That's nearly the same amount Fox paid to Dominion, for their product liability.

It is a tragedy, but at the end of the day, the driver used a substance specifically to alter his state, then he drove and killed someone. Is every company who makes products that can be abused liable to stupid customers?

"marketing campaigns specifically targeted young people at concerts and parties."

Did you read where they said the company was selling to places like smoke shops?

Sure, and they are buying it to get high. We did it in my 20s...but I knew not to drive.

And the company was selling them illegally which is the problem

Not sure a head shop selling these actually is illegal.

You can buy these on Amazon FFS.

No, the food company selling them to non food companies is though

I think I need you to provide a citation for this assertion because I was buying these things openly in head shops in the 70's.

1) Gun manufacturers have constitutional protections deriving from the Second Amendment... same as publishers do from the Fist Amendment.

2) People's complaints about guns aren't that they are being used (and marketed) for some illegal secondary purpose. Au contraire... the problem with them is that they are all too effective doing exactly what they were intended to do.

Guess what Big Bubba's gonna do when he sees that kid's ass in prison? Whip-It!

Who told this dipshit these could be safely consumed while operating a vehicle? I've done a ton of whippets over the years and it's never occurred to me to do these and try driving, that's just incredibly reckless.

So do we blame the makers of Jim Beam, Smirnoff, etc when someone who consumes alcohol kills while behind the wheel?

do you not blame them? lol.

Alcohol and drugs should be illegal.

If they marketed them to juveniles... yeah. Companies aren't supposed to profit from illegal use of their products.

None of which happened here tho. It's not illegal to huff nitrous oxide and the driver isn't a juvenile. I'm not sure this verdict willsurvive appeal intact. However, it likely will affect the sale and distribution of this stuff.

And the guy only got two years!!!

per charge, does not say if concurrent or consecutive
THE POINT of the punitive damages is that United Brands was marketing these items for NOT their intended purpose, but because they believed they could make a profit without being held accountable. They were not held for criminal charges because statues must be specific as to the crime and punishment or they are even less open to abuse than what we have now. But their decision to ignore (either willfully or neglectively) the obvious intent of the buyers (because they were not in the BUSINESS of food preparation) is outrageous neglect!!!! I doubt the punitive part will hold because they have deep pockets to keep harassing these people with endless legal shenanigans. But I HOPE people will read this and make sure they have at least EXPLAINED the issues with ALL inhalants and the (no FDA manufacturing oversite) street marketed drugs to their children, including younger children because this would look innocuous, particularly if older family member us it in front of them.

But it's NOT being marketed as an intoxicating inhalant. It's just well known as an intoxicating inhalant. And if head shops redistributed it for the huffers, that's on the head shops but shouldn't be on United Brands.

You can find this exact brand on Amazon. I couldn't find any marketing messages that are directed at wooks and heads. It specifically calls em whipped cream chargers for food service.

"selling the product to retailers far outside the food business, such as tobacco stores and head shops."

That would certainly make them responsible.

i hear a bankruptcy being filed right now

How is it that he only got 8 years for 4 charges including manslaughter? This is the same state that has given black men 25 years for selling less than an ounce of weed. Seems about white...

Yeah nah. I'm not buying that 25 years crap. I'm betting there were extenuating circumstances. Such as a third offense while carrying an illegal firearm or something.

Not even. He is serving the sentences CONCURRENTLY... not consecutively.

https://www.ksdk.com/articl...