This is pure utter bullshit!!

[beck]

Ya know, if I wanted to be a greedy money hungry bitch, perhaps I could get my mom to sue the tobacco company too since my dad smoked when he was a teen till the day he died. Hell, right before dad died, my brother-in-law told me when he picked me up from the airport when I came in from Kuwait, that dad was smoking a carton of cigs, not even in a full week. And a carton use to last dad at least a week and a half. (keep in mind, dad died of a massive heartattack at the age of 50, not cancer but I'm sure that he also had cancer somewhere in his body)

I just don't get ppl who think they have to blame the tobacco companies for ppl's addiction. I don't see ppl sueing the beer companies who make their loved ones or themselves drink to death or cause they were drunken drivers. In fact, I think its wrong that if you can't advertise for cigs, then I don't think they should be allowed to advertise ANYWHERE for alcohol.

Here is the article I'm talking about.

Comments

[babaca.livejournal.com]

Smoking doesn't help with heart disease either and I'm sure his smoking contributed to his death, like smoking contributed to my dad dying.

Blaming companies is the status quo these days unfortunately. Look at the idiot who was suing the cable company because he claims he and his family are addicted to cable tv which was why they were fat and lazy.

[yankeerose69.livejournal.com]

Yeah I forgot about it contributing to heart disease.

I heard about the cable situation for the past two days on the radio and just laughed my ass off, especially if they think they actually have a case on their hands.

And ya know, if ppl really wanted to be a bunch of money grubby assholes, I could pic an example of someone doing this::

Both my parents health went downhill cause of the long hauls of farming (regardless how perhaps part of their health could be herditary), could you imagine a farmer sueing the dairy board for saying "Farming caused my health to decline so I have to sue you for my damages."

Perhaps I shouldn't speak so soon, I could see this actually happening.

mmmm

[aisuru113.livejournal.com]

my great gradmother. who is now in her like 70's has been smoking since before world war 2 began. the women has yet ot devolop anythign realtated to smoking(cancer ect) adn i can't say it becasue cancer doesn't runn in the family cause its runs liek a river through ours. i find it very very hard ot blame a toabacco company for anything like lung cancer. Cause as a non smoker wouldnt' i have more of a case because o he problem i suffer from second hand smoke?

I agree

[litia.livejournal.com]

My mom started smoking when she was fifteen, and the only times she quit were when she got pregnant. She still smokes, and is now fifty-three. None of my siblings, or I, have had any smoking-related health problems as we were lead to believe we would by all the anti-tobacco campaigns. Cancer runs in my family also, yet none of us have developed it. Personally, I think the tobacco controversy is a waste of time, because the people who smoke today are well aware of the risks associated with tobacco use, yet they still choose to smoke. If they choose to smoke, they're opening themselves up to that addiction. Nicotine comes second to the mental addiction of smoking, and it's almost hypocritical for a person to sue the tobacco company for damages they knew they would receive.

Ok, I'm done. Just thought I'd throw my two cents in.