US smoker's daughter gets $13.8m

[edesignuk]

A US jury has ordered tobacco giant Philip Morris to pay $13.8m (£8.4m) to the daughter of a lifelong smoker who died of lung disease.

The jury in Los Angeles decided in favour of Jodie Bullock, whose mother Betty died of lung cancer in 2003 aged 64. She had smoked for 47 years.

Philip Morris said she could have given up smoking at any time as the harmful effects of cigarettes were known.

Philip Morris is a part of Virginia-based tobacco-products group Altria.

Betty Bullock had sued Philip Morris in April 2001 on the grounds of fraud and product liability.

In 2002, a jury recommended that Philip Morris should pay $28bn in punitive damages to Mrs Bullock, but a judge later reduced the award to $28m.

In 2008, the US Court of Appeal overturned the jury's decision and sent the case for a new trial, with Philip Morris arguing that the $28m was excessive. BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8219473.stm).

[Scarlet Fever]

I actually side with Philip Morris here. I don't encourage the company's actions at all, but it's not as if smokers aren't warned of the risks.

[whitebook]

wow, so i should start smoking, get lung cancer and sue when im 60 and make a small fortune :rolleyes:

id love to have been in the jury for that one

[nick9191]

I'm with Phillip Morris on this. Absolutely frivolous lawsuit.

[arkitect]

wow, so i should start smoking, get lung cancer and sue when im 60 and make a small fortune :rolleyes:

id love to have been in the jury for that one

Better yet, get one of your parents to start smoking so you can sue and live off the millions.

Christ these lawsuits are getting more bizarre by the day.

I wonder how many of them actually get paid out. And is it a lump sum? ;)

[Heilage]

"My mom willfully pushed poison into her body for 47 years and now she's day. It's your fault!"

Jeez, I'm a smoker (trying to quit, though) and at least I know that if it kills me, it's my damn fault.

[edesignuk]

I thought the point they had with these sorts of law suits was that back in the day people were actively encouraged to start smoking, health risks were kept quiet, and the tobacco companies made a fortune. By the time they let slip that smoking will do you serious damage it was too late for many people, they were addicted. It's these people who have a case against them, because they were essentially lied to.

[Schtumple]

$28B?!?! That's crazy, how can anyone think that that is an acceptable amount!?

Still $28M and then $13.8M is just as crazy.

Best start smoking eh...

[Heilage]

I thought the point they had with these sorts of law suits was that back in the day people were actively encouraged to start smoking, health risks were kept quiet, and the tobacco companies made a fortune. By the time they let slip that smoking will do you serious damage it was too late for many people, they were addicted. It's these people who have a case against them, because they were essentially lied to.

That's different. They were mislead. Unless we have proof that this girl's mother was mislead in any way?

[.Andy]

I thought the point they had with these sorts of law suits was that back in the day people were actively encouraged to start smoking, health risks were kept quiet, and the tobacco companies made a fortune. By the time they let slip that smoking will do you serious damage it was too late for many people, they were addicted. It's these people who have a case against them, because they were essentially lied to.
This is the context that needs to be remembered. Companies like Philip Morris actively lied and obsfucated the scientific evidence that smoking was killing people to protect their profits. They also fabricated "scientific" evidence to the contrary. This (http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/index.htm) is a great site on tobacco control which also has many, many documents from the ugly past of these tobacco companies. And they're not much better these days. Profits first. People's lives second.

The number of these judgements is growing day by day. Hopefully they'll hit critical mass and we'll be purged of these companies for good.

[xUKHCx]

I thought the point they had with these sorts of law suits was that back in the day people were actively encouraged to start smoking, health risks were kept quiet, and the tobacco companies made a fortune. By the time they let slip that smoking will do you serious damage it was too late for many people, they were addicted. It's these people who have a case against them, because they were essentially lied to.

Thats the way I read it too.

That's different. They were mislead. Unless we have proof that this girl's mother was mislead in any way?

She started smoking in 1956 when what edesignuk described was going on.

[edesignuk]

That's different. They were mislead. Unless we have proof that this girl's mother was mislead in any way?You don't need proof, you only need to look at her age [64], when she died [2003] and how long she'd been smoking [47 years] to see the how long ago it all started. Definitely in the days when the tobacco companies were being very naughty indeed.

Does anyone know what year the "truth" really came out? Meaning after that point you have no case against them, the risks were well publicised.

[Schtumple]

That's different. They were mislead. Unless we have proof that this girl's mother was mislead in any way?

She's 64, so surely she was around at the time when smoking was "safe"...?

[Heilage]

You don't need proof, you only need to look at her age [64], when she died [2003] and how long she'd been smoking [47 years] to see the how long ago it all started. Definitely in the days when the tobacco companies were being very naughty indeed.

Does anyone know what year the "truth" really came out? Meaning after that point you have no case against them, the risks were well publicised.

You're right, I didn't think about that. I'm so used to all these American lawsuits being complete bullcrap that I didn't notice a proper one.

[CHAOS STEP]

This is the context that needs to be remembered. Companies like Philip Morris actively lied and obsfucated the scientific evidence that smoking was killing people to protect their profits. They also fabricated "scientific" evidence to the contrary. This (http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/index.htm) is a great site on tobacco control which also has many, many documents from the ugly past of these tobacco companies. And they're not much better these days. Profits first. People's lives second.

The number of these judgements is growing day by day. Hopefully they'll hit critical mass and we'll be purged of these companies for good.

One puff of a cigarette will tell you that it's no good for you whether you were growing up in 1952 or 1992.

If the government cares that much they will ban smoking, but they won't because lots of people like to do it and the government makes some money out of it.

As for putting them out of business, fine but you'll just get some other company take their place.

The tobacco companies do need to be punished for false advertising, but giving joe bloggs 200 million won't do no good, how about making them build a few hospitals instead?

[theBB]

Does anyone know what year the "truth" really came out? Meaning after that point you have no case against them, the risks were well publicised.
Even less than 20 years ago, tobacco companies were arguing that cigarettes were causing only psychological addiction, not physiological. In that sense truth date is fairly recent. However, cancer risk was fairly obvious twenty years ago, possibly even earlier. There is also the light cigarette scam, which may push the truth date to even more recent times.

In any case, I was on the side of tobacco companies quite a bit, until I saw the magazine adds from the 50s or 60s that went with the taglines that said "Two out of three doctors smoke Camels". After that, I say "sue them all."

[tabasco70]

wow, so i should start smoking, get lung cancer and sue when im 60 and make a small fortune :rolleyes:

id love to have been in the jury for that one

Well your children could make a small fortune, because you'd be dead.. :D

[Rt&Dzine]

In any case, I was on the side of tobacco companies quite a bit, until I saw the magazine adds from the 50s or 60s that went with the taglines that said "Two out of three doctors smoke Camels". After that, I say "sue them all."

Actors, dentists, doctors . . .

190298 190297 190299

[evilgEEk]

My dad is 62 and has smoked like a chimney since he was 13. He's said it was definitely encouraged back then, and not in a "cool kid" sort of way. He said he was told over and over that smoking was actually healthy for you.

Crazy.

He knows he will likely die due to lung disease, but he hasn't stopped or cut back because he is way beyond being addicted. He simply now smokes a cheaper brand than Marlboro.

Hmm. Maybe I should start lookin' for a lawyer, eh?

;)

[Keebler]

i'm glad this lawsuit is happening.

yes, people can try to quit smoking, but smoking was promoted as the 'cool' thing

Add in the fact that these tobacco companies tweak the nicotine and other related crap to make the cigarettes more addicting, it's deserved!

[mrmayor92]

wowwwwwwwwww im a smoker and i would blame myself for dieing because of cigarettes... how about the millions of other families that were affected by cigarette related deaths?

[steve knight]

yes this is a bit silly. but how can you feel sorry for a company whose product only benefits it's self. it does not help it's consumers it hurts and kills them. there is no safe way to use it.

[Iscariot]

You don't need proof, you only need to look at her age [64], when she died [2003] and how long she'd been smoking [47 years] to see the how long ago it all started. Definitely in the days when the tobacco companies were being very naughty indeed.

Does anyone know what year the "truth" really came out? Meaning after that point you have no case against them, the risks were well publicised.

1994 to 1996, I believe. Jeffrey Wigand went on 60 Minutes (or maybe 20/20?) in early 1996, at any rate.

[joepunk]

$13.8 million? :eek:

Now, why didn't I start suing the tobacco companies when my mother died? I would have been happy with $2 million (after taxes and any court/lawyer fees of course).

[jessica.]

Kids, what have we learned from this?

Smoking = $$$!

Next time someone on these boards asks how they can save for a new Mac, tell them to start smoking.

[edesignuk]

Kids, what have we learned from this?

Smoking = $$$!

Next time someone on these boards asks how they can save for a new Mac, tell them to start smoking.
...and invent a time machine to go back 50 years ;)

[edesignuk]

I bet Philip Morris thought $13.8m was bad enough..

Tobacco firm Philip Morris to pay out $300m in damages

A Florida court has ordered tobacco giant Philip Morris to pay out $300m (£180m) in damages to a former smoker.

The 62-year-old, Cindy Naugle, is wheelchair bound because of the lung disease emphysema.

Philip Morris, maker of Marlboro cigarettes, said it the will challenge the verdict because of "numerous erroneous rulings by the trial judge".

Its spokesman said that the punitive damages are "grossly excessive and a clear violation... of the law".

Ms Naugle started smoking in 1968, aged 20, to make herself look older.

The payout is the result of a major class-action suit in 2006 which was thrown out of court.

About 8,000 individual cases were filed subsequently. This is thought to be the biggest payout so far.

The judge awarded $56.6m for medical expenses and $244m in punitive damages. BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8369816.stm).

http://up.edesignuk.com/files/1/Images/Forums/nelson_haha.jpg

[arkitect]

Ms Naugle started smoking in 1968, aged 20, to make herself look older.
I guess people's priorities were a bit different back then?
:o

[MacBoobsPro]

If theres a fire in your house your told to avoid the smoke because it kills you. I'm pretty sure people knew that back in the 50's and 60's, so why would concentrated smoke not do the same?

Shame on companies for the false advertising and shame on the smokers for being so stupid!

[Don't panic]

If theres a fire in your house your told to avoid the smoke because it kills you. I'm pretty sure people knew that back in the 50's and 60's, so why would concentrated smoke not do the same?

Shame on companies for the false advertising and shame on the smokers for being so stupid!

in part, because it was advertised as being a health positive.
heck, even santa was on board

[Sdashiki]

If theres a fire in your house your told to avoid the smoke because it kills you. I'm pretty sure people knew that back in the 50's and 60's, so why would concentrated smoke not do the same?

Shame on companies for the false advertising and shame on the smokers for being so stupid!

Again, this was decades ago. Different society. Different norms. Different people.

You can't just say "well, thats obvious" when it clearly wasnt.

people used to think heroin and cocaine were perfectly safe for common consumption and were led to believe so by the authorities whose duty it was to "protect" society. be it doctors, politicians, priests or your peers.

If you watch Woody Allens "Sleeper" you will see the kind of ignorant things people can be led to believe whether true or not (smoking was good for you, milk bad, etc).

[savoirfaire]

Kids, what have we learned from this?

Smoking = $$$!

Next time someone on these boards asks how they can save for a new Mac, tell them to start smoking.

Actually, the lesson seems to be: convince your parents to smoke so you can get $$$ from Big Tobacco when they die! "Hey, Mom, have you thought about picking up smoking? All the cool moms are doing it."

in part, because it was advertised as being a health positive.
heck, even santa was on board

Gotta love the golden age of advertising! I particularly like the "More doctors smoke Camels" ad campaign...

http://richardwilsonauthor.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/camels.jpg

[MattSepeta]

Punitive Damages are largely useless and have taken over our legal system...

[Keebler]

i think the point that is sorely missing is a MASSIVE one:

The fact that the cigarette companies tweaked the addictive substances in their product so people would easily become addicted!

Whether or not something is bad is one thing, but if the company is making it more addictive and thus, harder to get rid of the habit, who's at fault then? The cig companies knew their product was unhealthy and they made it worse so I believe it's their fault. Add in the cancer producing chemicals and voila - recipe for disaster.

The amount of money awarded is another topic. Most of those awards get knocked down quite a bit.

[harperjones99]

This won't hurt Philip Morris in the end...and if the plaintiff and her lawyers do anything but give 100% of their "profits" from this win to charities then they are greedy scum and hypocrites.

[IntheNet]

This is the context that needs to be remembered. Companies like Philip Morris actively lied and obsfucated the scientific evidence that smoking was killing people to protect their profits.

There is a warning on every cigarette pack that companies like Phillip Morris are required to place. Unless you can't read users are warned. Phillip Morris and other cigarette companies are not lying about anything! In my opinion the problem here is frivolous lawsuits...

Profits first. People's lives second.

Then why are you singling out "tobacco companies"?
What about car companies?
What about alcohol companies?
Shouldn't citizens be able to make their own choices on what to do?

Cell phone towers are linked to cancer... research points to the devices themselves may cause cancer too... want then "purged" too or can people make choice what they use?

The number of these judgements is growing day by day. Hopefully they'll hit critical mass and we'll be purged of these companies for good.

Frivolous lawsuits waged by shyster trial attorney squads cost all Americans. What exactly are you trying to "purge"? Freedom?

[xUKHCx]

There is a warning on every cigarette pack that companies like Phillip Morris are required to place. Unless you can't read users are warned. Phillip Morris and other cigarette companies are not lying about anything! In my opinion the problem here is frivolous lawsuits...

I find it very hard to believe that you could try and make that arguement, it seems like you have just skimmed the thread, found part of a post that you could use to construct your own standpoint from and attack without actually Reading the context or understanding what the poster was saying, let alone ignoring the evidence both historical and that provided in this thread. Disingenuous at best, tabbaco companies used to present and actively advertise it in a healthy way. It is a very recent requirement of the tabbaco to put the warnings on their packaging, and I also doubt they do this out of the goodness of their heart either.

[IntheNet]

I find it very hard to believe that you could try and make that arguement, it seems like you have just skimmed the thread...

I read all 36 prior posts in this thread and offered my opinion in 37...

Disingenuous at best, tabbaco companies used to present and actively advertise it in a healthy way. It is a very recent requirement of the tabbaco to put the warnings on their packaging, and I also doubt they do this out of the goodness of their heart either.

It is spelled "tobacco" and the initial warnings on cigarette packaging came about in 1966-1970 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_warning_messages) so your comment about "recent requirement" does not take this account; further, my point was that it is rank discrimination to require cigarettes to post a warning yet other more dangerous products (wine, beer, alcohol) are exempt from the requirement. So too, not all users of tobacco get cancer (lots of 90 year old lifetime smokers will so attest). I see nothing at all disingenuous about tobacco companies making a profit (this nation has sold tobacco and tobacco products since its founding; tobacco is a major agricultural product creating thousands of jobs; and many municipalities in this nation (as well as federal government) tax tobacco to raise funds for schools so there is a utilitarian use for society. Lastly, of course companies advertise their products in a "heathy way" - that is the whole point of advertising. Corvettes are likewise advertised but sometimes Corvettes (and all types of cars) kill people - that is no reason to ban Corvettes just a realistic observation.

[bobber205]

That's different. They were mislead. Unless we have proof that this girl's mother was mislead in any way?

She was definitely misled 47 (more now) years ago when she started smoking. They knew it was bad then and lied to everyone.

[Zombie Acorn]

All I need to hear is that you smoked after the warning/general knowledge said you would get cancer from it. I don't buy that you can't quit, ive smoked before.

[bobber205]

All I need to hear is that you smoked after the warning/general knowledge said you would get cancer from it. I don't buy that you can't quit, ive smoked before.

Again, your personal anecdote does not make for fact. Some people have biological factors that make it much harder for them to quit than others.

[Zombie Acorn]

Again, your personal anecdote does not make for fact. Some people have biological factors that make it much harder for them to quit than others.

The only biological factor would be that they are predisposed to weak mindedness.

[bobber205]

The only biological factor would be that they are predisposed to weak mindedness.

Again, this is false. Some people are more neurologically prone to become addicted to something than others. This is made worse when there is a CHEMICAL connection to it provided by what they are addicted to.

Please dude. Educate yourself on this subject before having all these opinions.

[Zombie Acorn]

Again, this is false. Some people are more neurologically prone to become addicted to something than others. This is made worse when there is a CHEMICAL connection to it provided by what they are addicted to.

Please dude. Educate yourself on this subject before having all these opinions.

I just spent all night breathing in smoke and coughing up crap today because of it, smokers don't deserve to be in my good graces this morning. :D

[bobber205]

I just spent all night breathing in smoke and coughing up crap today because of it, smokers don't deserve to be in my good graces this morning. :D

:D

Why did you put yourself is such an awful situation?

[Zombie Acorn]

:D

Why did you put yourself is such an awful situation?

I wasn't driving and its the only thing to do on weekends around here if you want any type of social life, plus no bars restrict smoking around here unfortunately and all of them do not have adequate ventilation.

All of our big cities have started to make it illegal to smoke in the bars though, although I don't think its a right restriction, I like it because I don't like smoke.

[.Andy]

There is a warning on every cigarette pack that companies like Phillip Morris are required to place. Unless you can't read users are warned. Phillip Morris and other cigarette companies are not lying about anything!
They spent many years lying about the dangers of their products. They obsfucated data and released their own fraudulent data. This is fact. All to protect their profits. Check out my previous link which contains thousands of tobacco company documents illustrating their flat out lies. They made their own bed with their short-sightedness that put people's lives at risk.

Then why are you singling out "tobacco companies"?
What about car companies?
What about alcohol companies?
because that's not what this thread is about :confused:. I have noticed you didn't mention contract fencing companies here. Why the Injustice. :rolleyes:?

Shouldn't citizens be able to make their own choices on what to do?
Of course they should. And that decision should not be based on lies and deception on behalf of megacorporations.

Cell phone towers are linked to cancer... research points to the devices themselves may cause cancer too... Except that you are making this up. There is concern but no solid epidemiological data at present. You are misinformed.

But to continue your analogy if science proves phones cause cancer and companies such as apple engage in lies and deception to sell their products then yes I will want those companies held accountable as well.

What exactly are you trying to "purge"? Freedom?
"freedom" does not mean megacorporations can actively lie about the hazards of their products to consumers. The result has been the direct death of millions upon millions of people. They deserve nothing more than being sent bankrupt. Hopefully we'll have a good amount of criminal trials against company executives as well.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Kurt Vonnegut's fictitious lawsuit against Pall Mall makes more sense. He suggested he should sue them because they had been promising him for years that he should die from their product, but he was still alive. That's false advertising!

[leekohler]

This is the context that needs to be remembered. Companies like Philip Morris actively lied and obsfucated the scientific evidence that smoking was killing people to protect their profits. They also fabricated "scientific" evidence to the contrary. This (http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/index.htm) is a great site on tobacco control which also has many, many documents from the ugly past of these tobacco companies. And they're not much better these days. Profits first. People's lives second.

The number of these judgements is growing day by day. Hopefully they'll hit critical mass and we'll be purged of these companies for good.

Never going to happen. People like their vices. You will not ever eradicate tobacco companies or smoking, just like drugs and alcohol use will never go away.

[IntheNet]

They spent many years lying about the dangers of their products. They obsfucated data and released their own fraudulent data. This is fact. All to protect their profits. Check out my previous link which contains thousands of tobacco company documents illustrating their flat out lies. They made their own bed with their short-sightedness that put people's lives at risk.

All corporations lie about their products - is this a new realization for you? Corporations are interested in selling products and often lie about what their products do. Nobody in history has ever forced anyone to smoke a cigarette; your tone seems to suggest otherwise. People need to take responsibility for their own actions. As I mentioned in prior post, alcohol and automobiles kill far more Americans than tobacco but I don't see a warning notices legally imposed on the side of a Corvette or a Budweiser.

Except that you are making this up. There is concern but no solid epidemiological data at present. You are misinformed.

Both cell phone towers (exposure to radio-frequency and microwave energy) and cell phones are being investigated for causing cancer, either from the cell towers or the devices themselves. I am hardly "misinformed;" see links that follow.

Cell Phone Towers: How Far is Safe?
http://www.emf-health.com/articles-celltower.htm

Cell-Phone Tower Debate Grows
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/wireless/news/2005/08/68600

Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones

But to continue your analogy if science proves phones cause cancer and companies such as apple engage in lies and deception to sell their products then yes I will want those companies held accountable as well.

Again, companies stretch the truth on their products; there is this attribute of personal responsibility you are overlooking.

"freedom" does not mean megacorporations can actively lie about the hazards of their products to consumers.

What is this "megacorporation" of which you speak? Tobacco companies are relatively small today and certainly they are not "mega" in comparison with other multi-national firms. Moreover, in terms of your "lie about hazards" were you ever under any confusion about smoking? Did the "megacorporation" you cite ever say smoking was good for you? Heart disease kills lots of Americans today and being overweight is a primary cause. Does that mean all restaurants selling fatty food are guilty?

The result has been the direct death of millions upon millions of people. They deserve nothing more than being sent bankrupt. Hopefully we'll have a good amount of criminal trials against company executives as well.

How many vehicles are misused that lead to fatal car crashes daily? How many bottles of beer, wine, and alcohol are misused leading to driving while intoxicated fatalities resulting daily? Does that mean that either automobiles or alcohol are bad? No. Neither are cigarettes. Lots of Americans use them all their lives and live long. Others get cancer. Seems to me like a personal choice.

[roisin and mac]

The story reminds me of a book by John Grisham called The Runaway Jury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Runaway_Jury); it's pretty cool and one of my favorites of his. It was made into a movie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_Jury) using the same name a few years ago, starring Gene Hackman, Dustin Hoffman, the ever likable John Cusack, and Rachel Weisz; the film used the gun industry rather than the tobacco industry. both are worth reading/watching I think :) They both discuss a lot of the issues touched upon in this thread.

One puff of a cigarette will tell you that it's no good for you whether you were growing up in 1952 or 1992.


You're being ridiculous. Sorry, I tried to find a more tactful way to put this, but any thing more euphemistic would have been lying. But if your reasoning is correct and not liking something at first blush is an accurate way to tell that it's bad for us, then pretty much any of the more useful medical treatments would be bad! I mean, ever tasted cough syrup?! Not to even start on any treatments that involve pain, including simple injections of medicine which various medical conditions require those suffering from them to have daily! And the comparison is especially apt when you think about how smoking was once presented as a good thing to do for one's health (see the ads posted).

There is a warning on every cigarette pack that companies like Phillip Morris are required to place.
^ This, above, pretty much proves that the teachign of at least recent history is as essential to basic education as grammar or arithmetic. If you don't, you get statements like the one above, and from people who are supposedly educated. *shakes head in despair* :p

[KingYaba]

I bet Philip Morris thought $13.8m was bad enough..

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8369816.stm).

http://up.edesignuk.com/files/1/Images/Forums/nelson_haha.jpg

Ms Naugle started smoking in 1968, aged 20, to make herself look older.

Un****ing believable. So when these people learned smoking causes health problems, did they seek professional medical help to curb the addiction?

[roisin and mac]

Ah, the grammar police are back.:rolleyes:

nope, not grammar police at all here :) But people do need to know how to string a bunch of words together in a way that doesn't make your head spin when you read it. The expression of thought and thought itself are so closely intertwined as to be the same thing for all intents and purposes, so if you can't express yourself with any degree of accuracy, it follows you can't think with any degree of accuracy. Elaborating on this would cause this thread to veer too far off topic, but this concept is just brain development 101 :p

Mind you I'm talking basic stuff here, not the kind of knowledge required to write the Great American novel :p In fact, just the level the vast majority of posters here have (and even a little less, actually). Also, I said 'grammar', not 'spelling; in my experience, most of the people referred to as 'grammar nazis' or 'grammar police' are essentially concerned with spelling, not grammar.

Why yes, I am a geek. Then again, I never said I wasn't ;)

[mactastic]

wow, so i should start smoking, get lung cancer and sue when im 60 and make a small fortune :rolleyes:
Good plan!

If the government cares that much they will ban smoking, but they won't because lots of people like to do it and the government makes some money out of it.
The government should most definitely NOT be in the business of banning substances like tobacco. They can regulate it and tax it as much as the people are willing to stand, but don't make it illegal. The government has no compelling interest in preventing you from doing stupid things, so long as you're not putting others in danger.

Kids, what have we learned from this?

Smoking = $$$!

Next time someone on these boards asks how they can save for a new Mac, tell them to start smoking.
Actually, I'd tell them to stop smoking. Save yourself a hell of a lot of money. And if they don't smoke, start smoking -- then quit!

All of our big cities have started to make it illegal to smoke in the bars though, although I don't think its a right restriction, I like it because I don't like smoke.
So it's OK because you don't like it? :confused:

because that's not what this thread is about :confused:. I have noticed you didn't mention contract fencing companies here. Why the Injustice. :rolleyes:?
Don't get me started on fencing companies right now...

All corporations lie about their products - is this a new realization for you? Corporations are interested in selling products and often lie about what their products do. Nobody in history has ever forced anyone to smoke a cigarette; your tone seems to suggest otherwise. People need to take responsibility for their own actions. As I mentioned in prior post, alcohol and automobiles kill far more Americans than tobacco but I don't see a warning notices legally imposed on the side of a Corvette or a Budweiser.
There's a difference between marketing that promotes a certain viewpoint, and marketing that is clearly at odds with the truth. It's one thing to say your product is "where the flavor is". It's a completely different thing to say your product is harmless when you know the opposite to be the truth.

[Zombie Acorn]

Good plan!


The government should most definitely NOT be in the business of banning substances like tobacco. They can regulate it and tax it as much as the people are willing to stand, but don't make it illegal. The government has no compelling interest in preventing you from doing stupid things, so long as you're not putting others in danger.

You are putting people in danger by smoking unless you are doing it in a vaccuum.



So it's OK because you don't like it? :confused:


Now you are catching on :)

[mactastic]

You are putting people in danger by smoking unless you are doing it in a vaccuum.
It would be quite impossible to smoke in a vacuum. Also.

[Zombie Acorn]

It would be quite impossible to smoke in a vacuum. Also.

I didn't actually think that far ahead when using that phrase. :p

[IntheNet]

You are putting people in danger by smoking unless you are doing it in a vaccuum.

Putting aside your 'vaccuum' reference; since internal combustion engine emissions are toxic you are likewise "putting people in danger" by driving. However, I don't hear too much concern about 'secondhand smoke' from automobile emissions.

[Zombie Acorn]

Putting aside your 'vaccuum' reference; since internal combustion engine emissions are toxic you are likewise "putting people in danger" by driving. However, I don't hear too much concern about 'secondhand smoke' from automobile emissions.

really? You are paying taxes to at least one department called the EPA, im sure we fund IPCC somehow also.

[.Andy]

All corporations lie about their products - is this a new realization for you?Which is no excuse nor does it absolve tobacco companies from lying that their products are safe when in fact it was well established that they weren't.

Both cell phone towers (exposure to radio-frequency and microwave energy) and cell phones are being investigated for causing cancer
I called you on this because you said phones and towers were "linked" to cancer. Now that you've watered down you claim to "being investigated" I have no qualms at all. There is quite a difference between being investigated and a link having been shown. As I said previously the large scale epidemiological studies which are close to maturity will answer this question.

Again, companies stretch the truth on their products
There is a stark difference between "stretching the truth" and actively denying that cigarettes are addictive and that they don't cause cancer despite the scientific evidence to the contrary.

there is this attribute of personal responsibility you are overlooking.
Not at all. That's a completely different issue altogether. This was a lady who took up smoking at a time when the tobacco companies were brazenly lying about their products by misinforming the public. The personal responsibility of the woman in question by no means excuses the tobacco companies from the ramifications of their past lies which have contributed to the deaths of countless consumers. In fact I hope the corporate execs go down with criminal charges for their role in misleading the public.

[ntrigue]

How long before we have a second-hand smoke lawsuit?

[IntheNet]

In fact I hope the corporate execs go down with criminal charges for their role in misleading the public.

Misleading the public about what? Cigarettes taste good. That's no lie. Not sure how you say a corporate executive is lying about cigarette taste? Executives at Hershey say their candy tastes good and executives at Phillip-Morris say their cigarettes taste good. What is the lie you are alleging?

Moreover, the United States government is complicit in cigarette advertising. The federal government made sure that every GI fighting WWII was issued as many cartons of cigarettes as requested; cigarettes were a staple of WWII and Vietnam. I bring this up because issue of government subsidy came up earlier and during the wars the government issued cigarettes with K-rations as standard fare.

How long before we have a second-hand smoke lawsuit?

Automobile emissions contain hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, particulates, and sulphur oxide; a toxic stew that is hazardous to anyone even in short doses; before the courts address second-hand smoke from cigarettes, I would like to see the issue of second-hand smoke from automobile emissions addressed. To wit, does a non-driver and non-automobile owner have specific claim against drivers, as a second-hand smoke complainant, due to toxic nature of emissions? Almost every large building now has garage parking and toxic emissions from automobiles can adversely affect non-drivers far more quickly than say, second-hand smoke from cigarettes.

[.Andy]

Misleading the public about what? Cigarettes taste good. That's no lie. Not sure how you say a corporate executive is lying about cigarette taste? Executives at Hershey say their candy tastes good and executives at Phillip-Morris say their cigarettes taste good. What is the lie you are alleging? In every post now I have been very clear about what the tobacco companies have done which was a lie. They lied about their product being addictive and they lied about their product not being dangerous. Despite it being well established scientifically that this was not the case. They even got up and did this is a court of law.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQUNk5meJHs

And I will post this again. This site has thousands os FOI documents from tobacco companies outlining their blatant lies about the danger of their product and ways in which they can mislead the consumer and market to children etc.
http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/

[mactastic]

Putting aside your 'vaccuum' reference; since internal combustion engine emissions are toxic you are likewise "putting people in danger" by driving. However, I don't hear too much concern about 'secondhand smoke' from automobile emissions.
Ummm... you don't? Don't folks like you screech every time CAFE standards are raised? I don't suppose you are old enough to remember leaded gasoline?

Honestly, these arguments are just silly. Palinesque, if you will...

[MacNut]

Automobile emissions contain hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, particulates, and sulphur oxide; a toxic stew that is hazardous to anyone even in short doses; before the courts address second-hand smoke from cigarettes, I would like to see the issue of second-hand smoke from automobile emissions addressed. To wit, does a non-driver and non-automobile owner have specific claim against drivers, as a second-hand smoke complainant, due to toxic nature of emissions? Almost every large building now has garage parking and toxic emissions from automobiles can adversely affect non-drivers far more quickly than say, second-hand smoke from cigarettes.I dare you to run 50 cars in a bar with no ventilation and tell me out that works out.;)

[Shivetya]

In every post now I have been very clear about what the tobacco companies have done which was a lie. They lied about their product being addictive and they lied about their product not being dangerous. Despite it being well established scientifically that this was not the case. They even got up and did this is a court of law.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQUNk5meJHs

And I will post this again. This site has thousands os FOI documents from tobacco companies outlining their blatant lies about the danger of their product and ways in which they can mislead the consumer and market to children etc.
http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/

I don't care how many documents you find or anyone else finds.

the US GOVERNMENT actively supports the use of this product and benefits by special taxation on it.

Besides, anyone having used Tobacco in the last fifty odd years has no excuse (I even did way back when).

Ban the damn things. Part of this "Health Care Reform" bill should be the outright ban of cigarettes. Anything else is bringing purposeful harm to the people.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I don't care how many documents you find or anyone else finds.

the US GOVERNMENT actively supports the use of this product and benefits by special taxation on it.

Besides, anyone having used Tobacco in the last fifty odd years has no excuse (I even did way back when).

Ban the damn things. Part of this "Health Care Reform" bill should be the outright ban of cigarettes. Anything else is bringing purposeful harm to the people.

Thank god we live in a free country where I have the right to make my own choices, even if my choices are not beneficial to me.

[Sdashiki]

Thank god we live in a free country where I have the right to make my own choices, even if my choices are not beneficial to me.

Precisely. I, like most, understand smoking is bad for you.

But its no ones place but mine to tell me what I put in my body.

Yet the DEA continues its war against stuff thats just not taxed...oh the irony.

[Zombie Acorn]

Precisely. I, like most, understand smoking is bad for you.

But its no ones place but mine to tell me what I put in my body.

Yet the DEA continues its war against stuff thats just not taxed...oh the irony.

You are putting it in other people's bodies too when you expel it through your mouth.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

You are putting it in other people's bodies too when you expel it through your mouth.

You're putting smog in other people when you drive a car. You're supporting a company that exploits children when you buy Nike. You're supporting a company whose byproducts poison thousands in Mexico when you buy hitachi. Birthcontrol waste in our water supply is causing men sterility*.

*not proven, but well supported.

[bobber205]

You're putting smog in other people when you drive a car. You're supporting a company that exploits children when you buy Nike. You're supporting a company whose byproducts poison thousands in Mexico when you buy hitachi. Birthcontrol waste in our water supply is causing men sterility*.

*not proven, but well supported.

All of those things are wrong and should be addresses. I fail to see the double standard.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

All of those things are wrong and should be addresses. I fail to see the double standard.

You drive a car, don't you?
That is the double standard.

[IntheNet]

All of those things are wrong and should be addresses. I fail to see the double standard.

What TuffLuffJimmy seems to be saying is that there is a double standard (hyporcrisy if you will) for someone at once to call for limitations on cigarettes due to second-hand smoke issues yet drive a car and contribute to automobile exhaust.

[Zombie Acorn]

What TuffLuffJimmy seems to be saying is that there is a double standard (hyporcrisy if you will) for someone at once to call for limitations on cigarettes due to second-hand smoke issues yet drive a car and contribute to automobile exhaust.

Which is a ridiculous comparison at best, one fuels the economy and the well being of the nation, one is a habit of a weak-minded addict.

[IntheNet]

Which is a ridiculous comparison at best, one fuels the economy and the well being of the nation, one is a habit of a weak-minded addict.

Specific to the bolded part of your quote above, tobacco does in fact fuel the economy (it employs hundreds of thousands, from agricultural farmers to tobacco point of sales workers) and tobacco sales contribute to our well being as a nation (local taxes on tobacco sales contribute toward local/municipal education financing).

[Zombie Acorn]

Specific to the bolded part of your quote above, tobacco does in fact fuel the economy (it employs hundreds of thousands, from agricultural farmers to tobacco point of sales workers) and tobacco sales contribute to our well being as a nation (local taxes on tobacco sales contribute toward local/municipal education financing).

Who... drive to work using a car.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Which is a ridiculous comparison at best, one fuels the economy and the well being of the nation, one is a habit of a weak-minded addict.

That last part kind of hurt...

It's not ridiculous. Cigarettes fuel our economy too, and with the way they are taxed they probably contribute more per dollar spent than fossil fuels.

[Zombie Acorn]

That last part kind of hurt...

It's not ridiculous. Cigarettes fuel our economy too, and with the way they are taxed they probably contribute more per dollar spent than fossil fuels.

Unless you look at the back side in what we pay for medicare to keep a bunch of 60+ year old lifetime smokers alive on their ventilators/radiation treatments. Thats ignoring the fact that the person who decides to keep the habit is also impeding on other's right to be healthy through second hand smoke.

This is a leisure habit, lighting up a cigg is not helping the nation anymore than wolfing down greasy fast food, at least fat people don't pass their bad habits effect to others.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

This is a leisure habit, lighting up a cigg is not helping the nation anymore than wolfing down greasy fast food, at least fat people don't pass their bad habits effect to others.

Except their children, of course. And our society is perpetuating the idea that it's okay to be overweight, but that's neither here nor there.

I'm just glad I don't live in your ideal police state. First they came for our cigarettes, then the fast food, then television, etc.

[leekohler]

Except their children, of course. And our society is perpetuating the idea that it's okay to be overweight, but that's neither here nor there.

I'm just glad I don't live in your ideal police state. First they came for our cigarettes, then the fast food, then television, etc.

People don't think fast food is next, but just watch. It's coming.

[Zombie Acorn]

Except their children, of course. And our society is perpetuating the idea that it's okay to be overweight, but that's neither here nor there.

I'm just glad I don't live in your ideal police state. First they came for our cigarettes, then the fast food, then television, etc.

Once the children turn 18 they are more than able to make their own decisions and change what they have been taught. A little personal responsibility goes a long way.

Its not a police state policy either when your habit is making other people develop cancer. "But I like the taste" is not acceptable when you are directly killing people with your habit.

People don't think fast food is next, but just watch. It's coming.

As soon as someone else eating a french fry makes me fat I will want fast food to be hard taxed/restricted also. Its amazing that someone as steadfast in their health regiment as yourself can't quit a smoking habit to tell the truth.

[leekohler]

As soon as someone else eating a french fry makes me fat I will want fast food to be hard taxed/restricted also.

It won't be about that. It'll be about health care costs.

[Zombie Acorn]

It won't be about that. It'll be about health care costs.

If our nation establishes a UHC I am all for a penalty/incentive structure for each individual. Someone who puts themselves at risk and costs the nation more should be paying more into the system.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Once the children turn 18 they are more than able to make their own decisions and change what they have been taught. A little personal responsibility goes a long way.

Its not a police state policy either when your habit is making other people develop cancer. "But I like the taste" is not acceptable when you are directly killing people with your habit.
You're directly killing people by supporting wars for oil. Just about anything you buy in this society supports a messed up system in some other country, whether it be a sweatshop or poisoning a water supply.

Yes, a little personal responsibility goes a long way, that's why I don't smoke indoors or around people who aren't smoking. If you're 18 you can more than make decisions for yourself. Hell, once you start driving cars you might kill a pedestrian or fellow driver.

[IntheNet]

Its not a police state policy either when your habit is making other people develop cancer. "But I like the taste" is not acceptable when you are directly killing people with your habit.

People are "directly killing people" when they drive while intoxicated; do we ban all cars?

People are "directly killing people" when they have unprotected sex while having AIDS; do we ban all sexuality?

There is something called personal freedom that allows such things as tobacco use and it is the same personal freedom that you might recognize that allows other freedoms. You can't allow some without allowing all. Places that people frequent have set up smoking and non-smoking sites to maintain this freedom for all. If you are so serous to question the minor second-hand emissions from the small minority that use cigarettes, you should be more concerned about the large majority that use vehicles, whose emissions affect you more directly.

As soon as someone else eating a french fry makes me fat I will want fast food to be hard taxed/restricted also. Its amazing that someone as steadfast in their health regiment as yourself can't quit a smoking habit to tell the truth.

Just perhaps; maybe they don't want to quit. There is this thing about personal freedoms that gives them that right.

[MacNut]

Lets legalize all drugs for people to use then. If I want to OD that should be my right correct?

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Lets legalize all drugs for people to use then.

Only in a perfect world.



It's a plant for godssake.

[MacNut]

Only in a perfect world.



It's a plant for godssake.Im not talking pot I mean everything. Lets open it all up.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Im not talking pot I mean everything. Lets open it all up.

I wasn't talking about pot either... The thread is still about tobacco, no?



EDIT: were you being sarcastic about legalizing everything?

[MacNut]

I wasn't talking about pot either... The thread is still about tobacco, no?



EDIT: were you being sarcastic about legalizing everything?It was but some here think people should be able to do what ever they want with their bodies so why not just open the flood gates. If you can smoke it or snort it or eat it go ahead.

There is some sarcasm in there.;)

[TuffLuffJimmy]

It was but some here think people should be able to do what ever they want with their bodies so why not just open the flood gates. If you can smoke it or snort it or eat it go ahead.

There is some sarcasm in there.;)

I'm of the faith "if it's not hurting anyone else you should be allowed to do it."

[MacNut]

I'm of the faith "if it's not hurting anyone else you should be allowed to do it."Maybe not hurting anybody else now but 50 years from now when you die of lung cancer and your kids have to deal with it are you not hurting them? Or if a crack addict kills someone to get a fix, his smoking crack isn't effecting anybody but his actions to get it are.

[Zombie Acorn]

People are "directly killing people" when they drive while intoxicated; do we ban all cars?

People are "directly killing people" when they have unprotected sex while having AIDS; do we ban all sexuality?

There is something called personal freedom that allows such things as tobacco use and it is the same personal freedom that you might recognize that allows other freedoms. You can't allow some without allowing all. Places that people frequent have set up smoking and non-smoking sites to maintain this freedom for all. If you are so serous to question the minor second-hand emissions from the small minority that use cigarettes, you should be more concerned about the large majority that use vehicles, whose emissions affect you more directly.



Just perhaps; maybe they don't want to quit. There is this thing about personal freedoms that gives them that right.

Again, driving a car is a necessity in most areas unless we want to cripple the economy, smoking your cigarette provides no benefit to anyone and even taxes levied are destroyed by the poor health that this habit provides later in life which ends up costing millions in tax money.

If this is the type of personal freedom we are allowed, I should be able to punch any smoker in the face if they are smoking in my general vicinity. Wear a patch or take a dip if you need your nicotine fix, that way no one else is effected by it.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Maybe not hurting anybody else now but 50 years from now when you die of lung cancer and your kids have to deal with it are you not hurting them? Or if a crack addict kills someone to get a fix, his smoking crack isn't effecting anybody but his actions to get it are.

If I rolled my eyes anymore they'd burst out of my skull. I've heard all the arguments, you're not bringing a single new thing to the table.

[MacNut]

If I rolled my eyes anymore they'd burst out of my skull. I've heard all the arguments, you're not bringing a single new thing to the table.Since when does it have to be new? This is basic common sense. Your actions might not matter now but in time it will affect everyone around you.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Since when does it have to be new? This is basic common sense. Your actions might not matter now but in time it will affect everyone around you.

First off: I'm not going to have kids. Second, ones actions always have repercussions. I never said, nor suggested they don't. If one chooses to smoke cigarettes then they are responsible for the result of their actions. If one chooses to shoot heroin they are responsible for any crimes they commit. A heroin addict stealing a stereo should not be sentenced any different from a man trying to feed his family stealing a stereo.


Doing crack does not mean you're going to go knife someone for money. Experimentation with drugs is hardcoded into human nature.

[bobber205]

First off: I'm not going to have kids. Second, ones actions always have repercussions. I never said, nor suggested they don't. If one chooses to smoke cigarettes then they are responsible for the result of their actions. If one chooses to shoot heroin they are responsible for any crimes they commit. A heroin addict stealing a stereo should not be sentenced any different from a man trying to feed his family stealing a stereo.


Doing crack does not mean you're going to go knife someone for money. Experimentation with drugs is hardcoded into human nature.

Famous last words. :D

[mactastic]

If our nation establishes a UHC I am all for a penalty/incentive structure for each individual. Someone who puts themselves at risk and costs the nation more should be paying more into the system.
Fair enough. But where does that lead? Do surfers have to pay a shark tax? Do snowboarders have to pay a busted wrist tax? Does anyone who plays football have to pay a concussion tax? Do video gamers have to pay a lethargy tax? Do woodworkers have to pay an amputation tax? Do hunters need to pay an "oops, accidentally shot someone in the face" tax?

Where does it end?

Lets legalize all drugs for people to use then. If I want to OD that should be my right correct?
Yes. Just so long as you don't decide to OD behind the wheel of a car or something.

[XNine]

wowwwwwwwwww im a smoker and i would blame myself for dieing because of cigarettes... how about the millions of other families that were affected by cigarette related deaths?

Yes, and how about the millions who die from breast cancer? how about kidney cancer? How about war, hunger, strife, and genocide? We can't go around suing everybody for everything.

[Burnsey]

When you advertise a sell a product that is harmful, you deserve to be punished. Toyota would not be allowed to sell a car in this country if it didn't meet strict safety regulations, but these tobacco companies can market and sell what is essentially poison with no repercussions.

[Eraserhead]

When you advertise a sell a product that is harmful, you deserve to be punished. Toyota would not be allowed to sell a car in this country if it didn't meet strict safety regulations, but these tobacco companies can market and sell what is essentially poison with no repercussions.

You could make the same argument about alcohol, which according to scientists is more dangerous.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

You could make the same argument about alcohol, which according to scientists is more dangerous.

But alcohol is such a part of our culture, it must remain legal despite the hypocrisy.
;)

[Zombie Acorn]

But alcohol is such a part of our culture, it must remain legal despite the hypocrisy.
;)

I don't get second hand liver cancer.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I don't get second hand liver cancer.

has there ever been a study of this?

[Zombie Acorn]

has there ever been a study of this?

No, but im pretty sure someone else imbibing alcohol doesn't make me drunk/strain my liver..

[TuffLuffJimmy]

No, but im pretty sure someone else imbibing alcohol doesn't make me drunk/strain my liver..

Are you an expert? Until a study is done I can't be sure.