4 ms·

Smokers were already and for a long time aware of the risks. They choose to take them. What could they possibly claim? That a product known for causing lung can

Smokers were already and for a long time aware of the risks. They choose to take them. What could they possibly claim? That a product known for causing lung cancer caused lung cancer?

Gatsky 10y ago
That's a good point, I am not a lawyer so I can't really comment. But perhaps there is a material difference between saying you developed a disease that could have been caused by smoking (as lung cancer occurs in non-smokers), and saying you were definitely harmed by smoking. Other avenues could be: - Smoking is also associated with other cancers, such as esophageal cancer and bladder cancer. Generally the warnings don't mention this however. By examining the mutation patterns in an esophageal cancer, you could relate it more conclusively to smoking, and could therefore claim you were not warned about that specific risk. - Tissue samples from lung cancers diagnosed 20 or 30 years ago are sitting in archival storage. You could sequence the whole genome or exome of these tumours for about $1000 - $2000. Statute of limitations aside, sequencing these tumours could reveal the tobacco signature as a basis for a claim from a time when it was less clear or less public what the risks were. - Passive smokers could have a case if their cancer shows a tobacco signature.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- umanwizard 10y ago
  Lung cancer is caused by smoking 85-90% of the time. Probably more if you add in secondhand smoke. I think it already meets any sort of "preponderance of evidence" sort of bar to just assume anyone with lung cancer got it from smoking.
  - ghurtado 10y ago
    Citation / reference needed.
    - umanwizard 10y ago
      I googled it and the same stat on a couple different reputable sites, like that of the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society.
  - wallyhs 10y ago
    Suppose that I live in an apartment with a wood stove, second-hand smoke from a room mate, and radon. If I get lung cancer, which one is to blame? How do you know?
- gozur88 10y ago
  I don't see how you can prove particular mutations are tobacco related. DNA can be damaged by viruses, solar radiation, various industrial chemicals, and naturally occurring replication errors. How would you prove this particular mutation was the result of smoking? I don't see how this research changes anything from a legal perspective. We already knew smoking causes genetic mutations, but we also know people who've never been exposed to tobacco can develop lung cancer.
  - Gatsky 10y ago
    The aim is to prove that the pattern of mutations in the tumour (which typically contains several hundred mutations in coding regions, more in the whole genome) are caused by smoking.
andy_ppp 10y ago
I think that in all other areas it's been on the manufacturer of products to make them safer over time (cars, children's toys, cosmetics etc.) so shouldn't the tobacco companies be trying to make their product safer?
- TelmoMenezes 10y ago
  Not all other areas. Some products are inherently unsafe, and that is precisely what the costumers want. Alcoholic beverages are unsafe, even lethal if you drink too much. They could be made safer by removing the alcohol, but that is not what most people want. The same applies to fast food and sugary drinks: could be made much safer, but people want a certain flavor at a certain price (and most know it's not healthy). Inhaling the smoke of burning tobacco leaves can cause cancer. I am fairly certain nobody has as strong of an incentive to create cancer-free tobacco as tobacco companies do. That does not mean it is possible, right?
  - addicted 10y ago
    Alcoholic beverages are not unsafe if consumed in the recommended amounts (which are fairly reasonable. 2 drinks on average, with a 3 drink max). What's the safe, reasonable, recommended smoking amount?
    - new_hackers 10y ago
      I would recommend puff, puff, pass. Otherwise you risk the chance of a bogart.
    - TelmoMenezes 10y ago
      Zero (cigarettes are highly addictive). My point is that reality limits how much safer you could make a product. Would it be nice for cigarette or alcoholic beverages to be safer? Yes. Is it possible? Apparently not. Either tobacco becomes a controlled substance (I am deeply opposed to this given the catastrophic social consequences of prohibition in general), or adults behave like adults, understand the risks, decide for themselves and accept the consequences. Maybe it's because I'm European, but anything else sounds like insanity to me. By the way, I am not being judgemental in any way. I am an ex-smoker and I drink socially. If people want to smoke (without polluting the environment of others who don't) it's their right, and I completely understand. I used to love it too.
ghurtado 10y ago
They could easily claim that a product which would otherwise would not have these risks was made into a risky product by the use of certain carcinogens present in the pesticides. The choice of pesticide is made by the tobacco company, so it is their actions that introduce the carcinogen into the product. Seems pretty standard to me, and I would have to guess that this is the kind of lawsuit that you would probably support if the product in question was, say, red meat instead of tobacco.

Smokers were already and for a long time aware of the risks. They choose to take them. What could they possibly claim? That a product known for causing lung cancer caused lung cancer?

Gatsky 10y ago

That's a good point, I am not a lawyer so I can't really comment. But perhaps there is a material difference between saying you developed a disease that could have been caused by smoking (as lung cancer occurs in non-smokers), and saying you were definitely harmed by smoking. Other avenues could be: - Smoking is also associated with other cancers, such as esophageal cancer and bladder cancer. Generally the warnings don't mention this however. By examining the mutation patterns in an esophageal cancer, you could relate it more conclusively to smoking, and could therefore claim you were not warned about that specific risk. - Tissue samples from lung cancers diagnosed 20 or 30 years ago are sitting in archival storage. You could sequence the whole genome or exome of these tumours for about $1000 - $2000. Statute of limitations aside, sequencing these tumours could reveal the tobacco signature as a basis for a claim from a time when it was less clear or less public what the risks were. - Passive smokers could have a case if their cancer shows a tobacco signature.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
umanwizard 10y ago
Lung cancer is caused by smoking 85-90% of the time. Probably more if you add in secondhand smoke. I think it already meets any sort of "preponderance of evidence" sort of bar to just assume anyone with lung cancer got it from smoking.
- ghurtado 10y ago
  Citation / reference needed.
  - umanwizard 10y ago
    I googled it and the same stat on a couple different reputable sites, like that of the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society.
- wallyhs 10y ago
  Suppose that I live in an apartment with a wood stove, second-hand smoke from a room mate, and radon. If I get lung cancer, which one is to blame? How do you know?
gozur88 10y ago
I don't see how you can prove particular mutations are tobacco related. DNA can be damaged by viruses, solar radiation, various industrial chemicals, and naturally occurring replication errors. How would you prove this particular mutation was the result of smoking? I don't see how this research changes anything from a legal perspective. We already knew smoking causes genetic mutations, but we also know people who've never been exposed to tobacco can develop lung cancer.
- Gatsky 10y ago
  The aim is to prove that the pattern of mutations in the tumour (which typically contains several hundred mutations in coding regions, more in the whole genome) are caused by smoking.

andy_ppp 10y ago

I think that in all other areas it's been on the manufacturer of products to make them safer over time (cars, children's toys, cosmetics etc.) so shouldn't the tobacco companies be trying to make their product safer?

TelmoMenezes 10y ago
Not all other areas. Some products are inherently unsafe, and that is precisely what the costumers want. Alcoholic beverages are unsafe, even lethal if you drink too much. They could be made safer by removing the alcohol, but that is not what most people want. The same applies to fast food and sugary drinks: could be made much safer, but people want a certain flavor at a certain price (and most know it's not healthy). Inhaling the smoke of burning tobacco leaves can cause cancer. I am fairly certain nobody has as strong of an incentive to create cancer-free tobacco as tobacco companies do. That does not mean it is possible, right?
- addicted 10y ago
  Alcoholic beverages are not unsafe if consumed in the recommended amounts (which are fairly reasonable. 2 drinks on average, with a 3 drink max). What's the safe, reasonable, recommended smoking amount?
  - new_hackers 10y ago
    I would recommend puff, puff, pass. Otherwise you risk the chance of a bogart.
  - TelmoMenezes 10y ago
    Zero (cigarettes are highly addictive). My point is that reality limits how much safer you could make a product. Would it be nice for cigarette or alcoholic beverages to be safer? Yes. Is it possible? Apparently not. Either tobacco becomes a controlled substance (I am deeply opposed to this given the catastrophic social consequences of prohibition in general), or adults behave like adults, understand the risks, decide for themselves and accept the consequences. Maybe it's because I'm European, but anything else sounds like insanity to me. By the way, I am not being judgemental in any way. I am an ex-smoker and I drink socially. If people want to smoke (without polluting the environment of others who don't) it's their right, and I completely understand. I used to love it too.

ghurtado 10y ago

They could easily claim that a product which would otherwise would not have these risks was made into a risky product by the use of certain carcinogens present in the pesticides. The choice of pesticide is made by the tobacco company, so it is their actions that introduce the carcinogen into the product. Seems pretty standard to me, and I would have to guess that this is the kind of lawsuit that you would probably support if the product in question was, say, red meat instead of tobacco.