but i thought smoking was involuntary!

[ElFenix]

i mean, thats the only way you could get money by suing the tobacco companies, isn't it?
"i knew it was bad but joe camel made me do it!"

am i right?

 

[Bootprint]

It's called addiction and some of those chemicals they put in ciggys adds to it.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Bootprint
It's called addiction and some of those chemicals they put in ciggys adds to it.

but the first smoke was involuntary! joe camel made you light up when you were 15 because that cartoon camel was really cool and appealing! after that, well, of course it's addictive! nicotine is the most addictive chemical known to man!

 

[AvesPKS]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Bootprint
It's called addiction and some of those chemicals they put in ciggys adds to it.

but the first smoke was involuntary! joe camel made you light up when you were 15 because that cartoon camel was really cool and appealing! after that, well, of course it's addictive! nicotine is the most addictive chemical known to man!

I don't know about people who started smoking recently, but I know some people started smoking because the government rationed it to them when they went to war, or because doctors appeared on TV to tell them about the wonderful health benefits of tobacco.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: AvesPKS

I don't know about people who started smoking recently, but I know some people started smoking because the government rationed it to them when they went to war, or because doctors appeared on TV to tell them about the wonderful health benefits of tobacco.

ok, maybe the people up through the 50s (though the later the more debatable) but 60s and later when everyone knew that smoking was bad, how can you get money out of the tobacco companies unless it was joe camel making you do it?

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

People who are addicted to something are still 100% responsible for the addiction and the consequences of that addiction.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: AvesPKS

I don't know about people who started smoking recently, but I know some people started smoking because the government rationed it to them when they went to war, or because doctors appeared on TV to tell them about the wonderful health benefits of tobacco.

ok, maybe the people up through the 50s (though the later the more debatable) but 60s and later when everyone knew that smoking was bad, how can you get money out of the tobacco companies unless it was joe camel making you do it?

man i have always wondered this. people who smoke and complain about not being able to breathe piss me off. when those same people sue because the cigarettes hurt their health, i wish we had martial law or something lol

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt
People who are addicted to something are still 100% responsible for the addiction and the consequences of that addiction.

i must be dreaming...i agree with him for once :brokenheart:

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt
People who are addicted to something are still 100% responsible for the addiction and the consequences of that addiction.

As a former smoker, I agree completely.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[MrDudeMan]

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.

bullseye.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

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.

bullseye.

The lack of personal responsibility that seems to be common in U.S. society is completely disgusting.

 

[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.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: AvesPKS

I don't know about people who started smoking recently, but I know some people started smoking because the government rationed it to them when they went to war, or because doctors appeared on TV to tell them about the wonderful health benefits of tobacco.

ok, maybe the people up through the 50s (though the later the more debatable) but 60s and later when everyone knew that smoking was bad, how can you get money out of the tobacco companies unless it was joe camel making you do it?

man i have always wondered this. people who smoke and complain about not being able to breathe piss me off. when those same people sue because the cigarettes hurt their health, i wish we had martial law or something lol

man i have always wondered this. people eat fast food and complain about not being able to breathe piss me off. when those same people sue because the fast food hurt their health, i wish we had martial law or something lol

 

[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.

 

[NogginBoink]

I'm in my early thirties. I have never ever been led to believe that smoking is anything other than a huge health risk.

However, for generations prior to mine, cigarettes were marketed as being either benign, or even beneficial to your health. For people in those generations, I can understand suing the tobacco companies.

 

[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.

 

[azazyel]

Smoker, please raise your hand if you didn't know what you where getting into?

I don't hear any smokers complaining that they were duped into anything. The only complaining I am hearing is from nonsmokers.

 

[ElFenix]

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.

no way joe camel made you do it! not with a gun but through clever marketing showing you how "cool" cigarette smoking is! hollywood was in on it too!

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: azazyel
Smoker, please raise your hand if you didn't know what you where getting into?

I don't hear any smokers complaining that they were duped into anything. The only complaining I am hearing is from nonsmokers.

Exactly. Non smokers have no idea what it's like.

 

[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?

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

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.

So every person that dies from a gunshot should have their immediate family sue gunmakers, right?