TREETOAD Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2005/09/30/tobacco_Friday20050930.html Quote
ivan Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 this board is misanthropic enough i'm sure this has already been said somewhere, but as i've been up since 530 this saturday morning watching shrek w/ my cranky daughter, i feel sufficiently angry to restate it: smokers who sue tobacco companies should be crucified for their irritating stupidity - how else could i buy your bullshit argument that you didn't know the product was bad for you? and if you're whining that you couldn't quit you're an even bigger loser - suck it up and start chewing sunflower seeds! i smoked for years and quit when it became obvious it wasn't what i wanted - i'd like to be able to have the occasional cigarette these days w/o having to throw down $3000 or feel like a fuckstick for picking some guys pocket by bumming one. whatever - the colonization of the americas was based on booze, smokes n' slaves - we gotta keep at least some of the classics legal! Quote
sexual_chocolate Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 If a company sells something that does nothing else except enslave and then kill people, then fuckin' a they gotta go. Tobacco co's are evil fuckers, exceeded only by the advertisers who work for them. Quote
ivan Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 but they don't just enslave and kill people i enjoy smoking an occasional cigarrete and ain't such a weak-willed puss to be lead aroudn by the dick by some shit that makes your breathe stink, your fingers yellow, and your bank account skinny the co.s are definetly slimy - but pretty much every organization that makes a living by selling shit people don't absolutely need is. booze also enslaves and kills people - are we going to go back to taxing that into extinction as a forerunner of outlawing it entirely? why can't we allow nature to run it's course? people who control themselves enjoy the shit they want, and dumb fucks who are disposed to throwing it all away on a butt, a drink or a joint take an early dirt nap? Quote
JayB Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 "If a company sells something that does nothing else except enslave and then kill people, then fuckin' a they gotta go." Word. What really gets me is the evil cabal of climbing gear manufacturers, magazines, and advertisers that lure hordes of unwitting citizens into participating in an exceptionally dangerous activity that, if left unchecked, can ultimately form a habit powerful enough to destroy the victim's family, livelihood, and eventually his own life. Not to mention the medical and rescue costs that their habit inflicts on the rest of society. The gear manufacturers KNOW the risks, they KNOW that certain individuals are predisposed to seek out the mental and physical sensations associated with high risk behavior, and they prey on them. I think its high time that we recognize the validity of the premises that underly the tobacco lawsuits, and apply them to the heartless profiteers at the center of the climbing industry. Enough is enough. Quote
Dru Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 They should make tobacco legal to grow but not to sell so if you want to smoke it you have to grow your own, then do the same with weed. Quote
JayB Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 I think that they should make it legal for the cigarette manufacturers to crank out something like the Red-Bull of cigarettes - extra concentrated nicotine, larger diameter etc. Nicotine addicts could get their dosage faster and reduce their inhalation of extraneous combustion products.... Quote
tomtom Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 "If a company sells something that does nothing else except enslave and then kill people, then fuckin' a they gotta go." Word. What really gets me is the evil cabal of climbing gear manufacturers, magazines, and advertisers that lure hordes of unwitting citizens into participating in an exceptionally dangerous activity that, if left unchecked, can ultimately form a habit powerful enough to destroy the victim's family, livelihood, and eventually his own life. Not to mention the medical and rescue costs that their habit inflicts on the rest of society. The gear manufacturers KNOW the risks, they KNOW that certain individuals are predisposed to seek out the mental and physical sensations associated with high risk behavior, and they prey on them. I think its high time that we recognize the validity of the premises that underly the tobacco lawsuits, and apply them to the heartless profiteers at the center of the climbing industry. Enough is enough. The difference is rather simple. Rock climbing gear, when used as promoted by the manufacturers, can effectively prevent injury and death. Cigarettes, when used as promoted by the manufacturers, significantly increases the risk of disease and death. Quote
TREETOAD Posted October 1, 2005 Author Posted October 1, 2005 What if they made a cigarette that killed you right away? Or perhaps there could be some way of keeping track of how much a person imbibes consumer products that are harmfull to their health and then when the time comes that they show up at the emergency ward with heart problems or respiratory ailments they would either have to go to the bottom of the surgical list or even pay for their own surgery. Quote
JayB Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 The underlying argument is the same - that people are not capable of assesing the risks associated with a given behavior and regulating it accordingly. I'm all for applying these standards to infants, invalids, and retarded people - and anyone who lights cigarettes for them, places them in their mouth, and forces them to smoke until they become addicted is indeed a bad person - but the premises of such lawsuits seem like a dangerous precedent to errect a broad social policy upon. My niece knew that smoking was bad for you by the time she was three - I distinctly recall her telling an adult smoker that at the time. I personally smoke cigarettes intermittently - I think the last time was when someone handed me one at the Smith Ropeup last year, but I've managed to limit it to a pack-a-decade habit thus far, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this. Smoking rates dropped for 20-30 years after the Surgeon General's warning, etc, etc, etc - so there are people who are capable of regulating their behavior out there, those who aren't, and those who enjoy smoking and think it's worth the tradeoff. I might find it easier to live with lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers, McDonalds, etc if the people advocating them would accept some sort of a tradeoff whereby health insurance rates, medicaid taxes, etc were also selectively increased for smokers, the obese, etc but that never seems to be part of the package... Quote
ivan Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 They should make tobacco legal to grow but not to sell so if you want to smoke it you have to grow your own, then do the same with weed. i'd agree w/ this only to get weed legalized - not too practical for tobacco though, as that requires a fair bit more real-estate to grow and would be damned unfair for them city-boys insurance companies already refuse or raise rates for tobacco users - i hav eno idea if that's commesurate to the strain black-lung types impose on the overall system Quote
mattp Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 As I understand it, the big suits against tobacco companies were not based simply on the fact that they sell a harmful product. Beyond that, of significant imporance was that they deliberately hid the risks associated with tobacco use or that they marketed their products to children, or both. In either case, they knew that what they were doing was wrong, but did what they did because it made them a hell of a lot of money. Assuming they did either hide the risks or marketted to innocent children, it would seem that we only have three choices here: (1) government regulation, (2) a civil liability system that IS NOT subject to caps or other legal protection for such corporate wrongdoing, or (3) companies do what they want and their (relatively innocent and directly targetted) victims be damned. By the way, I think Ivan is right: every insurance form I've ever filled out asks if I am a smoker. Car insurance, homeowners, and health insurance. Don't they charge more if you check the "yes" box or are they just asking for the hell of it? Quote
ScottP Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 I think that they should make it legal for the cigarette manufacturers to crank out something like the Red-Bull of cigarettes - extra concentrated nicotine, larger diameter etc. Nicotine addicts could get their dosage faster and reduce their inhalation of extraneous combustion products.... I believe there is already somethng like that on the market... How does one make a cigarette larger in diameter and reduce the inhalation of extraneous combustion products? A strong cigarette contains 1.1 mg of nicotine. A cigar, depending on its size and type, can contain anywhere from 10 to 444 mg of nicotine. Cigar smoke also produces 30 times more carbon monoxide than cigarette smoke. Quote
foraker Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 "If a company sells something that does nothing else except enslave and then kill people, then fuckin' a they gotta go." I guess that means no more booze for you! Quote
foraker Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 Still, it enslaves some and kills other, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, it must go, right? Quote
JayB Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 I don't think that most group rates have such an exclusion, and I'm sure that smoking, obesity, etc have no bearing whatsoever on the amount that one pays into medicaid. The other thing that's interesting to note is that I recall some study done a while ago that indicated that smokers were a net plus for social security, as they tended to die long before their withdrawals match their contributions. As far as the liability of Tobacco companies is related to their marketing and "research" practices, it is rather dismaying to me that anyone thinks that these should be grounds for a lawsuit. Is there anyone above the age of three who is not - literally - retarded who did not know that smoking was bad for you in the entire country? Has there been for decades? Are we really supposed take anyone seriously when they testify that it was entirely reasonable to dismiss the decades of Surgeon Generals warnings, the warnings on the labels, the massive PR and popular print articles, and the actual experiences of millions of other smokers because the guys selling the stuff swore that it wasn't harmful? If this is going to serve as a valid legal precedent, then we should also allow lawsuits against casinos on the part of people who lose money there despite the adds that show people winning a fortune on the slots, against crack dealers who swear - swear - that their product is both healthy and non-habbit forming, against prostitutes who transmit VD to their clients despite swearing that they are actually virgins, etc, etc, etc. Anyone who claims that they didn't know that smoking is harmful is either a: lying to evade responsibility for the consequences of their choices and lack of resolve or, b: literally retarded and should become a ward of the state as they clearly lack the faculties to conduct their own affairs. As far as "children" are concerned, I think the term needs some clarifying in the context of the lawsuit. I don't seem to recall anyone literally sponsoring cartoons featuring "Wheezy the Clown" literally encouraging elementary school kids to smoke, and the notion that a cartoon character like Joe Camel in magazine adds and billboards was actually intended to promote smoking amongst children, and could override the cumulative effects of anti-smoking education in schools and elsewhere is a bit much. Even if a tobacco company did engage in such practices the proper remedy would be redefining the language of the existing ban to prevent such campaigns in the future, and a large statutory penalty for the offense in question, and to prevent future offenses. If we are talking about teenagers smoking, I don't personally consider people in this age group to be children, nor do they self identify as such. By seventh grade even the dimmest kids are capable of reasoning their way through simple algebra, so the notion that they don't understand that something is harmful or wrong is just not consistent with reality. The problem here is not so much not being aware of the hazards, but being aware of them and electing to engage in them anyway, or intentionally engage in them because they are hazardous as a result of a variety of factors which have little or nothing to do with marketing, and quite a bit to do with their home environment, peer groups, personality -etc. Somehow quite a few of my friends and peers discovered marijuana without having been exposed to "Captain Toketron" action figures, or "Hashman" cartoons pitched at them as part of a targeted marketing campaign. Quote
ashw_justin Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 This is retarded. The government should pay for that fucking health care. They're collecting tax money on that shit; that's why the fuckers don't just ban the sale of tobacco. hipocrisy. (edit: not that I think the sale should be banned--but you either let the shit happen, or you don't. Don't fuck around and leave everything up to independent litigation.) Quote
TREETOAD Posted October 1, 2005 Author Posted October 1, 2005 I have seen many people at the front doors to our hospital sitting outside in the pouring rain and cold winds, dressed in hospital gowns and slippers with I.V. pumps and who knows what else hanging from I.V. poles sucking back cigarettes as if smoking was a cure for cancer. Maybe darwin is at work here. Every one knows someone that just seems to be predisposed to addiction to just about anything and maybe there is nothing to be done for those people but the fact that the companies have targeted young people specifically and have made cigarettes so addictive leads me to think that they deserve to be sued and maybe put out of business. Quote
ivan Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 i quit smoking when it occured to me that i had been contracting colds more frequently than when i was a non-smoker, and also when, despite being deathly ill, i'd still light up at least once a day to get my phlegm nice and nicotine ridden. i'm glad i figured it out and had the sack to stick to my convictions - that was right when i was first getting into the outdoors and climbing, another positive for a hobby often considered deleterious. course, if i was wired up the kazoo w/ tubes and shit and staring death hard in the face, i'd be smoking off the filters too - afterall, that's where they hide the heroin! again, i repeat that tobacco companies are slimy - so are car companies, and candy bar companies, and budwieser, and companies that make napalm and stealth bombers and toxic chemicals. shit, even the quaker oats people are probably a bunch of fucking assholes! tyler durden had SOME shit right... Quote
guderian Posted October 2, 2005 Posted October 2, 2005 Gee, I thought it was because someone bet you that you couldn't quit. Funny how you've assumed the moral high ground these days Ivan. Quote
ivan Posted October 2, 2005 Posted October 2, 2005 fucking germans! no wonder we bombed the shit out them! it hard to have the high ground when your hanging out w/ swamp fucks... Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.