Create an account
Fighting the Smoking Man - The Life and Thoughts of Zach — LiveJournal
Oct. 30th, 2003
12:40 pm -
Fighting the Smoking Man
Leave a comment
October 30th, 2003 09:18 pm (UTC)
Ok. I'm an idiot. I didn't realize that they won judgements. I thought they all settled. I guess I'm confusing it with Microsoft.
I'm ALL FOR this fight.
I really really really have to take back and reformulate MUCH of what I have said if it is the case that the lawyers got actual judgements made rather than just settling. Somehow I had it in my head that a bunch of states attorneys backed out and settled just as happened with much of the Microsoft anti-trust case.
Saying "nambypamby liberals" was a rhetorical way to (a) forge a connection with the conservative that I was talking to and (b) establish that my politics are FAR to the left of "liberalism". I don't identify as a liberal. I like liberals. I often find myself allied with liberal causes. But I tend to fight different fights than liberals and sometimes I get very frustrated by the moderate liberal approach (other times I have to give that approach mad props because people use it to get results, to win battles, to do pragmatic things). They're "namby pamby" because they're not smashing the state...but whatever...I don't _actually_ expect _anyone_ to be out smashing the state. I just talk big because I'm overwhelmed by the corruption in the system.
So...at the end of the day, though. Besides billions of dollars worth of smack down, what is the change that has resulted from thi s? Is it just (and I'm not downplaying this, it's a victory in itself) an increase in public knowledge about the dangers? Has the industry changed the additives that they use or anything else about the formulation of their cigs? Is there greater regulation or oversight of the industry now?
Are the anti-smoking commercials sponsored by P-M part of the judgement? Or is that a voluntary thing they do? Is the independent anti-smoking advertising that is much higher quality paid for by a block grant from the tobacco companies as part of the judgement?
Did SOME part or SOME parties of SOME of the suits settle? Can I at least be mad at them?
Oh and please note that I am a HUGE proponent of the court system. Whether I'm wearing my anarchist hat, my liberal hat, my progressive hat, whatever....there are few things more important than our right to sue the fuckers who do us wrong. So you won't catch me on any "we're a sue happy nation, let's change that" bandwagon. Give me more judges, more access to the legal system for the average joe, and all that. Don't give me penalty limits or any of that.
No more political journalling in the heat of the moment for me.
October 31st, 2003 01:23 am (UTC)
I think I have to back up and take off my law-student hat and clarify a few things:
The tobacco settlement that springs to most people's minds when they think of big tobacco was just that -- a settlement among all the states for over $200 billion (
). So yes, this part of the big tobacco litigation was a settlement.
But a big part of why the tobacco companies were willing to settle was because of _judgments_ against them that had been won by plaintiffs' lawyers in the courts (examples at
). Resource-wise (we've been talking about this in our mass-torts class), there's no way that the Attorneys General of all 50 states would want to go to trial against the tobacco companies when issues of liability had already been litigated and determined.
So there are both settlements and judgments going on. You're welcome to be angry at those who settled! But I think the attorneys did as much as the legal system allowed. The entire industry hasn't been revolutionized, but the information about the bad effects of cigarettes is accessible and was heard in open court. The regulation battle has to be fought legislatively, I think.