is this the beginning of the end

May 3, 2001 7:32 AM

is this the beginning of the end for tobacco companies? an award for damages caused by passive smoking has sparked huge debate here in oz.
posted by cakefork (15 comments total)

Not at all! That award was made in Australia where people have very few rights and the indiviual counts for nothing. Here in America, we have the god-given right to do what we feel is good for us and if the others do not like our smoke then let them stay indoors with A/C and avoid the strong sense of community we have built over the years.
posted by Postroad at 7:36 AM on May 3, 2001

Yi-ha! Let's make smoking illegal. That's appealing to the kids.
posted by nonharmful at 7:41 AM on May 3, 2001

Looks like Australia is a few years behind the legal curve when it comes to tobacco lawsuits. Here in the US, the federal government's just decided to stop funding the Justice Department's lawsuit against Big Tobacco (really just an extortion attempt in the eyes of many), because they know they won't ever win.
posted by aaron at 12:35 PM on May 3, 2001

Hmm. The tobacco companies settled with the American states whose attorneys general had filed suit against them in re to Medicaid reimbursements via Congress and the president. And they did so because the companies knew they would never win.

The Bush administration, as opposed to the "federal government," decided to stop the suit. The only thing hurting the "federal government," in any case, is continued subsidization of tobacco farming. That did not stop the settling of the state lawsuits, but then again that was only needed due to the settlement's conflict with antitrust laws and advertising provisions, etc.
posted by raysmj at 1:05 PM on May 3, 2001

Gee I wish I had Aaron's gift for saying the obvious.
posted by alsaiz at 5:25 PM on May 3, 2001

Mmm, gimme some more of them Nicotine inhalers...No I mean gimme some more NOW! NOW DAMMIT!

...ahhhhh....
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:55 PM on May 3, 2001

Here in America, we have the god-given right to do what we feel is good for us and if the others do not like our smoke then let them stay indoors with A/C and avoid the strong sense of community we have built over the years.

1.) We've built a strong sense of community? Our neighbors have never talked to us in all the six years we've lived here. And it has nothing to do with tobacco.

2.) Ahem. If it's government regulation you want, fine. I'd suggest looking at a few precedents, though: prohibition... the war on drugs... yeah, they've solved all our problems. Riiight.
posted by dagnyscott at 6:12 AM on May 4, 2001

the thing i found interesting is that this woman won damages for passive smoking. so because of her place of employment, she ended up with cancer. the implications are quite interesting - needlestick injuries, asbestosis.... you can carry on the parallels, which led me to wonder whether it was the begining of the end.

here in aust. we don't seem to have the same culture of litigation (tho maybe this case was one of the first steps on that path) that we see in the usa. i would dispute poastroads assumption that the individual means nothing, and there is no sense of community here... and we do have many rights - they just aren't limited by being spelt out in a bill of rights.
[*giggles* this last comment was a bit tongue in cheek, because i know how much dissent it will raise!! ;-) ]

maybe we are behind in the litigation stakes when it comes to tobacco - but i suspect that we have chosen a different path. not only are we looking at the obvious (smoking leads to cancer) but inhaling someone elses smoke leads to cancer too. eventually the evidence will mount so high that the tobacco companies will just have to fold. (or is this just wishful thinking on my part?)
posted by cakefork at 7:21 AM on May 4, 2001

Dagnyscott, I believe Postroad had the sarcasm flag raised in that statement. The issue, as I see it, is not about regulation so much as it is about curbing well financed, very deliberate programs aimed at encouraging addiction. And there's no present danger of federal regulation of tobacco in the US as Mr. Butts is on the board of Bush Incorporated. As far as for second hand smoke, even the most strident "libertarian" would probably agree that your rights stop where my nose starts. Don't do damage to me and my health and I will respect your right to destroy yourself. Just don't expect me to subsidize your half million dollar chemotherapy when you contract cancer.
posted by nofundy at 7:24 AM on May 4, 2001

Just don't expect me to subsidize your half million dollar chemotherapy when you contract cancer.

I don't. That's why I personally pay for health insurance. This is the same sort of nonsense argument that Bill Maher so commonly applies to the obese: "I'm not ponying up my tax dollars because you wanted your big bag of Doritos." It's tired.

Anyway, this makes me thoroughly nervous (and, in case somebody is just tuning in, I smoke). The woman is a 62-year-old barmaid and she managed to persuade a jury that she knows exactly how and what gave her cancer? Well, Jesus, congratulations. She just left about 50+ years of dedicated cancer research in the dust.

God damn it, I'm not saying that cigarette smoke is healthy or good or anything else, but there is no scientific basis for this judgment. The jury essentially said, "Hey, sounds good to me, and incidentally, balls to the preponderance of proof."

Here's a thought experiment: you're in your sixties, you build model airplanes (glue!) as a hobby, you live in an urban area (pollution!), your eating habits are kind of poor (cholesterol!), you drink a fair amount, you use weed killers on your lawn (heptachlor!), your water is kind of heavy (with metals!) but oh well, and by trade, you paint the interiors of houses (oh so many chemicals). Now, of course, you don't smoke, but you hang out in bars where people do. Then you get cancer (at age 62! Wow! That NEVER happens!). Good thing you have second-hand smoke to blame, huh?
posted by Skot at 8:55 AM on May 4, 2001

[Skot] wrote:
I'm not saying that cigarette smoke is healthy or good or anything else, but there is no scientific basis for this judgment.


Scientific research has shown that cigarette smoke (either active or passive) is harmful. So there is a scientific basis for this judgment. However, I doubt if there's a legal basis, because I do agree that there's no proof that the cancer in this woman was caused by passive smoking.


However, if you give active smokers money (all previous lawsuits), why not do the same with passive smokers?
posted by nonharmful at 11:14 AM on May 4, 2001

nonharmful, correlation does not equal causation. Second-hand smoke cannot be definitively cited as the cause for this woman's cancer.

In fact, there is no hard proof or widespread agreement in the scientific community that second-hand smoke increases the chances of cancer (seriously--unlike, of course, first-hand smoke). The data just ain't there yet.
posted by Skot at 11:19 AM on May 4, 2001

[Skot] wrote "correlation does not equal causation". That's true, but correlation + pathophysiological explanations + animal observations + in vitro observations + more = close to causation (95% CI and p<0.05 = true, isn't it?)


The data are there that second hand smoking is harmful (I do not say it causes cancer and I do not say it caused cancer in this case!).
posted by nonharmful at 12:39 PM on May 4, 2001

Fair enough, nonharmful. I suspect we're closer together on this (thread's) topic than our banter may suggest. :)
posted by Skot at 1:46 PM on May 4, 2001