Margaret Amodeo, whose husband Frank lost his $5.8 million compensatory damage award for throat cancer under the ruling, said they were "very disappointed."So because her husband was too stupid to know that cigarette smoking is dangerous, or too weak to quit, they should get $5.8 million? My grandmother smoked from the time she was 13 to the time she died at 87, and she never had any cancer, emphysema, or any other "smoking-related" illness. My father smoked for over 40 years, and is now 75, and has never had any "smoking-related" illnesses. And if he did, it'd be his problem, because it was his choice to smoke. I don't care if the tobacco companies DID try to make cigarettes MORE addictive. So what? It is each individual's responsibility to make such decisions (to start smoking or not) for themselves, and to deal with the consequences of those choices. That's part of what freedom is all about.
But isn't making cigarettes more addictive depriving you of at least some of that freedon. Many have been unable to quit smoking even after many attempts.
If the companies made the cigarettes less addictive their sales would drop. Thus to keep sales increasing they made them more addictive. This was a financial decission and they were knowingly stopping smokers from quitting. Seems they do bare some responsibility.
Don't get me wrong though I am very happy this was overturned. It was way too much money. The smoker was more responsible than the manufacturer.
In a fair world the CEO's and others that decided to addict more somkers and thus kill them would be sentenced to death for murder. But the rich are almost always protected from the many crimes they commit. A rich man steals 500 Million from a bank through fraud and a meaningless fine or in some cases three years or so. A poor man robs the same bank and spends many years in prison.