Avatar image for vinsanity09
#1 Posted by vinsanity09 (228 posts) -
A group of Quebec smokers is suing the country's three biggest tobacco companies for up to $27 billion, blaming them for their addiction and health problems.
 
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1144845--landmark-tobacco-lawsuit-against-cigarette-companies-begins-in-montreal-courtroom?bn=1
 
I never touched a cigarette in my life because I don't like the smell and I don't want my lungs to look like the ones on those CIGARETTE PACKS. They made the choice to smoke and now they're crying because the side effects, this is fucking dumb.
Avatar image for the_laughing_man
#2 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13807 posts) -
@vinsanity09 said:
A group of Quebec smokers is suing the country's three biggest tobacco companies for up to $27 billion, blaming them for their addiction and health problems.
 
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1144845--landmark-tobacco-lawsuit-against-cigarette-companies-begins-in-montreal-courtroom?bn=1  I never touched a cigarette in my life because I don't like the smell and I don't want my lungs to look like the ones on those CIGARETTE PACKS. They made the choice to smoke and now they're crying because the side effects, this is fucking dumb.
It says on the side it will mess people up...
Avatar image for kindgineer
#3 Posted by kindgineer (3089 posts) -

Cigarettes are disgusting. The people that support the life style and the companies that create the product are just....ugh.

Neither side is okay, smoking is just as stupid as creating the product. At least I can see the reason it was created: money. The reason for smoking: ....uhh....

Avatar image for zeforgotten
#4 Posted by ZeForgotten (10368 posts) -
@vinsanity09 said:
A group of Quebec smokers is suing the country's three biggest tobacco companies for up to $27 billion, blaming them for their addiction and health problems.
 
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1144845--landmark-tobacco-lawsuit-against-cigarette-companies-begins-in-montreal-courtroom?bn=1  I never touched a cigarette in my life because I don't like the smell and I don't want my lungs to look like the ones on those CIGARETTE PACKS. They made the choice to smoke and now they're crying because the side effects, this is fucking dumb.
As a smoker in Denmark we could just try to even think about suing a company like that for getting us addicted to smoking and we would get laughed at and probably forced to shoot ourselves for being that dumb.  
The warning is right there on the pack. also there's an image on this pack I have here with a guy sitting in a chair, smoking. He looks happy though so I'm not sure what message that is trying to send o.O
Avatar image for ultoroscariot
#5 Edited by UltorOscariot (220 posts) -

These people need to be locked in an asylum. Apparently they can be informed of the risks of a behavior choice, and yet still believe they should not be held responsible for their actions to the point where they should be compensated. They are mentally ill, a danger to themselves, and possibly those around them.

Avatar image for azteck
#6 Posted by Azteck (7416 posts) -

There is no way they can win that claim. Tobacco corps these days go to great lengths to tell you that, yo, this might fuck you up in the long run. They simply chose to ignore it.

Avatar image for dagbiker
#7 Posted by Dagbiker (7043 posts) -

@The_Laughing_Man said:

@vinsanity09 said:
A group of Quebec smokers is suing the country's three biggest tobacco companies for up to $27 billion, blaming them for their addiction and health problems.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1144845--landmark-tobacco-lawsuit-against-cigarette-companies-begins-in-montreal-courtroom?bn=1 I never touched a cigarette in my life because I don't like the smell and I don't want my lungs to look like the ones on those CIGARETTE PACKS. They made the choice to smoke and now they're crying because the side effects, this is fucking dumb.
It says on the side it will mess people up...

It might not have when they started.

Avatar image for harpell
#8 Posted by Harpell (204 posts) -

As someone who smokes occasionally, I gotta say that this is pretty dumb. I know it's bad for me. Everyone does. Some people choose to do it anyway, regardless of the big warning label on the pack. This is like, I don't know, suing a prostitute for having sex with you after your wife finds out and divorces you. You brought it on yourself.

Avatar image for arker101
#9 Posted by Arker101 (1484 posts) -

Even if they started smoking before the discovery that cigarettes were bad for you (Who would have thought inhaling smoke would be bad?) , it's a little late guys.

Avatar image for slay3r1583
#10 Posted by Slay3r1583 (736 posts) -

I'd expect something like that from us Americans but not Canada.

Avatar image for phish09
#11 Posted by phish09 (1115 posts) -

I'm a smoker and I'll admit that I'm addicted, but I'm addicted because of the choice that I made to start smoking.  No one forced my hand.  I'm also addicted to sitting on my ass playing video games and drinking booze and eating red meat, and all of those things are just as bad for me.  Suing companies that enable me to engage in activities that I willingly engage in is a pretty slippery slope.  Not like these people stand a chance in hell of winning this law suit, but imagine if they did.  Why could I not then sue Microsoft for my video game addiction or sue Smirnoff for my drinking problems or sue my local steakhouse for my addiction to red meat?  I know they can't win on the grounds that the suffered health problems due to smoking because the cigarette companies just need to find people like me who have suffered no health problems due to smoking, but the addiction argument is the real argument being made, and I think that since addiction is 90% psychological, it is a pretty difficult thing to blame on others. 

Avatar image for dagbiker
#12 Posted by Dagbiker (7043 posts) -

@Arker101 said:

Even if they started smoking before the discovery that cigarettes were bad for you (Who would have thought inhaling smoke would be bad?) , it's a little late guys.

I could see, if getting addicted before knowing all the health risks. having the TC's pay to get them weened off tobacco, and any associated health care. but if not or if they are still smoking, then i say pass.

this is just me and my logical self.

Avatar image for ch3burashka
#13 Posted by ch3burashka (6087 posts) -

@Dagbiker said:

@The_Laughing_Man said:

@vinsanity09 said:
A group of Quebec smokers is suing the country's three biggest tobacco companies for up to $27 billion, blaming them for their addiction and health problems.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1144845--landmark-tobacco-lawsuit-against-cigarette-companies-begins-in-montreal-courtroom?bn=1 I never touched a cigarette in my life because I don't like the smell and I don't want my lungs to look like the ones on those CIGARETTE PACKS. They made the choice to smoke and now they're crying because the side effects, this is fucking dumb.
It says on the side it will mess people up...

It might not have when they started.

The article states it's been 14 years since the suit's inception. Warnings have been on longer than that. However, that doesn't mean they don't have a legit case. It may seem silly in 2012 to sue about something so obvious, but it may not have been so explicit and accepted in 1998. Still 27B sounds like a greedy amount of money. Either way, it's difficult to tell who is in the right or wrong when so much time has passed.

Avatar image for commando
#14 Posted by Commando (1999 posts) -

Suing the tobacco companies for health problems is like suing Anheuser-Busch for a DUI.

Avatar image for laserlambert
#15 Posted by LaserLambert (176 posts) -

@Commando: I think you're on to something here...

Avatar image for louiedog
#16 Posted by louiedog (2390 posts) -

@Commando said:

Suing the tobacco companies for health problems is like suing Anheuser-Busch for a DUI.

It's not like that at all. Health problems occur just from the act of smoking. A DUI isn't earned simply by drinking what's in the bottle.

Avatar image for arker101
#17 Posted by Arker101 (1484 posts) -

@Dagbiker said:

@Arker101 said:

Even if they started smoking before the discovery that cigarettes were bad for you (Who would have thought inhaling smoke would be bad?) , it's a little late guys.

I could see, if getting addicted before knowing all the health risks. having the TC's pay to get them weened off tobacco, and any associated health care. but if not or if they are still smoking, then i say pass.

this is just me and my logical self.

No no, I agree.

Avatar image for mikemcn
#18 Posted by Mikemcn (8214 posts) -

I'd be ok with smoking if second hand smoking didn't exist, if you smoke around your children, or some kid walks by and has to breath burning tobacco, even if it's for a second, fuck you, and as someone who has asthma most likely due to his parents chain smoking, double fuck you.

Avatar image for blackout62
#19 Edited by Blackout62 (2077 posts) -

Clearly only one man can solve this problem:

Loading Video...

Nick Naylor.

"Well, the real demonstrated #1 killer in America is cholesterol. And here comes Senator Finistirre whose fine state is, I regret to say, clogging the nation’s arteries with Vermont Cheddar Cheese. If we want to talk numbers, how about the millions of people dying of heart attacks? Perhaps Vermont Cheddar should come with a skull and crossbones.:

"That is lu - . The great state of Vermont will not apologize for its cheese!"

Avatar image for patchrowcester
#20 Posted by PatchRowcester (235 posts) -

Dumb people don't need reasons and logic. They hold others accountable for their mistakes.

Avatar image for noobsauceg7
#21 Posted by NoobSauceG7 (1390 posts) -

Good. Fuck smoking

Avatar image for pezen
#22 Posted by Pezen (2146 posts) -

There should be a "cry me a river" court that handled cases like these and all it will anount to is the judge pointing out their stupidity and the court room laughing.

People suing companies for their own lack of self restraint. Entitled displacing-blame-culture. Pathetic.

Avatar image for dagbiker
#23 Posted by Dagbiker (7043 posts) -

It also depends on the advertising at the time, and at what age they started smoking. If they where 10, and where watching ads directed at children, which in 1998 there where plenty. Then I could see a case.

Avatar image for alternate
#24 Posted by alternate (2822 posts) -

Depends on how old they are. You say it is obvious that smoking is a health hazard but I know when my grandparents started smoking the tobacco companies were claiming anything but and they even used shill doctors to claim they were totally safe. By the time medical evidence of their danger came to light they were well hooked.