but i thought smoking was involuntary!

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Spencer278

It is simple logic when a product is used in the way it is marketed and that product causes harm then the manufactor of said product should be held reposible for the harm.

you know nothing of the "open and obvious" doctrine, do you?

But tobacco companies where not open they lied infront of congress about smoking being addicting.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Spencer278

It is simple logic when a product is used in the way it is marketed and that product causes harm then the manufactor of said product should be held reposible for the harm.

you know nothing of the "open and obvious" doctrine, do you?

But tobacco companies where not open they lied infront of congress about smoking being addicting.

the danger doesn't need the company being open and obvious about it to be open and obvious

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Spencer278

It is simple logic when a product is used in the way it is marketed and that product causes harm then the manufactor of said product should be held reposible for the harm.

you know nothing of the "open and obvious" doctrine, do you?

But tobacco companies where not open they lied infront of congress about smoking being addicting.

And that negates every bit of responsibility by the smoking party, doesn't it.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Spencer278

It is simple logic when a product is used in the way it is marketed and that product causes harm then the manufactor of said product should be held reposible for the harm.

you know nothing of the "open and obvious" doctrine, do you?

But tobacco companies where not open they lied infront of congress about smoking being addicting.

And that negates every bit of responsibility by the smoking party, doesn't it.

To pay for the damages from the tobacco sure why not.

 

[MrDudeMan]

you tards are arguing the most flawed logic. stoves arent ever supposed to kill people..EVER. that isnt even a valid arguement.what is a cig meant to do besides give you poisonus (sp?) fumes to breathe in? if you want a good feeling, go jerk off or get laid. why do you need a substance to feel good? that is the stupid thing i have ever heard. and if you started for another reason, then you really have no excuse. you cant compare anything that a normal, nonsmoker would use to smoking a cigarette. apples to oranges people.

 

[sandorski]

I'm a smoker and won't be suing anyone. I think some deserve retribution due to their age and Tobacco Co's shenanigans, but I and others in my age group(45ish and <(I'm 38)) should get Jack Squat.

That said, there is certainly a misconception amongst non-smokers as to the addictiveness of Tobacco. Some Smokers can quit easily, but others have a real tough time doing so, especially permanently. If anything, non-Smokers should not perpetuate the myth of Easy Quitting, it will discourage even more from trying Tobacco.

 

[Soccer55]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: Spencer278
Because the tobacco companies sold a product that did harm when used in it intended way so they are responisble for the damages they inflected.

Nobody forced me to take that first drag. There wasn't a tobacco representative holding a gun to my head forcing me to get addicted. People are responsible for the choices they make...good and bad.

So manufactures shouldn't be responisble when they sell products that kill people when used in the intended way. Lets say you go turn on your stove and it blows up your house due to a defect in the stove. No one forced you to turn on the stove so you should not sue to get a new house.

There's a difference. The defect you are describing is shoddy workmanship, slack Q&A, or just a poor design. Look on the side of a cigarette package, the warnings are right there.

Face it, you just abhor the idea of personal responsibility and want to live in a nanny state where you don't have to face the consequences of your actions.

So if all stove makers started putting this stove may blow up in little letters on the side of the box it came in you wouldn't hold the manufactor responisble.

You are completely missing the point. I'm not going to sit here and argue with some HS punk who apparently fails to grasp his failed logic.

It is simple logic when a product is used in the way it is marketed and that product causes harm then the manufactor of said product should be held reposible for the harm.

I think the point Feldenak is making is that a stove blowing up is a result of a defect in workmanship (you even say this yourself in the italicized and bolded text above), but the effects of smoking on one's health is NOT a result of a defect in the cigarettes.

-Tom