Should Ex-smoker win $8 million?

Do you understand the word 'addiction?'

The fact that US cigarettes have much higher levels of nicotine then many foreign-made ones doesn't help RJ Reynold's case any either.

Cycloptichorn

with this widespread knowledge available, did R.J. Reynolds stop selling their cancer sticks?

No. RJ Reynolds did not twist her arm every time she purchased a pack of cigarettes. She should take some personal responsibility like all the others smokers that have not sued are doing.

Smoking is purely voluntary (minus the exceptions I am sure someone will bring up). When you voluntarily place your self at risk, you voluntarily accept the risks associated with it.

Would any smoker have wanted or asked R.J. Reynolds or any other producer of cigarettes to stop producing their product?

No, I don't think she should win $8 million dollars. For what?

greedy tobacco company being out $8 mill is a win-win in my book...

Well, I would say that the fact that RJ Reynolds manipulates levels of nicotine in their product specifically in order to make it MORE addictive sort of gives the lie to the idea that they are not twisting anyone's arm. Wouldn't you say?

Cycloptichorn

Okay, but are you saying that EVERY smoker who falls into their trap is due $8,000,000?
For what? You know - it's a choice - at least at first.

My sister and I both tried cigarettes for the first time on exactly the same day. She didn't have some sort of addict gene that I didn't have and she didn't become addicted the first time she inhaled whereas I didn't.

She thought it made her look cool and I didn't give a ****. She kept smoking and I didn't.
Does someone owe her $8,000,000 for wanting to look cool and smoking until she couldn't stop?

No, I'm sorry - that's bullshit - and I don't care how greedy the companies who produce this crap are.

Would I work for them? No. Would I support them in any way? No. As a matter of fact the only reason they're still in business is because smokers make it possible for them to be in business.

This is heading down the wrong, wrong, road. Just another example of madness and lack of personal responsibility.

And it can't be sustained. How many smokers can they pay this amount of money to for enjoying their product? How ridiculous.

This tobacco thing is a regular laugh and a half. Is there a company anywhere that is allowed to continue to market a product that is so patently unsafe?

What happened to WR Grace, were they allowed to continue to market asbestos laden insulation? Can car manufacturers continue producing cars that are unsafe simply by suggesting that people can exercise their personal choice to buy or not to buy?

What of the governments who continue to "partner" with these tobacco companies/tobacco farmers? Are there government subsidies for tobacco farmers?

What of the tobacco farmers, wholesalers, etc, who market such an unsafe product?

Yeah - well then shut 'em down tomorrow and let's see who makes the biggest uproar.
It wouldn't make a whit of difference to me- go for it.

Give me a break.

And then we can all go after McDonalds and Kentucky Fried Chicken and Budweiser , etc., etc.
I wouldn't care if they were gone either.

Those companies aren't even in the same league, Aidan, or the same situation.

How far do you think I would get if I marketed chimneyless wood stoves/fireplaces for the home? After all, there's a lot of wasted energy that goes up the smoke stack.

Or maybe an asbestos snuggie for those cold winter nights.

well that's my argument for folks who say, "but they didn't tell us it was dangerous", uh, yeah, but you wouldn't sit in a closed room with an open fire

i smoked on and off from the late 70's to the 90's, you buys your ticket and you takes your chances

But JTT, the people who have supported these companies have been aware for YEARS that to begin smoking is to court addiction and health issues. That's been known since before I was born. I can't remember ever not knowing that.

Why are companies that produce alcohol and unhealthy foods not in the same league as those that produce tobacco products?
As far as I can remember reading, obesity is now the number one cause of negative health issues- at least in America. And people who are addiction prone are just as likely to experience negative health issues from drinking as they are from smoking. It just affects different organs negatively.

I just can't fathom this attitude that someone can choose to do something that they know is harmful and support the business that sells the product for years and years and then demand recompense when they develop the health issues that they've been told over and over again they are more likely to develop if they begin or continue to use that product.

Do smokers not want these businesses to make their product? Why don't they boycott them then? They're the ones who will make a difference to their profit margin and ability to stay in business. It's entirely within their control.

Don't buy it and use it if you think it's bad.

Well I think this baby should be awarded $8 mill - it is too difficult to get those in the US hooked now - so they have resorted to marketing in less developed countries.

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/local_news/052710-smoking-baby-causes-video-controversy

And how about this little girl

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/06/09/2010-06-09_chinese_toddler_ya_wen_smokes_drinks_beer_as_therapy_from_traffic_accident_injur.html

What role do the parents of these children play in their access and addiction to cigarettes?

What parent in their right mind would give their child a lit cigarette to hold? Even if they aren't aware of the dangers of tar and nicotine, are they not aware that a child can be burned by the hot cigarette?

Do the tobacco companies do home deliveries?

If someone takes their children to McDonald's to eat every meal, is McDonald's responsible for that too?

I find this attitude of being willing to forego holding people responsible for their own bad choices so scary.

It's not a matter of unhealthy food or drink, Aidan. It is a process whereby toxic compounds known to cause cancer are directly taken into the body.

Can you point to one other industry that gets this free pass?

Evidently, you did.

i smoked on and off from the late 70's to the 90's,

yes, so i have no right to say, i didn't know it wasn't good for me, they should have said

That's an absurd test. Companies can't put out certain products that are dangerous to the public, and addictive to boot, and then claim that people should have known better.

There's no company on the planet that is given that kind of license.

****, as they say, happens



it happens everyday i believe