""A federal judge on Monday granted class action status to tens of millions of "light cigarette" smokers for a potential $200 billion lawsuit against tobacco companies.""
EVERYONE knows that smoking is bad for you, everyone knows that smoking can kill you, everyone knows the effects of smoking. It's shoved in our faces every day. Unless you live under a rock.. YOU KNOW THAT SMOKING IS DANGEROUS TO YOUR HEALTH... why are they allowed to sue?
2006-09-25 03:30:29 · 13 answers · asked by Imani 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I think I'm going to sue Smirnoff.. because once, when I was 18, I drank way too much and got really sick.
2006-09-25 03:36:46 · update #1
I agree with you. It is ithe in-thing now and it is easy to sue tobacco companies. There are lawyers who are waiting to jump. Why don't the people who are suing stand in front of a semi and get hit and then sue (oh wait...they can't because they will be dead)? They know it is dangerous. If someone is going to smoke, they should accept the consequences that can arise out of the action. It is a get-rich quick world and everyone is looking for ways to do it. No one wants to be held accountable or responsible for their actions. Blame others for your mistakes and faults. No wonder the world is in such a sorry state.
2006-09-25 03:44:17 · answer #1 · answered by worldneverchanges 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Simple honey, it's all lawyers and their greed! The system is design and ran by them for their own benefit. It's all about making lawyers money and screwing the people. And since judges and most politicians are attorneys, they help each other out.
Why make people be responsible for their own actions, when you can take the responsibility away from, and place it on the tobacco companies, which have money, and make a few millions in the process.
Did cigarette companies mislead people about light cigarettes? May be they did, but every type of anti smoking advertising that I've seen, ALWAYS generalize about ALL tobacco cigarettes, regular or lights. We all know that ALL smoking is bad for you. So come on, people need to take responsibility for their actions.
It would be like a killer suing knife manufactures because he thought that small knives were less dangerous than large knives. Come on, we all know that even a 3" small knives can kill if used right.
2006-09-25 04:53:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Buying light cigarettes is nothing more than self delusion. Smoking is bad for you no matter how you slice it and if you think that smoking a light cigarette is going to make it any better for you then you are sadly mistaken. It took me ten years to finally realize this and just quit. I know what I was doing was bad for me and it would just be ignorant for me to try to get money out of the tobacco companies because I made a bad decision. As for the before the warning label arguments: no one ever started smoking because they thought it was a "safe" form of entertainment; they did it to be cool or fit in and they knew it probably wasn't a good idea, but they did it anyway. Grow up and face the consequences of your own actions.
2006-09-25 03:48:25 · answer #3 · answered by OrianasMom 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you. they should not be able to sue. if they want to kill themselves smoking then they should not be able to sue. second hand smoke also is bad for your health. glad they stopped people from smoking all over. I just wish they would stop putting there cigarettes out the car windows. if you want to smoke in your car, use your ash tray in the car. on the cigarette packs it has said for years not to smoke and they still smoked so they are stupid for still using that trash and they should not be able to sue. even the ones using the lights which are just as bad.
2006-09-25 03:34:33 · answer #4 · answered by lover of Jehovah and Jesus 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Obviously money is the issue. They are lucky I am not on the Jury. They would not get anything but a scolding on how stupid they are. I would also make the judge or the group involved in the class action suit, pay for all the legal fees incurred by the tobacco industry.
2006-09-25 03:33:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
but let me explain, i can eat a candy bar today and later that same day i do not want to eat that candy bar, whereas if I smoke a cigarette I will want one. do you know why? Because the smoke company admitted it added more nicotine to hook me whereas the candy company did not add more sugar to hook me if I smoke I should be able to smoke when I want one not because someone has forced me to want one so if one has never smoked then they should never try it and as for drinking yes I agree they should be held accountable also
2006-09-25 03:42:13 · answer #6 · answered by jk poet 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why are tobacco companies still allowed to make a product that kills people and why do they continue to be unethical in the groups of people that they target (i.e. low income who can't afford health insurance, kids, minorities)?
2006-09-25 03:33:10 · answer #7 · answered by Squashie16 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think you can only sue if you started smoking before the warnings came about. You'd have to be fairly old.
2006-09-25 03:34:11 · answer #8 · answered by claire 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
"EVERYONE knows that smoking is bad for you"
well, now everyone knows
but did the cigarette manufacturers mislead consumers into thinking that 'light' cigarettes were not as bad as regular cigarettes?
2006-09-25 03:50:53 · answer #9 · answered by BigD 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
well if you had dug deeper you'd found out that the cig company lied to those who asked for a "light" cigarette.....there are no such thing as lights.they contain the same amount of nicotine as regulars....just have a different filter..shows how gullible smokers are..and thats why they are being sued AGAIN.for lying....if i thought id win id sue too...may be to late for me now but hope my kids will do something about it in their future
2006-09-25 03:36:10 · answer #10 · answered by solsbj 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋