U.S. Gov't Loses $280B Tobacco Lawsuit

Read about it here.

well looks like those tax breaks will not be permanent after all...

Such a shame! They are selling poison that is killing millions a year and they get away with it... mother fuckers!

Bump.

Something has to keep the population down. Without millions of tobacco-related deaths, our whole retirement/social security structure would collapse.

Think about it: both men and women can join the military, ride a supply-clerk desk job for 20 years, and retire with half-pay at age 38 for life! With current life expectancies people will draw 40 to 50 years of benefits for a 20 year stint. Sheer fiscal insanity!

Tobacco-related deaths are our only hope for solvency down the line. This is why, when I did my stint in the Army to get $$$ for college they gave smoke breaks. And if you didn't smoke, you kept working. What was the message there?

You mean US taxpayer's lose money on tabacco lawsuit. The jihad against big tobacco should end. The government and other advocacy groups should relise it is personal choice. No one will stop people from smoking, drinking, using drugs. Nor should they.

So, you're all for the tobacco companies marketing to children, then.




Full ad and analysis here.

[Edited on Feb 06, 2005 by Stiles]

Look at it this way - it's saving the feddies a ton of dough because now they can just settle the case and not pay all those lawyers their huge fees - awww .

I'm starting to think that the best way to get rid of cigs is to tax them into non-existance, altho I'm for legalizing pot (which I don't use and don't intend on using) I'm not sure where that puts me either .

I do know that the people I know that have the LEAST amount of money will spend 5 dollars of their last 5 dollars buying cigs rather than food, and bitch about being hungry while they give themselves cancer.

As far as the tax cuts - I dont think they're in danger, they're targetted at the people that fund the politicians - and very few people bite the hand that feeds them.

Do addicts have a real choice? Do children make a fully informed decision when they start smoking? Do smokers *really* know the full effects of smoking, or do they just know that smoking is in some way "harmful"?

Most smokers want to quit. Tobacco companies know that nicotine is addictive, and have been controlling the delivery of that addictive substance for many years.

One possible disadvantage is that the tobacco companies help smugglers, thus avoiding the taxes.

The government's role is not to be big brother. I love people who are all for the legalization of pot but are critical of smoking. No they shouldn't advertise to kids, but it is impossible to raise kids in a vacuum. Forbiding people to smoke isn't going to prevent them starting.

interesting, now i want a cigarette

So did the Tobacco companies just successfully punk the U.S. Government for status as "The Man"?

You're putting up a strawman. Nobody's talking about "forbidding people to smoke", and you're the one talking about "big brother", not the people you're debating with.

You're also dodging. First it was no regulation, now it's no regulation exept advertising to kids, where are you going next?

The tobacco industry is regulated because they wouldn't play nice in the past and they sell a product which will kill most of their customers when used as directed, while levying a huge financial burden onto our healthcare system that is ultimately borne by the entire community.

Bump.

I never understood why the government tries to crack down on the tobacco industry but not on the alcohol industry. Why don't they make Truth commercials for alcohol?

Well there are groups like this: http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/

Besides, there are all sorts of laws that deal with alcohol; drunk driving laws, the days and hours places that serve alcohol can operate, where they can operate, who they can sell to.

But if I had to guess why there isn’t a stronger national effort to curb drinking, I’d guess its cause smoking is both much worse for you physically and much more addictive.

Yes. Otherwise no one would ever be able to quit smoking.

Of course not. That is why cigarette companies have been banned from advertising in places accessible to kids, and in ways that appeal to kids. Yes, I know they do their best to get around it, but the laws are there.

I've got several packs of cigarettes in front of me. In the US, every pack of smokes comes with a warning lable. These say:

"SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking by pregnant women can result in fetal injury, premature birth, and low fetal birth weight."
"SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking can result in emphysema, heart disease, and lung cancer."

I'd say that's pretty clear on what the harms are.

Does Prohibition ring a bell?

I like the ones that say right on the front.
"WARNING: SMOKING KILLS"

Wow....that ad is how old? When was the last time you saw a marketing ad from a Tobacco company aimed at children? When was the last time you saw a tobacco ad on tv anyways? However Philip Morris does air commercials about how to quit smoking and how to find out about all of the dangers of smoking. People just need to be responsible and make sound decisions in life. End of story.

No kidding. Our country has a long history of completely ignoring bans on things like drugs and alcohol. Make it illegal? Just makes for a bigger black market. And no, it's folly to think that the US Government can shut down the black market in the US. It is not logistically possible.

The government should not be in the business of regulating what you CHOOSE to put in your body. It should, however, regulate product content and educate about the effects of products.

[Edited on Feb 07, 2005 by Shalome]

Not actually sure I'd buy that most smokers want to quit, they just want cigs to be cheaper . Of late the smokers I've run into have been pretty hard-core about it - "Fuck the world, I'm SMOKING!"

Ummmm - Ok - whatever!

Way to completely miss the point, which was that tobacco companies have acted incredibly dishonestly for decades, and thus should be regulated by the government to help ensure that they do not continue to do so.

Incidentally, maybe you're too young to remember Joe Camel, the last attempt to use a cartoon character to market cigarettes - just in case you were under the mistaken impression things had changed in the last 40 years or so. The Joe Camel campaign was one of the prime reasons for the last government lawsuit against Big Tobacco, and it wasn't that long ago.

Industries that have proven they can't or won't play by the rules need to be regulated enough to ensure they do, and that's really the end of the story.

And why is no one up in arms about Homer Simpson teaching our children to drink? The Simpsons are still showing to this day, unlike those Flinstones Marlboro ads! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!