Last Friday a California jury awarded life-long smoker, and more recently cancer victim, Betty Bullock a record $28 billion in punitive damages to be paid by tobacco giant Philip Morris. Yes, I said billion.
The suit marks new heights of absurdity in the quest to punish tobacco companies for their history of misinformation and questionable marketing strategies. This latest award'made to a single woman'amounts to more than a third of the company's yearly revenue, and makes the award granted to the states of the class-action suit that started it all look stingy. When the news was released on Friday, Philip Morris stocks sank and took other tobacco companies along with them.
Undoubtedly tobacco companies deserve whatever they get. While the American Cancer Society started warning about the links between smoking and cancer as far back as 1944, in the '50s tobacco companies waged massive advertising campaigns portraying smoking as a healthy, risk-free behavior. In fact, even as study after study was published throughout the '50s detailing the potential health risks of smoking, the American tobacco industry responded with the introduction of the ubiquitous Marlboro Man and other icons of youth and health to their marketing strategies. By the time Congress finally passed the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act in 1965'the law requiring the presence of Surgeon General's warnings on cigarette packaging'millions were already addicted to a habit the tobacco industry had convinced them was harmless even while it knew otherwise. TV and radio advertising was pulled not long after, followed by the introduction of surgeon general's warnings on billboards and print media the industry uses for advertising. But, as attested to by the constant litigation against tobacco companies, much of the damage had already been done.
The California jury that awarded Bullock such an incredible amount did so to make a point, and they succeeded. The gross disregard for people's health and right to know the effects of smoking that tobacco companies have repeatedly demonstrated is despicable, totally unacceptable. While the $28 billion amount will surely be lowered to a number that is relatively more reasonable, the initial award of such a shocking amount allowed the jury to express their disgust with the tactics of the industry with remarkable effectiveness. The award was meant to send the message that tobacco companies must pay for their past.
But the real question is not whether or not tobacco companies need to pay for their actions, the question is who they need to pay, how much, and for how long.
Do individual smokers deserve large awards when they have ignored repeated attempts to draw attention to the risks of smoking? Her doctors warned Bullock over a period of four decades and she failed to heed their advice. Philip Morris built its case around the (probably accurate) assertion that if Ms. Bullock had quit smoking in the '80s when it was abundantly clear that smoking caused cancer, she would not have cancer today. By that time the ever-present Surgeon General's warnings and various federal legislation on smoking were hard to miss, most of all by smokers that saw warnings on every cigarette pack and every cigarette advertisement.
At some point the responsibility of smoking needs to lie on the person that chooses to smoke, and to continue to smoke despite the ever-growing list of options to aid quitting. It has been clear for decades that smoking is harmful not only to the smoker's health, but to the health of those around smokers, and to believe otherwise is flat-out delusional. The burden of more than half a century's evidence leans against the safety of cigarettes, and those that choose to ignore its warning have little excuse.
The most infuriating aspect the punitive damages awarded to Bullock is that it is awarding the same irresponsibility that states have to pay for every day when smokers' health problems outpace their financial resources. State Medicaid funding is eaten up not only by smoking-related cancer, but by other chronic health problems experienced by smokers, like emphysema. Smokers are a significant strain on state health spending, costing states billions over the years. Texas, for example, spent more than $4.5 billion in 1998 on smoking-attributable health expenditures according to the CDC. This has been the primary grounds for numerous state lawsuits against tobacco companies.
The state Medicaid lawsuits are perhaps the best way to put last Friday's award into perspective. In 1998 the state of Texas settled its lawsuit against tobacco companies out of court for a record $15 billion. And last week, for the grand distinction of not taking her doctor's advice, Ms. Betty Bullock was awarded nearly twice the amount received by the entire state of Texas.
