Woman Loses Case

S

Singspiel

At the Start
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
98
Location
Hull
A woman has lost a case against a tabacco company. She was suing them because her husband died of lung cancer.

I'm very sorry her husband died, but i'm glad she lost the case. People need to take responsibility for their own actions. I don't care if people want to smoke, but its down to them and them alone if something happens to them.
 
Originally posted by Singspiel@May 31 2005, 01:51 PM
I'm very sorry her husband died, but i'm glad she lost the case. People need to take responsibility for their own actions.
Click to expand...
It depends. There are circumstances surrounding this specific case that led to its verdict but how about those people who became addicted to smoking after the tobacco companies discovered the dangers to health caused by tobacco and suppressed the information? It's in these instances that cases have been won in the USA and in Italy. Quite rightly too.
 
I'll try to explain slowly. They were people who did not know that there was any harm in smoking. No one did - apart from the cigarette companies who kept the news secret. The smokers died before the secret was out or gave up as soon as they heard that smoking was damaging, but too late. Which is why the courts decided that their dependants had a case.

Get it?
 
Thats fair enough, but we have known the dangers for a very long time now. If you choose to smoke or carry on smoking you have to accept the consequences.
 
Just because you don't, others do. Addiction is a medical problem. Finding someone you can make quit after x number of years smoking is a task beyond me.
 
No one forces them to smoke, nor carry it on. Like i said before don't be so weak, take some god damn responsibility.
 
She's generally right enough, except on one point - I don't choose to coat my lungs with tar, I choose to maintain the levels of nicotine within my bloodstream. Not doing so causes me extreme distress, to the point of being physically unable to move, vomiting, blurred vision, effects similar to those experienced when imbibing hallucinogenic drugs and various other side effects. It is therefore much more pleasant in the short term to opt for the very mild euphoria experienced by maintenance of nicotine levels.

Oh and the bit about being weak minded and weak willed was also incorrect, I possess a very high level of mental resolution, but I am generally more susceptible to addictions of many sorts than many other more weak minded people.

However, that all said, I am fully aware of the risks which I take in doing what I do, and accept those risks.
 
Then good on you if you want to smoke. After all you pay alot of taxes. Thats probably the maddest thing smokers do.
 
Isn't it uncanny how 'Singspiel' has set up the same type of topics that the banned Joanna/jejquade used to set up, and to quickly turn them into a harangue? There seems to be a compulsion to set up polls, too, which should be firmly, if not terminally, dealt with. There are also the same signs of making (again, compulsively) blanket statements about people or issues (Racing UK presenters are all rubbish, etc.) without feeling the need to bother with rationale. Gosh - who'd have thought two people could be so alike? They really ought to get together some time - although I suspect they already have. ;) As it were.

Pull yourself together and snap out of these compulsive tendencies, Singspiel, before you're ridiculed by superior mortals.
 
Originally posted by krizon@May 31 2005, 07:00 PM
Pull yourself together and snap out of these compulsive tendencies, Singspiel, before you're ridiculed by superior mortals.
Click to expand...
...and on that note, I'd like to throw the point Brian made above, back to Singspiel.

Singspiel, if someone was denied the knowledge that people today are in general receipt of, namely that smoking was a serious health hazard, many years ago, don't you agree they have every right to complain about being denied that knowledge and allowed to seek compensation for being denied that knowledge?

You are either a wind-up merchant or utterly and hilariously thick.

Not being in the mood to give you the benefit of the doubt, I'm going with the latter.

Now, you could attempt to redeem yourself (it can be done) by answering my question (originating from Brian's point above).
 
You read (reed) too much into my posting, 221.

There is no lynching-tone in my posting and you know I am always speaking for myself on here, I have no allies.

As a person who has decided in pursuing a career in helping others with legal affairs, I was just trying to find out if Singspiel understood what she was actually saying.

To me she seems thick but tries to portray that she's anything but.

I arrive at that conclusion unaided and proudly on my own. :D
 
I never suggested she was spoiling anything.

I was joining in the debate started by the topic.
 
Back
Top