Congressman introduces bill to DECRIMINALIZE Marijuana

LaterDays

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Isn't the only reason lawsuits didn't run Phillip-Morris out of business is because they made settlement deals with governments in exchange for those government's passing laws so that individual's couldn't sue? . . .
But I think the only reason that alcohol and guns are protected is because they are established industries with legal precedent.

I think there is a general misunderstanding here of how the law (and legal precedents) works.

First, no... lawsuits didn't run PM out of business. They won or settled their cases, and most of those cases had to do with misleading advertisements, denying the research showing a causal connection b/t smoking and lung cancer, and failing to warn. PM doesn't get sued anymore b/c its established law that they're going to win. There are adequate warnings now on the label saying, "Smoking causes cancer." The legal term is "Assumption of Risk." If marijuana becomes legal and research clearly indicates a correlation b/t smoking pot and getting lung cancer, then as long as the MJ manufacturers warn consumers of the risk, they'll win in court. All they'll have to do is show up and say, "No shit it gave you cancer - read the fuckin' box, we told you it would."

Alcohol and guns are protected for the same reason, but not because of individually fought cases involving alcohol and guns. Products Liability Law, an offshoot of general Tort or civil law, is considered a cohesive body of precedent (meaning, essentially, that what the courts said to the tobacco industry regarding cigs is binding on what they'll say to the gun or alcohol industry regarding their respective products). And, very basically, it can be summed up as this --- as a manufacturer of a product, you have a duty to consumers. What this means is basically that you cannot deceive consumers into believing something you know isn't true, and you cannot act negligently with respect to their safety. If you provide open, honest, and adequate warning to consumers, however, you can effectively dodge the consequences that may accompany normal use (using it as it was intended to be used) of your product.

If you think about it for a second, it makes sense. Take swimming pools for instance. If the swimming pool companies could get sued for millions and millions of dollars each and every time someone drowns in one of their pools, there won't be any swimming pool companies left in a few years. Substitute practically any other product in its place, and the rule still applies. Scissor companies would get sued anytime someone ran w/ scissors and poked their eye out. Same w/ car accidents. It has nothing to do with lobbying, nothing to do with negotiating with the government. It has to do with public policy and the simple recognition that if people are allowed to sue for anything and everything, including their own misuse of products or their suffering harm that they adequately were warned about, then the entire economy would collapse.

You can sue if there is a breach of duty of care or a breach of duty to warn. Both require you to prove the manufacturer or seller acted either negligently or recklessly. If there is a warning on the product that is easily identifiable, easily seen, and easily understood to specifically caution users about the possible consequences of use, then the manufacturer will probably win.

Seriously, check out your swimming pool or trampoline. That sticker on there isn't there because the maker gives two shits if you break your neck or drown... it's there because they don't want to be held liable when you do.

LaterDays

Oh yeah... I saw this today:

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/apr/20/cus-420-pot-smoke-out-draws-10000/

10,000 potsmokers turned out for 4/20 at the Univ. of Colorado.

Kel Varnsen

LaterDays wrote:

I think there is a general misunderstanding here of how the law (and legal precedents) works.

First, no... lawsuits didn't run PM out of business. They won or settled their cases, and most of those cases had to do with misleading advertisements, denying the research showing a causal connection b/t smoking and lung cancer, and failing to warn. PM doesn't get sued anymore b/c its established law that they're going to win. There are adequate warnings now on the label saying, "Smoking causes cancer." The legal term is "Assumption of Risk." If marijuana becomes legal and research clearly indicates a correlation b/t smoking pot and getting lung cancer, then as long as the MJ manufacturers warn consumers of the risk, they'll win in court. All they'll have to do is show up and say, "No shit it gave you cancer - read the fuckin' box, we told you it would."

But the reason no one can sue the tobacco companies any more is that they reached a settlement with the governments of a bunch of states, paid over bunch of money and in exchange were granted exemption from tort liability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement

mca47

I think it's a great bill, but I'm almost certain the dems will drop the ball on it.
It's also voting season and I don't know TOO many politicians that will come out and support this.

LaterDays

Kel Varnsen wrote:

But the reason no one can sue the tobacco companies any more is that they reached a settlement with the governments of a bunch of states, paid over bunch of money and in exchange were granted exemption from tort liability.

This was a lawsuit filed by individual States, it has absolutely no bearing on an individual's cause of action under federal or state tort law. The states party to this settlement can't sue the tobacco companies for the same injuries, but individuals in those states can.

They just won't win. But that has nothing at all to do with MSA.

smokeabud

just move up to Alaska

Urban Hiker

http://politicalactionwater.com/

he still stands

I sent the letter and passed it along to all my friends!!!