Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on June 09, 2005, 05:42:19 AM
-
link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-06-08-our-view_x.htm)
On Tuesday, the Justice Department flinched just as it was wrapping up a lawsuit against the cigarette makers. The government had been expected to seek $130 billion to finance a national quit-smoking program. Instead, the government asked for $10 billion.
So why the retreat? At best, it's puzzling. At worst, suspicious.
Two congressmen, both Democrats and tobacco adversaries, are questioning whether "improper political interference" played a role in Justice's action. Wednesday, Reps. Henry Waxman of California and Marty Meehan of Massachusetts, as well as several senators, asked the department's inspector general to look into what prompted the unexpected reduction in the requested remedy. Even the presiding judge said, "There may be some additional influences being brought to bear" on the government's decision.
Whatever the reason for that decision, it fits with the government's pattern — in both the White House and Congress — of backing down just as it's about to gain leverage that could reduce smoking.
Why would Bush's Justice Department suddenly ask for less than 10%? Follow the money...
-
why would you want to hurt one of our most productive exporters?
-
A 130 billion dollar settlement? Sounds suspiciously like a deliberate attempt to kill the industry.
Victimization is becoming a national cult. The results of smoking addiction are beyond dispute, but the only parties involved in it that are NOT being held responsible for that addiction are the addicts themselves. Of the millions of smoking addicts in this country I'll bet you can count the ones who didn't know it was addictive on one hand...and have fingers left over.
I hope the whole deal falls through, simply because if it doesn't, it's going to continue the very dangerous victimization trend...complete with lawyers, legal suits, and new regulations passed by spineless congressmen.
-
shouldn't we be suing the people who are smoking right now? I mean... they know the risks.. the companies are only supplying a legal product with all the proper warnings.
lazs
-
I always thought the lawsuit was wrong anyway.
Why not punish Krispy Kreme for making people fat?
Or sue Hillary's parents?
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Or sue Hillary's parents?
Count me in if it`s a class action.
-
I'd say slash it to zero. People know smoking is bad for you, and they'd smoke even if there was zero advertising. You don't see colombian drug lords putting up joe camel billboards, and they move plenty of product too. The cig market was a fixed size (fixed percentage of population), and all the "evil" advertising and chemical adjustments simply adjusted market share between the various brands.
Suing a company for marketing and selling a legal product is insane. Getting away with it is worse. Getting the government to carry the banner is flat out market manipulation. If stopping smoking is such a big deal that the government needs to get involved as a matter of national interest, then just suck it up and ban tobacco products.
I think the lawsuits are BS but I'd support an outright ban. The cig taxes and lawsuits are a symptom of a welfare and victim based society, and the players are only interested in where the money goes. An outright ban would at least be honest.
-
I hope they reduced the lawyers compensation proportionately
-
In light of current warnings and education about cigs...Any lawsuit is silly in the extreme.
I also would not support a ban for that reason.
I wouldn't support a ban on swimming either even tho it would save a lot of lives and, consequently, money.
I don't smoke or really swim much tho.
lazs
-
To maintain internal consistency, you would support the legalization of marijuana too, right?
-
I would not ban pot.
I would ask that anyone under the influence not be allowed to drive or work with me tho for safety reasons.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I hope they reduced the lawyers compensation proportionately
I think federal procecutors are on salary.
-
the issue of the lawsuit was not if smoking is dangerous or not, it was the false and restrictive advertisement to our youth and general public.. not to mention all the folks that got cigs in their rations during ww2..
thats the issue, the deception of the whole industry, and the punitive damages to enshure they dont partake in that kind of behavior again...
thats where the large settlement came from.. not if smoking is bad or it is not..
you people got this whole case all wrong..
Im personally for no regulation but if a company is making crap thats clearly harmful (smoking) and then has audacity of authoring numerous reports on the subject(while contradicting those reports in public), attempts to shred them but has a whistleblower thwart their plans.. and in the process of the investigation they find out they were in a consortium (most major companies) to target our youth, some punishment needs to be administered.. (i personally cant decide what becuase some of these peoples claims are frivilous)
thats the point of the lawsuit and thats whats this case is all about.. not if smoking is good or bad..
DoctorYo
-
What false advertising?
They said "smoking makes you cool". Guess what... In the world I live in, and in every country I've ever been in, smoking IS cool. Try banning cigs in Italy or Belgium, get your teeth kicked in by guys who... well... look cool.
I don't smoke because it's bad for your health. I get irritated when others smoke near me because it makes me choke and smell bad. But blame the tobacco companies for selling a product that was at one point something that EVERYONE wanted? What a load of crap.
If it's a natl. emergency, ban it. If it's causing a health care crisis, quadruple insurance rates for smokers or flat-out deny care for smoking-related illnesses. Heck, even go so far as to label smokers as suicidal since a long-term smoker is probably going to die from something caused or made worse by smoking. But as long as smoking is legal, developing, marketing, and selling smokes to an overeager customer base is a bunch of crap.
If they want to take anone to court, they should charge parents of underage smokers with child neglect and see how far that gets, because just as much blame lies with the parents of smokers as with the tobacco companies. What's that? Parents can't be held accountable for what their kids do? Then how can the tobacco companies be held liable for somehow forcing kids to smoke?
The whole idea is retarded. It's like suing Boeing or Airbus for 9-11, with a case being built around a charge of "they enticed terrorists to fly by their glamorous travel ads."
-
Originally posted by eagl
The whole idea is retarded. It's like suing Boeing or Airbus for 9-11, with a case being built around a charge of "they enticed terrorists to fly by their glamorous travel ads."
It's more like suing American for pilot error on Flight 1420 or PanAm for failing to take adequate security measures on Flight 103.
Originally posted by eagl
What's that? Parents can't be held accountable for what their kids do? Then how can the tobacco companies be held liable for somehow forcing kids to smoke?
Parents ARE liable for their children's actions. Let your kid throw a rock thru a store window. Guess who is liable for the damages.
Originally posted by eagl
But as long as smoking is legal, developing, marketing, and selling smokes to an overeager customer base is a bunch of crap.
Underage smoking is not legal. Intentionally targeting children as a new customer base isn't either. It was proven thru subpoenaed internal company memos that they deliberately did just that.
Originally posted by eagl
What false advertising? They said "smoking makes you cool".
Big tobacco is not selling shoes, jewelry, or cars. They are selling cigarettes and they were telling kids smoking was cool.
Oh, and just for the record, I am a smoker and have been since I was in Jr. High. Why did I start?
Because it was cool.
-
Originally posted by storch
why would you want to hurt one of our most productive exporters?
Same explanation covers the prohibition on farming marijuana.
Follow the money.
-
That's it.
I'm suing Budweiser for making me shag all those fat, ugly women!
-
It's important to establish blame. :)
-
At least you don't live in the communist province of Ontario.
"Ontario passes tough smoking restrictions
Last updated Jun 9 2005 08:11 AM EDT
CBC News
TORONTO – A law passed in the Ontario legislature Wednesday will ban smoking in every workplace and indoor public area by June 2006.
The Smoke-Free Ontario Act also gives shopkeepers until 2008 to get rid of "power wall" display cases, which hold dozens of cigarette packages at a time.
"I'm very proud of this legislation," Premier Dalton McGuinty told reporters after the bill passed final reading in the legislature by a 71-6 vote.
McGuinty noted that smoking kills 16,000 Ontario residents each year, and costs the province billions of dollars in lost productivity and health-care costs.
"We're taking a strong stand against tobacco, and by so doing, standing up for the health of Ontarians," he said.
Even legion halls will be subject to the new rules, despite calls from veterans for an exemption.
"Eighty per cent of Ontario's adults don't smoke, and that applies to those that fought in wars," said Health Minister George Smitherman.
"Everyone deserves an equal right to be able to enjoy their indoor space without harmful effect."
Restaurateurs, bars owners and casino operators had vigorously opposed the smoking prohibition, arguing that it would hurt their business.
"I have no doubt that it's going to impact on the border casinos, on charity gaming, and the hospitality sector," said Erie-Lincoln MPP Tim Hudak, who was one of just six MPPs to vote against the bill.
"I don't think this government has accounted for the loss in money at the casinos as a result of this bill."
Agriculture Minister Steve Peters said the government would provide $35 million to help Ontario tobacco farmers switch to other crops, and another $15 million in financial assistance for communities where the tobacco industry is a major employer.
Peters said there are currently about 600 tobacco growers in Ontario, down from more than 2,000 a decade ago."
http://ottawa.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=ot-smoking20050609
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
I always thought the lawsuit was wrong anyway.
Why not punish Krispy Kreme for making people fat?
Or sue Hillary's parents?
Because KK didnt knowingly try to hook and poison people.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Same explanation covers the prohibition on farming marijuana.
Follow the money.
except that with marijuana we are currently importers. now if the cultivation and distribution of that product were permitted in these great United States then I would be all for it and for the income that we would receive from cleverly marketing it to our european satellites.
-
I think people who continued to smoke despite the emperical evidence that smoking was addictive and cancerous deserve what they get.
Saying that it isn't your fault because the companies were hiding information is a straw man.
Paging Personal Responsibility.
Jeez, ever wonder why old smokers look like leather and their voices are husky? Can't be the cigarettes, the companies haven't told me they are addictive or carcenogens.
-
Originally posted by storch
except that with marijuana we are currently importers.
Yeah, there is no pot grown in the US.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by rpm
Yeah, there is no pot grown in the US.:rolleyes:
yeah like we don't import most of it. :rolleyes:
-
Ok... now I get it... we are suing on behalf of all the WWII veterans out there who had ciggs smuggled into their K rations by spys from the tobacco company and...
All the false advertising and hidden reports of... of what? 40 years ago?
And... now that the cigg companies have warnings and are no longer able to say ciggs are cool or advertise on the disney channel....
No new kids are starting smoking because the think it is cool.
movies have entirely taken the coolness out of smoking.
lazs