• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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?
 
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?:2bigcry:

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".
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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
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.
 
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.
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!
 
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.

: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)
 
Quote: Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Are you in support of Universal Healthcare?

Answer my question before you pose one to me.

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?
 
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?
You're absolutely right, I was talking to Grateful Heart.

Yes, I do support universal health care, because it will decrease our medical costs and shove a bone up the ass of the insurance companies that have been raping us since... well, since Nixon hoisted HMOs on us.

Now, do you know what head injuries from not wearing a helmet cost the tax payers before and after the law was enacted?
 
So you can't explain it then?
1234818874726.jpg
 
: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)

Nope tobacco doesn't cause the same social devastation. It kills a minority of people who are silly enough to smoke mostly in middle age. Not quite the same thing. I'm not some atomistic individualist, I don't believe you can do anything that you want like smoke crack even if it has a massively negative effect on society but I'm very cautious about where this line should be and smoking just doesn't cut it.
 
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!
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.
 
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.

Yes but the dangers are now well known. That is not an argument for the vast majority of smokers in the West today.
 
The dangers of smoking were not well know in the 40s - then, our government encouraged this filthy habit..Men with intellect, even some of them smoked and supposedly enjoyed it..
In the 50s and 60s, it was discovered that smoking was dangerous - this was and still is ignored..
In the 60s and 70s, the tobacco companies must have known about the dangers and probably tryed to use the cover-up ploy...this may have been wrong; but the dangers were so evident and obvious
Now, finally even the man with average intelligence has stopped, but those who can least afford this, the poor and ignorant continue...thats their problem..
Unless a man has a single digit IQ, he must be responsible for his actions, including smoking.
It is wrong, dead wrong for anyone, any legislator or judge to allow any lawsuit that switches the responsibility to a tobacco company.....
Our nation is weakened when irresponsible behavior is rewarded rather than condemned..
 
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.

Please read the entire thread before posting. I clearly said in several posts that alcohol is also problematic.

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

You'd be right if that's what I actually did.
 
Back
Top Bottom