Tobacco companies, lawsuits, light cigarettes, fraud

[A18]

Should tobacco companies have to pay damages for false or deceptive advertising of light cigarettes?

Discuss.

[MasterJedi]

Normally I'd say "no" but since it's tobacco companies I'll say yes.

[Joe Republic]

I lean 'yes', which would probably apply to any company that falsely advertises its products in a way that eventually causes harm.

[Alcon]

I would like to hear an argument in opposition before I make a decision.

[John Dibble]

I read articles about the lawsuit over this, so I suppose I'll say something. First off, any company that advertises a product knowing that it is innacurate is being dishonest and should be held accountable somehow. In this case if they said light cigs were safer and they knew they weren't there's definitely some sort of punishment that needs to happen. The main nitpick I have though is that light cigs still had a surgeon's general warning on them, so the consumer was still alerted to danger.

Now, as far as the side doing the lawsuit(I can't seem to identify the party in question) - they are suing for $200 billion dollars. The number seems rather arbitrary, and they seem to be suing for all the consumers of light cigs who were fooled. How did they come up with that number, and how are they going to give out the money to the individuals affected? Hell, how are they going to identify the victims? That makes the lawsuit itself problematic. I think the lawsuits should simply be left to individuals who want to sue, and they shouldn't be allowed to sue for some crazy amount like $200 billion - enough for their medical bills and some extra for their inconvenience.

[A18]

It's a class action lawsuit.

Damages--and punitive damages in particular--are always arbitrary, so I'm not sure where that gets us.

Of course, the critical moral question is, what would the consumers have done in the absence of the deception? A cynic like me has to say they probably buy normal cigarettes. How much weight does one place on a marginal increase in safety?

But the inquiry is contrafactual, and difficult enough to determine on a case-by-case basis.

[Nym90]

Yes, absolutely. If a company uses false or misleading advertising, they should always be responsible for the effects of that.

[adam]

No, and I think over the course of my posts, I have made my reason clear.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Absolutely not.

[Democratic Hawk]

No. People should be well aware that smoking carries its health risks be they low tar or high tar

Dave

[The Constitarian]

    Absolutely not, the tobacco companies have made it very clear that their products are dangerous.  All of the ads they put out warn that, "there is no such thing a safe ciggarette, not even lights or super lights."  It is disgusting that people continue to rob companies claiming ignorance on information that everyone has known since the age of 5. 

     I also have problems with people filing lawsuits against paint companies because they didn't know eating paint was unhealthy, fast food companies because a half pound of beef covered with cheese and bacon causes obesity, and gun companies because getting shot is harmful to ones well being, and homeowners paying damages to criminals that trip in a hole and sprain their ankle when running off with the stolen stereo.

    I should probably refraise that, the people that are filing the suits are just capitolistic oppourtunists, the true blame lies with the judges and juries that reward their lies.