[OT, but exciting] Phillip Morris told to pay $28 BILLION

[Zenon]

Sorry, as a smoker, this kind of garbage (the lawsuit & settlement, not this thread) offends me.

I never started smoking thinking it was "good for me" or that it wasn't bad for me.

Every pack I've ever seen has the "If you smoke this, it will kill you label".

If I got cancer, I'd have no one to blame but myself.

And they're going to award what?!??!??

One day I'll quit (so I have more $ to spend on gaming stuff), most likely because they keep raising the figgin' taxes on them! Jeezus Criminy! Within the past few years cig prices have shot through the roof. $45 a carton (with tax) for me. Compare this to the $10 a carton I was paying 17 years ago.

[RANT]Now, if they started to do this to all the alcohol companies out there along with the cig companies, I'd feel better (yeah right, like that'll ever happen). IMO, alcohol comsumption causes more grief than cigarette smoking does (from drunken fights, spousal abuse, drunk driving, underage drinking, child abuse, and the list goes on).[/RANT]

 

[Dr. NRG]

The point

The point here is not that some stupid chump made $28 billion, it's that a jury has finally recognized that only big numbers have any impact whatever on tobacco CEOs.

They don't care if they kill you. They don't care if they kill your family. They don't care if 10 billion cigarette butts choke the life out of every living thing in North America. What they DO care about, the ONLY thing they care about is money.

This means the only way to get their attention is to wind up and kick them right where it hurts... in the pocketbook.

These people are amoral lying slimebags, and bankrupting them is the least that they deserve. Go citizens! Down with deadly lying corporations!

 

[Wolfen Priest]

ForceUser, I agree with you that smoking is hazardous and stupid, will kill you, etc. (yet I do smoke occasionally ... go figure); but even IF they bring down PM, won't some other cigarette company spring up in its place? I mean, you do believe people in this supposedly free country have a *right* to smoke if they so choose, don't they? And this being the capitalist nation that it is, some entity will surely take advantage of that market.

The way I see's it, smokes are already too expensive.

 

[Zenon]

Ah, we can but dream.

Dream of a smoke-free day, when the companies that make *bleach!* cigs and *doubleickybleach!* cigars will fold and fade away, their lies and greed nothing more than HARMLESS smoke on the wind.

But then again, having mild asthma, cigs make it hard to breath and cigars are nigh deadly. So I am quite prejudiced.

I'm all for that dream, as long as all the companies that produce and distribute alcohol DRY UP & STAGGER away right behind them.

(Can you tell I don't drink?)

 

[ForceUser]

People have a right to smoke, yes. And I have a right to not have to breathe it, or pay extra taxes so victims of cigarette-related illnesses can get treatment.

It's like this. Yes, it's legal. But it's unhealthy. Perhaps one day, people will be educated enough to implicitly understand the risks inherent in smoking and drinking and doing drugs, and mentally healthy enough not to engage in such destructive behavior. One day, maybe we'll put drug dealers - legal and illegal - out of a job.

 

[alsih2o]

as one of enworlds recent "quit smoking" posterboys (how are the rest of you quitters holding up?) what bothers me about the warnings isn't the "it'll kill you" part, it is the lack of "it is addictive" they push.

of course everyone knows, now. and of course it is true but 15 days after my last (see my sig) i still want one when i wake before i even open my eyes, and i feel something is missing after every meal, and it takes me a minute to figure out what it is.

 

[Buttercup]

I'm all for that dream, as long as all the companies that produce and distribute alcohol DRY UP & STAGGER away right behind them.

Ah, but I can sit right beside you and sip a glass of wine without polluting the air you breathe, or damaging you in any way. Alcohol in moderation isn't harmful, and in fact, mountains of research suggest it is beneficial. So it isn't the same.

 

[Buttercup]

as one of enworlds recent "quit smoking" posterboys (how are the rest of you quitters holding up?) what bothers me about the warnings isn't the "it'll kill you" part, it is the lack of "it is addictive" they push.

of course everyone knows, now. and of course it is true but 15 days after my last (see my sig) i still want one when i wake before i even open my eyes, and i feel something is missing after every meal, and it takes me a minute to figure out what it is.

I promise you that will stop. You're doing really well!

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Yet no matter how much you smoke you are not likely to kill someone if you get behind the wheel. So 6 of one, half dozen of another.

BTW, I am against the ruling. Its crap and an insult to the average American. I mena how many people in this country really are dumb enough to think smoking is not addictive and can kill you?

Ah, but I can sit right beside you and sip a glass of wine without polluting the air you breathe, or damaging you in any way. Alcohol in moderation isn't harmful, and in fact, mountains of research suggest it is beneficial. So it isn't the same.

 

[Dr. NRG]

alcohol and tobacco

The question is one of use versus abuse. I would contend that anyone who cannot go without a substance is very likely abusing it (exceptions arguably include psychopharmaceuticals).

Most tobacco users cannot go without the substance, i.e. abuse

Most alcohol users can go without the substance, i.e. use

There are, of course, exceptions to both of these rules, thus the "most."

Basically, do anything too much and it's bad. Tobacco use is extraordinarily likely to be done "too much." Alchohol use is less so, though the results of abuse are arguably more detrimental...

NRG