|
Provinces can sue tobacco companies --this should be scary to any business owner (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by 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. |
fast food and things containing caffeine along with booze are the next most likely targets.
look at how they are already on a transfat witch hunt in parliament. Not long before they sue trans fat makers id imagine. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
i see your point. i just don't think it's gonna happen.
|
id like to think it wont too. But this ruling means its very possible. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
with this court decision i bet youd now have a strong case. |
No, you wouldn't.
Look at the big picture. *assumes that Chem's fact about methane is true, which is doubtful* Cattle farming actually brings BENEFIT to our society. Smoking does not.
As if you just compared a COW to a cigarette. You guys are hilarious. |
|
|
| Cal |
| 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? |
Are you for real? You're lumping a bunch of irrelevant things together here.
To get a kick out of weed and booze you don't need to be addicted, they feel just as good the first time you try them.
To get a kick out of tobacco, the ONLY way to get a kick out of tobacco, you first need to be suffering from nicotine withdrawal.
Thats the fundamental difference, and the reason why it's not very likely this will legally translate into a precedent for alcohol legislation, for example, because tobacco and alcohol have that intrinsic difference. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
No, you wouldn't.
Look at the big picture. *assumes that Chem's fact about methane is true, which is doubtful* Cattle farming actually brings BENEFIT to our society. Smoking does not.
As if you just compared a COW to a cigarette. You guys are hilarious. |
really? vegetarians would argue differently. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
fast food and things containing caffeine along with booze are the next most likely targets.
look at how they are already on a transfat witch hunt in parliament. Not long before they sue trans fat makers id imagine. |
Do you even know what a transfat IS?
It is not a chemical added by the manufacturer.
It is a byproduct of a natural ingredient already included in manufacturing that has negative consequences.
When you see products that have zero transfats, its because they have used a different type of oil or fat product, or have removed it from the existing fat that is used in manufacturing. it's not that they are just NOT adding it in anymore. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cal
Are you for real? You're lumping a bunch of irrelevant things together here.
To get a kick out of weed and booze you don't need to be addicted, they feel just as good the first time you try them.
To get a kick out of tobacco, the ONLY way to get a kick out of tobacco, you first need to be suffering from nicotine withdrawal.
Thats the fundamental difference, and the reason why it's not very likely this will legally translate into a precedent for alcohol legislation, for example, because tobacco and alcohol have that intrinsic difference. |
when was the last time you heard about a smoking and driving accident?
People have strong imaginations when it comes to linking products with health costs.
Who says they wont sue booze companies because people drink and drive? They already sue bar owners for it
either way this legislation is very dangerous and its sad that people cant see this. I hope they lose this case and hopefully the government will go back to governing instead of wasting our time with makers of legal products. |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
id like to think it wont too. But this ruling means its very possible. |
agreed.. but i'd drop the (very)
|
|
|
| Skipper |
| So why dont we just ban smoking, eh? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
Do you even know what a transfat IS?
It is not a chemical added by the manufacturer.
It is a byproduct of a natural ingredient already included in manufacturing that has negative consequences.
When you see products that have zero transfats, its because they have used a different type of oil or fat product, or have removed it from the existing fat that is used in manufacturing. it's not that they are just NOT adding it in anymore. |
and the government is about to try and ban it. So who says that people who made products with transfats wont get sued for health costs?
transfats were used to save money and caused many health problems in the process.
many of the chemicals found in smokes are not added, they are the byproduct of combustion. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
So why dont we just ban smoking, eh? |
because it worked so well with drugs and prohibition...
the mafia and gangsters would love it if we banned smoking |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
because it worked so well with drugs and prohibition...
the mafia and gangsters would love it if we banned smoking |
I don't get you.
The government shells out dollar after dollar of YOUR tax money - which you gripe and bitch that it is being wasted at every turn - and now they are allowed to go after someone else for that money, and you have a problem with that too? what gives? |
|
|
|
|
