Jury Awards Record $28 Billion to Ex-Smoker

[sandra]

then why don't we legalize all drugs?

[ren28]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 6 2002, 02:26 AM
then why don't we legalize all drugs?

That should be done. I don't see why not... but that's another topic for another day.

[sandra]

Originally posted by ren28@Oct 6 2002, 03:09 AM

That should be done. I don't see why not... but that's another topic for another day.

blah. i take it back. that was a lame response. more later.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 6 2002, 01:44 AM

i wasn't coughing badly the first time i smoked. besides, we are criticizing her judgment with the knowledge that we have right now--with 20/20 hindsight. isn't that a bit unfair? there are plenty of people in asia right now that are not aware of the bad effects of smoking.

Okay, well. Let's give her the benefit of the doubt and say she DIDN'T know that smoking was bad for you. Now, when knowledge goes out that it is, who in their right mind wouldn't go out and buy a fucking pack of nicoderm or some shit. And do you really think she alone deserves $28 billion? There are too many people out there who have had their lives ruined by smoking to give ONE PERSON all that money. At least share the fucking wealth.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by ren28@Oct 6 2002, 03:09 AM

That should be done. I don't see why not... but that's another topic for another day.

I agree.

[thaite]

I've seen a lot of the old advertisements where they tell you how great smoking is. It is at the very least misleading -- and they did it for years. I just think that $28 billion is an outrageous award.

And I don't think the govt. needs to be awarding the families of the people killed in WT attack. That's what life insurance is for. But, that's also a discussion for another time.



<!--EDIT|buoywonder|Oct 6 2002, 02:04 AM-->

[angel nympho]

^-- I agree. And I also think it's very unfair to give HER the $28 billion. What makes her more worthy than the billions of other lives damaged by smoking?

[Reinhard H.]

Actually she has damaged the health of hundreds or even thousands of non smokers who were forced to passively inhale the smoke from her lungs (formerly there were no regulations against not smoking in public buildings), non smokers are the ones deserving compensation from the smokers who have damaged their health.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Oct 6 2002, 03:25 PM
Actually she has damaged the health of hundreds or even thousands of non smokers who were forced to passively inhale the smoke from her lungs (formerly there were no regulations against not smoking in public buildings), non smokers are the ones deserving compensation from the smokers who have damaged their health.

Wow, I never thought of that. That actually makes a lot of sense.

[Reinhard H.]

Not to speak of the environmental destruction she has caused and the probable dumbing down of her own children and grandchildren (I read somewhere that the children of smokers have lower average IQs, because the fetus receives less oxygen during pregancy). It's like a reckless driver hitting pedestrians with his car and then sueing the car company that it never warned him about the dangers of speeding.

[thaite]

Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Oct 6 2002, 08:25 AM
Actually she has damaged the health of hundreds or even thousands of non smokers who were forced to passively inhale the smoke from her lungs (formerly there were no regulations against not smoking in public buildings), non smokers are the ones deserving compensation from the smokers who have damaged their health.

Well, if there are no regulations against it, it wasn't illegal, was it?

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by Reinhard H.@Oct 6 2002, 11:16 AM
(I read somewhere that the children of smokers have lower average IQs, because the fetus receives less oxygen during pregancy).

No, you read wrong. Smokers are actually smarter and better looking.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 6 2002, 10:49 AM
Wow, I never thought of that. That actually makes a lot of sense.

No it doesn't. Maybe if you want to live in a bubble, sure.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 6 2002, 08:35 PM

No it doesn't. Maybe if you want to live in a bubble, sure.

Yes it does. Second hand smoke is worse in some ways than inhaling cigarette smoke directly. And smokers CHOSE to damage their bodies by smoking cigarettes. Those around them chose NOT to, and still had to endure unhealthful side effects at the hands of the tobacco industry. If the tobacco industry owes anybody compensation, it's those who did not make the conscious decision to smoke, but were still damaged by the side-effects of it.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 6 2002, 01:22 PM
Those around them chose NOT to, and still had to endure unhealthful side effects at the hands of the tobacco industry.

So when are we going to file lawsuits about our ozone layer? I never chose the Greenhouse Effect, where's my compensation?