Culture of life decides Cigarettes aren't that bad after all

[imported_Stratago]

Originally posted by: zendari

According to the left, people should be able to do what they want and then sue companies when something happens to them.

Personal accountability has turned into corporate accountability, that McDonalds coffee case shows it, whenever something happens to you its the companies fault and sueing is in style. :thumbsup:

And whatever it is, its Bush's fault.

I really don't think you know what you are talking about and strongly disagree. There are too many assumptions that both the right and left make of one another and the more assumptions each make the more each side hates eachother. This being an example. You catigorize the left as people who have no regard for the conciquences of you actions, well you know what you are very much mistaken.

Back to the subject I personally am a smoker and my starting smoking had nothing to do with Big tobacco. I accept the respsonsiblity and conciquences of my actions. If I get lung cancer, I will never go to court saying that they made me smoke, and I couldn't do anything about it.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Bumrush99

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

It is disgusting that cigarettes are not a banned substance like marijuana. Big Tobaco should be permanently shut down in this country. This coming from a smoker. Cigarettes are more detrimental to our health and our society than all the booze and drugs in the world. If we don't have to balls to kick tobaco companies to the curb than legalize all the other 'harmful' drugs.

The same can be said for alcohol and fast food...obesity I believe is surpassing smoking related illnesses as the #1 killer in America. However, I do not support litigation against tobacco companies, alcohol distributers or fast food chains...people know that these things are harmful to their health, yet choose to utilize these products...what happened to personal accountability in this country?

According to the left, people should be able to do what they want and then sue companies when something happens to them.

Personal accountability has turned into corporate accountability, that McDonalds coffee case shows it, whenever something happens to you its the companies fault and sueing is in style. :thumbsup:

And whatever it is, its Bush's fault.

I love how all the defenders of this regime SKIRT the damn issue.
FACT: People were not suing in this case.

government's decision to dramatically reduce the proposed size of a nationwide stop-smoking program, one of the penalties recommended in a racketeering suit against cigarette makers.

This settlement has NOTHING to do with individual lawsuits, it involved YEARS of litigation by the government and at the last moment, over the objections of SENIOR lawyers working the case the goverment decides to go from 130 billion to 10 billion.

The issue of whether or not these types of settlements are moral or justifiable are not the main concern here. The main concern is, Why is our goverment caving in to special interests without being held accountable? Either you are for or against these types of lawsuits, but they can not be settled half ass at last the moment. If the government had a moral/legal objection to going after the tobacco companies for racketerring then they should have never started this process in the first place.

Perhaps their case isn't as strong as some believe.

 

[Vic]

The TRUE story behind the Justice Dept's decision, pulled from Time Magazine, 20 June 2005, page 16:

Behind the Tobacco Retreat

The US government has spent four years and more than $135 million building a case in federal court that cigarette makers profited over the course of a half-century by lying to the American public about the dangers of smoking and racking up generations of addicts in the process. The proposed penalty -- $130 billion -- would pay for a recovery program for every cigarette addict in the US for the next 25 years,

When the Justice Department abruptly changed course last week, reducing the penalty sought to $10 billion, critics cried foul, charging it was a reflection of the Adminstration's ties to the tobacco industry, including a handful of high-level political appointees who used to belong to law firms that represented Big Tobacco. "The public has to be on the lookout for clandestine negotiations," says Matthew Myers, a witness in the case and president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

But speculation that politics was behind the move is "exactly wrong," a career Justice Department prosecutor involved in the case told TIME. Government attorneys were caught off-guard in February by a circuit-court ruling that severly limited the payout they could seek from Big Tobacco, said Justice Department officials. Under the racketeering statutes cited in the case, the government could not recommend a penalty for any past wrongdoing and instead was restricted to proposals geared to prevent and restrain future action. Prosecutors scrambled to adjust their case. The solution, based on recommendations from longtime Justice lawyers, was to ask the court to demand an initial $10 billion payment, then appoint a monitor to review the bahvior of the industry and recommend a suitable penalty every year until cigarette makers stop their misdeeds. Ted Wells, a lawyer for Philip Morris USA, calls the plan a "last-minute, desperate attempt" to save the case. But Justice lawyers say that far from staging a retreat, they are betting on the "virtual certainty" that the tobacco industry won't change its ways in one year and thus will be liable for steep penalties for years to come.
-- By Brian Bennett