Hey, there! Log in / Register
Man with lung cancer sues cigarette company; says free giveaways in Roxbury got him hooked for life
By adamg on Tue, 02/14/2012 - 7:36am
Sebastian Moore, who grew up in Roxbury, wants the makers of Newport cigarettes to pay him for his pain and suffering and for what he says are violations of state and federal consumer-protection laws.
In a lawsuit filed yesterday in US District Court, Moore said Lorillard targeted young blacks like him in the 1970s and 1980s with free cigarettes and advertising that got him hooked for life:
Starting in or about 1979, and continuing for several years thereafter, Sebastian Moore attended Newport cigarette giveaway events conducted by or on behalf of Lorillard in a variety of locations in the Boston area, including Washington Park, Dudley Square, Warren Street, Marcella Park and downtown Boston. Sebastian Moore was a teenager when Lorillard's representatives and/or agents handed him free samples of Newport cigarettes. At no time during these giveaway events, did any Lorillard representative and/or agent refuse to give Sebastian Moore Newport cigaretts because of his age.
Mr. Moore began smoking Newport cigarettes that he received in Newport cigarett giveaway events when he was a young teenager. He started smoking Newport cigarettes, in part, because he had access to them at no cost ona frequent basis through the Newport cigarette giveaway events conducted by Lorillard, in part, because the menthol in the cigarettes made them easier to smoke; and in part, because of the widespread advertising for Newport cigarettes.
In his complaint, Moore, who now lives in Rhode Island, says he tried and failed repeatedly over the years to kick his addiction and that he now has terminal adenocarcinoma of the lung.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Moore's complaint | 0 bytes |
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Oh, Please
I'm a smoker. Have been for forty years. Whatever has happened to me, or does happen to me because of it, is my own damn fault.
If the people handing him cigarettes held a gun to his head, or perhaps told him that if he didn't smoke they would go to his home and kill his mother, then he would have a case. Otherwise, no.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Read the Complaint
The tobacco companies were illegally distributing free samples to people who were not legally old enough to smoke.
That's the crux of the lawsuit right there.
Do you think they should be allowed to profit immensely from that illegal distribution and walk away from it with no consequences (other than immense profits)?
If the activity they engaged in was illegal
40 years ago, then they should have been prosecuted and tried for those illegal activities 40 years ago.
Unless I'm mistaken, there's still a principle in law that's called a "statute of limitations". While certian crimes are exempt, I don't think giving away ciggs to minors is one of them.
Corporate Personhood
Does not extend to crimnial prosecution.
The only way to get a corporation to pay for such activities is to file lawsuits.
Sorry - that is the way it is. You have to file a civil suit to punish a corporation for criminal wrongdoing.
Persons who had authority and might, in theory, be prosecuted are likely dead by now anyway.
I Did Read The Complaint, Thanks
The crux of the complaint is stated in the first section; that Lorillard "caused" Moore to smoke. I still maintain it was the plaintiff's choice to accept them, light them up, and continue smoking until such time as he became hooked (which takes more than one or two cigarettes, you know. I'd estimate it was at least a year, possibly two or three, before I became so addicted that it became a very unpleasant chore to go without a smoke for any appreciable length of time.)
And it isn't as though he was living in the dark ages concerning the dangers of cigarettes. I started smoking in 1971, at age 14, and it was well known, even then, that the things were bad for you and caused cancer and emphysema and all sorts of other hideous things. Willful ignorance on my part is not cause for a lawsuit, and neither is it on his part, IMO.
(Also, just out of curiosity, do you know when the law went into effect concerning distribution of cigarettes, sold or given away, to minors? The earliest statute I can find is Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 270, 6, which is dated 1985 [although there is a law concerning minors using vending machines for purchase of cigarettes, dating from 1976 - Chapter 64, 10 - so I'd assume some form of more widespread prohibition based on age was in effect by that time? Or not?)
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Months
Since we're trading annecdotes, I went from having never smoked in the fall of my junior year in high school to desperately trying to quit in the spring of that same year. Maybe six months. Twenty-nine years later I actually succeeded in quitting.
LSMFT?
I don't know how many others here get that, but I do. Thanks for the laugh. First one available in this horribly tragic thread.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Oh, God
What's next? Telling us that Winston tastes good like a cigarette should?
I was almost grown ...
... when I finally learned that the real acronym was "Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco".
Tired fingers, indeed.
Oh, please...
First: We are speaking about children, here, not adults.
Second: It is now undisputed that companies such as Lorillard targeted inter city black youth in urban housing projects. Free smokes to kids? Come on, Suldog. This is so wrong on so many levels!
Third: To dispute your allegation that he does not have a good case, methinks he has a very good case: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/14/lorillard...
Children
We are not talking about a five or six year old. We are talking about a teenager. I was 14 (1971) when I started smoking, earlier than and possibly younger than Moore, and I knew damn well even then it was stupid. Just because something is wrong for a company to have done, it does not absolve blame from somebody choosing to ignore the danger of an activity. Unless Moore is arguing that he was mentally deficient, unable to make a rational decision, and Lorillard told him that smokes were actually good for him, I don't see it. Sorry. It sucks for anyone to have a deadly disease, but personal responsibility has to be taken for some things.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Suldog - being a smoker does
Suldog - being a smoker does not make you an authority on anything. Did you grow up in the housing projects? Did you grow up watching your parents smoke, and at age 13 got handed free cigarettes and thought hmmmm no thanks, I might get lung cancer when I'm 60 (13 year old often have great foresight and don't seek instant gratification. This is a rare case).
You are essentially defending the cigarette company. I understand that litigant people are usually lazy and opportunistic, and while that may (or may not) be the case here you're defending cigarette companies. Think about that for a second
Some Answers
No, I grew up in Dorchester Lower Mills, next door to Mattapan. At the time, it was a mix of lower income and middle class folks, with my folks falling in the middle class category. However, my grandparents lived in the Beech Street projects, and more than a few of my cousins, aunts, and uncles lived in other prjects, so I'm not totally devoid of cred concerning knowing the conditions, if that's what you're asking. The point is...?
Yes, to the part about relatives smoking. Almost everybody in my family smoked. It was the rare family member who didn't. And, as a matter of fact, yeah, I often got handed free cigs. They didn't only hand them out to black folks, you know. Did I have the information necessary to make a rational decision? Yeah. Was I smart enough to have possibly done so? Yeah. Did I make the rational decision? NO. Still doesn't mean anyone but myself is to blame.
You miss the point, though. I am not trying to defend the cigarette companies, nor am I arguing that what they engaged in, vis-a-vis marketing, wasn't scummy. All I'm saying is that every smoker from a certain time period onward, if equipped with reasonable intelligence, regardless of age, had the opportunity to set their own course for the future insofar as deciding to smoke or not, and if a person chose to smoke, they generally deserve no compensation for making such a foolish decision.
(There are other issues where I might be on your side. If we wish to argue on some other point, such as cigarettes containing addictive substances other than those generally known when Moore or myself started smoking, then we're on ground where you might have a point. If we're talking about "causing" someone to smoke, as Moore is arguing in his suit, no.)
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Are you having a off day?
I usually like what you say but when you say stuff like this, it causes me pause.
"All I'm saying is that every smoker from a certain time period onward, if equipped with reasonable intelligence, regardless of age, had the opportunity to set their own course for the future insofar as deciding to smoke or not, and if a person chose to smoke, they generally deserve no compensation for making such a foolish decision."
Regardless of age? So a nine year old girl (Evans case) should have the "reasonable intelligence" to set her "own course for the future?" Really? I mean, really?
You should read this:
http://newsone.com/nation/newsonestaff2/cigarette-...
"On the tape, Evans said the giveaways had a “large impact” on her.
“Because they were available … I didn’t worry about finding money to buy them. They seemed to be always available,” she said.
Evans said she made about 50 attempts to quit, but always went back to smoking.
“I was addicted. … I just couldn’t stop,” she said."
So explain to the rest of us how a nine year old child could of acted less foolish and how she should of known better as to not smoke, never mind becoming addicted?
Whyaduck
First, thanks for the compliment. Much appreciated, and the same to you. Always nice to have some civility within a discussion.
I stated, further down in this thread, in answer to another comment, that I did not have as vehement a disagreement concerning the Evans case. There were major differences, to my mind, between that suit and Moore's.
Evans was younger, as you point out. Giving cigarettes to a nine-year-old is utterly indefensible. The general opinion here seems to be that the same can be said for giving them to a 14-year-old. I disagree, but I base that disagreement on my own personal experience. I feel I knew what I was doing then.
(That I have to base my argument upon my having made a conscious stupid decision does not please my ego, but it's the truth. To further bolster my argument by claiming that I may have been a smarter 14-year-old than many other 14-year-olds, but still made the wrong choice, seems not only brazenly egotistical, but contradictory. So be it.)
I still feel culpability was mine, and the same applies to Moore (barring a claim of mental deficiency by him.) We disagree, and I don't see any resolution. If you and others find me callous, ignorant, misguided, or whatever gentler adjectives might go along with you thinking me wrong on this, so be it. No hard feelings.
Anyway, my main point in arguing Moore does not have the same case as Evans is that the two people came to their addictions some twenty or more years apart. As with myself, Moore had much more availability of knowledge than Evans did. Not only was there the age difference, but it was widespread common knowledge by the time I started smoking, and when Moore started, that cigarettes were the cause of numerous hideous diseases. And, as I said before, willful ignorance on the part of one party is no reason for another party (Lorillard) to have to compensate the first party, no matter how scummy the second party might be. That's just my opinion, which I suppose I've had adequate opportunity to express, and, again, I don't think further discussion will likely change either of our opinions.
I do appreciate the intellectual workout, though. That I seem to have not convinced anyone, nor been convinced by anyone, doesn't make it lesser.
(Sorry. Lots of the preceding sounds overblown and pompous, but I haven't had my first smoke of the day yet. I'll be my usual dumbass self soon enough.)
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Yeah, 14 year olds know everything
That's why we send them off on their own without a care in the world that they won't screw up in life by that age.
Come on, Suldog. A lot of what you're saying is with years of hindsight clouding your recollection of what it was like to be 14. 14 year olds do things because they're "cool" not because they're "good for you". They aren't smart enough to drink responsibly. We can't trust them to drive on the roads yet. And on top of it all, they *think* they know everything. It's just that exactly wrong age of innocence meets incompetence.
The company didn't have to tell them they were good for him. They just had to tell him "here, these are for you" and ignore the fact that they would hook him for life. See, what's worse than it being known 40 years ago that cigarettes caused lung damage is that 40 years ago, the industry was figuring out that it also caused addiction...and that they would do anything they could to enhance that aspect while burying the reports on it.
Furthermore, it's now known that kids (age 12-14) can get addicted to nicotine faster than previously thought...within as little as 2 days time! So, you hand a 14-year old kid, who isn't thinking about his health, a free pack or two of cigarettes that he won't mentally be able to live without within about a week, all while knowing that he'll end up being a customer for life and not telling anyone you're working to create addictions to your product...
...and some how that's the kid's fault?
Three questions.
1) How may kids exposed to the free ciggs had parents that smoked to begin with?
2) How many kids who weren't given the free ciggs became lifelong smokers anyway?
3) How many of the kids who were given the free ciggs gave up the habit after awhile and didn't become lifelong smokers?
If the answer to any or all of these questions is either "none" or "next to none", then the plaintiff might have a case.
2 of the 3 are immaterial
#1 is immaterial. While parents smoking in the house makes smoking seem acceptable and does secondhand smoking damage, it's not relevant to whether this kid was handed cigarettes under the assumption that he had a high probability of becoming an addict to something that would likely kill him. That is the reckless act. It doesn't matter if he "woulda started smoking anyways because his parents did" because that's unprovable. What if he hated his parents (so didn't see them as role models for smoking either)? It's total supposition.
So is #2. It's immaterial to say why other kids started smoking. It doesn't speak to why he started smoking, which is clearly defined as a result of being handed free, addictive cigarettes at a young age when addiction can take hold easier even. In fact, you could even say that because he started smoking as a result of the company's actions, other kids started smoking as a result of seeing him smoking and wanting to emulate him. Marketing would have shown that getting even one kid to start was actually a way to get multiple kids in the same cliques to start.
#3 is relevant though. If every other kid handed free cigarettes never started smoking after that, then his claim is weakened...however, that's simply not going to be the case. Read my link in this topic on kids becoming addicted after only 2 days of smoking. Some 60% of the kids studied showed signs of addiction very quickly. I don't think you'll find #3 to be supportive of the idea that the plaintiff has no case...you'll find it to be the other way around.
Kaz, Please See My Response Above, And...
I'm not saying that 14-year-olds will always make good decisions. I obviously didn't, and that's why I smoke. Plenty of my peers made the decision not to smoke, or gave it up after a while. It happens through all demographics - some folks make smart choices and some folks don't. They are choices, nevertheless.
As to your other points, I think I go into those above. If not, my apologies for giving you short shrift. I do occasionally have to do some actual work :-)
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Wow, again.
You should really read this:
Especially the part entitled: Choice and Addiction
http://davismalm.com/UploadedDocuments/News/Weisma...
And to even use "personal responsibility" in speaking about the thought processes and related actions of a child or youth is foolish, in my humble opinion.
I'm confused
Can anyone really make the argument that a 14yo is 100% responsible for their decisions, while a corporation who lied and illegally gave a highly addictive/potentially deadly substance to a child is free to make bank. Would anyone make the same argument for people pushing crack or heroin in the street?
!4 and stupid?
That's exactly why they targeted kids back then, (and some would argue they still do, in other ways.) You're 14, you "know" it's stupid to start, but the depth of a 14 year old's "knowing" isn't there, like it would be for an adult. Your "knowing" is easily overridden by dozens of factors, from peer pressure, to the desire to seem older, etc.
Try handing a pack of cigarettes to a 30 year old non-smoker, to see if they'd like to "try" them, and it's easy to see the difference. The 30 year old non-smoker "knows" in a way no 14 year old can that it's a stupid thing to start, and they'll probably either laugh at you or be hostile. You won't get those reactions from many 14 year old's.
For the record, it wasn't just young African American inner city youth they targeted, they targeted ALL inner city youth. I can remember them coming down to our local ball park during our local day camp in the park and passing 'em out. We were way younger than 14.
It wasn't just inner city youth
I remember cute girls handing out cigarette samples in front of Faneuil Hall.
This case has already been won
In Evans v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., No. 2004-2840-A (Mass., Suffolk Co. Super. Dec. 16, 2010), a jury found Lorillard liable on almost the same allegations and awarded the estate of the smoker $152 million.
Differences That Are Crucial, IMHO
"Evans" concerned a smoker from a previous generation. The dangers of smoking were not as well proven generally, and knowledge concerning same was not as widely disseminated. While I've argued against Moore here, I would not argue as vociferously concerning Evans.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Suldog, from the same
Suldog, from the same neighborhood as you. I'm 43. Started smoking at 9 years old - actually used to purchase them myself - I think they cost about 65 cents back then and my friends and I would pool our money and buy them from the machines (which were everywhere) or directly from the store and then smoke them under Ashmont station. Cigarette companies knew smokes were addictive and the companies constantly needed a new supply of addicts to sell their product too. They still do which is why they are now targeting kids in south america and asia where laws aren't as stringent & attitudes about smoking haven't changed yet (plus they tend to be under educated & poor). Let's not forget the youtube video of the asian toddler who was smoking a pack a day. Wondering if you think it's the baby's fault for being addicted, or if you think that at 9 years old my friends and I should have known better.
Kids in poor neighborhoods were definitely targeted by cigarette companies as future profits...
Where To Draw The Line?
Please see my response to Whyaduck above. Rather than repeat much of that, I'll try to make this more succinct.
As a society, we have certain lines drawn at certain ages. We trust people to drive at 15 or 16, more or less. We trust people to vote at 18. We trust people to drink booze at 21. We send some folks overseas to blow off the heads of other folks at age 17. We trust people to get married at anywhere from 14 to 18, depending upon the state.
Does this mean that all people who reach those ages are capable of rational thought concerning those actions and decisions? Certainly not. I'm sure nobody here believes that every 16-year-old, for instance, has attained the maturity and responsibility to handle two tons of metal traveling at 70 miles per hour.
What I've been postulating here is that sometimes the reverse is true. Sometimes, those beneath the legal age are just as capable of the major decisions, and actions taken, of those above the ages we arbitrarily use as cutoffs.
In my case, as a 14-year-old, I was aware of the dangers of smoking. I did not make the right choice. I smoked anyway. However, just because some unfeeling and money-grubbing company may have handed me some cigarettes, that does not make me less culpable. I was the one who made the stupid decision to light up the smokes and to continue lighting them up for weeks, months, and years afterward. As much as it might be pleasant to see the tobacco-dealing jerks made to pay off millions of dollars, as poetic justice, it is not my right to collect that money simply because I was too reckless to have NOT lit up.
I'm sorry, but that's the way I feel about it. I've given a number of outs to those of you arguing the other side - possible mental deficiency on Moore's part, Evans' lack of knowledge and younger age at the start of her habit; the possibility of additional additives to tobacco as being a hidden cause for addiction, and thus a different liability - but on the subject of individual responsibility and individual culpability, I'm on one side and most, it seems, are on another. So be it. I have no stake in the case. I was just stating an opinion, and I've stated about as much of it as I, or you, can probably stand :-)
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
My aunt handed me a cigarette
My aunt handed me a cigarette at age 14 on the day of my father's funeral. Should I sue her?
That depends
Did your aunt work for a tobacco company that would knowingly seek to profit from your early demise without fully informing you of its own knowledge that the cigarette she handed you was both addictive and deadly?
Depending on how long ago this was, you might still be able to get her with endangering a minor or negligence for her irresponsible behavior.