PDA

View Full Version : $28 Billion for being ignorant



James Boba Fettfield
10-04-2002, 04:32 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2002/10/04/news/companies/philipmorris/index.htm

Sweet mother of mercy. Part of me is outraged that a person would try to go after a company for doing such a thing. But then again, many years ago tobacco companies were hiding the fact that cigs were bad for people. Yeah, I can understand her smoking them early in the day. But why did she not stop when these things were being told to the public? Adicted or not, she made a choice and clearly stuck with it even after finding out the risks.

Exhaust Port
10-04-2002, 04:50 PM
That's frickin' ridiculous! She had only been diagnosed with cancer 1 year ago, had been smoking for the previous 47 years, warnings have been appart of cigarette packages for most of that time, she already won $850,000 in a previous lawsuit and now she won $28 Billion? Once again someone made a mockery of the legal system.

I really hope that this gets reviewed and thrown out. It's not like this is a class-action lawsuit that would "benefit" everyone who fit this discription but only one. She should be embarrassed that she didn't quit a long time ago before she got cancer. She loves her family and particularly her granddaughter she's pictured with so much that she continued with a habit know/proven to shorten one's life. Now that it caught up with her we all get to pay the price. Thanks a bunch.

I'm sure the first issue she'll address with her winnings is to set up programs so others won't suffer as she has. Perhaps donate money to cancer research? Yeah, right after her trip to the BMW dealership.... :rolleyes:

derek
10-04-2002, 04:50 PM
Anyone who dosen't understand the concept that inhaling smoke into one's lungs is dangerous would never be able to comprehend the surgeon general's warning.

Regardless of how corrupt tobacco companies are, smokers have only themselves to blame for any illness they suffer. I've tried smoking, and i really can't understand how anyone can't know it's unhealthy.

James Boba Fettfield
10-04-2002, 04:54 PM
I know what you mean. Maybe the warnings were not there when she started, but they came out not long after. If she was really concerned she would have stopped then, now when the cancer is found and she realizes she has pulled the shortest straw. This is like that fat piece of crap that is suing fast food restaurants for making him fat. Hey buddy, they advertised it. Lots of companies advertise things. It is up to you to choose what you want. Imagine that, people actually do have a choice. I see commercial for the Navy and Army on tv, at the movies, etc., but I have yet to sign up. Because I can think and make choices, which every person with a brain can do. People anymore just want to cry because they, once again, pulled the shortest straw.

An added note:
It is almost as if the person realizes they have screwed themselves over and they want to bring anyone they can down with them. Misery does love company.

DarthBrandon
10-04-2002, 05:18 PM
I don't feel sorry for her at all, I'm a smoker and I feel ashamed that anyone can do this (make a choice to smoke and then sue the company that made the very product that she used knowing full well what it could possibly do to you.) and I find it particularly sad that the justice system (joke IMO) would allow something like this for just one person. It reminds me of the person who sued McDonald's for giving him/her a coffee and then he/she spilled it on himself, got burnt (minor) and then sued them (MD) for the coffee being too hot. Well I say if you drive with a (hot) coffee between your legs, you are asking for trouble, but the courts didn't see it that way and awarded her a large settlement. It's the same thing with women who want big watermelons, so they get implants, then they sue if they become faulty after ten or fifteen years. Well if you want to put foreign objects into your body, then suffer the consequences. Next it's going to be the guy or gal who eats pizza and drinks beer that will be suing because it causes them to fart too much. If you want to get rich earn it or buy a lottery ticket, stop making your money off the tax payers and consumers who will likely suffer in the future (higher prices on items, insurance etc.) because of this. :crazed:

I guess Iím going to have to sue somebody when I find something crazy enough that will grab some headlines as well. Got to have those headlines.:eek:

mini-rock
10-04-2002, 05:41 PM
Someone should sue that woman for having no common sense. :rolleyes:

Jargo
10-04-2002, 05:44 PM
Perhaps her grandaughter could sue her for passive smoking induced illnesses :evil: I'm a smoker attempting to give up. I'm probably going to suffer for the years I've smoked but it doesn't even enter my mind to even consider anyone else as culpable for my ills due to the choice I made at seventeen to light up and inhale that first cigarette.
The chemicals in cigarettes don't help the situation by inducing a craving for them but really it's just bad will power that means long term smoking. I know, I have terrible will power hence the fact I've smoked for seventeen years and not managed to give up every time I tried.
The whole case is disgusting greed and guilt transference. I really do hope that her granddaughter realises that her dear Granny used to smoke like a chimney and force her to inhale toxic substances because Granny had weak will power, and then sues Granny's carcass for every penny she owns.

master jedi
10-04-2002, 05:54 PM
I can't believe it. I should start acting like a f***ing moron now if it has these kinds of benefits.

This reminds me of that guy who sued those fast food restaurants because he claimed their food made him fat.

Or that time a guy put his RV on cruis control then went in back and made coffee and got in a car accident. He won the case because the owners manual didn't say that you need to stay at the wheel no matter what even in cruis control. How friggen stupid is that?

Exhaust Port
10-04-2002, 05:58 PM
I'm sure a lot more people are wishing they had never kicked the habit and gotten cancer just so they could have a crack at $28 BILLION. With advances we've made in battling cancer, it's might be worth the risk to get your hands on $28 BILLION.

Perhaps they could right her a check for 28 Billion Rubles or something. Since she has a hard time reading and understanding small print I'm sure they could slip this by her. :D

Lord Malakite
10-04-2002, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by master jedi
I can't believe it. I should start acting like a f***ing moron now if it has these kinds of benefits.
Sue the internet companies and Microsoft then. ;) Its all their fault that we have wasted our lives in forums like these and we need to be compensated for our loss. :D

Ignorance is bliss!

smurfvader
10-04-2002, 07:25 PM
It reminds me of the person who sued McDonald's for giving him/her a coffee and then he/she spilled it on himself, got burnt (minor) and then sued them (MD) for the coffee being too hot.
I Just want to clear a few things up about the McDonalds law suit. First the woman was not driving the vehicle, she was in the front passenger section of the car with her grandson driving. They pulled into a McDonalds drive through and then into the parking lot. The coffee was between her thighs and she tried to get the lid off when it spilled on her. The woman (who was in her 60's or 70's) recieved 2nd and 3rd degree burns on her legs. When she wrote a letter asking Mcdonalds to help pay for her medical bills, they laughed and said no. So she sued them. The reason she won was twofold first McD had been told several times that their coffee was too hot and second their defense was she's old and doesn't really need her legs. the amount she was awarded was 2 days of McD's profits, but it was later settled to a much smaller amount.
I'm reminded of a comedian who once said that the only way we could get people to stop smoking is to put a warning label that says something like by smoking you are taking full responsibilty of your actions and therefore cannot sue the Tabbacco company.

JIm

jjreason
10-04-2002, 08:07 PM
I think the liability of the cigarette companies is assumed by the public because they create the addiction. The cigarette companies are at fault for creating the product, but I don't feel that they should be accountable to one person.

The people get out of taking responsibility for their own actions by claiming they were duped in the beginning, leading them to a lifetime of addiction and serious long term health problems.

I do feel that the cigarette companies were at fault for so long, they should be made to suffer paying out class action winnings to every victim of cigarrettes over a certain age, because they DID hide the medical truth and they DID try to spin the facts back to the public denying the medical findings.

Someone who's 14 now and smoking knows full well what they're doing, if they have any sense. Someone who's a sr. citizen and smoked for 20 years before the concerns were addressed is owed something. What, exactly, is not up for me to decide - but something. The damage was already done before they had a chance to kick the habit based on the medical truth.

Jargo
10-04-2002, 09:51 PM
Good point, cigarettes wereadvertised as being beneficial to health back in the late fourties and fifties was it, no matter when suffice to say it was played out as good for you. People weren't half as educated back then as now so anyone who started smoking in the last twenty years has no leg to stand on in that case since it's been a concern about cancer for a mighty long time and especially since the Marlboro man died of cancer. I seem to recall that ex President Ronnie Reagan used to advertise and advocate cigarette smioking, anyone gonna sue him? You could start to sue the entire rosta of actors guild members and equity members for smoking on screens across the globe and setting a bad example making out smoking is cool. Had James Dean lived would people be sueing him for making smoking hip? It's total madness.
If anything is owed it's billions of dollars from the tobacco companies to cancer hospices and research centers, cancer treatment centers for new equipment and better trained staff. Not payouts to individuals with a grudge to bear.

I've said way too much here and I promised myself I'd stay out of hotbed topics. I said my piece and now I'm leaving it alone.

Nexu
10-04-2002, 09:58 PM
Recently from those settlements, Maine got a bunch of from the tobacco companies, from the settlement. It was supposed to go into prevention ads, and campaigns and stuff. How much went towards that? NONE. NOT A DIME. It's all BS.

plasticfetish
10-04-2002, 10:22 PM
Poor poor tobacco companies ... they've always been so good to us.
Why, I remember how they used to hand out free smokes to grandpa when he was overseas during WW2 ... just to "keep his spirits up."

I have absolutely NO compassion for the tobacco companies. If a person can work their way through the legal system to end up with an enormous monetary "reward" like this one, then more power to them. The product that these companies sell is a bad one. The way that it has been marketed to the general public for decades is a crime in its self. If the only way to bash the idea that we don't need them killing us into their corporate skulls is to drain them of every last penny, then so be it. Freedom of choice when it comes to smoking or not, they have committed a crime by deviously manipulating people like this woman into becoming life long abusers of a product that's been purposefully designed to be dangerous. Tobacco companies are Cr*p! Let's all hope that EVERY 64 year old woman with lung cancer wins 28 billion so that Philip Morris and all of the other poison peddlers go out of business for good.

Ahhh ... now that's satisfaction!



PS. Jargo ... "Had James Dean lived would people be sueing him for making smoking hip?" ... James Dean used to be known around Hollywood as "The Human Ashtray" because he would encourage his "gentleman friends" (when he was at the special "gentleman clubs") to put out their lit cigarettes on his bare body. See ... smoking IS cool.

scruffziller
10-05-2002, 08:32 AM
If you think this is bad, haven't you heard about the guy who is sueing a bunch of fast food chains because he said that the food made him fat and he couldn't stop eating it because the food was so good.:crazed: :dead:


Originally posted by Exhaust Port
That's frickin' ridiculous! She had only been diagnosed with cancer 1 year ago, had been smoking for the previous 47 years, warnings have been appart of cigarette packages for most of that time, she already won $850,000 in a previous lawsuit and now she won $28 Billion? Once again someone made a mockery of the legal system.



Last time I checked, if a warning is displayed, isn't that a waiver of your rights to sue? Like "SWIM AT YOUR OWN RISK" or "NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ACCIDENTS" etc. etc. How did they loophole this?:crazed:

Exhaust Port
10-05-2002, 11:08 AM
Perhaps it was another judge trying to make a name for themselves.

SithDroid
10-05-2002, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by scruffziller
Last time I checked, if a warning is displayed, isn't that a waiver of your rights to sue? Like "SWIM AT YOUR OWN RISK" or "NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ACCIDENTS" etc. etc. How did they loophole this?:crazed:

I quite agree. If you are stupid enough to start smoking and develop lung cancer then you have no one but yourself to blame for it. Warnings on packs have been there for years so she should have no legal claim. This really makes me mad because it just goes to show that anyone can get away with everything. "Hey I know perhaps I'll take up smoking so I can get rich too." People in this country make me sick.

smurfvader
10-06-2002, 07:55 PM
Last time I checked, if a warning is displayed, isn't that a waiver of your rights to sue? Like "SWIM AT YOUR OWN RISK" or "NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ACCIDENTS" etc. etc. How did they loophole this?
Unfortunately it's not. If you have a dog that is kept locked up in a cage in your backyard along with a sign saying beware of dog you can be sure that if someone breaks in and gets mauled by your dog you are fully responsible. I think the problem is that we as a society have lost all sense of personal responsibility. It's not my fault I killed those people, I had a bad childhood. It's not my fault I'm fat, the fast food companys made their food taste so good. etc....

JIm

Bobajames
10-06-2002, 10:09 PM
Has that lawsuit against McDonalds been settled yet? I want to know the outcome... and the guys address so i can punch him in his fat face for being so stupid... :p :crazed:

Lowly Bantha Cleaner
10-06-2002, 10:24 PM
Here are more silly attempts from people looking to blame everything or everyone but themselves from accidents that the sole causes of them were their own stupidity.


Here are accident explanations culled from REAL insurance claim forms, courtesy of the creative and funny people at RinkWorks.com:
Just Blame the CAR!
"I had been learning to drive with power steering. I turned the wheel to what I thought was enough and found myself in a different direction going the opposite way."

"The accident happened when the right door of a car came around the corner without giving a signal."

When What Wasn't There Before...Now Is
"Coming home, I drove into the wrong house and collided with a tree I don't have."

"I had been shopping for plants all day and was on my way home. As I reached an intersection, a hedge sprung up, obscuring my vision."

You Mean This? Literally?
"I had been driving for 40 years when I fell asleep at the wheel and had an accident."

"I was on the way to the doctor with rear end trouble when my universal joint gave way causing me to have an accident."

Why You Need to Pay Attention to Your Driving
"In my attempt to kill a fly, I drove into a telephone pole."

"I pulled away from the side of the road, glanced at my mother-in-law, and headed over the embankment."

JON9000
10-07-2002, 12:58 PM
I wonder what the jury found to justify punitive damages of that magnitude? The compensatory damages of 850K are simply what the woman's cancer is worth. To get punitive damages, the jury must have found the tobacco company to be doing something downright shady- like manipulating nicotine levels to enhance physical addiction.

As for McDonald's- we all saw the Seinfeld episode. But I'd be a bit PO'd if I opened coffee and ended up with scar tissue and nerve damage.

Exhaust Port
10-07-2002, 01:44 PM
Basically what this does is say that her life is worth $28 Billion. What did the families of the 9/11 get? It sure as heck wasn't $28 Billion and that wasn't self-inflicted and came with no warning labels.

The Overlord Returns
10-07-2002, 01:52 PM
I think the question is.....should we really be rewarding stupidity...........

I smoke. A LOT. I know there's a damn good chance this is going to kill me. I also know I am addicted. I KNOW are the operative words here.

And to say anyone who was smoking before any warnings came out on tobacco should be compenstated is ridiculous. IF this person continued to smoke for 30+ years afterward, they couldn't have been too concerned....

one question I have......does the woman still smoke?

thespar
10-07-2002, 03:02 PM
i have any idea how about we all get tought and sue hasbro. the are always make all these star wars causing us to spend a small founture with their company. maybe we can get back some of are money. jk

plasticfetish
10-07-2002, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by JON9000
To get punitive damages, the jury must have found the tobacco company to be doing something downright shady- like manipulating nicotine levels to enhance physical addiction.

No ... not the tobacco companies ... not them. :greedy:

JediTricks
10-08-2002, 12:49 AM
Some might suggest that big tobacco, which has been manipulating the American public for longer than this country has existed, has only recently shown their true colors - that of greed at any and all human costs by any means neccessary. Some might add that big tobacco has always corrupted the system one way or another to inflate their pockets - even today, they seem to have content control over the anti-smoking ads they are forced to pay for, ads which have become vague and confusing in a false attempt to look "hip". Some of these ads even reinforce the notion that smoking as a kid is wrong, but as an adult is just dandy - "Smoking is dumb... if you're a teen".

Some might offer that the fast food industry has been ingratiating itself into the psycological cores of American society at the earliest of ages with such mental trickery as concepts like "McDonalds is fun, Ronald loves you!" rather than "McDonalds is fast and tasty!". Many kids for the past 30 years have had one of their first songs be "You deserve a break today". Some might say that this is no different from brainwashing, that Madison avenue has now created several generations of people that may be addicted to certain kinds of advertising.

Some might conclude that corporate responsibility is so impossible to expect or enforce now that many of these corporations have more power than the government of the people, and that the only message these corporations will understand will be financially-motivated ones.

rynobot
10-08-2002, 01:07 AM
McDonalds feeds of the joys of our youth! That is why they give chilren toys with their meals. Hook them when they are young then wheel them in when they are fattened up. I honestly don't understand how some one can eat a big mac fries and a drink, you're taking atleast 100% of daily fat.

plasticfetish
10-08-2002, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by JediTricks
Some might ...

Very nice!


... and here's something fun ...

LTBasker
10-08-2002, 01:30 AM
Hi uh...I've been eating Subway and stuff for the last decade of my life, and I've lost weight from it, but I didn't want to lose weight from it because it can keep me warm in winter. I'd like 100 million dollars compensation to pay for batteries for mobile heaters.

Also I'd like some McDonald's and more money so that that can pay for lawyer fees and stuff.

plasticfetish
10-08-2002, 01:42 AM
Amusing detail from the above image ...

Exhaust Port
10-08-2002, 01:45 AM
Those old cigarette ads are always good for a laugh. :D

The Overlord Returns
10-08-2002, 09:54 AM
You know..........there was a time period, shortly after my marriage broke down....that I was drinking heavily........I mean...everyday.

10 beers per night was nothing to me. Not only did I spend a lot of time sick, and tired, and generally feeling like crap, but I also developed quite the little gut (which looks really funny when you're a tall, slim guy).........

So....could I go sue the alcohol industry for making that sweet stuff so damn irresistable??????????


Or, should I have done what I did............SHOWED SOME F'ING WILLPOWER AND STOPPED?

You decide.......

plasticfetish
10-08-2002, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
So....could I go sue the alcohol industry for making that sweet stuff so damn irresistable??????????
Or, should I have done what I did............SHOWED SOME F'ING WILLPOWER AND STOPPED?
You decide.......

I would say you did what you had to do to stay alive. I suppose if you'd continued the drinking eventually it would have killed you. You made the choice to resist the pull that alcohol had on you. The difference (and I'll say what I think about booze companies later) is that the tobacco companies have willfully created a product that is more difficult to stop using than many of the most addictive illegal drugs. How have they done this? By manipulating the tobacco and by marketing this dangerous and highly addictive drug to a population of people that were told for nearly a century ... that it was perfectly healthy. The point is not that we all have the ability to "pick ourselves up by our boot straps" and kick the habit ... the point is that they made, marketed and sold a dangerous product to us. The money they pay as a result of these legal decisions is their punishment.

If (for instance) one of your local restaurants started poisoning you on purpose, wouldn't you demand that they be shut down? The problem is ... we can't do the same to the tobacco companies. So, you take away their money and their power whenever you can. Honestly, the goal of these huge monetary awards is not to find a way to make these individuals feel better about their impending slow and painful deaths ... it's to kill the tobacco companies.

Again ... good riddance. Any good reasons why we should want them around? (Can we get a shout from the "pro-emphysema" crowd here? Sorry, I can't hear you .. you'll need to take off the oxygen mask.)

"So....could I go sue the alcohol industry for making that sweet stuff so damn irresistable??????????"

By the way ... that's a great question. Know what I think? (I'll bet you do.) A lot of liquor companies market their products specifically to individuals that do not have the willpower that you obviously have. Some liquor companies create products that are inexpensive, high in alcohol content and then market them specifically to individuals with problems. The promise of good times from a bottle can seem better than facing life on the streets, especially when there are maybe 20 liquor stores in your neighborhood and probably no grocery stores.

So ... sue the alcohol companies because they take advantage of peoples weakness by selling them poison? Yep! I'd say any company that willfully and knowingly offers a dangerous product should be aggressively dealt with. Do we really need the same industries that support our society trying to kill us also?

(... anyway, enough of my crazy talk ... time to go get a Starbucks ... the 21st century version of big tobacco.)

The Overlord Returns
10-08-2002, 03:46 PM
The point here is that the public are now being given outlets that take away their own personal responsibility. If you see yourself getting fat because you're going to MacDonalds everyday and getting your supersize meals they sell to you, it is YOUR FAULT. Not theirs. They are offering you product. If you find that product tasty, that's not their responsibility. It is YOURS.

As for people who smoke, well, ANYONE in this day and age who smokes and thinks it isn't unhealthy is an idiot....

It's funny that you mention coffee, which of course is carcinogenic, and can theoretically be considered a poison. Should they be aggresively dealt with?

Exhaust Port
10-08-2002, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by plasticfetish

The difference (and I'll say what I think about booze companies later) is that the tobacco companies have willfully created a product that is more difficult to stop using than many of the most addictive illegal drugs.

Just because it might be more difficult to kick the tobacco habit than another drug doesn't mean they are more responsible than any alcohol company. Alcohol companies are willfully producing a substance that can be addictive and lethal. So why are the tobacco companies held to different standards? What about all those perscription drugs that users get themselves hooked on? Should we punish the manufacturers because someone can't moderate their usage?


... the point is that they made, marketed and sold a dangerous product to us. The money they pay as a result of these legal decisions is their punishment.

Why aren't those that use the product held responsible for their own decision to use a product that so dangerous? Remember that there are warnings right on the side of the packaging that tell of the effects of using their product. How can someone who reads the warning, uses the product anyway still consider the is manufacturer responsible? I don't know of any marketing so overpowering that it by-passes a persons reasoning ability.


If (for instance) one of your local restaurants started poisoning you on purpose, wouldn't you demand that they be shut down?

If that resturant had large warnings outside stating that eating their food would kill you than they can't be held responsible if someone is stupid enough to do so.


I'd say any company that willfully and knowingly offers a dangerous product should be aggressively dealt with. Do we really need the same industries that support our society trying to kill us also?

Hey, it's a free society and there are plenty of people who are happy to be puffing away. Since when do we have to police everything that everyone does? If someone wants to smoke than fine just don't invade my space with it and don't start crying when it kills you. Sadly we live in a society where no one is willing to be held accountable for their own actions and demand that other pay up when they screw up. I think you'd have difficulty finding one person that didn't know that smoking could kill you.


Long gone is the arguement that no one knows what smoking will do to one's health. Even those that started their habit before the days of warnings have had plenty of time to stop.

I saw some more of the details of this story on the news today. It seems that this woman was awarded her money even after testimony of family, friends and even her doctor stating that they warned her to stop smoking. If someone's doctor tells you to stop eating sea food or it will kill you then you can't hold it against Red Lobster for serving it to you. This woman had plenty of warning and didn't listen.

If you want to shut down the tobacco industry, stop smoking.

The Overlord Returns
10-08-2002, 04:23 PM
If I buy a gun, knowing what it can do, then proceed to shoot my finger off, can I sue the gun company for damages?

Exhaust Port
10-08-2002, 04:37 PM
You'd probably have to sue the bullet manufacturer for not producing softer projectiles. Nerf Bullets, the wave of the future. :D

plasticfetish
10-08-2002, 04:43 PM
OK. real quick 'cause I'm getting a headache from caffeine withdrawals ... :)


Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
The point here is that the public are now being given outlets that take away their own personal responsibility.

That's one way of looking at it and I don't disagree with you ... but the other side of the issue is that the companies that manufacture dangerous products are being forced to take responsibility also. The smoker with lung cancer has paid for their mistake ... and shouldn't the tobacco company pay for theirs? Though I wouldn't call it a "mistake" as far as the tobacco companies go ... considering that they have purposely enhanced the levels of toxins in their products in order to make them more potent and more addictive.


Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
As for people who smoke, well, ANYONE in this day and age who smokes and thinks it isn't unhealthy is an idiot....

Stupid people do not deserve to be taken advantage of. Stupid people have rights as well as responsibilities. Stupid people, if they are smart enough to hire good attorneys, can do us all a big favor by signaling to these companies that none of us want to be taken advantage of.


Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
It's funny that you mention coffee, which of course is carcinogenic, and can theoretically be considered a poison. Should they be aggresively dealt with?

The mention was my way of being a smarty pants.
I'll admit ... in all of my 34 years ... I've purposefully put a great many awful chemicals into my body. I've fooled around with and abused just about anything you can imagine ... and if I didn't do it, I probably know someone who did. I've suffered many a personal loss as a result of drug, alcohol and even cigarette abuse ... I've had many close family members and friends wounded and killed as a result of their personal weaknesses. I personally no longer smoke and no longer drink. Since my son was born, these things are not a part of my life. I started drinking coffee when I was 12 ... hahaha ... my grandparents pumped it into me to get me up for church in the morning when I visited them. I L-O-V-E coffee ... but I know that caffeine is a drug and a highly addictive and destructive one at that. My real point is not that I hate tobacco or alcohol or coffee ... my real point is that the companies are responsible for how they sell it to us. If Marlboro made cigarettes with all organic tobaccos that weren't modified to be more dangerous ... then I'd have no problem. If E. & J. Gallo stopped manufacturing "Thunderbird" and "Night train" and marketing it to the homeless ... then cool. As far as coffee goes ... sometimes I have my suspicions about Starbucks and all of the other big coffee chains ... if it turns out that the product has been modified to make it more potent and in turn more harmful ... then yep, they are at fault.

JediTricks
10-08-2002, 05:46 PM
Plasticfetish, those were great, I saved 'em to my HD. At least she has proper writing skills, nice to see the underappreciated comma in use there - even if it is hawking death sticks. :D

It's a good thing athletes say that smoking Camels doesn't "get your wind", now smokers can rest assured that the black phlegm they hack up every morning as they get the DTs for that next drag isn't from their smokes. :rolleyes: ;) And remember, "You'll like their mildness too!" (isn't that supposed to end "... or else!"? :D)


Originally posted by Exhaust Port
Those old cigarette ads are always good for a laugh. :D Would that be a hacking, coughing, spitting-up-blood kinda laugh? ;) :happy: :o :o :o :p :dead: <-- (winky face, smiley face, cough, cough, cough, cough-up-blood, dead)


You know why it's currently different between tobacco and alcohol companies and these lawsuits? Tobacco companies have been shown to be actively deceptive about their product's health hazards - even today they try to minimize this as much as they can. Tobacco companies have been shown to add substances to their products which are there only to addict users to their product. These are the same companies who market cigarettes to children, there certainly seems to be a marked lack of individual responsibility on their executive boards which leads to powerful corporate irresponsible activities. These companies worm their way into society's collective subconscious and then use this to kickstart their actively addictive qualities when they know their product is a severe health risk.

If an individual knows he's buying the wrong lugnut for his car and it breaks off and causes an accident, that person is fully responsible for his actions. If that same individual has been under pressure by our collective psyche to only buy that lugbolt no matter the dangers, the responsibility doesn't fall only upon the shoulders of that person.

It's like if Gatorade added heroin and then gave off radon when you opened the bottle.

Nexu
10-08-2002, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by JediTricks
Would that be a hacking, coughing, spitting-up-blood kinda laugh? ;) :happy: :o :o :o :p :dead: <-- (winky face, smiley face, cough, cough, cough, cough-up-blood, dead)


LoL. That is one of the funniest things I have seen here. :D

The Overlord Returns
10-09-2002, 09:47 AM
Are you telling me that beer commercials aren't actively deceptive in their portrayal of the nerd turned stud getting all the girls when he drinks a Budweiser?

Because I guarantee guys that fit into that mold are being decieved......I see them in the pub all the time;)

Exhaust Port
10-09-2002, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by plasticfetish
Stupid people have rights as well as responsibilities. Stupid people, if they are smart enough to hire good attorneys, can do us all a big favor by signaling to these companies that none of us want to be taken advantage of.

You said it yourself, even stupid people have to be responsible. Responsibility is NOT making sure you hire a good lawyer to sue the pants of everyone that you feel has taken advantage of you because your stupid. The responsible thing is to not do dangerous things to begin with.

If you want to signal the tabacco companies that you don't want to be influenced by their advertising then DON'T SMOKE. Millions upon millions of people have never started and millions of others have quit. Why should one person who was asked by loving family members to stop be paid with more money than the GNP of many countries when they don't? No matter what got her to start smoking she didn't care when told to stop by doctor and family.

plasticfetish
10-09-2002, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by Exhaust Port
You said it yourself, even stupid people have to be responsible.

Weeeeeell, yes (I suppose it would be smart of them to be responsible, err) ... but you're kind of twisting the emphasis of what I said around to suit the needs of your own point.

*sigh*

Frankly ... I guess ultimately I'm just curious as to why anybody really cares if this woman, any other woman, me or my cat wins 28 or 200 million dollars from the tobacco companies. Is it because you're sorry for the tobacco companies? (I know they're kinda cute ... what with their big sad puppy dog eyes and all.) Are you jealous that she has lung cancer and now has lots of money ... though she'll probably never see any of it because she'll no doubt die first? What exactly makes this an issue worthy of arguing about on behalf of the tobacco companies? I mean ... I KNOW the average person "out there" in the world today "seems" like a great big idiot and it gets annoying always having to hear about this or that and blah, blah legal thing going on over there (sarcasm) ... but is anything really more important than the issue that the tobacco companies are allowed to manufacture an admittedly dangerous product only because they have enough political clout to keep themselves in business. I mean ... who should you really be more angry with? The victim or the victimizer?

The Overlord Returns
10-09-2002, 05:43 PM
I just don't care to see people profit from their own stupidity......this goes far beyond just tobacco lawsuits. I can't believe a fat person gets to blame Macdonalds......as if a couple of counter girls are holding the persons mouth open cramming big macs down their throat.....it's ludicrous.

Take the money she sued for...and funnel it to advocacy groups. Use it to clothe and shelter homeless.......don't reward some idiot who either didn;t read a label...or chose not to.

DarthBrandon
10-09-2002, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
I just don't care to see people profit from their own stupidity......this goes far beyond just tobacco lawsuits. I can't believe a fat person gets to blame Macdonalds......as if a couple of counter girls are holding the persons mouth open cramming big macs down their throat.....it's ludicrous.

Take the money she sued for...and funnel it to advocacy groups. Use it to clothe and shelter homeless.......don't reward some idiot who either didn;t read a label...or chose not to.


Amen to that The Overlord Returns. :) Nothing more to say, but carry on.

Exhaust Port
10-09-2002, 08:21 PM
Ditto TOR. Perhaps she should start a literacy program for the stupid. :D

rynobot
10-09-2002, 08:50 PM
The woman is going to die, I doubt she will ever see that money.