Pay up to help smokers

The ruling by the State Supreme Judicial Court Monday that could lead to cigarette maker Philip Morris USA paying for diagnostic chest exams of smokers recognizes contemporary medical and legal realities without opening up a whole new legal front.

[Sunshine]

C'mon now when are people going to be held accountable for their continued decision to smoke when they know the harmful results. At some point they must try and everything they can to quit. They know consequences yet they continue to smoke because of the addiction. There is help out there if they really want to quit. I have friends that have tried several times to quit, some were successful and others not but they don't blame the tobacco company because it was their choice.

[Wonder Of It All]

From there we'll go to Hersey Foods, Pillsbury, Wise potato chips, McDonald's and all the rest of them for making everybody fat.

[rizwan1984]

smokers can't quit smoking i bet

[Hummm]

Smoke POT, it's better 4 YA!

[Freedom]

Wonder Of It All wrote:

From there we'll go to Hersey Foods, Pillsbury, Wise potato chips, McDonald's and all the rest of them for making everybody fat.

Soon...it will be the meat addicts turn to cash in on "big meat" and all of their corruption.

http://www.theweeklymeat.com/the_weekly_meat/...

First they came for the smokers...

[Mazed]

Sunshine wrote:

C'mon now when are people going to be held accountable for their continued decision to smoke when they know the harmful results. At some point they must try and everything they can to quit. They know consequences yet they continue to smoke because of the addiction. There is help out there if they really want to quit. I have friends that have tried several times to quit, some were successful and others not but they don't blame the tobacco company because it was their choice.

If they began before they were old enough to legally make the choice--as statistics suggest is the case for the vast majority of them--then the fact that the tobacco companies were marketing to them at that age makes the tobacco companies at fault.(Look to the industry's own documents if you need proof that children WERE targeted--that is, if you can keep the smoke out of your eyes long enough to read through some of those documents.)

Addiction significantly hampers choice. The tobacco companies were still denying the addictiveness of nicotine IN FRONT OF CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES as recently as the mid-90s when their own scientists had presented them with the falseness of that denial at least as far back as the 50s.

The tobacco industry is entirely parasitic, and it is corrupt. Unfortunately, it has us by the short hairs because we can't shut it down without facing more than 40 MILLION addicts in withdrawals and the collapse of a sector of agriculture that has been built up by government (taxpayer) funds over half a century while the industry's lies were being listened to by the people (including that portion of the people called "government").

[Adam Smith]

Mazed wrote:

<quoted text>
If they began before they were old enough to legally make the choice--as statistics suggest is the case for the vast majority of them--then the fact that the tobacco companies were marketing to them at that age makes the tobacco companies at fault.(Look to the industry's own documents if you need proof that children WERE targeted--that is, if you can keep the smoke out of your eyes long enough to read through some of those documents.)
Addiction significantly hampers choice. The tobacco companies were still denying the addictiveness of nicotine IN FRONT OF CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES as recently as the mid-90s when their own scientists had presented them with the falseness of that denial at least as far back as the 50s.
The tobacco industry is entirely parasitic, and it is corrupt. Unfortunately, it has us by the short hairs because we can't shut it down without facing more than 40 MILLION addicts in withdrawals and the collapse of a sector of agriculture that has been built up by government (taxpayer) funds over half a century while the industry's lies were being listened to by the people (including that portion of the people called "government").

So if GM convinces a 15 year old to buy a Corvette, he eventually does, wraps it around a tree, it's Detroit's fault, right?

[Adam Smith]

Mazed wrote:

<quoted text>
If they began before they were old enough to legally make the choice--as statistics suggest is the case for the vast majority of them--then the fact that the tobacco companies were marketing to them at that age makes the tobacco companies at fault.(Look to the industry's own documents if you need proof that children WERE targeted--that is, if you can keep the smoke out of your eyes long enough to read through some of those documents.)
Addiction significantly hampers choice. The tobacco companies were still denying the addictiveness of nicotine IN FRONT OF CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES as recently as the mid-90s when their own scientists had presented them with the falseness of that denial at least as far back as the 50s.
The tobacco industry is entirely parasitic, and it is corrupt. Unfortunately, it has us by the short hairs because we can't shut it down without facing more than 40 MILLION addicts in withdrawals and the collapse of a sector of agriculture that has been built up by government (taxpayer) funds over half a century while the industry's lies were being listened to by the people (including that portion of the people called "government").

And if a kid thinks the Jameson commercials on TV are cool, gets into dad's liquor cabinet, becomes and alcoholic, Irish Distillers LTD should pay for his drying out?

[Adam Smith]

Mazed wrote:

<quoted text>
If they began before they were old enough to legally make the choice--as statistics suggest is the case for the vast majority of them--then the fact that the tobacco companies were marketing to them at that age makes the tobacco companies at fault.(Look to the industry's own documents if you need proof that children WERE targeted--that is, if you can keep the smoke out of your eyes long enough to read through some of those documents.)
Addiction significantly hampers choice. The tobacco companies were still denying the addictiveness of nicotine IN FRONT OF CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES as recently as the mid-90s when their own scientists had presented them with the falseness of that denial at least as far back as the 50s.
The tobacco industry is entirely parasitic, and it is corrupt. Unfortunately, it has us by the short hairs because we can't shut it down without facing more than 40 MILLION addicts in withdrawals and the collapse of a sector of agriculture that has been built up by government (taxpayer) funds over half a century while the industry's lies were being listened to by the people (including that portion of the people called "government").

There was no tobacco industry before goevernment subsidies? Bet George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would chuckle at that one.

[Herbert oBUMa]

So the author thinks that the cigarette company has it coming? What a typical liberal line of crap. What about personal responsibility? If you are stupid enough to smoke then pay the price. We only need one law here and it is stupid people should be allowed to die.

[Adam Smith]

Herbert oBUMa wrote:

So the author thinks that the cigarette company has it coming? What a typical liberal line of crap. What about personal responsibility? If you are stupid enough to smoke then pay the price. We only need one law here and it is stupid people should be allowed to die.

Twenty years ago, in the middle of the AIDS hysteria, I observed to friends that if you were monogamous and didn't share needles, your chances of getting AIDS were about the same as getting hit by lightning. Because it was at that time 100% fatal, you either smartened up or you died. I don't recall anybody agreeing with that blunt assessment, but it was nonetheless true. Same with smoking. There's a risk involved. If you take that risk, don't whine to me, or blame anybody else, when things go bad. Risky behavior is risky. Ask the people at AIG, Bank of America, Lehman Brothers...

[HellerClimateRef ugee]

Typical Berkshire Eagle sop to nanny state control over what is at heart an issue of an individual's personal responsibility to maintain his own health.
Why should any firm be held liable for that which the user of the company's product knows very well can cause him to come to harm?
Why not hold casinos liable for the gambling debts of its players?
Why not hold auto makers liable for the fact that people drive into trees?
Let's hope Philip Morris appeals this ridiculous ruling and gets it overturned ASAP.
It's not as if anyone who chooses to smoke does not already know the potential consequences before he even takes his first drag.
If the judge's ruling stands in this case, then what is to prevent someone from suing, for example, The Berkshire Eagle for the emotional damage inflicted by The Eagle's hysterical reportage on Man-Made Global Warming, an unproved theory that it could be argued The Eagle knows full well is alleged to be a hoax?
Should The Eagle be forced to pay for one's psychotherapy to recover one's common sense?

[HellerClimateRef ugee]

Mazed wrote:

<quoted text>
If they began before they were old enough to legally make the choice--as statistics suggest is the case for the vast majority of them--then the fact that the tobacco companies were marketing to them at that age makes the tobacco companies at fault.(Look to the industry's own documents if you need proof that children WERE targeted--that is, if you can keep the smoke out of your eyes long enough to read through some of those documents.)
Addiction significantly hampers choice. The tobacco companies were still denying the addictiveness of nicotine IN FRONT OF CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES as recently as the mid-90s when their own scientists had presented them with the falseness of that denial at least as far back as the 50s.
The tobacco industry is entirely parasitic, and it is corrupt. Unfortunately, it has us by the short hairs because we can't shut it down without facing more than 40 MILLION addicts in withdrawals and the collapse of a sector of agriculture that has been built up by government (taxpayer) funds over half a century while the industry's lies were being listened to by the people (including that portion of the people called "government").

Oh c'mon!
What 6-year-old doesn't know that smoking is bad for one's health?
You Liberal Democrats just can't deal with having to take personal responsibility for your actions, whether it be for your health, your livelihood, your shelter, or even for your personal relationships.
You're always playing the victim and seeking either a government or corporate handout for your own poor choices, your own lack of drive, and your unwillingness to face the consequences of your own actions.
When will you Liberal leeches just grow up!?!

[BobbySomers]

Adam Smith wrote:

<quoted text>There was no tobacco industry before goevernment subsidies? Bet George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would chuckle at that one.

LOL, Did you know they both had Marijuana fields?

[HellerPipeandTob accoCo]

How disingenuous!
The Berkshire Eagle editorial writer self-righteously exclaims "Smokers today, of course, know full well the perils of cigarette smoking."
Pardon me, but smokers since the 1890's (and even before) have known "full well the perils" of smoking, and of drinking, and even of fast driving, too!
So that blows The Eagle's whole argument that tobacco companies should be held liable because smokers did not know "full well" the risk of using the company's product.

[Tony]

People know the dangers now, we're not in the 1930's-1960's anymore. They're still lighting up. Even if Phil Morris pays, they'sll still be smokers who are not responible as well. I see a dangerous precedent. Next it will be food, I bet. Even if you fine all these companies, they are just going to send it back to the consumer. Stop the Nanny State!

[BobbySomers]

Mazed wrote:

<quoted text>
If they began before they were old enough to legally make the choice--as statistics suggest is the case for the vast majority of them--then the fact that the tobacco companies were marketing to them at that age makes the tobacco companies at fault.(Look to the industry's own documents if you need proof that children WERE targeted--that is, if you can keep the smoke out of your eyes long enough to read through some of those documents.)
Addiction significantly hampers choice. The tobacco companies were still denying the addictiveness of nicotine IN FRONT OF CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES as recently as the mid-90s when their own scientists had presented them with the falseness of that denial at least as far back as the 50s.
The tobacco industry is entirely parasitic, and it is corrupt. Unfortunately, it has us by the short hairs because we can't shut it down without facing more than 40 MILLION addicts in withdrawals and the collapse of a sector of agriculture that has been built up by government (taxpayer) funds over half a century while the industry's lies were being listened to by the people (including that portion of the people called "government").

It's called personal responsibility.
Something this country is sorely lacking.

[Tony209]

Believe me, I've been offered a thousand bucks for one of my best friend to stop smoking. Unfortunately, he would never quit smoking.
Tobacco's already known how harmful it is. Gradually it's been costed the insurance industry in hundreds of millions, and where the money are from? It's from every of your insurers.

We should fight for the smoking law to be banned in this country and around the world.

Smoking is not very healthy for every body.

Thank you,
Tony

[Freedom]

HellerPipeandTobaccoCo wrote:

How disingenuous!
The Berkshire Eagle editorial writer self-righteously exclaims "Smokers today, of course, know full well the perils of cigarette smoking."
Pardon me, but smokers since the 1890's (and even before) have known "full well the perils" of smoking, and of drinking, and even of fast driving, too!
So that blows The Eagle's whole argument that tobacco companies should be held liable because smokers did not know "full well" the risk of using the company's product.

The really sad thing is these nanny state lovers actually think they are somehow something new...when all they are doing is repeating history.

Here's a little quote from Mark Twain.

The Moral Statistician
Originally published in Sketches, Old and New, 1893

"I don't want any of your statistics; I took your whole batch and lit my pipe with it.

I hate your kind of people.

You are always ciphering out how much a man's health is injured, and how much his intellect is impaired, and how many pitiful dollars and cents he wastes in the course of ninety-two years' indulgence in the fatal practice of smoking; and in the equally fatal practice of drinking coffee; and in playing billiards occasionally; and in taking a glass of wine at dinner, etc. etc.

And you are always figuring out how many women have been burned to death because of the dangerous fashion of wearing expansive hoops, etc. etc. You never see more than one side of the question....

Now you know all these things yourself, don't you?

Very well, then, what is the use of your stringing out your miserable lives to a lean and withered old age?

What is the use of your saving money that is so utterly worthless to you?

In a word, why don't you go off somewhere and die, and not be always trying to seduce people into becoming as ornery and unlovable as you are yourselves, by your villainous "moral statistics"?

Now, I don't approve of dissipation, and I don't indulge in it either; but I haven't a particle of confidence in a man who has no redeeming petty vices.

And so I don't want to hear from you any more.

I think you are the very same man who read me a long lecture last week about the degrading vice of smoking cigars, and then came back, in my absence, with your reprehensible fire-proof gloves on, and carried off my beautiful parlor stove."

Mark Twain

[Truth told Here]

In todays world if you still smoke you deserve to die