|
The only reason tobacco bears any guilt is that the companies HID evidence for years and manipulated levels of chemicals in cigarettes for the express purpose of keeping people addicted. That's why they got the old [img]graemlins/whackya.gif[/img]
For my part, I think anyone who began or continued smoking after the surgeon general's warnings (beginning in 1967 I think, but gaining prominence in the 70s and 80s) assumed the risk. If you know something is bad for you and you do it anyway, how can someone else be responsible?
Now, the products liability attorney would say "Wait a minute, when used the way they are intended to be used cigarettes cause cancer and other fatal diseases, and that is the specific and exact legal test for products liability."
Well, first, he's right, it is. However, "assumption of the risk" is an "affirmative defense," a rebuttal argument meant to defeat even a valid liability situation, if it can be proved. So, the cigerette company must prove the guy/gal knew of the risk and assumed it.
At the end of the day, the advertisements from TheTruth.com actually help the tobacco companies in a sense. By spreading the news that it's bad, they will have a legal shield when the next round of idiots awaiting new lungs come suing them.
Now, after that informative [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] I need a smoke. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
To continue, let me look at something else here: the "intended use." Note that I said the tobacco companies have a problem because "when used the way they are intended to be used cigarettes cause cancer and other fatal diseases."
Well, that's true. However, what if the "intended use" were redefined. In fact, I can't think of any liesure drug out there other than cigs that people "use" 20+ times a day, all day long. Alcohol is an accepted legal recreational drug -- but we all know not to drink all day everyday. Why is smoking so different? Shouldn't society redifine how it sees and uses this drug? If cigerettes were only occasionally used, if "smokers" only smoked on average a half a pack a week or a cigarette a day, I wonder how much better off their health would be. [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]
Of course, for BigTobacoo.Co, telling us all "it's bad, it's bad" while continuing to sell us 7 packs a week is not only more lucritave, but the "it's bad" message will help prevent further law suits -- so they aren't about to go advocating "responsible tobacco usage."
[ 01-15-2004, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]
__________________
 
|