Tobacco companies sued by smokers?

[MergedLoki]

Alright so not sure who has heard about htis been in the news now and again the past few weeks.

apparently there's talk here in Canada of tabaco comanys being sued to the tune of 50 million $$$. by... i believe the gov't but i can't remember exactly (and can't find the paticular article but shouldn't be hard to find one if you're that interested in it just try toronto star site or globe and mail or something).

Anyways.. they want this money in order to recoup health care costs due to people who are IN the hospital and ill/dying/whatever due to smoking.

Now I work in healthcare and this is a dumb as hell idea. I dont smoke (aside from cigars occasionaly on special occaision or with the guys or whatever but not regularly). But.. i dont paticular care if someone does smoke because it's THEIR personal choice. and THEY are making an informed decision to inhale something that will give you cancer and make you wheeze like a fat man jogging up a slight incline.

what happened to personal responsibility??? should we sue mcdonalds because north america is getting fatter every day? or how about the breweries because SOME people drink too much and end up with chirosis (liver damage/failing kidneys) because they're alcoholics.
While were at it lets sue city planners and construction companies because SOMETIMES i stub my toe when i'm walking because the sidewalk is uneven.

Christ if you smoke. fine enjoy it i dont care but don't go looking for a hand out when dr mcgee says 'hey guess what you haev more tumor than brain left'

and dont complain it's mcdonalds fault if you just can't stop eating fast food.

were all (supposed to be) adults. lets ACT like adults and accept personal responsiblity for our own actions, and not be a nation of phlegm filled cancer riddled obese alcoholics waiting for the court case to settle so we can get our next 'pay check'

[Boozy]

I'm assuming that you are talking about Ontario's filing against Imperial Tobacco. Imperial is being sued for "breach of duty" (among other things). This means that they had information about the carcinogenic and addictive effects of their product long before anyone else, and did not release that information to the public.

The vast majority of Ontario's current health care costs associated with smoking are from elderly smokers or ex-smokers. These are people who were unable to "make an informed decision", as you put it. Many of them had smoked for decades before the carcinogenic effects of cigarettes had reached the ears of the layperson. Remember, corporations had an easy time hiding things in the days before the internet.

The suit is valid enough to be heard, in my opinion.

[protege]

McDonald's has already been sued for "making people fat"

And no, I have *no* sympathy for those people. They knew that stuffing their faces daily with that shit was a bad idea. Yet, they did it anyway, and now are looking to blame someone for their bad choices. Same with smoking. You want to do it, fine. Sure there was a time when its effects were hidden from the public. However, once that became known, there's no excuse for whining about it.

[Lace Neil Singer]

There's also the fact that the tax on cigarettes pays for the illnesses of smokers. Hell, it's probably the only reason why we even have an NHS over here; if Obama wants one, he'd have to tax the fuck out of cigarettes the way that our government does. -.-

[DesignFox]

There's also the fact that the tax on cigarettes pays for the illnesses of smokers. Hell, it's probably the only reason why we even have an NHS over here; if Obama wants one, he'd have to tax the fuck out of cigarettes the way that our government does. -.-

As far as I can tell, they already do. I don't smoke, so don't know for sure. Glancing at prices though...damn expensive way to kill yourself.... o_O

[BroomJockey]

As far as I can tell, they already do.

There was an episode of Law and Order in the early 90s with a focus on smuggled ciggs being sold for 10 cents less than legally taxed ones, so yes, at least on a state level. I doubt on a federal level though.

[DesignFox]

There was an episode of Law and Order in the early 90s with a focus on smuggled ciggs being sold for 10 cents less than legally taxed ones, so yes, at least on a state level. I doubt on a federal level though.

From the little I understand, you aren't supposed to be buying cigs in bulk and selling them out of state. So yea...I think you're right the tax probably differs from state to state.

Some people I know were getting their cigs from a shady guy that was getting them from who-knows-where the tax is cheaper and selling them for cheaps.

*shrug*

[Lace Neil Singer]

Get them that way and you don't know what the fuck is in them. I saw an article once that suggested rat crap was in smuggled cigs... ew.

As far as I'm concerned, I smoke cuz I enjoy it. I pay my tax to do so. However, no-one's forcing me to smoke, so suing the tabacco company would be a road to nowhere, same as suing McDonalds cuz you're a lardarse. Take some damn responsibility for your own actions, jeez.

[DesignFox]

<snip> Take some damn responsibility for your own actions, jeez.

Wouldn't that be nice... Can't have any of that now. It's always someone else's fault.

[BroomJockey]

This means that they had information about the carcinogenic and addictive effects of their product long before anyone else, and did not release that information to the public.

The vast majority of Ontario's current health care costs associated with smoking are from elderly smokers or ex-smokers. These are people who were unable to "make an informed decision", as you put it. Many of them had smoked for decades before the carcinogenic effects of cigarettes had reached the ears of the layperson.

Err, everyone trumpeting about "personal responsibility" apparently skipped Boozy's post.

To put this in perspective, it'd be like finding out twenty years from now that last week, Tylenol found out that taking their product caused cancer, and then not only didn't change the formula, but burned every copy of the report and paid off the scientists who produced it. And yes, it's a valid comparison, since cigarettes were actually promoted as something healthy way back when.

[DesignFox]

I'm not arguing Boozy's post. I'm specifically referring to people who have started smoking within the last 25-35 years.

The information has been available for at least that long. So as I see it, nobody who has started smoking since the information became widespread has a leg to stand on. THOSE people need to STFU and take responsibility for their bad choices.

[Lace Neil Singer]

^This. I know damn well that smoking's bad for me, as is drinking to excess, eating fatty foods and not exercising enough. However, I've made the choice, so I take responsibility for my life choices.

However in recent times, there's a lot of people who instead of doing this, feel the need to bitch and moan and sue cuz it's not their fault they ended up ill/obese/paralysed/etc, so they go and sue a huge company for a payout. "To stop it happening again"; yeah, so the huge payout isn't the incentive? Yeah, and I'm the First Lady.

[Flyndaran]

On the one hand, I want to call all such massive self-abusers stupid for thinking breathing SMOKE was not often life ending.
On the other hand, I try to have sympathy for life mistakes like starting smoking. We are all fucked up, just in different ways. I am in no way awesome enough to throw stones.
The penalty for being stupid should not be death, unless you want a very very small human population.

[violetyoshi]

were all (supposed to be) adults. lets ACT like adults and accept personal responsiblity for our own actions, and not be a nation of phlegm filled cancer riddled obese alcoholics waiting for the court case to settle so we can get our next 'pay check'

Well what do you expect from people who are smoking a replacement binkie?

[MergedLoki]

I'm assuming that you are talking about Ontario's filing against Imperial Tobacco. Imperial is being sued for "breach of duty" (among other things). This means that they had information about the carcinogenic and addictive effects of their product long before anyone else, and did not release that information to the public.

The vast majority of Ontario's current health care costs associated with smoking are from elderly smokers or ex-smokers. These are people who were unable to "make an informed decision", as you put it. Many of them had smoked for decades before the carcinogenic effects of cigarettes had reached the ears of the layperson. Remember, corporations had an easy time hiding things in the days before the internet.

The suit is valid enough to be heard, in my opinion.

Uh not good enough. yes we know more NOW then THEN about how carcinogenic cigarettes etc. are.

But they've known since the 50's that 'hey these things can cause tumors'.

so at this point i don't CARE if you've been smoking for decades unless you're 120 you KNEW that they weren't lil sticks of longetivity.