The great lawsuit debate: do smokers have the right to sue?

Of course, everyone has the “right” to sue…but are smokers justified in suing tobacco companies for a habit that was voluntary? They started when they wanted and stopped when they wanted. So should tobacco be held liable for their decision? As lawsuits against big tobacco companies spread like wildfire across the country this is the major argument upheld in courtrooms from Tampa to Seattle. 

News headlines have been spreading the word about huge settlements for some smokers--hundreds of thousands of dollars in the pockets of smokers who indulged in the habit for decades, and then decided to blame the companies who made the product for their own decision.  Now, that said, I don’t agree with the way tobacco was marketed many years ago--its dangers hidden and its sex appeal as the central issue.  For the victims of many tobacco-related diseases they picked up their habit as very young adults in the years before the dangers of smoking were well publicized, and spent years clinging to what became both habit and addiction.

As more and more chronically ill adults begin to seek retribution for the physical damage smoking brought into their lives, they are asking for big bucks from big tobacco.  I don’t like R.J. Reynold’s much more than the next man, but honestly--is it really their fault.  I like Coke, but if I drink it for the next 30 years, gain 100 pounds and die of a heart attack should Coke be blamed for my choice? You get the picture…

A Florida man is now asking for $10 Million in damages that his lawyers claim developed as a result of his smoking habit.  71 year old Leroy Kirkland, a former two pack per day smoker was diagnosed with laryngeal cancer that defense attorneys claim he developed as a result of a long standing drinking habit, and not cigarettes. The also claim that since 1966 Mr. Kirkland was faced with warning labels on every pack he smoked and therefore his decision was his own--and not the responsibility of R.J. Reynolds to reimburse.  And I am inclined to agree.

In a mish-mash of decisions, trials on this issue have gone back and forth--some winning and some losing.  In one of the biggest suits, a jury awarded $300 Million to a plaintiff--but the judge called the decision “grossly excess,” and slashed the award to $38.9 million--a mere drop in the bucket.