Janice Pou, right or wrong?

[Lou Girardin]

Janice Pou's estate is suing British American Tobacco and H O & W D Wills for several hundred thousand dollars for "seducing her into a lifetime of smoking".
Personally I'm in two minds about this; While I think the tobacco companies are lower than pond scum and their product is only legal through fortuitious timing, I have a difficulty with an adult blaming others for their weakness of will.
She started smoking in 1968. Through her life she was exposed to all the information of the dangers of smoking, yet she continued right until her death last year.
Will we see abusers of alcohol suing the suppliers for the strife caused in their lives?

[k14]

Yeah this is just another example of people not taking responsibility for their actions. Finding someone else to blame and taking it out on them. Yeah the tabacco companies are a bit dodgy but they don't force you to smoke its still your decision. I think we should thank all the smokers, where would motorsport be without tabacco companies sponsorship, lol.

[marty]

i note she lined the pockets of british american et al until her death. no sympathy from me.

[oldrider]

This is bullshit. What about personal responsibility!

She made the choice to smoke and then made the choice to keep smoking after she knew it could kill her.
It's her "own" fault that she smoked, nobody else's.
My opinion no matter what the outcome from the courts.

It's allways "someone else's fault" these days. Get real NZ. John.

[trev]

So if I crash my bike & injur myself who do I sue.
Kawasaki - for seducing me with such a beautiful piece of machinery or
the dealer - for presenting it to me.

[Devil]

So if I crash my bike & injur myself who do I sue.
Kawasaki - for seducing me with such a beautiful piece of machinery or
the dealer - for presenting it to me.

But do you keep riding it even when you realise it's going to kill you?

I think its ridiculous taking legal action because she's a mental weakling.
Sure a lot of people got sucked into starting, I dont think that can be disputed around that time, but keeping doing it when we know the effects.
What a dumbass.

[riffer]

I have to admit, I have no sympathy.

She started smoking in 1968 - curiously enough, the exact year they started posting health warnings on cigarettes.

I started smoking in 1979 and gave up in 1989. I was always aware of the dangers of smoking but did it anyway. I am sure she knew the dangers.

As for too addicted to stop - bollocks.

And besides - why do the family want financial compensation? Did they incur huge medical bills? I think not.

[Grahameeboy]

What a load of toilet eh

[Hitcher]

Like Lou, I am conflicted on this one.

However, this matter is now before the Court, so therefore has been deemed to be worthy of Court time. It is now up to eloquent legal argument to persuade the presiding Judge one way or the other. I will be interested in the arguments and the outcome, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

[cheese]

ah load of shit. they wont get squat.

[Grahameeboy]

...so the Family......who presumably did not stop Pou smoke are now wanting some cash......

My understanding is that they will have to prove things like loss of society, dependency.....to have a chance....how old was she?

[Sniper]

No sympathy from me for her or the family. Warnings have been out for a fair while so she should have heeded them then.

[Finn]

Will we see abusers of alcohol suing the suppliers for the strife caused in their lives?

Or biker riders suing biker dealers for selling them a bike that's dangerous?

I am not on the fence at all on this one. To me it's black and white. She had a choice. Only she is accountable and responsible for her own actions. If anyone should cough up it should be the government. Like our road taxes go towards roading (ha, ha), cigarette taxes should go towards related health issues instead of hip hop tours and nose picking studies.

This government is rapidly gaining too much control over our lives. Let us be and make our own judgements.

[ManDownUnder]

Yeah,

And druggies should sue their dealers, and we should sue the bottle store for damages (to liver, and marital relations ...).

There is the (suitably cynical) thought that the Giant company is being sued because that's where the moey is and there may be a precedent in a foreign country - also made by those seeking relief from personal responsibility... and debt...

... I failed to mention the lawyers' success in talking the gullible into proceeding with the lawsuits. I think they can rightly claim some of the credit too.

No - the fact is she started smoking, she knew of the dangers, and she died from a related cause. Kinda like living on a diet of pies.

I don't know it'd kill me from stuffed up arteries, but it'd sure boost my chances. (OK - we could sue bakers and fast food outlets too...)

[Colapop]

I agree with the sentiment that she made her bed so to speak. But she started smoking in 1968 when the dangers of smoking were not so widely known or promoted (at least not known but the general populace). Back in '68 (I wasn't there) smoking was considered to an ok thing and smoking was advertised as "refreshing" and "relaxing" and even "cool" - that is seductive advertising. Smoking is more addictive than heroin (according to research) so that means that there'll be more people who "can't" give up than people who can.
As an addition to that comment, what of the guys who served in the armed forces at that time and before? Smokes were issued free to every soldier right up to 1970 (I think that late...?) They weren't forced to smoke but it could be argued that they were encouraged to do so by the military.
I think the biggest point to note in the whole smoking argument is,
Did the tobacco companies know that smoking was harmful and if so then for how long?

How much to sue for? F*ck knows, they (the smokers and tobacco companies) have equal culpability.