Who is responsible for the health woes of smokers?

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » September 30, 2005, 2:05 am

According to BC courts, in Canada the tobacco industry is. They ruled the provincial gov't of BC is legally allowed to sue cigarette companies to recoup the cost of smoking related health care costs and its believed other provinces will use this ruling to make similar legislation across the country.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... TopStories

The situation in Canada is different than what Americans, Danes and others have because of our different health care systems. However given the nature of your legal system do you see a day where class action suits by smokers or health providing agencies/insurance companies could be aimed at the same end result, namely holding the cigarette companies responsible for the health problems of those who use their products?

Personally I'm not sure what I think of this ruling. I'm not a smoker and not fond of the habbit in others but this seems a unfair (for lack of a better word). Are people, especially adults, not responsible for their own choices and actions? Tobacco is not banned or illegal to consume (there are some restrictions as to where you can smoke in public in most jurisdictions). By law the packaging (in Canada) has to contain fairly large and blunt warnings about the health risks associated with smoking, thus the smokers are informed of some of the risks every time they look at a pack. The tobacco industry HAS had a history of aiming some advertising campaigns at youths, with an eye on luring young people into becoming smokers but it is still their choice to start and their choice not to quit. I guess the question on my mind is if the various provincial governments in Canada are becoming so anti-smoking/anti-tobacco, why not ban it outright instead of penalizing the industry for a choice a group of consumers makes? Seems to me both actions are aimed at the same goal, which is the eradication of smoking.

Thoughts?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 30, 2005, 3:16 am

the BC government legislating themselves into grotesquely enormous financial windfalls is about as common as them lesiglating themselves out of having to pay for their mistakes.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » September 30, 2005, 8:59 am

if anyone thinks crime is bad now, wait until they ban smoking! personally, i think they need to legalize more shit. i think crime would go down. unfortunetly, they've spent so much time and money on this whole "war on drugs" thing, i doubt it will ever happen.

i'm a smoker. the cigarette companies didn't jam the stuff down my throat. i'm responsible for my own actions. if i get a life threatening illness due to smoking i knew that before i took my first drag. people need to be responsible for their own actions and stop blaming everyone else!

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » September 30, 2005, 9:37 am

That'd be funny seeing Canadians hopping the border to buy some smokes like Americans did to buy beer.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » September 30, 2005, 11:08 am

If the tobacco company marketting similar to that touted in 'Crazy People' (Smoking will kill you, but at least it should taste as good as possible; or something like that) at the time they knew what the actual effects of smoking were, then yeah, I could understand not holding them responsible. Instead, they just upped the levels of nicotiene in an effort to make their product more addictive.

Fuck 'em.

Anyone who started smoking in the last 10 years though, is on their own.

As for 'recouping health costs' don't Canadians tax cigarettes?

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » September 30, 2005, 12:29 pm

Personally I would have no problem if smoking was outlawed altogether.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » September 30, 2005, 12:32 pm

Cigarrettes are the devil. Processed tobacco in general is crap.

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » September 30, 2005, 1:34 pm

EFF you guys. If I couldnt light up n take a drag, I would have hunted down everyone of you offensive bastards and ate your spleens by now...

Cigarettes are like the golden pill of stress relief. but like anything else, it will be harmful if used too frequently, just like milk (OMG lactose intollerance).

BAN MILK NOT CIGS!

Wish we could get the entire population to wake up and vote Libertarian so that we the people could have our choices back instead of doing what "they" want us to (dot.dot)

masteen · Post by **masteen** » September 30, 2005, 1:40 pm

Quit being a girl, and start smoking REAL tobacco.

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » September 30, 2005, 1:47 pm

Ciggars are a diferent animal.... they have there place. but when I'm havin a shitty day, and need to chill at work, 1 cigg does the trick.

A ciggar (or pipe) would just take too damn long, and net some odd looks from my coworkers.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » September 30, 2005, 3:49 pm

Smokers under the age of 55 I blame entirely on the smoker, 100% their damn fault, because if you were 20 in 1970 you had heard enough to know that you should NOT be smoking,

Smokers from 56-75 were under 20 from 1930 to 1950, and culturally there was no seriouis indication that smoking and have stopped since 1975 or so no blame on them.

Smokers over 76? 50/50 unless they stopped since 1975 or so.

But that is just roughing out broadguides based on America culturally, to be honest in assigning blame you would need over 100 group splits with differing levels of responsibility. Because since the 50's the cigarette companies have known it was killng people and people really started to be warned seriously in the 70's.

But int the rest of the world? HAH! Germans and Italians both had smoking cultures in the 90's comparable to the US in the 70's so another ruleset should apply to them. China is, man, that would be a bear tro work out.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » September 30, 2005, 5:40 pm

Cigs could be outlawed for all i fucking care, but I'm still trying to figure out how this decision got made. I must be missing something here.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » September 30, 2005, 5:52 pm

this is just as much shit as ... oh no! im fat because mc donalds made me fat! not because i can't stop eating 4 big mac's and my super sized diet coke! they diet coke is supposed to keep me thin!!!

what a crock of shit

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » September 30, 2005, 9:55 pm

Drasta wrote:this is just as much shit as ... oh no! im fat because mc donalds made me fat! not because i can't stop eating 4 big mac's and my super sized diet coke! they diet coke is supposed to keep me thin!!!

what a crock of shit

If McDonalds contained cocaine, and they increased the level of cocaine over time to increase their market share, then yes, it would be exactly the same!

*fluffle*

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » September 30, 2005, 11:10 pm

cocaine is a illegal controled substance =-P last time i checked ... mc donalds wasn't addictive or required a surgens general's warning on it =-P and i don't see them pumping more fat into their food ... lol "Big mac, now injected with pig fat" ... i doubt that would be more appealing nor addictive

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 30, 2005, 11:22 pm

nicotine occurs naturally in tobacco. cigarette companies don't have to add it to their product to make people addicted to it.

if the government feels that strongly about a product then they should outlaw it. outlawing tobacco would probably fucking lower the prices anyway.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » October 1, 2005, 12:13 am

Kyoukan, the educated amonst us know that the tobacco companies knowingly altered the nicotine levels to increase addiction.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » October 1, 2005, 11:12 am

Why do governments always look to put the blame of their citizens habits/addictions/problems on something other then themselves… the solution to everything it seems is to put greater legal restrictions and limit civil liberties as much as possible, maybe if they start a “war on free will” then we can create a perfect equilibrium society, im sure some of our conservative friends here wouldn’t be too hostile to that idea

personally, I despite tobacco smoke, have never smoked tobacco products, and despise the fact that most of my friends and family members regularly smoke…yet im not so godamned ignorant that i blame the tobacco industry

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » October 1, 2005, 12:10 pm

Xxion the only reason the industry can be blamed is that they covered up data about health effects.

If GM knows that 40% of the people that buy their cars will die early as a result and they let no one else know, it would be their fault.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 1, 2005, 12:20 pm

Who is responsible for the health woes of smokers?

The smoker.

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » October 1, 2005, 12:47 pm

Xzion wrote:Why do governments always look to put the blame of their citizens habits/addictions/problems on something other then themselves… the solution to everything it seems is to put greater legal restrictions and limit civil liberties as much as possible, maybe if they start a “war on free will” then we can create a perfect equilibrium society, im sure some of our conservative friends here wouldn’t be too hostile to that idea

personally, I despite tobacco smoke, have never smoked tobacco products, and despise the fact that most of my friends and family members regularly smoke…yet im not so godamned ignorant that i blame the tobacco industry

Conservatives lean to LESS Gov't conrtol of peoples lives. Liberals are liberal because they want a liberal use of gov't power to run everything... I.e. Leaning more towards a socialistic "you have to do for the good of everyone" attitude.... At least get the basics down!

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 1, 2005, 2:41 pm

Chmee wrote:
Who is responsible for the health woes of smokers?
The smoker.

You fuckers are so very, very sure of yourselves. And where's your stance when it's a barmaid who's been in smoky rooms for 20 years?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 1, 2005, 2:42 pm

Noysyrump wrote:
Xzion wrote:Why do governments always look to put the blame of their citizens habits/addictions/problems on something other then themselves… the solution to everything it seems is to put greater legal restrictions and limit civil liberties as much as possible, maybe if they start a “war on free will” then we can create a perfect equilibrium society, im sure some of our conservative friends here wouldn’t be too hostile to that idea

personally, I despite tobacco smoke, have never smoked tobacco products, and despise the fact that most of my friends and family members regularly smoke…yet im not so godamned ignorant that i blame the tobacco industry
Conservatives lean to LESS Gov't conrtol of peoples lives. Liberals are liberal because they want a liberal use of gov't power to run everything... I.e. Leaning more towards a socialistic "you have to do for the good of everyone" attitude.... At least get the basics down!

Bush has everyone confused to be fair; Republicans stand for small government and fiscal responsibility.... ummm... wait...

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » October 1, 2005, 8:42 pm

Noysyrump wrote:
Xzion wrote:Why do governments always look to put the blame of their citizens habits/addictions/problems on something other then themselves… the solution to everything it seems is to put greater legal restrictions and limit civil liberties as much as possible, maybe if they start a “war on free will” then we can create a perfect equilibrium society, im sure some of our conservative friends here wouldn’t be too hostile to that idea

personally, I despite tobacco smoke, have never smoked tobacco products, and despise the fact that most of my friends and family members regularly smoke…yet im not so godamned ignorant that i blame the tobacco industry
Conservatives lean to LESS Gov't conrtol of peoples lives. Liberals are liberal because they want a liberal use of gov't power to run everything... I.e. Leaning more towards a socialistic "you have to do for the good of everyone" attitude.... At least get the basics down!

they USED to...other then the right to arms, look at every other civil liberty issue, liberals are on the side of less government restriction 99% of the time

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 1, 2005, 8:59 pm

Kylere wrote:Kyoukan, the educated amonst us know that the tobacco companies knowingly altered the nicotine levels to increase addiction.

says who? got any documentation proving that, or is that just one of those little "educated kylere" gems that you pull out of that cavernous asshole of yours practically every time you post?

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » October 1, 2005, 10:50 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Kylere wrote:Kyoukan, the educated amonst us know that the tobacco companies knowingly altered the nicotine levels to increase addiction.
says who? got any documentation proving that, or is that just one of those little "educated kylere" gems that you pull out of that cavernous asshole of yours practically every time you post?

LOL have you not been paying attention for the last 20 years? Fucking ignorant piece of shit you are.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 1, 2005, 11:38 pm

And Sweet & Low causes cancer in lab rats only

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 2, 2005, 12:10 am

http://www.tmc.edu/tmcnews/03_01_99/page_01.html

Dr. Kessler pointed out that the harmful effects of smoking had been known for many years. Probably the single most important article about the hazards of tobacco was published not in JAMA or the New England Journal of Medicine, but in the Reader's Digest in 1952. "That was an extremely important article, and it had an impact for a long time after it was published." In the 1950s, filters were added to cigarettes to reduce the level of tar, but they also reduced the levels of nicotine being consumed. Tobacco companies began adding nicotine to cigarettes to compensate for what was filtered out.

Internal memos from the tobacco companies indicated that they knew the addictive properties of nicotine in the 1960s, but Dr. Kessler continued to look for the 'intended' use of the nicotine as an addictive agent. Finally, a 'tip' from a source within Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation led the investigation to ports of call in the southeastern U.S. where genetically bred tobacco with high nicotine content was being imported from Brazil.

"These manipulations of nicotine levels equaled intent," said Dr. Kessler.

Seems a reasonable source: Head of the FDA 1990-97 http://www.fda.gov/cder/about/history/biokessler.htm

Scans of one memo outlining this effort: http://www.lorillarddocs.com/getallimg. ... 30764/0770

(Yes, I have a typewriter too..)

Sure, smoking is stupid, but tobacco companies are not without sin.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 2, 2005, 12:47 am

Kylere wrote:LOL have you not been paying attention for the last 20 years? Fucking ignorant piece of shit you are.

is that your best evidence then?

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » October 2, 2005, 1:52 am

Whats great about those filters is that they use holes to let out some of the chemicals. However lips and fingers cover most of the holes

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » October 2, 2005, 2:07 am

kyoukan wrote:
Kylere wrote:LOL have you not been paying attention for the last 20 years? Fucking ignorant piece of shit you are.
is that your best evidence then?

Looks like since you are incapable of keeping of the rest of us, Zaelath was nice enough to do your homework for you.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 2, 2005, 4:06 am

that's not altering tobacco to add in more nicotine. that's using a plant that has more nicotine in it. the difference between the two is enormous.

lots of products have chemicals in them that are addicting. soda and coffee has caffiene. alcohol is addicting. putting more of the addictive chemical into a product to enhance the benefits of it isn't exclusive to cigarette manufacturers. what are you insinuating is that cigarette companies have wilfully added more nicotine into a product in order to make it "more addicting" (fyi, the amount of nicotine in an average gram of tobacco already contains enough nicotine to addict your brain to it about twenty times over, retard).

all I asked was where you drew that information from. am I to understand, by the torrent of name calling and whining, that you did indeed pull it out of your cavernous asshole?

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » October 2, 2005, 7:40 pm

Kyoukan, as usual you only comprehend what you wish to, rather than the whole. This is why you do not have an opinion worth a damn.

You speaking about people name calling is like Rush Limbaugh doing the same.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » October 3, 2005, 2:18 pm

So the cig companies were increasing the nicotine levels, giving you more drug for less smoke? Sounds like they were doing you dumbasses a favor.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 3, 2005, 4:27 pm

Actually, in a lot of cases, they were lowering the nicotine levels but added chemicals to increase the absorbtion level. So even if you were smoking a "low nicotine" cigarette, the ultimate addictive effect was similar to that of a higher nicotine cigarette. Until companies like Altria and RJ Reynolds were called to task, there was no effort to state that lower nicotine cigarettes were no less addictive than the "regular" kinds.