"I don't think you can sue your way to policy"-* circa 2000!

[acmejack]

"I think we've had enough suits," remarked Bush during a Michigan campaign stop. "I don't think you can sue your way to policy...The lawyers I talk to don't feel a case."

"'W' is for Withdrawing the DOJ's Tobacco Suit"

snip

*'s comments "indicate to us that tobacco issues would likely not be on the radar screen during a Bush administration."" Morgan Stanley analyst David Adelman

http://www.smartmoney.com/stockwatch/index.cfm?story=200008252

edit caption to include date

[Richardo]

1. Brown v Board of Education?

Roe v Wade?


What a complete idiot.

[redwitch]

18. Bush v. Gore

n/t

[wicket]

2. What about his lawsuit when one of the twins was in an accident?

:eyes: What a hypocrite, but we knew that already.

[Deep13]

3. DOJ is on the take.

This isn't some private grievance or a negligence or even a product liability suit. This is RICO. This is a case built on decades of criminal conduct.

[acmejack]

4. The date on the referenced link is August 25, 2000

n/t

[asthmaticeog]

5. *cough* Dredd Scott *cough cough*

[napi21]

6. I NEVER agree with Shrub on ANYTHING, but I do on this one!

I'm 61 years old, and I was taught in grade school about the dangers of smoking. We had 11 X 14 pictured hanging around the class room showiwng what happens to your lungs from before ever smoking to those of a heavy smoker. They talked about heart disease problems, and a host of other illnesses linked to smoking.

Anyone who claims to have been unaware that smoking wasn't going to harm them is either lying, crazy, or just looking for a windfall of $$.

I say back off the suit!

[centristo]

8. that's all true

and I agree with you 100%. Personal responsibility is on the decline in this country big-time.

However, it is pretty conclusive that the tobacco industry deliberately deceived the public and targeted underage smokers. They need to be punished for these transgressions and need to return some of this ill-gotten wealth to the public.

The money should go to cover health-care costs for the sick and soon-to-be-sick and not to individual plaintiffs.

[napi21]

10. Well, millions have already been given up by the Tobacco Co's.

HOWEVER...when it was supposed to be designated for paying for health care of people suffering from the results of smoking and to run ads discouriging young people from starting to smoke, the states have used most of it for everything but that.

I didn't keep track of how much each company has already paid, but at some point, I think we have to say enough is enough.

[JDPriestly]

9. Hate to insult you, but I don't believe you, napi21.

I am 65. My mother was adamantly anti-tobacco. The only reason she knew that tobacco was harmful was because she and my father had been told so by a parishioner who was dying of cancer in the 1940s. Up until that time, neither they nor just about anyone else outside a few oncologists had a clue that smoking was associated with illness or could be bad for you.

The tobacco industry fought tooth and nail to prevent the public from learning about the the fact that their product kills. This is proved by evidence that has been produced in the tobacco trials over and over. When I was growing up, most of my doctors smoked -- while seeing patients. Some of the doctors' offices were smoke-filled. On early TV, the cigarette companies advertised their products by showing "doctors" smoking. They also sponsored fun-loving shows like I Love Lucy, which, if I recall correctly was brought to us by Lucky Strike. No one thought that Lucy was advertising or paid by a company that produced a product that could harm anyone. As you may know, Lucy smoked and died of cancer.

When I was in high school, nearly all my friends were smoking regularly by the age of 13. My mother complained to the assistant pastor in my church that the children were smoking at church events, and the pastor, an educated man, said to her that he was more worried about the children who did not smoke than he was about the children who did.

If you had a teacher who even knew that smoking was harmful, you were the exception. And I'm wondering where she got her information. None of my teachers knew, I can assure you of that, and if they had known, they would not have dared to say anything about it because the parents in the class, most of whom smoked, would have been furious. As a matter of fact, my parents were the only people I knew in the world who thought it was harmful and among the few who did not smoke. They turned out to be right, and I am very grateful to them for making sure I did not smoke.

Even my parents did not realize half the harm that tobacco actually does to your body or that it is as addictive as cocaine. It was referred to as a "habit," not an addiction back then. The tobacco companies promoted the notion that smoking was a choice, not an addiction. And, of course, all the tobacco addicts felt very reassured and smoked on -- and on, and lots and lots. Only one person in my large family has ever died of cancer -- and that is the one person who was a chain smoker. How sad. What needless suffering he endured thanks to the cigarette manufacturers. I disagree with you strongly. The evidence of fraud on the part of the tobacco industry is strong and merits a really tough verdict.

[napi21]

12. Well, I attended St. Marys school in Sharpsburg, Pa. for 12 years.

I graduated in 1961. I also had a lot of friends who attended Sharpsburg and Etna public schools, and we ALL talked about the same kind of pictures and education given in our Health Classes. In fact, my husband attended Etna public school, and he will tell you the same story.

Even if you still don't want to believe me, the FIRST warning labels were put on cigarettes in 1966! That's almost 40 years ago!!!

I still say, anyone who wasn't aware of the dangers......

[JDPriestly]

16. Sorry for the typo -- but my age is 62, not 65.

I was born in 1943 and graduated from high school in 1960. I went to high school in the south, so our experiences may be different due to regional differences. By the late '60s, yes, a rather weak label was placed on sigarette packages in small print. It didn't make very many people stop and think. The tobacco companies continued to sell their dangerous product, and they continue to do so today. They did everything they could to persuade people their product really wasn't that bad. People don't read the fine print.

[ProfessorGAC]

14. Excuse Me, JD

As a young kid, i used to read lots of baseball history books. Because my dad had actually met Rogers Hornsby (when my dad was in high school), i had a fascination about him.

In a biography of him, when i was 10 or 11 (and i'm 48 now), he was quoted as saying that he never drank, smoke, or even went to movies.

As close to the exact quote as i can get was "Drinking dulls the reflexes and blurs and vision, and that's no good for hitting. Movies are too bright and causes my eyes to strain. That's no good for hitting. And, smoking? Well, everyone knows smoking is bad for you."

Rogers Hornsby RETIRED in the early 1930's. He was a farm boy from nowhere who knew in the 20's that smoking was bad for you. He was not a scientist, or a doctor, or a professor of something. He was a high school dropout, professional baseball player who knew smoking was bad and felt that was common knowledge. 80+ years ago!

I've never forgotten that quote after people started claiming that they didn't know. Remember that the warnings went on cigarette packages in the mid-60's. That was 40 years ago. 40 YEARS AGO!

The obfuscations the tobacco companies are accused of (and provably committed) were from the period 1948 - 1962. The execs who claimed they didn't know were clearly just following those earlier dodges to avoid legal liability.

There is NOBODY who didn't know by the late 1960's that smoking caused cancer. And if someone tells you they didn't know, they're lying.
The Professor

[JDPriestly]

15. How many copies of that book were sold and read?

Not that many. I'm talking about the late 1950s and early 1960s. By the late 1960s, I agree, people should have known about the cancer link, but not in the 1960s generally. I don't know what polls of people show at that time. I went to high school in the late '50s and college in the early '60s, It certainly wasn't known then.

[MisterP]

11. read "Toxic Waste is Good for You": it provides some real insights

as to just how broad and deep the PR campaigns go, whether it be pro-DDT, anti-emissions-regulations, and so on

[JDPriestly]

17. How right you are.

Ordinary people see the ads and hear the propaganda. They don't read scientific information or warning labels.

You'd be surprised at the people who use insecticides without reading the caution and warning labels. The insecticide companies don't need to defraud people to sell their products. They know their products have to be used with caution and they warn about them and tell people how to use them. Yet, people don't know how to use the products and they get hurt. The tobacco companies wanted people to ignore the warnings. They exploited the fact that people don't read warning labels.

[Deep13]

21. Why don't we apply the same degree of personal responsibility ...

... to the corporations as we do to the individuals? Sure, smoking is stupid. People ought to know better and in fact do know better. They ought to take responsibility for their own health and safety. Nevertheless, the fact that some don't is no defense for corporate irresponsibility. Besides, a RICO action is not like an auto accident case. The govt. have proven criminal conspiracy. Smokers are amatures just trying to live their lives. Tobacco companies are pros with institutional memory. They have billions of dollars to spend trying to figure out the best way to get teenagers to start smoking. They hire teams of psychologists for that purpose. They know that doing A,B and C will result in X new smokers. They know what will happen to them over a lifetime. They know what it will cost society. Despite actually knowing that they are killing people, they continue to do so. Where is their personal responsibility for mass murder?

[JDPriestly]

7. Bush is in bed with the tobacco industry as is Schwarzenegger

and most of the other Republican leaders. The Republican stance on tobacco is completely inconsistent with their claim to be pro-life.


I'd like to see what "Dr." Frist has to say about tobacco. He comes from a tobacco state, but wasn't he a heart surgeon? As a surgeon, he ought to be anti-tobacco. Has anyone asked him about his stance on smoking tobacco?

[bullimiami]

13. w stands for prevaricating piece of waste.

it is all so transparent. if you are rich, big or powerful anything goes. the laws are to keep everyone else in line and paying for it.

why all of the laws and lawsuits over marijuana, drugs, abortion. what? no problems with alcohol or cigs.

i hate these liars.

[JDPriestly]

19. You are especially right about alcohol.

The number of crimes committed -- think just domestic violence, for example -- by people under the influence of alcohol is shocking. Yet, no one dares to say anything about the problem of alcohol.

I'm not suggesting we should reinstitute the prohibition. But, I think it is interesting that the crime due to prohibition, the gangs, the Mafia during that time has become such a legend. But actually that was a pretty small amount of crime compared to the amount of crime that is, if not caused, at least partly attributable to the influence of alcohol on the perpetrator. Imagine a TV show: crimes of the drunk.

Now, the fact that many crimes are associated with alcohol is well established and well known, but very few people stop drinking because of that. They think it won't happen to them. That alcohol contributes to crime is known, but it isn't real to them. That's the way it was with smoking even after the association between smoking and bad health was well known. It was known on a certain, cerebral level, but most people did not make the emotional connection and really believe the connection until long after the fact was known. So "knowing" has different meanings. We "know" something is bad for our health, but we don't necessarily believe it and don't necessarily have the ability to act on our belief.

[napi21]

20. Well, I enjoy my beer and I enjoy my cigarettes.

I resent you telling me I shouldn't or can't do either or both of those activities.

I've NEVER even gotten angry from the influence of alcahol, and I an very aware of the dangers of smoking. I don't ever smoke in the presence of anyone who would object, and I'm also well aware that I'm going to die from something sooner or later.

I've had close friends who never engaged in ANY "questionable" behavior. One died of cancer of the lymph nodes (age58), another of a heart attack (age61), another of pancreatic cancer (age 27).

My mother died at age 91 after she had a stroke and fell in the shower and hit her head. She was blind due to macular degeneration, extremely frail, and had difficulty even getting around.

My father, who did smoke and drink a bit, dide at age 67 from a circulating blood clot, caused by an injury from a stone that waw thrown from a lawn mower that hit him in the chest.

My whole opoint is, people die! Most of the time, it's unpredictable. If I had my choice, I'd choose the way my father died. He didn't suffer at all & had a very happy life.

I don't want to just survive so I can say I'm old!

You have the right to live your life the way you wish, but so do I.

[JDPriestly]

22. I'm not telling you or anyone else what to do.

I'm pointing to the hypocrisy of our culture in picking on marijuana. I haven't heard that often about people in our country getting high on marijuana and killing people. I suppose it could happen, and I suppose there smoking marijuana could cause car accidents, but I don't hear much about that it. So much information is available about the dangers of marijuana. I think there should be more information out there about the real dangers of alcohol. Most people do not abuse alcohol or marijuana, but a lot of people, especially kids in college need a lot more information about its dangers.

Tobacco is a different problem. If people know and understand the dangers of tobacco and choose to smoke, that is their choice, and I respect it as long as they aren't smoking in a room I am in. But I do not believe that the tobacco companies be allowed to target children and very insecure people in order to hook them on tobacco and prevent children and those people from making a really informed choice about what they are doing. I also think that if tobacco companies want to sell a product that is known to be highly addictive and highly dangerous, they should be required to pay for the cost of breaking that addiction, whether it is by some nicotine patch or therapy or hypnosis and the health costs that result from the sale of their product.