tobacco lawsuit news
- Thread starter chero
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
If I understood this correctly, the hospital sued the cigarette companies claiming they are responsible for making people ill since they offer a product that made them ill.
The jury disagreed and ruled in favor of the cigarette companies, saying they are not responsible.
I have no problem with this at all.
I am not a fan of cigarettes. I strongly believe that each individual should be responsible for their own decisions. In this day and age, it is ludicrous to think they anyone in the population isn't aware of the potential health issues involved in smoking cigarettes. Hell, anti-smoking campaigns are much more heavily supported than the promotion of cigarettes.
Not taking responsibility for your own actions is childish to say the least.
Not to mention the myriad variables of each individual that come into play.
What about all the examples you hear of someone that smoked a pack a day from the time they were 18-years old and they lived to be 99-years old?
To just make a blanket conclusion that their illnesses were caused 100% by smoking is irresponsible.
I think people shouldn't smoke cigarettes, but should be free to make their own personal lifestyle choices, and should take responsibility for them.
The jury disagreed and ruled in favor of the cigarette companies, saying they are not responsible.
I have no problem with this at all.
I am not a fan of cigarettes. I strongly believe that each individual should be responsible for their own decisions. In this day and age, it is ludicrous to think they anyone in the population isn't aware of the potential health issues involved in smoking cigarettes. Hell, anti-smoking campaigns are much more heavily supported than the promotion of cigarettes.
Not taking responsibility for your own actions is childish to say the least.
Not to mention the myriad variables of each individual that come into play.
What about all the examples you hear of someone that smoked a pack a day from the time they were 18-years old and they lived to be 99-years old?
To just make a blanket conclusion that their illnesses were caused 100% by smoking is irresponsible.
I think people shouldn't smoke cigarettes, but should be free to make their own personal lifestyle choices, and should take responsibility for them.
Whatever. Its just keeps getting crazier every day. I just watched a video where some liberal lunatic says that $4.00/gallon gas is saving 1,000 lives a month by people cutting back on driving and thus spewing less pollution from their cars. I guess this idiot is unaware of what catalytic convertors actually do in autos and what stack scrubbers do at factories.
Why is it that no one ever questions the numbers that get tossed around?
Why is it that no one ever questions the numbers that get tossed around?
Because math his hard!
And hey, at least its not the news of another historic shop closing or another invasion of our freedoms... yet.
And hey, at least its not the news of another historic shop closing or another invasion of our freedoms... yet.
The last couple times the wife has been in the hospital, the staff wants her to take Prilosec for her "heartburn." There is only one problem with that, she doesn't have heartburn. We tell them she does not get heartburn and their response is that she should take it and it will help prevent her from getting heartburn. Maybe I should get a cast on my arm to help prevent it from being broken possibly in some future event I don't know about yet.
that's not quite the same logic mate. . .prilosec can prevent some cause of heartburn that may come up later. .. a cast .. hmm come to think of it -- it really would prevent some of the ways you could break your arm. .. not all of them mind, and only to a certain point, if its enough pressure it'll break the cast and then the arm for good measure but still. . . even from a realistic perspective the only real difference between the two is that the cast thing -sounds- like reductio ad absurdum but isn't (how's that for absurdum? :puffpipe
That IS rediculous. I take enough meds for stuff I already have, I don't need to take more for things I MIGHT develope in the future.
I am happy too see a little common sense taking place with regard to tobacco related court cases.
Isn't the master settlement there to cover medical expenses where egligible and appropriate? And it is also funny that they'd treat the patients in question when they normally wouldn't care for those who lack the funds (self-generated or from insurances). But since the jury voted for the smokers, and that they must have been unanimous, it's reassuring to see that they clearly saw through the pure commercial interest behind filing the suit. I wonder whether the people can consistently make rational decisions like that one in future legal battles. For now (cigarette) smokers have a small victory.
This is why I'm not sure I would be 100% happy about this lawsuit. . .the cigarette smokers did not benefit from it directly, the cigarette companies were held as 'not negligent' (not an actual quote, a paraphrase that needs to be in quotes to define reasoning) and therefore not liable for the costs the hospitals incurred treating smokers.
You could argue that the smokers got treated, had debt they ignored so didn't suffer from, and their cigarette prices didn't even go up because the tobacco companies didn't end up having to foot the bills. . . and that's not wrong, but it also isn't the point.
What is the point: The jury found that cigarettes themselves are a legitimate product, and despite being harmful even when used as intended, are at least representable as an 'accepted risk' (perhaps equivalent to that of alcohol or prescription drugs or even over-the-counter ones for that matter)and that decision, if it holds in future cases (and there will be future cases) will provide precedent to fight against any future attempts to ban the sale of cigarettes both at the federal level and at the level of the states that have encountered suits like this one with the same result. On the other hand. . . that may not actually happen so there is little reason to begin hoping based on this precedent.
So you see why I'm not sure if I should cheer or just remain confused. And sleep didn't help me make that call.
You could argue that the smokers got treated, had debt they ignored so didn't suffer from, and their cigarette prices didn't even go up because the tobacco companies didn't end up having to foot the bills. . . and that's not wrong, but it also isn't the point.
What is the point: The jury found that cigarettes themselves are a legitimate product, and despite being harmful even when used as intended, are at least representable as an 'accepted risk' (perhaps equivalent to that of alcohol or prescription drugs or even over-the-counter ones for that matter)and that decision, if it holds in future cases (and there will be future cases) will provide precedent to fight against any future attempts to ban the sale of cigarettes both at the federal level and at the level of the states that have encountered suits like this one with the same result. On the other hand. . . that may not actually happen so there is little reason to begin hoping based on this precedent.
So you see why I'm not sure if I should cheer or just remain confused. And sleep didn't help me make that call.
@yoru
Why should any cigarette smokers benefit from any lawsuit? Nobody forced them to smoke and they should be the only ones that are 100% responsibile for their actions.
So you think cigarettes should be banned!?!?!
Am I understanding you correctly?
Because if that ever happens, guess what's next.
Why should any cigarette smokers benefit from any lawsuit? Nobody forced them to smoke and they should be the only ones that are 100% responsibile for their actions.
So you think cigarettes should be banned!?!?!
Am I understanding you correctly?
Because if that ever happens, guess what's next.
@yoru:
I think you start off the wrong assumptions. "When used as intended", you smoke 2 to 5 cigarettes a day, 10 if you worked hard and felt you may celebrate. When you read and research older literature (around the two WWs), you'll see that cigarettes were consumed modestly by health-conscious men trying to make a gentlemanly impressesion (smaller and the smoke volume was more discreet). They were quite expensive because of the lower production ofthat time. Tobacco was a luxury product, unlike today, and so its production was disproportionally low and the price disproportionally high. No one ever needed to add preservatives and other chemicals - they sold quite quickly and were smoked almost as slow as cigars for maximum enjoyment.
After the calamities of those wars production as well as consumption went up. Come 1960 a pack cost 35 cents or 20 without taxes. They were cheap and cigarettes hit the market of the lower classes (nothing snobbish - I mean those who have the least say in society and have to put up with the most inconveniences). So the cigarette was no longer the gentlemanly smoke but handed down to those who had to bear with all that is bad about society. Substance abuse is, as we can imagine, the result.
While I can safely claim that smoking 2 or 5 cigarettes w.o. additives a day is unobjectionable, smoking a pack or two a day is harmful in every way. Unfortunately, the second behaviour is prevalent. As I said, the gentleman handed it down to the lower classes. He either smokes premium tobacco or nothing at all.
Now the lower classes smoke cigarettes because of the instant and uncomplicated gratifiction with little regard on the health damage they know they will suffer. They are constantly stressed, contantly tired, constantly dissatisfied and yet incapable of taking action to change. AND they cope with the situation with cigarettes. Taxing tobacco will only increase their misery. If they are forced to pay 6 dollar for their habit everyday, they have to work harder and longer and have even less of their lives. They'll have less money for quality food and drink, so they'll eat unhealthy food and more of it to fight their frustration. The same is for drink. The culmination of those factors lead to a painful life, both physically and psychologically. Banning tobacco will just worsen everything because they are forced to live a life they cannot change for the better or the worse. The room for play becomes even smaller. They can't forget for one moment that they'll die unsung and unremembered and they can't even call attention to the fact that they have no future.
What I hate about discussing the tobacco question is that it becomes totally political and it is impossible to deny that a number of human beings and individuals won't make the cut in society. You should draw the conclusions from my perspective for yourself and consider its plausibility, Yoru. I hope you won't develop a master plan in which rich smokers pay sodomic taxes for visits to cancer controls and poor smokers get the taxes of 2 packs a week exempted so they can live a happy and healthy life if they control their tobacco consumption. Smoke on.
I think you start off the wrong assumptions. "When used as intended", you smoke 2 to 5 cigarettes a day, 10 if you worked hard and felt you may celebrate. When you read and research older literature (around the two WWs), you'll see that cigarettes were consumed modestly by health-conscious men trying to make a gentlemanly impressesion (smaller and the smoke volume was more discreet). They were quite expensive because of the lower production ofthat time. Tobacco was a luxury product, unlike today, and so its production was disproportionally low and the price disproportionally high. No one ever needed to add preservatives and other chemicals - they sold quite quickly and were smoked almost as slow as cigars for maximum enjoyment.
After the calamities of those wars production as well as consumption went up. Come 1960 a pack cost 35 cents or 20 without taxes. They were cheap and cigarettes hit the market of the lower classes (nothing snobbish - I mean those who have the least say in society and have to put up with the most inconveniences). So the cigarette was no longer the gentlemanly smoke but handed down to those who had to bear with all that is bad about society. Substance abuse is, as we can imagine, the result.
While I can safely claim that smoking 2 or 5 cigarettes w.o. additives a day is unobjectionable, smoking a pack or two a day is harmful in every way. Unfortunately, the second behaviour is prevalent. As I said, the gentleman handed it down to the lower classes. He either smokes premium tobacco or nothing at all.
Now the lower classes smoke cigarettes because of the instant and uncomplicated gratifiction with little regard on the health damage they know they will suffer. They are constantly stressed, contantly tired, constantly dissatisfied and yet incapable of taking action to change. AND they cope with the situation with cigarettes. Taxing tobacco will only increase their misery. If they are forced to pay 6 dollar for their habit everyday, they have to work harder and longer and have even less of their lives. They'll have less money for quality food and drink, so they'll eat unhealthy food and more of it to fight their frustration. The same is for drink. The culmination of those factors lead to a painful life, both physically and psychologically. Banning tobacco will just worsen everything because they are forced to live a life they cannot change for the better or the worse. The room for play becomes even smaller. They can't forget for one moment that they'll die unsung and unremembered and they can't even call attention to the fact that they have no future.
What I hate about discussing the tobacco question is that it becomes totally political and it is impossible to deny that a number of human beings and individuals won't make the cut in society. You should draw the conclusions from my perspective for yourself and consider its plausibility, Yoru. I hope you won't develop a master plan in which rich smokers pay sodomic taxes for visits to cancer controls and poor smokers get the taxes of 2 packs a week exempted so they can live a happy and healthy life if they control their tobacco consumption. Smoke on.
Okay. . .look the quickest way to diffuse this situation is to say my post was absolutely 100% without a doubt misunderstood in every single possible way. Or at the very least, what I said, is neither what I meant, nor what I see when I read it.
I'm a smoker myself, I just finished 8 essays against disproportionate taxations, sin taxes, prohibitions, big government and all manner of these things. I love cigarettes, think people who don't smoke should %#$% off (in regards to telling me I can't), people who don't enjoy smoking shouldn't bother, and my RYO fags should cost less than 30 USD a pound for -premium- blends, and less than 40 for creme-de-la-creme while regular cigs should hover around 20 USD a carton (bulk should always be cheaper, aways has been, always should be) and . .. oh its not really important what I DO believe, what IS important, is I don't believe -anything- my last post seems to have made you lads think I believe.
I really thought you lads knew me better than that, I mean, I'm usually the one feeling put out because people around here dislike cigarettes and I'm trying to argue they're just as good as a cigar if you buy the right ones, smoke them right, and go into it with the right mentality.
I'm a smoker myself, I just finished 8 essays against disproportionate taxations, sin taxes, prohibitions, big government and all manner of these things. I love cigarettes, think people who don't smoke should %#$% off (in regards to telling me I can't), people who don't enjoy smoking shouldn't bother, and my RYO fags should cost less than 30 USD a pound for -premium- blends, and less than 40 for creme-de-la-creme while regular cigs should hover around 20 USD a carton (bulk should always be cheaper, aways has been, always should be) and . .. oh its not really important what I DO believe, what IS important, is I don't believe -anything- my last post seems to have made you lads think I believe.
I really thought you lads knew me better than that, I mean, I'm usually the one feeling put out because people around here dislike cigarettes and I'm trying to argue they're just as good as a cigar if you buy the right ones, smoke them right, and go into it with the right mentality.
- Status