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.
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?:lol: 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.
Answer my question before you pose one to me.Are you in support of Universal Healthcare?
I'm fine with that. We outlaw Heroin and shooting people too. Let's outlaw cigs too while we're at it. I mean why stop at alcohol right? At some point, as a society we have to say, if you're going to be irresponsible then the rest of us who are affected must stop you. So, instead of banning motorcycles we say, you have to wear a helmet and instead of banning cars we say you have to weqar a seatbelt... compromise.Fine... if what you're looking at is strictly cost-benefit, then why not as a society ban alcohol? What do you think costs more to taxpayers each year? Not wearing helmets? Or alcohol-related injuries, death, and disease?
:doh
For some people it is impossible. The evidence is the numnber of people who've tried and failed.Smoking is not impossible to quit and he knew the dangers.
That's your correlation? :dohFor some people it is impossible. The evidence is the numnber of people who've tried and failed.
Do you even have any clue what your country and mine would look like if we just let sick people die? Isn't having cancer enough punishment do we need to say, well you gave yourself cancer and... oh yeah, since you can't afford someone to take care of you, you'll just have to lay in your piss and ****, in an alley somewhere and starve to death, Sorry!Then they die. They knew the risks, cry me a bloody river.
You said you weren't a liberal but here you sre deriding private charity.
And no one forced these people to buy it.
Not really, they wouldn't be profiting if people took responsibility.
Bottom line these people knew what it would do to them, they still chose to do it. That is no one's fault but their own and no one else should be forced to pay for it.
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.
Answer my question before you pose one to me.
Yes, if you think it's wrong then explain.That's your correlation? :doh
I failed Geometry twice. That means it's impossible to learn.Yes, if you think it's wrong then explain.
You're absolutely right, I was talking to Grateful Heart.Quote: Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Are you in support of Universal Healthcare?
Okay, I looked back five pages on this thread and can find no question addressed to me; what question do you have for me that forces you to avoid my question?
So you can't explain it then?I failed Geometry twice. That means it's impossible to learn.
So you can't explain it then?
:rofl try rereading that without your pointy hat on, and replace the phrase "drug dealer" with "tobacco company" (since they are essentially the same thing)
For some people it is impossible. The evidence is the numnber of people who've tried and failed.
People die all the time. They can get treatment, they can take out insurance, save up, appeal to charity, I'd probably donate, or perhaps smoking taxes could got towards their treatment but they should be responsible for their choices and others should not be forced to pay for them. I do think they should have a chance to quit but if they continue then that is their choice and they must accept the consequences.Do you even have any clue what your country and mine would look like if we just let sick people die? Isn't having cancer enough punishment do we need to say, well you gave yourself cancer and... oh yeah, since you can't afford someone to take care of you, you'll just have to lay in your piss and ****, in an alley somewhere and starve to death, Sorry!
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.
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?:lol: 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.