Should Ex-smoker win $8 million?

It definitely does not happen everyday that the government allows dangerous toxins to be spread around to the citizenry.

That's an absurd test. Companies can't put out certain products that are dangerous to the public, and addictive to boot, and then claim that people should have known better.

There's no company on the planet that is given that kind of license.

No. RJ Reynolds did not twist her arm every time she purchased a pack of cigarettes. She should take some personal responsibility like all the others smokers that have not sued are doing.

Smoking is purely voluntary (minus the exceptions I am sure someone will bring up). When you voluntarily place your self at risk, you voluntarily accept the risks associated with it.

Companies that sell liquor have that kind of license. One of the biggest causes of death in the US is auto accidents. Should car manufacturers be allowed to sell cars that go over 30 miles per hour? There is an inherent risk in everyday activities.

Children don't voluntarily choose to breath the second hand smoke of their parents and family.

I know if I had a choice I would rather banish all smokers from NYC then find myself inhaling smokers' second hand smoke while walking down the streets of Manhattan.

I understand the point, but people have the right to take actions that harm themselves. Companies take people up in planes and let people jump out of them. There is no benefit to society for this activity. They would be safer is they didn't do this activity. Those companies can still sell that service.

I think in the case of asbestos and lead the risk is disguised. I can't tell lead paint from regular paint, nor asbestos insulation from non-asbestos insulation. Cigarettes are clearly marked. It is obvious what they are and that their byproducts are hazards. For this woman to claim that she didn't assume the risk when she smoked sounds ludicrous to me.

As for parachutes, what if every 10,000th chute failed? Would the government stop them? Would you have a court case if you jumped for years but on this day your canopy collasped and you were severely injured?

McGentrix wrote:

No. RJ Reynolds did not twist her arm every time she purchased a pack of cigarettes. She should take some personal responsibility like all the others smokers that have not sued are doing.

Smoking is purely voluntary (minus the exceptions I am sure someone will bring up). When you voluntarily place your self at risk, you voluntarily accept the risks associated with it.

Well, I would say that the fact that RJ Reynolds manipulates levels of nicotine in their product specifically in order to make it MORE addictive sort of gives the lie to the idea that they are not twisting anyone's arm. Wouldn't you say?

Cycloptichorn

in order to make it MORE addictive

Nicotine adds flavor and makes for a more robust product.

However, in and of itself, the product is not addictive in the absence of a smoker.

So why are cigarettes given that exemption? I have some asbestos insulation that I can price really well so shouldn't the consumer be given that choice. I'm willing to clearly mark it as such and point out the health hazards.

The difference between the two is that I don't put addictive properties into my paint or asbestos to get people on the hook or to keep them there.

If ten thousand parachutes were packed and one was purposefully designed to fail and they were handed out in a lottery sense where no one knew which one would fail, then yes, I believe the government would step in. I believe that those people would be criminally responsible for the death.

I'm not arguing in favor of the industry, I'm arguing that smokers are complicit in their smoking and shouldn't be kicking anyone but themselves when they get sick.

I'm ok with that as long as you fully disclose the presence to any future owners. Your house, your risk. What I disagree with is your ability to sue the manufacturer if it doesn't work out.