Ridiculous!

[Nam]

Irrelevant. In the dosages delivered in your typical cigarette, nicotine is not particularly toxic, just addictive. Dosage is everything.
Irrelevant. It is the tobacco companies who make the product, so they can be subject to lawsuit because they are the ones who develop the product for mass consumption and as such bear responsibility for making the product as safe as feasable in its intended use.



Made today, mimics chewing tobacco. It's all a part of the image. Explicit advertisement to children is illegal, but there's still implicit and parallel advertisement.
Minneolas to oranges (ie, while the comparison is closer, it's still not the same). You can drink moderately your entire life and not suffer ill effects from alcohol, and might even benefit medically. Not so with smoking. Used as advertised, smoking will damage your health. Also, alcohol doesn't come with a bunch of other carcinogenic crap.

I also don't think there is a single drinker out there who drinks every hour or so just to feel normal, like with cigarettes.
Self inflicted, but in diminished capacity. It speaks to the addictiveness of the cigarette that a smoker will brave the blistering cold of Vermont to have their smoke break every couple of hours. It speaks to the addictiveness of the cigarette that quitting cold turkey rarely works, and that the most successful at quitting smoking involve medical intervention. These people just don't think right when it comes to cigarettes.

Also, I doubt that the full $23 billion will actually be paid. It'll probably be knocked down as it works it's way through the appeals.
Oh, come off it. The current crop of companies may go under, but tobacco and alcohol will still both be legal â€" even if people have to resort to growing tobacco themselves (as you pointed out before). What will happen is that new companies will crop up and buy out the bankrupt companies, and start fresh with cigarettes that are more benign and may even be phased out in favor of alternative delivery modes. (I doubt alcohol will be touched by their own lawsuits; the situation is way different, and there are still microbrews.)

QFT.

-Nam

[Nam]

Yeah I gotta call bullshit here. The second time I smoked was from 1985 to 2000. Most of that time (except for a week on either end) I smoked 4 packs a day. That time period included the 11 years I lived in Taiwan and smoked their cheapest brand, Long Lifes. Those were basically Lucky Strikes with a filter. Yeah, you are talking a hooker's ass after a long pay day weekend. Nasty smokes.

I am not dead yet, dammit, and I have not wanted a smoke since 2000. But that is another story. Hey, you choose to smoke, you gambling bro. Sometimes the house wins.

I choose to smoke? Fuck you, too. I don't choose shit. I have attempted to quit so many times I couldn't even count. My father paid me for two years not to smoke. The physical addiction may go away after a month but the mental addiction is for life.

My sister has been smoking now for 12 years, she's tried to quit, too. Even took a pill. I tried SNUS but it didn't get me to stop smoking but to stop smoking as much. Before SNUS, I was a pack a day smoker, then during using SNUS I was a pack a week smoker. I still craved the cigarette.

And you are a liar. Ain't no way in hell you smoked 4 packs a day unless you didn't inhale. I see that with a lot of young smokers: they go through pack to pack as if it were candy but they don't inhale. They may have minute amounts of nicotine in their system but nothing that really effects in the long run.

If you smoked 4 packs a day, you'd be vomiting all the time. That's true for smoking anything in extreme excess.

-Nam

[AllPurposeAtheist]

So I should be perfectly within my rights to market a product, say baby formulae made from arsenic and ground glass, market it to young mothers and kids as long as there's a disclaimer saying, "THIS IS FUCKING POISON" and if mom kills her kids with it its all on mom...  Gotcha..

[Nam]

So I should be perfectly within my rights to market a product, say baby formulae made from arsenic and ground glass, market it to young mothers and kids as long as there's a disclaimer saying, "THIS IS FUCKING POISON" and if mom kills her kids with it its all on mom...  Gotcha..

McDonald's does it.



-Nam

[Berati]

Get used to it. I've never seen him argue a case without making unbased assumptions and generalizations.

So I make unbased assumptions and generlizations?

Fuck you.


- Berati

[Berati]

Irrelevant. In the dosages delivered in your typical cigarette, nicotine is not particularly toxic, just addictive. Dosage is everything.
Irrelevant. It is the tobacco companies who make the product, so they can be subject to lawsuit because they are the ones who develop the product for mass consumption and as such bear responsibility for making the product as safe as feasable in its intended use.

It is relevant because the product is dangerous by nature. Just like alcohol it can't be made safe. People know this and still want to smoke, drink, and do all kinds of things that are not good for them. It's their responsibility, not someone elses.

Made today, mimics chewing tobacco.

It's bubble gum, it's not made by the tobacco industry nd it's terrible for you. Let's sue them for tooth decay.

Minneolas to oranges (ie, while the comparison is closer, it's still not the same). You can drink moderately your entire life and not suffer ill effects from alcohol, and might even benefit medically. Not so with smoking. Used as advertised, smoking will damage your health. Also, alcohol doesn't come with a bunch of other carcinogenic crap.

It's addictive and dangerous. Thousands die every year from liver disease, alcohol poisoning and drunk driving. So actually it's more like Navel oranges to Valencia oranges.

Also, I doubt that the full $23 billion will actually be paid. It'll probably be knocked down as it works it's way through the appeals.
Oh, come off it. The current crop of companies may go under, but tobacco and alcohol will still both be legal â€" even if people have to resort to growing tobacco themselves (as you pointed out before). What will happen is that new companies will crop up and buy out the bankrupt companies, and start fresh with cigarettes that are more benign and may even be phased out in favor of alternative delivery modes. (I doubt alcohol will be touched by their own lawsuits; the situation is way different, and there are still microbrews.)

I agree that the fines will likely be reduced and that companies won't be going under. I was replying to the idea that they SHOULD be run out of business.
They won't, but the costs will be passed along. Of that I have no doubt.

[Berati]

So I should be perfectly within my rights to market a product, say baby formulae made from arsenic and ground glass, market it to young mothers and kids as long as there's a disclaimer saying, "THIS IS FUCKING POISON" and if mom kills her kids with it its all on mom...  Gotcha..

So I should eat, drink and smoke whatever I want and if I get sick... it's somebody else's fault, not mine... Gotcha..

[Berati]

So, I am a liar?

Fuck you.

-Nam

Sorry, my comment was not directed at you personally. I hadn't read your post directly preceding mine since I was replying to someone else so while it did appear as though I was calling you out specifically, I wasn't.

However, this doesn't change the fact that as far back as '73 a 10 year old me (and my 11 year old brother) knew that smoking was bad for you and you only started in '85.  As an 8 year old kid, did you hide your smoking from your parents? Was it because you knew it was bad?

Also, aren't you the one who started this thread and also said:
"the person smoking has the ability to quit, at any time, when they choose just like any other drug (legal, or otherwise). "

I can't tell where you stand anymore.

[Nam]

So I should eat, drink and smoke whatever I want and if I get sick... it's somebody else's fault, not mine... Gotcha..

You're blaming everything on the person, in some cases you may be correct. For people like me you are not. I was targeted from the early 1980s as a child, and so were many other children where I lived. Adverts in a preschool, in elementary school. They had designated smoking areas for students at my Middle School (early 90's) and high school (early to mid 90's). Cigarette companies and the school board have responsibility in me being a smoker. They don't have 100% responsibility but you're telling me they have zero responsibility since you knew it was bad when you were younger.

I bring evidence you bring your biased opinion.

-Nam

[Nam]

Sorry, my comment was not directed at you personally. I hadn't read your post directly preceding mine since I was replying to someone else so while it did appear as though I was calling you out specifically, I wasn't.

You're targeting people like me.

However, this doesn't change the fact that as far back as '73 a 10 year old me (and my 11 year old brother) knew that smoking was bad for you and you only started in '85.  As an 8 year old kid, did you hide your smoking from your parents? Was it because you knew it was bad?

My parents don't smoke. A lot of things I did back then, whether "good" or not I usually got in trouble for anyway but I never heard smoking was bad until my paternal grandfather, probably around 1990, suggested (not told) to me it was a bad habit and I shouldn't smoke but by then I was addicted.

Also, aren't you the one who started this thread and also said:
"the person smoking has the ability to quit, at any time, when they choose just like any other drug (legal, or otherwise). "

One has nothing to do with other. However, one does have the ability to choose not to do it, like me, but the struggle is to not smoke again. It's simple to choose not to do something, it's difficult to carry it through. As I've stated: I've chosen to quit many times but while my body no longer craved it, my mind did, because I knew what it could do for me physically.

I can't tell where you stand anymore.

Not my problem.

-Nam

[Hakurei Reimu]

It is relevant because the product is dangerous by nature. Just like alcohol it can't be made safe.

No chemical is "safe" by that definition. Fats, sugars, and preservatives are not "safe" by your definition, but you cannot live without fats or sugars, and better a small amount of preservatives than the toxins produced by spoilage. There is no "safety" in this world; only relative risk.

People know this and still want to smoke, drink, and do all kinds of things that are not good for them. It's their responsibility, not someone elses.

People have a hard time assessing risk, even under the best of circumstances. Other, more immediate "needs" such as wanting to fit into a group or present a cool image can and often does override assessments of long term harm. We just have a hard time assessing long term consequences and weighing them properly against immediate gains. This is the reason why we have an environmental crisis shaping up in the form of CO2 pollution.

Tobacco companies are depending on the fact that people are bad at assessing long term risk. Add that to the physical cravings of addiction up against the abstractness of the future, and this makes a very bad combination for people to make sound decisions. All this makes them very culpable for the damage they cause.

It's bubble gum, it's not made by the tobacco industry nd it's terrible for you. Let's sue them for tooth decay.

How about addressing the point that it's chewing gum designed to emulate chewing tobacco, instead of a strawman?

It's addictive and dangerous. Thousands die every year from liver disease, alcohol poisoning and drunk driving. So actually it's more like Navel oranges to Valencia oranges.

All of which you can defend against: if you get stupid drunk, you can stay home or call a cab. You have a cut-off where you will not be served any more alcohol for the evening, reducing alcohol poisoning. You can tollerate low levels of regular alcohol consumption without incurring liver disease, and those low levels seem to have medical benefits like reducing serum cholesterol. There are things you can do to reduce the risk of alcohol consumption to nearly zero or even garner a net positive.

Contrast that with cigarettes, that have no known benefit, and any regular habit that keeps you feeling normal will eventually kill you through accumulated damage.

Sorry, the oranges to minneola comparison stands.

I agree that the fines will likely be reduced and that companies won't be going under. I was replying to the idea that they SHOULD be run out of business.
They won't, but the costs will be passed along. Of that I have no doubt.

The only way such companies are going to be "run out of business" for good is the negative press of tobacco companies' slimy practices, the marginalization of the smoking population, and improved treatments for people wanting to break addiction â€" as well as the attitude that addiction of all types is a medical problem, and not a failing of one's character.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

So I make unbased assumptions and generalizations?

Yes.

Anymore questions?

[Green Bottle]

This is an interesting thread and a lot of things that have been said i agree on, but to be honest the idea of 1 person being awarded millions of dollars in damages against a tobacco company is i think,  just fucking crazy.
Thousands of people worlwide die every day through smoking related diseases and Scotland is right up there near the top of the league, so to speak.
The majority of people who smoke know that it can seriously damage their health and mibbe kill them but they still do it so nobody to blame but themselves
Personally speaking , i gave up smoking because of health issues after being a smoker for 40 years, i just wish id known when i had that 1st cigarette aged 13 what the consequences would be but i didnt, i kept on smoking through my teenage years and into adulthood knowing that it was doing me damage but i enjoyed it so much that i just didnt care.
I also know that some people can have difficulty in stopping but in my own case i stopped dead, mibbe could have worded that a bit better, but i mean i just stopped, cold turkey style and that was it, havent had a smoke since, 10 months now........................

[Nam]

This is an interesting thread and a lot of things that have been said i agree on, but to be honest the idea of 1 person being awarded millions of dollars in damages against a tobacco company is i think,  just fucking crazy.

Billions not millions.

The majority of people who smoke know that it can seriously damage their health and mibbe kill them but they still do it so nobody to blame but themselves

Have you ever had an addiction before? Was it easy for you to stop? If it was so easy we wouldn't be having this conversation

Personally speaking , i gave up smoking because of health issues after being a smoker for 40 years, i just wish id known when i had that 1st cigarette aged 13 what the consequences would be but i didnt, i kept on smoking through my teenage years and into adulthood knowing that it was doing me damage but i enjoyed it so much that i just didnt care.

So you equate your experience with everyone else's? How simplistic of you.

I also know that some people can have difficulty in stopping but in my own case i stopped dead, mibbe could have worded that a bit better, but i mean i just stopped, cold turkey style and that was it, havent had a smoke since, 10 months now........................

10 months? This is your first time quitting? You'll most likely smoke again.

-Nam

[Green Bottle]

Nam i dont know what point or pts ur trying to make man, this is my own personal experience of smoking and i wasnt trying to compare or equate as u say with anyone else.
And yes i have had other addictions apart from the smoking cigarettes, and no it wasnt easy to stop, i said that i stopped smoking ''just like that but i never said it was fkn easy.
You also said that id '' most likely start smoking again, no , i wont and i know it for a fact, you dont know me at all so stop assuming you do,
And ok , i said millions instead of billions so fkn sue me.......................