|
Provinces can sue tobacco companies --this should be scary to any business owner (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Cal |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
i felt sick the first time i lost $20 at the casino...
LOL
but the issue here isnt how it makes you feel, the issue is whether its detrimental to your health. And obviously it is which means the government can now sue. |
Look all Im trying to say is this: There's a lot of out that that'll kill you eventually. But almost all of it has a positive side, a benefit to be gained from its consumption.
But tobacco is not part of that. It's unique, its stand alone in that it doesn't bring anything positive to the table (unlike gambling and alcohol and weed). It's wide-spread acceptance in our progessive society is a paradox!
That's my whole problem with you trying to slippery slope from tobacco to alcohol and casinos, because they are so different. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
because the government has better things to do than go around SUEING everyone.
There is no comparable argument here.
SUVs were not designed to secretly pollute the environment.
They are not marketed to say that they pollute less than they really do.
And further, SUVs are only PARTIALLY responsible for general environmental damages. |
and tobacco is only partly responsible for cancer. And if the government wins maybe it would be very profitable for them to sue everybody. Even if they dont, the idea that they have the right to do so at any time is a scary proposition. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
100% of injuries in car accidents are caused by motor vehicles and motor vehicles alone |
No, they are caused by people, and people are influenced by any number of things, such as alcohol, drugs, other passengers, cell phones, the radio, etc. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
and tobacco is only partly responsible for cancer. And if the government wins maybe it would be very profitable for them to sue everybody. Even if they dont, the idea that they have the right to do so at any time is a scary proposition. |
As I mentioned, 85% of LUNG cancer is caused by smoking ALONE.
Also...
They do not have a right to do so at any time.
The supreme court ruling was specific to tobacco companies.
The supreme court recognizes the distinction between tobacco companies and manufacturers of other products, why cant you? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cal
Look all Im trying to say is this: There's a lot of out that that'll kill you eventually. But almost all of it has a positive side, a benefit to be gained from its consumption.
But tobacco is not part of that. It's unique, its stand alone in that it doesn't bring anything positive to the table (unlike gambling and alcohol and weed). It's wide-spread acceptance in our progessive society is a paradox!
That's my whole problem with you trying to slippery slope from tobacco to alcohol and casinos, because they are so different. |
people who smoke tobacco but not weed or dont may say the same thing about weed and booze.
What benefits do booze and weed bring? Other than satisfying a craving or altering your mind state?
How can one defend smoking weed and vigourously attack tobacco? Do you know who's dirty hands are responsible for weed? People who smoke weed and complain about "dirty tobacco" are hilarious.
I guess supporting drug mafias and gangsters is better than a big corperation right? |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
why not? whats stopping them if they win with tobacco? I never thought we'd see the day that they'd be talking about banning outdoor smoking when the first no smoking section was enacted into law. But guess what?
they wont? Already i hear about antis trying to ban them. Who says they wont sue as well using this new precedent? as they should be because obviously their product was not functioning properly.
whats the difference between alcohol and just about any other business out there? And do you really think the government should be allowed to dictate whats good and whats bad?
you are half right. EVERYONE is responsable for THEMSELVES. The government should fund education projects in school about smoking and liquor. Parents should also teach their kids about this. However, once someone reaches 18 they should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to smoke or drink or gamble. Increasingly the government is trying to force their morals on adults and i find that reprehensable. |
i think you're taking a very extreme and (paranoid) view at this whole issue. courts rule within discretion. no reasonable minded judge would outlaw every conceivable product within our society which could hold some miniscule ounce of detrimental effect on human health. if people who wear sportswear are more likely to commit crime, you're not gonna ban the sale of sportswear altogether. i don't necessarily agree with this ruling in its entirety either and i'm not trying to put 100% faith in our judicial system here, but at the same time i'm not putting 100% faith into the idea that this precedent will put this country into some sterile lock down state.
|
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
As I mentioned, 85% of LUNG cancer is caused by smoking ALONE.
Also...
They do not have a right to do so at any time.
The supreme court ruling was specific to tobacco companies.
The supreme court recognizes the distinction between tobacco companies and manufacturers of other products, why cant you? |
because they can still use this decision to open the door to future litigation against other companies. Thats what precedent setting means. It means that even if this case is specific it can be used as an example in the future in other cases as legitimate means to persue your actions. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
i think you're taking a very extreme and (paranoid) view at this whole issue. courts rule within discretion. no reasonable minded judge would outlaw every conceivable product within our society which could hold some miniscule ounce of detrimental effect on human health. if people who wear sportswear are more likely to commit crime, you're not gonna ban the sale of sportswear altogether. i don't necessarily agree with this ruling in its entirety either and i'm not trying to put 100% faith in our judicial system here, but at the same time i'm not putting 100% faith into the idea that this precedent will put this country into some sterile lock down state.
|
i dont think the extreme will happen. My problem is, whats next? What else is going to be sued into oblivion? Somebody makes a biased movie about mcdonalds and suddenly half the country hates mcdonalds. So who says the government wont take this public opinion to court and sue mcdonalds into extinction?
I happen to like mcdonalds....
see my point? |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
people who smoke tobacco but not weed or dont may say the same thing about weed and booze.
What benefits do booze and weed bring? Other than satisfying a craving or altering your mind state?
How can one defend smoking weed and vigourously attack tobacco? Do you know who's dirty hands are responsible for weed? People who smoke weed and complain about "dirty tobacco" are hilarious.
I guess supporting drug mafias and gangsters is better than a big corperation right? |
80% of methane is caused by cows and methane is the larges contributing factor to ozone depletion and green house gases. I am sueing all the cattle farmers. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
80% of methane is caused by cows and methane is the larges contributing factor to ozone depletion and green house gases. I am sueing all the cattle farmers. |
with this court decision i bet youd now have a strong case. |
|
|
| Skipper |
I know what a precedent is, jackass. ;)
I don't think this sets a precedent for the type of reaction you are envisioning, though.
You are having a really difficult time proving that there is a comparable product/company out there that could ever be in jeapordy due to this ruling. |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
i dont think the extreme will happen. My problem is, whats next? What else is going to be sued into oblivion? Somebody makes a biased movie about mcdonalds and suddenly half the country hates mcdonalds. So who says the government wont take this public opinion to court and sue mcdonalds into extinction?
I happen to like mcdonalds....
see my point? |
i see your point. i just don't think it's gonna happen.
|
|
|
|
|
