US court dismisses smoking appeal

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by edesignuk, Mar 31, 2009.

  1. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #1
    BBC.

    http://upc.*************/uploads/macros/nelson-haha.jpg
     
  2. nick9191 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Britain
  3. arkitect macrumors 601

    arkitect

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Location:
    Bath, United Kingdom
    #3
    Looks like all of Mayola Williams' Christmases are coming home to roost… at once.
    That compound interest is a real stinger.
    :D

    [​IMG]
     
  4. steve2112 macrumors 68040

    steve2112

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Location:
    East of Lyra, Northwest of Pegasus
    #4
    I hate these kinds of cases. I have zero sympathy for people who smoke and then say that the evil tobacco company caused it. I can almost see it for people who started smoking back in the 40s or 50s, before we had serious proof of how harmful cigarette smoking is, and before all the dire warnings. However, I have no sympathy for those who started after all the warnings, and all the info became public.

    Look, I can't stand cigarettes. The habit is nasty, expensive, and very bad for your health. But the tobacco companies didn't force these people to take up the habit.
     
  5. edesignuk thread starter Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #5
    .
     
  6. DrainBramage macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Location:
    In Euphoria
    #6
    God, what is this country coming to?

    Let's look at this from another stand point. I enjoy eating unnatural Peanut Butter. I know it's bad for me, but it tastes really good.

    After eating it for 30 years, I die of a heart attack. Now, my wife sues the peanut butter company and WINS for my incompetence?

    I think they should have both passed away, and it would be survival of the fittest (AKA those than can control habits).
     
  7. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #7
    The point is that in the 40's/50's the cigarette companies sat on the evidence it was harmful.
     
  8. steve2112 macrumors 68040

    steve2112

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Location:
    East of Lyra, Northwest of Pegasus
    #8
    Yes, the tobacco companies did cover up evidence. But, as I said earlier, we all have freewill. No tobacco company has ever forced anybody to start smoking.

    Actually, my gripe isn't specifically with tobacco lawsuits. It's the overall death of personal responsibility in this country and the growth of the sue 'em all mentality. Took a diet drug that may have possibly had slight side effects? Class action lawsuit! Fatso who loves McDonalds? Sue 'em! Baby born with a genetic defect? Malpractice suit!
     
  9. bartelby macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    #9
    Due to medication recommended to pregnant women?
     
  10. DrainBramage macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Location:
    In Euphoria
    #10
    Does that really matter?

    And what about the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s?

    If you can't stop doing something, and it's tough to quit, you'd think it is ADDICTIVE. This whole lawsuit should have been thrown out. Did they ever say cigarettes were good for you? No.

    Oh, a bit of topic, but I "love" the recent bill passed by the Obama administration:

    Raising the tax on the purchase and sale of tobacco to raise money for health insurance for children.

    Oh great! And studies show that there has been a DECLINE in smokers in the last 15 years. If the decline continues, and people stop smoking, and they can't raise the money any more, guess what happens? WE (the tax payers) now pay that in our Federical and State Income taxes!

    I'm sick and tired of people attacking the tobacco companies. They are out to make a profit. If you can't figure out what is good for you, and what isn't, then you really should be wearing diapers.
     
  11. P-Worm macrumors 68020

    P-Worm

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #11
    I think you're kind of missing the point. The companies were hiding that their product was harmful to it's users. Think of it this way, if you bought a car only to find out that the brakes would stop working after 6 months, you would want to be compensated for the harm the car brought to you, right?

    And you're argument about addiction doesn't hold much water. You're basically saying that you should recognize that it is addictive after it is hard to quit. How do you recognize that if no one tells you beforehand? And if you find out the hard way, how do you quit?

    Life is different now that there is more information out there regarding smoking's negative health effects. I agree that people that take up smoking now don't have much of a case when they develop lung cancer. But no more than 40 years ago, smoking was viewed as no different than having a glass of wine after dinner.

    P-Worm
     
  12. bartelby macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    #12
    And despite getting into accidents the manufacturer insisted the brakes were ok.

    That kind of brings it inline...
     
  13. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #13
    This needs to be stressed. Tobacco companies have, and continue to be deceptive in their marketing and in knowingly spreading false information. Their very business model puts profit above people's lives.

    This website is a fantastic source of documents from tobacco companies showing how implicitly they knew their product was endangering people's lives but put their profits first. It's disgusting and well worth a read. The old advertisement section is particularly damning.
     

Share This Page