Jury Awards Record $28 Billion to Ex-Smoker

[achtungbaby]

http://www.latimes.com/media/thumbnails/photo/2002-10/4866069.jpg
"I didn't know!!"

A jury awarded a record-shattering $28 billion in punitive damages today to a 64-year-old former smoker who sued Philip Morris Inc. for fraud and negligence.

Analysts said the verdict will almost certainly be reduced on appeal. But the jaw-dropping amount suggested growing hostility toward the tobacco industry.

The Superior Court jury awarded the amount to Betty Bullock, who started smoking when she was 17 and was diagnosed last year with lung cancer that has since spread to her liver. Last month, the jury ordered the tobacco company to pay Bullock $750,000 in damages and $100,000 for pain and suffering.

Philip Morris said it would ask the court to set aside the verdict and order a new trial.

The previous record for a verdict won by an individual against a tobacco company was $3 billion, awarded in June 2001 to Richard Boeken, a former heroin addict with cancer who died in January. But a California judge last year reduced that verdict againt Philip Morris to $100 million.

"I think the judge will see this as a runaway jury award," Merrill Lynch tobacco analyst Martin Feldman said. He noted that Philip Morris has never lost a case on appeal.

During Bullock's trial, Philip Morris did not try to defend its past actions. Instead, the company turned the spotlight on Bullock and her decision to smoke. The strategy was a major shift from previous defense efforts.

"Testimony during the trial showed that Ms. Bullock was aware of the health risks of smoking and was warned repeatedly of those risks by her doctors over four decades, and her daughter also urged her to quit. Her response: 'I am an adult, this is my business,'" said William Ohlemeyer, the company's associate general counsel.

Bullock's lawyer, Michael Piuze, argued that Philip Morris concealed the dangers of cigarettes with a widespread disinformation campaign that began in the 1950s. He told jurors it was "the largest fraud scheme ever perpetrated by corporations anywhere."

Piuze used photographs of Bullock, cigarette ads from her teenage years and internal tobacco industry documents to lay out his contention that Philip Morris concealed the dangers of cigarettes.

The company denied any campaign to fool smokers.

Two years ago, a jury awarded thousands of Florida smokers $145 billion in punitive damages against Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Brown & Williamson, Lorillard and Liggett. The award has been appealed.

"At this point, it's really open season on the industry," said Richard Daynard, a law professor at Northeastern University in Boston and chairman of the Tobacco Products Liability Project.

"Juries all around the country are sending a message that this conduct was not only totally inexcusable but that it was so outrageous there is no amount of money that would be enough to punish the people who perpetrated it,"

The California case also drew interest because it follows an Aug. 5 state Supreme Court ruling that grants cigarette makers a new window of immunity. The decision said most statements and acts by tobacco companies between 1988 and 1998 cannot be used as evidence against them because of a law, now repealed, shielding them from liability.

Some analysts think the ruling will give cigarette makers ammunition to overturn three recent plaintiff awards in California-- including the Boeken verdict, which was also won by Piuze.

[angel nympho]

That's fucking unfair. The decision to start smoking was HERS. This reminds of the fatass who sued fast food chains. Why should SHE get the money??? There are millions of lives that have been ruined by smoking, all of them JUST as deserving as hers.

Maybe I should start smoking so I can get money when my health fails. There is NOBODY out there these days that doesn't know that smoking is unhealthy. Therefore, the tobacco companies should no longer be at fault for the health of their customers. Ain't nobody put that fucking cigarette in her mouth and forced her to suck it!!!

[achtungbaby]

Well, to her credit, according to her attorneys, she began smoking at a time when Philip Morris was indeed telling the public that either smoking wasn't bad for you or that studies were inconclusive, even though they knew it caused cancer.

But $28 billion?!? Jesus Christ. All it does is make it worse for the rest of us who want to smoke in peace.

[Reinhard H.]

Yeah, ridiculous, if they at least awarded the money to some health cause or anti smoking campaign, for what has SHE deserved billions?! People need to quit blaming others for their own mistakes.

[ChinaLama]

I've never smoked so i really can't judge, but can it really be THAT hard for her to quit or try to quit over 40 or close to 50 years?



<!--EDIT|ChinaLama|Oct 5 2002, 02:27 AM-->

[Chris]

Okay these judgement are getting fucking stupid. $28 billion for smoking when the victims of 9-11 are getting around 2 million each.

[thaite]

Originally posted by Chris@Oct 4 2002, 07:30 PM
Okay these judgement are getting fucking stupid. $28 billion for smoking when the victims of 9-11 are getting around 2 million each.
I agree. Those awards are ludicrous.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by Chris@Oct 4 2002, 06:30 PM
Okay these judgement are getting fucking stupid. $28 billion for smoking when the victims of 9-11 are getting around 2 million each.
Werd.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by Chris@Oct 5 2002, 02:30 AM
Okay these judgement are getting fucking stupid. $28 billion for smoking when the victims of 9-11 are getting around 2 million each.
Lets emphasize the word *VICTIMS.* I agree that maybe it's a bit much, but they didn't ask to have a plane explode in their faces.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

$28 billion? yo get a clue dumb bitch. you were setting a ground up plant on fire and inhaling the smoke. first time you did it, you probably coughed like nuts. and you're telling me you were ignorant of the risks and that it wasn't your fault you smoked to the extent that you deserve $28 billion of the fucking shareholders' money? What happened to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?

For comparison, the GDP of Botswana, the most economically successful country in Africa and the country with the highest GDP growth rate in the world, was $10.3 billion in 2000. To produce $28 billion of economic output, the average American worker would have to work continuously, 24 hours a day, for 2,342 centuries.

[ChinaLama]

but one thing i gotta say is...her lawyer musta really ROCKED! Gotta give him props for his illl skillz.



<!--EDIT|ChinaLama|Oct 5 2002, 06:10 AM-->

[kasia]

i thought the argument was that, during the time she began, phillip morris was advocating the idea that smoking was *not* hazardous to one's health. so why are we calling her a dumb bitch?

[Craig]

Who is their right mind thinks smoking is good for your health ? I am assuming if she's like most human beings that she would have been coughing badly the first time she tried smoking. That in itself should warrant a person with a nominally functionally brain that the action isn't good for her health. She is being harked at not only for being mentally challenged, but for not taking responsibility for her own actions. Just like that damn buffoon who is suing McDonalds for being fat.

[kasia]

Originally posted by Craig@Oct 6 2002, 01:37 AM
Who is their right mind thinks smoking is good for your health ? I am assuming if she's like most human beings that she would have been coughing badly the first time she tried smoking. That in itself should warrant a person with a nominally functionally brain that the action isn't good for her health. She is being harked at not only for being mentally challenged, but for not taking responsibility for her own actions. Just like that damn buffoon who is suing McDonalds for being fat.
i wasn't coughing badly the first time i smoked. besides, we are criticizing her judgment with the knowledge that we have right now--with 20/20 hindsight. isn't that a bit unfair? there are plenty of people in asia right now that are not aware of the bad effects of smoking.

[Craig]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 6 2002, 01:44 AM

i wasn't coughing badly the first time i smoked. &nbsp;besides, we are criticizing her judgment with the knowledge that we have right now--with 20/20 hindsight. &nbsp;isn't that a bit unfair? &nbsp;there are plenty of people in asia right now that are not aware of the bad effects of smoking.

I think the knowledge base that smoking was bad for your health was readily available in the 60s. As a little kid (preschool age) in the 70s I knew that smoking was bad for a person's health. There is certainly no reason anybody alive today should be ingesting any products without questioning the health benefits beforehand. If people in Asia as smoking right now and get lung cancer, let them die. If they are sniffing airplane glue or whatnot, or partaking in other similar habits, let them take responsibility for their actions. Is there somebody out there that thinks it's a medicinal product or something ? It's not like it's a starving person that is eating beef that doesn't know about the potential risk of Mad Cow's disease.



<!--EDIT|Craig|Oct 6 2002, 02:09 AM-->

[kasia]

then why don't we legalize all drugs?

[ren28]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 6 2002, 02:26 AM
then why don't we legalize all drugs?
That should be done. I don't see why not... but that's another topic for another day.

[kasia]

Originally posted by ren28@Oct 6 2002, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by kasia@Oct 6 2002, 02:26 AM
then why don't we legalize all drugs?
That should be done. I don't see why not... but that's another topic for another day.
blah. i take it back. that was a lame response. more later.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 6 2002, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by Craig@Oct 6 2002, 01:37 AM
Who is their right mind thinks smoking is good for your health ? &nbsp;I am assuming if she's like most human beings that she would have been coughing badly the first time she tried smoking. &nbsp;That in itself should warrant a person with a nominally functionally brain that the action isn't good for her health. &nbsp;She is being harked at not only for being mentally challenged, but for not taking responsibility for her own actions. &nbsp;Just like that damn buffoon who is suing McDonalds for being fat.
i wasn't coughing badly the first time i smoked. besides, we are criticizing her judgment with the knowledge that we have right now--with 20/20 hindsight. isn't that a bit unfair? there are plenty of people in asia right now that are not aware of the bad effects of smoking.
Okay, well. Let's give her the benefit of the doubt and say she DIDN'T know that smoking was bad for you. Now, when knowledge goes out that it is, who in their right mind wouldn't go out and buy a fucking pack of nicoderm or some shit. And do you really think she alone deserves $28 billion? There are too many people out there who have had their lives ruined by smoking to give ONE PERSON all that money. At least share the fucking wealth.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by ren28@Oct 6 2002, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by kasia@Oct 6 2002, 02:26 AM
then why don't we legalize all drugs?
That should be done. I don't see why not... but that's another topic for another day.
I agree.

[thaite]

I've seen a lot of the old advertisements where they tell you how great smoking is. It is at the very least misleading -- and they did it for years. I just think that $28 billion is an outrageous award.

And I don't think the govt. needs to be awarding the families of the people killed in WT attack. That's what life insurance is for. But, that's also a discussion for another time.



<!--EDIT|buoywonder|Oct 6 2002, 02:04 AM-->

[angel nympho]

^-- I agree. And I also think it's very unfair to give HER the $28 billion. What makes her more worthy than the billions of other lives damaged by smoking?

[Reinhard H.]

Actually she has damaged the health of hundreds or even thousands of non smokers who were forced to passively inhale the smoke from her lungs (formerly there were no regulations against not smoking in public buildings), non smokers are the ones deserving compensation from the smokers who have damaged their health.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Oct 6 2002, 03:25 PM
Actually she has damaged the health of hundreds or even thousands of non smokers who were forced to passively inhale the smoke from her lungs (formerly there were no regulations against not smoking in public buildings), non smokers are the ones deserving compensation from the smokers who have damaged their health.
Wow, I never thought of that. That actually makes a lot of sense.

[Reinhard H.]

Not to speak of the environmental destruction she has caused and the probable dumbing down of her own children and grandchildren (I read somewhere that the children of smokers have lower average IQs, because the fetus receives less oxygen during pregancy). It's like a reckless driver hitting pedestrians with his car and then sueing the car company that it never warned him about the dangers of speeding.

[thaite]

Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Oct 6 2002, 08:25 AM
Actually she has damaged the health of hundreds or even thousands of non smokers who were forced to passively inhale the smoke from her lungs (formerly there were no regulations against not smoking in public buildings), non smokers are the ones deserving compensation from the smokers who have damaged their health.
Well, if there are no regulations against it, it wasn't illegal, was it?

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Oct 6 2002, 11:16 AM
(I read somewhere that the children of smokers have lower average IQs, because the fetus receives less oxygen during pregancy).
No, you read wrong. Smokers are actually smarter and better looking.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 6 2002, 10:49 AM
Wow, I never thought of that. That actually makes a lot of sense.
No it doesn't. Maybe if you want to live in a bubble, sure.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 6 2002, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 6 2002, 10:49 AM
Wow, I never thought of that. &nbsp;That actually makes a lot of sense.
No it doesn't. Maybe if you want to live in a bubble, sure.
Yes it does. Second hand smoke is worse in some ways than inhaling cigarette smoke directly. And smokers CHOSE to damage their bodies by smoking cigarettes. Those around them chose NOT to, and still had to endure unhealthful side effects at the hands of the tobacco industry. If the tobacco industry owes anybody compensation, it's those who did not make the conscious decision to smoke, but were still damaged by the side-effects of it.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 6 2002, 01:22 PM
Those around them chose NOT to, and still had to endure unhealthful side effects at the hands of the tobacco industry.
So when are we going to file lawsuits about our ozone layer? I never chose the Greenhouse Effect, where's my compensation?

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 5 2002, 06:26 PM
then why don't we legalize all drugs?
Hell no. Anyone who's done hard-core drugs will laugh at the notion.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 6 2002, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 6 2002, 01:22 PM
Those around them chose NOT to, and still had to endure unhealthful side effects at the hands of the tobacco industry.
So when are we going to file lawsuits about our ozone layer? I never chose the Greenhouse Effect, where's my compensation?
I never said that WE deserve compensation. I'm just saying that it's stupid to give HER compensation when SHE made the decision to continue to damage her heath by smoking cigarettes. She should have bought herself some fucking Nicoderm before she went out looking for somebody to blame. Whereas, I made no such decision to put cigarette chemicals into MY system, but every day, nonetheless, I am forced to choke down cigarette smoke infested air. I might as well smoke myself to an early grave and blame Phillip Morris.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 6 2002, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by kasia@Oct 5 2002, 06:26 PM
then why don't we legalize all drugs?
Hell no. Anyone who's done hard-core drugs will laugh at the notion.
I've done hard core drugs. I don't laugh at the notion.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 6 2002, 01:54 PM
Whereas, I made no such decision to put cigarette chemicals into MY system, but every day, nonetheless, I am forced to choke down cigarette smoke infested air. I might as well smoke myself to an early grave and blame Phillip Morris.
I understand what you're saying and do think second-hand smoke sucks. I'm just SO sick and tired of the ridiculous, hypocritical phobia that Californians have of cigarettes. I remember smoking a cigarette over on Third Street in Santa Monica and exhaling, to nowhere in particular, and this guy walking by literally ducked and jived to get away from the smoke. I wanted to slap him for being such a pussy.

Yes, second-hand smoke can kill you, but shit, everything we do can kill us -- does kill us.

I love how we talk about legalizing bud but get our panties in a bunch when we talk about cigarettes, as if bud wasn't carcinogenic.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 6 2002, 01:55 PM
I've done hard core drugs. I don't laugh at the notion.
So which of ice, blow or smack do you think should be legalized?

[deez nuts]

I say legalized all of it and let the savages kill themselves! Wait nevermind bad idea, that might entail more work for me. I'll get back to ya.

[Craig]

Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@Oct 6 2002, 10:25 PM
I say legalized all of it and let the savages kill themselves! Wait nevermind bad idea, that might entail more work for me. I'll get back to ya.

If it's more work, isn't it also likely to be more money ? So, why be so opposed, you might be able to retire a little earlier ...

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by Craig@Oct 6 2002, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@Oct 6 2002, 10:25 PM
I say legalized all of it and let the savages kill themselves! Wait nevermind bad idea, that might entail more work for me. &nbsp;I'll get back to ya.

If it's more work, isn't it also likely to be more money ? So, why be so opposed, you might be able to retire a little earlier ...
I don't get paid by the patient =( unless I go private practice, but that won't be awhile and I'm not sure if I have the business sense.

[mrazntre]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 6 2002, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 6 2002, 01:54 PM
Whereas, I made no such decision to put cigarette chemicals into MY system, but every day, nonetheless, I am forced to choke down cigarette smoke infested air. I might as well smoke myself to an early grave and blame Phillip Morris.
I understand what you're saying and do think second-hand smoke sucks. I'm just SO sick and tired of the ridiculous, hypocritical phobia that Californians have of cigarettes. I remember smoking a cigarette over on Third Street in Santa Monica and exhaling, to nowhere in particular, and this guy walking by literally ducked and jived to get away from the smoke. I wanted to slap him for being such a pussy.

Yes, second-hand smoke can kill you, but shit, everything we do can kill us -- does kill us.

I love how we talk about legalizing bud but get our panties in a bunch when we talk about cigarettes, as if bud wasn't carcinogenic.
i bet it was your breath and not the smoke.

i personally do not like to directly breathe into a puff of smoke. i think it's the equivalent to breathing into ground zero of a nasty fart. of course no one wants to breathe into that shit, but if you have to, you'd rather be as far away as possible right ?



<!--EDIT|mrazntre|Oct 7 2002, 12:52 AM-->

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 6 2002, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 6 2002, 01:54 PM
Whereas, I made no such decision to put cigarette chemicals into MY system, but every day, nonetheless, I am forced to choke down cigarette smoke infested air. &nbsp;I might as well smoke myself to an early grave and blame Phillip Morris.
I understand what you're saying and do think second-hand smoke sucks. I'm just SO sick and tired of the ridiculous, hypocritical phobia that Californians have of cigarettes. I remember smoking a cigarette over on Third Street in Santa Monica and exhaling, to nowhere in particular, and this guy walking by literally ducked and jived to get away from the smoke. I wanted to slap him for being such a pussy.

Yes, second-hand smoke can kill you, but shit, everything we do can kill us -- does kill us.

I love how we talk about legalizing bud but get our panties in a bunch when we talk about cigarettes, as if bud wasn't carcinogenic.
I'm not saying we have to be all irate about it. In fact, I don't think ANYBODY should get money from the tabacco industries like that. I'm just saying that if ANYBODY deserves it, second hand smokers deserve it more than smokers. Not like I'm all being ridiculously hypocritically phobic of it. People in Santa Monica are rude. Even I'll admit that. People in Santa Monica have NO problem exaggerating the fact that they don't like what you're doing.

I'm not getting my panties in a bunch about talking about cigarettes. In fact, I coudn't give a shit that I inhale so much second hand smoke a day. I care when somebody else makes $23 Billion off something their stupid ass shouldn't have been doing anyway.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 6 2002, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 6 2002, 01:55 PM
I've done hard core drugs. &nbsp;I don't laugh at the notion.
So which of ice, blow or smack do you think should be legalized?
All of them, actually. And I have good reasons for thinking that, too.

[kasia]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 6 2002, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by kasia@Oct 5 2002, 06:26 PM
then why don't we legalize all drugs?
Hell no. Anyone who's done hard-core drugs will laugh at the notion.
that question was actually a sarcastic response.

anyhow, i think they all deserve compensation--smokers and second-hand smoke victims alike.

[Reinhard H.]

Instead of this compensation crap, why not just raise taxes on cigarettes, that way every smoker has to pay a surcharge for his destructive behaviour and society as a whole gets the money. In addition it offers an incentive for people to smoke less.

[kimpossible]

All I have is a question, and a legal one at that. Can non U.S. citizens, or citizens of other countries also sue U.S. tobacco companies?

[kasia]

Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Oct 7 2002, 02:03 AM
Instead of this compensation crap, why not just raise taxes on cigarettes, that way every smoker has to pay a surcharge for his destructive behaviour and society as a whole gets the money. In addition it offers an incentive for people to smoke less.
because people should be compensated for the wrongs done to them.

[kasia]

Originally posted by Hello_Hapa@Oct 7 2002, 02:06 AM
All I have is a question, and a legal one at that. Can non U.S. citizens, or citizens of other countries also sue U.S. tobacco companies?
i actually am not certain about my answer. but my guess is that they can probably sue the company in their own country if that company owns property there. unless they own property in the u.s. or are permanent residents of the u.s., they will not have standing to bring suit here. i'd double-check my answer with arex though.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Oct 6 2002, 06:03 PM
Instead of this compensation crap, why not just raise taxes on cigarettes, that way every smoker has to pay a surcharge for his destructive behaviour and society as a whole gets the money. In addition it offers an incentive for people to smoke less.
Christ...the taxes for cigarettes have been raised enough! I heard in NY it was almost $7 for a pack of cigs. It's $4.80 around the corner from my apartment.

Less than four years ago you could get a pack for a little over $2.00.

[kasia]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 7 2002, 02:11 AM
Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Oct 6 2002, 06:03 PM
Instead of this compensation crap, why not just raise taxes on cigarettes, that way every smoker has to pay a surcharge for his destructive behaviour and society as a whole gets the money. In addition it offers an incentive for people to smoke less.
Christ...the taxes for cigarettes have been raised enough! I heard in NY it was almost $7 for a pack of cigs. It's $4.80 around the corner from my apartment.

Less than four years ago you could get a pack for a little over $2.00.
it's $3.70 at the gas station on third.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 6 2002, 05:22 PM
All of them, actually. And I have good reasons for thinking that, too.
This I gotta hear.

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 6 2002, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Oct 6 2002, 06:03 PM
Instead of this compensation crap, why not just raise taxes on cigarettes, that way every smoker has to pay a surcharge for his destructive behaviour and society as a whole gets the money. In addition it offers an incentive for people to smoke less.
Christ...the taxes for cigarettes have been raised enough! I heard in NY it was almost $7 for a pack of cigs. It's $4.80 around the corner from my apartment.

Less than four years ago you could get a pack for a little over $2.00.
$7.50 AB, $7.50 here in Manhattan. And I only go through a pack like once a week, so it doesn't affect me as much as my friend who does a pack a day.


Edit: Geez 4.80?!?! Dude. it hasn't been $4.80 in NY for the past 5-6 years. Uhhhm, ship me a carton of Marlboro Lights?



<!--EDIT|Chasiubao_Boy|Oct 6 2002, 09:15 PM-->

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 6 2002, 05:55 PM
that question was actually a sarcastic response.
I know.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 7 2002, 01:55 AM
Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 6 2002, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by kasia@Oct 5 2002, 06:26 PM
then why don't we legalize all drugs?
Hell no. Anyone who's done hard-core drugs will laugh at the notion.
that question was actually a sarcastic response.

anyhow, i think they all deserve compensation--smokers and second-hand smoke victims alike.
I agree, but seeing as how it's virtually impossible to guarantee anybody compensation, it's pretty pointless to give one person a HUGE sum of money and expect to have paid your debt to society.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@Oct 6 2002, 06:13 PM
$7.50 AB, $7.50 here in Manhattan. And I only go through a pack like once a week, so it doesn't affect me as much as my friend who does a pack a day.
Jesus. Hopefully someday all this anti-nicotine hysteria will end and we'll choose something else to be our big, bad enemy.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@Oct 6 2002, 06:13 PM
Edit: Geez 4.80?!?! Dude. it hasn't been $4.80 in NY for the past 5-6 years. Uhhhm, ship me a carton of Marlboro Lights?
Heyyyy...hmmm, did I just find a new job?:) Although I'd probably get killed by the mob eventually.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by mrazntre@Oct 6 2002, 04:44 PM
i bet it was your breath and not the smoke.


*eats Korean BBQ*

*drinks a large coke*

*burps and blows into your face*

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 6 2002, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@Oct 6 2002, 06:13 PM
Edit: Geez 4.80?!?! Dude. it hasn't been $4.80 in NY for the past 5-6 years. &nbsp;Uhhhm, ship me a carton of Marlboro Lights?
Heyyyy...hmmm, did I just find a new job?:) Although I'd probably get killed by the mob eventually.
Lol.

Nah I buy my cigs in Jersey when my friend makes a run out there, I just ask him to pick up a carton for me.

I can't shell out 7.50 for cigs and light it up and burn it, but during the course of the day I just need that jump start. I cut down alot I used to do half a pack a day when I was studying for Part I and II of my boards.

[mrazntre]

i remember when i first turned 18, i would see a pack of cigs advertised for 1.09

i bought a carton for 14 bux a year later.


and then the big bad cig tax came into affect. jsut 2 weeks ago my friend bought 1 carton for 30 bux. danggg.


matters not to me..... since i don't smoke.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 7 2002, 02:07 AM
Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Oct 7 2002, 02:03 AM
Instead of this compensation crap, why not just raise taxes on cigarettes, that way every smoker has to pay a surcharge for his destructive behaviour and society as a whole gets the money. In addition it offers an incentive for people to smoke less.
because people should be compensated for the wrongs done to them.
What wrongs, exactly, have been done to those who begin smoking in this day and age? I highly doubt any American citizen by now thinks cigarette smoking is GOOD for you.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 7 2002, 02:13 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 6 2002, 05:22 PM
All of them, actually. &nbsp;And I have good reasons for thinking that, too.
This I gotta hear.
What do you think the basis of many organized crime organizations are? Why do you think the streets today are battlegrounds for drug dealers? Because drugs are illegal. Remember alcohol prohibition in the 1920s? I learned in my history class that alcohol prohibition was repealed because organized crime took over the alcohol industry, law enforcement officials were bought, and everything having to do with alcohol was forced into the underground. When things become underground, things become dangerous. Everybody and their fucking MOMS knows that drugs are bad for you. Even if it's against the law, people who want to do drugs will do drugs. Duh. It makes it safer when it's legal.

The majority of drug users are NOT addicts, by the way.

Either way, I've got a lot of support for what I'm talking about here... but this is an entirely different argument than the one going on in this thread.

[kasia]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 7 2002, 04:43 AM
Originally posted by kasia@Oct 7 2002, 02:07 AM
Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Oct 7 2002, 02:03 AM
Instead of this compensation crap, why not just raise taxes on cigarettes, that way every smoker has to pay a surcharge for his destructive behaviour and society as a whole gets the money. In addition it offers an incentive for people to smoke less.
because people should be compensated for the wrongs done to them.
What wrongs, exactly, have been done to those who begin smoking in this day and age? I highly doubt any American citizen by now thinks cigarette smoking is GOOD for you.
i thought we were still on the topic of the plaintiff who was awarded the judgment, not those who began smoking 'in this day and age'. don't forget, the plaintiff started at a much earlier time. it wasn't until i was in high school that smoking in restaurants, etc., was outlawed. up until that point, i didn't know smoking was *that* bad. sure, people knew it was bad, but certainly not as bad as they perceive it to be now. and further, no moral reprehension was felt by most californians towards smokers until recently. it's all about the anti-smoking campaign--which wasn't going on during her time.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 7 2002, 05:12 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 7 2002, 04:43 AM
Originally posted by kasia@Oct 7 2002, 02:07 AM
Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Oct 7 2002, 02:03 AM
Instead of this compensation crap, why not just raise taxes on cigarettes, that way every smoker has to pay a surcharge for his destructive behaviour and society as a whole gets the money. In addition it offers an incentive for people to smoke less.
because people should be compensated for the wrongs done to them.
What wrongs, exactly, have been done to those who begin smoking in this day and age? I highly doubt any American citizen by now thinks cigarette smoking is GOOD for you.
i thought we were still on the topic of the plaintiff who was awarded the judgment, not those who began smoking 'in this day and age'. don't forget, the plaintiff started at a much earlier time. it wasn't until i was in high school that smoking in restaurants, etc., was outlawed. up until that point, i didn't know smoking was *that* bad. sure, people knew it was bad, but certainly not as bad as they perceive it to be now. and further, no moral reprehension was felt by most californians towards smokers until recently. it's all about the anti-smoking campaign--which wasn't going on during her time.
So you think she deserved to get paid $28 billion for smoking because she didn't think it was *that* bad?

[kasia]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 7 2002, 05:36 AM
So you think she deserved to get paid $28 billion for smoking because she didn't think it was *that* bad?
i won't say that she didn't deserve it. 12 angry people certainly believed she did. (or 6? i'm not sure if she were sued in federal or state court.) but jurors are just average people--people like you and me. it would be very difficult having all six people anonymously agree that she deserved this money if she absolutely did not. jurors don't just award money for the hell of it. furthermore, we're just debating with the facts given to us by the media. we don't know what the media is withholding. perhaps there is a reason for the big judgment. perhaps they are not disclosing the reason because it makes the story more sensational--smoker gets awarded $28 billion because she didn't know smoking was bad. when are things *ever* that simple?

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 7 2002, 05:44 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 7 2002, 05:36 AM
So you think she deserved to get paid $28 billion for smoking because she didn't think it was *that* bad?
i won't say that she didn't deserve it. 12 angry people certainly believed she did. (or 6? i'm not sure if she were sued in federal or state court.) but jurors are just average people--people like you and me. it would be very difficult having all six people anonymously agree that she deserved this money if she absolutely did not. jurors don't just award money for the hell of it. furthermore, we're just debating with the facts given to us by the media. we don't know what the media is withholding. perhaps there is a reason for the big judgment. perhaps they are not disclosing the reason because it makes the story more sensational--smoker gets awarded $28 billion because she didn't know smoking was bad. when are things *ever* that simple?
I don't think she didn't deserve ANYTHING... I'm just saying what makes HER more deserving than others? The fact that she chose to blame the tobacco industry for mistakes that she made in her life? I mean, most people I know, when the realize how bad smoking has deteriorated their lives, just decide to take it upon themselves and quit. What happened to taking responsibility for your own actions? This lady is just proving to America's youth that they can successfully find somebody to blame for a problem they began in the first place.

Instead of $28 billion to one person, why don't they give the money to cancer research? Help undo some of the wrongs they've done in the past.. instead of making some lady the richest lady in America for doing nothing really special?

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 6 2002, 08:48 PM
It makes it safer when it's legal.
Just how safe do you think ice, blow or heroin are? It's funny, I've never known any recreational meth or crack smokers.

If your idea behind legalizing drugs is to stop crime, then why not just legalize murder and other sorts of crime? That way, no laws would be broken.

I think it's important to keep in mind not just the perspective of how you or your friends or other people you know would respond to drugs, legal or illegal.

And I disagree with the notion that people will do it, no matter what. Our government makes a conscious effort to not choose to fight against drugs. It can be argued that drugs, under anti-drug legislation, unfairly target minorities, particularly African Americans -- but how is this any different from the negative, deleterious effects legal alcohol has had on that community? So they've got less gangs fighting over alcohol; in their place they've got alcohol being served on every street corner.

[achtungbaby]

Sorry for taking this so far off topic (well, not that far). Am starting up a drug thread:)

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 7 2002, 06:21 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 6 2002, 08:48 PM
It makes it safer when it's legal.
Just how safe do you think ice, blow or heroin are? It's funny, I've never known any recreational meth or crack smokers.

If your idea behind legalizing drugs is to stop crime, then why not just legalize murder and other sorts of crime? That way, no laws would be broken.

I think it's important to keep in mind not just the perspective of how you or your friends or other people you know would respond to drugs, legal or illegal.

And I disagree with the notion that people will do it, no matter what. Our government makes a conscious effort to not choose to fight against drugs. It can be argued that drugs, under anti-drug legislation, unfairly target minorities, particularly African Americans -- but how is this any different from the negative, deleterious effects legal alcohol has had on that community? So they've got less gangs fighting over alcohol; in their place they've got alcohol being served on every street corner.
It makes it safer... as in: Drugs turn our streets into battlefields. Legalizing drugs puts dangerous drug dealers out of business. So much violence in our nation are because of drug deals gone bad.
I agree that drug abuse is bad, and in no way do I condone these actions. But making it a crime is just putting money into the pockets of criminals.
I think it's important to educate people on the dangers of drug use and to teach kids to stay away from it... but no matter what there will be those who will go to any lengths to do it, legal or not.

And what, exactly, is wrong with serving alcohol on street corners? Isn't that better to do it under surveilence of responsible adults rather than in underground booze houses where ANYTHING could happen, and NOBODY would be able to contact the police for fear of being punished?

And, by the way, most of the freaks I know who use speed and cocaine are occasional users. Recreational. Even I was a recreational blow user.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 7 2002, 05:44 AM
we don't know what the media is withholding. perhaps there is a reason for the big judgment. perhaps they are not disclosing the reason because it makes the story more sensational--smoker gets awarded $28 billion because she didn't know smoking was bad. when are things *ever* that simple?
there is NO possible reason a single individual deserves $28 billion. $28 billion is tens of thousands of times most American's lifetime expected earnings. It's also several times the GDP of various African countries. there is no way that smoking did so much damage to her life that if she hadn't smoked, she'd be $28 billion dollars richer, or that if she hadn't smoked, she'd be so much happier and healthier that it would be worth $28 billion to her.

this jackpot is entirely out of proportion and smacks of a typical sob story and a highly biased jury. especially when the money comes from the pockets not of executives involved in deceitful activity, but the company itself, i.e. the shareholders, who on average know as much about the dangers of smoking as the general public, including the plaintiff.

[kasia]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Oct 7 2002, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by kasia@Oct 7 2002, 05:44 AM
we don't know what the media is withholding. perhaps there is a reason for the big judgment. perhaps they are not disclosing the reason because it makes the story more sensational--smoker gets awarded $28 billion because she didn't know smoking was bad. when are things *ever* that simple?
there is NO possible reason a single individual deserves $28 billion. $28 billion is tens of thousands of times most American's lifetime expected earnings. It's also several times the GDP of various African countries. there is no way that smoking did so much damage to her life that if she hadn't smoked, she'd be $28 billion dollars richer, or that if she hadn't smoked, she'd be so much happier and healthier that it would be worth $28 billion to her.

this jackpot is entirely out of proportion and smacks of a typical sob story and a highly biased jury. especially when the money comes from the pockets not of executives involved in deceitful activity, but the company itself, i.e. the shareholders, who on average know as much about the dangers of smoking as the general public, including the plaintiff.
are you, in saying that, placing a value on her life? as well as the loss that her family members will feel, and probably already feels, when she dies?

and we're talking about phillip morris here! you think that their attorneys would allow a highly biased jury??



<!--EDIT|kasia|Oct 7 2002, 07:09 AM-->

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 7 2002, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Oct 7 2002, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by kasia@Oct 7 2002, 05:44 AM
we don't know what the media is withholding. perhaps there is a reason for the big judgment. perhaps they are not disclosing the reason because it makes the story more sensational--smoker gets awarded $28 billion because she didn't know smoking was bad. when are things *ever* that simple?
there is NO possible reason a single individual deserves $28 billion. $28 billion is tens of thousands of times most American's lifetime expected earnings. It's also several times the GDP of various African countries. there is no way that smoking did so much damage to her life that if she hadn't smoked, she'd be $28 billion dollars richer, or that if she hadn't smoked, she'd be so much happier and healthier that it would be worth $28 billion to her.

this jackpot is entirely out of proportion and smacks of a typical sob story and a highly biased jury. especially when the money comes from the pockets not of executives involved in deceitful activity, but the company itself, i.e. the shareholders, who on average know as much about the dangers of smoking as the general public, including the plaintiff.
are you, in saying that, placing a value on her life? as well as the loss that her family members will feel, and probably already feels, when she dies?

and we're talking about phillip morris here! you think that their attorneys would allow a highly biased jury??
My parents were smokers. I wish they got $28 billion for me to go to school with. Why is she and her family worth $28 billion and not mine?

[kasia]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 7 2002, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by kasia@Oct 7 2002, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Oct 7 2002, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by kasia@Oct 7 2002, 05:44 AM
we don't know what the media is withholding. perhaps there is a reason for the big judgment. perhaps they are not disclosing the reason because it makes the story more sensational--smoker gets awarded $28 billion because she didn't know smoking was bad. when are things *ever* that simple?
there is NO possible reason a single individual deserves $28 billion. $28 billion is tens of thousands of times most American's lifetime expected earnings. It's also several times the GDP of various African countries. there is no way that smoking did so much damage to her life that if she hadn't smoked, she'd be $28 billion dollars richer, or that if she hadn't smoked, she'd be so much happier and healthier that it would be worth $28 billion to her.

this jackpot is entirely out of proportion and smacks of a typical sob story and a highly biased jury. especially when the money comes from the pockets not of executives involved in deceitful activity, but the company itself, i.e. the shareholders, who on average know as much about the dangers of smoking as the general public, including the plaintiff.
are you, in saying that, placing a value on her life? as well as the loss that her family members will feel, and probably already feels, when she dies?

and we're talking about phillip morris here! you think that their attorneys would allow a highly biased jury??
My parents were smokers. I wish they got $28 billion for me to go to school with. Why is she and her family worth $28 billion and not mine?
the fact that i'm arguing for the possibility that she might possibly deserve the judgment does not mean that i would dispute that your parents would not deserve a similar judgment. the possibility that she may deserve it does not run counter to the possibility that your parents might too. the fact, though, is that they haven't sued. and haven't suffered from cancer (i'm assuming.)

this is interesting though...what is your definition of 'deserving'?

[ChinaLama]

I don't think the point of a PUNITIVE damage has to do with whether the plaintiff "deserves" it; isn't that part covered by the compensatory damage?
I think the pt is the judgment is more a punishment of the tobacco company for societal wrong, rather than to give the lady what she deserves. Like if you get robbed, the state throws the crook in jail to punish him for breaking societal norms, and in fact doesn't give YOU anything that you'd deserve (since to my knowledge crooks don't have to pay back the ppl they stole from), except the assumed satisfaction of dicking the dude over.

Still, 28 bil is a pretty high punishment. Shouldn't the real question be, does a tobacco company cause so much harm that it deserves to be punished for that much $?

P.S. Kasia...i wouldn't value her life at 28 billion dollars. Anyone who realistically sits down and thinks about it probably wouldn't either, EVEN her parents. I don't think many people realistically value their lives at even 1 billion, considering the choices we make and the risks we take (like most people drive, most people live in polluted cities instead of moving to the wilderness, and most people will probably cross the street on a green light). But then again value of her life is not really the issue here, I think.



<!--EDIT|ChinaLama|Oct 7 2002, 08:06 AM-->

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 7 2002, 07:24 AM
the fact that i'm arguing for the possibility that she might possibly deserve the judgment does not mean that i would dispute that your parents would not deserve a similar judgment. the possibility that she may deserve it does not run counter to the possibility that your parents might too. the fact, though, is that they haven't sued. and haven't suffered from cancer (i'm assuming.)

this is interesting though...what is your definition of 'deserving'?
Well... do you think she deserves $28 billion? I don't think she does. Smoking was a choice she consciously made. Granted, she may not have been fully informed, but the information was out there. Nobody told her it would make her healthier to suck smoke down her throat. Nobody in their right mind would think that, I hope.
Now, do you think that she should be given money simply because she's the only one who thought that she could sue the company that sold her unhealthy products? Cigarette smoking damages health. Now just because my parents stopped smoking before they got cancer and this lady didn't doesn't mean anything to me. My parents stopped smoking because they looked at their health and realized "hey, I don't think this cigarette thing is working out in my favor." I think the simple fact that my parents realized this and took matters into their own hands to stop smoking is admirable. I'm unclear on whether or not this lady quit smoking, but to be honest, I don't really care. The fact that my parents quit and didn't try to get any money out of a wrong decision on their part is something that shows integrity. I don't care if this sounds harsh, but I have no sympathy for those who suffer from cancer as a result of cigarette smoking. They chose their own fate.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by ChinaLama@Oct 7 2002, 08:06 AM
I don't think the point of a PUNITIVE damage has to do with whether the plaintiff "deserves" it; isn't that part covered by the compensatory damage?
I think the pt is the judgment is more a punishment of the tobacco company for societal wrong, rather than to give the lady what she deserves. Like if you get robbed, the state throws the crook in jail to punish him for breaking societal norms, and in fact doesn't give YOU anything that you'd deserve (since to my knowledge crooks don't have to pay back the ppl they stole from), except the assumed satisfaction of dicking the dude over.

Still, 28 bil is a pretty high punishment. Shouldn't the real question be, does a tobacco company cause so much harm that it deserves to be punished for that much $?

P.S. Kasia...i wouldn't value her life at 28 billion dollars. Anyone who realistically sits down and thinks about it probably wouldn't either, EVEN her parents. I don't think many people realistically value their lives at even 1 billion, considering the choices we make and the risks we take (like most people drive, most people live in polluted cities instead of moving to the wilderness, and most people will probably cross the street on a green light). But then again value of her life is not really the issue here, I think.
Well, in my opinion, giving one lady $28 billion doesn't exactly seem like the tobacco industry has paid their debt to society. They've perhaps paid their debt to HER... but not society.

[ChinaLama]

i just mean the whole CONCEPT of punitive damages is to make a statement about how much the defendant deserves to be PUNISHED...and i think the concept of punishment is by definition societal.

But yeah i agree maybe the system should be changed, so that punitive damages automatically go to social welfare programs or something like that, instead of to an individual. After all, from the sound of that article, it sounds she's gonna die soon anyway so it's not like she'd get to enjoy the $ anyway. Plus i still think if they're making a statement about punishing philip morris for doing wrong, then i agree w/ angel nympho that like a lot of ppl should benefit fr it.


Alt if i were the lady, maybe i'd wish they hadn't given this HUGE judgment, cuz once they appeal and most likely get that tossed out of court, then she may not even see a penny aside from whatever they already gave her. Whereas if the jury had made a much smaller award, maybe the morris lawyers wouldn't appeal and they'd just pay it, so the lady would at least get to enjoy her money somewhat before she dies...maybe even get cured. who knows?

[kasia]

Originally posted by ChinaLama@Oct 7 2002, 08:16 AM
i just mean the whole CONCEPT of punitive damages is to make a statement about how much the defendant deserves to be PUNISHED...and i think the concept of punishment is by definition societal.

But yeah i agree maybe the system should be changed, so that punitive damages automatically go to social welfare programs or something like that, instead of to an individual. After all, from the sound of that article, it sounds she's gonna die soon anyway so it's not like she'd get to enjoy the $ anyway. Plus i still think if they're making a statement about punishing philip morris for doing wrong, then i agree w/ angel nympho that like a lot of ppl should benefit fr it.


Alt if i were the lady, maybe i'd wish they hadn't given this HUGE judgment, cuz once they appeal and most likely get that tossed out of court, then she may not even see a penny aside from whatever they already gave her. Whereas if the jury had made a much smaller award, maybe the morris lawyers wouldn't appeal and they'd just pay it, so the lady would at least get to enjoy her money somewhat before she dies...maybe even get cured. who knows?
i didn't realize that it was all punitive damages...duh...we totally went off track with this debate, in that case...

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 5 2002, 12:05 AM
http://www.latimes.com/media/thumbnails/photo/2002-10/4866069.jpg
"I didn't know!!"

A jury awarded a record-shattering $28 billion in punitive damages today to a 64-year-old former smoker who sued Philip Morris Inc. for fraud and negligence.

...
...Last month, the jury ordered the tobacco company to pay Bullock $750,000 in damages and $100,000 for pain and suffering.

like isn't there more or less a formula or something for compensatory damages already?


WELL...given this is a punitive damage and i guess doesn't have anything to do w/ whether she personally "deserved" it, what do ppl think about the award? does it change your original opinion? makes it easier to justify to me, but i still think it's over-the-line.

[Reinhard H.]

I tell you how the American legal system works: You have a good lawyer, you have a sympathetic jury and you can act well, then you win ANY trial (see O.J.), probably she was good at sobbing in the court room and putting on a big stage show while some emotionally cold guy (like myself) would probably get a kick in the ass from the lawyers of Philip Morris at such a trial.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 7 2002, 07:24 AM
the fact that i'm arguing for the possibility that she might possibly deserve the judgment does not mean that i would dispute that your parents would not deserve a similar judgment.
well in fact, it does, because we're dividing up pieces of a fixed pie here: the capital of a corporation. $28 billion dollars to her means $28 billion dollars less to be donated to cancer research, or to compensate other victims who don't earn as much sympathy from the jury (if she were Asian, think her jackpot would have reached THIRTEEN TIMES THE GDP OF BHUTAN?), or to conduct anti-drug education in the public schools.

and my definition of deserving? Earning the money through productive activity, or demonstrating tangible economic loss. We can't start putting a monetary value on "pain and suffering," and disgusting awards like this perpetuate the fiction that we can. Why should she get $28 billion whereas a guy who dies in fishing accident gets the face value of his life insurance policy - maybe a few hundred grand at best? Why should she get $28 billion when in all likelihood the team of scientists who actually finds a cure for cancer sometime in the future are maybe gonna see 1% of that amount? In what metaphysical sense does her suffering entitle her to $28 billion dollars when there are nations whose entire citizenry produces less than that amount in 10 years, and whose citizens face everyday poverty and suffering she can't even imagine?

[thaite]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 6 2002, 10:44 PM
furthermore, we're just debating with the facts given to us by the media. we don't know what the media is withholding. perhaps there is a reason for the big judgment. perhaps they are not disclosing the reason because it makes the story more sensational...
:pissed:

Umm, yeah. I got a clue for ya. Reporters aren't allowed to talk to jurors during the course of a trial. Jurors debate in seclusion. And jurors aren't compelled to talk to reporters after the trial is over. I seriously doubt that "the media" is intentionally withholding information and don't see how that could make it more dramatic or sensational.

[angel nympho]

With that much money, she could buy herself a new fucking lung.

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 7 2002, 06:13 PM
With that much money, she could buy herself a new fucking lung.
She's gonna make some transplant surgeon very rich.

[kasia]

Originally posted by buoywonder@Oct 7 2002, 07:39 PM
I seriously doubt that "the media" is intentionally withholding information and don't see how that could make it more dramatic or sensational.
i do. it's certainly drawn more attention the case in here.

[thaite]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 8 2002, 01:53 AM
Originally posted by buoywonder@Oct 7 2002, 07:39 PM
I seriously doubt that "the media" is intentionally withholding information and don't see how that could make it more dramatic or sensational.
i do. it's certainly drawn more attention the case in here.
I don't see how. I mean, do you see any public calls to the media to release further information? I don't.

[kasia]

Originally posted by buoywonder@Oct 8 2002, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by kasia@Oct 8 2002, 01:53 AM
Originally posted by buoywonder@Oct 7 2002, 07:39 PM
I seriously doubt that "the media" is intentionally withholding information and don't see how that could make it more dramatic or sensational.
i do. it's certainly drawn more attention the case in here.
I don't see how. I mean, do you see any public calls to the media to release further information? I don't.
how? well, if you leave out certain facts, it makes the judgment that much more absurd and therefore sensationalizes the story. kinda like what they did with the latasha harlins case. "korean woman kills black girl over bottle of orange juice." simplify = sensationalize.

i'm not sure what you mean by public calls to the media. is that what usually happens when information is lacking? and how is the public supposed to know when information is lacking?