Janice Pou, right or wrong?

[Edbear]

Whilst I have no love for the tobacco companies - they are shooting themselves in the foot on this one, by claiming that the health warnings were around at the time. Up until fairly recently they were contrarily claiming that, (in USA courts), that they didn't know that smoking was dangerous! They actively promote, (and strongly now in third world countries now that advertising and smoking in general is declining in most 1st world countries), cigarettes! I have no liking at all for those who actively promote selling a product that they know full well is dangerous. THey couldn't care less if their customers suffer and die horrible deaths as long as they keep buying their products. However, while it is very hard to quit due to the highly addictive nature of the product, it is well said that we need to take responsibility for our choices, and smoking is a personal choice. I've never smoked, but have been addicted to prescription drugs and it was a living hell! It was also a living hell to get off them, but I was determined to get off them and out of the wheelchair they'd put me in. They were killing me and I knew it. The withdrawal was a nightmare, but within a month of being drug free I was standing and walking again, now I am back working and, (more importantly!), riding!! A long term smoker, it has been said, can regain the same chance of getting cancer as a non-smoker within ten years of quitting. The health issues have been around for a very long time now, she really doesn't have much of a case.

[Skyryder]

Any one who can take on the tobacco companies I say go for it. This is not about personal responsibility. It's the seduction of the indavidual by the type of advertising that the tobacco companies use. Young nubile females chasing after a beach ball, and the men, virile macho studs that if you have a ciggerette in you mouth the woman find you irrestiable. The tobacco companies new years ago that thier product was addictive and resulted in ill health but they resisted every move governments tried to make to bring them into line. Now that the west has finaly wised up they are using the same methods in africa and asia to sell their product and casue ill health to thousand of humans. If this product was food it would have been banned years ago. Hope they win and take them all to the cleaners.

Skyryder

[mstriumph]

Any one who can take on the tobacco companies I say go for it. This is not about personal responsibility. It's the seduction of the indavidual by the type of advertising that the tobacco companies use. Young nubile females chasing after a beach ball, and the men, virile macho studs that if you have a ciggerette in you mouth the woman find you irrestiable. The tobacco companies new years ago that thier product was addictive and resulted in ill health but they resisted every move governments tried to make to bring them into line. Now that the west has finaly wised up they are using the same methods in africa and asia to sell their product and casue ill health to thousand of humans. If this product was food it would have been banned years ago. Hope they win and take them all to the cleaners.

Skyryder

if you extended the arguement to junkfood --- especially from those companies that advertize on childrens' tv - i'd be right behind you

[Clockwork]

However evil tobacco companies may seem I suspect most of them came into existance long before the health effects of smoking were known. To expect any company to voluntarily go out of business out of some sense of moral duty is unrealistic.

Companies exist for one reason only..... to make money for their shareholders. The only time morality will figure into their business plan is if they perceive it will increase their profits. This is why governments need to regulate them!

[dawnrazor]

well I don't know about anyone else, but after reading that I fancy a smoke now!

Maybe after that I'll start a thread about eating pies.

[Skyryder]

if you extended the arguement to junkfood --- especially from those companies that advertize on childrens' tv - i'd be right behind you

I know what you mean but the analogy between the two is not a good one. Junk food is food and as such there is some nutrional element in it. How much well I'm not a nutritionist but if you and I were stranded on a desert island with one hamburger and a cigge I think we would both be sharing the hamburger. However if one of us were a smoker i doubt if there would be any need to share as the smoker would go for the cigge instead of the food.

Skyryder

[Hitcher]

if you extended the arguement to junkfood --- especially from those companies that advertize on childrens' tv - i'd be right behind you

Don't blame the "junk food" companies -- they're only going about their lawful business. Blame the parents.

[Virago]

The funniest part of the whole court drama, has been the woman's sister nipping out of the court for a quite smoke. Her justifications are hilarious, and predictable: "I need to smoke, this whole thing has been so stressful, etc, etc...."

[mstriumph]

Don't blame the "junk food" companies -- they're only going about their lawful business. Blame the parents.

so the argument comes full circle
if parents are generally accepted to be responsible about what goes into the bodies of their children then surely adults must be similarly expected to be responsible about what goes into THEIRS ............. making this, as i said before, a frivilous .....etc etc blah blah blah ....


... then again, didn't someone sue macwhatsit's, sucessfully, in the USA for 'making them fat'?? ........ *exits, stage left, clutching boggling mind ... *

[Postie]

Tobacco company death-case winds up

08.03.06 3.00pm

Lengthy closing arguments are under way in a landmark court case against a tobacco company accused of causing the death of a smoker.

The children of Janice Pou, who died from lung cancer four years ago, are suing British American Tobacco New Zealand.

Brandon and Casey Pou are seeking damages of more than $300,000 at the Auckland High Court.

They claim BAT breached its duty of care when she started her 30 cigarettes a day habit in 1968.

Warnings did not appear on cigarette packets until 1974.

BAT argues it was common knowledge well before then that smoking caused lung cancer and that Mrs Pou failed to exercise her choice to quit.

[Fishy]

Somebody just bloody shoot them and be over with it.

[Postie]

landmark bid to make tobacco companies pay for an Invercargill mother's death has been extinguished by a High Court decision which says she knew the dangers of smoking and could have given up.

Janice Pou smoked nearly 30 cigarettes a day from the age of 17 and died in September 2002 at the age of 51, just over a year after being diagnosed with lung cancer.

Her estate, executed by her children Kasey and Brandon, claimed $310,966 from British American Tobacco New Zealand and WD & HO Wills.

But Justice Graham Lang ruled in the High Court at Auckland that Mrs Pou must have known the risks of smoking. Her attempts to give up waxed and waned and were doomed to fail.

"I do not consider that Mrs Pou ever made any reasonable attempts to give up smoking," he said.

As a result she must have accepted the risks.

"It was therefore not open to Mrs Pou to seek redress from the defendants once she developed lung cancer because the possibility she might develop lung cancer was one of the risks that she assumed."

The decision has saddened Mrs Pou's family and angered anti-smoking groups but British American Tobacco New Zealand spokesman Carrick Graham said the decision was a sensible one.

"British American Tobacco New Zealand is engaged in the legal business of manufacturing tobacco products for informed adults who make a personal decision to smoke," he said.

But Mrs Pou's sister, Helen Toomata, knows only too well how addictive smoking is.

Janice was her second sibling to die of lung cancer. Another sister, Margaret Karipa, died in 1988.

Mrs Toomata, also a smoker, has tried many times to give up. Nicotine patches gave her nightmares, but hypnotherapy had helped reduce her cigarette consumption, although she would not say how many she smoked now.


The court case was to make tobacco companies aware of the harm smoking inflicted, but they were still not accountable, she said.


Her sister's dying wish was to make a difference by bringing the action and she hoped it had at least raised public awareness.

A lawyer for the family, John French, said hundreds of hours had gone into preparing the case and the result was disappointing. The family had yet to decide whether to appeal.


The Public Health Association said the case was about cigarette companies' actions since the 1940s and 1950s when they discovered they were marketing a lethal product.

In 1954, US tobacco manufacturers jointly published A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers in more than 400 US newspapers.

The advertisement questioned research findings implicating smoking as a cause of cancer, promised consumers that their cigarettes were safe, and pledged to support impartial research to investigate allegations that smoking was harmful to human health.

In the 1960s, the Rothmans Sports Foundation used high-profile figures such as Peter Snell, Arthur Lydiard, cricketer Bert Sutcliffe and All Black Don Clarke to promote sport.

And in 1974, the health warnings that did appear on cigarettes said only that "smoking may damage your health".

"Janice Pou should have quit smoking, but she couldn't beat the addiction," said association director Gay Keating.

The Cancer Society said the decision appeared to be a willingness to let companies profit from the death and misery their products caused.

Action on Smoking and Health director Becky Freeman said the organisation was angry that cigarette companies had won.

"We are angry that an industry that not only manufactures products which are addictive and kill people but also lies about it has not been held accountable."

She hoped the Pou family would appeal.

In his decision Justice Lang said that even if Mrs Pou was not aware of the dangers of smoking in 1968, she must have been aware of those risks by 1974 at the latest.

She continued to smoke, he said, and did not take reasonable steps to quit despite having the ability to.

"Informed consumers are entitled to exercise an autonomous right to purchase and consume products that are lawfully sold, not withstanding the fact that such products may be harmful to their health."

[Lou Girardin]

The right decision.

[Hitcher]

Now we have an established legal precedent. Albeit at considerable cost.

[Paul in NZ]

At the back of our minds we usually realise that a heck of a lot of the things we do are either potentially dangerous or proven to be harmful.

Marketting and advertising provide us with the excuses we need to go ahead and do them anyway!

However, there is a very fine line! The tobacco companies get little sympathy from me as they have known for a very long time about the risks with their products. Where they crossed the line was shifting focus to the 3rd world when it got too difficult for them in the 1st world (hey where did the 2nd world go?). Also the target marketting to kids (selling singles and 10 packs), women etc etc.

The fast food industry has a similar strategy! But then where do you stop? The fuel industry knows that one day the oil will run out but by golly theres a heck of a lot of money still to be made eh! Tomorrow will take care of itself and all i need is to make enough myself to retire on!!!

In my opinion we need to look at the basic structure of the business world. I realise that it is unpopular and won't work but ultimately you have to consider the human side of business and ask yourself if you are doing a good or bad thing.

But what the heck would I know. I had a burger for dinner last night and probably will tonight (another all nighter) and my wife works for a certain battery company that had a little incident in India a few years back and we still take their money every week!