NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article320391.ece
Tobacco companies, if you ask me, have gotten the raw end of the deal. When it first came out in the sixties that smoking could kill you, there was legitamite concern among the consuming public. Then things got outta hand. First came the law suits. Then, a tax hike made it so that tobacco firms earned less money to pay the fat cat lawyers. Now, the tobacco industry has been crushed. Never mind the fact that they have no money to develop a nicotene free cigarette, or perhaps even the holy grail: the safe cigarette. No, because everyone wants to cash in.
Today, tobacco firms struck back. The Supreme Court threw out racketeering charges against tobacco firms, and they will not have to pay $280 bn. of their hard earned money. Good for you, tobacco firms!

I needs my tobaccee!

Now, the tobacco industry has been crushed. Never mind the fact that they have no money to develop a nicotene free cigarette, or perhaps even the holy grail: the safe cigarette. No, because everyone wants to cash in.
Oh, they have plenty of money, considering our government subsidizes them ^-_-

You stole that argument from Ronald Coase, didn't you? :D

:cool:

Anybody got a light? I feel my RJR and Phillip Morris stock going up as we speak....

You stole that argument from Ronald Coase, didn't you? :D
Who the hell is he? Look, there are 6 bn. ppl in the world. Everything I say has some other advocate somewhere else. You just happen to be more observant than I am.

yeah those poor tobacco companies. life is SO hard when you can legally sell a deadly and addictive substance so that even when your customers die they remaining ones are unable to stop buying from you. i weep for them that they arent allowed to do so at a price that would keep even more people addicted.

that said, i do think its ridiculous for people who willingly took up the habit, who have repeatedly quit but went back because they enoy smoking, have the balls to sue the cigarette companies becaue they got sick from it.

people should be allowed their vices.

Who the hell is he? Look, there are 6 bn. ppl in the world. Everything I say has some other advocate somewhere else. You just happen to be more observant than I am.
Don't worry about it. But I reckon you might enjoy his article:
www.sfu.ca/~allen/CoaseJLE1960.pdf

Basically says that suing big business is a bad idea (if you do a little mental gymnastics).

Don't worry about it. But I reckon you might enjoy his article:
www.sfu.ca/~allen/CoaseJLE1960.pdf

Basically says that suing big business is a bad idea (if you do a little mental gymnastics).
Thanks. Though really, I'm not for big businesses having some form of legal immunity. Businnesses do bad things, like Enron, and occaisonally, kill people. Big tobacco is not innocent of this. But I am especially angry that it has turned into a witch hunt of eager young lawyers looking for easy money, and essentially, robbing a bank.
And btw, I don't smoke. But I am appalled by how society treats those that do. Suing them so flagrantly is a mere symptom of this new form of discrimination. I have a feeling that this will one day be looked back upon as being as discriminatory and pointless as apartheid.

yeah those poor tobacco companies. life is SO hard when you can legally sell a deadly and addictive substance so that even when your customers die they remaining ones are unable to stop buying from you. i weep for them that they arent allowed to do so at a price that would keep even more people addicted.

that said, i do think its ridiculous for people who willingly took up the habit, who have repeatedly quit but went back because they enoy smoking, have the balls to sue the cigarette companies becaue they got sick from it.

people should be allowed their vices.
If people should be allowed their vices, then shouldn't the sellers of those vices be allowed to operate as necessary. Methinks I smell a contradiction.

If people should be allowed their vices, then shouldn't the sellers of those vices be allowed to operate as necessary. Methinks I smell a contradiction.

I think the fact that we all say people should be able to do what they want while condemning the people who supply the vices we use is our defense mechanism. Its a way for us to save some moral sense of superiority while enjoying the pleasure and escape that we so need.

Develop a nicotine free cigarette my ass.

Develop a nicotine free cigarette my ass.

yea your better off just drinking.:rolleyes:

yea your better off just drinking.:rolleyes:
Good plan.
*Opens a fresh bottle of vodka*
This way, when the sun expands to destroy the Earth, or the ozone layer dissapears, or whatever the Hell else George Bush has planned to destroy the Earth comes into effect, my liver will be long gone and I won't be around to notice.

Today, tobacco firms struck back. The Supreme Court threw out racketeering charges against tobacco firms, and they will not have to pay $280 bn. of their hard earned money. Good for you, tobacco firms!

Good. There have been health warnings on cigarettes for many years. I people choose to ignore those warnings, as I did for a long time, they are responsible for the consequences. It is time for the people in the United States to take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions.

Look, there are 6 bn. ppl in the world.

What the hell is "6 bn. ppl?"

If people should be allowed their vices, then shouldn't the sellers of those vices be allowed to operate as necessary. Methinks I smell a contradiction.
you got a problem with that??

you got a problem with that??
Ehrm, what?
Are you asking if I have a problem with the contradiction in a philosophy that allows people to have their vices but penalizes the suppilers?
If so, then yes, I do have a problem with that. That is inane, if you want people to have full access to their cancer sticks, then you have to allow the manufacturers to produce profitably.

Ehrm, what?
Are you asking if I have a problem with the contradiction in a philosophy that allows people to have their vices but penalizes the suppilers?
If so, then yes, I do have a problem with that. That is inane, if you want people to have full access to their cancer sticks, then you have to allow the manufacturers to produce profitably.
sigh

well FINE if you must be taught a lesson

i started out mocking the original poster for his hyperbole about what a raw deal the tobacco companies have. it was sarcasm.

i went on to chastize those who indulge then want compensation when the well known chickens come home to roost

and i ended with a statement of "philosophy" that people should be allowed vices

no contradtions implied.

What the hell is "6 bn. ppl?"
6,000,000,000 people.

6,000,000,000 people.

Then why didn't he/she say "6 billion people" instead of 6 bn ppl? Most people here understand English but not all understand shorthand.

Well I'm going to do something I rarely do. I'm going to side with Big Business.

Some caveats - I still don't support big business. I think smoking is retarded. And I think there should be laws against smoking where it might harm other people.

But in the end, like with drugs IMHO, it is an individual's choice. It affects their own body only(secondhand smoke is exception, which is why I put something about that in the caveats), and thus they should be allowed to do it if they wish. As an individual's non-coerced choice, AND because the product is well known as deadly and labeled as such, these people don't deserve any money. They were free to smoke, they did, they knew they could get cancer, they smoked anyways. If they want to destroy themselves, they are free to do it, but the company/individual facilitating them in that is not responsible. Would a sucide's family be able to sue the gun company? Nope. Why should this change if the suicide victim used tobacco as opposed to hot lead?

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article320391.ece
Tobacco companies, if you ask me, have gotten the raw end of the deal. When it first came out in the sixties that smoking could kill you, there was legitamite concern among the consuming public. Then things got outta hand. First came the law suits. Then, a tax hike made it so that tobacco firms earned less money to pay the fat cat lawyers. Now, the tobacco industry has been crushed. Never mind the fact that they have no money to develop a nicotene free cigarette, or perhaps even the holy grail: the safe cigarette. No, because everyone wants to cash in.
Today, tobacco firms struck back. The Supreme Court threw out racketeering charges against tobacco firms, and they will not have to pay $280 bn. of their hard earned money. Good for you, tobacco firms!I'm half with you. I personally think that no one my age or younger ought to get a cent--warnings were out there when I was a kid and there's no excuse for any of us.

Older people, however, deserve some payback, and their health care ought to be covered by the tobacco industry--they got the people hooked and lied about what they were doing to keep them hooked, so they're responsible for it.

But your point on taxes is ludicrous. Consumers pay those taxes, not the tobacco companies.

People know what they are getting when they are smoking. If people are still dumbass enough to do it, let some people make money off it, sheesh.

But your point on taxes is ludicrous. Consumers pay those taxes, not the tobacco companies.
It artificially increases the price of the good that they supply, thus there is less demand, so less profit.

But your point on taxes is ludicrous. Consumers pay those taxes, not the tobacco companies.
Directly, yes. But it doesn't take a genius to figure out that high prices mean less in sales. Even addicts may be discouraged by the price, reducing in their own little way to a pack a day or something like that. So, in essense, it functions as a tax on the consumer and the company.

Then why didn't he/she say "6 billion people" instead of 6 bn ppl? Most people here understand English but not all understand shorthand.
Just read and learn. I'm doing you guys a favor.

I did not expect so many to agree with me, or at least partially. One thing I never see debated much is tobacco. It seems to have died out as an issue, but it simmers below the surface.
I guess it will be a bigger issue, but for different reasons. The number of smoking is souring in Asia. In China, for instance, 3 trillion cigarettes were smoked, or, for a rough calculation, over 1,000 packs per person per year. That can't be ignored, and a backlash is likely soon.

I did not expect so many to agree with me, or at least partially. One thing I never see debated much is tobacco. It seems to have died out as an issue, but it simmers below the surface.
I guess it will be a bigger issue, but for different reasons. The number of smoking is souring in Asia. In China, for instance, 3 trillion cigarettes were smoked, or, for a rough calculation, over 1,000 packs per person per year. That can't be ignored, and a backlash is likely soon.

By then, the money made off of China by Philip Morris will be staggering.

By then, the money made off of China by Philip Morris will be staggering.
I agree. But then again, lots of people stand to make money in China.