With the recent decision by a federal jury in Florida to award $145 billion to Florida smokers and their descendants, the tobacco industry in America finds itself in a precarious position.

If it pays what appears to be an astronomical sum, it could mean the end of the industry.

Countless jobs that have sustained families — from farm workers to executives — will be eliminated. If the industry is able to settle or get the ruling overturned, it will be fighting new court battles in other states . . . which will probably happen in either case.

Tobacco stocks have already begun to slide on a downward spiral. Some companies have separated their tobacco from food and other product lines. Will this scare off investors who have taken their fair share of hits in the stock market lately?

It certainly will if other states begin filing suits.

The tobacco industry has stated that the $145 billion settlement in this case is so large that, "There is probably not a company in the world that can withstand a verdict of this size." Only time will tell if this is a correct assessment of the situation.

The one thing that is certain is that this represents the first volley in a long, prostrated process that has no end in sight.

The tobacco industry is in a fighting mood and is determined to draw out the process of paying by filing appeals. Lawyers for the plaintiffs plan to seek legal remedies that will speed up the process. With the sentiment and momentum already shifting toward the smokers, we can expect much more tension before the situation is completely resolved.

But one question that the industry has raised which bears some thought but seems to have no answer is: Who’s really at fault?

Is it the industry that has confessed its product is addictive, or is it the individual who makes the choice to smoke in spite of the warning labels on the package?

Perhaps the Supreme Court will be the final arbiter in the matter since the lower courts have given mixed signals. This comes only one day before the major decision that a court in Mississippi made when it ruled in favor of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, in a suit brought by the widow of a deceased smoker.

So which court is correct?

Regardless of what happens in the near future one thing is certain — public sentiment has shifted dramatically in favor of descendents of deceased smokers versus the industry.

Maybe all of the attention on the the perils of smoking will convince more teenagers not to start the addictive practice of cigarette smoking, since it can lead to an early death.

More restaurants have reserved space for non-smokers, hotels have increased non-smoking floors, office buildings have restricted smoking in their buildings, and airlines are prohibiting smoking . . . so the message seems to be clearer than ever. We are moving closer to a smoke-free society.

But in the end, it may not be the courts that make the ultimate decision.

There might come a day when smokers get tired of standing outside in the cold because they cannot smoke in the comfort afforded by their office, since co-workers find it offensive.

There might come a day when smokers realize that if they can take a coast-to-coast or an intercontinental flight without smoking, they can also do without it for longer periods of time.

There might come a time when teenagers realize that it is not really "cool" to smoke as a means of trying to attract attention or to impress friends.

If all else fails, maybe the government can do what it is proposing for the countries in South America that grow drugs. Pay farmers not to grow tobacco, and encourage them to transfer their efforts to some other industry. The sentiment would surely be favorable and we could continue to enjoy the other food products that the industry produces.