Tobacco Company Lawsuit

Watch:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6g2iJKlCBU

A court in the USA has ordered the tobacco giant R.J. Reynolds to pay a woman $23.6 billion in damages. Cynthia Robinson filed a lawsuit against R.J. Reynolds in 2008 and fought for six years for compensation. Her husband Michael died of lung cancer in 1996 after two decades of smoking. He started smoking when he was 13 and died when he was 36. Mrs Robinson argued that the company was negligent in not informing her husband that nicotine is addictive and that smoking can lead to lung cancer. She said tobacco companies knew in the 1950s that smoking was potentially lethal and should have been more active in telling people. Johnson's lawyer said: "He couldn't quit. He was smoking the day he died."

A lawyer for R.J. Reynolds, America's second-largest tobacco company, said the compensation was disproportionate. He said: "The damages awarded in this case are grossly excessive and impermissible under state and constitutional law." He added: "This verdict goes far beyond the realm of reasonableness and fairness and is completely inconsistent with the evidence presented." Mrs Robinson's lawyer Chris Chestnut said jurors looked at R.J. Reynolds' aggressive marketing, particularly campaigns aimed at young people. He said: "[R.J. Reynolds] lied to Congress, they lied to the public, they lied to smokers and tried to blame the smoker." He added that the jury's decision was "courageous".

On a somewhat similar topic, and in a move that has surprised many, the US Supreme Court has unanimously voted in favor of allowing a religious sect to use a hallucinogenic tea in its rituals. Officials from President Joe Biden’s administration had vehemently argued that the use of the drug contravened US narcotics laws and wanted the tea banned. However, in a victory for religious freedom, the congregation of 130 followers of a Brazilian religious sect can continue to use their holy tea. Presiding over the case, Chief Justice John Roberts said the government had failed to show that the sect was doing any harm in using the tea, which apparently brings followers closer to God. Opposition lawyers argued federal drug laws should prevail over religious freedom.

Followers of the religious group drink the hallucinogenic tea, known as “hoasca”, as part of their rituals.Ayahuasca, as it is also known, meaning “vine of the soul” in the Quechua language, is a natural psychoactive plant brew traditionally used for medicinal and spiritual purposes by indigenous populations.

Their defence team argued that America’s strict drug laws could not be used to enforce a ban on the tea as the chemical substance in it was not being abused in a way illegal drugs might be. Prosecution lawyers conceded that although the tea was part of a “sincere exercise of religion” there was a danger of it being diverted for recreational purposes. Chief Justice Roberts said it was quite within the law to make exceptions regarding the use of drugs on a case-by-case basis. He sternly announced his decision would not open the narcotics floodgates. The victory proved a little hollow for the sect as customs officials seized shipments of their sacramental tea after the ruling.

1. ADDICTIONS: How bad are these addictions and how can we help people? Complete this table.

Addiction	How bad?	How to help?
Smoking
Heroin
Gaming
Shopping
Alcohol
Fast food

2. ILLEGAL: Students A strongly believe smoking should be made illegal; Students B strongly believe it shouldn't.

3. SYNONYM MATCH: Uruguay and Marijuana

1.	ordered	a.	irresponsible
2.	lawsuit	b.	forceful
3.	negligent	c.	give up
4.	lethal	d.	given
5.	quit	e.	instructed
6.	disproportionate	f.	area
7.	awarded	g.	brave
8.	realm	h.	legal action
9.	aggressive	i.	unequal
10.	courageous	j.	deadly

4. SYNONYM MATCH: US and Hallucinogenic Tea

a.	unanimously	decision
b.	hallucinogenic	violated
c.	contravened	drugs
d.	presiding	implement
e.	prevail	sitting
f.	enforce	uniformly
g.	conceded	meaningless
h.	narcotics	win out
i.	hollow	mind-changing
j.	ruling	accepted

5.ROLE PLAY: What do you know about the following cases? Which one was the most impactful?

Role  A – Britney Spears VS her father

Role  B – OJ Simpson

Role  C – Ashley Judd and Rose MacGowan VS Harvey Weinstein

Role  D – Jessica Johnson vs McDonalds   6.The List of Different Crimes. Match the crime with its correct definition 1-7, 8-14, 15-21,22-29,30-37,38-44,45-50 CRIME DEFINITION CRIMINAL 1.abduction taking someone away by force, demanding money for their safe return 2.arson attacking someone physically   3.assassination setting fire to a building, cars or property on purpose   4.assault  killing a famous person or public figure   5.bigamy  detonating an explosive device with the plan of harming people or property   6.blackmail  marrying someone when you are already married to another person    7.bombing  threatening to reveal someone’s secrets if a lot of money is not paid   8.bribery behaving violently inside the home   9.burglary doing something illegal over the Internet or a computer system   10.child abuse behaving illegally and dishonestly; especially those in power   11.corruption treating a child badly in a physical, emotional, or sexual way 12.crime doing something illegal that can be punished by law   13.cybercrime  breaking into a house in order to steal something   14.domestic violence giving money or granting favors to influence another person’s decisions or behavior 15.drunk driving driving with too much alcohol in your blood   16.embezzlement stealing large amounts of money that you are responsible for, often over a period of time   17.espionage illegally copying documents, money, etc. to cheat people   18.forgery spying, to obtain political or military information   19.fraud killing on purpose a large number of people, especially from a particular group or area   20.genocide getting money from people by cheating them 21.hijacking taking control of a plane, train etc by force, often to meet political demands   22.hit and run killing someone without legal process, often by hanging, often by an angry mob 23.homicide damaging someone’s reputation by writing lies about them 24.hooliganism being violent or aggressive on purpose; often used to describe youth   25.identity theft using someone else’s personal information for one’s own gain 26.kidnapping taking things illegally and by force, during a riot, war, etc.   27.libel killing another person on purpose   28.looting taking someone away by force, often demanding money for their safe return     29.lynching not stopping to help a person hurt in an accident caused by you 30.manslaughter killing someone by accident 31.mugging lying in court, while under oath    32.murder killing someone on purpose   33.perjury attacking someone with a plan to rob them   34.pickpocketing  hunting illegally   35.pilfering stealing small quantities of goods over time 36.poaching hunting illegally   37.rape forcing someone to have sex   38.riot causing a noisy, violent public disturbance   39.robbery stealing large amounts of money with force or violence from a bank, store, etc.   40.shoplifting stealing something from a store   41.slander damaging someone’s reputation by speaking lies about them 42.smuggling taking things secretly in or out of a place, country, jail, etc.   43.speeding driving above the speed limit 44.terrorism betraying one’s country by helping its enemies   45.theft stealing, in general   46.trafficking trading something illegal like drugs, people, etc. 47.treason using violence, threats, or fear, usually for political purposes    48.trespassing entering another person’s area; hurting people/damaging property through force   49.vandalism destroying private or public property purposely   50.voyeurism secretly watching naked people or sexual acts & getting sexually excited

7.SMOKING DISCUSSION

c)	What do you think of the compensation award?
d)	Should R.J. Reynolds pay the damages?
e)	What does this award tell the tobacco industry?
f)	Why do you think the award was so high?
g)	Do you think other people will get awarded this much?
h)	Should R.J. Reynolds have told people smoking could be lethal?
i)	How do you think tobacco company executives feel knowing their product kills?
j)	Should governments do more to discourage smoking?
k)	Should companies be allowed to sell things that are addictive?
l)	Do you think cigarettes will always be for sale?
m)	Do tobacco companies have a duty to help addicts?
n)	Do governments leave tobacco companies alone because they get a lot of tax from cigarette sales?
o)	How does a court put a value on someone's life?
p)	Are there enough warnings on cigarette packets?
q)	Do you think tobacco companies lie? What about? Why?
r)	What was "courageous" about the jury's decision?
s)	What questions would you like to ask the CEO of R.J. Reynolds?