-30T11:06:33.1382241-05:00
Ok you have convinced me :) i have changed my mind, i still have some doubts but i think that smokers should be able to seek damages.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.