Page 18 of 20 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 197

Thread: Philip Morris told to pay 8 mln in smoker's death

  1. #171
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Philip Morris told to pay 8 mln in smoker's death

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    Then we should also ignore the obesity epidemic in America, because those people chose their fate. Let's just let an entire generation (most of them under 30) suffer cardiovascular decay and die young because of their choices. We should ignore chronic alcoholics and not offer them help, because, you know, they aren't addicts, they are just stupid people that are making bad choices.
    Addicts do make bad choices. And their choices are their own. Their health is their problem. They chose to start using something addictive, they choose to continue using it.

    You don't understand addiction at all. Until you demonstrate that you do, there is no further need to argue with you.
    I do. All too well.


    And no one forced the companies to sell a product that was refined to be toxic and addictive. I already agree with you that the buyer is responsible, but so is the company. What kind of corporate socialist are you? Corporations should be held accountable for their actions.
    Why should a corporation be held accountable for someone elses choices? Jesus christ, where the **** has personal responsibility gone in this country.


    And people wouldn't be dying if they didn't sell them. So there you go. Two sides of the same coin. Why are you so reluctant to come to this conclusion?
    Yes yes...and if gun manufacturers didn't make guns, no one would die from gunshots. And if car manufacturers didn't make cars, no one would die from car accidents. So and so forth into illogical oblivion.

    Individual responsibility and corporate responsibility are two things I am in favour of. Corporations are also comprised of human beings that can make choices. Just because the market provides them with the opportunity to sell a deadly product, doesn't mean they should.
    Why not? Supply and demand. If the demand wasn't there, the supply would be irrelevant.

    In order to cut down on smoking in America, more smokers who are helplessly addicted should sue even more to put a dent in these companies. The government won't shut them down because the government is making profit off of addiction as well; the tobacco companies won't slow down, they will only expand and try to get more people hooked; and the people who are hooked might be hooked for the long term.
    "Helplessly addicted"?

    Gimme a break.

    I think lawsuits are perfectly acceptable.
    Yes yes.. sue the person who gave you what you personally sought out, willfully bought, and willfully ingested, all along knowing full well how unhealthy it was. Yes, it's all THEIR fault you kill yourself.

    I'd laugh if it weren't so pathetic.

  2. #172
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Philip Morris told to pay 8 mln in smoker's death

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    Then we should also ignore the obesity epidemic in America, because those people chose their fate. Let's just let an entire generation (most of them under 30) suffer cardiovascular decay and die young because of their choices. We should ignore chronic alcoholics and not offer them help, because, you know, they aren't addicts, they are just stupid people that are making bad choices.
    Well if it becomes such a problem that it threatens the stability of society then that is a different matter but that is not the threat here. In fact being harsh may in fact help matters by inducing individuals to stop smoking and not take it up. Anyway you didn't really address what I said.

    I'm not even suggesting it be taken up quickly in the case of smokers et al, just as a last resort sort of thing when they refuse to make change repeatedly.
    You don't understand addiction at all. Until you demonstrate that you do, there is no further need to argue with you.
    Textbook Orius. His arguments fail so he runs away.




    Not relevant to this debate, nor am I interested in what you think I am.
    You're still a liberal.

    And no one forced the companies to sell a product that was refined to be toxic and addictive. I already agree with you that the buyer is responsible, but so is the company. What kind of corporate socialist are you? Corporations should be held accountable for their actions.
    That makes no sense. The ultimate responsibility is the consumers. The corporations have moral responsibility but legal responsibility should only be the smokers because their choices fuel the operation. by your logic you can extend responsibility in many cases to many bodies. The theft victim is responsible presumably for having such valuable property.

    What could be set up, if the need arose, would be a tax on cigarettes which could be used to fund the healthcare of smokers. That would introduce some kind of safety net without the kind of nanny state, removal of individual responsibility you want.

    I'd away with corporate personhood and privileges so I'm certainly no corporate socialist but that is a different matter.

    And people wouldn't be dying if they didn't sell them. So there you go. Two sides of the same coin. Why are you so reluctant to come to this conclusion?
    Because it is meaningless. Many people can sell the product to the smoker, only he can decide whether to smoke. He is the lynch pin, all individual responsibility is his own.

    Individual responsibility and corporate responsibility are two things I am in favour of. Corporations are also comprised of human beings that can make choices. Just because the market provides them with the opportunity to sell a deadly product, doesn't mean they should.

    I agree that if cigarettes were introduced today they would not be made legal.
    Yes it is unfortunate we have authoritarians for governors but that is a different topic.

    In order to cut down on smoking in America, more smokers who are helplessly addicted should sue even more to put a dent in these companies. The government won't shut them down because the government is making profit off of addiction as well; the tobacco companies won't slow down, they will only expand and try to get more people hooked; and the people who are hooked might be hooked for the long term.

    I think lawsuits are perfectly acceptable.
    That is because you the destruction of individual responsibility for individual actions. Have you ever considered applying for a job with the EUroplot?
    Last edited by Wessexman; 02-25-09 at 02:05 AM.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  3. #173
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Philip Morris told to pay 8 mln in smoker's death

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    Addicts do make bad choices. And their choices are their own. Their health is their problem. They chose to start using something addictive, they choose to continue using it.
    So the company has zero responsibility?

    That's like saying the DEA should only go after drug users, but ignore the dealers, because no one is forcing the users to go buy from them. If the DEA used that mentality, there would be a much higher quantity of hard narcotics in America today.

    Except tobacco is legal, so we afford the tobacco companies more leeway. Tobacco is still a drug no matter what way you slice it.

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    Why should a corporation be held accountable for someone elses choices? Jesus christ, where the **** has personal responsibility gone in this country.
    Please provide evidence that I said the smokers should not be held accountable at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    Yes yes...and if gun manufacturers didn't make guns, no one would die from gunshots. And if car manufacturers didn't make cars, no one would die from car accidents. So and so forth into illogical oblivion.
    Bogus strawman. A car is not a drug. A gun is not a drug. You can't be addicted to either. Guns and cars don't inherently kill you (unless you are unlucky or stupid).

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    Why not? Supply and demand. If the demand wasn't there, the supply would be irrelevant.
    Both sides of the supply and demand equation are responsible for the problem. That is the argument I have been trying to make.

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    "Helplessly addicted"?
    If they are not part of the 5% that can quit on will power alone, and if they can't afford expensive treatments and therapies, then yeah, it can be dire. What if a doctor tells them to quit in the next 6 months or they will suffer serious health problems, but they have been a chain smoker for 20 years. You think it's that easy?

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    Yes yes.. sue the person who gave you what you personally sought out, willfully bought, and willfully ingested, all along knowing full well how unhealthy it was. Yes, it's all THEIR fault you kill yourself.
    Please cite where I said it's all the company's fault.

  4. #174
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Philip Morris told to pay 8 mln in smoker's death

    That's like saying the DEA should only go after drug users, but ignore the dealers, because no one is forcing the users to go buy from them. If the DEA used that mentality, there would be a much higher quantity of hard narcotics in America today.
    The DEA need to go after drug dealers of hard drugs because they pose a massive threat to social stability not because individual idiots are being harmed by stuff they originally decided to try.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  5. #175
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Philip Morris told to pay 8 mln in smoker's death

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    So the company has zero responsibility?
    Zero.

    That's like saying the DEA should only go after drug users, but ignore the dealers, because no one is forcing the users to go buy from them. If the DEA used that mentality, there would be a much higher quantity of hard narcotics in America today.
    The DEA should go after no one, because the drugs should be legal.

    Except tobacco is legal, so we afford the tobacco companies more leeway. Tobacco is still a drug no matter what way you slice it.
    So is caffeine. And your point is?


    Please provide evidence that I said the smokers should not be held accountable at all.
    They are the ONLY ones that are accountable.

    Bogus strawman. A car is not a drug. A gun is not a drug. You can't be addicted to either. Guns and cars don't inherently kill you (unless you are unlucky or stupid).
    Drugs don't inherently kill you either.

    Both sides of the supply and demand equation are responsible for the problem. That is the argument I have been trying to make.
    Incorrect. the only person responsible for what I put in my body is me.

    If they are not part of the 5% that can quit on will power alone, and if they can't afford expensive treatments and therapies, then yeah, it can be dire. What if a doctor tells them to quit in the next 6 months or they will suffer serious health problems, but they have been a chain smoker for 20 years. You think it's that easy?
    Yes, it is that easy.


    Please cite where I said it's all the company's fault.
    It's not the companies fault at all.

  6. #176
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:10 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,935

    Re: Philip Morris told to pay 8 mln in smoker's death

    What's more detrimental to your health, a pack of cigarettes or a box of Kraft Dinner?
    It's nothing more than X's and O's.

  7. #177
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,419
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: Philip Morris told to pay 8 mln in smoker's death

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    That's because Philip Morris tied the guy down, put a gun to his head, and made him smoke 3 packs a day for 30 years....

    Wait, no they didn't. Is it just me, or does anybody else see a problem with this verdict? I mean, come on, dammit. The guy had a choice, and made that choice. He shouldn't have gotten a dime.

    Article is here.
    What will come of dopers when they contract cancer?
    Will they sue government for not protecting them against the evil weed?
    Who they gonna call?
    Who... they... gonna... call?

    I think Obama should commission a study, make a program, and let it grow to enormous proportions. Perhaps they could call it The Dept. of Weed 'n Stuff. They could get Sean Spicoli Penn to run it, Obama could be the official taste tester, and on the first Tuesday every four years starting in 2012 Republicans could throw a Dawn 'til Dusk Pot Party for our socialist buddies.

    Just our way of saying... "thank you for not voting".
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  8. #178
    Educator azura28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    landlocked U.S.A.
    Last Seen
    11-29-11 @ 08:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    729

    Re: Philip Morris told to pay 8 mln in smoker's death

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    So the company has zero responsibility?

    That's like saying the DEA should only go after drug users, but ignore the dealers, because no one is forcing the users to go buy from them. If the DEA used that mentality, there would be a much higher quantity of hard narcotics in America today.

    Except tobacco is legal, so we afford the tobacco companies more leeway. Tobacco is still a drug no matter what way you slice it.



    Please provide evidence that I said the smokers should not be held accountable at all.



    Bogus strawman. A car is not a drug. A gun is not a drug. You can't be addicted to either. Guns and cars don't inherently kill you (unless you are unlucky or stupid).



    Both sides of the supply and demand equation are responsible for the problem. That is the argument I have been trying to make.



    If they are not part of the 5% that can quit on will power alone, and if they can't afford expensive treatments and therapies, then yeah, it can be dire. What if a doctor tells them to quit in the next 6 months or they will suffer serious health problems, but they have been a chain smoker for 20 years. You think it's that easy?



    Please cite where I said it's all the company's fault.
    Why are you just addressing tobacco??!! What is your deal? You don't consider alcohol addictive and not a drug because you and others like a drink now and then but hate cigarette smoke? You should not have it both ways.

    You want to put blame on the tobacco companies but not a budweiser company because they made an alcoholic out of a person. What is the reasoning behind this? You can't do one without the other and alcohol is far more dangerous. It can just take seconds to kill several people in one accident.

    There is no reasoning to this.... none...when you exclude alcohol from this argument.

  9. #179
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Philip Morris told to pay 8 mln in smoker's death

    Quote Originally Posted by azura28 View Post
    Why are you just addressing tobacco??!! What is your deal? You don't consider alcohol addictive and not a drug because you and others like a drink now and then but hate cigarette smoke? You should not have it both ways.

    You want to put blame on the tobacco companies but not a budweiser company because they made an alcoholic out of a person. What is the reasoning behind this? You can't do one without the other and alcohol is far more dangerous. It can just take seconds to kill several people in one accident.

    There is no reasoning to this.... none...when you exclude alcohol from this argument.
    Your argument falls completely apart when one considers the reality that the tobacco industry made pointed efforts to intentionally hide the effects of their product.

    I don't think you can say the same of the Anhauser-Busch company. Or any alcohol manufaturer.

  10. #180
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    in a neocon's craw
    Last Seen
    04-24-17 @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,801

    Re: Philip Morris told to pay 8 mln in smoker's death

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Are you in support of Universal Healthcare?
    Answer my question before you pose one to me.

Page 18 of 20 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •