15 billion dollar fine to 3 tobacco companies.

[Sol Tee Nutz]

First I am a nonsmoker who does not care if people smoke or not ( except in eating establishments ).
How the hell can a Quebec judge fine these companies when the the government allows them to sell their product and reap the huge tax benifits?
If people were stupid enough to believe that inhaling smoke would not effect them well sucks to be them, sorry no compassion here.

 

[cloudsurf]

I agree with you SolT.
The judge is treating smokers like children who are not responsible for their actions.
The warnings about the dangers of tobacco were there 40 years ago.
If you as a smoker chose to ignore the warnings then the smoker is responsible for their actions.
If you were addicted and couldn`t control your desires then why not sue fast food restaurants by the obese and liquor companies by alcoholics.
Let`s not stop there....allow sex addicts to sue escort agencies.

 

[smuler]

You guys would never be elected

You never smoked cigarettes Sol ?

I quit cigs 20 years ago... We'll sort of

After I session with a girl, I ask for a smoke

Bad habit I inherited from going to FKK's

Best Regards

Smuler

 

[Mr. Rhino]

The smokers will wait a long time before the payout.

 

[chowzilla]

I used to work for imperial tobacco and I know that they get huge stacks of lawsuits everyday and somehow they almost always get out of it.

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

You guys would never be elected, You never smoked cigarettes Sol ?

Yup, my platform to reduce government size by 30%, jail all fraudulent people in parliament, send all incarcerated immigrants back home, no more money to welfare drug addicts would not work but keep non smokers happy will sure get me elected....
I kind of smoked ( 6-10 cigarettes a day and never before noon ) but quit when my son was born 23 years ago.
When I am near Stogies on Crescent street I will drop in for a nice cigarillo, corona and a shot of Grand Marnier which is about twice a year and I will be there during the F-1 festivities.

 

[Merlot]

The judge is treating smokers like children who are not responsible for their actions.

If you as a smoker chose to ignore the warnings then the smoker is responsible for their actions.

If you were addicted and couldn`t control your desires then why not sue fast food restaurants by the obese and liquor companies by alcoholics.

The view above doesn't account for the most important factor about choice responsibility. What these people do directly imposes it's costs on everyone. To my knowledge there is no differentiation in health care costs between those who choose to make bad health choices and those who don't. Many of us don't smoke and try to exercise, watch what we eat and how much we drink. Yet we usually bear the same health costs as those who make the worse choices and don't give a damn about it. They don't just take on the consequences of their actions, the consequences to them are paid for by everyone in health care costs and worse and worse health care plans that get shoved at everyone.

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/senior-health/common-issues/top-ten.aspx

Then among the health risks, besides smoking being an act of ingesting poison deliberately, it's the leading cause of death in the U.S. and the one factor most preventable.

I also disagree that "the judge is treating smokers like children who are not responsible for their actions." He's holding the source responsible and they are equally at fault.

Even if insurance plans could find the most perfect way to charge everyone fairly in proportion to the bad health choices they make I'd still applaud the courts for going after the purveyors of smoking poison.

BTW - when an escort asks if I mind that she smokes I don't have any objections. I know some minutes of that is nothing to worry about when it's so very rare for me. I don't want to control people's choices. But I don't want to have to pay for them either and that's what they force us all to do.

BRAVO! :thumb:

Merlot

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

If you were addicted and couldn`t control your desires then why not sue fast food restaurants by the obese and liquor companies by alcoholics.

This should apply to alcohol distributers also if that is the case, the cost to taxpayers to alcohol related incidents is huge plus many turn into complete assholes when drunk.

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

This logic doesn't account for the most important factor not covered by the view above. What these people do directly imposes it's costs on everyone.

If the cost to the taxpayer is the case there are many other things that go on that cost taxpayers money which they have no control of ( cost of birth for example, people with no kids pay for the hospital visit, people with no kids paying a school tax, money given to immigrants and the list goes on ). On a side note smokers would probably die earlier and savings in the old age pension would be there.
The main reason I started this thread is because in many cases people are not responsible for their actions and are always looking for a way out. Look in the mirror, you are responsible for your actions....

 

[Merlot]

Hello all,

If the cost to the taxpayer is the case there are many other things that go on that cost taxpayers money which they have no control of ( cost of birth for example,...).

STN, you're right. There are thousands of things people choose to do that puts costs on others, but really what I am talking about are elements that have the biggest avoidable negative impact. You mention birth very generally. Do you see that as an avoidable negative? You did not specify any conditions or situations and I don't see it in the same inherently 100% negative category as smoking, which isn't good for anything except lining the producers pockets. I can guess why you might have mentioned "birth" though I'll let you explain if you wish to. But it sure isn't an automatic negative.

I'd be happy to let everyone make choices freely as long as that choice does not push it's consequences on others. Free choice doesn't not give anyone the right to harm or make an unavoidable negative impact on the lives of anyone else.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

You mention birth very generally. Do you see that as an avoidable negative?

I have 2 kids, it was just the first thing that popped into my head plus I was discussing the school tax with my mom ( 90 ) yesterday and she was complaining about it.
And please give your explanation of why I mentioned birth..... I need to be amused today.

 

[Merlot]

STN,

And please give your explanation of why I mentioned birth...

It means nothing more than when you don't explain what you mean about something that does not have an obvious connection you leave everyone to guess.

Have fun,

Merlot

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

STN,



It means nothing more than when you don't explain what you mean about something that does not have an obvious connection you leave everyone to guess.

Have fun,

Merlot

I really wish there was a face palm smiley. I am guessing you were the only one puzzled by that one.

Enjoy.

 

[hungry101]

I

Let`s not stop there....allow sex addicts to sue escort agencies.

Now I like this. I am going to take then agencies to court one-by-one. But don't worry. Instead of money, I will settle for a few free sessions with the escorts of my choice.

Yep, another activist judge trying to make politicial hey. The poor smokers are not responsible for their stupid decissions. This attitude makes me sick.