Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 7,558
Registered: ‎03-17-2010


@millieshops wrote:

I'm definitelyu anti=tobacco -  lost my father when he was 61 (before there were surgeon's warnings on tobacco), my older brother at 62+10 days (he "should have known better"), and my significant other at 69.


One thought though -  should the individual be the only responsible party?  If those running the company making profits from selling damaging, addictive products to teens whose brains are not fully developed know what they are doing, why are we expecting a 15 year old not be partake and become addicted? 


I'd spread the blame around  -  not many of the thousands of teens I knew in my years in secondary classrooms made great life-decisions on a regular basis.  Even parents of "good kids" hold their breathe for many years!

My Dad was so full of information and was so funny.... I was upset (as a young teenager) and was thumping around asking why I couldn't do this or that and he replied that a human's age of reason theoretically starts at about 7 years of age ..... but doesn't become fully developed until theoretically around 25 years of age.  What he and my Mom were trying to do was to help me stay alive until I turned 25 and they were reasonably comfortable that I could make decent adult decisions... LOL....


I guess it worked.... rofl....     

*~"Never eat more than you can lift......" Miss Piggy~*
Respected Contributor
Posts: 4,020
Registered: ‎03-12-2010


I don't think Tony Gwynn would have approved of his family's lawsuit. 

_____ ,,,^ ._. ^,,,_____
Trusted Contributor
Posts: 1,283
Registered: ‎04-28-2011


[ Edited ]

@Tinkrbl44, I don't know if this lawsuit is 'Frivolous' or not.  However, it is drawing the attention, once again, to the dangers of tobacco products and questioning at what level are these companies responsible for their deadly products.  Also, something to consider, where do our government leaders, health officials etc. come into the picture?   


Tony started dipping when he was a 17 yo athlete in college 1977.  Skoal rep. approached him and provided for free, the smokeless tobacco product for years - who knows if the product they provided him might have been 'doctored' to be more addictive (?).  At that time there were NO warnings printed on any tobacco product.  Tony Gwynn Sr. didn't drink or smoke and may not have known the dangers of chewing tobacco, baseball players have been using chewing tobacco for a long time. It had been stated or implied, that the tobacco company did not disclose any information to him as to its dangers.

Tobacco companies have always targeted all the different various groups by their advertising and incentives (ex. coupons in the pack of cigs).


Quote from Bleacher Report 5/23/16:

"If you look at the marketing that smokeless tobacco companies have been doing for decades, there was absolutely tying-in with baseball products — caps, other gear, equipment or promotional items. It was a very intentional action to intertwine smokeless tobacco as part of the baseball culture — really, an intentional infiltration of the values of the sport with a product that was known to be deadly and continues to be deadly today."


Even today, how many young and old do you see who start or are still smoking despite all of the "warnings" ... it has been shown that the new trend of vaping leads to smoking, however how many people start with this thinking it is safe (& it makes them look cool & grown-up).


Now, with all the years of this knowledge that tobacco in any form is addictive and dangerous & second-hand smoke, with all of the warnings, and "shaming" (signs stating NO Smoking Allowed) ... etc. ... why hasn't/haven't the Government / Lawmakers & Health Agencys - Doctors and all the others who are suppose to be looking out for the people, considered this to be a Narcotic and deem it illegal or that is needs to be dispensed by a prescription?  Money & kick-backs are preventing this ... yes, laws are being made to make it illegal for those who are under 18 yo from buying any tobacco product, but it is still available - still maiming & still killing.

All people (and I am one of them) will argue that each has the freedom of choice - good or bad - legal or illegal - tobacco products, guns, drugs and so many other vices/topics - the use of sugar, salt, fast foods, GMO, even being PC and list goes on ...  the lines have become so blurred.


It is all craziness to me and I am done with this subject/thread - off my soap box - I've said far too much.  Have a good day.  Woman Happy





Respected Contributor
Posts: 2,656
Registered: ‎03-13-2010


i certainly feel bad for his family and am sorry this happened.  By the time he started using tobacco, he had to have been aware of the dangers.  I am not a fan of tobacco but at some point we have to admit we are responsible for our decisions.  So the answer to your question is yes from my point of view.

Honored Contributor
Posts: 29,690
Registered: ‎08-23-2010


@The Monkey on My Back wrote:

I don't think Tony Gwynn would have approved of his family's lawsuit. 

@The Monkey on My Back


Me, either.   But, hey, even stranger lawsuits have been won ... the McDonalds Hot Coffee case comes to mind!

Honored Contributor
Posts: 19,625
Registered: ‎08-08-2010


@sidsmom wrote:


Of course not.


"Since when....?"   Back in the early 80's was when. That was the same he started chewing & playing ball.


He had noncancerous salivary tumors removed...but later still had issues with the glands in his face.  Doctors say there's no connection between salivary cancer & chewing, but there's always a first.   


Hope the estate of Tony Gwynn wins.  

Wins big. 

Maybe I'm missing something here. But if there 'is no connection between salivary cancer and chewing', how should his estate 'win big'?

Honored Contributor
Posts: 19,625
Registered: ‎08-08-2010


@hckynut wrote:

@Maudelynn wrote:

Cigarette companies have added all kinds of things to tobacco to make it more addicting. At points they've targeted their marketing toward women and younger folks. They haven't stopped producing their product even though they've known for a while that it kills.  I'm glad they are being sued. In fact, I hope they get enough law suits to put them out of business.


Now if only the families of the dead could sue gun manufacturers.




Some never give up. Guns?  They do not make bad choices, that would be up to the person holding it. If that person makes a bad choice? They should be held responsible, but the gun manufacturers? Only if they produced a defective product, or maybe even the irresponsible owner(ya know, their momma or poppa)?



So what is up with our over reaching government, that tells us we have to wear a seat belt, or a helmet or put kids in a special seat, or don't cut down that tree because a yellow throated bug eyed worm lives in it, that doesn't step in and make tobacco products illegal, since they cause so much harm?


Oh, yes, it is MONEY. Lots and lots of tax money. Lots and lots of money to be made in the medical industry from it's effects. Lots and lots of payoffs to government officials to let the industry continue. It's all about the money.