Sounds like the issue is false advertising, not smoking and health. Businesses use loopholes to get around telling consumers everything they need to know about a product, they should understand that turnabout is fair play.

While I don't necessarily think the lawsuit is 'unfair', I also don't have any sympathy for people smoking light cigarettes. And I don't believe for a second that they truly believe "light" equals "healthier". Give me a break.

Oh please, this is outrageous. I'm sick of frivolous lawsuits. People who smokes, knows exactly the risks that they take once they light up. This is as bad as the people who sues McDonald's for making them fat.

ugh...not only are they smokers (therefore not the most sympathetic "victim") but they also want to get rich?

IMO, it is reasonable that no matter what the box says about it being "light" the fact that it says cancer too should be enough. This is a waste of court resources.

Ask around, you'll find a frightening number of people DO think smoking light cigarettes is a hedge against problems. People think drinking diet soda all day helps too. And I think at this point, the lawsuits have more to do with widdling away at the cigarette companies until they're out of business than it does with individuals getting rich.

Steph, I don't blame cigarettes for that so much as I blame stupidity and the lack of personal responsibility. It's a pretty sad day in America that we let a business (as well as those who choose to smoke despite knowing the risks) be punished for the stupidity and irresponsibility of others.

Look, Philip Morris, is providing. They warn you of the risk of using their products, it's pretty clearly on their box. If you choose to ignore those warnings and continue to use the product anyways, you have no business to sue the company. Period.

The cigarette companies are being punished for greed and intentionally screwing the health of millions of people, they are still actively seeking out users - peoples' punishment for their stupidity and/or irresponsibility is a separate issue but lung cancer and emphasyma are pretty swift kicks in the butt.

What do they think cuz it is lighter that maybe you will just get lung cancer a couple years later than if you smoked normal cigs?
What health benefits do they think a light cigarette gives? A few more years? A couple more pounds on the baby during pregnancy?

And I am actually curious, not being factitious (well maybe a little..)

I don't think it's healthier Laurel, but I have met people who do. One thought you got less tar deposited in your lungs. Doesn't make sense to me, but those people are out there. What health benefits do we get from eating the low-fat versions of most processed foods?

Steph, how do you differentiate between 'greed' and simply running a business? It is not their job to look out for the health of consumers, it is their job to manufacture and sell cigarettes. People have to look out for themselves. A company isn't evil simply because they sell cigarettes.

They are, let's say, poor corporate citizens when they intentionally withhold information that their products harm consumers, or when they intentionally use additives that induce consumers to use the products that they (the companies) know to be unhealthy. I'm not real interested in going too deeply into this debate with you because we have such divergent points of view on very basic issues, but I think if individuals have personal responsibilities, corporations do as well. If people are expected to behave ethically, corporations must as well. They aren't evil simply because they sell cigarettes - they're evil because it has repeatedly been shown that they know that their products are harmful and they intentionally try to cover that information with attractive lure to consumers.
Personally, I'm not suing anyone, but it's okay with me if other people do.

Steph, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you. 50 years ago, I'd agree with you wholeheartedly but since the 1970s, the US Attorney General ordered Philip Morris and other tobacco companies to put warnings labels on their products. People who smoke makes the conscience decision to smoke. Know goes to them and put a gun to their heads and say, you must smoke this and spent thousands of dollars to smoke this product. Everything that's in a Malboro of Virginia Slim, is clearly listed and on their website, they give you a full detail on what goes in to making each cigarette. So people who want to sue companies for providing a product that both the company, health officials, and consumers themselves know that is not healthy, is just absurd to me.

Sorry, no.

Sorry meant to say, "No one puts a gun to their heads"

Steph, like I said earlier, I don't really have anything against the lawsuits. But I probably wouldn't be too eager to give these people any money if I were on the jury.

But I think we agree that corporations have some responsibility. Certainly individual corporations should be punished if it's proven that they withheld information or lie directly in their advertising. However, simply selling a harmful product (when it's widely known to be harmful) is not worthy of punishment.

So if China just puts signs on toys that say "Lead can kill your child" you'd put their toys on your shelves?

And again, most of the lawsuits now are not about the individual consumer. They're created to keep attacking the cigarette companies until they're gone. The companies hide behind the laws to continue selling their products, anti-smoking entities use the laws to attack the cigarette companies. Its a crappy system that makes some people rich, created by and for people who don't or won't behave ethically or responsibly on their own. Neither side is particularly admirable.

"So if China just puts signs on toys that say "Lead can kill your child" you'd put their toys on your shelves?"

On my shelves in my theoretical store? No. Because toys aren't supposed to have risks like that, and even if they were, children can't choose to protect themselves. But adults ought to be able to choose to harm themselves if they have all the information.

Where has all the personal responsibility gone? I think I'll put on a flame resistant shirt and set myself on fire so I can sue when I burn faster than I think is reasonable.

And here's where our wheels start to spin...

Steph, if parents are stupid enough to buy a product for their children, they know is harmful and were told that it's harmful, than hell yes. People need to be responsible for their own actions and stop blaming others.

I guess I'll never understand why you want to put people in straight jackets. And you'll never understand why I'd just throw up my hands and walk away from Foxie trying to light herself on fire.

I'm going to hate myself for bothering to ask, because I know...
but all of you are emphasizing individual personal responsibility. What responsibilities do corporations have to the society they operate within?

"Where has all the personal responsibility gone? I think I'll put on a flame resistant shirt and set myself on fire so I can sue when I burn faster than I think is reasonable."

so funny and so true!!

Its on the side of the box yet they are suing like they never heard that cigarettes cause cancer?? Psh.

Steph, they have the responsibility to actually sell you what they're claiming to be selling you. So no false advertising. They have the responsibility to make a profit for their stockholders (and therefore benefit the society as a whole). Finally, they have the responsibility to follow both criminal and civil laws, just like everybody else.

I'm sure there are a few other good ones I'm not thinking of, but hopefully the other proponents of individual responsibility will fill them in.

I agree with Mich, and I'd like to add that when (if) I break laws/rules, I'm punished by the law/powers that be. I'm not sued. I typically think companies should be given this same courtesy. If this truly is an issue of false advertising, they should be corrected. They should NOT have to pay crazy damages when, really, no more damage was caused besides what's to be expected.

I agree with Mich, and I'd like to add that when (if) I break laws/rules, I'm punished by the law/powers that be. I'm not sued. I typically think companies should be given this same courtesy. If this truly is an issue of false advertising, they should be corrected. They should NOT have to pay crazy damages when, really, no more damage was caused besides what's to be expected.

Son of a...

I'm with Mich. A corporation has the right to make profits, legally. If they aren't breaking any laws, don't provide false advertisement, and consumers are fully aware of the risks involved, then whatever they choose to do is fine by people.

People can not be excused for harming their bodies. I don't smoke. I'm fully aware that smoking can lead to cancer and a whole lot of other health complications. However this information is out there. It's taught in schools, your doctors, the government, so if people still wants to ignore those risks and use a product that they know is harming their bodies, then they have no rights to sue. Phillip Morris isn't doing anything illegal in this case.

Except corporate law has been written in such a way that it's difficult to nearly impossible to simply bring charges against a corporation violating the law - individuals don't have anywhere near the protection any corporation has. We can't walk around saying we won't be "liable for the debts, liabilities, contracts, or any other obligations" of the business that is ourself. But the people who start corporations can and do. Then they break laws right and left with impunity.

Suing a tobacco company is planting a giant, "I'm too stupid to think for myself," sign on your head. These people obviously need the money if they are this poorly equipped in the higher thinking department.

"I don't blame cigarettes for that so much as I blame stupidity and the lack of personal responsibility. "

Nail on the head.

Steph, I'm not going to disagree with you on that, however, people do need to be responsible for their own actions. We cannot excuse stupidity or laziness.

And Myst, I'm not saying excuse people: I'm saying either don't excuse corporations either, or accept a level playing field where corporations lie about their products and people sue them.
It's like the Wild West where everyone has guns but no common sense. A crappy system, but keep it equally crappy.

"where corporations lie about their products and people sue them."

... People CAN sue them. And they do. I support the right to sue, but I'm allowed to be appalled and unsupportive of abusing this right.

Steph, what you just described is the exact reason corporations make so much money. Because there's less liability, people are willing to take bigger risks and sometimes there's a bigger payoff. And a bigger payoff usually means benefits for society at large.

I'm not sure exactly what laws you're referring to when you say it's nearly impossible to bring charges against a corporation that breaks the law. Could you be more specific?

(If you're talking about the painfully slow process of remedying false advertising, I'm with you. There's a need for stricter penalties and swifter action when companies put out false or deliberately misleading advertisements.)

Yes Steph, however in this case, Philip Morris isn't lying about their products. That's why this whole thing is pointless and frivolous. All you need to do is look at the label and research it is. Malboro Light just have a lower level of nicotine and tar. It's not any less toxic or harmful than regular Malboros and people who smokes knows that. So don't go back 20 years down the line when your lungs are completely black and you have cancer, come back and say, I didn't know that I could get cancer from this smoking cigarettes for 20 odd years.

Well, I think there are two sides that are very valid. Yes, these companies have withheld information and made it seem more "healthy" by saying light cigarettes. However, any consumer who smokes "light" because they are under the impression that it is healthy is plain ignorant about their health.

Myst, that's for a jury to decide.
Mich, people study and argue corporate law for their entire careers- tossing out snippets wouldn't help here. But while a corporation is an entity with legal standing similar to an individual person, it can divide itself into many little entities so that determining which is actually responsible for any given action is difficult - cops can't just walk in and cite a corporation for a crime like dumping toxic waste into a stream. Thus, lawsuits.

(Totally aside: Mich, are you a law student, I thought you were)

Steph, I'm not a law student yet, still undergrad. But law school is the plan. Maybe in a few years I'll be able to add more to the discussion of corporate law.

Ok, Steph, so should people sue, companies that makes knives because they cut their fingers off while cooking by saying, they didn't know that the knife was sharp enough to cut their fingers off? No. If a company clearly lies and mislead people into buying their products, then sue them to your heart content, but people shouldn't sue companies after they purchase their products, knowing full well of all of the risks involved. The fact that judges are allowing lawsuits such as these to be held, is basically opening Pandora's box. Pretty soon, people are going to sue just about anyone for any reason.

Please God, may I be independently wealthy and asleep on some warm island by then! I share the office with a couple of corporate attorneys - odd situation for me.

But again Myst, I'm not defending stupid people, but there are plenty of them and we're not allowed to label them and treat them differently.
People aren't going to start suing for just any reason - it's costly just to file a suit, and corporations can lock individuals into paper fights that break the individual long before the suit gone anywhere. Businesses sue each other more often than individuals sue businesses. The myth of the frivolous lawsuit lives on, but it is a myth.

Steph, if you review some court cases, you'd see that there's lot of frivolous lawsuits in the states. And it's not that expensive to file a lawsuit. The depending on your state and county the average cost to file a lawsuit can range between $150-300 on your own. If you want to go and get a lawyer then of course your cost is going to go up.

McDonalds, Burger King, and a lot of companies have been sued by people for frivolous reasons.

If a person has just reason to sue a company that by all means, do so, but if you make a decision with a clear mind and is fully aware of the consequences, you can not blame people for your actions.

There are a lot of frivolous lawsuits, but the courts are NOT swamped with them the way some would have us believe. I've worked for a litigation attorney and I know how much it costs, and how, with or without a lawyer, quickly each pleading adds up. It's nothing for a bigger business, not even a giant corporation, to deplete an individual by just overwhelming them with paper, long before the real merits of the case can catch a judge's attention.

If you smoke, you pay with your health, regardless of the cigarettes being light or not. Heh. This is just another case of wasted tax money.

>Sounds like the issue is false advertising

Agreed. I know a scary number of people who think light cigarettes are less harmful than regular.

This kind of false advertising has been going on for years. Smokers know that are putting their lives at risk. Smokers know that the advertisers will do and say anything to make a sale. Maybe it's the American dream... To lie and be lied to.

Unfortunately, I missed the bulk of this conversation, but as the stepdaughter of someone who works in the tobacco industry, I HAVE to put my two cents in...

First - there is ALOT of misinformation running around about the manufacturing of cigarettes. Stephley brough up additives - that's patently wrong. Tobacco companies use tobacco leave dust to create dyes that they spray back onto cigarettes. Adding that microscopic amount of tobacco back into a tobacco rpoduct does not make the cigarette any more addictive than it already is.

Second - Stephley brought up a great point that the lawsuits are really designed to put the companies out of business. That is 100% true. Suing the tobacco companies has become trendy and vogue to the point of ridiculousness. They have complied with all mandates from the courts, and are STILL being sued out the wazoo.

I'm not going to debate steph's comments about evil corporations, but I will say this - those corporations are actually much better at protecting consumer interests than what is happening now. Because the tobacco industry has taken such a beating and the cost of cigarettes has risen, cigarette cottage industries are popping up all over the South to fill the void for tobacco farmers and consumers. The Mom and Pop operations are small enough that they do not fall under federal regulations at all. Which means they do not have standards for WHAT they put in their cigarettes (they can add ANYTHING), how much they charge, how they label them (ie: no health warnings), etc...

So basically, that road was paved with good intentions, but as long as PEOPLE chose to smoke, then the market will provide a product. I would prefer to know that people are using a tobacco product that is regulated and properly labeled.

I'm saying either don't excuse corporations either, or accept a level playing field where corporations lie about their products and people sue them.

Agreed.